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
Google www PGS
Nuclear News - 11/05/99
RANSAC Nuclear News, 05 November 1999

A.  Nuclear Cities Initiative

  1. Discord Over U.S. Access To Russian Nuclear Sites, RFE/RL(11/03/99)
  2. International Development Center for Russian Nuclear WorkersOpens, USIA (11/04/99)
  1. Company Seeks Funds To Buy Uranium, Associated Press(11/04/99)
C.  Nuclear Waste
  1. International Declaration on Disposal of Nuclear Waste, USIA (11/03/99)
D.  Congressional Action
  1. White House, Hill GOP Agree on Foreign Aid, WashingtonPost (11/05/99)
E.  Russian Nuclear Forces
  1. Russia Shows Nuclear Force During Dispute Over Arms Treaty,Associated Press (11/04/99)
F.  U.S. Nuclear Forces
  1. US To Withdraw Nuclear Weapons From Europe – Sources,Associated Press (11/05/99)
G.  U.S. – Russia General
  1. Remarks To The Bilderberg Steering Committee, Samuel R.Berger (11/04/99)

A. Nuclear Cities Initiative

Discord Over U.S. Access To Russian Nuclear Sites
        November 3, 1999
        (for personal use only)

U.S. Ambassador to Russia James Collins has canceled a visit to theclosed nuclear city of Krasnoyarsk-26 after Russian authorities barredhim from bringing his science adviser or visiting various U.S.-Russianprojects on the site, "The New York Times" reported on 3 November. Collins had been due to preside over the opening of a U.S.-financed businesscenter in the city. According to the daily, U.S. Energy Secretary BillRichardson protested the Russian move so vehemently that Russian AtomicEnergy Minister Yevgenii Adamov "stormed out of the room" during a conferenceat Denver, Colorado, last week. The U.S. Embassy in Moscow, meanwhile,has sent a note to the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry saying that restrictionsare hampering Collins's ability to oversee U.S. assistance to Krasnoyarsk-26.

return to menu

International Development Center for Russian Nuclear Workers Opens
         November 4, 1999
         (for personal useonly)

U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, D.C.
November 2, 1999


-- Energy Department to Assist in Bringing Business Skills to DisplacedNuclear Weapons Workers

The Department of Energy (DOE) today celebrated the opening of the firstInternational Development Center (IDC) to provide business resources todisplaced Russian nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians in theclosed and formerly secret Russian nuclear city of Zheleznogorsk.

The center, which will be staffed by professional Russian businesscounselors,is sponsored by the Energy Department's Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI),a nonproliferation program to help create commercial jobs for Russian nuclearworkers so that they are not tempted to sell their knowledge of designingand producing nuclear weapons to rogue nations or terrorist states.

Russia is downsizing its nuclear weapons complex and has asked the UnitedStates Department of Energy to share the lessons it has learned from itsown experience in shrinking the U.S. nuclear complex.

"This invitation for Energy Department experts to help nuclear scientistsin Russia's formerly secret nuclear materials production city of Zheleznogorskis unprecedented," said Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. "It signalsa strong commitment by both the United States and Russia to do whateverit takes to contain the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons."

The goal of the International Development Centers is to grow new businessesthat keep profits within Russia's nuclear cities for long-term successand jobs creation. The IDCs will work to tailor local economic strategiesto the needs of each individual nuclear city.

The Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)is coordinating the establishment of the Russian IDCs on behalf of DOE.PNNL supports and assists with economic diversification efforts near Hanford,Washington, by transferring technology to the private sector, helping existingbusinesses grow, and attracting outside businesses into the region. Thelaboratory has helped create 40 new companies in 40 months including MundoCommunications, Credit Card Solutions and Corona Cat. New businesses PNNLhas helped attract to the Richland [Washington] area include OregonMetallurgical,a manufacturer of titanium alloys for the aerospace industry. PNNL hasextensive experience working with the Russian business community, developedwhile modeling groundwater contamination in the West Siberian Basin, improvingthe safety of Soviet-designed nuclear power plant reactors, and sendingtechnical specialists to Russia to control nuclear materials and engagein business creation programs through the Energy Department's Initiativesfor Proliferation Prevention (IPP).

The Zheleznogorsk International Development Center will coordinate economicdevelopment efforts planned and already underway with city and local officials.It will serve as a resource for new businesses by providing businessesand workers with skills training and strategic planning. The IDC will conductan economic assessment of Zheleznogorsk to determine what businesses aremaking or losing money, what skills are in demand, and what businesseswould be likely to be successful. The IDC will assist companies with thetools to access financial backing available in Russia and in the internationalfinancial community.

IDC operations in Zheleznogorsk are governed by a board of directorswhich consists of representatives from Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy(MinAtom), PNNL, the city of Zheleznogorsk and the Foundation forRussian/AmericanEconomic Cooperation (FRAEC) of Seattle, Washington. Board members includeJana Fankhauser, PNNL; Carol Vipperman, FRAEC; Pavel Yakushin, First DeputyMayor of Zheleznogorsk; and Vasily Zhidkov, Mining and Chemical Combine,a MinAtom production entity in Zheleznogorsk.

Two additional International Development Centers are expected to openin the coming year in the closed Russian nuclear cities of Sarov and Snezhinsk.

return to menu


Company Seeks Funds To Buy Uranium
        Katherine Rizzo
        Associated Press
        November 4, 1999
        (for personal use only)

WASHINGTON –– The Clinton administration has been advised a deal tobuy Russian uranium and keep it away from other nations or terrorists isno longer profitable for the U.S. company handling the transaction.

The United States Enrichment Corp. said Thursday that it has informallynotified the government that it believes a $200 million infusion of governmentmoney will be needed to keep up its part of the bargain to buy uraniumremoved from Russian warheads.

"The company stated at its annual meeting yesterday that the shareholdersof USEC cannot continue to subsidize the United States government," companyspokesman Charles Yulish said.

The privatized government-created corporation estimates that $200 millionis the difference between current world uranium prices and the amount USECis contracted to pay Russia on the balance of its agreement.

The corporation's desire for taxpayer help was first reported Thursdayby The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch. USEC operates two uranium enrichment plantsin Ohio and Kentucky.

The corporation's statements led a longtime congressional critic topromise some harsh questioning as part of the House Commerce Committee'sinvestigation of the way USEC has handled the nation's uranium enrichmentbusiness.

"Privatization is a rip-off," said Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio. "Thetaxpayers are getting socked for millions of dollars, the Russian dealis in some jeopardy and they (at USEC) are paying out generous dividendsto their stockholders."

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson also has become a critic of USEC. Yulish said the company has answered a series of pointed questions Richardsonsubmitted in a letter that suggested USEC might be too inefficient andcalled into question the data on which the $200 million estimate was based.

"We believe the true financial need may be much lower, or zero," Richardsonsaid.

return to menu

C. Nuclear Waste

International Declaration on Disposal of Nuclear Waste
         November 3, 1999
         (for personal useonly)

Joint Declaration

Countries attending the Department of Energy International Conferenceon Geologic Repositories held October 31 to November 3, 1999, in Denver,Colorado, U.S.A.:

-- Noting the obligations set forth in the "Joint Convention on theSafety of the Management of Spent Fuel and the Safety of the Managementof Radioactive Waste," and stressing the desirability of this conventionentering into force in the near future;

-- Recognizing that safe geologic disposal of radioactive waste is oneof the preferred options for many countries, independent of their own decisionswith respect to the nuclear fuel cycle, and has received extensive discussionin intergovernmental organizations;

-- Underlining the value of countries and intergovernmental organizationsexchanging technical information and experiences regarding processes forthe safe and secure disposal of such waste,
independent of their own decisions with respect to waste management;

-- Reaffirming that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safetyand security of radioactive waste management within a country rests withthat country;

-- Recognizing the public interest and sensitivities involved in thedisposal of radioactive waste, the management responsibilities that suchdisposal will entail for present and future generations, and the regulatorychallenges involved in achieving the safe geologic disposal of radioactivewaste;

-- Noting existing international fora for addressing issues relatedto geologic disposal of radioactive waste, such as the International AtomicEnergy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development; and

-- Recognizing the need for continuation of work on the safe and securegeologic disposal of radioactive waste;

