Partnership for Global Security: Leading the World to a Safer Future
Home Projects Publications Issues Official Documents About RANSAC Nuclear News 4/15/13
Location: Home / Projects & Publications / News
Sitemap Contact
Search
Google www PGS
 
Nuclear News - 10/15/99
RANSAC Nuclear News, 15 October 1999


A.  Russian Nuclear Forces

  1. Russia Updates Military Doctrine, Sees New Threats,Reuters(10/11/99)
  2. Analyst: New Military Doctrine Highlights Generals' 'OutrightAnti-Westernism.' RFE/RL (10/14/99)
B.  U.S. – Russia General
  1. Russia Premier, US Vice-President to Establish Direct Link,Itar Tass (10/15/99)
C.  Nuclear Waste
  1. Radwaste Facility Under Testing, Bellona (10/13/99)
D.  Y2K
  1. Millenium Bug Tests Under Way At Nuclear Power Plants, RFE/RL (10/12/99)
E.  START
  1. Ministry Hopes To Persuade Duma To Ratify Start-2 Before Poll,Interfax (10/12/99)
F.  Arms Control – General
  1. Bipartisan Support for Arms Ending, Associated Press(10/13/99)
  2. A Nuclear Safety Valve Is Shut Off, but U.S. Maintains OtherSafeguards, New York Times  (10/15/99)
  3. Arms-Control World Upended, Christian Science Monitor(10/15/99)
G.  CTBT
  1. Clinton Says U.S. Will Continue to Adhere to CTBT Commitments,USIA (10/14/99)
  2. Moscow Expresses 'Serious Concern' Over U.S. Senate TestBan Vote, RFE/RL (10/14/99)
  3. Russia Muses Over Nuclear TestingBellona(10/15/99)

A. Russian Nuclear Forces

1.
Russia Updates Military Doctrine, Sees New Threats
        Martin Nesirky
        Reuters
        October 11, 1999
        (for personal use only)
 
MOSCOW, Oct 11 (Reuters) - Russia has published a new draft militarydoctrine that retains the right to use nuclear weapons first, but defenceexperts said on Monday the main surprise was its strikingly anti-Westerntone.

President Boris Yeltsin approved the last doctrine in 1993, after themilitary reluctantly put down a parliamentary revolt. It was never publishedin full, but excerpts on nuclear policy and intervention abroad causeda stir in the West at the time.

The Defence Ministry newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda published the new draftin full at the weekend, and it is already grabbing the attention of Russianand Western military analysts. It also means new NATO Secretary-GeneralGeorge Robertson will have his work cut out. He wants to convince MoscowNATO is not a threat.

``Recent events, including in the Balkans and the North Caucasus, meantthat we had to complete the work on the draft started more than two yearsago under presidential orders,'' Colonel-General Valery Manilov, the GeneralStaff man in charge of drafting the doctrine, explained to the newspaper.

At the core of the new doctrine is the concept of two opposing trends-- unipolar, meaning U.S. superpower domination, and multipolar, implyingmany centres of influence including Russia.

``The Russian Federation considers that social progress, stability andinternational security can only be guaranteed in the framework of a multipolarworld and works in all ways to achieve it,'' the draft says.

The United States and its NATO allies are not explicitly mentioned butthe meaning is clear. The doctrine lists among the country's main externalthreats attempts to marginalise Moscow in world affairs and the stationingof troops near Russia.

``Unfortunately it is a return to the Soviet pattern, the Soviet schemewhereby the West was regarded as an alien entity which always jeopardisedRussian national interests,'' said Yevgeny Volk of the Heritage Foundationthink-tank in Moscow.

Colonel-General Manilov noted the draft even saw foreign hands in fundingand training rebel groups, such as those in Chechnya, where Russia is battlingIslamic militants. He did not say who Moscow thought was behind these groups.

NATO ENLARGEMENT SEEN AS SPARK FOR CHANGE

A Western defence expert said he traced the change in overall mood backto Russia's post-Cold War anger at NATO's enlargement to include East Europeanstates as members. NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia and Western doubts aboutthe country's economic reforms had served to deepen a disillusioned mood.

``What really amazes me is that the views expressed by the General Staffare shared by quite a lot of civilians in the political establishment,''the Western defence expert said. ``I'm afraid this is a change we willfeel very heavily in future.''

