President Obama is personally committed to pushing for a Senate vote on the New START treaty during this lame duck session of Congress. But he's going to Europe tonight, so he's ordering Vice President Joseph Biden to make it happen.

"As Senator [Harry] Reid said yesterday, there is time on the Senate calendar to get this treaty ratified this year. So I've asked Vice President Biden to focus on this issue day and night until it gets done," Obama said just before he met with top Cabinet officials and pro-treaty senators at the White House Thursday.

"It is a national security imperative that the United States ratify the New START treaty this year, he said. "There is no higher national security priority for the lame duck session of Congress. The stakes for American national security are clear, and they are high."

The president also appealed to the spirit of bipartisanship that has led to unity in support for many, but not all, past international arms treaties.

"As Ronald Reagan said, ‘we have to trust, but we also have to verify.' In order for us to verify, we've got to have a treaty," he said. "And if we delay indefinitely, American leadership on nonproliferation and America's national security will be weakened."

What Obama didn't explain was how the administration intends to convince the Senate GOP leadership to agree to a vote this year. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has said he doesn't think there's enough time this year to finish work on the treaty, and 10 incoming Republican senators wrote on Thursday that they deserved the opportunity to weigh in after they are seated next year.

When asked whether he thought the treaty would pass this year, Obama simply stated, "I'm confident that we should be able to get the votes."

The meeting included Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), ranking Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, James Baker, and Henry Kissinger, former Secretaries of Defense William Cohen and William Perry, former National Security Advisor Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright, and former Sen. Sam Nunn.

Obama's full remarks after the jump:

Read on

Visitors from most EU countries can come to the United States for short stays without applying for a visa from the State Department, but Poland can't get that special status -- and it is not at all happy about it.

"Maybe one day the American Congress will find a good reason to finally lift the visa restrictions which we think are very unfair and completely unjustified," Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, Poland's Secretary of State for European Affairs, told The Cable in an interview.

He's referring to Poland's longstanding request to be included in the State Department's Visa Waiver Program, which currently allows citizens from 36 countries to enter the United States and stay for up to 90 days without first obtaining a visa. This is among the top agenda items for Polish officials dealing with the United States, and a leading irritant in the otherwise positive U.S.-Polish relationship.

For the Poles, the Visa Waiver Program status is a matter of pride for a country that sees itself on par with other Western European giants. Poland also sees itself as a reliable ally of the United States that has constantly deepened cooperation on a range of matters, including ballistic missile defense, and the deployment of a proportionally large contingent of troops to Afghanistan.

"Maybe one day here in Washington people will treat Poland as a reliable and important partner in the European Union, not just some country with sentimental links," Dowgielewicz said.

Polish officials are quick to point out that Poland is the only country in what's known as the "Schengen Area" not to have the preferred visa status. The Schengen Agreement basically removed internal travel borders between the 25 European states that have signed it, meaning that Poles can travel almost anywhere in the West freely, besides the United States.

In April, Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski discussed the matter with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the issue came again up during Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg's visit to Poland Oct. 7 to participate in the Wroclaw Global Forum. When asked about the issue by the Polish Press Agency, Steinberg said that the United States wanted to welome Polish visitors into the country, but that Poland had not met congressionally mandated standards for entering the Visa Waiver Program.

An administration official told The Cable that, according to the rules, Poland has to drastically lower the number of its visa applicants who get rejected when they apply for entry to the United States. Around 10 percent of Poles get rejected for visas, the official said, while the threshold for entry is that less than 3 percent must be rejected by the American consular officials who review their applications.

The administration official suggested that, in the long term, Poland might reach that threshold. "The trend in Poland is very positive, it's now hovering at 10 percent and it is in the downward direction," the official said.

But this rationale only frustrates the Poles more because, until recently, 10 percent would have been good enough. Under the 9/11 implementation bill, countries could be added to the program when they reached 10 percent. But because the Homeland Security Department failed to meet a deadline to add a related biometric program, the threshold shot back down to 3 percent last year.