Express the intention to support the following:

-- Ensure that disposal of radioactive waste is conducted in a safeand environmentally-sensitive manner;

-- Work cooperatively to achieve public understanding of technical andsafety issues related to the safe geologic disposal of radioactive waste;

-- Continue cooperation in the development and demonstration of advanced.disposal technologies and underground research facilities; and

-- Work cooperatively to provide timely exchange of information regardinggeologic disposal through the use of existing international fora.

return to menu

D. Congressional Action

White House, Hill GOP Agree on Foreign Aid
        Eric Pianin and Juliet Eilperin
        Washington Post
        November 5, 1999
        (for personal use only)

Congressional Republicans and the White House reached agreement lastnight on foreign aid spending, according to GOP aides, even as Republicanleaders sought to capitalize on public resentment toward overseas assistance.

After what some Democrats described as a disastrous bargaining sessionlate Wednesday, aides said the two sides exchanged offers that produceda deal including the full $1.8 billion the administration sought to implementthe Wye River Middle East peace accord and $799 million more for Kosovo,international debt relief, the Export-Import Bank and a handful of otheroverseas priorities.

While the two sides did not resolve a dispute that is holding up paymentof nearly $1 billion in back dues to the United Nations, last night'sbreakthroughon foreign aid greatly enhanced prospects for a final budget deal in thecoming week.

"We're pleased we were able to make the regular order work," said JohnFeehery, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). "Gettingthis bill done is a good first step."

Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman Linda Ricci cautioned, "Inprinciple we've reached an agreement on funding levels, but there are stilla number of issues that are outstanding."

House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) saidhe reluctantly accepted the White House's latest offer and planned to offerit for a House vote today: "If I were in complete charge of this place,I would not do a lot of these things in this agreement."

The House and Senate, meanwhile, approved another continuing resolutionto keep the government operating through Nov. 10, and President Clintonwas expected to sign it.

Although the roughly $14 billion of total foreign aid for the new fiscalyear is less than 1 percent of the overall $1.7 trillion annual budget,Republicans complained that there was too much of it and charged yesterdaythat Clinton was advocating increases at the expense of domestic programs,including Social Security.

"The White House only wants . . . to give the taxpayers' money awayto foreign aid and be damned what happens at home," declared Rep. HaroldRogers (R-Ky.), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee.

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has repeatedly questioned thewisdom of sending money overseas, saying in a news conference Wednesdaythat it was a "disgrace" to "rob the Social Security surplus to underwritethe national debt of Nepal."

Clinton and his aides have complained in the wake of the Senate's rejectionof the nuclear test ban treaty and attacks on foreign aid proposals thatthe Republican Congress was becoming dangerously isolationist.

"I don't know that Republicans are right to think they'll get a lotof political mileage" out of the issue, said Robert Kagan of the CarnegieEndowment for International Peace. "Certainly some of their constituentswill applaud them, but I don't know that it's a big winner with the publicin general or a help in the presidential campaign."

The initial $12.7 billion foreign aid bill approved by Congress wasone of four bills that Clinton has vetoed. His primary concern was thatRepublicans had denied his request for financial assistance to enable Israeland the Palestinians to carry out the peace agreement they reached in Marylandlast year.

Even after House and Senate GOP leaders conceded full funding for theWye River agreement this week, the White House complained that the billstill "dramatically underfunds" international debt relief, aid to Kosovoand other priorities. Republicans added money to a host of programs inresponse, according to aides, including $170 million for economic supportfunds; $150 million for international development assistance; $104 millionfor nuclear threat reduction in states that had belonged to the SovietUnion; $75 million for peacekeeping; and $90 million for debt relief, withthe stipulation that it must be made on a bilateral basis.

Hastert, disputing Clinton's claim that the Republican Congress wasisolationist and noting that Republicans were more supportive of free tradethan Democrats, said, "For the president, foreign aid is the most importantthing . . . [while] we focus on domestic things."

return to menu

E. Russian Nuclear Forces

Russia Shows Nuclear Force During Dispute Over Arms Treaty
        Vladimir Isachenkov
        Associated Press
        November 4, 1999
        (for personal use only)

MOSCOW (November 4, 1999 3:57 p.m. EST -As Moscow denounces U.S. calls to amend a key nuclear arms limitation treaty,Russia's military has been making a rare show of its nuclear power, ademonstrationof force that harks back to the days of the Cold War.

