Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty
ABC news ^ | July 5, 2009 | Jake Tapper

Posted on 07/05/2009 12:15:23 PM PDT by DukeBillie

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.”


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: start; starttreaty
Obama taking hubris to a whole new level.
1 posted on 07/05/2009 12:15:23 PM PDT by DukeBillie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie

IDf the Senate fails to ratify the treaty - then what Mr O?

Abolish the Senate? Call for a Consitutional COnvention?

Oh, the drama.


2 posted on 07/05/2009 12:22:58 PM PDT by ASOC (Who is that fat lady? And why is she singing???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie
"Total nuclear disarmament", Obama, Russia and the commie left
various sources

Posted on Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:51:21 PM ET by ETL:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2285983/posts

3 posted on 07/05/2009 12:23:10 PM PDT by ETL (ALL the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie
Photobucket
President Obama and Venezuela dictator Hugo
Chavez at the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad

Obama, Chavez shake hands at Americas Summit:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97KK2T00&show_article=1
______________________________________________________

From CBS-News, July 29, 2006:

Chavez Vows To 'Stand By Iran'
After Oil Talks In Tehran, Venezuelan Leader Called 'Brother' By Ahmedinejad

Photobucket

"Chavez pledged that his country would 'stay by Iran at any time and under any condition,' state television reported. Ahmadinejad said he saw in Chavez a kindred spirit." "'We do not have any limitation in cooperation,' Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. 'Iran and Venezuela are next to each other and supporters of each other. Chavez is a source of a progressive and revolutionary current in South America and his stance in restricting imperialism is tangible.'":
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/29/world/main1847331.shtml
______________________________________________________

Photobucket

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/16/Iran_president_visits_Russia_despite_protests/
______________________________________________________

From National Public Radio (NPR):
August 29, 2006
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been visiting countries such as China, Iran and Russia as part of an effort to build a 'strategic alliance' of interests not beholden to the United States. He considers the United States his arch enemy.":
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5729764
______________________________________________________

Venezuela Set to Develop Nuclear Power With Russia
September 29, 2008
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that Russia will help Venezuela develop nuclear energy — a move likely to raise U.S. concerns over increasingly close cooperation between Caracas and Moscow.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429441,00.html
______________________________________________________

Venezuela's Chavez welcomes Russian warships
Nov 25, 2008
LA GUAIRA, Venezuela – Russian warships arrived off Venezuela's coast Tuesday in a show of strength aimed at the United States as Moscow seeks to expand its influence in Latin America. The deployment is the first of its kind in the Caribbean since the Cold War and was timed to coincide with President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Caracas — the first ever by a Russian president.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Venezuela%27s+Chavez+welcomes+Russian+warships%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2

More Yahoo search results for Russia and Venezuela connections:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu_X30pZJCJEAfCtXNyoA?p=Russia+Venezuela+bombers+tanks+arms&y=Search&fr=404_news
______________________________________________________

From the Russian News and Information Agency:
July 27, 2006
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060727/51913498.html
______________________________________________________

Russia's Medvedev hails "comrade" Obama

Associated Foreign Press (AFP) ^ | April 2, 2009 | Anna Smolchenko

"Russia's Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade" Thursday after their first face-to-face talks"

http://www.france24.com/en/20090402-russias-medvedev-hails-comrade-obama

April 1, 2009:
"Obama, Medvedev pledge new era of relations":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090401/wl_afp/usrussiadiplomacynuclear_20090401152002

4 posted on 07/05/2009 12:24:10 PM PDT by ETL (ALL the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie
Hey Congress Critters, as much as I despise most of you useless dipwads, King Obama has been rolling out Unconstitutional power grabs on a daily basis. Impeach him now, or join him in exile when we assert our freedom from fascism.
5 posted on 07/05/2009 12:24:50 PM PDT by bitterohiogunclinger (America held hostage - day 163)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie
...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.

Excuse me? Bypass the Constitution because it's inconvenient and enforce a diktat until the Senate comes around? Better rethink that one, pal. This isn't Venezuela. Yet.

6 posted on 07/05/2009 12:26:05 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie

Another “crisis”- another excuse for obama to act unilaterally and fast.

This time he intends to sign away US nuc arsenal, agree not to undertake nuc modernization, and drop missile defense development.

The Congress (and American public) surely might object to such national security risks in exchange for vague promises to help “control” Iran from conniving ex-KGB agents.

But of course, obama’s usurpation of Congress’ Constitutional role in making treaties would just be “temporary”

ha. No wonder Hillary is not going. She knows.


7 posted on 07/05/2009 12:28:09 PM PDT by silverleaf ("Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal ( Martin Luther King))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie

The Constutution means NOTHING to zero...


8 posted on 07/05/2009 12:29:50 PM PDT by piytar (Take back the language: Obama axing Chrystler dealers based on political donations is REAL fascism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie

Move on....Nothing surprising or unusual here for this scumbag...


9 posted on 07/05/2009 12:29:56 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie
Circumventing the senate...........I can't even post the language going through my head.

The enemy within, strikes again.

10 posted on 07/05/2009 12:34:33 PM PDT by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing.....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie
This folks is FRIGHTENING! This is not only FLAGRANTLY Unconstitutional, THIS IS FASCISM!

There is NO authority to engage in a treaty without getting Congressional approval. PERIOD! There are no constitutional provisions for doing so under any circumstances.
11 posted on 07/05/2009 12:37:39 PM PDT by woodb01 (ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie

I’ll say it again, the American people have disgraced themselves by electing this crew.


12 posted on 07/05/2009 12:40:40 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist"-Dr House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie
temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role ???????

Grounds for impeachment?

13 posted on 07/05/2009 1:09:29 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("A new Dark Ages made all the more terrible and prolonged by the sinister powers of science.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar

0bama has proven that paper documents mean nothing to him whether the Constitution or a birth certificate.


14 posted on 07/05/2009 1:13:15 PM PDT by DukeBillie ("The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity" Harlan Ellison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie

I suspect that the pampered princes (ie, bums) in the Senate will not take kindly to having their prerogatives second-guessed.


15 posted on 07/05/2009 1:15:30 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

They would have to read something to know what was going on.


16 posted on 07/05/2009 1:20:58 PM PDT by DukeBillie ("The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity" Harlan Ellison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie

The senate is the single most arrogant collection of human beings in the universe. And HUssein is going to “ignore” and “impose his will” on this body, suggesting it is powerless to do anything but what he wishes?


17 posted on 07/05/2009 1:26:58 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DukeBillie

And then the Obama (peace be upon him)- Emanuel axis of evil will “temporarily” suspend the Bill of Rights while they “study” whether or not to have a Constitutional Convention.

Wonder why Obama (peace be upon him)is pushing so hard to have Zelaya reinstated in Honduras? It’s because he fears that something similar could happen here.


18 posted on 07/05/2009 1:29:07 PM PDT by Walrus (If at first you don't secede, try, try again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson