American Forum Op-Ed

ILLINOIS EDITORIAL FORUM

By Chris Miller

As a former U.S. Army nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons specialist I was always skeptical of the assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. After I hit ground in Iraq in April, 2003, it soon became clear he didn’t have any. The U.S. searched the entire country for months trying to find them, but to this day nothing more than a few dusty chlorine gas mortars have ever turned up in Iraq. What would have happened if Hussein had complied with the IAEA inspection regime voluntarily? The 2003 Iraq war would likely never have happened. Because he did not comply, it was open to conjecture whether Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or were trying to acquire them. The rest is history.

In view of that, why would we dither, delay, or play politics with a treaty that would allow us to continue a responsible, voluntary inspection regime with a partner state that we know for a fact, with certainty, has nuclear arms, lots of them, and is simply waiting for the U.S. Senate to sign on the dotted line? Why would we risk significantly setting back relations with Russia and at the same time make it much harder to verify that their nukes are secure? Ask the Senate GOP leadership.

The old START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was negotiated and signed in the early nineties under President George H.W. Bush, based on a concept by President Ronald Reagan. The treaty served the U.S. well through the era of instability at the end of the Cold War and the New START would simply continue what was already a good idea. It has served us well for the last two decades and, if passed, would continue to today. It would reduce nuclear stockpiles by one third on both sides, still leaving America with more than enough firepower to defend itself. It would responsibly allow mutual transparency and allow us to monitor Russia’s nuclear weapons and material.

In addition to the original concerns START was designed to address, more modern concerns may be added to the list of reasons New START must be passed now, not later. Nuclear proliferation is a tremendous concern today, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reducing stockpiles means less nukes and nuclear material that could fall into the hands of unstable states or groups. Fewer nuclear weapons, less nuclear material, and better control makes us all safer. North Korea and Pakistan have already acquired nuclear weapons through the back door and Iran is certainly trying to. The
black-market smuggling ring led by Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan shows there is a hot market worldwide for nuclear technology. For an entire year already America has been unable to account for all of Russia’s nuclear material and there are certainly buyers out there who will stop at nothing to acquire it. New START would close the loophole. Not doing so is like crossing our fingers and hoping nothing happens.

Nuclear terrorism is the ultimate threat to United States and its allies. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have already stated they are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. They’re not alone. Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas would also jump at the chance. Hollywood never stops thinking up movie plots involving a nuke smuggled into America. If they can think of it, so can terrorists and extremists. For these reasons the U.S. military is also urging the passage of New START. Keeping nuclear weapons and material out of the hands of terrorists is a top national security priority. Not signing New START would be reckless and leave us vulnerable to attack.

The Senate Republican leadership opposes passing the treaty because of politics. They are more concerned with opposing President Obama than they are keeping America safe. There is bipartisan support for the treaty and it would and certainly should be ratified, if only the GOP leadership would put politics aside and put our security first. START was entered into between two states that possessed the nuclear arms to ensure they would mutually destroy one another in a nuclear attack. ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ kept America and the USSR at a standstill. Today, unstable states and terrorist groups are not so inclined. Extremists and terrorists are unconcerned about the destruction a nuclear attack would create on both sides and many are already fully prepared to die for their cause.

GOP opposition to New START is outdated, out of touch, and disastrously dangerous. The treaty needs to be ratified by the U.S. Senate as soon as possible so that we can jointly and responsibly reduce and monitor nuclear weapons and material, prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and put our security first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Miller is a Purple Heart and Combat Action Badge recipient and eight-year U.S. Army veteran, having served two tours in Baghdad, Iraq. He is currently a law student and a fellow with the Truman National Security Project.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Illinois Editorial Forum. 12/10

AMERICAN FORUM

By: Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson (ret.)

At this time of thanksgiving, we are reminded how people came together, shared resources, shared opinions and worked together to form and protect our nation.

During my long career in the US Air Force I was at the very sharp end of the spear that defended our nation, rising to deputy commander-in-chief and chief of staff of U.S. Strategic Command.

During that time, going back to the Reagan years and before, the U.S. methodically and relentlessly carved out a process for understanding and reducing strategic nuclear arms -- in order increase our national security.

Many have forgotten or did not live through those times during the Cold War when the numbers of nuclear weapons and delivery platforms were escalating at a tremendous rate and costs were ratcheting up at an ever-increasing pace.

It was courageous of political leaders in those perilous times to begin talking to our heavily-armed enemy, the Soviet Union, to find paths to lower numbers of nuclear weapons, lower cost burdens, and greater security for our country and the world.

Since those efforts took root, real progress has been made, the numbers of very deadly weapons are dramatically lower, costs have dropped, and our security vis-à-vis the former Soviet states is far stronger.

Today we have a good treaty ready to take force and continue the progress on numbers, costs, and national security.

