RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
- White House State Dinner: The Menu, Entertainment, and Decor
- Dan Pfeiffer, White House Blogger
- Guests Begin to Arrive for White House State Dinner Festivities
- President Obama on Afghanistan Strategy: “It Is My Intention to Finish the Job”
- The Obamas Kick off their First State Visit, Welcome India's Prime Minister to the White House
- Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy To Include “Benchmarks” and “Off-Ramps,” Announcement Next Week
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty
July 05, 2009 1:51 PM
MOSCOW -- With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.
"The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified," said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. "If we're not able to do that, we'll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty."
Samore said administration lawyers are exploring the "different options that are available. One option is that both sides could agree to continue the inspections by executive agreement; that would work on our side. On the Russian side, as I understand it, that would require Duma approval."
The fact that the administration is preparing for such an extraordinary measure shows just how much pressure the two administrations are under to arrive at an agreement before the 18-year-old treaty expires. While resident Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are expected to announce progress tomorrow on a nuclear arms reduction treaty – nicknamed “New START” -- to take effect in just five short months, many sticking points that remain unresolved.
The 1991 START treaty's pending expiration means “we are under the gun to try to get something to replace it by the end of the year,” Michael McFaul, special assistant to the President and senior director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs, told reporters last week.
Both the US and Russia have agreed in principle to reduce the number of nuclear weapon delivery vehicles from the current level of 1,600 each, as was negotiated under START, and to reduce the number of nuclear warheads each nation has in its arsenal from 2,200 each, as agreed upon during the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
One of the major sticking points so far has been Russia’s continued frustration at US plans for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, an issue Samore said would “have to be addressed in the new treaty,” though he would not specify just how.
“We think we have a good argument,” Samore said, stressing that the “very modest” US plans are “not designed to defeat the Russian nuclear deterrent.” The program would only serve as a shield against attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran, with few missiles, and not Russia, with its extensive arsenal.
But Medvedev in an interview with European reporters did not seem inclined to hear such an argument, at least about Iran.
“In terms of missile defense Poland and the Czech Republic are one thing, Iran is a different one altogether, they are too far apart geographically,” he said. “I do not understand how people can say that missile defense is linked to the problems of the Middle East.” He allowed that “the missiles that North Korea is using have tremendous range. This has to be of concern for us. We are located in close proximity to this country.”
Medvedev said that “offensive nuclear capabilities do not exist by themselves, rather they exist together with the means for defending against them, that is anti-missile defense.” The Russian president argued that “the Russian Federation is not against the development of such a means of defense. But we believe that it should not be unilateral nor, in essence, directed against one of the participants in this dialogue, a major nuclear country such as Russia. We believe that the decisions that were taken on this topic have put us in a difficult position.”
After more than four hours worth of meetings with Medvedev on Monday, President Obama and his Russian counterpart will outline what is essentially yet another outline for a treaty. In London in April the two outlined what was an outline for this outline. Since that time, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Rose Gottemoeller and her counterpart, Anatoly Antonov, the head of the department for security and disarmament in the Russian Foreign Ministry, have been negotiating intensely.
President Obama told Russia’s ITAR-TASS/ROSSIYA TV that his “goal is that both countries reduce their nuclear stockpiles in a way that doesn't leave either country with an advantage, but reduces tensions and the expense of maintaining such high nuclear stockpiles when they're not necessary for our defense and our deterrence."
But how to make sure neither side has an advantage is not a simple matter of numbers – because the counting is complicated. Another sticking point includes how to count nuclear weapons reductions given the asymmetrical nature of the US and Russian forces. Russian nuclear warheads are more land based; US warheads are more sea-based. Russians favor more warheads on fewer launchers; the US favors fewer warheads on more launchers.
US negotiators are also arguing that weapons once used as part of the nuclear arsenal but since changed for conventional use – three Trident submarines with 48 launching tubes; the entire B-1 bomber force; and a number of B-52 aircraft that haven’t been eliminated but aren’t currently in operating condition – shouldn’t be counted as nuclear weapon delivery vehicles.
How the Russians would be able to verify the continued conventional use of these submarines and airplanes, as well as how general inspection rules for how the US and Russia will be able to verify their commitments, is also proving complex.
In addition to disarmament issues, Medvedev said that the US and Russia “have an extensive agenda that reflects other concerns. These involve interregional conflicts, efforts to overcome the international financial crisis, local conflicts and finally bilateral relations.”
