Cndi - Politics Da - Starter (1)

POLITICS DISAD CNDI 1/2

CNDI 2009

STARTER SET



_________________3

***POLITICS 1NC 3

Politics Disad 1NC 4

_________________7

***UNIQUENESS 7

U CTBT Obama Pushing 8

U CTBT Senate 10

U CTBT Will Pass11

U CTBT Indonesia 14

U CTBT Votes 15

U CTBT GOP 16

U CTBT Democrats 17

U Obama Political Capital 18

U Obama Public 19

Brink CTBT 20

__________21

***LINKS 21

Link Homeless / Mentally Ill 22

Link Community Mental Health 24

Link Institutions 25

Link Unions 26

Link Health Care 27

Link Crime 28

Link GOP 29

Link / IL Political Capital 30

Link / IL Agenda Overload31

___________________32

***INTERNAL LINKS 32

IL GOP Key 33

IL GOP Key 34

IL Bipart Key 35

IL CTBT Political Capital 36

IL CTBT GOP 38

IL CTBT Specific Senators 39

IL US Ratification Key 40

IL Now Key Time 41

_____________42

***IMPACTS 42

Impact Proliferation 43

Impact Proliferation Now Key 46

Impact Proliferation NPT 47

Impact Proliferation China 48

Impact Multilateralism 49

Impact Iran / North Korea 50

Impact Nuclear Terrorism 51

Impact Core 52

Impact North Korea 53

Impact Disarm 55

Impact AT Verification 56

AT Testing Good58

AT No Disarm 59

_____________60

***AFF CTBT 60

NU CTBT 61

NU Obama Political Capital 62

NU Obama Agenda63

NU Obama GOP 64

Aff Link GOP 65

Aff Link Democrats 66

Aff Link Bipart 67

Aff Link Health Care 70

AFF IL Winners Win 71

AFF Impact Extinction 72

AFF Impact Allied Prolif 73

AFF Impact Deterrence 74

AFF Impact CTBT Fails76

AFF Impact Testing Good77

AFF AT Prolif 78

AFF AT Disarm 79

_________________

***POLITICS 1NC

Politics Disad 1NC

A UNIQUENESS CTBT WILL PASS NOW WITH OBAMA SUPPORT

HINDUSTAN TIMES 6-10-2009

India, June 10 -- The United States hopes to launch a diplomatic effort to persuade countries like India, Pakistan and Israel to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and thus bring it into force, President Barack Obama's new trouble-shooter for non-proliferation said in Washington on Tuesday.

Testifying before the Senate foreign relations committee, Ellen Tauscher, former Democrat congresswoman from California, said if confirmed for the post of undersecretary for arms control and international security, she would work towards a number of nonproliferation goals of which one was the ratification of CTBT. "I share the administration's commitment to obtaining the Senate's advice and consent to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to launch a diplomatic effort to bring states that have not signed the treaty on board so that it can be brought into force," she said in the latter part of her testimony. So far, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the US have not ratified CTBT.

B LINKS

1 Stigma proves you cant win on homelessness

Sarasota Herald-Tribune November 1999

Jones alone should not bear the burden for the impasse. Too many people view the homeless the way Ebenezer Scrooge saw the needy, as part of a surplus population. So, there's little political capital to be gained by advocating help for the homeless.

Jones fulfills a need in society, offering a haven, with few restrictions, to those who cannot keep a roof above their heads. Government often doesn't address the problems of homeless people unless they become public nuisances or lawbreakers.

2 POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY TO CTBT HEALTH CARE DEBATES DISTRACT

JOSEPH APRIL 2009 SENIOR DEMOCRATIC FOREIGN POLICY STAFFER US SENATE

RENEW THE DRIVE FOR CTBT RATIFICATION, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, VOL 32 NO 2, PAGE 79-90

As the historic first 100 days of President Barack Obamas

administration fly by, he faces a tsunami of advice on the key priorities he

should pursue over the next four years. Ranging from energy independence and

national health care reform to improving Americas image with the Islamic

world and revamping our foreign assistance structure, the president must decide

where to focus his scarce time, resources, and political capital. One initiative he

should strongly consider this year is calling upon the U.S. Senate to once again

take up the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to

outlaw nuclear testing around the world, even though the initiative failed in

October 1999 by a 5148 vote.

C IMPACTS

1 us ratification stops a second north korean nuclear test

Blix 6 (Hans, October 16, pg. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/us-should-set-example-for_b_31791.html)

Yes, the U.S. has sent a signal of arrogance, a signal that the rest of the world should do what the U.S. demands but the U.S. is above it all and can do what they like. Since the U.S. has been the backbone of non-proliferation efforts for decades, this has undermined the credibility of the whole effort. In fact, in 1995 the U.S. shepherded the extension of the NPT under Clinton; but in 2005 it reneged, saying those commitments were given in another era. Nothing would be more important in turning the tide with North Korea and Iran if the U.S. ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. How can the U.S. demand that North Korea not test weapons again, as the just-passed U.N. resolution calls for, when they are unwilling to make that commitment themselves? That certainly doesn't put the Americans on the moral high ground. Because the U.S. has not ratified the CTBT, China won't either. The U.S. has the key in its hand. Wouldn't their demands be more credible and effective if they themselves agreed not to test?

2 a new test means well strike north korea

Becker 6 (Brian, 10/17, pg. http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr007=3kvhckuy32.app7b&page=NewsArticle&id=5847&news_iv_ctrl=1261)

The Koreans have said that any additional U.N. sanctions would be considered a declaration of war and that they will take counter-measures. The stage has now been set for major and rapid escalation. Should North Korea carry out another nuclear test, or if the U.S. government can find some other pretext, the stage will be set for an expanding conflict. The Bush administration is hoping that the North Korean government implodes under the pressure. But the leaders of North Korea are determined to resist the full recolonization of their country. They have had in place what they call an army first policy since the cold counter-revolutions overthrew the Soviet Union, East Germany and the other Eastern European governments between 1989-1991. The ever-vapid bourgeois liberal critics of Bushs war in Iraq condemn the White House for being bogged down in Iraq and, thus, unable to deal with the real nuclear threat threat from North Korea. This position badly misleads progressive anti-Bush public opinion. Not only is North Korea the victim and not the aggressor, but U.S. imperialism and its military collosus will certainly climb the escalation ladder if North Korea takes additional steps in its own defense.

3 north korean war leads to extinction

Africa News 99 (October 25, LN)

If there is one place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and probably reduce earth to a huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. Ever since the end of the savage three-year Korean war in the early 1950s, military tension between the hard-line communist north and the American backed South Korea has remained dangerously high. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. A foreign visitor to either Pyongyong in the North or Seoul in South Korea will quickly notice that the divided country is always on maximum alert for any eventuality. North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has never forgiven the US for coming to the aid of South Korea during the Korean war. She still regards the US as an occupation force in South Korea and wholly to blame for the non-reunification of the country. North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist" America and its "running dog" South Korea. The DPRK is one of the most secretive countries in the world where a visitor is given the impression that the people's hatred for the US is absolute while the love for their government is total. Whether this is really so, it is extremely difficult to conclude. In the DPRK, a visitor is never given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of their country. No visitor moves around alone without government escort. The American government argues that its presence in South Korea was because of the constant danger of an invasion from the north. America has vast economic interests in South Korea. She points out that the north has dug numerous tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans. She also accuses the north of violating South Korean territorial waters. Early this year, a small North Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in fishing nets. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a military spying mission. However, the intension of the alleged intrusion will probably never be known because the craft's crew were all found with fatal gunshot wounds to their heads in what has been described as suicide pact to hide the truth of the mission. The US mistrust of the north's intentions is so deep that it is no secret that today Washington has the largest concentration of soldiers and weaponry of all descriptions in south Korea than anywhere else in the World, apart from America itself. Some of the armada that was deployed in the recent bombing of Iraq and in Operation Desert Storm against the same country following its invasion of Kuwait was from the fleet permanently stationed on the Korean Peninsula. It is true too that at the moment the North/South Korean border is the most fortified in the world. The border line is littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles and is constantly patrolled by warplanes from both sides. It is common knowledge that America also keeps an eye on any military movement or build-up in the north through spy satellites. The DPRK is said to have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of various weapons. Although the DPRK regards herself as a developing country, she can however be classified as a super-power in terms of military might. The DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range missiles. Last year, for example, she test-fired a medium range missile over Japan, an action that greatly shook and alarmed the US, Japan and South Korea. The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. There have also been fears that she was planning to test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. Naturally, the world is anxious that military tension on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse on earth. It is therefore significant that the American government announced a few days ago that it was moving towards normalising relations with North Korea.

