|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
European Response: Europe Should Promote More Nonproliferation in Russia, Analysts Say By Kerry Boyd “This is a time for hope for the United States and for Europe, a time when our cooperation could lead to a safer and to a better world,” Bush said after meeting with EU officials. Europe faces many of the same threats from WMD proliferation — particularly the risk that terrorists could acquire WMD materials — as the United States, but European countries have not contributed as many resources to preventing proliferation as the United States, analysts said. Europe should be more creative and active in general arms control efforts, and one way to do so is to increase its own cooperative threat reduction programs in Russia, Bruno Tertrais, a senior researcher at the Foundation pour la Recherche Strategique, said last month during the Sandia National Laboratories International Arms Control Conference (see GSN, April 29). Paul Schulte, British Defense Ministry director of proliferation and arms control, expressed his personal hope that more European countries would realize the strong case for providing more assistance to help prevent WMD proliferation from the former Soviet states. “The Europeans need to be doing a lot more, and it’s unfortunate that they haven’t been contributing as much as they could given the threat that we all face from a poorly secured Russian complex,” Jon Wolfsthal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told Global Security Newswire. European countries have done important work in the former Soviet Union, but the resources devoted to nonproliferation have not been equal to the threat, Wolfsthal said, adding the United States has also not devoted adequate resources. Robert Einhorn, a former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation and now an analyst involved with efforts to promote European contributions to nonproliferation in the former Soviet states, agreed that neither the United States nor Europe has been doing enough to stem proliferation from Russia and its neighbors. Both the United States and its European allies have a strong stake in securing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and materials, Einhorn said, adding that European countries understand they are vulnerable. The United States, however, has done a lot more to prevent proliferation than Europe over the last decade, Einhorn said. Hopefully Europe will increase its efforts, he said. Some European countries have paid “lip service” to promoting nonproliferation in the former Soviet Union, but often “there’s been no money forthcoming,” said Rose Gottemoeller, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment and former Energy deputy undersecretary for defense nuclear nonproliferation. Some European Efforts Increasing Although Europe’s contributions to reducing former Soviet WMD proliferation have been small, there are some important programs underway, several analysts said. There has been improvement in European contributions, Gottemoeller said. The Nordic countries and United Kingdom have put some thought and money into threat reduction programs, and Italy has been a leader in working toward greater European involvement, she said (see GSN, Dec. 7, 2001). Although European countries should dedicate more money to threat reduction, the United States will always beat Europe in terms of numbers, given its own size, Christine Kucia of the British American Security Information Council said. The United Kingdom is the biggest European contributor to nonproliferation programs, Raphael Della Ratta of the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council said. The country recently pledged $123 million for nonproliferation and disarmament programs in the former Soviet Union, although British authorities have not yet decided exactly how to spend the money. Germany, Italy, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom have all provided money for chemical weapons destruction in Russia, although the United States has done “most of the heavy lifting,” Della Ratta said. Italian foreign ministry official Paolo Serpi told GSN that Italy is contributing $8 million to a bilateral program that aims to destroy stocks of chemical weapons in Russia. Germany has devoted $32 million to chemical weapons destruction, $8 million to dismantling ICBM launching sites, $6 million for plutonium disposal and $1.4 million for safeguarding missile material over the last 10 years, according to a German Embassy spokesman. Nordic countries have expressed particular interest in protecting certain WMD materials, Kucia said. Nordic countries have been involved in dealing with former Soviet nuclear submarines in the northern fleet, which could pose both an environmental and security risk, Gottemoeller said. Between 1992 and 2001, according to a European Commission report, France provided $134 million to nonproliferation and disarmament programs in Russia, the United Kingdom gave $126 million, Germany gave $58 million, the Netherlands gave $13 million, Italy gave $12.4 million, Sweden gave $10.8 million and Finland contributed almost $1 million. According to Alessandro Cevese, the director of the Italian Foreign Ministry’s disarmament and nonproliferation division, the European Commission is primarily involved now in supporting programs to destroy chemical weapons, but has a great interest in expanding nonproliferation activities. European countries are interested in such initiatives, Cevese told GSN, what is lacking at the moment, however, are the “enormous” resources needed to finance such projects. The European Union has also contributed to chemical weapons destruction and disposing of weapon-grade plutonium. The EU TACIS program, which provides technical assistance to Russia and several Eastern European and Central Asian states, has provided assistance for destroying chemical weapons, employing Russian scientists, implementing safeguards at nuclear plants and preventing unauthorized transfer of nuclear material, according to the EC report. Coordinating Efforts European nonproliferation programs have generally focused on addressing issues that are most interesting or relevant to the individual European countries, Gottemoeller said. The U.S. approach has been to establish a “rational division of labor,” she said. Coordinating U.S. and European projects is very important, and U.S. and European officials periodically meet to coordinate programs and avoid duplication, Gottemoeller said. The project to construct a chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuchye in Russia is a good example of U.S.-European coordination, Gottemoeller said (see GSN, April 3). The United States appropriated funds to build the plant but would not build supporting infrastructure, so the United Kingdom agreed to build the road to the facility. More coordination is necessary, however, Wolfsthal said, adding that several think tanks are working to identify current programs, improve coordination and promote European participation in nonproliferation efforts. The Strengthening Cooperative Threat Reduction with Russia project is working to promote security of weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union, improve coordination and cooperation among countries for nonproliferation projects and increase understanding of threat reduction issues among politicians and the public. The Center for Strategic and International Studies is coordinating the program in partnership with the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Several other international and European institutes are involved in the project. Einhorn, who is involved in coordinating the program, said he expects the consortium, which met last week in Oslo to collect and exchange information on security issues and programs, to provide an assessment later this year on what nonproliferation efforts have worked and what direction countries should take in the future. Other initiatives are under consideration at various levels of government and the policy world. U.S. officials have discussed proposals to offer to match European funding for threat reduction projects with U.S. funds, Gottemoeller said. Cevese also said the commission and EU member states are currently studying the possibility of financing several programs, including something similar to the U.S. Nuclear Cities Initiative (see GSN, Jan. 9). Opportunities for more collaboration on nonproliferation projects in Russia will be discussed at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, Cevese added. Many of such proposals, however, remain in the discussion stage and have not yet received specific funds. Where Does the Money Go? Two U.S. analysts agreed that nonproliferation efforts are critical and the state of the Russian economy combined with terrorist attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction require that the United States and Europe provide work harder to stem proliferation, but simply providing more money is not the only answer. The United States and Europe have no choice but to provide money and resources to threat reduction programs in the former Soviet Union, but there is doubt whether the funds go to the appropriate programs and people, Charles Pena of the CATO Institute told GSN. The programs need more accountability, he said. Securing Russian nuclear weapons is in the interests of both Europe and the United States, and more money from Europe would be useful, but the current U.S. threat reduction programs are arguably not the best way to spend the money, Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation said. Russia continues to spend money on certain programs to expand its military capacity but then claims to lack money for disarmament, he said. The United States must focus more on reducing incentives for Russia to keep its weapons of mass destruction, and Bush administration plans to keep nuclear warheads taken off operational status in a reserve force rather than destroying them provides incentive for Russia to keep its nuclear weapons, Pena said. More Russian nuclear weapons means greater risk terrorists could acquire them. The United States is not reducing Russia’s incentives to maintain stockpiles, and there is nothing Europe can do about that, he said. (Note: UN Wire Staff Writer Scott Hartmann contributed to this report.) [EDITOR'S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group, Inc.]
| ||||||||||
Back to top