The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, and Latvia all joined the program when 10 percent was the threshold, leaving the Poles feeling even more left out of the party.

Privately, there is still some concern in the U.S. government that Polish visitors are more likely to overstay their visas and remain in the United States illegally. Polish officials reject this reasoning as well.

"We can travel freely around the globe. For example, we can travel to Canada and there doesn't seem to be a big invasion of Poles in Canada," Dowgielewicz said.

With the Senate Foreign Relations Committee having delayed its vote on President Obama's nuclear treaty with Russia until September, the committee's top Republican is warning that time is of the essence.

Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, told committee members at Tuesday's business meeting that even though the committee could have approved the treaty, allowing it to go to the full Senate, he felt it better to take the time to build more consensus before requiring senators to stake out their positions.

But ranking member Richard Lugar, R-IN, warned that if the treaty stalls, it might be hard to build up momentum again. He also said he had argued internally for holding the committee vote this week to allow Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to go ahead and reserve precious Senate floor time for treaty consideration in September.

If the committee doesn't vote until September, it's "problematic" to try to get floor time before the next break, Lugar said, meaning that the December "lame duck" post-election session would be where the treaty would get a full Senate debate.

"If not [before the election], then whether it works out in December or not is no longer a matter of parliamentary debate, it's a matter of national security," he said, citing the fact that U.S. inspectors have not been able to verify Russian behavior regarding nuclear weapons deployment since the original START agreement expired late last year. "We ought to vote now and let the chips fall where they may. It's that important."

"The problem of the breakdown of our verification, which lapsed December 5, is very serious and impacts our national security," Lugar said. Members may want to take extra time to consider the treaty, but if they are really concerned about Russian activity, ratifying the treaty is the way to address that, he added.

Kerry implored committee members to take the time over recess to think it over and come back to town ready to vote.

"We currently have no verifiability, no regime in place with Russia," he said. "My hope is that we can do this expeditiously when we come back ... Every senator should be prepared to mark up this resolution of advice and consent on September 15 or 16."

A draft of the resolution will be circulated well before then, Kerry added.

Meanwhile, more fence-sitting senators seem to be signaling that they are getting ready to support New START.

The Cable has been asking every single GOP senator repeatedly to state his or her position on the treaty. Before today, only Lugar and Bob Bennett, R-UT, had indicated support and only James Inhofe, R-OK, and Jim DeMint, R-SC, had said they would oppose it.

Today, The Cable caught up with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT, who had previously said he had not come to a conclusion. He now says he is taking steps to prepare for a yes vote.

"I'm waiting for further action on the modernization of the nuclear weapons program," he said, referring to Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl's ongoing negotiations with the administration over how much money will be made available for nuclear labs and other items.

Lieberman also said when the treaty does come up, he will put forth side documents called "reservations," which can be attached to the treaty to express congressional concerns while still allowing the treaty to go into effect without any changes.

"I may want to submit some reservations or understandings, which will enable me to vote for the treaty," he said.

The Cable also caught up with Senate Armed Services Committee member Jeff Sessions, R-AL, who wouldn't commit but seemed to be leaning toward a no vote.

Sessions said the treaty is not really important, gives too much to the Russians without getting enough in return, and compromises U.S. missile defense.

"It was pretty obvious to me that the administration team was all obsessed with getting it done and signing this treaty as some sort of psychological political statement to the world, and the Russians played us like a Stradivarius," he said. "I'm not buying the argument that this is necessary."

Sessions is most upset that President Obama laid out a goal of moving to a world without nuclear weapons in the first place. "This is such an unwise and incomprehensible policy that it makes everyone uneasy," Sessions said.

Still, Sessions won't say for sure which way he will go. When asked if he agreed with Lugar that time was running out, he said he doesn't have to state his position until a vote comes up.

"The vote's not today," he pointed out.

Conservative opposition to the new nuclear reductions treaty between the United States and Russia has entered a new phase, with detractors expanding their aim outside of Washington in the hope of building grassroots support for their drive to thwart Senate ratification and make the treaty the centerpiece of their criticism of President Obama's foreign-policy agenda.

