START RE-STARTS
Apr 01, 2009
Progress. Finally. On nuclear weapons reductions.
Today, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev announced an agreement to negotiate a new legally-binding treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires in December.
The agreement also gives momentum to the "reset" between the two countries after years of dismal relations.
The two presidents will meet in Moscow in July, and may hope to have an agreement to initial at that time.
There is a problem of timing. The existing START agreement expires on December 5, 2009. Indiana Senator Richard Lugar (R) has already indicated that a treaty must be sent up to the Senate by August to have a ratification vote completed by December.
Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table
Jan 19, 2009
On January 13 and 14, Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the confirmation process for her nomination to be Secretary of State. She was approved by the committee 16 -1 and is sure to win confirmation in the Senate.
While the office has undergone many changes since it was established in 1789, for several generations the State Department has concentrated on diplomacy in all aspects of foreign-policy. However, in her testimony before the committee, Clinton said she would use “smart power” including “diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” To some, the inclusion of “military power” as though it were within her authority, was a surprise. Further, she went on to specify that “military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort.”
What’s on Obama’s plate?
Dec 17, 2008
What’s on Obama’s plate?
We’re not talking chicken or fish, we’re talking more like nuclear terrorism and the war in Iraq.
When Obama gets sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, he’ll have more than a full plate of items to deal with, addressing issues like the war in Iraq, the U.S. and now global economic crisis, global climate change, energy, terrorism, health care, the list – unfortunately – goes on and on, and on.
The Council for a Livable World’s research center has prepared – along with 60 leading national security experts – a transition report on how the Obama administration can effectively address the gravest threat to U.S. security: the spread of nuclear weapons and materials.
The executive summary and full report is available here.
The Council believes that given the rise of terrorist networks and the amount of unsecure nuclear weapons material worldwide, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism is one of the gravest threats to U.S. and international security.
“Every presidential candidate since 2000 has said that loose nuclear weapons are the most serious threat to international security. Yet for the past eight years we’ve done very little to address loose nukes seriously,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council and our research Center in a press release today. “What we need now is strong leadership as promised by President-elect Obama during the campaign.”
Besides unsecure nuclear weapons materials, we also have actual weapons to deal with. Almost twenty years after the end of the Cold War, Russia and the United States continue to maintain about 16,000 nuclear weapons. The arms control process has been stalled since the late 1990s when the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was rejected by the Senate.
The experts in the report recommend that Obama Announce intent to seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and begin working to build the bipartisan support in the Senate needed for approval.
Basically, the Bush administration was not only was sleeping (though we wish it was only that) on arms control issues, it actually reversed arms control gains made in the past 40 years. When Obama and the 111th Congress gets in office, they’ll have an historic opportunity to provide some real leadership on the most serious component of our national security.
Now you know our priorities, what are yours?
Obama's Appointments: Liberals Don't Jump the Gun and Whine
Dec 08, 2008
Liberal doubts on Obama's appointments have begun. The whines can be heard everywhere. See December 8 www.politico.com for a story that bears this out. John Isaacs is a notable exception. His quotes appropriately focused on policy as the real test for Obama.
Obama has made clear he expects his appointees to carry out Presidential policies. Those he has chosen are capable of performing well--whether they are Geithner,
Summers, Clinton, or Gates.
The test comes on policies. If Sen. Clinton has abandoned her quest for the presidency, she has political capital to help move us away from a bellicose Iran policy and towards an Israel-Palestine settlement. Let's see whether she will. Let's hold the Administration to account.
Let's expect Secretary Gates to formulate and implement the plans that get our combat troops out of Iraq in the 16 months after Obama is sworn in.
Having General Jones serve as the President's National Security Adviser places in a pivotal spot a knowledgeable military person who severely criticized General Pace for not
telling Bush what Pace thought about the mistakes being made in Iraq.
It's the policies that matter. These include a whole arms control treaty agenda, abolishing nuclear weapons, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, addressing nuclear proliferation, missile defense and other key matters.
Economic and energy policy is part of national security policy as well. Let's see if Geithner, Summers and others cam stimulate the economy, reduce unemployment, get credit flowing and begin to reduce economic inequality.
The Obama Administration must be held to high standards of accountability. That's the test. If it's met let us praise. If the effort falls far short we won't lack for critics.
