- © 2000 New York University. All Rights Reserved.
- Why Helping Russia Is Good Presidential
Politics
-
- By Jon B. Wolfsthal *
- January 25, 2000
WASHINGTON -- With the New Hampshire primary just a week away,
foreign policy issues in general, and questions concerning the
danger posed by Russia's nuclear capabilities in particular, have
been largely absent from the presidential debate.
Contrary to what one might expect, the major candidates of
both parties have advocated increasing support for current efforts
to help Russia reduce its nuclear stockpiles. Assuming the U.S.
- Russian relations do not completely fall apart over the next
year - no minor assumption - this bipartisan support should result
in an increase for the important and ground-breaking efforts.
Since 1991, U.S. assistance to the former Soviet Union has
been used to dismantle nuclear delivery systems, improve security
of nuclear materials and technology, keep weapon scientists gainfully
employed and out of third- world weapon programs and eliminate
other weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
These efforts have resulted in real, tangible security benefits
to the United States and have generally received wide spread,
bipartisan support.
President Clinton summed up the situation well when he stated
in October that future generations will never look back and criticize
us for having done too much to deal with this threat, but they
might look back and criticize us for having done too little.
The good news is that the leading presidential contenders for
president in both parties support this view.
In a major foreign policy address last November, Texas Gov.
George W. Bush, in addition to voicing his support for such traditional
Republican issues as missile defense and increased military spending,
specifically endorsed U.S. security assistance programs that address
the proliferation threat in the former Soviet Union. He added
that as president, he would "ask the Congress to increase
substantially our assistance to dismantle as many of Russia's
weapons as possible, as quickly as possible."
On the Democratic side, both Vice President Al Gore and former
New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley have backed increased support U.S.
non-proliferation programs.
Whoever wins next November will need to fulfill their campaign
promises in the area of non-proliferation. Four areas where more
money and sustained efforts could yield substantial and immediate
benefits for U.S. security include:
- Jobs for Russia's nuclear scientists. Unpaid and under-employed,
Russian nuclear scientists pose a serious proliferation risk.
President Clinton requested $30 million this year to help develop
non-defense jobs for these scientists in as many as 10 of Russia's
"closed" nuclear cities.
-
- But they received only $7.5 million of the original $30 million
request, forcing the U.S. to limit its activities to just one
of these cities cities.
-
- The U.S. should provide at least $50 million for the three
cities Russia has agreed to involve in the project and expand
the effort to build business development and training centers
in as many cities as Russia is willing to allow.
-
- Buying Russia's weapons uranium. The United States
has an agreement to purchase 500 metric tons of weapons-usable
uranium from Russia over a 20-year period. This has already resulted
in the dilution of over 35 tons of weapons-usable uranium.
-
- But Russia may possess as much as 750 additional tons of
highly enriched uranium, much of which remains highly vulnerable
to theft or diversion. Additional purchases of uranium from Russia,
and more rapid dilution of the uranium slated for sale to the
United States, would have a direct and immediate security benefit.
It would also provide Russia with funds needed to improve security
over nuclear materials and pay for other disarmament-related
activities.
-
- Disposing of plutonium. Both countries declared sizable
stockpiles of their nuclear materials to be "excess to defense
needs." The two sides are negotiating an agreement to ensure
that this excess plutonium is placed in a form which impedes
its reuse in nuclear weapons.
-
- But Russia cannot pay for the construction and operation
of the facilities needed to dispose of this excess plutonium.
The United States will need to spend approximately $2 billion
domestically to dispose of its own plutonium and should arrange
to either purchase Russian plutonium for disposal in the United
States or to pay for the construction of disposal facilities
in Russia.
-
- Dismantling nuclear submarines. Russia has over 120
nuclear-powered attack submarines, many of which are idle and
slated for dismantlement. While the United States is paying to
destroy Russian submarines that can launch ballistic missiles,
Russia does not possess the facilities or the resources to destroy
its non-strategic attack subs. This is slowing the destruction
of ballistic missile submarines and risks causing a massive environmental
disaster in the Arctic region, near allies such as Norway and
Sweden.
The United States should agree to fund Russian submarine dismantlement
and spent-fuel disposition, even though this may require spending
upwards of $100 million over the next few years.
In the past, U.S. officials have been reluctant to propose
programs that would aggressively support Russia's nuclear disarmament.
But now, with the leading candidates in both parties support such
initiatives, it's time to advance projects that reduce the threat
of nuclear proliferation. It turns out that it's not only good
policy, it may also be good politics.
Jon B. Wolfsthal is an associate with the Carnegie
Endowment's Non-Proliferation Project and is a former special
assistant and policy advisor for the Department of Energy.
- © 2000 New York University. All Rights Reserved. The
Global Beat Syndicate, a service of New York University's Center
for War, Peace, and the News Media, provides editors with commentary
and perspective articles on critical global issues from contributors
around the world. For more information, check out http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/.
- Home |
About
| Archives
| Advisors
|
Staff