Mitt Romney, the once and future Republican presidential candidate, unofficially announced the GOP's change in tone with a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Obama's Worst Foreign Policy Mistake."

In the article, Romney repeats all the longstanding criticisms of the treaty put forth by some Republican senators: that it constrains U.S. missile defense expansion, allows for Russia to opt out at any time, ignores Russia's advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, and generally gives more to the Russians than they are giving back.

Defense writers such as Fred Kaplan have pointed out factual errors in Romney's piece, and even Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, felt the need Wednesday to respond directly with his own Post op-ed, where he took on Romney's arguments point by point and also accused the former Massachusetts governor of demagogueing the issue to score political points with conservative voters.

"Even in these polarized times, anyone seeking the presidency should know that the security of the United States is too important to be treated as fodder for political posturing," Kerry wrote.

But the expansion of the New START debate into the national political arena is not an accident. The anti-ratification crowd is mobilizing supporters all over the country with the express aim of making START a pillar of conservative opposition to President Obama's foreign policy.

One of the main activities signaling this shift is a nationwide lobbying effort recently begun by the group Heritage Action for America, a new organization closely tied to the Heritage Foundation, the well-known conservative think tank. Heritage Action for America was established as 501c4 organization, which means it can do direct lobbying on the Hill and broad grassroots lobbying around the country.

Killing START is one of the group's two keystone efforts, along with a drive to push a repeal of the new health-care bill in the House. The organization is now circulating a petition to its 671,000 dues-paying members featuring a video of Romney criticizing the treaty.

"To date, discussion of New START has been an inside-the-beltway issue with little input from the American people," Heritage Action's CEO Michael A. Needham told The Cable. "Given the potential impact of the treaty on American security, Heritage Action is committed to giving Americans a conservative voice in Washington. Our petition drive will empower Americans who oppose the treaty and ensure their senator will take note. It is the first step towards stopping New START."

And Heritage Action is not stopping there. The group has a detailed plan to target lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and persuading wavering senators to oppose the treaty. Votes up for grabs include moderate Republicans like Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, but also conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson, D-NE, and Evan Bayh, D-IN.

The group also intends to put people on the ground in key districts while pressing their supporters to make their opposition to START known to their senators.

The new movement is timed to have an impact just as the drive to ratify New START heats up in the Senate. But the full-throated opposition to START as espoused by Heritage Action and Romney goes beyond the current position of many Senate Republicans who now are at the center of the START ratification debate.

This June 30 letter to Kerry from all the committee Republicans except for ranking member Richard Lugar, R-IN, argues that the Senate needs more time and information to examine the treaty but doesn't argue that the treaty is unacceptable on its face. Even the new agreement's leading Senate critic, Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-AZ, hasn't come out to say he opposes the treaty -- at least not yet.

Kerry's July 1 response letter points out that reams of documents on the new treaty have been given to Congress and more are on the way. Congress has already received reports on Russian compliance with the old START treaty up to when it expired last December and a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate on the new agreement, as required by law.

The compliance reports are important because the last report in 2005 revealed Russian cheating. There is also a "verifiability assessment" that State Department sources said will reach the Hill July 12. As for the NIE, sources familiar with the document say it hedges enough that either side could interpret it to fit their own frame. For example, the various levels of "confidence" the intelligence community gave to its assessments don't really help either side because they are so noncommittal.

That leaves only one document for Kyl and other senators to really fight about: their longstanding request for the full negotiating record for the new START treaty, which they suspect would reveal secret deals the administration is accused of making with the Russians regarding missile defense -- something the administration has flatly denied.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have resisted handing over such records, and past administrations have reluctantly agreed to hand them over while warning about the damaging effect such disclosures can have on the executive's ability to conduct negotiations.

Regardless, some GOP offices are prepared to make a big issue out of it. "By continuing to insist, contrary to history and precedent, that it will not share the negotiating record of the treaty, at least as it pertains to tactical nuclear weapons, missile defense and prompt global strike, the administration is simply showing that it isn't serious about getting the treaty ratified," said one senior GOP aide close to the issue.

One administration official said he believes the fight over the record is all about politics. Supporters of the treaty argue that Republicans want to deny Obama a foreign-policy success before the mid-term elections. 

"The Republican demand for the negotiating record is akin to throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks ... Because the arguments against the treaty and the nomination are not working, they are just resorting to desperation tactics to create talking points," said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World.

Will it work? It's still too early to tell. Nobody seems to know how many votes can be relied upon for ratification, making the next three weeks leading up the August recess, when Kerry intends to move the treaty out of committee, crucial.

Pro-treaty forces already have their own grassroots effort underway, with participation by the Council for a Livable World, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Ploughshares Fund, the Arms Control Association, and Global Zero, a group that has its own movie and petition to support the drive to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons.

"The START treaty now figures prominently into what Global Zero is doing," said Ploughshares President Joe Cirincione, who noted that Global Zero has already given out dozens of grants around the country. "This effort alone might dwarf what the Heritage Foundation is doing on a community and grassroots level."

He also pointed to bipartisan groups that are supporting New START, including the Partnership for a Secure America, which rounded up dozens of former officials from both parties to come out and support the agreement.

"There's an ongoing and increasing drive both at the grassroots and elite levels, aimed both at Republicans and Democrats, whereas the Heritage Action effort is only aimed at Republicans, and far right Republicans at that," Cirincione said.

Eastern Europeans in embassies and communities around the capital region are upset today that Virginia's new D-Day memorial monument, unveiled in a ceremony this past week, contains a statue of the head of notorious Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

Residents of Bedford, VA, were equally appalled when they found out about the statue, but now the fallout has now reached official Washington. The Cable has heard from multiple embassy officials today that they are getting calls from their local communities complaining about the statue. It's especially disconcerting to European diplomats, whose countries have spent decades scrubbing all traces of communist paraphernalia from their parks and public areas.

"I'm shocked as a European citizen and as a European diplomat," one embassy official said. "It's shocking because this person was responsible for the deaths of millions of people."

For what it's worth, the plaque underneath Stalin's likeness is hardly a tribute to the late communist ruler.

"In memory of the tens of millions who died under Stalin's rule and in tribute to all whose valor, fidelity, and sacrifice denied him and his successors victory in the cold war," it reads.

Missile defense is as much of a diplomatic initiative as a military one. For the Poles, they see missile defense cooperation with the United States as a great way to build defense ties, bolster their credentials within NATO, and maybe even hedge against their traditional eastern foe, Russia.

What Poland doesn't see is itself as a target of the missile threat from Iran, the country the nascent U.S. missile shield is supposedly designed to thwart.

"If the mullahs have a target list we believe we are quite low on it," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said in an interview with Foreign Policy during his trip to Washington Thursday.

Sikorski is in town to meet with a host of officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and National Security Advisor James L. Jones. He also attended the Atlantic Council gala Wednesday night featuring Bono.

When George W. Bush's administration announced its plans to deploy missile defense interceptors in Poland, the system was advertised as needed to counter Iranian missiles headed toward the United States or Europe. The problem was, Bush's plan was designed to counter long-range missiles and actually had little chance of hitting a missile headed from Iran to Europe.

The Obama administration came in and changed the plan, replacing the interceptors with a "phased adaptive approach" that will use smaller, more mobile systems to counter short and medium-range missiles. They advertised that as better suited to protect Europe.

But Sikorski admitted that Poland's real interest in the system is to be an active player in the new emerging security infrastructure in Europe, which includes NATO's endorsement of missile defense.

"Our part of Europe has so far very few NATO installations," he said. "This is the game that seems to be the next project, so we decided to get involved."

Sikorski also commented on the botched rollout of the new missile defense plan by the Obama administration. Back in September, senior U.S. officials scrambled to brief allies after news of the plan was leaked from the European side ahead of the White House's schedule. The unfortunate result was that the plan was announced on the day of the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland.