The New START Treaty that is presently before the Senate contains verification and transparency measures—that will allow our inspectors inside Russian strategic nuclear facilities, as well as create stability between our forces.

Without New START, we will reintroduce uncertainty into the U.S.-Russia strategic relationship. Over the length of the Cold War, we learned that uncertainty breeds mistrust, costly worst-case planning, and risk. New START reduces uncertainty by locking in the size of each side’s arsenal and providing for onsite verification. The resulting improved strategic stability that will come with New START will make it possible for both sides to pursue agreements on tactical nuclear weapons and proliferation.

Without ratification, we will be left with the requirement to spend our limited resources and money on weapons we don’t need to counter a force structure that could be verifiably reduced under the treaty.

Without New START our national security institutions will need to devote more resources to monitoring Russian strategic forces, by satellite and other means; we will also have to force- plan for scenarios we should not need to. This will involve spending money where we don’t need, and worse, it could mean taking away money from programs and systems that our war-fighters actually do need.

What stands in the way? An ever more vague, disingenuous, and ill-advised raising of the bar for political support. The very same questions that have been asked and answered about missile defense, verification, and stewardship of the nuclear enterprise are brought up again and again in the face of iron clad analysis and billions of added dollars. These “red herrings” are presented wrapped in ever more demanding commitments from future legislators that no arms control treaty past or future could meet.

As this treaty is pushed off with no deadline and no path to prevent an already developing cooling of U.S., Russia relationships, Cold War nuclear realities echo in my head saying to Senators, “Do the right thing!”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Gen. Jameson (ret.) is a former deputy commander and chief and chief of staff, U.S. Strategic Command who had responsibility for all ICBM strategic nuclear forces. He is a member of the Consensus for American Security http://www.securityconsensus.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 11/10

AMERICAN FORUM

By Linda Tarr-Whelan

The so-called New START, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, is poised for an historic ratification vote in the Senate this year. Three more major international treaties are also lined up on President Obama’s ratification to-do list: the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

CEDAW is a landmark international agreement that affirms principles of fundamental human rights and equality for women and girls around the world.

Our role as a human rights defender would be improved mightily by ratifying CEDAW, reasserting the United States as a strong global leader in standing up for women and girls in countries worldwide. The resulting glow of praise for the Senate from half the planet would result in more positive action.

Advancing women’s human rights worldwide is fundamental to America’s national security interests and a cornerstone of our foreign policy. CEDAW ratification would amplify the U.S. voice in defense of women and girls at a time when their rights, even their clothing, are a global battleground. It would send the strongest possible signal that America is back as an international team player on the one hand, while reasserting our proud bipartisan tradition of promoting and protecting human rights on the other.

At the moment, only seven of the United Nations’ 193 member countries have not ratified CEDAW – Iran, Sudan, Somalia, three small Pacific island countries (Nauru, Palau and Tonga), and the United States. Such embarrassing bedfellows! And being in their company weakens our impact in calling for women’s protections in other nations.

CEDAW offers a practical blueprint for action that every country can use to make progress toward ending discrimination – even ours. American women enjoy opportunities and status not available to most of the world’s women, but few would dispute that more progress is needed here, such as in ending domestic violence and closing the pay gap between men and women.

Importantly, CEDAW would not lead to any automatic changes in U.S. law, and at a time when we are worried about the deficit, there is no additional cost. This treaty provides a framework for the continuing national dialogue on women’s equality, as it does in every country. Similar treaties outlining global consensus on genocide, torture and race relations won ratification under the leadership of Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

Every country has a different starting point, and CEDAW offers governments and women alike a view of what non-discrimination looks like. Many countries have overhauled their laws and policies because of CEDAW. Mexico City, for example, responded to a destabilizing epidemic of violence against women by using CEDAW terms in a General Law on Women’s Access to a Life Free from Violence, and all 32 Mexican states have now adopted it. Kenya used CEDAW to address differences in inheritance rights, eliminating discrimination against widows and daughters of the deceased. Kuwait recommended changes to its electoral law extending voting rights to women in 2005 based on CEDAW, and Bangladesh broadened access to education and vocational training for girls. Such examples are legion.

Basic health care, education, the right to work, to vote, to own property – it’s not news that girls and women are still denied those in too many places, or that they are forced or sold into marriage to much older men, or that violence against them is rampant, especially during conflict situations. Yes, some countries have ratified CEDAW and still discriminate against women – Saudi women still cannot drive cars, for example – but women in ratifying countries can and do demand that their governments live up to their CEDAW commitments.

That pressure would be much stronger if the United States joined the CEDAW community. The American public strongly supports the principles of education, equality, fairness and basic human rights. CEDAW ratification requires 67 Senate votes. So please, senators, as you debate the New START, remember that women worldwide would get a new start as well from U.S. ratification of CEDAW.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarr-Whelan is a Demos Distinguished Senior Fellow on Women’s Leadership and a former Ambassador to the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the American Forum. 11/10