|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S.-Russia: Nonproliferation Efforts Expected to Continue Despite Disagreement Over Iraq By Mike Nartker They expected the U.S. threat reduction programs — in which the United States funds efforts to dismantle or secure WMD materials in the former Soviet Union — to continue because both countries benefit from the national security improvements. U.S.-Russian efforts to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenals will also continue, despite the Russian Parliament’s delayed consideration of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, experts said (see GSN, April 9). The threat reduction effort is one “where we’re getting something out of it,” said Clay Moltz of the Monterey Institute of International Studies’ Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Russia appears to have been able to avoid the same levels of political backlash in the United States that have befallen France and Germany, in part, because its opposition to the war was not as vocal, said Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the CATO Institute. Such backlash — especially against France, the staunchest opponent of the U.S.-British efforts last month to obtain new U.N. authority to attack Iraq — reached symbolic highs when the U.S. House of Representatives leadership ordered the House cafeteria to change its menu from carrying “French fries” and “French toast” to “Freedom fries” and “Freedom toast.” “No one’s talking about banning Russian vodka or Russian dressing,” Pena said. Pena also described Russia as being a “different political animal” than France or Germany, noting U.S security concerns over Russia’s stockpile of former Soviet weapons of mass destruction. “We cannot turn our back on Russia,” he said. Pena warned, however, that there is “always some political fallout” for opposing the United States. There is more than enough support within the U.S. Congress for the threat reduction programs to ensure that they will remain adequately funded despite current U.S.-Russian friction, Moltz said. Such support is especially high within the Senate, where Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) heads the Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar was one of the original architects of the threat reduction efforts and is unlikely to allow any serious funding cuts for the program, Moltz said. Russia’s stance on Iraq could have more of a potential influence on support for nonproliferation programs among House members, however, according to experts. There have been previous examples where U.S.-Russian tensions have led to attacks on threat reduction programs in the House, according to David Culp, a legislative representative with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a nuclear nonproliferation advocacy group. For example, in the late 1990s, House Republicans attempted to cut threat reduction funding because of allegations that Russia was providing Silkworm antiship cruise missile technology to China, Culp said. He said that while there has currently been little outright display of animosity toward Russia in the House, the mood in the chamber could best be described as “suspicion.” The war on Iraq has appeared to have more of an effect on U.S.-Russian relations from the Russian side, particularly with the strategic arms treaty (see GSN, March 26). “Maybe now is not the right moment psychologically to bring this document up for ratification,” Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said last month. “If we wait for some time, and concentrate all our efforts on ending the war and switching over to a political settlement (of the Iraq crisis), then at a more quiet moment we can quickly deal with this issue,” he said. Many experts played down any potential significance in Russia’s decision to delay ratification of the treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to delay the treaty’s ratification in order to prevent a negative vote in the Russian Parliament due to the current tense political situation, and not because of a lack of support for the treaty’s aims, Moltz said. He said the situation would be akin to the Bush administration attempting to have the Senate approve a new arms control treaty while Russia was engaged in heavy fighting in the disputed Chechnya region. The delay is “part of the fallout from making a decision that not all your friends and allies agree with,” Pena said. Russia also views threat reductions programs as being in its own national security interests, said Rose Gottemoeller, a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nonproliferation Project. Moscow has historically viewed the program as “sacrosanct,” she said. If the current U.S.-Russian political tensions are going to have any impact on nonproliferation efforts, it will be on the day-to-day level of U.S.-Russian cooperation, such as access to WMD sites, Culp said. He noted that in 1998, while Russia reacted to U.S. airstrikes on Iraq with a delay in the ratification of START 2, nonproliferation activities did not come to a halt. Russia is unlikely to shut down current threat reduction projects, he said, but it is also likely that no new projects will begin. Russia’s reluctance to expand cooperation with the United States was demonstrated last month when Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said Russia would not allow international access to some of its nuclear sites, citing national security reasons (see GSN, March 27). Rumyantsev’s comments came shortly after the release of a U.S. General Accounting Office report that said a lack of such assess has severely hindered U.S. efforts to secure Russian WMD materials (see GSN, March 24). Ultimately, however, experts were optimistic that whatever tensions might have been caused by Russia’s decision not to support the war in Iraq, it would have little impact on either Washington’s or Moscow’s view of the value of threat reduction efforts. Charles Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, said a “global coalition” is needed to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists; a coalition of which Russia would be an “essential partner.” He said he was optimistic that U.S. President George W. Bush and Putin would take advantage of a summit scheduled to held in St. Petersburg in late May to repair the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship and to re-emphasize nonproliferation efforts. [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire which is published independently by the National Journal Group, Inc.]
| ||||||||||
Back to top