Poland didn't intend to antagonize Russia by upgrading its ties to NATO and the United States.

"We were willing to give the U.S. a chunk of our territory for this facility, but we weren't particularly looking forward to paying the price with worse relations with Russia," Sikorski said. "The Bush administration had told us, ‘We will fix it with the Russians, we will persuade them that this is no threat to them, don't worry.' And the problem appeared when the Russians appeared to be unpersuaded."

Overall, Poland is satisfied by the level of attention it receives from the Obama administration, despite the perception in some foreign capitals that the White House spends its limited foreign-policy attention span dealing more with problem countries, like Iran, than it does with allies.

"We are not in the business of vying for attention," he said. "We recognize that the U.S. has some serious problems: financial, domestic, and we feel to be fortunate not to be one of those problem areas around the world that need urgent attention."

For Sikorski's thoughts on Poland's recent tragedy and the Gordon Brown immigration controversy, read Joshua Keating's post on FP's Passport blog here.

After President Obama has rolled out his nuclear policy review Tuesday morning, he used his down time to turn his attention to another major nuclear initiative: the Nuclear Security Summit being held in Washington next week.

With 47 world leaders coming to town, Obama simply can't very well schedule one-on-one meetings with all of them -- lest international diplomacy turn into the equivalent of speed dating. Still, the least the president can do is give a phone call to the leaders he's rejecting, and that's what he was doing Tuesday afternoon.

So far, the world leaders Obama has granted an audience to are (in alphabetical order by country): President Serzh Sargsyan of Armenia, President Hu Jintao of China, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, King Abdullah II of Jordan, President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani of Pakistan, and President Jacob Zuma of South Africa.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev doesn't need a bilateral, because he will have lots of time to hang out with Obama Thursday in Prague when they meet there to sign the new START agreement. Obama just met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy last week. And British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is skipping the summit to gear up his campaign ahead of the May elections he announced this morning.

So who's not getting face time with Obama? One confirmed rejection is Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who got the consolation phone call from Obama just a few hours ago.

"President Saakashvili thanked President Obama for his invitation to the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington," according to a readout of the call from the Georgian side. "President Obama thanked President Saakashvili for Georgia's exceptional commitment of troops to the international effort in Afghanistan."

What Obama didn't mention in the call Georgia's aspirations to join NATO or Georgia's concern about the French sale of a new assault ship to Russia.

Hey, maybe they'll run into each other at the buffet.

So, who are the other countries may be soon getting the rejection call? Looks like the leaders of Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Ukraine, and Vietnam.

Did you know there will be massive human rights protests across Russia this Saturday? Well, John McCain is all over the situation.

McCain, who famously declared "We are all Georgians" during the August War of 2008, gave a speech on the Senate floor calling on all Americans to get involved in the cause of human rights in Russia and lambasting the Kremlin for its harsh treatment of opposition and activist leaders.

"This is about universal values -- values that we in the United States embody but do not own ... values that should shape the conduct of every government, be it ours or Russia's or any other country's," McCain said, "And when we see citizens of conviction seeking to hold their governments to the higher standard of human rights, we should speak up for them."

McCain hasn't given up the cause of the Georgians since the end of the presidential campaign. He visited the country in January and made a stop at the border of the breakaway region of Abkhazia, where Russian troops still remain.

"I know that Washington has a lot of foreign-policy challenges at the moment, but we cannot forget Georgia and the support it deserves amid a continuing threat from its neighbor to the north," he said.

Back in 2008, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili declared McCain a "national hero" of Georgia when he visited in January and gave him a Vietnam-war revolver (pictured) that was captured off a Russian soldier at the ceremony.

McCain also recently met with opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in Washington. When McCain asked Nemtsov what Americans could do to support human rights activists in Russia, Nemtsov said, "Speak up for it. And speak up for us." 