He said the shift was more profound than a simple pre-election changeof mood. Russians elect a new parliament in December and a new presidentin mid-2000. The 1.2 millionong military remains a key slice of theelectorate.

Manilov said Yeltsin would get a final version of the military doctrinefor approval next month. The draft says Russia reserves the right to usenuclear weapons first in specific circumstances, for example if faced withan invasion.

Volk said this strategy, reintroduced in the 1993 doctrine after a Sovietno-firstike pledge, pointed above all to the weakness of Russianconventionalforces. The draft doctrine says Russia will still need conscription butwill aim to shift the balance more towards a professional army.

Volk also said the military and political establishment, as well asthe defence industry, needed external threats to justify increasing defencespending during an economic crisis.

The Western expert noted a broader security concept adopted last weekby Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's government similarly homed in on threatsfrom beyond Russia's borders.

``It is no longer taboo to be anti-Western,'' said one Russian militaryanalyst who knows the workings of the General Staff well. ``In 1993 itwas impossible to write our enemy is the West. Now it is there, albeitbetween the lines. But it is there.''

return to menu

2.
Analyst: New Military Doctrine Highlights Generals' 'OutrightAnti-Westernism.'
        RFE/RL
        October 14, 1999
        (for personal use only)

Writing in "The Moscow Times" on 14 October, independent defense analystPavel Felgenhauer argued that the draft of the new military doctrine, publishedin "Krasnaya zvezda" on 9 October, is important as an "indicator of widespreadanti-western opinions inside Russia's military elite" (see "RFE/RL Newsline,"8 October 1999). Noting that the draft was ready 12 months ago, Felgenhauerwent on to say that the "outright anti-westernism of the published draftis also the most likely reason it has not been signed into law for morethan one year." And the fact that the draft was published before receivingthe president's approval—a "highly unusual" development for Russian bureaucraticprocedure--is a "clear attempt by Russian military chiefs to twist theKremlin's [arm] into signing a document the West will see as confrontational,"he concludes.

return to menu

B. U.S. – Russia General

1.
Russia Premier, US Vice-President to Establish Direct Link
        Itar Tass
        October 15, 1999
        (for personal use only)

MOSCOW, October 15 (Itar-Tass) - A memorandum on a closed communicationline between the Russian prime minister and the U.S. vice president aswell as between the Russian Security Council secretary and the U.S. nationalsecurity advicor to the U.S. president will be signed at the Russian ForeignMinistry on Friday.

The first direct government communication line between Moscow and Washingtonwas established in September 1963 after the Carribean crisis to prevent"accidental wars" and crisis situations. Starting from 1970s, the sidesput into operation to satellite communication lines. In 1980s, telex wasreplaced with the fax communication.

The Russian and U.S. defence ministries have at the disposal two channelsfor rapid communications. The first links national centres on decreasingthe nuclear threat, while the second is designed for urgent consultationsbetween the leaders of the Russian General Staff and the U.S. Joint Chiefsof Staff.

The Russian Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department signed anagreement on establishing "a hot line" in July 1999.

return to menu

C. Nuclear Waste

1.
Radwaste Facility Under Testing
         Igor Kudrik
         Bellona
         October 13, 1999
         (for personal useonly)

A barge in the Far East is to process a first portion of liquid radwaste.The commissioning date remains unclear.

A barge designed to process liquid radioactive waste located in theRussian Far East was finally granted permission to start on October 5,1999. The barge is currently stationed at Zvezda shipyard, in the cityof Bol'shoy Kamen, in Ussuriyskiy Bay.

The non-propelled barge, with a displacement of 5,000 tons, was buildat Amursky shipyard in the Russian Far East. The processing facility hasa capacity of 7.000 cubic meters per year. The service time of the facilityis 20 years. The sediments generated after processing will be mixed withconcrete and stored in containers on the territory of the shipyard. Thebarge itself was designed in Russia, while the processing facility wasdelivered by U.S. company Babcock & Wilcox. The price tag for the bargewas around $21 million - a bill footed by Japan.

The barge was initially to be put into operation in 1996, but bureaucraticroadblocks in Russia, protests from the local population, and, finally,disagreements with the American working team led to an almost three-yeardelay.

Currently the workers at Zvezda shipyard are to start the first testingspan using radioactive water. Nothing points to the fact that there wouldbe any difficulties, the commissioning date, however, remains unclear.

return to menu

D. Y2K

1.
Millenium Bug Tests Under Way At Nuclear Power Plants
        RFE/RL
        October 12, 1999
        (for personal use only)

A spokesman for Rosenergoatom told Reuters on 11 October that an exerciseat the Kursk nuclear power plant last weekend aimed at testing the staff'sability to respond to possible millennium bug emergencies was a "success."Only minor problems, largely related to establishing emergency communicationslinks between various bodies, were registered, the spokesman added.Rosenergoatom,which manages all but one of Russia's nine nuclear power plants, is tocarry out a comprehensive program of tests by the end of this month. "InNovember-December we should be totally prepared for the Y2K problem," accordingto the concern's spokesman. A separate Y2K response program has been preparedfor the one nuclear power facility, located near St. Petersburg, that issubordinated to the Atomic Energy Ministry.

return to menu

E. START

1.
Ministry Hopes To Persuade Duma To Ratify Start-2 Before Poll
         Interfax
         October 12, 1999
         (for personal useonly)

MOSCOW. Oct  12  (Interfax)  -  The  Russian Foreign  Ministry is beginning "intensive consultations with Dumafaction leaders to persuade deputies to ratify  START-2  before the  parliamentary elections in December," ministry sources told Interfaxon Tuesday.

The ministry  will bend every effort "to explain  to members of parliament that the refusal to ratify START-2 can neither bea trump card in  the election  race nor an argument for keeping the 1972 ABM treaty."

Ratification "will have an enormous international effect" because itwill  show the whole world  that Russia has "a consensus on theneed for further nuclear disarmament," the sources said.

They  stressed  that  ratification  "can seriouslyundermine the positions of the forces in the U.S. that favor the revisionof the ABM treaty to start the deployment of a national  anti-missile defense system."

The Russian side "has far from recognized its defeat in the debate withthe U.S." on anti-missile defense, they said.

At the U.N. General Assembly session, Russia has submitted a draft resolution"duly  evaluating the American plans of revising the ABM treaty whichis a cornerstone of strategic stability."

According to  the sources, the U.S. is opposed to a discussionof the draft at the session saying the ABM treaty is a bilateral documentand can be discussed only by Moscow and Washington.

return to menu

F. Arms Control General

1.
Bipartisan Support for Arms Ending
        Barry Schweid
        Associated Press
        October 13, 1999
        (for personal use only)

WASHINGTON –– The likely shelving of the nuclear test ban treaty appearsto mark the end of 40 years of bipartisan support for arms control in Congress,and the Clinton administration contends that would make this a more dangerousworld.

It will be harder to persuade other nations not to test nuclear weapons,while a monitoring system to detect cheating will be held in abeyance.

"We're very concerned about the message we send to Russia and China,to India and Pakistan, to Iran and Iraq," White House spokesman Joe Lockhartsaid Tuesday as the fate of the imperiled treaty was being weighed in Senateoffices.

A leading supporter, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., had told his colleagueslast week their vote on ratification would be the most important vote theywould cast in their careers.

But the treaty may not get a vote anytime soon. Lacking the two-thirdsrequired for approval, President Clinton has agreed to shelve the accordand Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota is promising notto press for a vote until after a new president and a new Congress takeoffice in 2001. But a conservative faction of senators wants to vote downthe treaty now.

The next president would decide whether to re-submit the treaty or toattach conditions to it, including a right to pull out if the Defense andEnergy Departments conclude tests are needed to ensure that existing weaponsare reliable.

It is hard to imagine the treaty commanding the support of two-thirdsof the Senate even with conditions, given the hostility of many SenateRepublicans to a test ban.

GOP presidential hopeful George W. Bush has joined other prominentRepublicansin opposing the treaty, saying it would not deter the nuclear ambitionsof North Korea and Iran.

Would he change his mind if he wins the White House?

There is precedent for that.

The SALT II treaty to reduce U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons stockpileshad no more spirited foe than Republican presidential candidate RonaldReagan in 1980. But once in the White House he changed his tune, declaringhe favored verifiable weapons reductions.

