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
Add to Briefcase
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 »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×