Here's what the State Department's newly released report on human rights practices had to say about Russia:

• "Direct and indirect government interference in local and regional elections restricted the ability of citizens to change their government through free and fair elections."
• "During the year there were a number of high profile killings of human rights activists by unknown persons, apparently for reasons related to their professional activities. There were numerous, credible reports that law enforcement personnel engaged in physical abuse of subjects. Prison conditions were harsh and could be life threatening."
• "Eight journalists, many of whom reported critically on the government, were killed during the year; with one exception the government failed to identify, arrest, or prosecute any suspects. Beating and intimidation of journalists remained a problem."
• "The government limited freedom of assembly, and police sometimes used violence to prevent groups from engaging in peaceful protest."

U.S. Ambassador to Moscow John Beyrle's recent blog post about ongoing negotiations for a START follow-on agreement does not represent a shift in the U.S. position, despite the articles saying so.

Written in Russian, Beyrle's post says, "The treaty deals with offensive, not defensive systems, but since we acknowledge a logical link between them, our presidents have agreed that the treaty will contain a provision on the interconnection between strategic offensive and defensive weapons."

The Associated Press declared on its own authority that "Beyrle's statement indicated the U.S. stance has shifted," and that "Beyrle's statement apparently reflects an attempt by Washington to overcome Russia's suspicions of the U.S. missile defence plans."

Not so, say our State Department sources, who point out that Beyrle was simply referring to the July 8 Joint Understanding between President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, which said that the START follow-on would include "a provision on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms," nothing more, nothing less.

Multiple senior administration officials have told The Cable that this carefully negotiated compromise was well understood to mean that missile defense would be delinked from the START negotiations -- and that was the assumption the American team led by Rose Gottemoeller was working under.

Moreover, the July 6 joint statement of Obama and Medvedev made it clear that missile defense would be dealt with separately from the START follow-on talks.

"Beyrle's post simply refers to what both presidents said they would do in July," one administration official said.

Recent statements by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Russian military leader Nikolai Makarov have brought the missile-defense issue back into the discussion over a START follow-on treaty. State Department officials have indicated that the specifics of a reference to missile defense in the agreement might not be finalized.

"It's possible that the treaty text will refer to missile defense, but I can't do a play by play," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters Thursday. But Beyrle's blog post is not an announcement of any such shift, and negotiations over the remaining details in the treaty are ongoing.

Montenegro's Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic is a fascinating man. After rising to prominence at an early age as an ally of Slobodan Milosevic, Djukanovic turned against the Serbian leader in 1996 and became the key figure in Montenegro's push for sovereignty and independence from the former Yugoslavian states.

He has been a controversial figure in European politics, facing charges of organized crime and extensive cigarette trafficking, but has always managed to come out of the fray unharmed. Now in his third stint as the head of government, Djukanovic is leading Montenegro's push for NATO membership.

His country has just been granted Membership Action Plan status for NATO membership, a step neither Georgia nor Ukraine has been afforded. That was the main issue on the agenda when Djukanovic came to Washington last month to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joseph Biden, and lawmakers.

Following his meetings, Dukanovic sat down for an exclusive interview with The Cable. Here are some excerpts:

JR: So, can you tell me about your meetings with Secretary of State Clinton and Vice President Biden? What was your message to them? And what was their message to you?

MD: My message to them was actually very simple. Montenegro is steadily moving towards its European and Euro-Atlantic goals. We are pleased that you have announced renewed and stronger presence in the Balkans from the United States and we stand ready to be your partners in dealing with the remaining outstanding issues in our region.

Their message was one of tribute to Montenegro for what it has done thus far, recognition for what we have done and also appreciation for Montenegro's readiness to participate in Afghanistan and other critical places where the support of the international community is needed. Their message was a readiness to continue to support Montenegro towards full membership in NATO. These messages were very encouraging for us.

JR: Montenegro has received MAP status for joining NATO. So many other countries have sought this status, but your country has advanced farther than them. What is the secret? Why is your country been more successful?

MD: Unlike others, Montenegro managed to preserve internal peace and to spare itself from war in its territory -- that was our first advantage. The second advantage was in the fact that we pursued realpolitik. This is something that should seem natural, but I will tell you that this is an advantage, especially in our region, which is so obsessed with history and false ideas of one's historic importance.... In short, we did not engage in any wrong topics. All this allowed us to focus on key tasks, this is why Montenegro's progress comes as no surprise.

