Reagan/Bush I Appointee To GOPers: Don’t Mess with Start Treaty

President Barack Obama talks privately with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. | White House photo/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4464086617/">Pete Souza</a> (<a href="http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml">Government Work</a>)

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Thursday morning signed a new Start treaty that would cut Russian and American warheads by 30 percent—to about 1550 warheads for each side. During the signing ceremony in Prague, Obama hailed the accord as an “important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation.” But the treaty has to be approved by two-thirds of the Senate—which means at least eight Republican senators will have to join with the 57 Democrats and the two independents who caucus with the Dems to okay this pact. And arms control advocates in Washington are concerned that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) might try to derail or delay ratification. Kyl hasn’t yet declared a position. He may want to kill the treaty outright, but arms control advocates suspect he might block it to gain leverage in his efforts to expand missile defense and to defeat a comprehensive treaty banning all nuclear weapons testing. But former President George H.W. Bush’s chief arms negotiator has a message for Kyl: don’t mess with this treaty.

At a Washington press conference on Friday morning, Richard Burt, who negotiated the first Start treaty in 1991, was asked what he would say to Kyl or other Senate Republicans considering obstructing ratification of the new treaty. Burt, who was also a senior State Department official in the Reagan administration, replied in strong terms:

I can say as a former political appointee of two Republican administrations, it will be very difficult for anybody to come up with a strong set of coherent arguments against this treaty. This treaty itself does not take sweeping steps to reduce either the United States or Russian deployed arsenal…..It’s a very small step toward further reductions.

Burt noted that this treaty would put the US-Russian arms control process “back on track” and “could lead to a much more profound set of agreements.” He noted that in the Senate, there will be “some outliers” who will vote against it. But he added,

Anyone who would vote against [the treaty] needs to think about the consequences of the signals we would send to the rest of the world….What would be the impact on proliferation?….What would it do to US leadership…on a whole range of international order issues?”

Burt, who is now the US chair of Global Zero, an international non-profit group that calls for the phased, verified elimination of nuclear weapons, noted that he’s confident that Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking GOPer on the Senate foreign affairs committee, will round up enough Republicans to ensure ratification. But Burt’s remarks were a sign that if Kyl or other Republicans attempt to block the new Start treaty, they will encounter criticism from Republicans and that a campaign of obstruction against the treaty could cause a split on the right.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate