White House Expects Russia to Stick to Arms Treaties, Despite Ukraine Crisis

National Journal Contributing Editor James Kitfield discusses nuclear security with National Security Council staffer Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall at a Wednesday forum co-sponsored by the Nuclear Threat Initiative and National Journal LIVE.
National Journal
Douglas P. Guarino
March 12, 2014, 10:44 a.m.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion ex­pects that Rus­sia will con­tin­ue to abide by ex­ist­ing arms-con­trol agree­ments with the United States, des­pite icy re­la­tions between Wash­ing­ton and Mo­scow over Rus­si­an mil­it­ary in­volve­ment in Ukraine, a key White House of­fi­cial said on Wed­nes­day.

“We see no reas­on that the ten­sions that ex­ist over Ukraine should in any way ob­struct the path to­ward ful­filling the com­mit­ments that we have made with the Rus­si­ans to re­duce nuc­le­ar weapons on both sides,” said Eliza­beth Sher­wood-Ran­dall, White House co­ordin­at­or for de­fense policy, coun­ter­ing weapons of mass de­struc­tion and arms con­trol.

Over the week­end, the Rus­sia state news agency re­por­ted that a seni­or de­fense min­istry of­fi­cial there was threat­en­ing to sus­pend New START arms-con­trol veri­fic­a­tion in­spec­tions be­cause of the on­go­ing spat over Mo­scow’s in­cur­sion on the Crimean Pen­in­sula.

Speak­ing at a Na­tion­al Journ­al LIVE policy sum­mit in Wash­ing­ton on the fu­ture of glob­al nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity, Sher­wood-Ran­dall said the ad­min­is­tra­tion also ex­pects it will be able to con­tin­ue col­lab­or­at­ing with Mo­scow on is­sues fa­cing this month’s Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Sum­mit in the Neth­er­lands. The March 24-25 gath­er­ing of world lead­ers is the third of its kind, and aims to ac­cel­er­ate ef­forts to lock down dan­ger­ous nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­als around the world against pos­sible ter­ror­ist threats or pro­lif­er­a­tion.

“We con­tin­ue to work to­ward this sum­mit “¦ in The Hag­ue with our Rus­si­an coun­ter­parts very ef­fect­ively,” Sher­wood-Ran­dall said at the for­um, co-sponsored by the Nuc­le­ar Threat Ini­ti­at­ive. “They’re im­port­ant con­trib­ut­ors to this pro­cess as a coun­try that has a sig­ni­fic­ant pos­ses­sion of both ci­vil­ian and mil­it­ary nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­al, and we ex­pect this to be a very con­struct­ive sum­mit in that do­main as well.”

The White House of­fi­cial ac­know­ledged, however, that there is con­cern that Rus­sia already is not abid­ing by at least one agree­ment — re­lated both to nuc­le­ar arms and to the Ukrain­i­an con­flict it­self. Un­der the 1994 Bud­apest Memor­andum on Se­cur­ity As­sur­ances, Ukraine gave up its Cold War-era So­viet Uni­on nuc­le­ar weapons in re­turn for a Rus­si­an vow to re­spect the sov­er­eignty of the former So­viet re­pub­lic.

“We are call­ing on Rus­sia to abide by that com­mit­ment and the world is quite united in its ex­pres­sion of strong dis­ap­prov­al of the Rus­si­an cur­rent oc­cu­pa­tion of Crimea,” Sher­wood-Ran­dall said. “We have con­tin­ued to point out to the Rus­si­ans that they are a party to this agree­ment and have an ob­lig­a­tion to re­spect it.”

Speak­ing at the same for­um on Wed­nes­day, Har­vard Uni­versity’s Mat­thew Bunn said he feared that soured re­la­tions between the United States and Rus­sia over the Ukraine situ­ation could in­deed have neg­at­ive im­plic­a­tions for nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity is­sues on which the two na­tions col­lab­or­ate.

The Ukraine crisis could af­fect mul­ti­lat­er­al talks over Ir­an’s con­tro­ver­sial nuc­le­ar pro­gram, as well as U.S. ef­forts to com­plete nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity work it launched in­side Rus­sia at the end of the Cold War, the former ad­viser to Pres­id­ent Clin­ton said.