"Trust but verify" became a Reagan mantra, and his administration wenton to conclude a treaty with Russia to ban intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

Reagan also opened negotiations with the Soviet Union to reduce strategicnuclear warheads on both sides. This evolved into the START I treaty signedin 1991 and ratified the next year on an overwhelming 93-6 Senate vote.

Reagan thereby joined a long line of Republicans who supported armscontrol, beginning with President Dwight Eisenhower, who called for a banon tests in 1958.

Richard Nixon, for one, ratified an international nonproliferation treaty,a landmark ban on U.S. and Soviet nuclear defenses and initiated the processof setting ceilings on nuclear missile arsenals.

There is also precedent for shelving an accord.

President Carter withdrew the SALT II treaty from Senate considerationin 1980 after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, which had hardened Republicanand even some Democratic objections to an accord with Moscow.

Spurgeon M. Keeny, who heads the private Arms Control Association, lamentedthe withdrawal of the 1996 test ban accord.

"This is a tragic development, depriving us of an opportunity to strengthenour hand in restraining the spread of nuclear weapons," he said.

"Even more seriously," Keeny warned, "this puts into question U.S. leadershipin the whole area of arms control and international security,"

Specifically, the former deputy director of the U.S. Arms Control andDisarmament Agency said, shelving the treaty will provide a cover for aresumption of testing by India and Pakistan and rogue states and couldprompt a resumption of testing by China and Russia.

Michael Krepon, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a group thatresearches arms control, said in dismay: "I don't know how long it willtake to get this treaty back into shape where 67 U.S. senators can agreeto it."

In the meantime, he said, nuclear dangers are growing in South Asia,in the Middle East and in East Asia, as well. "It looks bad but it couldget a lot uglier."

The pummeling of the treaty is only the latest setback to arms control.

The Russian parliament, despite recurrent pledges by President BorisYeltsin, refuses to act on the START II treaty, which would eliminate some13,000 U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads.

The treaty might have a better chance in the Duma if the United Statesagreed to a 50 percent cut in the 3,000 to 3,500 warheads permitted eachside under the treaty. That would spare Russia the expense of buildingup to START II levels.

But the Clinton administration is willing only to have preliminary talkson a START III pact, not to negotiate one.

Here at home, Clinton's program to consider building a defense to shieldthe United States from rockets from North Korea and other rogue statescould inspire the development of more potent missiles to pierce the defense.

And while Clinton is contemplating only a limited defense, with a decisiondue in June, Republican contender Bush is committed to deploying an extensivemissile protection system.

return to menu

2.
A Nuclear Safety Valve Is Shut Off, but U.S. Maintains OtherSafeguards
        Jane Perlez
        New York Times
        October 15, 1999
        (for personal use only)

WASHINGTON -- The test ban treaty defeated in the Senate Wednesday wasa critical foreign policy objective of the Clinton administration, butit was far from the only component of the government's strategy to controlthe proliferation of nuclear arms -- which embraces a menu of measuresranging from broad treaties to tailor-made solutions like sanctions aimedat rogue countries.

Thus, according to arms control experts, the Senate action was unlikelyto have immediate effects on Washington's efforts, for example, to curbnuclear developments in such countries as North Korea, Iraq and Iran.

"There is no single solution to the problem of proliferation, only multiple,complementary solutions, and the Senate has just taken away one of thesolutions," said Michael Krepon, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center,a research institute that examines arms control issues.

Almost since the advent of nuclear weapons, Washington has marshaleda variety of carrots and sticks in its efforts to combat proliferationand restrict nuclear arsenals. These include arms control agreements withindividual nuclear powers like the old Soviet Union; economic and politicalincentives to persuade non-nuclear countries not to build the bomb, andthe threat of political and economic isolation against those who develop,test or install nuclear weapons.

In a speech in July, the administration's senior arms control official,John Holum, acting under secretary of state for arms control, listed sevenmajor elements in the administration's policy, starting with the NuclearNonproliferation Treaty of the 1960s and the recent test ban treaty. Hementioned inducements to North Korea that include $40 million a year infuel from the United States and the building of two power plants financedby South Korea and Japan in exchange for a freeze by Pyongyang on its plutoniumproduction.

He also mentioned sanctions, which in the 1990s have been imposed byWashington as punishment for bad nuclear behavior or lifted as a rewardfor improved conduct. Of sanctions, Holum acknowledged that "nobody likesthem much."

And he cited more intrusive inspections of nuclear plants that are beingcarried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna,as being important.

At the same time, the administration is pushing forward on a seriesof traditional arms control treaties with Russia. The Start 2 treaty, whichcalls for the reduction of the nuclear stockpiles of the United Statesand Russia, has languished in the lower house of the Russian Parliamentsince 1993 and looks highly unlikely to be approved before legislativeelections there in February. Linked to the passage of the Start 2 treatyare negotiations on Start 3, which would reduce arsenals from their peakin the Cold War by 80 percent.

President Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia agreed in Juneto begin talks on Start 3, although administration officials acknowledgethat the cuts required by Start 3 would face heavy opposition in Congress.

Largely because of the failure of nonproliferation measures againstnations such as Iraq and Iran, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbotthas started pushing another possible deal with Moscow. That is a modificationof the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, a move that would allow Washingtonto build a limited missile defense system as a shield against the weaponsof emerging nuclear states. "We're looking at protection from a handfulof missiles from the nations that the Central Intelligence Agency seesas having nuclear capacity a dozen years down the road," an administrationofficial said.

Last year, a special panel led by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeldwarned that North Korea and Iran could strike American territory with "littleor no warning." A follow-up report gave ominous scenarios of what potentialenemies could do against the United States over the next 15 years.

Administration officials said the Russians view the modification ofthe 1972 treaty as an effort to strip them of their last vestiges as asuperpower, making the success of the new discussions fairly dim.

The most unpredictable and perhaps toughest problems for Washington,however, lie with what Holum called in his policy address "the hazards."He listed India and Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Most of thesehave been addressed with a mixture of what Krepon of the Stimson Centercalled individually tailored "incentives and disincentives" to stop themfrom developing nuclear capabilities.

Thus, after India and Pakistan each tested nuclear weapons last year,the Clinton administration imposed a series of economic sanctions againstthe two countries and led the effort to curb lending by international financialinstitutions.

Then, as an incentive to get both to sign the Comprehensive Test BanTreaty, the sanctions were eased. India pledged to agree to the treatyafter the elections that were just held. Pakistan offered to follow suitonce India signed. Both these promises are now at risk.

For Iraq, the medicine was largely economic sanctions and U.N. inspectionsof suspected nuclear facilities. But Saddam Hussein has refused to allowthe inspectors back since last November's airstrikes, and the sanctionsappear to be crumbling.

A U.N. resolution under discussion offers Iraq the possibility of easingsanctions in return for a new inspection regimen. Whether it will be adoptedby the Security Council remains unclear.

The Clinton administration has tried to deal with Iran by placing sanctionson 10 Russian institutes suspected of helping transfer missile and nucleartechnology to Tehran. The sanctions prevent the United States or privatebusinesses from trading with the institutes. But such sanctions, officialssaid, do not deal with another, virtually untouchable problem: the flightof
poorly paid and neglected Russian nuclear scientists to Iran.

Skeptics on the Clinton administration's approach to North Korea complainof a "cycle of extortion" by the Communist authorities. Fear of North Korea'sintentions intensified last year when it fired a missile that could potentiallyland weapons on the United States and when it threatened to repeat theexercise again this fall.

Last month, Clinton ordered the relaxing of a total trade embargo, imposedin 1950, in exchange for a temporary halt to tests of North Korea's long-rangemissiles.

return to menu

3.
Arms-Control World Upended
        Ann Scott Tyson
        Christian Science Monitor
        October 15, 1999
        (for personal use only)

Senate defeat of the nuclear test ban treaty is the most decisive Americanbreak with internationalism in 80 years.

America's long history as a driving force in the world's effort to containweapons of mass destruction has taken an abrupt change in direction withthe Senate's rejection of the nuclear test ban treaty.

A pact first proposed by President Eisenhower is suddenly geopoliticaladrift. That makes it less likely that emerging nuclear nations such asIndia, Pakistan, and North Korea will ever sign on - raising the probabilityof regional arms races in the next century, experts say.

The fact that these nuclear newcomers have refused to rein in theirprograms is precisely the point, say many Republican senators who votedagainst the treaty. Stressing self-reliance over global cooperation, theysay the United States must not bind itself with a flawed treaty that otherswill flout.

With this in mind, they brought about a break with internationalismmore decisive than any since the US Senate defeated the Treaty of Versaillesin 1919.

"[This] will be a vote heard around the world to the detriment of theUnited States," warned Sen. Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania on the Senatefloor, making a last-minute plea for GOP Senate leaders to call off Wednesday'svote.

In the end, the Senate rejected ratification of the treaty in a 51-to-48vote mainly along party lines, with no Democrats voting in opposition.

President Clinton and Senate Democrats vowed to continue pushing thetreaty, which the Senate can vote on repeatedly. But backers say thereis virtually no chance it will be brought up again until 2001 at the earliest,after the presidential election.

The US is now the first nuclear power to explicitly reject the ComprehensiveNuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), completed in 1996. Along with China andRussia, the United States is one of 26 nuclear states - of a total of 44- that still must ratify the pact before it can take force.

The treaty would ban all nuclear explosions in the air, space, orunderground,set up an international monitoring system to detect violations, and allowfor on-site inspections when necessary.

The treaty's foundation

The CTBT builds upon the 1969 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),in which the five major nuclear powers agreed to engage in disarmamentdiscussions in return for a promise by nonnuclear states not to acquirenuclear weapons.

Now, experts say, that's open to question. "The CTBT has for 30 yearsbeen considered the litmus test of the sincerity of the nuclear-weaponsstates in living up to their part of the bargain," says Thomas Graham,former special representative to the president on arms control.

Critics of the agreement - which was 40 years in the making and is thefirst arms-control treaty ever voted down by the Senate – concede thatthe step is likely to draw international fire in the short run. But theycontend the treaty, which the US was the first to sign in 1996, was flawedfrom the beginning.

While its aims are sound, they say, the treaty is unverifiable,unenforceable,and would compromise US security, allowing "rogue" nations to continuedeveloping nuclear weapons.

"The [treaty] has no teeth," said Senate majority leader Trent Lott(R) of Mississippi.

Ultimately, Senator Lott and others argue, this week's vote will bolsterinternational arms-control efforts by setting higher standards for negotiationsand reinforcing the strength of the US nuclear deterrent.

Conservative arms experts agree. Despite the expected uproar, the Senatemove "will mean going back to the international drawing board and thatwill be ultimately a healthy thing," says Baker Spring, a defense expertat the Heritage Foundation here.

Nevertheless, the diplomatic fallout from the vote was immediate andvociferous. America's European allies, whose leaders had forcefully spokenout for Senate approval, expressed dismay and disappointment.

Germany's defense minister called the vote "absolutely wrong." Russia,in a foreign ministry statement, added: The vote marks a "serious blow"for the system of nuclear arms accords and shows that Washington is seekingto "destabilize the foundations of international relations."

In Asia, Japan predicted "inestimable" negative effects from the vote,while China voiced "profound regret." Both China and India pledged to maintaintheir de facto bans on nuclear testing.

Domestic implications

While provoking international criticism, the vote also has profounddomestic significance. The vote by the GOP-led Senate and the acrimoniousdebate surrounding it mark a breakdown of a
decades-old bipartisan consensus on arms control.

"We've come along way from the bipartisan majority that supportedunilaterallybanning nuclear testing in 1992," says Christopher Paine, a former Senatestaff expert on nuclear testing.

Indeed, this week's debate underscored a deep divide in the world viewof Democrats and Republicans on arms control and American security. SenateRepublicans tended to base their assessment of the treaty on calculationsof the strength of the US nuclear deterrent. Democrats emphasized the treaty'sadvantages for checking nuclear proliferation abroad.

The controversial vote, which Democrats and some Republicans had desperatelyattempted to delay, holds potential political costs for both sides.

For the Clinton administration, pushing for the vote before lining upenough support marked a serious political miscalculation.

Yet by refusing to put off the vote when defeat was certain, GOPconservativesled by Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina also risk sparking criticismfrom the American public - which strongly backs US ratification - especiallyshould foreign nations carry out new nuclear tests.

return to menu

G. CTBT

1.
Clinton Says U.S. Will Continue to Adhere to CTBT Commitments
        Wendy S. Ross
        USIA
        October 14, 1999
        (for personal use only)

Washington -- Despite Senate rejection of the Comprehensive Test BanTreaty (CTBT), the United States will continue to honor its commitmentsunder the Treaty, President Clinton told reporters at an hour long newsconference October 14 devoted largely to the arms control issue.

"I will not let yesterday's partisanship stand as our final word onthe nuclear Test Ban Treaty," Clinton told reporters gathered in the EastRoom of the White House.

The United States, he said, will not resume nuclear testing and "willcontinue to pursue the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons....Wewill continue the policy we have maintained since 1992 of not conductingnuclear tests."

Clinton called on Russia, China, Britain, France and all other countriesto continue to refrain from testing, and he urged nations that have notdone so to sign and ratify the Treaty.

He said he will continue to do all he can "to make that case to theSenate" for ratifying the CTBT. "When all is said and done, I have no doubtthat the United States will ratify this Treaty," he said.

Clinton accused "hard-line Republicans" in the Senate of "irresponsibly"forcing a vote against the Treaty and said the Senate's rejection of itlate October 13 was because of blatant "partisan politics of the worstkind" that pose risks "to the safety of the American people and the world."

The near party-line vote of 51-48 against the Treaty, with one Democratvoting "present" was 19 votes short of the 67 needed to ratify the Treaty.Only four Republicans joined Democrats in voting for it.

By this vote, Clinton said, "the Senate majority has turned its backon 50 years of American leadership against the spread of weapons of massdestruction. They are saying America does not need to lead either by effortor by example. They are saying we don't need our friends or allies. Theyare betting our children's future on the reckless proposition that we cango it alone, that at the height of our and prosperity, we should bury ourheads in the sand behind a wall."

Clinton spoke of "signs of a new isolationism" among some of the opponentsof the Treaty.

"You see it in the refusal to pay our UN dues. You see it in the woefullyinadequate budget for foreign affairs that includes meeting our obligationsto the Middle East peace process, and to the continuing efforts to destroyand safeguard Russian nuclear materials," the President said.

"You see it in the refusal to adopt our proposals to do our part tostem the tide of global warming, even though these proposals plainly wouldcreate American jobs," he said.

But, he said, "That is not where I stand, and that is not where theAmerican people stand. They understand that to be strong, we must not onlyhave a powerful military; we must also lead, as we have done time and again,and as the whole world expects us to do, to build a more responsible,interdependentworld."

Clinton also warned India and Pakistan not to "take yesterday's voteas a sign that America doesn't care whether you resume nuclear testingand build up your nuclear arsenals. "We do care," he said. "You shouldn'tdo it. It's not necessary. It will hurt your economy and endanger yourfuture."

The President said he hoped that Pakistan, where the military earlierthis week took control of the government, "will move to a civilian governmentas quickly as possible."

White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart told reporters that Americahas always taken a leadership role around the world in nonproliferationand will continue playing such a role.

The vote rejecting ratification of the Treaty, he said, "is a detourbut we will get back to the main road, we will continue to play a leadershiprole around the world; it is our obligation to the rest of the world asthe most powerful country in the world."

The United States, he said, will continue its position of not testingand using the technology available to it to keep its deterrents strongand will continue to work with other countries.

"It is our job to make sure, and the President will make sure, thatthe rest of the world understands that we will continue to play a leadershiprole in nonproliferation because it's manifestally in our national securityinterests," to do so.

Lockhart blamed the Senate vote on "a toxic brew of reckless partisanshipand dangerous isolationism." He said a small number of Republicans "haveinfluenced and enacted their view over that of the majority of the Senate."

He acknowledged that it's hard for Americans and the rest of the worldto understand, "how a majority, a strong majority in the Senate, was forputting this vote off and why the vote took place."

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, in a Republican response to thePresident'snews conference, said when the Senate voted down the Comprehensive TestBan Treaty, it was not because of personalities or politics, but ratherbecause of "the substance of the Treaty." Lott said the Treaty was rejectedbecause it "was flawed, was not verifiable, and was not enforceable."

No Senator was pressured to vote anything but their conscience on theratification, he said.

"Some of the most thoughtful Senators that have ever served in thisbody said this Treaty was not verifiable, that it was fundamentally flawed,and it should not be ratified," Lott said.

The list of those, he said, included "Senators that really know a lotabout the subject of nuclear weapons" including Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee chairman Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Senator Richard Lugar,a senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Armed ServicesCommittee chairman Senator John Warner of Virginia.

return to menu

2.
Moscow Expresses 'Serious Concern' Over U.S. Senate Test Ban Vote
        RFE/RL
        October 14, 1999
        (for personal use only)

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Vladimir Rakhmanin told journalistson 14 October that Moscow "expresses dissatisfaction and serious concern"over the U.S. Senate's "refusal" the previous day to ratify the ComprehensiveNuclear Test Ban Treaty, ITAR-TASS reported. "This decision deals a seriousblow to the whole system of agreements in the sphere of nuclear disarmamentand non-proliferation, especially to the prospects of the NuclearNon-Proliferation
Treaty," he added. Reuters quoted Rakhmanin as saying Russia will needto analyze carefully the consequences of the Senate vote. The news agencynoted that he did not elaborate. Over the last week, Russian officialshave said that the final touches are being put to documents needed to submitthe test ban treaty to the State Duma for ratification (see "RFE/RL Newsline,"8 and 11 October 1999).

return to menu

3.
Russia Muses Over Nuclear Testing
         Igor Kudrik
         Bellona
         October 15, 1999
         (for personal useonly)

Russian nuclear lobby gets winning points over the failed CTBT ratificationvote in the U.S. Senate.

The U.S. Senate failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treatyhas reinforced the position of underground nuclear testing proponents inRussia. No immediate moves to start nuclear bombs explosions at NovayaZemlya test field in the Arctic are expected, but the chances for suchscenario are not as slim as before.

In a 51-48 vote Wednesday that crashed one of the President Clinton'smajor foreign policy goals, the Republican Majority in the Senate has alsoopened the way for resumption of underground nuclear testing. The oppositionto nuclear moratorium in Russia is quite strong and has heavy argumentsfavouring testing, writes Russian daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

The underground tests were used to try out new nuclear device designsand to check for safety flaws in existing bombs.

The major argument rests on the fact that Russia is legging behind theUnited States in computer modelling of nuclear blasts in laboratories.This prompted Russia to start conducting so-called subcritical nucleartests at Novaya Zemlya, which contain the ingredients of a nuclear bomb,but fizzle out without any thermonuclear blast.

The U.S. is also conducting subcritical testing, but scientists at LosAlamos laboratory say this is not enough. The U.S. Government spends $4.5billion a year on a sophisticated laboratory test program, but in testimonybefore the ratification vote, the laboratory directors said it would notbe fully operational for at least 5 to 10 years.

"I am confident that a fully supported and sustained program will enableus to continue to maintain America's nuclear deterrent without nucleartesting," said John C. Browne, director of Los Alamos National Laboratoryin New Mexico in an interview with New York Times. "However, I am concernedabout several trends that are reducing my confidence level each year."

In other words, the director says he can not do without undergroundtesting, at least until the sophisticated computer modelling program isin place.

The situation in Russia is surely much sever - nobody expects the Governmentthere to spend billions of dollars on development of computer modellingto replace testing.

"Politicians told us to find other ways to maintain our nuclear arsenalsthan testing," Radiy Ilkaev, the director of nuclear weapons research centreat Arzamas-16, told Nezavisimaya Gazeta. "But should we fail to find thoseother ways, we would have to resume nuclear testing again."

Taking into account the present disagreement between Russia and theUnited States over the antimissile defence treaty, the vote in the Senatewill boost the lobby in Russia to drop the expensive and still not functionalcomputer modelling and to turn back to the "good old times."

The last nuclear bomb was blasted in the permafrost of Novaya Zemlyain 1990. The United States tested its last nuclear device in Nevada desertin 1992. These two testing sites have not been abandoned and being in useto perform subcritical testing. To replace subcritical devices with nuclearbombs would take no time, once the politicians are convinced in an absolute
necessity to extend the nuclear testing age beyond the millennium.

return to menu



Section Menu:
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999


© 2007 Partnership for Global Security. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement.