|
24 December 2010 By Stephen
Lendman Hyped support reveals gross
hypocrisy about a deeply flawed process and outrageous
price for it. More on that below. Yet a September 14
New York Times editorial headlined, "Ratify the New
Start Treaty," saying; "Failure to ratify this treaty
would be hugely costly for American credibility and
security....The Senate needs to ratify New Start now."
In fact, endorsing ratification undermines The Times
credibility. More why below. A more recent Washington Post
November 19 editorial headlined, "The New START pact
should be passed, not politicized," saying: "....the treaty ought to be
approved. But no calamity will befall the United
States if the Senate does not act this year....In
reality, Mr. Obama's urgency (has) less to do with
national security than with the upcoming shift in
Senate seats" next year. The Los Angeles Times said
ratifying Start could "be a defining moment for Obama.
Failure might be regarded abroad as confirmation that
the administration is too weak to put its stamp on
world affairs." Most major media reports endorse
ratification. None explain key facts about a deeply
flawed treaty or what's ahead when implemented. An
earlier article on Obama's Nuclear Posture Review
explained why, accessed through the following link: http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/04/obamas-brave-nuke-world.html Calling it old wine in new
bottles, it explained that nuclear disarmament or
serious reductions aren't envisioned or planned. New
and upgraded weapons will replace outdated ones.
Dangerous testing will continue, and billions of
dollars will be committed to proliferate a
first-strike capability with overwhelming destructive
power, including from space. Obama's Nuclear Posture Review
was more about war making than prevention. Also
unchanged is the 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear
Operations, removing the distinction between defensive
and offensive deterrents. It includes the most modern
triad of land and sea-based strategic bombers,
land-based missiles, and ballistic missile submarines
as well as robust research development and industrial
infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain
unchallengeable offensive and defensive systems. It exceeds deterrent, calling for
preemption with nuclear or non-nuclear weapons against
named adversaries, whether or not true. In other
words, aggressive wars for unchallengeable global
dominance are planned, especially against nations in
resource-rich areas. Missile defense is also misnamed.
It's, in fact, for offensive first-strike, notably
against Russia and China in case confrontations erupt
for resource control. Whether ratified or not,
America's permanent war agenda is unchanged, falsely
justified to seek peace, democracy and world
stability. It's about power threatening global
survival to assure America has more than anyone and
keeps it. Start is a smoke screen, more
hypocrisy than substance. Disingenuous media hype
suppresses the truth without explaining what's needed
- full nuclear disarmament without which world safety
is impossible. The Western States Legal
Foundation (WSLF) on Start WSLF "monitors and analyzes US
nuclear weapons programs and policies and related high
technology energy and weapons programs, with a focus
on the national nuclear weapons laboratories." It
believes that "nuclear weapons threaten our
fundamental human security" and must be abolished. WSLF's Andrew Lichterman
headlined a commentary, "The START Treaty and
Disarmament: a Dilemma in Search of a Debate,"
saying: Public discussion and full
disclosure have been absent as negotiations continued.
The real adversary "is the US military-industrial
complex and its representative in the United States
Senate." Those in it want unchallengeable US military
supremacy, using the ratification debate "to extract
both policy and spending commitments in return." Start "will have little effect
(on) the arms race." It will only minimally affect
"nuclear weapons deployments, and places no meaningful
limit on the modernization of nuclear arsenals or the
development of strategically significant weapons
systems such as missile defenses and conventional
'prompt global strike' weapons with global reach." The treaty's only purported
benefits include verification and reestablishing a
negotiating framework for future negotiations.
