U.S. Officials Downplay Impact of Ukraine Crisis on Nuclear Security Efforts

None

Cossack men install a Russian flag and a Crimean flag on the roof of the City Hall building on March 17 in Bakhchysarai, Ukraine. Obama administration officials on Tuesday downplayed the impact the Russian annexation of the region would have on nuclear security initiatives.
National Journal
Douglas P. Guarino
April 2, 2014, 10:03 a.m.

Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials on Tues­day sought to down­play the like­li­hood that the re­cent crisis in Ukraine would un­der­mine vari­ous arms con­trol and nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity ef­forts.

Dur­ing a Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices sub­com­mit­tee hear­ing, ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials faced ques­tions re­gard­ing how Mo­scow’s con­tro­ver­sial an­nex­a­tion of the Crimea re­gion could af­fect ef­forts to lim­it the spread of nuc­le­ar weapons across the globe, along with ini­ti­at­ives to se­cure nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­als in­side Rus­sia.

Law­makers also raised con­cerns about how Rus­sia — along with In­dia, Pakistan and China — did not sign onto cer­tain pledges to im­prove nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity at a glob­al lead­er­ship sum­mit in the Neth­er­lands last week.

Of the 53 na­tions that par­ti­cip­ated in the third bi­en­ni­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Sum­mit, 35 signed a de­clar­a­tion aimed at inch­ing the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity closer to ad­opt­ing uni­ver­sal stand­ards for how to se­cure weapons-us­able nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­al.

The nearly three dozen sig­nat­ory na­tions agreed to “meet the in­tent” of vol­un­tary guidelines for se­cur­ing nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­als already draf­ted by the U.N.’s In­ter­na­tion­al Atom­ic En­ergy Agency.

This mul­ti­lat­er­al pledge and sev­er­al oth­ers that were not agreed to by all the coun­tries par­ti­cip­at­ing in the event were called “gift bas­kets,” in sum­mit par­lance.

Dur­ing Tues­day’s hear­ing, Sen­at­or Deb Fisc­her (R-Neb.) raised con­cerns that Rus­sia, In­dia, Pakistan and China did not sign onto the 35-na­tion pledge.

Fisc­her, the top Re­pub­lic­an on the emer­ging threats and cap­ab­il­it­ies sub­com­mit­tee, also down­played the sig­ni­fic­ance of a vow by Ja­pan to re­turn a por­tion of its plutoni­um stocks to the United States — a move that ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials cited as one of the ma­jor ac­com­plish­ments of the sum­mit.

“Did we get a good gift bas­ket from Rus­sia, China, In­dia and Pakistan?” Fisc­her asked. “Those are the coun­tries I would have the most con­cern with, rather than Ja­pan.”

Sen­at­or Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), the sub­com­mit­tee chair­wo­man, also sug­ges­ted she had some con­cern about these four coun­tries not sign­ing onto the ini­ti­at­ive, al­though she ac­know­ledged that she was not fa­mil­i­ar with the de­tails of the pledge.

Anne Har­ring­ton, the Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion’s deputy ad­min­is­trat­or for de­fense nuc­le­ar non­pro­lif­er­a­tion, told the law­makers she “would not gauge their in­terest or com­mit­ment to nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity on wheth­er or not they signed up for this par­tic­u­lar gift bas­ket.”

Har­ring­ton said the four coun­tries in ques­tion “are not very fond” of the gift bas­ket ap­proach to nuc­le­ar dip­lomacy, gen­er­ally speak­ing.

“But Rus­sia cer­tainly did sign up on the state­ment of com­bat­ing nuc­le­ar ter­ror­ism un­der the glob­al ini­ti­at­ive, and Pakistan and China have made a num­ber of their own uni­lat­er­al com­mit­ments to do oth­er things,” she said.

“We may have our is­sues right now,” es­pe­cially with re­gard to Rus­sia, the of­fi­cial from the semi­autonom­ous En­ergy De­part­ment agency said. But the sum­mit pro­cess — which Pres­id­ent Obama ini­ti­ated in 2010 — has been suc­cess­ful in part due to Rus­si­an as­sist­ance in re­mov­ing nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­als from sev­er­al former East­ern bloc na­tions, she con­ten­ded.

Har­ring­ton said the United States and Rus­sia also have a his­tory, “even dur­ing times of high polit­ic­al ten­sion,” of re­cog­niz­ing the im­port­ance of work on which the two coun­tries col­lab­or­ate, in terms of se­cur­ing nuc­le­ar war­heads and weapons-us­able ma­ter­i­als with­in Rus­sia it­self.