_________________

***UNIQUENESS

U CTBT Obama Pushing

U OBAMA WILL PUSH CTBT

GLOBAL SECURITY NEWSWIRE 5-7-2009 http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/siteservices/print_friendly.php?ID=nw_20090507_3983

On Tuesday, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller told a U.N. gathering in New York that the Obama administration "will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty." Plans are also in the works to "launch a diplomatic effort to bring on board the other states whose ratifications are required for the treaty to enter into force," she said.

U OBAMA WILL AGRESSIVELY PURSUE CTBT RATIFICATION

THE NEW REPUBLIC 4-29-2009

Now, Obama is trying to reverse that legacy and Bring Back Arms Control, on the idea that Washington's participation in cooperative efforts will build goodwill and legitimacy for a collective response to global proliferation. This month, he promised to push "immediately and aggressively" for ratification of the CTBT; negotiate deeper, binding arms reductions with the Russians; and begin work on a global ban on the production of fissile material. So how are conservatives planning to prevent this counterrevolution?

U OBAMA WILL PUSH CTBT JAPAN PROVES

BBC 4-27-2009

Nakasone welcomed the Obama administration's forward-looking stance towards ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He voiced his expectation that Washington will ratify the CTBT before the 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

U OBAMAS STATEMENTS SHOW CTBT WILL BE A PRIORITY

RUSSIA AND CIS MILITARY NEWSWIRE 4-23-2009

Gorbachev speculated on "whether it could be considered realistic that ultimately one country might remain with an amount of conventional weapons nearly surpassing the arsenals of all other countries together, that is, that this country might have absolute military dominance in the world."

"I would like to be sincere: Such a situation would be an insurmountable obstacle to ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

Therefore, if we do not bring up the issue of demilitarization of global politics, the reduction of nuclear budgets, the termination of the development of new types of weapons, and the prevention of the militarization of outer space, all the talk about a nuclear-free world will remain empty," he said.

Judging by U.S. President Barack Obama's recent statements, "the possibility that the U.S. could ratify the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty looks realistic, and this would be an important step ahead, especially in combination with the new agreement on strategic weapons between the U.S. and Russia," he said.

U OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUSHING FOR CTBT RATIFICATION IN US AND WORLDWIDE


India, June 10 -- The United States hopes to launch a diplomatic effort to persuade countries like India, Pakistan and Israel to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and thus bring it into force, President Barack Obama's new trouble-shooter for non-proliferation said in Washington on Tuesday.

Testifying before the Senate foreign relations committee, Ellen Tauscher, former Democrat congresswoman from California, said if confirmed for the post of undersecretary for arms control and international security, she would work towards a number of nonproliferation goals of which one was the ratification of CTBT. "I share the administration's commitment to obtaining the Senate's advice and consent to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to launch a diplomatic effort to bring states that have not signed the treaty on board so that it can be brought into force," she said in the latter part of her testimony. So far, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the US have not ratified CTBT.

U CTBT Senate

U NEW SENATE APPROACH WILL OVERCOME CURRENT OBJECTIONS TO CTBT RATIFICATION


When it came to the CTBT, Tauscher's primary concern was to first persuade the US Senate to ratify the treaty. Though the CTBT was signed by then President Bill Clinton, the Senate rejected the treaty in a 51-48 vote in October 1999. Clearly conscious of that earlier humiliation, Tauscher repeatedly told the senators she intended to "work closely with you and your staffs, to ease concerns, especially as they relate to compliance and verification." She also spoke of finding means to assure them the US had the technical ability to replicate a nuclear explosion "without the need for an actual test."

U CTBT Will Pass

U POLITICAL PROSPECTS FOR CTBT ARE GOOD



Renew the Drive for CTBT Ratification

Improved Political Prospects for Ratification

And finally, the political prospects for CTBT

ratification have drastically improved. In 1999,

a president who favored CTBT ratification

confronted a Senate controlled by the opposition

party, many of whose members mistrusted the

administrations positions on national security

issues and questioned the commander in chiefs

fitness for office, particularly in the wake of

impeachment proceedings. For the past eight

years, while the Senate has at times been controlled by the Democrats, it has

always worked with an administration opposed to CTBTratification. For the first

time since former president Bill Clinton signed the CTBT in 1996, 2009 marks a

significant departure: the United States has a president and a significant Senate

majority that can be expected to strongly favor ratification.

U CTBT WILL PASS NOW




Improved Political Prospects for Ratification

And finally, the political prospects for CTBT

ratification have drastically improved. In 1999,

a president who favored CTBT ratification

confronted a Senate controlled by the opposition

party, many of whose members mistrusted the

administrations positions on national security

issues and questioned the commander in chiefs

fitness for office, particularly in the wake of

impeachment proceedings. For the past eight

years, while the Senate has at times been controlled by the Democrats, it has

always worked with an administration opposed to CTBTratification. For the first

time since former president Bill Clinton signed the CTBT in 1996, 2009 marks a

significant departure: the United States has a president and a significant Senate

majority that can be expected to strongly favor ratification.

U CTBT WILL PASS POLITICAL REASONS FOR PREVIOUS OPPOSITION NO LONGER EXIST



It is instructive to look back at the 1999 Senate vote rejecting CTBT

ratification. Every Senate Democrat voted in favor of the CTBT, with the

exception of Senator Robert Byrd, who voted present only to register his

procedural anger that such an important treaty was voted upon following a mere

three days of debate on the Senate floor. Four moderate Republicans broke from

their party to vote in favor of CTBT ratification. Of those four, only Senator

Arlen Specter remains in the Senate today. The circumstances leading up to the

Senates rejection of the CTBT have been exhaustively detailed elsewhere.11

Nonetheless, any fair analysis of the opposition of Senate Republicans to the

CTBT will acknowledge the role played by raw politics. Put simply, Senate

Republicans were angry at Clinton, in part for his success in evading an

impeachment conviction earlier in 1999 stemming from the Monica Lewinsky

scandal. That anger poisoned relations between the administration and

congressional Republican leadership. Some Republicans refused to accept

Clinton as a legitimate commander in chief, owing to his decision to sit out

the Vietnam War and actions early in his presidency relating to gays in the

military and the peacekeeping mission in Somalia.

The CTBT rejection by the Senate was the first rejection of a major

international treaty since the League of Nations accord following World War I.

Any serious campaign for a renewed bid for Senate ratification must address such

key issues as verifiability and whether the United States can maintain a reliable

and credible nuclear arsenal in the absence of future tests. A Senate debate on

CTBT ratification under an Obama presidency will be focused exclusively on

these issues, with domestic politics and personal animosities largely out of the

picture.

U POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR CTBT DEFENSE SECRETARY



In response to a question following a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace in October 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also

expressed his support for CTBT ratification so long as adequate verification

measures are in place.13

U POLITICAL STARS HAVE ALIGNED FOR CTBT RATIFICATION



The political circumstances for CTBT ratification, therefore, are ripe: a

Democrat, with the first clear majority of the U.S. popular vote since Jimmy

Carter in 1976, occupies the White House, while Senate Democrats enjoy a

59-seat majority, the largest margin of power since 1980. Obamas national

security team should keep in mind that the international community will not

wait indefinitely for the United States to move on CTBT ratification. Should

another five years come and pass without any U.S. movement, a nation like

China may choose to end its nuclear testing moratorium. A test by any nation

could trigger a domino effect, leading to the quick collapse of the decade-old

informal moratorium of the P-5 weapons states on nuclear testing.

The time to move is now.