JR: What have you heard from the U.S. government about the schedule for your country joining NATO? Do you expect this soon? What are the obstacles between here and there?

MD: So the most important message that I heard in yesterday's talks with Secretary Clinton and from Vice President Biden was that all countries of the Balkans ... should be part of NATO and the EU when they fulfill the conditions for that. Also, Vice President Biden said that ... they should become members when they continue to fulfill and have conducted the necessary reforms. At the same time, they feel very confident that Montenegrins have the capacity to fulfill these requirements.

JR: My understanding is that you will deploy troops to Afghanistan soon in what is a small contingent, but the first presence of Montenegrin troops. Please explain why you have made this decision to deploy troops to Afghanistan. Do you believe that this is in your country's security interest? Or is this more about building relationships with America and other Western countries?

MD: I do think that the threat of terrorism is global and this is something that, sooner or later, threatens everybody. I think that it makes more sense to support the fight against this scourge at a time when that seems to be a danger that is not so close to home. Besides, of course we feel we need to demonstrate to America and others our readiness to be a part of this democratic coalition. Because this indeed confirms our readiness not just to enjoy the privileges one has as a member of NATO, but also to fulfill obligations resulting from such a status.

JR: Regarding the institutions of your country: Did the officials or lawmakers raise issues of corruption and what did they ask of you regarding tackling corruption in your country? And how did you answer them?

MD: I brought up these issues ... Our most important task remains to enhance the quality of life of our citizens. This task is closely linked with the continued and further presence of foreign investments in Montenegro.... So, thinking what the next package of advantages we as a state need to offer to foreign investors or potential investors. Our conviction is that this is better legal security and enhanced rule of law and because of that, the rule of law and tackling corruption and crime efficiently remains an important priority for us.

JR: At one time, you were much more eastward looking, and now you are much more westward looking. As you look now at Russia, how would you describe the path they have taken on the same issues: corruption, human rights, and economic freedom?

MD: I would first like to say that an important part of the Montenegrin tradition is cooperation with Russia, cooperation between our countries. We recently spoke of three centuries of official relations between Montenegro and Russia. On the other hand, Montenegro, totally logically, is moving toward Europe to be part of Europe and of NATO. This, I think, is something that is very appropriate for the whole region in which we live. But we don't think we should abandon some traditional friends. One does not exclude the other.

JR: You mentioned that you've seen that the administration has announced increased engagement in the Balkans. Have you seen that increased engagement implemented and, if so, what are some example of that increase?

MD: I would say that this is best illustrated by the Bosnian example. As you know, America is together with Europe a co-author of this so-called Bosnia Peace Process, which should lead to a constitutional reform resulting in a viable Bosnia for the future. Also, it seems to me that there is a very visible interest in the United States strengthening the position of Kosovo. We also know that for some years know the United States has been demonstrating an interest that the dispute between Macedonia and Greece be overcome, thereby creating the full integration of Macedonia into NATO. As you know, these are precisely the three outstanding issues in our region which prevent us from being to say that the Balkans is definitely a stable place.

JR: What do you think of the effectiveness of the foreign policy of the Obama administration after one year?

MD: As a citizen of Europe, I feel (with my very frequent contact with various people in Europe starting with European statesmen) that American foreign policy indeed gives us great encouragement and hope in Europe. It is my opinion not only in Europe. I hope that President Obama and his administration will have enough time to implement their very highly set goals in terms of foreign policy, to implement them consistently and to contribute to something that the whole world will benefit from.

The Obama administration's rollout of its new nuclear strategy will be delayed until March, the Pentagon told Congress last week.

The notification came in the form of a letter from Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Miller to Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain, chairman and ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee, respectively. The letter, obtained by The Cable, said that the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, will be delivered to Congress on March 1, not Feb. 1 as was previously planned.

