Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- "Dear Mr. President: You will face severe foreign-policy challenges during the next four years."

So wrote Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) in the opening to his 1988 book, "Letters to the Next President." Twenty-two years later, the warning from the venerable foreign-affairs expert has rarely seemed more apt. Even while the United States remains mired in two wars and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, Barack Obama's signature nuclear nonproliferation initiative enters a crucial phase as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepares to vote on a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, dubbed "New START," with Russia. As the ranking Republican on the committee and a respected arms control voice in the Senate, Lugar is doing his part to help the Obama administration capture the elusive, bipartisan center where the 67 votes needed for passage reside. National Journal Staff Correspondent James Kitfield recently spoke with Lugar about New START. Edited excerpts from that interview follow (see GSN, July 16).

NJ: When former presidential contender Mitt Romney recently wrote an op-ed critical of New START, you called it a "hyperbolic attack" that "repeats discredited objections and appears unaware of arms control history and context." Why such strong words?

Lugar: Essentially because I believe New START is vitally important in terms of our relationship with the Russians at this point in history. People can say this debate is just another one of these normal arguments that we have every day in Congress, just more grist for the political mill. But I was saying in that statement that New START is important. It's a pretty modest treaty, but the fact is, we are back at the table talking to the Russians again, and the U.S.-Russian relationship has been strengthened as a result in ways that could prove very important to us in the future. So I wasn't willing to sit back while the treaty was deprecated. When someone writes an op-ed under the headline, "Obama's Worst Foreign Policy Mistake," well, I do consider that hyperbolic. Maybe that's a tough word, but nevertheless I felt it was an accurate description of the op-ed.

NJ: So you support the Obama administration’s “reset” of relations with Russia, and the renewed focus on reducing both nations’ stockpiles of nuclear weapons?

Lugar: Yes. Remember, I was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee when we passed the Moscow Treaty in 2002, which I supported even though it was modest and lacked verification protocols. The response I got to those concerns was that we could still rely on the verification protocols in START I, which didn’t expire until December 2009. Flash forward to December 2008, and I’m in Russia on normal Nunn-Lugar [Cooperative Threat Reduction] business (see GSN, June 23). As I was coming into Moscow, a Bush administration official who shall remain unnamed was leaving Russia for the last time, and he indicated that there were no prospects of moving ahead on any cooperative initiatives with the Russians whatsoever. This was after the conflict in Georgia, but even well before that the Bush administration had shown less and less interest in engaging with the Russians on arms control. They just had lots of other things on their agenda.

NJ: Were the Russians interested in further arms reductions?

Lugar: When I talked with senior Russian officials on that trip about the fact that START I was set to expire in a year, they were encouraged that someone was even interested in the subject of arms control. On my return from that trip I thus wrote a memo to President-elect Obama and his people that there was an opportunity to engage with the Russians on the issue, but they needed to act fast because the Dec. 5, 2009 expiration of START I was looming. I think President Obama and his team moved about as rapidly as possible on a new START after that, given the slowness of the confirmation process.

NJ: Why do you think that U.S.-Russian engagement on arms control is so important?

Lugar: Because through that continuous engagement people get to know each other and form at least some level of trust, and over time that can lead to breakthroughs that are even more dramatic than anything contemplated in a particular treaty. I'll give you an example. At one point I was in Russia on Nunn-Lugar [Cooperative Threat Reduction] business, and I received a request to visit a Russian naval base where I don't believe any American congressman or military official had ever been. At that base I saw a Russian Typhoon-class submarine, which had never really been the subject of any arms control treaty. The Russians had six of these giant Typhoons, which were characterized to such dramatic effect in Tom Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October." In actual fact, these submarines traveled up and down our Eastern coast for the better part of 20 years with nuclear-tipped missiles, any one of which would have been a chip shot into New York or Philadelphia.

NJ: Why were the Russians showing you the Typhoons?

Lugar: Because this was in the 1990s, when the Russians were having financial troubles and the incredible maintenance required to keep them operational was becoming difficult to afford. So the Russians wanted to talk about a program that would lead to the dismantlement of some Typhoons. And to date, we have dismantled three of these deadly instruments of destruction. That came about not directly from arms control talks but rather because I was in Russia and available for a discussion. My point is, the nature of the U.S.-Russian relationship is that if you're sitting around talking, it may not be a good day for arms control discussions; but when an opportunity presents itself later, each side knows who to call. In that way you can sometimes accomplish even more-dramatic things than what you are discussing in treaty negotiations.

NJ: How do you respond to critics who say, much like with the Typhoons, New START only quantifies nuclear arms reductions that the Russians would undertake anyway to save money?

Lugar: Not exactly. Some Russian officials may want to reduce their nuclear arsenal, but they need assurances that the United States will also reduce its arsenal so they are not put at a disadvantage. We have similar interests.