-jpt
July 5, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (111)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
RESIDENT OBAMA...is the most ignorant...selfish...self centered..manipulative..RESIDENT...this country has ever had (hes not a president he is proving himself to be somewhat of a dictator). HE does not CONTROL this country or THIS WORLD. He has done nothing but go completely against everything this nation was founded on which is the Bill of Rights, The Constitution, and God (christianity). Ha and all u democrats wanna call him ur president..HA. Jokes on you. What good has he done for this country..he is STUPID for even tryin to do anything involving RUSSIA...HELLO. If i were anyone in this world...i would be SCREAMING IMPEACH OBAMA!! HE has Lied his way through everything since he has ran for president...remember the FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I have a chinese pug named Sampson..he would make a better President than the RESIDENT we have now. Well i exercised one of my Rights...FREEDOM OF SPEECH. GOOD LUCK AMERICA! If we dont impeach him..which we can at anytime, we are in for a world of heartache. Good Luck America, and GOD BLESS!
Posted by: NOBAMAinhendo | Jul 6, 2009 9:38:54 AM
"Constitution? We don' need no stinkin' Constitution!"
All hail Emperor Obama.
Posted by: drjohn | Jul 6, 2009 9:21:49 AM
Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances. That means 67 Senators. Since Obama has only 60 "rubber stamp" Senators he can count on, we now know why he's trying to bypass the Constitution.
Posted by: LongT | Jul 6, 2009 8:00:24 AM
President Obama's continued overreach of power is very disturbing. With 60 fully owned seats in the Senate, he should be able to pass any treaty without difficulty. No need for executive order here at all.
Posted by: ConservativeWoman | Jul 6, 2009 7:41:56 AM
Wow! Can you imagine the uproar if Bush tried this?
Posted by: LongT | Jul 6, 2009 7:27:40 AM
Wow...it's like living in Germany in the 1930s!
If you liked the original, you'll just love the sequel.
Posted by: Hocus Pocus | Jul 6, 2009 5:00:48 AM
I'm pretty sure one of the bush's signed an executive order that pretty much declared-during wartime the commander in chief has the ability to act individually, and thus congress becomes ceremonial.basically giving Barry the rights of a dictator,since an executive order becomes law as soon as it is signed by the president. here comes Corporate America with the Internationale bankers running the (not)FED and the IR(b)S,the whole of D.C. good luck my fellow Americans.maybe we should all go get assault weapons before they re-ban them,as to protect ourselves when it's time for CHANGE.
Posted by: heinekenstar | Jul 6, 2009 4:27:21 AM
The essential to consider here is (I prefer to use his middle name) Hussein’s desire to bypass the Constitution. The limitation of America’s defensive capabilities is standard leftist dogma. The attempt to bypass the Senate is the deplorable part of this that is typical of this administration. (Leftist apologists like The Mick, see last paragraph) The president cannot bypass the Senate; he has no authority to do so. If he gets away with a bypass of two weeks (Let’s say) why not three? Or six? Why not months, instead of weeks? Why not years instead of months? Why stop at treaties? If the goal is to achieve (supposedly) popular political outcomes, why not enforce laws until they’re approved by Congress? Would that be the appropriate action of an American president? Or is that the action of a South American dictator like the Comrades Chavez, Castro and Zelaya? (I could make an argument here against regulatory bodies like the EPA and their forthcoming rules on CO2, but that would be far too long a post) Popularity paves the road to hell with its good intentions; neither popularity nor good intentions allow an end run around the Constitution. (Although, ignoring the Constitution is both the M.O. and the signature of this administration, as they are the serial-killers of freedom.) The attempt to do so makes Hussein the first fully anti-American president.
As for the examples provided by “The Mick”, Article 1, section 9 of the US CONSTITUTION states “…the PRIVILEGE of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it…(caps lock mine) So, unless you’re saying that the South had a non-threatening rebellion, you have no point. Your second example ignores completely The Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941, by which CONGRESS AUTHORIZED the president to send arms and war supplies to "the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States." (quotes courtesy of answers.com; caps lock mine) History and the Constitution, “The Mick”, you need to learn both.
Posted by: Hoverwolf | Jul 6, 2009 3:37:18 AM
Article II, Sec. 2 U.S. Constitution
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;..."
So, no.... Barry does not get to jumpstart the process by creating a treaty without the "advice and consent" of the Senate nor does he get to hold this country, by any means, to the terms of any treaty with which "two thirds of the Senators present" do not concur.
Some Constitutional scholar. Seems like Obama only studied the US Constitution for the purpose of devising end runs around it.
Posted by: riograndevalleygirl | Jul 6, 2009 2:50:57 AM
Clearly unconstitutional and a huge overstep by our arrogant, foolish occupant of the White House. In a Freudian slip, ABC stated: "While resident Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are expected to announce progress tomorrow on a nuclear arms reduction treaty – nicknamed “New START” -- to take effect in just five short months, many sticking points that remain unresolved."
