The START Treaty: to ratify or not?

In Arms Treaty Tussle, What Would Reagan Do?

The new arms control treaty with Russia, now being considered by the Senate, follows in the storied tradition of Ronald Reagan, or so say people who worked for him. Except that Mr. Reagan would never have supported it, at least according to other people who served him.

The debate over the New Start treaty, as it is known, has become a proxy fight over the legacy of the nation’s 40th president. Dueling op-ed columns in two leading newspapers on Thursday morning reflected the battle over who speaks for the cold warrior who ultimately made peace with a collapsing Soviet Union.

On the one side are Republicans like George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III and Colin L. Powell, all of whom served Mr. Reagan. They signed an essay in The Washington Post arguing that their former boss and other Republican presidents “recognized that reducing the number of nuclear arms in an open, verifiable manner would reduce the risk of nuclear catastrophe and increase the stability of America’s relationship with the Soviet Union and, later, the Russian Federation.” (Two other Republican former secretaries of state, Henry A. Kissinger and Lawrence S. Eagleburger, signed it as well.)

The authors called the New Start treaty signed by President Obama “a modest and appropriate continuation of the Start I treaty that expired almost a year ago,” a treaty initiated by Mr. Reagan. Mr. Powell also visited the Oval Office on Wednesday to join Mr. Obama in urging the Senate to approve the new treaty.

Ratify the New Start Treaty:

Some may argue that better relations with Russia imply less security for some of our allies, but that is zero-sum thinking. I believe the contrary is true: Greater trust between NATO and Russia means a stronger sense of security for all members of NATO.

The New Start treaty that is now before the U.S. Senate would also contribute to improved security in Europe. But don’t take my word for it — take the word of the allied leaders, from old and new members alike, who in Lisbon expressed their unanimous support for ratification of the treaty.

The New Start treaty would also pave the way for arms control and disarmament initiatives in other areas that are vital to Euro-Atlantic security. Most important would be transparency and reductions of short-range, tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, which allies have called for in our new “Strategic Concept.” This is a key concern for allies — not only those closest to Russia’s borders — in light of the great disparity between the levels of Russian tactical nuclear weapons and those of NATO. But we cannot address this disparity until the New Start treaty is ratified. Which is another reason why ratification would set the stage for further improvements in European security.

NATO and Russia have come a long way. At Lisbon, we agreed to focus on what we can achieve together rather than on what divides us. Our cooperation on missile defense, in fighting piracy and terrorism, and in supporting Afghanistan shows what we stand to gain. Ratifying the New Start treaty would create opportunities for even greater cooperation in the future and enhance European security.