However, the ratification price extracted huge
concessions to the "weapons establishment," beginning
with "increases in....budgets and accelerated
construction of new nuclear weapons facilities" to
design, develop, produce, and deploy the most modern
ever destructive arsenal globally, assuring
"civilization-destroying" capability "for decades to
come," as well as impeding disarmament efforts. Yet congressional and public
debate didn't discuss it. Instead, so-called experts,
former key public officials, and disarmament
organizations endorsed ratification, "parroting"
Obama's devoid of substance talking points, leaving
out future costs and concessions to the "nuclear
weapons establishment." Nor explaining that without
them, ratification possibilities were nil. Democrats
as well as Republicans would balk. The Start deal will do little to
deter nuclear weapons proliferation. It's mainly about
counting rules and verification. In addition, the
actual number of warheads isn't reduced. America and
Russia will be able to deploy almost the same number
of strategic ones as the 2002 Moscow Treaty
permitted. New Start is also "missile
defense-friendly," including America's research for
new propulsion and delivery technologies able "to hit
a target anywhere on earth in less than one hour" with
nuclear or non-nuclear warheads. No "global strike"
capabilities will be compromised. Nor are constraints
placed on modernizing nuclear arms. What the Obama
administration promotes as a plus, in fact, is
continued proliferation of new generations of
humanity-destroying weapons, while at the same time,
enriching the nuclear weapons establishment. His FY 2011 budget request
included 10% more for nuclear weapons programs, and
continued increases for the next five years. Last May,
a budget commitment included $180 billion over the
next 10 years for nuclear weapons and delivery
systems. All along, "the nuclear weapons establishment
played its usual double game," promoting Start while
seeking greater financial commitments. By November,
Obama promised billions of dollars of additional
increases, including an "extraordinary commitment to
ensure the modernization of our nuclear
infrastructure." Contrast the commitment to war
making and nuclear weapons proliferation to promoting
austerity in discretionary spending for vital homeland
needs, including millions of households suffering from
lost jobs, homes, savings and futures. A new US Census report confirms
it, saying nearly one-third of working families
struggle to meet basic needs. From 2007 through 2009,
low income households (earning less than 200% of the
official threshold) increased from 28 - 30%. The
report came days after congressionally approved tax
cuts enriched corporations and America's aristocracy,
giving chump change to struggling workers, facing
austerity cuts in 2011. Start and nuclear proliferation,
however, get top priority to fuel the Pentagon's war
machine, endangering global security and survival.
Moreover, despite rhetoric, "prospects for significant
reductions below proposed....levels (meaning current
deployments) are at best highly debatable." Couched in rhetorical deterrence,
actual policy is escalation and dominance, combining
the world's most powerful conventional forces with
enough nuclear capability "to threaten everything from
credible use of small numbers of nuclear weapons up to
societal annihilation." Without significant change,
reductions will only be cosmetic, "leaving unaltered
the fundamental danger" that a globally destructive
force stays intact and improves by continued
modernization. Further, other nuclear powers will be
challenged to keep up, fueling a dangerous arms race,
heightening even greater risks. Shamefully, the "new START turns
disarmament polices on its head with many" supportive
groups, experts and pundits uncritically adopting the
administration. Lacking, however, is any understanding
of disarmament obstacles, costs or risks. For its
part, the public is left entirely uninformed, hearing
hype with no substance, including advocacy for urgent
ratification of a treaty yielding no real change. "(P)ropagandists for the
powerful....dress up such deals as serving the
'national interest' " to enlist public support,
omitting back room dealmaking to enrich the nuclear
weapons establishment and other war profiteering
interests. In this environment, chances for
disarmament and non-proliferation are nil, especially
with public ignorance and indifference not demanding
it. As a result, Lichterman argues
"for turning disarmament work right side up," thinking
not just about short term possibilities "in the halls
of government in corrupt, bellicose, and heavily armed
states," none truer on all counts than America.
Longer-term efforts "can confront the institutions of
the nuclear-military-industrial complex where we find
them," and learning from "a half-century (of)
concentrated, unaccountable power on our communities
and natural world," seeking change to preserve
societies and global survival. It remains endangered
under new Start. For months, the Obama administration maintained a drumbeat of hype for new Start, including in a November 17 press release headlined, "Fact Sheet: An Enduring Commitment to the US Nuclear Deterrent," saying: "President Obama has made an extraordinary commitment to ensure the modernization of our nuclear infrastructure...." Plans ahead including investing "over $85 billion over the next decade" for modernization and deterrence. In fact, over double that amount will be spent plus likely future add-ons. The press release mentions several programs with few details, bemoaning "America's aging nuclear complex and stockpile." In a May 13 message to the Senate, Obama said: "The Treaty will enhance the national security of the United States. It mandates mutual reductions and limitations of the world's largest nuclear arsenals. (It) promote(s) transparency and predictability in the strategic relationship between the United States and the Russian Federation," and will assure each side can verify the other. As explained above, it represents old wine in new bottles, dressed up in rhetorical mumbo jumbo, suggesting changes that, in fact, leave everything virtually the same. An earlier March 26 press release headlined, "Key Facts about the New START Treaty," covering: -- "treaty structure; -- strategic offensive reductions; -- verification and transparency; -- treaty terms; and -- no constraints on missile defense and convention strike." In fact, details provided obscured more than clarifying new Start details, part of regular White House disinformation to keep public opinion uninformed and unaware that claimed changes are more hype than substance. Ahead for decades, global security will remain threatened, perhaps more so as sophisticated technologies and powerful new weapons are developed and deployed, including from space. No matter. On December 22, the Senate voted 71 - 26 to pass Start, what The New York Times called Obama's "most tangible foreign policy achievement." Thirteen Republicans joined Democrat unanimity, exceeding the constitutionally required two-thirds majority.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/. |
Add Comments