Stop START Treaty

In from Senator Kyl’s office: Stop START:  Letter from Arizona Senator Jon Kyl regarding START, DREAM, and DADT

Dear Mrs. Blase:

Thank you for contacting me about Senate ratification of the New START treaty.

The Senate Majority Leader has had all year to bring important business before the Senate, but, instead of scheduling action months ago on some of the most consequential matters (like legislation to avert looming tax increases on January 1 and even legislation to fund basic government operations for the coming year), left it to a lame-duck session of Congress to resolve.

The Senate just completed work on the tax bill (yesterday), but now, with just days before the Senate is set to adjourn for Christmas (the Majority Leader initially set December 17 as the adjournment date), it is being asked to ratify New START, pass legislation to fund the entire federal government for the upcoming year, and approve the DREAM Act (which failed earlier today), repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which passed), and a $7.4 billion 9/11 health fund.  Any one of these items would normally take a week or more for thoughtful and thorough debate, but the Majority Leader is trying to jam all of them through the Senate.

There is no way that the Senate can fulfill its responsibilities to the American people and carefully consider each of these measures in the short amount of time remaining in the current session of Congress.  That is why I have suggested that it would be better to deal with those that require the most immediate attention – like the legislation to give taxpayers certainty about the taxes they will have to pay after January 1, and the legislation to fund continuing government operations – and defer consideration of the others until next year.

The New START treaty, in particular, is too important to be rushed through the Senate without adequate time for review, debate, and consideration of amendments.  (I outlined just some of my concerns about the proposed treaty in remarks to the Senate on December 16.  To view a copy of my statement, click here.)  Taking up the treaty next year would allow Senators both the chance to thoroughly debate it and offer amendments to improve it.

It is important to ensure that the treaty serves U.S. interests, that its terms are verifiable, and that related issues, including modernization of our remaining deterrent and deployment of an effective missile defense system, are properly addressed.  If the Senate is denied the chance to do so, I will work to defeat the treaty in the lame-duck session.

Sincerely,

JON KYL

United States Senator

P.S. If you wish to share additional comments about this or any other matter, please visit my website at: http://www.kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm. Do not reply to this email.

The New START Treaty: President Obama is pushing for a monumental surrender to Russia

The Obama administration has an impeccable track record of caving in to Russian demands, as part of its controversial “reset” policy. Last year, it threw key US allies Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus, ditching plans for Third Site missile defenses in deference to Russian opposition. It is now planning another surrender to Moscow, by pressing for Senate ratification of the new START Treaty in the lame duck session of Congress.

Instead of allowing the newly elected Congress to vote on the treaty, the Obama administration is trying to ram New START through without proper debate. No major treaty has ever been forced through Congress in a lame duck session.

There is mounting opposition in Washington to the New START Treaty, which would significantly weaken US security by undermining America’s ability to deploy an effective global missile defense system. Dozens of senators, as well as several leading likely Republican presidential candidates are opposed to the Treaty, including Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. As Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has warned:

The START Treaty could severely weaken America’s ability to defend our people and our allies against missile attacks from nations like Iran, and we need all of the facts on how this treaty was agreed to… The newly elected Republican senators have signed a letter asking our leadership to postpone debate on START until they take office in a few weeks and have ample time to review the details. Americans didn’t vote in November to ram through the Obama administration’s wish list this December.

As part of its campaign to woo opponents of the Treaty, the Democratic White House has claimed that Ronald Reagan would have backed it, a simply ludicrous assertion. As Reagan’s attorney general Ed Meese, and Assistant Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle noted in The Wall Street Journal, the Gipper would never have backed an arms control agreement that encumbered “the pursuit of advanced ballistic missile defense technology”:

There are many reasons why this treaty falls short of those negotiated by President Reagan. For one thing, its verification regime is inadequate. For another, it gives the Kremlin an unwarranted influence over the structure of our nuclear deterrent. Most important, it will almost certainly reduce our freedom to deploy vital defenses against ballistic missiles.