In recent days, the military staged a well-publicized firing of ananti-missilerocket, talked of putting multiple warheads on missiles capable of reachingthe United States and acquired more strategic bombers.

The moves are widely seen as a reaction to Washington's call to amendthe 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to allow both nations defenses againstlimited nuclear attacks by other states. Russian leaders say the U.S. movecould unravel decades of nuclear arms control and push the world into anew arms race.

Russian leader Boris Yeltsin said in a recent letter to President Clintonthat the U.S. plan would have "extremely dangerous consequences for theentire disarmament process."

To underline the political protests, the Russian military fired aninterceptormissile designed to knock down ballistic missiles - the first such testin years.

Col. Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces chief,said Tuesday's test confirmed that the weapon remains combat-ready.

"This test is a reminder that Russia has an operational missile defensesystem," said Ivan Safranchuk, an analyst with the PIR-Center for PolicyStudies in Russia, an independent think tank. "And there is also an underlyingstatement that Russia may also decide to modernize it."

Yakovlev hinted at that, saying the test must be viewed in the contextof Russia's "possible symmetrical and asymmetrical response" to U.S. callsto amend the ABM treaty.

The Russian missile is one of dozens deployed around Moscow in accordancewith the treaty.

The treaty allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to protecttwo areas with interceptor missiles, a subsequent protocol limiting itto one. It banned the further development of such defenses on the assumptionthat fear of mutual destruction would stop either side from launching anuclear attack.

U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen said Russia's announcement thatit had tested an anti-missile interceptor did not necessarily signal furtherstrain in U.S.-Russian relations. Cohen said the test - which he said hecould not confirm took place - would only underline that Russia has longhad an ABM system to protect Moscow while the United States has none.

"I'm not sure what point they were trying to make," Cohen said.

Washington says it wants to amend the ABM treaty to allow both nationsto defend themselves from possible nuclear attacks by "rogue" nations suchas North Korea. It has insisted that such systems would be small and notcapable of providing a shield against a massive missile attack like Russiacan launch.

In Moscow, the argument is viewed with suspicion as the first step inundoing all nuclear arms control treaties. Moscow believes it must keepits nuclear forces effective because they are Russia's main claim to beseen as a world power.

Moscow fears that Washington may develop defenses that could defeata Russian nuclear attack, making their atomic forces useless. Russia, withits economy and military in tatters, has no way of developing major newdefenses.

The military tacitly acknowledges that, and says their likely responseto any breech of the ABM treaty would be to fit multiple nuclear warheadsto its new Topol-M missiles. Topol-Ms currently carry just one warheadeach, in line with the START II treaty.

This week, the Russian military was playing up its latest deploymentof Topols, expected to enter front-line service by December. With multiplewarheads, the Topol would be able to easily penetrate U.S. missile defenses,military officials claimed.

"The history of weapons suggests that the shield is always weaker thana sword," Yakovlev said sardonically in a recent interview.

And in another highly publicized move, Russia said it would acquire11 Soviet-built strategic heavy bombers from Ukraine. All the bombers cancarry nuclear cruise missiles, and eight are supersonic Tu-160s, the Sovietequivalent of the U.S. B-1 bomber.

Russia now has just six Tu-160s, and the deal significantly increasesthe air force's nuclear strike capability. The first two bombers, a Tu-160and a Tu-95, were to fly to Russia on Friday.

Yeltsin agreed in June to Clinton's proposal to discuss amendments tothe ABM treaty, but the talks have made no progress.

"It could be that Russia is trying to take a tough line to later bargainfor some concessions," said Safranchuk, the military analyst.

He said Russia may want to end the ban on land-based multiple nuclearwarheads and put ceilings on sea-launched missiles, which account for asizable component of the U.S. nuclear arsenal but not Russia's.

return to menu

F. U.S. Nuclear Forces

US To Withdraw Nuclear Weapons From Europe – Sources
        Associated Press
        November 5, 1999
        (for personal use only)

The United States is preparing to withdraw around 200 nuclear warheadsstored at bases in seven European NATO states, diplomatic and militarysources said here today.

