ShareThis Page
GOP lawmakers criticize Trump’s decision to withdraw from nuclear arms treaty |

GOP lawmakers criticize Trump’s decision to withdraw from nuclear arms treaty

| Sunday, October 21, 2018 8:45 p.m.
U.S. National security adviser John Bolton waits for the talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia. President Trump’s national security adviser is going to be raising thorny subjects with his counterparts in Moscow on a visit to help craft a script for another high-level meeting between Trump and Russia President Vladimir Putin. John Bolton leaves Saturday, Oct. 20, 2018 on a trip to Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s announcement during the weekend that he would pull the United States out of a key nuclear arms control treaty alarmed members of his own party, who criticized the decision and worried that other international pacts to control proliferation of the world’s most dangerous weapons also might be upended.

“I hope we’re not moving down the path to undo much of the nuclear arms control treaties that we have put in place,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” noting that he had heard that the Trump administration wanted to pull out of not only the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, but also New START.

“I think that would be a huge mistake,” Corker said.

Trump told reporters on Saturday night that his administration would “terminate” and “pull out” of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a strategic arms reduction pact that President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev struck in 1987. Russia has long been accused of violating the treaty, prompting calls from some defense hawks in the United States to end U.S. participation in the deal. Many also argue that the treaty is obsolete, because it doesn’t restrict China’s proliferation.

New STARTseeks to limit the stockpiles of long-range and submarine missiles and heavy bombers, plus related warheads and launchers, in U.S. and Russian possession. Corker played a leading role in helping the Senate ratify an updated extension of the treaty in 2010; but its future is in doubt, as it expires in early 2021.

Trump’s announcement came as his national security adviser, John Bolton, traveled to Russia to meet with counterparts and discuss, among other things, treaty compliance. But Corker said Trump’s announcement to pull out of the INF Treaty came as a surprise — and one he hoped was simply presidential bluster.

“This could be something that is just a precursor to try to get Russia to come into compliance,” Corker said, guessing that Trump might be attempting a power play to influence Russia’s stance on nuclear arms control treaties as he did with the parties to NAFTA to affect trade policy. But Corker warned that unless the United States was ready to compete with Russia, “they’re going to move ahead of us quickly.”

For the past few years, the annual defense authorization bill has funded research and development of weapons that, if ever tested, would violate the INF Treaty. The argument has been that the research is necessary to counter China’s aggressive moves in places such as the South China Sea, in the event that the treaty is renegotiated or declared null and void. China is not a party to the treaty.

Though it takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to ratify a treaty, there is no constitutionally mandated congressional role in tearing one up – leaving critical lawmakers, including one of the president’s staunchest defenders on foreign policy, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., little recourse but to plead with Trump to pursue negotiations to update and broaden the INF Treaty instead of declaring it dead.

“It’s a big, big mistake to flippantly get out of this historic agreement,” Paul said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I’m all for trying to sign an agreement with China, but that would have to be a brand-new agreement. It’s no reason to end the agreement we have with Russia.”

Paul encouraged Trump to appoint nuclear negotiators to work on updating and expanding the pact, and “have a rational discussion with experts on this and see if we can resolve it.” But he insisted that Bolton play no part in that treaty discussion.

“John Bolton is the one advising the president to get out of the INF Treaty,” Paul said. “I don’t think he recognizes the important achievement of Reagan and Gorbachev on this.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.