U CTBT WILL PASS NEW DEVELOPMENTS WILL CHANGE OPPOSITION

GLOBAL SECURITY NEWSWIRE 4-20-2009 http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090420_9472.php

The treaty's opponents "don't have to say they changed their mind. They can say there's new evidence that we have, and on the basis of new evidence" they could support the pact, said Shultz, top U.S. diplomat during the Reagan administration. Republicans "might have been right voting against it some years ago, but they would be right voting for it now, based on these new facts," he said.

More effective detection technologies have been deployed over the last 10 years, he said, noting that the system detected North Korea's small 2006 nuclear test detonation.

In addition, the United States has established a new system since 1999 to certify the reliability and security of its nuclear weapons, according to Shultz, who has joined other U.S. statesmen in advocating eventual global nuclear disarmament (see GSN, April 17). That negates the need for test blasts that would be prohibited by the treaty, he said.

"These are new pieces of information that are very important and that should be made available to the Senate," Shultz added.

The United States is among 44 nations that must ratify the treaty before it can enter into force. Nine nations have yet to sign on -- China, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea and the United States (Charles Hanley, Associated Press/Google News, April 17).

U CTBT Indonesia

U INDONESIAS CONDITIONAL SUPPORT STRENGHTENS CHANCES FOR CONGRESSIONAL PASSAGE

UPI 6-9-09

Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment, suggested that the announcement from Indonesia could remove concerns from U.S. officials that if the United States moves to ratify the CTBT, then no other country would.

"Indonesia's commitment to ratifying the CTBT after the United States sends an important signal to two key audiences," Mathews said in a statement.

"It should reassure those in Congress who fear that even if the United States ratifies that no one else will, and it sends a clear message to other holdout states that the era of stalemate is over."

U CTBT Votes

U OBAMA HAS THE VOTES TO PASS THE CTBT



The 1999 vote fell short of an absolute majority, much less the two-thirds

majority required for treaty ratification under the U.S. Constitution. This failure

undercut traditional U.S. leadership on nuclear nonproliferation issues, and

offered an easy justification for China to continue to refuse to ratify the CTBT, as

well as for India and Pakistan to avoid signing the treaty altogether. An

announcement in Obamas first year in office that he will call on the Senate to

initiate the consideration of the CTBT by holding the appropriate hearings over

the next year, with the goal of scheduling a ratification vote prior to the end of his

first term in 2012, will send an unmistakable signal that the United States

is once again committed to multilateral, rules-based cooperation with the

international community to advance mutual interests. It will reenergize a

flagging nonproliferation regime and offer the United States important leverage

on key challenges like Iran and North Korea. With a healthy majority of

Democratic senators in place, and close relationships with key moderate

Republicans, Obama is within reach of the 67 votes necessary to secure

ratification, and accomplish a significant foreign policy and national security goal.

U CTBT GOP

U CTBT WILL PASS GOP SUPPORTS IT



Not only do Democrats control both the presidency and the Senate today, but

a number of influential Republicans have expressed a willingness to take another

look at the nuclear test ban treaty. GOP presidential nominee McCain, who

easily could have remained silent on the issue during the 2008 campaign, instead

went out of his way to raise it in the context of a major speech on U.S.

nonproliferation strategy:

As president, I will pledge to continue Americas current moratorium on testing, but

also begin a dialogue with our allies, and with the U.S. Senate, to identify ways we

can move forward to limit testing in a verifiable manner that does not undermine

the security or viability of our nuclear deterrent. This would include taking another

look at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to see what can be done to overcome

the shortcomings that prevented it from entering into force.12

U CTBT Democrats

U WILL PASS DEMOCRATS WILL SUPPORT



A Roadmap for Securing Senate Ratification

What are the likely prospects if the Senate was to hold another vote on CTBT

ratification during the Obama administration?We can start from the proposition

that all 59 Senate Democrats will vote to ratify the CTBT because 1) they

believe in the merits of a global nuclear test ban, and 2) they will want to

support their president.14 As a result, nine Republican yes votes would be needed

to ensure the 67 votes necessary to secure ratification under the constitution.

U Obama Political Capital

U POLITICAL CAPITAL HIGH NOW PUBLIC APPROVAL KEY

SF CHRONICLE 4-26-2009 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6392671.html

Republicans marvel at his poll numbers. The polling also, according to Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, bears a striking resemblance to former President Reagans: Obama enjoys huge personal approval, even among many Republicans, with 73 percent of those polled saying they view him favorably. At the same time, many express skepticism about his policies, especially on deficit spending.

Polls also show that party polarization is more intense than ever, but Obama has demography on his side, said John Kenneth White, a professor of politics at Catholic University.

The old Reagan majority, which was white, middle-class, suburban and married with kids at home, now gets you 46 percent of the electorate, which is what McCain got, White said.

Facing an economic downturn early in his first term, Reagan didnt panic, White said. People sensed there was a crisis, and they were willing to give him time. So while he took a beating in 1982, they werent willing to give up on him or Reaganomics, and I think the public is more willing to accord Obama time than a lot of people think.

Upcoming battles

Job approval ratings are the equivalent of presidential capital. They are a bellwether of Obamas ability to enact his agenda and the dangers that could shred his presidency. Pivotal battles lie just ahead: Action on health care and climate will shift this summer to Congress. Pakistan is growing more unstable by the day, and liberal discontent is surfacing over Obamas escalation of the Afghanistan war without an exit strategy.

U OBAMA IS STRONG POLITICALLY


Its actually been a pretty fruitful 100 days, said former Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican and former top GOP political strategist. The gig on him is hes trying to do too much, but from those criteria, hes doing well and his numbers are still very, very strong. You can pick apart his policies, which I would, but we had a campaign, and basically he said what hes going to do, and thats what hes doing.

A former top GOP aide in Congress and the Bush White House put it more starkly: His numbers are so good, hes more than a president, hes like a rock star.

UIL OBAMA HAS TO JUGGLE LOTS OF BALLS HIS POLITICAL CAPITAL IS ON THE BRINK

ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH 4-29-2009

Obama has risks ahead, among them managing a war in Afghanistan that now bears his imprint and spending political capital for the costly cap-and-trade system he wants to reduce greenhouse gases.

What lies ahead for Obama, says Smith, is a twin political challenge: keeping House liberals "on the short leash" while appealing to Senate Republicans he could well need for his far-reaching reforms.

U Obama Public

U OBAMAS POLITICALLY STRONG PARTY LINE AND PUBLIC SUPPORT

FOXNEWS.COM 4-26-2009 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/24/days-obama-image-strong-public-questions-policies/

Obama's communications skills are an asset historians say has not ebbed since the 2008 campaign and have allowed him to push economic policies that many voters and lawmakers consider drastic.

Those policies have alienated many Republicans on Capitol Hill and have led to criticism that Obama has trampled on his pledge of bipartisanship.But the power of the president's persona, perhaps combined with the urgency of the times, has helped him keep his own party in line. And, according to polls, Americans are giving their young president the benefit of the doubt.

U POLITICAL CAPITAL HIGH NOW PUBLIC APPROVAL KEY


Republicans marvel at his poll numbers. The polling also, according to Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, bears a striking resemblance to former President Reagans: Obama enjoys huge personal approval, even among many Republicans, with 73 percent of those polled saying they view him favorably. At the same time, many express skepticism about his policies, especially on deficit spending.

Polls also show that party polarization is more intense than ever, but Obama has demography on his side, said John Kenneth White, a professor of politics at Catholic University.

The old Reagan majority, which was white, middle-class, suburban and married with kids at home, now gets you 46 percent of the electorate, which is what McCain got, White said.

Facing an economic downturn early in his first term, Reagan didnt panic, White said. People sensed there was a crisis, and they were willing to give him time. So while he took a beating in 1982, they werent willing to give up on him or Reaganomics, and I think the public is more willing to accord Obama time than a lot of people think.

Upcoming battles

Job approval ratings are the equivalent of presidential capital. They are a bellwether of Obamas ability to enact his agenda and the dangers that could shred his presidency. Pivotal battles lie just ahead: Action on health care and climate will shift this summer to Congress. Pakistan is growing more unstable by the day, and liberal discontent is surfacing over Obamas escalation of the Afghanistan war without an exit strategy.