Un­der the terms of a new agree­ment made last year, “our teams con­tin­ue to work with our Rus­si­an coun­ter­parts to im­prove the se­cur­ity of Rus­si­an nuc­le­ar and ra­di­olo­gic­al ma­ter­i­al in fixed sites and in trans­it, and to de­vel­op a strong and sus­tain­able nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity in­fra­struc­ture” in the coun­try, Har­ring­ton said.

Re­becca Hers­man, deputy as­sist­ant sec­ret­ary of De­fense for coun­ter­ing weapons of mass de­struc­tion, said the Pentagon had also agreed with Rus­si­an of­fi­cials to un­der­take two pro­jects un­der the new agree­ment: The dis­man­tle­ment of cer­tain Rus­si­an stra­tegic sub­mar­ines, and the trans­port­a­tion of highly en­riched urani­um pre­vi­ously used as sub­mar­ine fuel “from a less se­cure to a much more se­cure loc­a­tion in Rus­sia.”

It was un­clear, however, wheth­er the two of­fi­cials were re­fer­ring to work that is already on­go­ing or to work that is planned to take place after the United States and Rus­sia hash out deals on how ex­actly to im­ple­ment last year’s new agree­ment.

The ac­cord was meant to re­place the now-ex­pired Co­oper­at­ive Threat Re­duc­tion um­brella agree­ment that had been in place between the two na­tions since the end of the Cold War. Last month, Har­ring­ton said the Ukraine crisis could fur­ther delay the rel­ev­ant ne­go­ti­ations.

In ad­di­tion, NNSA spokes­man Bill Gib­bons said in a state­ment last week that there is cur­rently an “on­go­ing in­tern­al re­view of Rus­si­an-re­lated activ­it­ies” across the board at his agency, in light of the Ukraine crisis.

Of­fi­cials at the nuc­le­ar agency did not re­spond to a re­quest for com­ment by press time.

Ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials on Tues­day also sought to down­play the po­ten­tial for Rus­sia’s ac­tions in Ukraine to dis­suade oth­er coun­tries from giv­ing up — or not pur­su­ing in the first place — the pos­ses­sion of nuc­le­ar weapons. Shortly after the Cold War ended, Ukraine agreed to trans­fer its en­tire So­viet-era nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al to Mo­scow, in ex­change for a Rus­si­an, U.S. and U.K. pledge to re­spect its ter­rit­ori­al bound­ar­ies.

“I think the value of pur­su­ing a policy of non­pro­lif­er­a­tion and a re­jec­tion of nuc­le­ar weapons by coun­tries like Ukraine will con­tin­ue to be the best path for­ward for them,” Hers­man said. “It won’t really change their policy or ap­proach, des­pite some of these con­cerns from Rus­sia.”

Fisc­her was not con­vinced.

“I dis­agree with you,” the Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­or said. “Ukraine was the third [ranked glob­al] power with re­gard to nuc­le­ar weapons. They signed an agree­ment with Rus­sia and the United States that I un­der­stand ba­sic­ally said, ‘Give up your [nuc­le­ar weapons] and we’ll take care of you forever.’ So is forever now 20 years? Is that the mark we’re go­ing to go by?”

In a re­lated mat­ter, Fisc­her did “com­mend the [En­ergy De­part­ment] for do­ing dif­fi­cult but ne­ces­sary pri­or­it­iz­a­tion in its [fisc­al 2015] budget” re­quest of its nuc­le­ar non­pro­lif­er­a­tion pro­grams. Un­der the pro­pos­al, “crit­ic­al work is sus­tained while less is asked of the Amer­ic­an tax­pay­er,” she said.

Hagan, however, said it was “not clear that the lower budget re­quest will fully sup­port the aims of [the Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Sum­mit] and oth­er im­port­ant non­pro­lif­er­a­tion goals.”

She noted that, for fisc­al 2015, the De­fense and En­ergy de­part­ments pro­pose to spend “roughly $1.9 bil­lion for non­pro­lif­er­a­tion activ­it­ies to help stem the flow of weapons of mass de­struc­tion “¦ this is a 21 per­cent re­duc­tion from the $2.4 bil­lion ap­pro­pri­ated to both pro­grams” in fisc­al 2014, Hagan noted.

The com­mit­tee is ex­pec­ted to draft its ver­sion of the an­nu­al de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill, which au­thor­izes fund­ing levels, later this year.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×