New START treaty moves closer to ratification as three Republican Senators vote against John McCain's changes

Natalie Gonnella

Standing up for GOP concerns that the New START treaty hinders US missile defense capabilities, Senator John McCain today introduced an amendment challenging the language in the current accord.

Senator McCain's proposal would have removed provisions within the treaty's preamble that acknowledged a connection between offensive and defensive weapons, thus alleviating particular points of GOP apprehension on the agreement.

All but three Republicans voted in favor of Senator McCain's amendment, which, due to unanimous Democratic opposition, was defeated 59-37.

With the treaty now moving closer to ratification, here's a look at what those three GOP Senators have said about their support for the original New START agreement:

Senator Robert F. Bennett (Utah)

Speaking about the treaty earlier this year, Senator Bennett commented: “We are now at a point where I think this is probably a good idea. I think it is a step in the right direction, a continuation of the thawing, if you will, of relationships between the United States and Russia that goes all the way back to Ronald Reagan.”

Senator Richard Lugar (Indiana)

Senator Lugar has been a strong supporter of the New START treaty throughout it's ongoing debate, regularly speaking out in favor of ratification:

“New START will enable American verification teams to return to Russia to collect data on the Russian arsenal and verify Russian compliance. These inspections greatly reduce the possibility that we will be surprised by future advancements in Russian weapons technology or deployment. Rejecting this treaty would inhibit our knowledge of Russian military capabilities, weaken our non-proliferation diplomacy worldwide, and potentially re-ignite expensive arms competition that would further strain our national budget.” - Statement by Senator Lugar

Senator George V. Voinovich (Ohio)

In November speaking to the Washington Wire in the WSJ, Senator Voinovich said of his support for the treaty: “There seems to be a lot of coming together there and a lot more comfort [with the treaty] among our friends and allies in Europe.” Voinovich added ‘I think I’d be supportive.’”

Commenting further in reference to negotiations on "tactical weapons and conventional forces" Voinovich said: “I really think the fact that some of us have raised these issues has underscored to the administration that this is something that needs to get done” 

Comments

[Drake]

Look at the tone of their comments - the complacency on display is astonishing and terrifying.

This sort of thing is exactly why John Bolton is the man we need in the White House. There is no internationalist conspiracy, cooked up behind closed doors by EU Foreign Ministers and George Soros; but there is a gradual emergence of an order in the world in which national aspirations are crushed and national sovereignty is cast aside. And that order is no friend of liberty or democracy.

I would hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of Republicans (indeed probably most Democrats) don't want to see that happen but simply being opposed to such things is not enough. Those who push that agenda are quite happy to do it bit by bit, carefully and slowly. They are patient enough to let the pass be sold an inch at a time. Of all the Republican politicians out there only Bolton actually seems to get this. The others would oppose anything egregious but over time concede little bits and pieces in the name of comity and compromise (or through simple inattenion to what the State Department is up to).

I do realise that sounds paranoid (which is of course one of the other problems for fighting this stuff). Let me simply say this: it has happened before, and recently.

In 1983 the Conservative Government in England was re-elected under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher in a landslide. A stronger, more patriotic government had not been in place in decades. Had you quizzed those incoming MPs whether they intended to give away Britain's sovereignty to the European Economic Community (as it then was) they would have thought you were nuts (Britain had overwhelmingly voted, nine years before, to remain in the Common Market (as it then was) and everyone had been assured that such ideas were the ravings of paranoiacs). Yet that same government, and those same MPs voted to abolish such trivial things as the British passport, almost without realizing what they were doing.

Being anti-Internationalist when a crisis breaks is not enough. Constant vigilance is required.