DON’T RUSH RATIFICATION OF NEW START TREATY
By: Edward P. Shallow
It is understood, Vice President Biden is advising it is imperative the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia be ratified before the end of the year. He indicates pass it now, resolve any flaws later – sounds like Pelosi with ObamaCare; pass now to find out what is in it.
“It’s a seriously flawed treaty,” Richard Perle, now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said during an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV. “It’s certainly not the kind of treaty Ronald Reagan fought for and accomplished.”
The pact is very weak on verification, he says. “For example, our right to inspections is limited to sites the Russians declare…which makes a mockery of the whole idea of onsite inspections,” Perle explains, “Imagine when Iran asserts a similar right to limit inspections, or the North Koreans or others. For that reason alone, it’s a very doubtful agreement.” (To read Mr. Pearle’s complete report, reference Newsmax magazine).
In their editorial of 12/15, Harry Reid’s Holiday Jam, the Wall Street Journal advisers readers that Harry Reid’s rush to beat looming expirations of the 111th Congress, the Senate has become the express lane to jam through changes, and one of them is the New Start arms treaty with Russia.
The editorial indicates the rush for New Start is a special affront to Senate prerogatives under the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote for ratification precisely to guarantee a considered debate. The Administration claims that failure to ratify the treaty in two weeks will offend the Russians, though the Russians have said they feel no such urgency. GOP leaders have given Mr. Reid dates in either January or February to bring the treaty to the floor, and upwards of a dozen Republicans seem to be leading in favor of the pact.
At a minimum, the GOP ought to clarify the U. S. understanding of the treaty. That is especially importation on missile defenses because the pact’s preamble includes the major blunder of re-linking offensive and defensive weapons. At the time the pact was negotiated, the Russians claimed this language meant they could leave the treaty if the U.S. developed new missile defenses. In remarks at the time, U.S. officials did not forcefully counter that claim.
The next decade is likely to see a proliferation of nuclear weapons states with the missiles to hit U.S. or allied soil. The Senate should not tolerate a ratification debate in which Jon Kyl offers one interpretation, Democrat and missile defense opponent Carl Levin offers another, and the Russians are able to exploit the ambiguity.
The Savage nation reminds, under this treaty, if America is attacked with chemical or biological weapons, we are not allowed to retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Americans make sure we can respond to attack with whatever weapons we know will get the job done – Insist on it before the liberals ratify to appease our enemies.
Comments send to email@example.com