NJ: Some critics, such as Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) are philosophically opposed to New START because they see it as a step toward an unrealistic and utopian vision of a "world without nuclear weapons." President Obama has espoused that vision, as have former Senator Sam Nunn, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and Republican former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. Do you support the so-called race to zero nuclear weapons?

Lugar: I've talked to Sam Nunn and all the others that you mention about this subject of a world without nuclear weapons. They express the concept as being at the base of a mountain shrouded in clouds and trying to formulate a strategy for getting to the top even though they can't see it. So I don't fault them or President Obama for talking about a world without nuclear weapons, but neither do I think it is a particularly good idea to express the process in that way. Quite frankly, it's been plenty difficult enough just trying to get down to the 1,500-warhead limit in New START.

Talk of "no nukes" also invites opposition from those who see it as a sign of weakness in those who lack the backbone to face the world as it is. I don't think that criticism is fair, but it's out there. So it seems to me that the more practical path is to move incrementally ahead, taking warheads off of missiles one at a time, steadily building trust and transparency into a process that makes misunderstandings less likely.

NJ: Some critics object to language in the nonbinding preamble of the treaty suggesting that Russia might withdraw from the New START pact in the future if it thinks that a U.S. missile defense system has tipped the strategic balance. How do you answer their concerns that such language might ultimately constrain development of a U.S. missile defense system?

Lugar: Well, it's simply not true, which has been asserted in about every way possible. The Russians might withdraw from New START, but they didn't withdraw from START I even after we withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 2001. In other words, the United States exercised our option to withdraw from an arms control treaty on that one conspicuous occasion, and the Russians remained committed to START I until it expired on Dec. 5, 2009. Regardless, the Obama administration asserted in all our hearings and testimony that it is not only reserving the right to proceed on building a missile defense system, it is actually building it. The Russians aren't happy about that, and they've been assertive in stating their objections.

NJ: As someone who has dealt with verification issues for decades, are you confident that the verification protocols in the new START are sufficient?

Lugar: Yes I am. I believe it will provide more transparency than START I, rather than less. The numbering system for warheads and delivery systems is much more transparent than before. START I verification was really about making sure that neither side was cheating, and avoiding a breakthrough that could have changed the strategic balance. The new START reflects the fact that the Russians are now really looking for stability, and they want to avoid a race to greater numbers of nuclear weapons. Before one of President Obama’s early meetings with [Russian President Dmitry] Medvedev, he invited [Senator John] Kerry and me over to the White House situation room, where we met with [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates, [National Security Adviser Jim] Jones and others. The president asked us what essential elements the treaty had to include to win bipartisan support. We told him it had to get verification and missile defense right. And I think the administration team did a good job in achieving that goal. President Obama knew he would have to counter the objections of some lawmakers who would launch a frontal assault on the treaty.

NJ: Another objection the critics have raised is that the new START does not address the Russians’ large advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.

Lugar: Leaving aside the question over whether a next round of talks should address tactical nuclear weapons, Russia’s tactical weapons are not a direct threat to the United States or our NATO allies. Because previous treaties have taken down intermediate-range missiles, we’re talking about tactical missiles with very short ranges. And all of our NATO allies who might logically be worried about being in harm’s way of such weapons have endorsed the new treaty, without exception. They are very hopeful we will stay at the negotiating table with the Russians after START is approved to talk about further reductions in tactical weapons, and a whole lot of other issues. The fact is, a large percentage of Russia’s short-range tactical weapons are actually deployed along its border with China. So they are not designed with the United States or NATO in mind, but rather China.

NJ: Do you believe that the New START pact will win the two-thirds majority needed for passage in the Senate?

Lugar: I think its prospects are good. The Foreign Relations Committee is likely to have the last of the New START hearings soon, and all of the relevant intelligence information is now available to senators and their staffs. Senator John Kerry has indicated he hopes to move the treaty out of committee in this four-week session, and then it's up to [Majority Leader Harry] Reid (D-Nev.) to schedule a floor vote in the post-Labor Day period. That's not a slam dunk, however, because there will be a lot of pressure on Senator Reid to wind things up so members can go home to defend their seats in the November elections. So it will depend on his priorities.

NJ: Do you worry that New START will be caught up in the partisan currents of an election season?

Lugar: Well, I have some concerns. I'm about to go to a Republican lunch where I fully expect to hear for an hour and a half how everything the administration proposes might be blocked. If you're a Republican leader, that makes this a difficult task. There are some in our caucus who just don't trust the Russians, and others who believe that every day that goes by before the election with nothing happening is a victory, but I'm not one of them. Even though these are partisan times, there are also a good many Republicans who really don't want to pick a fight on this treaty.

NJ: So you predict passage?

Lugar: Yes, I think it will pass. I go back to my basic theme. I admire the Obama administration for taking this complex issue on, and it has offered a modest treaty that sets the stage for an ongoing relationship with the Russians that will allow us to work together on issues of common interest. That may prove especially important as we move forward in confronting the issue of Iran's suspected nuclear program.