U.N. to Control America’s Nukes

Congress has a role in foreign policy — but you wouldn’t know that from President Barack Obama’s actions over the past year.

The most recent example involves Obama’s desire to ban nuclear testing. He has supported this goal since his earliest days in office, but has been unable to rally support for ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty in the U.S. Senate.

This pattern of circumventing Congress to advance the president’s priorities is extremely troubling. It is fundamentally anti-democratic … and contributes to an already caustic political environment.

Facing the end of his second term, The Washington Post reports that Obama will bypass Congress and seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution that “would call for an end to nuclear testing” on the 20th anniversary of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The Senate voted to reject ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty on Oct. 13, 1999. It did so for sound reasons. For example, the treaty does not define what constitutes a nuclear weapons test. Russia and possibly China conduct hydro-nuclear experiments that allow them to explore new weapons designs and train a more proficient workforce in the national nuclear laboratories.

Even worse, the treaty is not verifiable. One can conduct nuclear tests and experiments in very small spaces or can decouple weapons tests so they wouldn’t be detected. The treaty is not likely to change this behavior.

[lz_jwplayer video= “Y8aDzLJB” ads=”true”]

The test ban treaty remains problematic. American nuclear weapons are aging — the U.S. has not conducted a test since 1992. As designs depart from the tested envelope, the uncertainty with respect to expected performance of nuclear warheads will increase. The United States must preserve an option for conducting yield-producing experiments to make sure its nuclear warheads are safe, secure, reliable, and effective. Such is the cornerstone of strategic deterrence and assurance of U.S. allies.

Going to the U.N. Security Council and ignoring these fundamental concerns is a deliberate affront to the separation of powers detailed in the Constitution, particularly Article II, which states that the president shall make treaties only with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate.

Worse, the resolution is unlikely to have any effect on the nuclear-proliferating countries the U.S. is concerned about. In fact, the number of nuclear weapons states has increased since the U.S. stopped nuclear weapons tests.

North Korea has continued to test in the face of existing Security Council resolutions and sanctions. German intelligence has also warned that Iran “is still making extensive attempts to acquire materials to further its nuclear program” — despite the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration.

As noted by Sen. Bob Corker, “What it really does is allow countries like Russia and China to be able to bind the United States over our nuclear deterrent capability without the scrutiny of Congress.”

Unfortunately, this is not the first time President Obama has used the U.N. to impose his foreign policy agenda over the objections of Congress.

In July 2015, the president submitted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to the U.N. Security Council for approval before getting congressional support.

In December 2015, the administration signed a new climate change pact, the Paris Agreement. Despite possessing all the hallmarks of a treaty that should be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent, the administration insists that the Paris Agreement is an executive agreement.

[lz_related_box id=”183445″]

This pattern of circumventing Congress to advance the president’s priorities is extremely troubling. It is fundamentally anti-democratic, flouts the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and contributes to an already caustic political environment.

It also undermines the consistency of U.S. foreign policy. Vetting and debating treaties during the advice and consent process helps ensure that unforeseen complications are exposed and addressed. If ratified, the eventual vote also likely secures support by senators of both parties (no one party has controlled two-thirds of the Senate since the 1960s), who often serve longer than presidents. This makes it more likely the U.S. will abide by the terms of the treaty and makes America a more reliable foreign policy partner.

Political commitments made by one president, by contrast, can be reversed by the next. An adversarial relationship with Congress can also lead that body to impede or undercut the chief executive by not funding or supporting his agenda.

In short, creating uncertainty and discord on key U.S. foreign policies is unwise. In the words of former Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, America is safer if the parties “unite our official voice at the water’s edge so that America speaks with one voice to those who would divide and conquer us and the free world.”

The president’s disdain for working with Congress on foreign policy harms us all.

Brett Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at The Heritage Foundation.

Michaela Dodge, Heritage’s Senior Policy Analyst for Defense and Strategic Issues, contributed to this report.