New START: American Press on Ratification

The American press is commenting on the Senate’s ratification of the New START treaty (71 votes to 26). Gail Collins of the New York Times writes in a sarcastic column that the White House finally got rid of former President Barack Obama, who was unable even to conclude a trade agreement with the Koreans: “Our current president, Barack Obama, would never let that happen.” Collins also praises Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who “evolved from one of the world’s worst presidential candidates into an extremely useful senator.” The author ridicules the opponents of New START, who suggested that ratification be contingent upon Russia returning four American Humvees that were “picked up” by Russians during the conflict with Georgia. Collins points out that Obama and the Democrats would not have succeeded during the so-called “lame-duck” session if they had not compromised with the Republicans on the question of tax cuts for the rich. The author regrets that there was no other way to victory besides “giving away billions of dollars to people who don’t need it.” At the same time, Gail Collins admits that she gladly recognizes that the U.S. has a president who knows what he is doing.

Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan writes that sensible people who are interested in a sound American foreign and defense policy should welcome the Senate’s ratification of New START. In Kagan’s opinion, Republicans likewise should be pleased: under their pressure Obama agreed to set aside more than $80 billion for the modernization of the nuclear arsenal, and moreover, any delays in cooperating with Russia on Iran or reconciling the situation in Georgia can’t be blamed on the Republicans — only on Moscow; the ball is in their court. A bipartisan compromise, writes Kagan, is not always a virtue, but in this particular case it is. American allies, notes the author, again need a strong United States of America, upon which they can depend. Allies had needed to see the U.S. demonstrate internal unity, which is a “foundation for world leadership.”* Even Republicans who hate Obama, writes Kagan, should understand that there is only one U.S. president. More importantly, he deserves support because he did not ignore the legitimate concern of his opponents. In the opinion of Robert Kagan, “muscular internationalism,” which led to the ratification of New START, should become the center of gravity for American foreign policy. The author suggests that Democrats and Republicans should start thinking now about how to hold both Obama and Russia accountable.

“Seven weeks after using the word “shellacking” to describe his political condition, President Obama left Washington for his annual Hawaiian vacation in a vastly different place, with a litany of legislative accomplishments,” writes Paul West and Peter Nicholas from the Los Angeles Times. During Wednesday’s press conference Obama announced that the defeat in November’s congressional elections became a signal for him, “Seek common ground.” However, New York Times journalists write that interparty cooperation and the search for consensus can hardly survive the New Year. Both Democrats and Republicans say that the new Congress expects the revival of intransigence and animosity. New battles are expected for Obama. At the press conference, he himself listed topics over which clashes with Republicans are expected: fiscal spending on education, health care for veterans, communication and research. Experts view Obama’s perspective with some optimism, noting inherent contradictions within the Republican Party. In the new Congress, Republican leaders will be forced to partially meet the demands of representatives from the irreconcilable tea party movement, and this will arouse the displeasure of moderate Republicans, whose votes Obama can claim.

Howard LaFranchi of the Christian Science Monitor cites the opinion of several experts who are trying to predict the further development of the situation surrounding nuclear disarmament in general and in the American congress in particular. LaFranchi himself writes on this topic that, ironically, the consensus reached in the Senate may become Obama’s culminating success on the road to disarmament, rather than the dawn of a new era. President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Clifford May thinks that the November 2010 elections changed the political landscape, and the new congress will concentrate not on questions of nuclear disarmament, but on missile defense and modernizing the nuclear arsenal. Executive Director of the Arms Control Association Daryl Kimball, in turn, is convinced that lengthy debates over New START engendered a long lasting consensus on disarmament. Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution says, “[The ratification of New START] will strengthen the U.S. position in the international community in seeking to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

*Translator’s Note: This sentence in the original Russian misconstrues Kagan’s point, mistakenly rendering it, “The allies [of America] needed to demonstrate internal unity, which is a ‘foundation for world leadership.’”