Moreover, the administration is asking a lame-duck Senate, dominated by a party that was rebuked at the polls by the electorate, to vote for this major arms-control treaty, in contravention of the settled traditions of our country—a tactic Reagan surely would have deplored.

Simply put, the New START Treaty is a staggeringly bad deal for the United States, and an extraordinarily good one for Vladimir Putin’s increasingly hostile and authoritarian Russia. President Obama needs to respect the will of the American electorate and allow the new Senate to vote on the Treaty, and fully scrutinize and debate the details of an agreement which, if ratified in its current form, will dramatically undercut America’s global missile defenses. The White House is pressing for another monumental surrender to Moscow which will only strengthen the hand of a key US adversary.

Source:  UK Telegragh Online

 

STOP START:  Venezuela acquires 1,800 antiaircraft missiles from Russia

The New START Treaty must NOT be ratified! Contact all Senators today!!  -  Senators from your State.  *   U.S. Government on Twitter *  United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Venezuela acquires 1,800 antiaircraft missiles from Russia  -  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121102586.html

Excerpt:

Russia delivered at least 1,800 shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles to Venezuela in 2009, U.N. arms control data show, despite vigorous U.S. efforts to stop President Hugo Chavez's stridently anti-American government from acquiring the weapons...

By Juan Forero

Washington Post Staff Writer  -  Saturday, December 11, 2010; 6:19 PM

BOGOTA, COLOMBIA:

Russia delivered at least 1,800 shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles to Venezuela in 2009, U.N. arms control data show, despite vigorous U.S. efforts to stop President Hugo Chavez's stridently anti-American government from acquiring the weapons.

The United States feared that the missiles could be funneled to Marxist guerrillas fighting Colombia's pro-American government or Mexican drug cartels, concerns expressed in U.S. diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and first reported in the Spanish newspaper El Pais.

It had been unclear how many of the Russian SA-24 missiles were delivered to Venezuela, though the transfer itself was not secret. Chavez showed off a few dozen at a military parade in April 2009, saying they could "deter whatever aerial aggression against our country." A high-level Russian delegation told American officials in Washington in July of that year that 100 of the missiles had been delivered in the first quarter of 2009.

Then earlier this year, Russia reported to the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms, which records the transnational sale of weaponry, that the deal totaled 1,800 missiles.

The U.N. registry did not reveal the model of the delivered weaponry. But the American commander for military forces in Latin America, Air Force Gen. Douglas Fraser, publicly expressed concern this year that Venezuela was purchasing as many as 2,400 of the missiles, also called the IGLA-S.

Matt Schroeder, a missile expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, said the missiles are among the most sophisticated in the world and can down aircraft from 19,000 feet.

"It's the largest recorded transfer in the U.N. arms registry database in five years, at least. There's no state in Latin America of greater concern regarding leakage that has purchased so many missiles," he said, referring to reports of Venezuelan arms flowing to Colombian guerrillas.

The database also shows that from 2006 through 2008, Russia delivered to Venezuela 472 missiles and launching mechanisms, 44 attack helicopters and 24 combat aircraft, purchases funded by Venezuelan oil sales.

A self-styled Socialist who claims that successive U.S. governments want to topple him, Chavez told his countrymen during the 2009 military parade that "we don't want war with anyone, but we are obligated to prepare." Months later, in December 2009, he said in a nationally televised address that "thousands of missiles are arriving" but did not say what kind.

Secret American cables said that the United States was concerned about the Chavez government's acquisition of Russian arms, which also included attack helicopters, Sukhoi fighter planes and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles.

A State Department cable on Aug. 10, 2009, to embassies in Europe and South America said Russian sales to Venezuela total "over $5 billion last year and growing." There was also concern about Spain's plans to sell aircraft and coastal patrol boats to Venezuela.

