DC Bureau - Investigative Journalism, Environmental News, and National Security Stories That Matter

START and CTBT UPDATE

by Hannah Karns

In a city known for the sometimes overwhelming presence of acronyms, two have been noticeably absent from the Senate floor for over a decade. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) both pertain to nuclear nonproliferation measures. Almost ten full years after the passage of the CTBT failed in the Senate, President Obama said in Prague in April 2009, “My administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.” Little has been mentioned of the CTBT since.

Have these measures lost their importance? According to John Isaacs of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and many others concerned about national security, limiting the number and testing of nuclear weapons remains a pressing issue. In a recent debate concerning nuclear nonproliferation, Issacs said, “Nearly every national security expert today agrees that terrorist’s use of nuclear weapons is the greatest security threat to the United States.” If this is true, why hasn’t President Obama moved more aggressively to pursue ratification of the CTBT?

Nations that ratify the CTBT, initially adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996, agree to completely cease testing nuclear weapons, and they may not assist, in any way, with the testing of nuclear explosions. The treaty has remained a subject of contention since the initial vote in the Senate on October 13, 1999, where it was defeated 51 to 48. Since that time, many of the CTBT’s original opponents have become advocates for passage of the treaty such as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee Sam Nunn.

Nonproliferation advocates ranging from Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association to Vice President Joseph Biden hold out these former opponents’ change of heart as hope for passage of the CTBT. However, arms control advocates place too much importance on the political switch of past adversaries. These former high-ranking officials do not have any decision making authority regarding the treaties. The epic challenge ahead, which goes largely without recognition, is acquiring 67 votes needed for approval of the treaty in an already dysfunctional Senate. With the loss of the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s seat to Scott Brown, the possibility of passing the treaty with 67 votes seems that much more remote.

Unlike former Senator Nunn, the leading opponent of the CTBT in 1999, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), is still in the Senate and has not changed his views. In order to reach a 2/3 majority, the Obama administration would have to court Republican nonproliferation treaty opponents. With the release of President Obama’s FY 2011 budget, it would appear that he may be trying to do just that. Walter Pincus in The Washington Post reported that President Obama has requested “an increase in funding of more than 13 percent for the agency that oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.” The additional investment is intended to alleviate concerns that another START agreement would only make the United States weaker. Senator Kyl said that the budget increase was “a definite improvement over previous years.” Kyl, a vocal opponent of the treaties, is seen by supporters as making what should be a bipartisan issue into another highly politicized measure. As recently as last October he wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the Obama administration should be less concerned about nonproliferation issues and more concerned about “rogue” states.

The Obama administration requested a 25 percent increase in the budget of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), reportedly the largest percentage increase of any governmental agency, before the results of the Nuclear Posture Review have been made public. The Department of Defense asserts that “the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review will establish U.S. nuclear deterrence policy, strategy, and force posture for the next 5 to 10 years.”

Senator Richard Lugar is the Ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that oversees the treaties. According to Senator Lugar’s office, the Senate is looking to the NPR for guidance on how the country plans to safeguard existing nuclear weapon stockpiles, which is one of the primary responsibilities of NNSA. Only a portion of NNSA’s funding will be directed toward nonproliferation. Other monies will be used for research. Many see this as a way for the United States to continue to train scientists to develop new weapons should the need arise, which, according to Pincus, contradicts the very idea of nuclear nonproliferation.

In 1999, Jon Kyl, now the Republican Whip, was a junior senator in his first term. But he and others received financial support from a political action committee, the Bluegrass Committee, tied to now Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. This PAC gave substantial contributions – $5,000 or greater – to 73 percent of the senators who voted against the CTBT. Kyl received $10,000.

Without the passage of a treaty that focuses upon the nuclear relationship between Russia and the United States, it would be difficult for a general treaty such as the CTBT to pass the Senate. The new START is the current priority of the Foreign Relations Committee in terms of arms control legislation. According to Isaacs, a new START has a greater chance of passage. Unlike the CTBT, which is politically polarizing and has larger international implications, the issue of a nuclear reduction agreement with Russia is considered to be achievable.

Senator Lugar’s office said it is up to the Obama administration to determine when a new START will be completed and forwarded to the Senate for ratification. Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn said it was a top priority. Based upon the various public statements by the U.S. and Russian governments, START talks were in progress throughout 2009. In a joint statement released on April 1, Presidents Obama and Medvedev said that “the United States and the Russian Federation intend to conclude this agreement before the [START] Treaty expires in December.” However, over the following months, tensions appeared and the deadline was missed. Vice President Biden alluded to conflicts in his address to the 45^th Munich Security Conference held the weekend of February 6. Addressing the gathered diplomats, he said that “…the United States and Russia can disagree and still work together where our interests coincide. And they coincide in many places.” Once the two administrations agree upon the terms of a new START, the process is far from over. After President Obama signs the treaty, it will undergo an extensive legal review at the State Department.

And then there is the small matter of the vote, which would require 67 Senators to support the agreement. It is an election year, and with many politicians switching their focus from national policy to re-election campaigns, it is questionable whether or not the START, or any legislation pertaining to the nation’s nuclear arsenal, will be seriously considered before the next legislative session. With the delay in the US-Russian negotiations, as well as in the release of the NPR, it would appear that the president’s pledge may not be so easily kept.

Nuclear testing presents dangers to both the health of individuals and the environment. What most Americans do not realize is that they are paying for damages done from nuclear tests years ago. According to Department of Justice documents, the Radiation Exposure Compensation System has already paid over $1.4 billion in restitution for citizens affected by radiation. The system is the result of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Acts of 1990 and 2000. The Justice Department, in describing the history of the Act, states that it “offers an apology and monetary compensation to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases following their exposure to radiation released during above-ground atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.”

Although most tests are now conducted underground, the risks of underground testing still remain in question. For example, in June 1995, French President Jacques Chirac initiated a program to begin testing nuclear weapons once more in French Polynesia. According to American University’s Inventory of Conflict and Environment, “Future shocks from underground explosions could induce a tsunami that could submerge all of Polynesia.” Based on data provided by the National Geophysical Data Center, the prevalence of tsunamis has increased since the testing resumed. In the 15-year period immediately following the testing, there have been 13 tsunamis in the South Pacific Island region with a death toll of 192. Between 1980 and 1995, the same region experienced 9 such events with a death toll of 1 and waves 1/8 the size that would be reported 15 years later. Additional studies regarding nuclear testing are expected to be released by the National Academy of Science and JASON in the near future.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee majority staff did not respond to requests for comment regarding either the CTBT or START negotiations.