Reorganizing for More Effective Arms Negotiations
Once again there has been a long and bitter fight in the Senate over the President's nominee for Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Like Paul Warnke in 1977, Kenneth Adelman has now been confirmed, but by such a narrow margin--and with such substantial political baggage--as to cripple his ability to manage the agency and promote its objectives.
Barry M. Blechman is Vice President of the Roosevelt Center for American Policy Studies in Washington. He was Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1977 to 1980. Janne E. Nolan is a Washington-based foreign affairs and defense consultant who also served with ACDA during the Carter Administration.
Once again there has been a long and bitter fight in the Senate over the President's nominee for Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Like Paul Warnke in 1977, Kenneth Adelman has now been confirmed, but by such a narrow margin-and with such substantial political baggage-as to cripple his ability to manage the agency and promote its objectives.
The Adelman dispute is only the latest chapter in the agency's stormy history. Born in controversy in 1961, ACDA has been a headache for every President since John F. Kennedy. Repeatedly purged, always distrusted, criticized by its friends, savaged by its enemies, the agency has been the center of turmoil and discord for more than 20 years. These controversies reached new peaks of viciousness in the 1980s, however, and after cuts of nearly one-fourth in the agency's staff and one-half in its research budget, the firing of Eugene Rostow, the first director appointed by President Reagan, delays of two years or more in appointments to most of its executive positions, and the present director's inauspicious beginning, there is little question that ACDA is in no position to fulfill its responsibilities effectively.
The factors which have weakened ACDA's ability to serve as an effective voice for, and implementer of, the nation's arms control policies have existed since the agency's creation. They are structural in character, consequences of the ambivalence which dominated the reasoning behind, and thus the design of, the agency and its relationships with other executive organs. From its inception, ACDA was supposed to be both an integral part of the executive branch and a watchdog over its activities; a component of the State Department and an independent agency reporting directly to the President; a promoter of the modest idea of arms control and a partisan for the radical policy of disarmament. These contradictions are neither trivial nor transitory. They represent immutable conflicts-characteristics which can coexist only in the most artificial and unstable circumstances. Little wonder that the agency has been consistently beset by controversy.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Those who serve in government, especially when under attack, are likely to be conscious--somewhat defensively perhaps--of the spirit of the old Spanish proverb: "It is not the same to talk of bulls, as to be in the bullring." The memory of that sentiment has had some bearing on my observations from the safe distance of private life. It has commended a focus on institutional problems--those that transcend partisanship.
"The INF treaty singles out for elimination all land-based missiles of a specified range". Gives the background to the treaty from 1979. In effect it resulted from the USSR calling Reagan's bluff on his zero-option proposal of 1981. The consequence is that the West is on the defensive, lacking a coherent approach and compelled to proceed on the basis of its present policy. The lesson of the treaty is therefore for the West to define its long-term objectives, and the roles of the USA and Western Europe within them. US deputy assistant secretary for defense (policy plans), 1977-81.
The recent heated debate over the sale of Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) planes and F-15 fighter components to Saudi Arabia was only one of a number of controversies involving U.S. arms sales. The next weapons transfer which will meet congressional resistance is that of F-16 fighters to Pakistan, a sale which some believe will give a renewed impetus to the arms race on the subcontinent and undermine nonproliferation efforts. Serious questions are also being raised about the wisdom of the planned sale of F-16s to Venezuela, thereby crossing a technological threshold which in the past has restrained the transfer of the most advanced fighter aircraft to Latin America. Proposed new arms supply relationships with Argentina, Chile and Guatemala will draw the ire of those who are concerned about the dropping of past restrictions based upon these countries' human rights records. The Reagan Administration is faced with a tough decision regarding the sale of the FX fighter to Taiwan. Beijing has put Washington on notice that it considers the proposed sale as a "litmus test" of future Sino-American relations. But the same type of symbolism is attached to the sale by Taipei, which would view the failure to sell as a sign of abandonment.