The announcement comes amid reports that the NPR is mired in an internal administration debate over some key issues, such as whether or not to abandon a "first use" policy, how many nuclear weapons are needed for whatever missions the NPR identifies as crucial, and how far the review will go toward advancing President Obama's stated goal of a future world free of nuclear weapons.

But arms-control advocates see the delay as not so surprising (what review isn't delayed in Washington?) and they argue that the postponement will give the administration more time to give the NPR the senior-level attention it deserves.

"It's not particularly surprising. I believe it's due to the fact that principals haven't been able to really dig in to the substantive issues of the NPR," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.

Some who favor sharp reductions and more commitments to a nuclear drawdown see the delay as one last chance to have their views considered by the White House and the National Security Council, which may have a different take than the Pentagon on some issues. For example, the Pentagon is said to be against adopting a "no first use" policy and may still be pushing for a new class of nuclear warhead.

The Bush administration program to build a new warhead, called the Reliable Replacement Warhead, is dead, senior administration officials such as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher have said repeatedly. But Tauscher and other have also indicated that they would present a budget in February that meets Senate Republican calls for "stockpile modernization," although there is no consensus on what that means.

"The trouble in the debate is that the term ‘modernization' gets used to describe a number of things, from new weapons to improvements to the nuclear weapons complex, and other things as well," said John Isaacs, executive director at the Council for a Livable World, a nongovernmental organization that advocates for the goal of zero nuclear weapons that Obama announced in his Prague speech.

All 40 Senate Republicans and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman penned a letter to Obama in December specifically outlining several points they said must be included in the stockpile modernization program, which they are demanding in order to support the follow-on to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, which is being negotiated now.

The relationship between the NPR and the START follow-on agreement is an interesting one. It would seem that the administration would have to know its overall nuclear policy before negotiating weapons levels, and yet the START agreement may come out before the NPR.

Administration officials have told The Cable that the NPR tasked out a set of weapons numbers to inform the START negotiations months ago, so there shouldn't be any problem. Besides, the NPR is setting policy for future reductions, not just those to be agreed to in this negotiation, experts point out.

But for Senate Republicans, that explanation is simply not enough.

"The key thing for senators is, they do not understand how officials are in Geneva discussing force-level reductions and meanwhile the NPR is apparently delayed," said one senior GOP senate aide, adding that the GOP was not being briefed on the NPR's progress.

Meanwhile, the aide said that the follow-on START agreement could be ratified in the Senate only if the stockpile-management aspects of the president's budget meet the demands in the letter and if there is no link between START and missile defense, despite statements from the Russian side.

"If we wanted to kill the treaty, we would just let them negotiate a bad treaty and then kill it in the Senate," the aide said. "We're trying to help them come up with a treaty that can pass muster in the Senate."

UPDATE: Lt. Col. Jonathan Withingon, spokesman for the Pentagon policy shop, e-mails in this explanation in response to our request for an explanation for the delay. "As we're nearing completion, the Department requires additional time to appropriately address the range of complex issues under consideration in the Nuclear Posture Review."

At the start of its hearing this morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee established a quorum, held a "business meeting," and favorably reported out these diplomatic nominations, all by voice vote. The full Senate must now confirm, but no schedule for that has been set.

1. Michael H. Posner, of New York, to be assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor

2. David C. Jacobson, of Illinois, to be ambassador to Canada

3. Alan D. Solomont, of Massachusetts, to be ambassador to Spain, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as ambassador to Andorra

4. Robert D. Hormats, of New York, to be under secretary of state for economic, energy, and agricultural affairs 

5. Also Robert D. Hormats (who is wearing multiple hats) to be United States Alternate Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of five years; United States Alternate Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of five years; United States Alternate Governor of the African Development Bank for a term of five years; United States Alternate Governor of the African Development Fund; United States Alternate Governor of the Asian Development Bank; and United States Alternate Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

6. Lee A. Feinstein, of Virginia, to be ambassador to the Republic of Poland

7. Barry B. White, of Massachusetts, to be ambassador to Norway