AFF/THREAT REDUCTION: INHERENCY
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS TO NEUTRALIZE RUSSIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE TARGETS FOR BUSH ADMINISTRATION CUTS
BIGGEST WMD THREATS COME FROM CUTBACKS IN THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA
Don Melvin March 30, 2001 The Atlanta Journal and Constitution SECTION: News; Pg. 1B HEADLINE: Nuclear arms risk still high, Nunn says;
He urges U.S. to help Russia shield arsenal //VT2002acsln
But the threats of the post-Cold War era, Nunn said, are much different than those the country faced before. Instead of being concerned about a deliberate Soviet nuclear attack or an invasion of Europe, today's policy makers must worry about accidental missile launches, unpaid Russian nuclear scientists selling their know-how to rogue states and the vast amounts of Russian nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that are poorly secured, he said.
Those threats, Nunn said, make a compelling case for the United States to continue helping Russia make its nuclear weapons and materials safer.
"I am puzzled as to recent rumors which indicate that budgets for these essential threat-reduction programs may be seriously reduced," he said. "If true, this would be heading backward."
USA WILL CUT THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA TO PUNISH THEM FOR TECHNOLOGY SALES
Toby Harnden March 30, 2001 THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON) SECTION: Pg. 17 HEADLINE: Russia gets warning on nuclear spread //VT2002acsln
RUSSIA was given another warning about its nuclear proliferation activities yesterday when President Bush announced that he was reviewing all American aid programmes to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Bush said: "We want to make sure that any money that is being spent is being spent in an effective way. I have the obligation to the taxpayers to make sure that the money . . . is effective. And so we're putting a full review on the programmes."
Although the review was presented as being purely a "cost-benefit" analysis, it came after blunt expressions of displeasure about Moscow's sale of weapons technology. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, said that Russia was an "active proliferator".
The review, conducted by the National Security Council, is likely to lead to at least two of the programmes being abandoned.
White House officials have criticised the US Energy Department's programme to dispose of 34 tons of plutonium and there is concern among Mr Bush's advisers that the department's Nuclear Cities Initiative, designed to reduce the size of nuclear complexes, is also ineffective.
CUTTING THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS IS NOT GETTING TOUGH WITH RUSSIA, IT IS FOOLHARDY
St. Louis Post-Dispatch March 30, 2001, SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A5 HEADLINE: BUSH IS REVIEWING PROGRAMS TO HELP RUSSIA DISARM; REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS QUESTION WISDOM OF MOVE //VT2002acsln
"They think we're going to get tough with the Russians, and part of getting tough with the Russians is cutting back on these programs, which is absolutely foolhardy," said Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's top Democrat.
BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS CUTTING PROGRAMS WHICH EFFECTIVELY DENUCLEARIZED THREE FORMER SOVIET STATES
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, April 3, 2001: Editorial; Pg. 8A, HEADLINE: Cooperating with Russia best buy in nuclear safety //VT2002acsln
Cooperation already has paid dividends. The former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus are now nuclear-free.
And yet, the Bush administration has signaled that it may cut the relatively paltry funding to help Russia decommission and secure its nukes. The official reason is a concern that it is not effective; perhaps it can be made more so, but as Nunn points out, it is dollar for dollar the best investment possible in America's security.
"I am puzzled as to recent rumors . . . that these essential threat-reduction programs may be seriously reduced," Nunn said.
Puzzled is one word for it. Terrified is another.
BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL CUT SUCCESSFUL NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA
Michael McFaul, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an assistant professor at Stanford University. April 11, 2001, The New York Times SECTION: Section A; Page 23; HEADLINE: A Step Backward on Nuclear Cooperation //VT2002acsln
Reviews are necessary and rethinking of policies prudent. But why, before the review is completed, has the administration already announced plans to cut cooperative nonproliferation programs between the United States and Russia? Perhaps, after a thorough reassessment, the Bush team could make the case that the cooperative programs that we now sponsor in Russia and other former Soviet republics do not serve American national security interests. Until such a case can be made, however, the proposal to cut these programs by $100 million, or more than 10 percent, from current financing levels is bad policy and worse as symbolism. True realism on the part of the Bush foreign policy team would mean increasing, not decreasing, the size of these efforts.