U OBAMAS AGENDA WILL SUCCEED PUBLIC SUPPORT

BLOOMBERG.COM 4-29-2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=apfL8Tl_aPzk&refer=home

Popular President

Obamas ability to get his agenda through will be bolstered by a 63 percent job-approval rating, higher than those of his recent predecessors, according to a poll released April 23 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Added to that, stocks have climbed, with the Standard & Poors 500 Index rebounding about 30 percent from a 12-year low on March 9, on speculation that government efforts to fix the banking system will pull the nation out of the recession.

Brink CTBT

BRINK CONGRESS DIVIDED ON CTBT


WASHINGTON -- A congressionally mandated expert panel yesterday reported that its members were divided over whether the U.S. Senate should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, but it unanimously advised the White House to clarify specific activities banned by the accord (see GSN, April 22).

NU CTBT WILL FACE SERIOUS PARTISAN OPPOSITION


However, if the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States is any indication, the White House might anticipate some partisan wrangling over the issue when it hits Capitol Hill.

"About half of our members disagree with ratification of the CTBT and, indeed, I believe some of them will be prepared to testify against the CTBT when it comes to the Senate," William Perry, who chaired the panel, said at a press conference yesterday.

Perry was U.S. defense secretary when President Bill Clinton signed the test ban treaty in September 1996. However, the Senate in 1999 voted against ratification, with a number of lawmakers citing concern that the pact could not be adequately verified.

__________

***LINKS

Link Homeless / Mentally Ill

Maine proves that care for the homeless mentally ill is controversial and spurs partisanship

Portland Press Herald 6-20-2001

The Maine State Housing Authority has backed a bill, sponsored by Sen. Beverly Daggett of Augusta, that would raise $20 million in bonds to ease the housing crunch. Revenue from the bond would be used for grants and loans to renovate existing housing, create new housing in areas where supply is tight, and encourage development of affordable housing throughout the state. Nearly $12 million would be set aside to build transitional and permanent housing for the homeless, victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and people suffering from mental illnesses.

Unfortunately, the bond proposal has been ensnared in regional and partisan politics. No less than four separate plans - each of which substantially reduces the bond's size - have been substituted for Daggett's original bill.

Even worse, the bond proposal - in whatever form it takes - may never reach voters. Thanks to budget feuds between the House of Representatives and the Senate, it might not muster the two-thirds vote needed to send it to referendum.

Today is the statutory deadline for ending the current legislative session. Lawmakers should not go home until they take the steps necessary to ensure that all of their constituents have a home to go to.

Stigma proves you cant win on homelessness

Sarasota Herald-Tribune November 1999

Jones alone should not bear the burden for the impasse. Too many people view the homeless the way Ebenezer Scrooge saw the needy, as part of a surplus population. So, there's little political capital to be gained by advocating help for the homeless.

Jones fulfills a need in society, offering a haven, with few restrictions, to those who cannot keep a roof above their heads. Government often doesn't address the problems of homeless people unless they become public nuisances or lawbreakers.

Dealing with homelessness costs political capital

St. Louis Post-Dispatch October 1991

NEW YORK Whenever anyone comes up with a plan to house the homeless, the response is NIMBY! NIMBY! NIMBY! NIMBY! That's short for Not In My Backyard. It's become America's ruling acronym. And so when Mayor David Dinkins announced a plan to put smaller shelters for single adults throughout New York City, high-pitched cries of ''NIMBY!'' rang out from Staten Island to Queens. The speaker of the City Council even likened homeless people to a contagious disease. He backtracked from his ill-chosen words, but the sentiment behind them was epidemic. No wonder. If empty shelves became a symbol for the failure of communism in the Soviet Union, people living in cardboard boxes are the most visible sign that America is on the skids. They are living symbols of an economy that, no matter what the Astigmatism President says, is a mess. Soon 1,000 men may be sleeping each night on cots in the armory in Washington Heights. There are sections for the mentally ill and those with TB. The predators range throughout. Picture 1,000 men in a single room on cots, the dormitory from hell: the mutterers, the shouters, the sick all hacking away. Dickens could write it. We can't imagine it. They live it. And when they do not want to go there, when they prefer a suite on the A train, we call them crazy. Someday some leader will admit that it is just the opposite, that only a lunatic would want to spend the night in the city's biggest shelters. The mayor took a step in that direction by announcing that he was attempting to replace them with smaller facilities. That is half of a good idea. Permanent housing is the answer, on the same sites now slated for shelters: Why waste time or money on the interim step? The answer to the problem of homelessness has always been housing, not cots. The mayor would have to expend plenty of political capital to pull off a significant response to this problem. But if he is fated, as most people believe, to be a one-term mayor, he might as well go out in a blaze of glory. He could act like something we rarely see anymore: a Democrat. He could make sweeping changes in social policy because they are morally right. And he could also teach people that NIMBY is a meaningless acronym. There is nary a neighborhood that doesn't have someone sleeping beneath the elevated tracks or in a corner of the playground. In fact, the obsession with our own backyard is the best way to sell housing for the homeless. See the little lady with the shopping cart? See the man urinating in the gutter? (I'm baffled by those who argue that this proves insanity; I wonder what they would do without bathrooms?) Those people you see every day: we are going to build those people a place to live. It has gone out of fashion, doing the right thing. And it used to be simpler. When Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty more than a quarter-century ago, it had the flavor of foreign aid, a mission to a land we knew only from photographs, in the gullies of the Appalachians and the tenements of Harlem. Today that war is more difficult and less photogenic. Above all, it no longer has the safety of distance. It is right in our own backyard. Copyright 1991 New York Times News Service

Link Community Mental Health

Democrats oppose new funding for community mental health

The American Prospect 3/12/01

Where does Greenspan's desertion leave the Democrats? In a predicament of their own making. A vigorous Democratic Party, one whose business in life was promoting the social and economic well-being of the country, would never have gotten into bed with Alan Greenspan on this issue in the first place. Whatever his talents as a steward of U.S. monetary policy, he has a history of far-right libertarian views about the appropriate role of government spending for social purposes. Yet ever since the prospect of surpluses first appeared, many Democrats have been promoting a line congenial to Greenspan's point of view. Rather than pointing to the nation's unmet needs for health care, child care, repair of dilapidated schools, drug treatment facilities, community mental health facilities, and myriad other social programs, many Democrats became as fixated as Republican-style fiscal conservatives on paying down the debt.

How did the Democrats arrive at a position that is so grossly counter to the party's New Deal history and to the country's current needs? Is it really appropriate for the more progressive of the two major parties to be espousing the policies of 1930s anti-New Deal Republicans? How did the party of FDR arrive at this pass?

By 1994, after decades of right-wing demagoguery lambasting government programs had helped produce the Clinton health care debacle, Democratic politicians had become ashamed and afraid to advocate openly for social infrastructure programs, even when the need for them was obvious. Since then, the most a typical Democrat has dared to propose are cautious little programs that only nibble at the edges of the huge problems we face. But even these nibbles would be made more difficult by tax cuts, so the Democrats' instinct is still to oppose them.

Link Institutions

Plan would face massive political opposition institutional support proves

The Richmond Times Dispatch 9-21-97

Dr. Timothy A. Kelly left Virginia with some new ideas for treating the mentally ill, enormous problems at the state's mental hospitals, and possible solutions that will cost state taxpayers millions of dollars to carry out.

The state hopes to pare down some of its strapped institutions and use the savings to pay for community-based services, but it will need ''bridge money'' to put the strategy in motion, said Kelly, who resigned last week after 3 1/2 years as commissioner of mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse services.

''There needs to be new funding for services in the community just to get the process rolling,'' he said.

Kelly's department has given an unofficial estimate of $ 190.5 million to pay for needed community services in the next two years, but the alternative may be more more costly programs to modernize state institutions, hire more staff, and improve treatment services to satisfy federal pressure to improve conditions at the aging facilities.

Since taking office, the Allen administration has not proposed any new money for community services to the mentally ill who would be released from state institutions. Nor did community programs receive any of the savings from the administration cuts of more than 1,200 jobs in the state system.

