Obama Forces Showdown with G.O.P. on Arms Pact

Name

Course

Tutor

Date

The article “Obama Forces Showdown with G.O.P. on Arms Pact” by Peter Baker is important in its applicability to the field of political science. It helps in analyzing the contemporary political arena in United States. The article addresses the way United States interact with other foreign nations such as Russia. It significantly addresses the issue of ratification of the arms control treaty, a foreign policy which touches on the national security. It is interesting since it shows unusual division between U.S military leadership and the conservative republicans on the issue of U.S-Russia nuclear treaty.

From the article, President Obama says “It is a national security imperative that the United States ratify the New Start treaty this year” (Baker, pr.5). His statement reflects that the politicians are skeptic while the military wants the treaty approved since Russia has great weapons to finish the whole of United States. Obama is confident that the treaty would be passed pressurizing the Senate supported by the support of previous secretary of states and members of his administration with Joseph R. Biden Jr assigned to handle it. One of the key issues in the treaty is strategic nuclear arms of Russia. United States would lose the Russian support on issues regarding national security such as Iran’s nuclear weapons pursuit as pointed out by White House arms-control official, Gary Samore (Baker, pr.12)The treaty would ensure that Russian and United States arsenals are minimized and under mutual inspection which has been delayed since expiry of the previous treaty. Obama insists the treaty is right even when there is strong opposition as from Jon Kyl, a republican senator from Arizona who points out that it should be taken slow for it is complex and coincided with lame duck session. Jon kyl’s opposition affects the G.O.P who relies upon his assent (Baker, pr.6).Tennessee senator Bob Corker backed Kyl’s idea pointing out that the treaty had to be elaborated and there was no need to rush it. The sole republican supporter of the ratification is Indiana Senator Richard G. Lugar. Other fourteen Senate republicans who would supposedly back the treaty could not back it publicly. Some the Senate Republicans stated that they were looking upon Kyl’s decision while others were still undecided (baker, pr.8).

In my view, if either of the parties fails to submit to the terms, there would arise conflicts between U.S and Russia as emphasized by Gary Samore who says that failure to ratify the treaty may facilitate distrust and arms competition due to lack of inspection(Baker, pr.11). In essence, the treaty encourages security of the two nations through maintaining their weapons which would be used to finish each other in case of a political unrest. The Russian government positively backs the ratification insisting it would encourage partnership with the US. It is risky since the treaty would restrict each party from improving their nuclear capabilities to match one another. However, without inspections of the nuclear weapons, there would be minimal knowledge regarding them where each of the party may increase their weapons without consent. President Obama’s urgency regarding ratification may not be necessarily due to national security but because of prospected change of Senate seats that will raise Republican votes essential for ratification since a two thirds majority is needed for it to pass. Failure to ratify the treaty might result to resistance of nonaligned nations regarding Iran sanctions which may question leadership of Obama at a time when there are two years left to the end of his term in office and when US is involved in wars. This situation is critical as Gary Samore puts it “If we fail to act,” he said, “I think it will damage the U.S. reputation as a country that’s willing to lead” (Baker, pr.16).

Conclusively, the ratification of the arms pact is surrounded by controversies some of which are based on the national interest while others on personal issues. Mr. Kyl’s reaction to the issue significantly influences the Senate’s response. The treaty should be well understood before personal decision is made other than relying on Mr. Kyl’s response. Such an issue is complex and critical making the speedy reaction of President Obama is questionable. Finally, the arms pact should be opposed due to the fact that United States missile defense strategies would be limited. In addition, the treaty has fewer procedures to ensure that Russia will sincerely follow the terms. Meanwhile, the G.O.P should clearly understand the terms as stated by the treaty for them to make a viable decision.

Works Cited:

Baker, Peter. “Obama Forces Showdown with G.O.P. on Arms Pact.”The New York Times. (2010): <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/world/europe/19start.html?hp=&amp;pagewanted=print>