Has the New START been lurking in the shadows? Kurt Volker seems to think so, since he wants the Senate to take it up in “full daylight,” which apparently doesn’t begin until 2011. I understand that treaty opponents are arguing that the Senate shouldn’t “rush” the treaty through because they want to see the treaty fail, but what I can’t quite understand is someone who thinks the treaty is important and that it should wait until it can’t possibly be ratified.

Volker’s proposals are also a bit maddening:

Congress and the administration should:

• agree on a program for modernization of US nuclear forces to ensure maximum safety, effectiveness, and reliability;

• reach a clear understanding that nothing in the treaty limits US missile defense efforts, and agree on a program of continued development of missile defenses, including in Europe to cover the territory of all NATO allies; and

• agree that there will be no unilateral US withdrawal of the small number of remaining US nuclear weapons from Europe, and that there will be no further nuclear treaties submitted to the Senate for ratification, until we have addressed the problem of the thousands of Russian tactical nuclear weapons based on the borders of Europe.

The first part is what the administration has been trying to do all year. Treaty supporters already have a “clear understanding” that the treaty doesn’t limit missile defense, and the administration has already committed to the continued development of missile defense in Europe. Our NATO ambassador, Ivo Daalder, was just promoting a NATO missile defense program just yesterday! This is the missile defense program that Russia and NATO will be discussing at Lisbon for the next NATO summit. Republicans have had several opportunities to acknowledge that Obama supports missile defense programs, but they have chosen instead to pretend that he does not. Nothing in the new year is going to change that. The tactical nuke issue is the greatest red herring of them all. There is no way to address the tactical nuclear weapons in Russia’s arsenal until this treaty is ratified. Delaying ratification of New START puts off addressing that issue even longer.

Volker becomes more myopic as he turns to the “reset” itself. Claiming that the “reset” has yielded nothing that wouldn’t have been achieved anyway, he goes on to say:

Second, the argument that failure to ratify would endanger the reset policy is essentially an argument that Russia is blackmailing the United States: that it is poised to resume destructive behavior unless the US does what it wishes and ratifies the treaty. I doubt that this is true, but regardless of merit, it is certainly no argument to make to a United States senator.

Well, no, this isn’t what the argument means. The treaty should be ratified solely on its merits, but there certainly is a political argument in favor of ratification as well. One has to assume that the “reset” was necessitated by “destructive behavior” on the part of Russia rather than repeated, endless provocations by the U.S. Not only is this not true, but it is obviously not the way the Russians see things. As the Russian government looks at it, the “reset” has provided absolutely nothing for Russia, and Russia has scrapped defensive missile sales to Iran while it is being berated for “occupying” South Ossetia. Ratifying New START is the only thing that the administration has pledged to do that actually serves Russian interests as well as American interests. The point isn’t that Russia is going to engage in “destructive behavior” if the treaty isn’t ratified, but that Russia has no incentive to sacrifice its own interests for the sake of good relations with the U.S. if the U.S. cannot even do something as simple as ratify a modest arms reduction treaty that is clearly in the American interest.

All of this is academic, since delaying the vote virtually ensures the treaty’s defeat. There aren’t fourteen Republican votes for this treaty, especially not when several incumbent Republicans who may face primary challenges from the right are up for re-election in 2012. The treaty has been awaiting ratification all year, and it was voted out of committee two months ago. There has been more than enough time to determine whether the treaty merits ratification. The lame-duck session exists to conclude important business that could not be or was not addressed earlier. To argue that the treaty vote should be delayed until next year is another way of saying that it isn’t very important or shouldn’t be ratified at all. Volker can’t actually bring himself to say it, but in effect he is making an argument that the treaty ought to be shelved. With supporters like this, the treaty hardly needs opponents.