The decision could be announced in December at one of two NATO ministerialmeetings in Brussels, the sources said.

News of the possible nuclear scale-down came in the wake of revelationslast month that up to 200 US nuclear warheads were still based in sevenEuropean countries.

A statement from the Pentagon in Washington today said they had noinformationon any such announcement.

"I have no information to suggest that that report's correct," Pentagonspokesman Kenneth Bacon said.

"NATO maintains a small nuclear deterrent and I have no informationsuggesting that's about to change."

A military source in Brussels told AFP: "Today, it is hard to see whythese American nuclear bombs are in Europe."

The type of weapons involved were virtually obsolete, the source added.

"This decision would allow the United States to make up some of theground lost by US Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,"said the source.

The Republican-dominated Senate's decision on October 13 not to ratifythe treaty provoked widespread international criticism. The treaty is considereda cornerstone of international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation.

The whole issue resurfaced with the publication in October of an articlein the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by three US experts.

The article dealt mainly with the United States' secret deployment duringthe Cold War of nuclear weapons and components, sometimes without alertingthe countries concerned.

But it also revealed that between 150 and 200 nuclear stockpiles remainedin several European countries.

Nuclear warheads that could be fitted to bombers were still in sevenEuropean countries: Germany, Belgium, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy,Greece and Turkey.

The Pentagon subsequently conceded that the United States had "a verylimited" stockpile of nuclear weapons in "a very small number of countries."

In London, Greenpeace International disarmament campaigner William Pedensaid the proposal 'would be a small but significant step in the arms controlprocess.'

He said the international community should now turn its attention togetting rid of the 36,000 plus nuclear weapons in the world.

Belgium, thought to have 10 US B-61 nuclear warheads at its airbasein Kleine-Brogel came under political pressure last month to ease its secrecyin this area.

The government said it would be changing its neither-confirm-nor-denypolicy and moving towards a system like that in the US and Germany, inwhich a limited number of deputies are kept informed.

At the height of the Cold War in the 1960s, the US kept 6,000 nuclearwarheads in Europe, in the form of short- and medium-range missiles, bombsand shells.

return to menu

G. U.S. – Russia General

Remarks To The Bilderberg Steering Committee
        Samuel R. Berger
        November 4, 1999
        (for personal use only)

Strengthening the Bipartisan Center:  An Internationalist Agendafor America

Two weeks ago, I gave a speech in New York at the Council on ForeignRelations about the unique and paradoxical position in which America findsitself today. Some of you may have read a few articles about it in theop-ed pages. Come to think of it, some of you may have written a few ofthose articles!

In the speech, I pointed out that we are at the height of our powerand prosperity. We face no single, overriding threat to our existence.The ideals of democracy and free markets which we embrace are ascendantthrough much of the world. After 50 years of building alliances for collectivedefense, common prosperity, and wider freedom, we now have an unparalleledopportunity to shape, with others, a better, safer, more democratic world.

Most Americans are ready to seize that opportunity, though we sometimesdiffer about how. Yet there are also some who question whether we needto seize it at all. They believe America can and should go it alone – eitherby withdrawing from the world and relying primarily on our military strengthto protect us from its dangers . . . or by imposing our will on the world,even if it means alienating our closest allies. There are elements ofisolationismin that view; for whatever its intent, its effect is to isolate Americafrom its friends and to define America’s interests in the narrowest ofterms. There are clearly elements of unilateralism in it as well.

I made these arguments in my speech to stimulate a discussion aboutAmerica's appropriate role in the world. It appears that I’ve succeeded.This is a discussion Americans need to be having -- before decisions aremade that do real harm to our capacity to lead. And I'm pleased to havethe opportunity to move that dialogue forward this evening with you.