Instead, Kelly focused on ''system reform,'' an approach aimed at moving the state toward a managed care approach for treating mental illness, retardation, and substance abuse problems.

The reforms include experiments for setting financing priorities for public services; measuring the effects of treatment to require greater accountability by community service programs; and increasing family and patient involvement in treatment plans.

''If we had not done that first, if we just put more money in the system, all we would have done would have been to sustain the status quo,'' Kelly said. ''You've got to win the concept battle first.''

His successor, acting commissioner Richard E. Kellogg, will have to go beyond concepts to hard dollars when he advises a legislative committee next month on how much it will cost to make the proposed strategy work.

The joint committee was formed last year to fashion a strategy for fixing the system. The bipartisan panel is led by Sen. Joseph V. Gartlan Jr., D-Fairfax County, and Del. Franklin P. Hall, D-Richmond.

Legislators aren't sure of the true costs, but they predict that major investments will be necessary to solve the problems in a system that hasn't had a major infusion of state budget money since the late 1980s.

''I'll translate 'major investments' -- big bucks,'' said Del. Jay W. DeBoer, D-Petersburg, whose House district includes the troubled Central State Hospital. The hospital is part of an institutional complex in Dinwiddie County that is one of the region's largest employers.

''It's going to take some money to do it,'' said Del. Robert S. Bloxom, R-Accomack, a member of the House Appropriations Committee. ''You can set up a policy, but unless you have the dollars to make it happen, it's not going to happen.''

Since Allen took office, new money for community mental health services has come either from legislative initiatives or the federal Medicaid program. The legislature shot down attempts by the administration to cut millions of dollars from community services boards in 1994 and 1995, and blocked bids to close or privatize state institutions.

''If they'd had their way . . . they would have been shutting down buildings and letting people out just as fast as they possibly could and would not have reinvested the savings, which would have shifted the cost burden to local governments,'' Gartlan said. ''That got stopped in its tracks.''

Link Unions

Labor unions oppose the plan

The Times Union (Albany, NY) May 26, 2002 Sunday

Labor unions are another key group of inside-the-beltway players. Traditionally, they work to protect the interests of workers in institutions who fear that budget cuts will lead to job losses. They see expansion of community-based services as a threat because these services are mostly agency-driven and their workers are nonunion. (Nothing prevents community service workers from unionizing, though that does not seem widespread outside of New York City.)

Link Health Care

Health care reform a political minefield Clinton proves

The Economist 96 (1-27)

That leaves only the most obvious methods of containing costs: raising contributions from the young, or cutting benefits, or a combination of the two. In health care, reforms have already been introduced in some countries, and in some cases have been quite successful at containing expenditure. But that spending still varies far more between countries than seems justified by the results. It is hard to believe that the Americans, who spend 14% of their GDP on health care, get twice as much out of it as the Japanese, who spend 7%. Yet reform in this area is a political minefield, as Bill Clinton found to his cost.

Link Crime

Soft on crime label kills political capital and popularity

THE HARTFORD COURANT December 17, 2000

No politician wants to be branded "soft on crime." It's the most direct route to the unemployment line.

Driven by rising crime rates in the 1980s, Connecticut, along with many other states, took dramatic steps to ensure the safety of its people and its communities. Lawmakers strengthened the death penalty, added new crimes to the penal code, adopted harsher penalties for certain types of crimes and shifted from discretionary to mandatory sentencing, thereby increasing the minimum time spent in prison by many offenders.

Link GOP

GOP opposes new spending for mental health

American Health Line 10/1/01

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said in an

interview with the New York Times that his "strong hopes" for

passing several health care bills this year have faded in the

aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

Daschle said that lawmakers may pass a mental health parity bill

(S 543) that would require businesses that have more than 50

employees and offer mental health benefits to provide the same

level of coverage for mental and physical health services. The

legislation, which the Senate Health, Education, Labor and

Pensions Committee in August approved without opposition, last

Wednesday "suddenly drew fire" from Republicans when Democrats --

"using the need for mental health counseling arising from the

... attacks as a springboard" -- tried to schedule debate on the

bill for today. Some Republicans say that the bill will raise

the cost of health insurance by too much. On the issue of

patients' rights, Daschle said that before House and Senate

negotiators could agree on a compromise between the two chambers'

different bills, President Bush would have to "persuade" House

Republicans -- whose version of the bill is closer to Bush's

preference than is the Senate bill -- to "give ground." He said,

"Both sides have dug in. It's very hard to see how it can be

reconciled." Daschle added that prospects for a prescription

drug benefit under Medicare also have fallen into the "'maybe'

category or worse" (Clymer, New York Times, 9/30). Many

Republicans and some Democrats have said that since Sept. 11, a

drug benefit and other health issues "will need to be considered

later" (Hotakainen/McKenzie, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 9/30). "I

think our chances of getting a lot of [the Democratic agenda

passed] are greatly diminished" since the attacks, Daschle said

Link / IL Political Capital

LINK / IL POLITICAL CAPITAL

SPENDING POLITICAL CAPITAL ON NEW PRIORITIES UNDERMINES OBAMAS AGENDA

TIME MAGAZINE 4-27-2009

DILEMMA FOR OBAMA AND THE DEMS, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1894222,00.html

Certainly progress and accountability are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In striving to hit that middle ground, President Obama released the CIA interrogation memos and last week left the door open to prosecuting former Bush Administration officials who sanctioned the harsh interrogation of terror detainees. But the fact that the nation, or at least the national media, spent the next few days debating the finer points of the insult slap and waterboarding, shows how easily the search for justice can overshadow everything else. Obama is now at a juncture in his agenda where he will need to bring together as many lawmakers from both sides as he can to pass sweeping changes to the country's education, health care and environmental and energy systems. (See TIME's photos of presidential first dogs)

"The danger is that he will be forced to use his political capital on this rather than the economy, health care, cap and trade, education, immigration, etc," says James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Presidential and Congressional Studies. "It sets yet another agenda item for him in a very crowded list of priorities."

Link / IL Agenda Overload

UIL OBAMA WILL BACK OFF CONTROVERSIAL AGENDA ITEMS TO MAINTAIN FOCUS

BLOOMBERG.COM 4-29-2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=apfL8Tl_aPzk&refer=home

David Axelrod, a senior White House adviser, said that while administration officials have no interest in taking half-measures, they recognize there are limits, and we know what they are.

One example: the White House may be pushing back its goal of overhauling immigration laws. Were committed to beginning that discussion this year, said Axelrod, 54. Whether we complete that this year is another question.

On cap-and-trade, Democrats from coal-producing states want alterations to the climate-change legislation to benefit the coal, oil and gas industries.

And some party activists and labor unions are concerned Obama wont stick to his goal of creating a government- sponsored health-insurance plan to compete with private companies, in the face of opposition from insurers and Republicans.

No Filibustering

Democrats are on the verge of adopting a budget-plan tactic known as reconciliation that would prevent Republicans from blocking Obamas health plan by allowing the measure to be approved on a simple majority rather than the 60 votes needed to overcome any Republican filibuster.

Another unresolved issue is whether Obama can withstand calls to create a truth commission to explore possible human rights violations during Bushs global war on terror. The issue is so contentious that even the Democratic leadership is divided, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi among those promoting such a body and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposed.

Some of the items will almost certainly be pushed off into next year and beyond, said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Hes in this for eight years, not for 100 days or 200 days.

Obama also has a full foreign policy agenda, starting with Iraq and Afghanistan and the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran.

IL NEW ISSUES OVERLOAD OBAMA


Ultimately, the question is how many sharp knives can he juggle at once, said Donald Kettl, incoming dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. What about climate change, what about health care, what about things other than Afghanistan, the banking crisis and the economy? Can he take on anything else?