Meanwhile let's stay organized to hold Obama accountable as we work to ward off the conservative sharpshooters who will likely oppose many of Obama's constructive policies.
David Cohen
There’s not a dime’s worth of difference
Dec 01, 2008
The media has been all abuzz with the formal announcement that Obama's former favorite foe has been appointed Secretary of State. But, most of that coverage has been focused on exaggerated disagreements during the presidential campaign and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, all of which miss the point.
On policy, Obama and Hillary are not night and day, but more like 4:30 and 4:45.
“When it comes to foreign policy, Obama and Clinton agree far more than they disagree,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World. To paraphrase the late Alabama Governor George Wallace, Isaacs added: “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy.”
Isaacs based his assessment on a thorough examination of Obama and Clinton’s Senate voting records; national security platforms as laid out in articles and op-eds; and responses to queries in debates, public appearances, and questionnaires.
Isaac's analysis compares and contrasts their policy positions on Iraq, Iran, nuclear weapons, missile defense, and other relevant foreign policy issues. Read his full analysis here.
It's Not Hillary, It's the Policy Stupid!
Dec 01, 2008
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the chairman of our sister organization just published an op-ed co-authored with former congressional Rep. Tom Andrews. With all the media attention that the Hillary as Secretary of State has been receiving, Tom and Gen. Gard take us back to what really matters, the policy.
It's Not Hillary, It's the Policy Stupid!
by Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.) and Tom Andrews
The media obsession over who's in and who's out of consideration for the Obama Cabinet brings the admonition on the famous "War Room" wall of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign to mind: "It's the Economy Stupid!" Those of us eagerly awaiting relief from the debacle called the Bush administration should avoid getting swept up the in DC parlor game of who is getting what position in the new administration and focus instead on the fundamental changes we need the Obama administration to start making. In short, "It's the Policy Stupid!"
President Obama will begin his presidency with enormous good will from the American people and great hope from the world at large. It is imperative that he seize this opportunity by quickly moving his campaign pledges into bold and decisive action despite the opposition that surely awaits him.
The Obama Administration: Who's In, Who's Out
Nov 17, 2008
John Isaacs, our executive director, is maintaining a list of who's in and who's out for key positions in the new Obama administration (No, we haven't penciled Hillary in yet). Right now, there are only 8 positions filled (see below), but check back daily as we expect more to be announced soon.
Key positions announced:
White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Emanuel
Deputy Chief of Staff: Jim Messina Deputy
Chief of Staff: Mona Sutphen
Senior adviser and intergovernmental relations and public liaison: Valerie Jarrett
Senior adviser to the President: Peter Rouse
Legislative affairs: Phil Schiliro
White House counsel: Gregory Craig
Vice President Chief of Staff: Ron Klain
Some Star Wars Talk
Nov 10, 2008
If you're anything like me, you're so eager for the "change" that you've been refreshing your Washington Post homepage every hour to see if any updates have come from the Obama administration. We know it will come, but after only a week after the elections, nothing has been laid out in too much detail.
The latest talk has been about missile defense -- which was pursued aggressively by the Bush administration. Will Obama pursue sites in Eastern Europe? Will he help ax the program that's been called his "first foreign policy test."
Plutomium Page over at Daily Kos wrote today about potential changes in national security strategy that the new President-Elect Obama could pursue, including missile defense. She cites analysis by Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the chairman of our sister organization the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
Writes Plutomium Page:
Now, about cutting funding to national missile defense: bravo. Let's turn to Lt. Gen. Robert Gard...He's been talking about missile defense for a while now, and his latest analysis came out about three weeks ago.
[Gard states that] "Despite the Bush administration's investment of an estimated $60 billion since 2001, U.S. national missile defense continues to be an unnecessary and counterproductive enterprise. Testing objectives consistently are not met, cost overruns and scheduling delays are rampant, and relations between the United States and Russia are worse than at any time since the end of the Cold War, thanks in no small part to squabbling over the proposed third missile defense site in Europe."
He recommends three basic changes. Please click the link above for the details; basically, shift spending to systems countering existing threats, dissolve the Missile Defense Agency, and "spend political capital" on diplomacy.
For more on missile defense, check out this op-ed from Council staff Katie Mounts and Travis Sharp, and our resources over at the Center.