“I worry be­cause of the really tox­ic state of U.S.-Rus­si­an re­la­tions at the mo­ment,” Bunn said. “I think we really need to fo­cus on find­ing some ne­go­ti­ated res­ol­u­tion on the situ­ation in Ukraine be­cause, I think, oth­er­wise it will have a very pois­on­ous ef­fect on all of these oth­er im­port­ant kinds of co­oper­a­tion that we’re work­ing on.”

Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire re­por­ted last week that U.S. En­ergy De­part­ment ef­forts to se­cure nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­als with­in Rus­sia had stalled, and that the delay could be ex­acer­bated by the Ukrain­i­an crisis. The work — on­go­ing since the end of the Cold War — had been con­duc­ted un­der the Co­oper­at­ive Threat Re­duc­tion um­brella agree­ment.

The ac­cord, of­ten called the “Nunn-Lugar” agree­ment be­cause of the role former Sen­at­ors Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) played in its form­a­tion, ex­pired last sum­mer, and the two coun­tries have struggled to fi­nal­ize de­tails of a re­place­ment pact.

Bunn warned against com­pla­cency over the is­sue, par­tic­u­larly in light of the Ukraine crisis.

He de­scribed “a feel­ing in both Mo­scow and Wash­ing­ton that I think is wrong, that the work is done on nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity in Rus­sia and that there’s noth­ing left to do there any­more — it’s not.”

“There’s a huge prob­lem of sus­tain­ab­il­ity, there are prob­lems of se­cur­ity cul­ture, there’s still weak­nesses in in­sider pro­tec­tion and we still need to be work­ing to­geth­er,” Bunn said. Most U.S. work on nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity in Rus­sia has been stalled “for al­most a year,” he said.

“It was just on the point of sort of get­ting mov­ing again with dis­cus­sions back and forth when the Ukraine crisis broke out,” Bunn said. “I re­main hope­ful that we will be able to get that back on even keel, and if we man­age to re­solve the Ukraine crisis and get back to some reas­on­able level of ten­sion in our re­la­tions, really put it on a new level of equal part­ner­ship.”

Sher­wood-Ran­dall was asked wheth­er the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s plans to make cuts to its own non­pro­lif­er­a­tion pro­grams dur­ing fisc­al 2015 could send the wrong mes­sage to oth­er na­tions head­ing in­to the up­com­ing Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Sum­mit.

Un­veiled last week, the budget plan would re­duce En­ergy De­part­ment non­pro­lif­er­a­tion ef­forts by 20 per­cent, while at the same time boost­ing the agency’s spend­ing on nuc­le­ar weapons by nearly 7 per­cent. The nuc­le­ar-weapons pro­grams would re­ceive $8.3 bil­lion, while the non­pro­lif­er­a­tion ef­forts would re­ceive $1.6 bil­lion.

Echo­ing an ar­gu­ment that ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials have made in the past, Sher­wood-Ran­dall said the non­pro­lif­er­a­tion budget in pri­or years had been “front­loaded to achieve the [nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity ob­ject­ives] that we achieved in the last four years.” She said 90 per­cent of the com­mit­ments made at the first Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Sum­mit in 2010 had already been im­ple­men­ted.

“To the ex­tent that we didn’t re­quire fund­ing for cer­tain pro­grams be­cause they have already got­ten their work done — that money is no longer in the budget,” the White House of­fi­cial said. “But we “¦ as­sess that there is suf­fi­cient fund­ing in the budget to achieve all of our non­pro­lif­er­a­tion goals in this time frame and to con­tin­ue the very im­port­ant work we do bi­lat­er­ally with a num­ber of coun­tries to sup­port their nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity re­gimes.”

Law­makers have raised con­cerns, however, that budget cuts are caus­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s goals for se­cur­ing ra­di­olo­gic­al “dirty bomb” ma­ter­i­al to slip.

Keri Fulton, spokes­wo­man for the En­ergy De­part­ment’s semi­autonom­ous Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion, told GSN last week the fisc­al 2015 budget plan calls for 8,500 build­ings with “high-pri­or­ity” ra­di­olo­gic­al ma­ter­i­al to be se­cured by 2044. When the fisc­al 2013 budget was draf­ted, that end date was in­ten­ded to be 2035, she said.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
35 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×