___________________

***INTERNAL LINKS

IL GOP Key

IL REACHING ACROSS THE AISLE FOR POLITICAL CONCESSIONS KEY TO OBAMAS AGENDA



Certainly progress and accountability are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In striving to hit that middle ground, President Obama released the CIA interrogation memos and last week left the door open to prosecuting former Bush Administration officials who sanctioned the harsh interrogation of terror detainees. But the fact that the nation, or at least the national media, spent the next few days debating the finer points of the insult slap and waterboarding, shows how easily the search for justice can overshadow everything else. Obama is now at a juncture in his agenda where he will need to bring together as many lawmakers from both sides as he can to pass sweeping changes to the country's education, health care and environmental and energy systems. (See TIME's photos of presidential first dogs)

IL GOVERNING FROM THE MIDDLE IS KEY TO OBAMAS AGENDA



"For Obama, there is no great plus in looking back and trying to make the Democrats' adversaries from the Bush years pay with an extra pound of flesh," says Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Independents, including those who drifted over from the GOP because of their unhappiness with the rightward turn of the party and its incompetence are not likely to resonate to attacks, and most voters want a focus on problem-solving, meaning looking to today and tomorrow, not yesterday,"

IL GOP Key

IL ALIENATING REPUBLICANS IS A DANGER TO OBAMAS AGENDA

NATIONAL REVIEW 4-28-2009

The risk Obama runs in alienating Republicans -- inflamed by his spending and his talk of prosecution of former Bush officials -- is less obvious. They are leaderless and a political rump so long as Obama keeps a strong hold on Democrats and independents. If Obama stays popular, the gap between the public's support for Obama and the Right's alienation from him may only further marginalize conservatives. But Bush learned the political cost of an aroused opposition looking for every opportunity to needle and attack.

IL Bipart Key

IL 60 VOTES KEY

USA TODAY 4-29-2009 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-29-specter_N.htm

As Congress prepares to tackle an overhaul of the nation's health care system and a proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it may be crucial for the Senate Democrats to reach 60 votes to overturn GOP-led filibusters that could block votes on bills.

IL CTBT Political Capital

UIL CTBT RATIFICATION REQUIRES POLITICAL CAPITAL ENERGY DEBATES TRADEOFF



As the historic first 100 days of President Barack Obamas

administration fly by, he faces a tsunami of advice on the key priorities he

should pursue over the next four years. Ranging from energy independence and

national health care reform to improving Americas image with the Islamic

world and revamping our foreign assistance structure, the president must decide

where to focus his scarce time, resources, and political capital. One initiative he

should strongly consider this year is calling upon the U.S. Senate to once again

take up the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to

outlaw nuclear testing around the world, even though the initiative failed in

October 1999 by a 5148 vote.

IL POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY TO CTBT RATIFICATION



The Obama administration cannot take the decision to press the Senate for

CTBT ratification before 2012 lightly. It will require a significant investment of

political capital by the president and his senior national security team during his

first term in office to closely coordinate with the Senate leadership and chairmen

of the Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence Committees. The

risks of failure are considerable: a second rejection by the Senate would likely

doom the nuclear test ban treaty to oblivion and risk encouraging other states to

end their informal moratoria on nuclear testing. So why should Obama forge

ahead with a determined campaign for CTBT ratification?

Revitalizing the nonproliferation regime must be at the top of any

presidents to-do list.

POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY TO CTBT RATIFICATION

GOLDBERG 2009 SENIOR CORRESPONDENT AMERICAN PROSPECT

FEEL THE TREATY-MENTUM, 4-8, http://www.undispatch.com/node/8036

A pair of developments this week signal that the Obama administration is ready to put some political capital behind campaign promises to secure American ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

On the former, Walter Pincus reports that Vice President Joe Biden will shepherd the CTBT through the Senate. Ratification requires 67 votes and the last time the CTBT came up for a vote in 1999 it fell more than a dozen votes short of passage. The political dynamics are a bit different this time around, though, and the treaty stands a much better chance of ratification. As Matt Yglesias notes, American ratification of the CTBT would strengthen an the international non-proliferation regime and put meat some behind President Obama's recent call for global disarmament.

Meanwhile, at a meeting of the Arctic Council earlier this week Secretary of State Clinton re-affirmed American support for UNCLOS, which establishes rules of the road for the high seas and sea beds. President Bush also supported UNCLOS, though the treaty never came up for ratification in the Senate. As Don Kraus of Citizens for Global Solutions likes to say, UNCLOS is low hanging fruit. It has wide support from across the political spectrum and from a diverse coalition of interest groups. All that's needed for ratification is a little effort on the part of the White House and Senate leadership.

It would seem that there here is reason to believe the stars are finally alligning to pass both these treaties.

IL CTBT GOP

IL POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY TO GET GOP ON BOARD



If Obama concludes that a major push on ratification of the CTBT is a wise

use of his political capital during his first term in office, he needs to prepare the

ground for 67 yes votes in the Senate, including some Republican crossover

votes. By the end of this year, Obama should deliver a major address on his

nuclear nonproliferation agenda as president. He should expound on the vision

he articulated as a candidate of a world free of nuclear weapons and how the

United States can work with others in moving toward that objective. He should

also outline the direction, if not final results, of his administrations internal

deliberations on the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, required to be completed by

early next year, and make any resulting announcement on measures to take U.S.

nuclear weapons off high-alert status and implement strategic force reductions,

possibly in conjunction with the Russian Federation. Finally, he ought to call

upon the Senate to initiate legislative proceedings to take up the CTBTwith the

aim of scheduling a floor vote by the end of his first term in office. To start that

process, Obama must call upon the relevant Senate Committees (e.g., Foreign

Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence) to launch a comprehensive series

of hearings on the CTBT and the implications of ratification for U.S. national

security interests.

IL 7 REPUBLICAN VOTES KEY TO ENSURE CTBT RATIFICATION BIDEN IS SEARCHING

THE NEW REPUBLIC 4-29-2009

While this approach doesn't hold together from a policy standpoint--witness the early Bush administration's total lack of success at stopping nuclear proliferation to Iran and North Korea--it is intuitively compelling. Obama's vision of a world where the United States gives up some of its own nuclear arsenal in order to strengthen the Non-Proliferation treaty, and then uses that goodwill to fend off proliferation in the Middle East and Northeast Asia, is far less clear-cut than Kyl's, in which we build impregnable missile defenses and keep as many nukes as possible in order threaten our enemies. Furthermore, all Kyl needs to do is hold together 34 Senate Republicans in order to win. Joe Biden, on the other hand, has been tasked with cobbling together a supermajority--which would mean picking off 7 Republicans who are not yet willing to vote for the treaty. If he can't, John Bolton'srevolution may yet be secure.

IL CTBT Specific Senators

IL LUGAR IS KEY TO CTBT RATIFICATION



The key player on the Republican side will be the ranking member on the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard B. Lugar (R-IN). In

1999, he voted against CTBT ratification. Given the close relationship,

however, that he has forged with both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden

and the strong legacy he has sought to build on internationalist leadership on

U.S. foreign policy, Lugar can be expected to give

a fair hearing to administration arguments in

favor of CTBT ratification. Should he choose to

reverse his previous vote on CTBT ratification,

he may provide political cover to bring along

other Republican votes to secure ratification.

IL JON KYL KEY TO CTBT RATIFICATION



Opposition to the CTBT will be led by

Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a hardliner on

arms control and national security issues who

closely coordinates with key conservatives such

as John Bolton and James Schlesinger. Kyls goal

will be to hold 34 of the Republican Senators together against the CTBT. The

key to success, therefore, lies in pitching CTBT ratification as a serious national

security debate to avoid it becoming a victim of partisan politics. Particular focus

should be placed on those Republican Senators who will be exposed to this

debate for the first time: eighteen Republican Senators in the current Congress

were not members in 1999 and thus will evaluate the merits of CTBTratification

with a fresh perspective.

IL US Ratification Key

IL US RATIFICATION KEY TO WORLD


Tauscher was clearly focussed on the challenge of getting her own Senate to ratify the treaty. US ratification, she argued, was crucial as that would be "one way to persuade countries to permanently end nuclear testing and curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons."

IL US RATIFICATION LEADS TO INDONESIAN SUPPORT FOR CTBT

UPI 6-9-09

Indonesia's foreign minister Monday said that if the United States ratifies the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Indonesia would follow suit.

