|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Response: CTR Program Hurt by U.S., Russian Bureaucracies, GAO Says The U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which helps fund efforts to safeguard Russian WMD stockpiles and materials, has been hindered by bureaucratic obstacles in both Moscow and Washington, according to a U.S. General Accounting Office report expected to be presented to Congress this week (see GSN, Jan. 17). While the United States has contributed about $6 billion since 1992 to help Russia destroy or secure its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, basic security improvements have still not been made at dozens of Russian sites that store about 60 percent of the country’s nuclear materials, the GAO report says. One of the biggest problems is that Russia refuses to grant U.S. officials access to the sites where the security upgrades are to be made, it says. “Russia is not providing needed access to many of the sites,” the draft report says. “Unfortunately, there is little reason to believe this situation will change in the near future,” it adds. In the United State, both the Congress and the White House have refused to provide essential funding or to grant waivers for the awarding of program contracts, the GAO report says (see GSN, Jan. 15). It also criticizes the U.S. Defense Department for implementing security improvements too slowly at sites where Russia has provided access (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, March 4). The threat reduction program also came under fire yesterday from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who said that greater financial control over the program was needed following the collapse of two major projects. The United States spent almost $95 million to help Russia build a plant to destroy missile engines, which was ultimately wasted because Russian local officials blocked the plant’s construction, Hunter said. The United States also contributed $106 million to help Russia build a plant to destroy liquid missile fuel, only to be told by Russia last year that the fuel had been used in its civilian space program, he said (see GSN, May 29, 2002). “We’ve got two white elephants here,” said Hunter, whose committee was scheduled to hold a hearing on the issue today. “An enormous amount of money has been wasted here. Taxpayer money,” he added (Ken Guggenheim, Associated Press/Austin American-Statesman, March 4). Hunter continued his assault on the threat reduction program in a Washington Post commentary today. “Twelve years and more than $7 billion later, it is worth revisiting the original purpose of this program,” Hunter said. “Designed as a temporary, focused effort to shrink Moscow’s vast strategic arsenal with American funding and know-how, the CTR program has, over time, morphed into an open-ended, unfocused and sometimes self-defeating venture,” he added. The United States appears ready to make another mistake by considering helping Russia to dispose of missile engines through the use of outdoor-burners — an $80 million project that could cause environmental damage and has no guarantee of obtaining the needed permits, Hunter said. Hunter also warned that the U.S. threat reduction efforts could be instead aiding Russia militarily. “For every dollar the United States commits to helping Russia destroy these weapons, we run the risk that Moscow will use the savings to fund military programs that are contrary to U.S. national security interests,” he said, citing reports of Russia acquiring new ICBMs (see GSN, Jan. 30, 2002). The Pentagon needs to both return the threat reduction program to its original focus of destroying strategic systems and to maintain greater financial control, Hunter said. He said Congress needed to maintain strict oversight of the program. “If the Cooperative Threat Reduction program is to once again benefit U.S. national security, it must refocus its resources on real threats and ensure real Russian cooperation,” Hunter said. “Moscow’s leadership has to understand that it cannot stand by as CTR projects fail, $100 million at a time, and still expect U.S. assistance,” he added (Duncan Hunter, Washington Post, March 4). For further information, see: U.S. Defense Department CTR Site
| ||||||||||
Back to top