The cables show how both the Bush and Obama administrations tried to stop the arms sales by highlighting the possibility that the weapons could end up with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a rebel group that Colombian officials say has received material support from Chavez's government.

"In early March, Secretary Clinton raised the sale with Russian FM Sergey Lavrov," the August 2009 cable says, referring to Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russia's foreign minister.

A cable from Washington to Moscow dated Feb. 14, 2009, said FARC computer files seized by Colombia's army indicated that Venezuela tried to facilitate arms market deals for the rebels. It expressed fear that missiles acquired by the FARC, which is mired in the drug trade, could wind up with Mexican cartels that "are actively seeking to acquire powerful and highly sophisticated weapons."

Chavez has long denied that his government assists the FARC. A spokeswoman for the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington said diplomats there could not respond to the allegations by U.S. officials. The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry in Caracas did not respond to phone calls.

The August 2009 cable notes that Russian ammunition sold to Venezuela was found in FARC hands and that U.S. officials raised the issue with Russian diplomats visiting Washington.

The American efforts to derail Russian and Spanish arms sales to Venezuela appeared to strain U.S. relations with both countries.

In a meeting in Moscow in 2005, Anatoliy Antonov, who oversaw disarmament issues for the Russian foreign ministry, told a U.S. Embassy official that Washington was trying to restrict Russian access to the arms market.

The United States also urged Spain to halt the sales of patrol boats, ocean-going corvettes, C-295 transport planes and patrol aircraft to Venezuela, a deal the Spanish government said was worth $1.7 billion and would help revive the country's shipbuilding industry.

The Spanish cemented the sale of the vessels to Venezuela, but the United States blocked the sale of the aircraft because they used sophisticated American electronics.

Irked that Washington had halted the aircraft sale, the foreign minister at the time, Miguel Angel Moratinos, lamented that the United States "did not recognize Spain's positive steps but only focused on negative episodes in the relationship," according to a cable written by the ambassador in January 2006.

"We are the eighth-largest power in the world but the USG treats us like a fifth-rate power," Moratinos told the ambassador, referring to the U.S. government.

Source: Venezuela acquires 1,800 antiaircraft missiles from Russia  -  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121102586.html

 

Problems with the START Treaty with Russia

After the Cold War was over, after the Berlin Wall came down, and Mikail Gorbachev started giving lectures in the United States, Americans stopped worrying about a surprise nuclear attack. However, Russia did not destroy its nuclear weapons. They are still there. And Russia continues to give priority to its nuclear warfighting capabilities.

President Barack Obama acts as though all this doesn't matter. This year he went to Prague in the Czech Republic and signed a treaty with Russia that is called START. Obama refers to this treaty as a "fundamental part" of realizing his goal of a "world without nuclear weapons." He is really talking about a world in which the United States is without nuclear weapons, while at the same time evil men in other countries continue to build and modernize them.

The START treaty reads as though it were written exclusively by the Russians. Provision after provision reflects Russian preferences, not America's interests. For example, the START treaty would require us to reduce U.S. forces to the levels Russia can afford rather than to the level that is safe for the United States. The treaty will require deep cuts in U.S. delivery systems and may endanger America's strategic nuclear Triad.

The START treaty allows Russia to manipulate how warheads and bombers are counted. Russia will be able to exercise a veto over the quality and quantity of U.S. missile defenses. There are serious problems associated with verifying the provisions of the treaty. Apparently Obama never heard of Ronald Reagan's rule, "Trust but verify." The new START treaty is cumbersome, unnecessary, and disadvantageous to the United States. Obama has decided not to maintain an effective U.S. deterrent. This poses enormous risks to our people as various enemies continue to build their weapons of mass destruction.

Listen to this commentary at: Eagle Forum

 

Tell the Lame Duck Senate:  NO  Start Treaty… and Time for Congress to go Home!!

Senators from your State.  *   U.S. Government on Twitter *  United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121