The Imperative of Arms Control for U.S.-Russia Relations

April 10, 2014 | Edited by Lauren Mladenka

Benefits of arms control - “The Ukraine crisis has plunged U.S. and Western relations with Russia toward a post–Cold War low,” writes Steven Pifer in The National Interest. “The damage will continue for some time, especially in the event of a Russian military incursion into eastern Ukraine. Among the victims could be further progress on arms control. Yet arms control is now all the more valuable. It puts important bounds on an increasingly confrontational U.S.-Russian relationship.”

--”Prior to the Ukraine crisis, Washington and Moscow had a full arms-control agenda—including further cuts in strategic forces, limits on tactical nuclear weapons, a resolution of differences on missile defense, and the restoration of a conventional arms-control regime in Europe—though little progress had been registered in the past two years. Russia has shown particularly little interest in new bilateral nuclear-arms reductions, arguing instead for multilateral nuclear arms control, even though U.S. and Russian nuclear forces dwarf those of any third nuclear-weapons state.” However, the administration “has to contend with unwise proposals offered as ways to punish the Russians for their actions against Ukraine. Some on Capitol Hill, for example, have suggested that the United States withdraw from New START, which makes no sense for U.S. interests.”

--”While current tensions make arms control more difficult to pursue, they also underscore the value of arms-control constraints,” Pifer says. “What if New START were not in place? The U.S. military and intelligence community would have significantly less information regarding Russian strategic forces. The Pentagon would have to begin making worst-case assumptions… Arms control thus serves to keep the deterioration in relations in check. With New START in place, Washington does not have to worry about a strategic-nuclear-arms race on top of everything else it must deal with regarding Russia… Bilateral arms control currently appears a difficult proposition. There is no question, however, that New START offers a useful degree of stability and predictability in the uncertain times between Washington and Moscow. It provides a channel of communication when other contacts are closing up. And later, when the crisis is resolved, it could provide a means to spur restoration of a more positive relationship.” Full article here. http://bit.ly/1sGgbRr

Patraeus on Iran - A full consideration of the strategic implications that an Iran nuclear agreement could have on the U.S. position in the Middle East has largely been absent from the debate, write David Patraeus and Vance Serchuk in The Washington Post. “Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons ought to be our foremost priority, and a diplomatic agreement that truly bolts the door against that danger is worth potential downsides. Moreover, the alternative to successful diplomacy — military action — carries its own set of costs and risks to regional stability and the global economy. And military action holds less promise for decisively ending the nuclear threat than does a good negotiated accord.”

--”But we need to recognize there are genuine trade-offs involved in even the best possible nuclear deal — and start laying the groundwork for mitigating them.” To that end, five things should be considered, including a comprehensive change in Iran’s destabilizing regional behavior, how our Arab and Israeli allies will contend with an economically strengthened Iran, the U.S. position on Syria, the level of U.S. military and diplomatic presence in the Middle East, and the composition of the sanctions regime in the wake of a deal. Read the full article here. http://wapo.st/1iAHuWq

Bridging gaps - “Iran and the group of six major powers negotiating a permanent agreement to resolve the Iranian nuclear dispute concluded a two-day round of talks in Vienna on Wednesday, asserting that ‘a lot of intensive work’ remained to complete a draft accord by their self-imposed deadline in three months,” writes Rick Gladstone in The New York Times. “The lead negotiators, the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and Catherine Ashton, the top foreign policy official of the European Union, made the assertion in a joint statement that said the next round of talks would be held May 13. The statement suggested that both sides were still struggling with extensive disagreements and described the further negotiations as an attempt to ‘bridge the gaps in all the key areas.’” Read the full article here. http://nyti.ms/OJhAGz

Arak fix - “Iran has made a proposal that would significantly lower plutonium production at a planned reactor, a senior Iranian official was quoted as saying, signalling flexibility on a key issue in talks to end the nuclear dispute with world powers,” reports Fredrik Dahl in Reuters. “The comment by Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's atomic energy organisation, was the latest sign that a compromise may be possible over the Arak research reactor.” Full article here. http://reut.rs/1hDGiPz

Skirting sanctions - “A senior Russian diplomat on Wednesday angrily rejected U.S. warnings against striking an oil-for-goods contract with Iran, saying that Moscow wouldn't be intimidated by threats,” AP reports. “Moscow plans to buy 500,000 barrels of Iranian oil a day, a deal that would shatter an export limit defined by an interim nuclear agreement world powers and Iran reached last year,” but “if Russia reaches the oil-for-goods contract with Iran, it would challenge Western efforts to secure a comprehensive agreement. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that Washington could impose sanctions if Russia and Iran move forward with the oil contract.” Full article here. http://abcn.ws/1hDwNQC

Not a threat - “The United States is irked that Iran has chosen as its representative to the United Nations a diplomat who apparently was involved with a student group that seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979,” writes the Los Angeles Times editorial board. “But the Obama administration is making a mistake in publicly labeling as "not viable" the posting to the U.N. of Hamid Aboutalebi, an experienced diplomat aligned with Iran's reformist President Hassan Rouhani. The ominous implication is that the State Department would deny Aboutalebi a visa necessary to enter this country.”