That's "resident" Obama rather than "President." Appropriate.
It's about time to enforce the elibility requirements and demand the birth certificate, school, travel and work records to get this imposter out, before we have to impeach him.
Posted by: gmiller | Jul 6, 2009 2:31:55 AM
BachisBest wrote: "Because only Congress can declare the US at war, according to the Constitution and that never happened."
According to the Constitution, ONLY Congress can appropriate the money--even for an undeclared war--and that DID HAPPEN regarding Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. So Congress gave their approval even if not a full declaration of war.
Posted by: James Danley | Jul 6, 2009 2:26:56 AM
THIS IS IN FACT IGNORING THE CONSTITUION AND YOU SHOULD ALL BE CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT JUST AS YOU DID WHEN BUSH ACTED THIS WAY!!!
Posted by: Albert | Jul 6, 2009 2:01:02 AM
Obama sends drones into pakistan in an UNAUTORIZED ACT OF WAR.... KILLING INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN as the Bush Doctrine became the Obama Doctrine and NOW THIS!!!
This is exactly what had us all miffed about BUSH!!!
NO WONDER OBAMA AND BUSH LOOKED SO COZY LAST YEAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey how about that FISA BILL OBAMA???????
Posted by: Albert | Jul 6, 2009 1:57:54 AM
Now this is funny. This N Korea thing is a nightmare for Obama and he would love to scrap the missile shield BUT he cannot do that if the missile shield ever successfully shoots down a missile aimed at anyone, especially Honolulu.
If a successful real life use of the missile shield happens then Obama would be made a laughingstock for dismantling it BUT IF the missile shield is never used in defense of the nation then the Democrats can dismantle it and say..."well it never really worked you know; just another stupid idea from Bush"
I am laughing this one ever day watching Obama squirm as he will probably capitualte on the missile shield to get a new START treaty with the commies.... oops sorry the democratic loving Putinists.
Posted by: Pal | Jul 6, 2009 1:47:16 AM
After this happens, who's gonna be the next Ollie North? any bets?
Posted by: mx | Jul 6, 2009 1:21:21 AM
I have to admit that this is a no brainer and that the title is misleading. I am not happy with Mr Obama lying about that he was removing politic as usual and providing transperancy! Mr Obama is politicizing government on the grandest scale ever... Authorizing more power than the constitution allows with his czars... creating his political appointment with Embasadorships! Controling the attorney generals office and its attorneys, investigations and prosecutions on a grander scale than ever before too. but this is not him pulling a Zalaya! At least not yet. Viva La Honduras!
Posted by: MadDogCrog | Jul 6, 2009 1:20:38 AM
I didnt vote for him you did..the snake oil salesman barack...what a joke ,the WORST thing we could have is a health care system like Canada. it will ruin what we now have
Posted by: mx | Jul 6, 2009 1:16:38 AM
Axey . ...
The real heart of the story is the negotiations that are taking place.
"bypassing the Senate" is just Tapper's choice of phrase and may or not be well chosen. I see that phrase no where in the statements of the people he quotes.
Best explanation on here is this . .
"I think some of you need to reread the article. The point being made is that certain provisions for inspection will be continued under executive action UNTIL the Senate can ratify the full treaty. Duh, no one said anything about doing away with the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate. All of you who are so worried about Obama´s disregard of Constitutional process should keep in mind the US´s "non-wars" in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq as well as the invasion of Panama, all done as executive decisions. Why call them non-wars? Because only Congress can declare the US at war, according to the Constitution and that never happened."
Posted by: BachisBest | Jul 5, 2009 10:55:36 PM
Posted by: danita | Jul 6, 2009 12:07:21 AM
There are 60 democratic senators. Why on earth does Obama need to bypass them? Something doesn't smell right here. And the senate better get their act together or they will be SOL like the rest of us.
Posted by: Axey | Jul 5, 2009 11:45:47 PM
"I think some of you need to reread the article. The point being made is that certain provisions for inspection will be continued under executive action UNTIL the Senate can ratify the full treaty. Duh, no one said anything about doing away with the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate. All of you who are so worried about Obama´s disregard of Constitutional process should keep in mind the US´s "non-wars" in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq as well as the invasion of Panama, all done as executive decisions. Why call them non-wars? Because only Congress can declare the US at war, according to the Constitution and that never happened."
Posted by: BachisBest | Jul 5, 2009 10:55:36 PM
Most calm and interesting comment posted here.
Posted by: danita | Jul 5, 2009 11:26:20 PM
Post a comment
