Approval of treaty provides a start toward a safer world

It is a commentary on the new def- inition of congressional politics when a measure passes the Senate by a vote of 71-26, with all 26 nay votes being from one party, and the result is seen as an indication that bipartisanship is not dead.

Clearly those 26 votes represented a concerted effort by the Republican leadership to send a message that they’re wiling to oppose President Barack Obama whenever the spirit moves them. But for now, that message is lost in the more important result: the ratification of the New START treaty.

The New START Treaty calls for the U.S. and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals to no more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 700 strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles. That would be a 30 percent reduction from the 2,200 limit set in a 2002 treaty that’s due to expire at the end of 2012.

More important, the treaty will allow for the resumption of cross-inspections of both U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, a vital part of what President Ronald Reagan referred to as the “trust but verify” key to successful arms control.

It was heartening to see 13 Republicans join 6 Democrats and two independents in giving bipartisan endorsement to the pact, which President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed in Prague in April.

But the opponents, including some who had spoken in favor of the treaty in the past and even voted for it in committee action, were playing a dangerous and destruction political game in opposing ratification for political purposes. No one — Republican, Democrat or independent — gains when an American president is made to look weak abroad for no other reason than political gamesmanship. And, clearly, while some of the opponents voiced specific objections to parts of the treaty, others — including those who falsely claimed that the treaty vote was being rushed through the Senate — were intent on denying Obama a victory that might burnish his image.

Delay begets delay

Had the vote been delayed any longer than it had, the issue would have been pushed into the next Congress, and opponents would have doubtless claimed that there were more important things requiring Senate attention. That would have pushed ratification dangerously close to the expiration date of the current treaty.

The Russian Duma, that nation’s lower legislative house, responded quickly to the U.S. Senate vote. After just a few hours of debate, the Duma voted 350-59 to approve the treaty on its first reading. That clears the way for Russia’s upper house to take up the treaty next month.

Approval of the treaty is a practical necessity in arms control between the United States and Russia, but it also has symbolic and diplomatic value at a time when the established nuclear powers are attempting to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who led the opposition in the Senate, sniped that “maybe we can get back to focusing on the real issues, issues of proliferation, of terrorism, dealing with threats from countries like North Korea and Iran,” But until the Senate ratified this treaty, it would have been impossible for the Untied States to lead any discussion about nonproliferation with any degree of credibility.

The Senate action puts the United States in a much stronger position today to call on other nations to support further sanctions against Iran, Korea or any other nation intent on adding nuclear weapons to its arsenal.