START Treaty questions

[What_the]

In the midst of each side accusing the other of playing politics over national security I’ve heard mention on talking head shows (sorry; no cites) of two things I’d like to get the Straight Dope on…

1. It could be understood by the Russians to limit our ability to develop defensive weapons. If I heard correctly, the Russian may have even stated that. Mention of implications in the preamble was made.

2. Its not uncommon to release negotiating memos to congress but that the Obama admin won’t do it.

[What_the]

Whoops… I realized I didn’t make the questions clear…

1. What is Russia’s position on what the treaty does?

2. Are negotiating memos typically released?

[Ravenman]

@What_the

1. It could be understood by the Russians to limit our ability to develop defensive weapons. If I heard correctly, the Russian may have even stated that. Mention of implications in the preamble was made.

Here’s a quote from an AP article entitled “FACT CHECK: Half-truths in nuke arms treaty debate.”

THE CLAIM: Opponents say it will limit U.S. options for future missile defense. “New START could hamper our ability to improve our missile-defense system — leaving us unable to destroy more than a handful of missiles at a time and vulnerable to attacks from around the globe,” Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., wrote in the National Review in July.

THE FACTS: The treaty doesn’t place any practical constraints on missile defense. The document’s preamble, which is not legally binding, acknowledges a link between nuclear weapons and missile defense. It’s an assertion that was accepted by George W. Bush’s administration: The point of missile defense is to counteract nuclear-tipped missiles.

Opponents also point to Russia’s assertion in a signing statement that it reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if the United States significantly boosts its missile defenses. In fact, both sides have the right to withdraw from the treaty for any reason they believe is in their national interest.

The Soviet Union made a similar assertion when leaders signed the original 1991 START treaty, warning the country might withdraw if the United States did not respect the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But when President George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2001, Russia did not pull out of START. The START treaty held for the same reason it was signed: It was in each country’s national interest.

Link.

2. Its not uncommon to release negotiating memos to congress but that the Obama admin won’t do it.

There’s some debate on this, but I would say that in the end, the record of negotiations really doesn’t amount to much. Generally speaking, the Senate would be on firmer ground to assert that the meaning of a treaty is bound by the text of the treaty, the resolution of ratification that is actually voted on by the Senate, and the State Department’s explanation of the meaning of the treaty which is transmitted to the Senate prior to ratification. After all, the Senate would generally want to insist (as it has done historically) that the meaning of a treaty would not substantially change from what was presented to it at the time of ratification.

That was generally accepted to be the case until the Reagan Administration tried to wiggle out of missile defense restrictions in the 1972 ABM Treaty. Instead of withdraw from the treaty, the White House adopted the “Sofaer Doctrine,” which held that a President can reinterpret a treaty at any time to suit his policies, and wouldn’t be restricted to what the Senate understood the treaty to mean at the time it was approved.

During this dispute, the Senate asked the Reagan Administration to provide a record of the negotiations, hoping to prove that Reagan’s new interpretation of the treaty was at odds with what not only what the Senate understood it to mean, but also what the negotiators understood it to mean. Reagan released

Long story short: it’s somewhat ironic that foreign policy hawks are demanding that Executive interpretation of the treaty – whether in the negotiating or implementation phase – control the meaning of the treaty, since they so mistrust the Obama Administration to enforce it “correctly,” after arguing in the 1980s so strenuously that the Executive should be able to reinterpret treaties at will.

One would think that the Senate would be in a better constitutional position to insist on its reading of the treaty, along with the reservations and exceptions that the Senate attaches to treaties have traditionally resolved ambiguities to the satisfaction of the US Government.

[Tom_Tildrum]

Here (pdf) is the text of the treaty. I cannot speak to what the Russians think, but I see nothing in it that places any limits on the development or modernization of defensive weapons. Indeed, it specifically exempts missiles that are meant to shoot things down from the definition of ballistic missiles within the limitations of the treaty.