Hassan Wirajuda, Indonesia foreign minister, addressed the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington and announced that if the United States ratifies the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Indonesia would also take steps to ratify the treaty, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reported.

There are currently nine countries that have yet to ratify the CTBT including the United States, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, North Korea and Indonesia.

IMPACT IL RATIFICATION CAUSES INDIA PAKISTAN AND CHINA TO RATIFY


Perry countered that after his own "considerable" consultations on the matter abroad, "I'm persuaded that our [ratification would put] substantial pressure on India and Pakistan and China to ratify, and I'd be willing to bet that their ratification would follow ours if we do it in a reasonable time. And that, itself, would be a substantial benefit to U.S. security."

( ) us ratification causes other countries to get on board

Economist 7 (March 10, Lexis)

Senate approval alone would not bring the CTBT into force. That needs all 44 countries with nuclear reactors on their territory (and thus the potential to build bombs) to ratify. North Korea, India and Pakistan have not even signed the treaty. Seven other foot-draggers, including China, Iran, Israel and Egypt, like America, have signed but not ratified. Keeping America's testing option open makes it harder to argue that other states should abandon theirs.

IL Now Key Time

IL NOW KEY TIME FOR CTBT RATIFICATION FAILURE TO PASS DOOMS THE TREATY



The Obama administration cannot take the decision to press the Senate for

CTBT ratification before 2012 lightly. It will require a significant investment of

political capital by the president and his senior national security team during his

first term in office to closely coordinate with the Senate leadership and chairmen

of the Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence Committees. The

risks of failure are considerable: a second rejection by the Senate would likely

doom the nuclear test ban treaty to oblivion and risk encouraging other states to

end their informal moratoria on nuclear testing. So why should Obama forge

ahead with a determined campaign for CTBT ratification?

Revitalizing the nonproliferation regime must be at the top of any


IL THIS YEAR KEY TO CTBT RATIFICATION OBAMA WILL REQUIRE INTENSE POLITICAL EFFORT

HUFFINGTON POST 4-24-2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-chyba/obamas-nuclear-realism_b_190981.html

The NPT was extended, but the CTBT has not entered into force; it remains un-ratified by the United States and eight other crucial countries. In Prague, President Obama pledged to pursue Senate consent to ratify the CTBT. That step alone will likely take a year or more, and demand a great deal of scientific review and political effort.

_____________

***IMPACTS

Impact Proliferation

IMPACT CTBT KEY TO REVIVE NON-PROLIFERATION AND MAINTAIN CREDIBILITY OF THE NPT



Obama has assumed office at a time when the nuclear nonproliferation regime

is seriously tattered. Iran is making significant progress on an ostensibly civilian

uranium enrichment program that can be quickly converted into a weapons

program. North Korea has quadrupled the size of its fissile material stockpile

since 2002 and joined the nuclear club in 2006 with a nuclear weapons test. The

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the lynchpin of global efforts to halt

the spread of nuclear weapons, is under heavy strain. Revitalizing the

nonproliferation regime, and reducing the odds that a terrorist group can seize

a nuclear weapon for use in a terrorist attack, must be at the top of any


During his presidential campaign, Obama often spoke of changing the U.S.

approach to national security challenges by not being aggressively unilateral or

overly reliant on the use of military force as the first option, calling upon the

United States to rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary

to meet common challenges and confront common threats.1 He described

the prospect of a terrorist group detonating a

nuclear weapon in a U.S. city as the gravest

danger we face.2 For that reason, following

in the footsteps of such statesmen like Sam

Nunn and Henry Kissinger, Obama explicitly

endorsed the vision of a world free of nuclear

weapons, achieved in a comprehensive and

verifiable manner.3 A concrete means to that

goal, as well as the opportunity to repair the

image of the United States around the world,

is for Obama to call upon the Senate this

year to make another effort to ratify the CTBT

by the end of his first term in office.

( ) ctbt solves prolif- multiple reasons

increases us non proliferation credibility

Shalikashvili 1 (John M., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 93-97, Washington Post, January 6, Lexis)

After the Senate voted against the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in October 1999, I was asked to recommend steps to build bipartisan support for U.S. ratification. After nearly a year as a special adviser to the president and the secretary of state, I am impressed by how much common ground can be found through quiet, nonpartisan discussions. There is broad bipartisan agreement that nuclear proliferation ranks among the gravest threats to national security. The test ban treaty is no panacea for this problem, but I believe it can contribute to a comprehensive solution. Banning nuclear explosions places significant technical constraints on nuclear weapon development, especially of advanced designs that are more efficient and easier to deliver. The test ban treaty is also an integral part of the political bargain that the United States made in 1995 to gain permanent extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons requires a web of restraints. If one component is damaged, others will be weakened. Our credibility, our leadership in any nonproliferation effort, and the long-term viability of the non-proliferation treaty itself would be strengthened by our ratification of the test ban treaty, and weakened without it.

key to the npt that checks proliferation

Krieger and Olsen 99 (David and Jane, November, pg. http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1999/11/00_krieger_ctbt-vital.htm)

In fact, the US has more to gain and less to lose from ratification than any other country. We have already conducted more than 1,000 nuclear weapons tests Because of advanced technologies, we can test systems by methods that do not require actual nuclear explosions. And it clearly is in everyones self-interest to contain proliferation and to stop all current nuclear nations from resuming testing. US failure to ratify could be seen as betrayal by nations agreeing to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which went into effect in 1970 and was extended indefinitely in 1995. At the time of the indefinite extension of the NPT, the nuclear weapons states promised to achieve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. If the US does not fulfill that promise, party nations could conclude that they need not be bound by the NPT.

deters weapons development that sparks prolif and is key to international cooperation that halts prolif

Medalia 5 (Jonathan, specialist in national defense, June 28, pg. http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Oct/RS20351.pdf)

Many see halting nuclear proliferation as critical. Some link the CTBT and nonproliferation as follows. (1) The treaty will make it harder for nations to develop advanced nuclear weapons. (2) The parties to the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), including the United States, pledged in Article VI to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament ... When the parties decided in 1995 to extend the treaty indefinitely, they agreed to complete CTBT negotiations by 1996. These steps were a quid pro quo, proponents stress: nuclear weapon states agreed to work to halt testing; nonnuclear weapon states agreed to forgo nuclear weapons. (3) The Administration views international cooperation as crucial to U.S. efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction (WMD). CTBT supporters believe this nation could more readily secure such cooperation by ratifying the CTBT. At the May 2005 NPT review conference, Ambassador Ronaldo Sardenberg of Brazil said, Brazil has consistently called for the universalization of the CTBT, which we consider to be an essential element of the disarmament and nonproliferation regime.1 Supporters fear that A U.S. decision to resume testing to produce new nuclear weapons would ... dramatically undermine the NPT.2

IMPACT CTBT KEY TO NON-PROLIFERATION LEVERAGE



The 1999 vote fell short of an absolute majority, much less the two-thirds

majority required for treaty ratification under the U.S. Constitution. This failure

undercut traditional U.S. leadership on nuclear nonproliferation issues, and

offered an easy justification for China to continue to refuse to ratify the CTBT, as

well as for India and Pakistan to avoid signing the treaty altogether. An

announcement in Obamas first year in office that he will call on the Senate to

initiate the consideration of the CTBT by holding the appropriate hearings over

the next year, with the goal of scheduling a ratification vote prior to the end of his

first term in 2012, will send an unmistakable signal that the United States

is once again committed to multilateral, rules-based cooperation with the

international community to advance mutual interests. It will reenergize a

flagging nonproliferation regime and offer the United States important leverage

on key challenges like Iran and North Korea. With a healthy majority of

Democratic senators in place, and close relationships with key moderate

Republicans, Obama is within reach of the 67 votes necessary to secure

ratification, and accomplish a significant foreign policy and national security goal.