--”[The] administration's fixation on Aboutalebi may be unintentionally undermining efforts by several nations to induce Iran to abandon efforts to produce nuclear weapons. Some of the U.S. senators who approved a bill this week purporting to bar Aboutalebi from entering this country also support additional sanctions legislation that the administration believes would derail the current talks with Iran. The more the administration trumpets its opposition to Aboutalebi, the easier it will be for congressional critics to cite that grievance as a justification for new sanctions. The administration has registered its displeasure with Aboutalebi's appointment. Now it should refocus on more important matters, including the nuclear negotiations.” Full piece here. http://lat.ms/1jwey3X

Tweet - @Livableworld: Iran's foreign minister: there is 50%-60% on a final deal. Hope to complete by July 20. Next round May 13. http://t.co/k3oo7Pwnyx

Japan’s commitment - “Five years have passed since U.S. President Barack Obama first called for a ‘nuclear free world’ in Prague,” writes Japanese foreign minister Fumio Kishida in The Wall Street Journal. “This newspaper has since run a series of articles by the ‘four wise men’ of U.S. foreign policy—George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn —stating the need to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. As both the foreign minister to Japan and a native of Hiroshima, I wholeheartedly support that call. I consider nuclear disarmament an integral part of my work.”

--”[Efforts] toward nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, which are based on the principles of mutual trust, increased transparency and rule of law, will lead to a global framework more suited to the 21st century. As a foreign minister of Japan, I will work passionately to ensure that positive progress is sustained toward achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.” Full piece here. http://on.wsj.com/1jwhTQr

Stockpiling plutonium - “Just weeks after Japan agreed to give up a cache of weapons-grade plutonium, the country is set to push ahead with a program that would produce new stockpiles of the material, creating a proliferation risk for decades to come,” writes Hiroko Tabuchi in The New York Times. “Though that additional plutonium would not be the grade that is most desirable for bombs, and is therefore less of a threat, it could — in knowledgeable hands and with some work and time — be used to make a weapon. The newly created stockpiles would add to tons of other plutonium already being stored in Japan.” Full story here. http://nyti.ms/1sG8db2

Securing dangerous materials - “The U.S. Energy Department on Monday disclosed plans to secure hundreds of pounds of vulnerable uranium and plutonium around the world by October 2015,” reports Rachel Oswald in Global Security Newswire. “In its 2014-2018 Strategic Plan, the department listed as a ‘priority goal’ for the fiscal 2014-2015 period the removal or confirmed disposal of roughly 700 pounds of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. The document did not specify source countries for the nuclear weapon-sensitive materials, or in what quantities.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/Q9nj9L

Backpedalling - “Following a media uproar, [India’s] Bharatiya Janata Party is moving to quell speculation that it wants to end India's longstanding no-first-use nuclear arms policy,” Global Security Newswire reports. “An election manifesto released on Monday by the leading opposition party promised to ‘study in detail India's nuclear doctrine, and revise and update it’ -- wording that some took to mean that the no-first-use posture, long the pillar of India's nuclear weapons doctrine, could be thrown out. In response to those concerns, senior BJP officials are now suggesting the party has not made a decision on the future of the policy.” Read the full article here. http://bit.ly/1sGbRS1

First things first - “With India’s national elections in full swing, the campaign promises of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the presumed front-runner to lead the next government, are drawing more scrutiny,” writes The New York Times editorial board. “Among the more troubling proposals in the party’s election manifesto is one to ‘revise and update’ the country’s nuclear doctrine.” However, the “lack of clarity about the party’s intentions on this issue introduces more uncertainty into an already unstable region.” If prime minister candidate Narendra Modi scuttles the “no first use” policy, “he would exacerbate tensions with China, which subscribes to the policy, and Pakistan, which does not.”

--”Instead of abandoning the ‘no first use’ doctrine, whoever wins the election would do better to commit himself to improving ties with Pakistan and starting an arms control initiative that could lead to a regional equilibrium on these dangerous weapons.” Full article here. http://nyti.ms/1sGhEXS

Tweet - @StephenUCS: Can anyone offer a reason--other than keeping six or so Senators pork happy--why the administration chose to keep 50 empty ICBM silos?

Sloppy records - “A highly critical audit of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex does not invite confidence in the agency’s ability to maintain our nuclear stockpile reliably,” writes the Albuquerque Journal editorial board. “The Department of Energy’s Inspector General report on National Nuclear Security Administration’s facilities – including Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories – details just how lax official record-keeping has been. It’s not the first time the NNSA has failed the fat, lazy and incompetent test. Bloated, intractable and insular, it has been pilloried in various federal audits.”

--”The DOE audit cited numerous instances of nuclear weapons designs that could not immediately be located, the use of parts that might not be the right ones for the weapons, and sheer waste – in one case components did not meet specifications causing ‘a 1-year delay in component production and additional costs of approximately $20-$25 million...’ It shouldn’t have to be said, but organization and follow-through in the handling of classified nuclear designs should always be top priority. The audit sure makes it look like it has not been.” Read the full piece here. http://bit.ly/1hDyb5L

Quick-hits:

--”Report: Iran-Sanctions Pause Not Enough to Allow for Aircraft Deal” in Global Security Newswire. http://bit.ly/OJkk6O

--”Nuclear Reductions Will Have No Impact On Jobs, Great Falls Economy” by Jenn Rowell in the Great Falls Tribune. http://gftrib.com/1mZirSv

Events:

--“The Iranian Nuclear Talks and Regional Arms Control." Discussion with Sameh Aboul-Enein, Ziad Ali Khalil Abu Zayyad, Shlomo Brom, and Hillel Schenker. April 10 from 12:00-2:00 at the At Women’s National Democratic Club, 1526 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Washington. RSVP here. RSVP by email to fes.temp2@fesdc.org

--“Challenges to Further Nuclear Arms Reduction.” Discussion with Dennis Gromley, Götz Neuneck, and Nikolai Sokov. April 14 from 2:00-3:30 at Brookings Institution, Saul/Zilkha Rooms, 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1jnQbFs

--“Making a Difference: Faith Communities Speak to the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons.” Discussion with Andrew Kanter, Daryl Kimball, and eight other speakers. April 24 from 9:30-4:00 at the U.S. Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington. http://conta.cc/1ssfg70