WASHINGTON, May 13 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks.
The Cato Institute
WASHINGTON -- U.S.-Russia arms treaty to be commended, Cato scholar says
President Bush on Monday announced the completion of a treaty between Russia and the United States to substantially reduce the nuclear arsenals of the two nations. Each nation will cut its arsenal from about 6,000 warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads. Ivan Eland, the Cato Institute's director of defense policy studies had the following comments:
"The announcement of the U.S.-Russian treaty is a welcome development that is long overdue. Although the Cold War ended 13 years ago, the two nations have warily circled each other ever since then. Now Russia and the United States are finally removing from deployment the excessive numbers of nuclear weapons--accumulated during the Cold War -- still retained in both arsenals.
"Although it would have been preferable to destroy all weapons removed from deployment, rather than storing some, the agreement will still reduce the threat of nuclear war. The Bush administration wisely acceded to the Russian desire for a treaty -- which will require ratification by the U.S. Senate -- rather than an informal agreement. A treaty is more compatible with the U.S. constitutional system and will also put more pressure on Russia to carry out the destruction of a portion of its dangerously insecure stockpile of nuclear weapons.
"The treaty comes as a result of the recent improvement in relations between Russia and the United States after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and adds important momentum to that warming relationship. The administration should be commended for such policies, which make the world a safer place."
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court upholds forced access, stifles market competition, scholar says
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the government's effort to force local phone carriers to make their lines available at low cost to upstart companies who want to operate in their markets. Adam Thierer, director of telecommunication policy studies at the Cato Institute, had the following comments on the ruling:
"The Supreme Court's ruling in Verizon Communications vs. FCC rejects markets in favor of mandates. The decision is based on Romper Room economics: sharing is better than competing.
"The ruling will allow the FCC to continue to treat the telecom sector as its regulatory plaything and allow federal bureaucrats to micromanage the industry through a complex arsenal of network mandates and price controls.
"At a time when the nation desperately needs more investment and innovation from the telecommunications sector, the Supreme Court's ruling endorses the FCC's disturbing regulatory approach, which encourages potential rivals to seek access to existing networks instead of deploying new and better systems of their own. Thus, the court's ruling sends an alarming signal to potential rivals and investors by encouraging them to first look to government to gain access to archaic existing networks instead of building their own facilities-based infrastructure to square off against incumbent carriers.
"As a result of this decision, regulators will spend many more years gaming the system to encourage artificial market entry by small carriers, who are doing little more than hitching a free ride on older networks. The better solution would have been to reject the current command-and-control regime of access mandates and price controls in favor of market pricing and voluntary contracts. Investment and innovation will suffer as a result of the court's misguided decision."
The Center for Democracy and Technology
(CDT works to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age. CDT seeks practical solutions to enhance free expression and privacy in global communications technologies, including the Internet and other new media.)
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court keeps injunction against COPA net content restrictions, remands "community standards" holding back to appeals court
The Supreme Court issued a ruling Monday in Ashcroft vs. ACLU, the constitutional challenge to the Child Online Protection Act, which restricts "harmful to minors" speech on the Internet. Two lower courts had ruled that COPA violated the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. The Supreme Court retained that injunction, but held that the "community standards" basis of the appeals court ruling must be revisited.
The decision is mirrored on CDT's Web site and available at cdt.org/speech/copa/020513opinion.pdf
CDT filed friend-of-the court briefs in the case before the Supreme Court, as well as in the District Court and Appeals Court proceedings below. Among the most important things to draw from Monday's opinion:
-- Critically, all nine Justices agree that the District Court's injunction against the COPA law should remain in effect pending further court proceedings below. The Supreme Court was explicit in saying that its decision was a narrow decision that only addressed a specific conclusion of the Third Circuit.
-- Absolutely nothing in the Supreme Court decision undermines the original holding of the District Court that COPA is unconstitutional for the same reasons that the 1996 Communications Decency Act was unconstitutional. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals based its very different decision on a theory that the traditional "community standards" test could not in any case apply to the Internet. The Supreme Court rejected that theory, but specifically did not address the other First Amendment grounds on which the District Court originally struck COPA down.
-- The court rejected the Third Circuit holding that a "community standards" test could not apply to the Internet, though the Court did not clearly define how that standard should be determined. Instead the Court left open a host of issues to be resolved by the lower courts.
-- As a practical matter, the result of the Supreme Court's decision is that the case will be remanded to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration of the First Amendment grounds on COPA was originally struck down.
Nothing in Monday's opinion changes CDT's fundamental belief and expectation that the district court's ruling finding COPA unconstitutional will be upheld, and that COPA suffers from the same fatal First Amendment flaws as its predecessor, the Communications Decency Act.
The Heritage Foundation
WASHINGTON -- Assisting a Friend in Need: Why the United States Should Expand Funding for Israel's Arrow Program by Baker Spring
The threat of ballistic missile attack against Israel has not lessened since the Persian Gulf War, when Iraq launched its modified Scud ballistic missiles at Israel despite the fact that Israel, which was not a party to the conflict, had sought to avoid being drawn into it.
Today, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Syria have either missiles capable of reaching Israel or active programs to acquire them, and their inventories of missiles are growing ever more capable. Most of these countries also have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Given the level of hostility among these states toward Israel, the U.S. ally may be facing the greatest threat of ballistic missile attack of any nation, and it will need continued help from America to meet it.
Israel's response has been to develop and deploy the Arrow ballistic missile defense system with U.S. support. The first battery of Arrow missiles was deployed last October. Support for this program in the U.S. Congress is rising rapidly as the threat of attack increases, and now that both houses are working on a mark-up of the fiscal year (FY) 2003 defense authorization bill. A proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee would increase funding for the Arrow program by $70 million.
Congress should provide additional funding before both houses complete action on the bill, and without compromising funding for U.S. missile defense programs. What Congress should not do is delay or do nothing.
America's financial support for the Arrow program will enable Israel to deploy an effective missile defense system as quickly as possible. The Arrow battery currently deployed simply does not provide sufficient coverage of Israeli territory. Military authorities in Israel believe that three batteries are needed to provide the kind of overlapping coverage that is required for an effective defense.
Just as it would be unacceptable for the U.S. government to deploy a missile defense that protects only a portion of the U.S. population and leaves others vulnerable, so too should the Arrow system that is ultimately deployed protect all Israelis. Protection of the people from aggression is government's first obligation.
The additional funding under consideration by Congress would enable Israel not only to conduct additional research and development, but also to produce more missiles. The funds, for example, would pay for 36 of the first missiles that are co-produced by the United States and Israel.
The additional dollars also would enable the Arrow manufacturing program to become more efficient so that production of the missiles could expand from just two units per month to approximately six. A multi-year production arrangement could also be considered under this expanded program.
Though there is growing support for the program, some Members of Congress who reportedly want to cut the U.S. missile defense program by about $1 billion could try to use the Arrow funding measure as justification for doing so. This would be most unwise. Americans today are vulnerable to ballistic missiles, and deploying an effective national missile defense has become a priority.
Moreover, the Israelis never suggested that the United States should help them defend themselves if it meant leaving any Americans vulnerable to similar attacks. Funding should not be transferred from any other missile defense programs to pay for the increase in Arrow spending. Yet that seems to be the intent of some Members of Congress. If any committee during the authorization process increases funding for Arrow at the expense of other missile defense programs, then the full House and Senate should replace that funding in the account from which it was taken.
Israel is a loyal ally of the United States, and it is fighting for its very survival. Both houses of Congress have adopted resolutions to support Israel in its current conflict.
Now Congress should take the next step and ensure that Israel has tangible support to buttress its broad moral support. Nowhere could such tangible support be more effective than in expanding the Arrow program to help Israel defend itself against missile attack. Vulnerability to missile attack should never be an acceptable option for Congress in making its funding decisions.
--
(Baker Spring is F. M. Kirby research fellow in National Security Policy in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.)