Impact Proliferation Now Key

IMPACT TIMEFRAME NOW IS THE KEY TIME FOR RATIFICATION NEW TEST WILL CAUSE A DOMINO EFFECT OF PROLIFERATION



The political circumstances for CTBT ratification, therefore, are ripe: a

Democrat, with the first clear majority of the U.S. popular vote since Jimmy

Carter in 1976, occupies the White House, while Senate Democrats enjoy a

59-seat majority, the largest margin of power since 1980. Obamas national

security team should keep in mind that the international community will not

wait indefinitely for the United States to move on CTBT ratification. Should

another five years come and pass without any U.S. movement, a nation like

China may choose to end its nuclear testing moratorium. A test by any nation

could trigger a domino effect, leading to the quick collapse of the decade-old

informal moratorium of the P-5 weapons states on nuclear testing.

The time to move is now.

Impact Proliferation NPT

IMPACT CTBT RATIFICATION KEY TO US LEADERSHIP IN TH ENEXT NPT CONFERENCE



The commitment will also position the United States particularly well for the

NPT Review Conference scheduled for 2010. These review conferences, held

every five years, offer an opportunity for NPTsignatories to gather and assess the

overall health of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In the 2000 conference,

the United States agreed to seek early entry into force of the CTBT and

committed to twelve other specific steps to promote nonproliferation and

disarmament. Upon taking office the next year, the Bush administration swiftly

renounced these commitments, setting the stage for a 2005 conference viewed by

all parties involved as an unmitigated disaster. A concrete pledge by the United

States to seek CTBTratification will therefore energize the 2010 conference, and

offer Washington greater leverage to push through potential reforms it may seek

regarding the export of reprocessing and enrichment technology or automatic

sanctions against states that violate their IAEA obligations.

Impact Proliferation China

CTBT RATIFICATION SOLVES ESCALATING ARMS RACES AND DEALS WITH A HOSTILE CHINA



As Obama himself recognizes, the road to a world free of nuclear weapons must

include the entry into force of the nuclear test ban treaty. A global ban on

nuclear weapons tests is an essential step to halting the entry of new states into

the nuclear club: without the ability to demonstrate its mastery of nuclear

weapons by detonating one, no proliferator can lay claim to a credible nuclear

arsenal. Likewise, a test ban promises to halt destabilizing nuclear arms races

between existing weapons states by ceasing the development and deployment of

new types of nuclear weapons. Without the option of tests to verify their

effectiveness and reliability, a nuclear power will be hard pressed to introduce

new advanced weapons into their deterrent. Instead, an effective nuclear test

ban will more or less freeze existing nuclear arsenals at their current levels and

prevent future improvements to their explosive power or miniaturization of

warheads for missile deployment. For that reason alone, the United States,

which possesses the most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world, should be a

strong supporter of a treaty that promises to lock in the nuclear weapons status

quo. Furthermore, the CTBT entry into force would prevent China from further

advances in fielding multiple warhead ballistic missiles.10

Impact Multilateralism

IMPACT CTBT RATIFICATION NOW KEY TO SUCCESSFUL GLOBAL MULTILATERALSIM



First, a pledge to work toward CTBT ratification would help demonstrate the

administrations commitment to multilateral cooperation. The election of

Obama as the United States forty-fourth president ignited celebrations around

the world in part because it was expected to end the era of U.S. unilateralism

and cowboy diplomacy. To his credit, Bush pursued a largely diplomatic course

during his second term, especially toward the nonproliferation challenges posed

by Iran and North Korea, but it was too late to repair the image of U.S.

unilateralism. Obama offers the United States a fresh start on redefining its

international image. Even though the international community is extending a

friendly hand toward Obama and his team, the new administration may well find

that budgetary constraints or differing conceptions of shared interests will limit

other avenues of multilateral cooperation on issues like global warming or a

renewed focus on Afghanistan. It is for that reason that a concrete pledge to

work with the Senate on CTBT ratification carries so much promise.

Impact Iran / North Korea

RATIFICATION HAS MATERIAL EFFECTS ON NON-PROLIFERATION SOLVES LEVERAGE AND COOPERATION OVER IRAN AND NORTH KOREAN WEAPONS ACQUISITIONS



Senate ratification of the CTBT matters because it would be hailed as a

renewed U.S. commitment to the essential pact at the heart of the NPT. Much

of the international community, especially leading nonnuclear weapons states

like Brazil, Japan, South Africa, and Sweden, believe that the United States has

backtracked on the NPTs basic bargain contained in Article VI: in exchange for

the pledge by nonnuclear weapons states to not acquire nuclear weapons, the

United States and the four other recognized nuclear weapons powers_China,

France, Russia, and the United Kingdom_would pursue measures in good

faith to cease the nuclear arms race and achieve eventual nuclear disarmament.

Under the Clinton administration, the United States explicitly reaffirmed its

commitment to eventual nuclear disarmament at the 1995 NPT Review

Conference in exchange for the agreement of other States Parties to

indefinitely extend the NPT. Without this compromise, the NPT could have

been allowed to expire or, more likely, extended only for a fixed period. The

2000 NPT Review Conference followed up with the adoption by all States

Parties of a thirteen-step plan to pave the path for eventual general nuclear

disarmament, with the first step calling for the CTBTs early entry into force.4

In the years following the 2000 conference, however, the United States was

viewed as diverging from, and in some cases repudiating, many of those agreed

upon measures. Bush exercised the right of the United States to withdraw from the

1972 ABM Treaty, viewed by many nations as a pillar of strategic stability. The

administrations 2002 Nuclear Posture Review explicitly discussed the

circumstances under which a first use of nuclear weapons could be

contemplated, and referred to possible target nations.5 Administration officials

discussed renewed efforts on research and development of new nuclear weapons,

including so-called bunker buster bombs and miniaturized nuclear warheads, that

THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j APRIL 2009 81


could lend themselves to more accessible use in a conflict. Finally, the

administration withheld some key funding from the Comprehensive Test Ban

Treaty Organization (CTBTO), the international secretariat responsible for all

relevant preparations for the CTBTs entry into force, and sought congressional

approval to shorten the timeline for required preparations before a nuclear weapons

test.

In light of this recent discouraging history, an unmistakable commitment from

Obama that he will seek Senate ratification of the CTBT during his first term in

office may do more than any other single measure to indicate to the world that the

United States is not only listening to, but also respects, the views of the

international community. While it will do little to directly convince rogue states

like Iran or North Korea to halt their nuclear weapons programs, it will strengthen

the hand of the United States as it seeks to build international coalitions to

squeeze those hostile states. Indeed, a recent survey of sixteen key nonnuclear

weapons states reached the conclusion that ratification of the CTBT would send

a very strong signal to demonstrate the U.S. commitment to disarmament.6

Impact Nuclear Terrorism

IMPACT CTBT RATIFICATION KEY TO EFFORTS AGAINST NUCLEAR TERORRISM AND MULTILATERAL COOPERATION



Obama won the presidency in part on his pledge to bring a new tone to U.S.

relations with the world through enhanced multilateral cooperation and a

pragmatic approach to international institutions and treaties. Substantively,

Obama has identified the specter of nuclear terrorism as the gravest challenge

to our national security and linked that threat to the breakdown of the

nuclear nonproliferation regime. Accordingly, he concluded that only a

renewed effort, led by the United States, toward a world of zero nuclear

weapons can make real headway in reducing the threat of proliferation and

nuclear terrorism.

Senate ratification of the CTBT and its resulting entry into force would set a

new tone for U.S. diplomacy while revitalizing the nuclear nonproliferation

regime. It would restore U.S. credibility on this issue after years of moving in the

opposite direction. Obama enjoys a broad mandate and the strong support of

almost 60 Senate Democrats. Now is the time for a renewed push for CTBT

ratification that can serve as a landmark national security accomplishment for

the United States and for international peace and stability.

Impact Core

( ) lack of ctbt ratification causes massive nuclear testing

Krieger and Olsen 99 (David and Jane, November, pg. http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1999/11/00_krieger_ctbt-vital.htm)

Twenty-four of these 44 countries have already ratified the treaty. American leadership is essential to complete the ratification process to allow the treaty to enter into force. With US leadership through ratification of the CTBT, India and Pakistan might be brought into the nu

Date post:	11-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	elmer-yang
View:	223 times
Download:	2 times

Cndi - Politics Da - Starter (1)

Documents