First, let me make one crucial point. I have made it explicitly clearthat the view with which I take issue is rejected by serious people inboth political parties. Over the last six and a half years, the Administrationhas worked with Republicans and Democrats in the Congress to enlarge NATOand bolster democracy in central Europe, to approve aid to dismantle formerSoviet weapons, to extend NAFTA to Mexico and create the WTO, to ratifySTART II and the Chemical Weapons Convention, to support our troops inengagements from the Balkans to the Persian Gulf, and to launch a hostof other international initiatives. This week, we are working with a bipartisancoalition in the Congress to pass trade bills for Africa and the CaribbeanBasin. Along the way, most of our critics have disagreed with the meanswe have used to pursue America's goals in the world; they have not questionedthe need to pursue the goals themselves.

In some respects, the debate over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treatywas no different. Many opponents of the Treaty were motivated by seriousand legitimate concerns. Most also understood that an outright rejectionof the Treaty would hurt America. They urged the Senate to delay the vote,seeking time and a process that might address their questions. Yet theywere thwarted by a small group of Senators who showed little concern forthe will of most of their colleagues or the consequences to America ofvoting the Treaty down.

That same small but increasingly powerful group is responsible for thesteady decline in our international affairs budget -- to the point wherethe gulf between America's aspirations in the world and our ability torealize them is growing.

Eight years ago, led by Senators Nunn and Lugar, the Congress initiatedour effort to help safeguard nuclear weapons and expertise in the formerSoviet Union. Now Congress is forcing us to choose between cutting backthat effort, which is vital to our security, or slashing our support forprograms to help Russians, Ukrainians, and others build more democraticsocieties, which is just as critical to our long term interests. For years,Congress has recognized our interest in spurring growth in poor countriesthat are committed to economic reform. Now it is refusing to fund a historicdebt relief initiative that will do just that, an initiative we and allour G-7 partners embraced because it is morally right and economicallysmart. For years, Congress has supported America's partners in the MiddleEast peace process. Yet this year, as that process enters a critical andhopefully final stage, it has so far refused to fund the commitments wemade to the Israelis and Palestinians at the Wye negotiations. Now, thereare indications they may restore those funds. That is good. But not goodenough. America’s global leadership is not divisible.

What is more, Congress is still not meeting our obligations to the WorldBank and IMF, and still conditioning the payment of our UN arrears on unrelatedissues. It has cut by 60% our request for peacekeeping. Right now, fromKosovo to East Timor to Sierra Leone, the welcome advent of peace has producedthe need for peacekeeping to secure it. In each place, the UN is launchingmissions that will save lives and prevent future crises, missions to implementagreements we in many cases helped broker and for which others will providemost of the troops. We must support these missions, not only with our UNvote, but by bearing our share of their costs. That's the only acceptableposition for the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation.

I have argued that these Congressional actions do not result from simpledifferences over policy, or from partisanship. They reflect the coherentphilosophy of a dominant minority -- which sees international spendingas inherently disconnected to America’s interests, views most multilateralenterprises with suspicion and considers most difficult international endeavors-- from supporting democracy in Russia to peace in the Balkans to growthin poor countries -- as likely to fail and therefore not worth trying.

That way of thinking has been with us in the United States for a longtime. In recent times, we faced it in the 1950's when Senator Robert Taftchallenged the internationalist wing of the Republican party, arguing thatwe should rely less on our allies and more on our own defenses. We sawit in the 1970's, when Congressional Democrats voted to bring our troopshome from Europe, twisting legitimate concerns about Vietnam into a callto pull America out of the world.

But it is even more dangerous today -- because the need for Americanleadership has only grown with the end of the Cold War. America and itsallies still face many dangers: some as old as ethnic conflict, some asnew as cyberterrorism, some as fundamental as the risk that the democratictransitions which made this new era possible will not survive the strainsof economic turmoil and political strife. That is why it is urgent thatinternationalists find common ground around a common agenda of our own.We must learn to recognize when our beliefs are being threatened. And wemust defend them together.

What does it mean to be an internationalist in America at the turn ofthis century? It is to study the lessons of this century and reach theconclusion Franklin Roosevelt did in 1945: that America "cannot live alone,at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of othernations, far away." We believe that our way of life cannot thrive in aworld dominated by violence, misery, tyranny and corruption. We believeAmericans benefit when nations coalesce to deter aggression, to resolveconflicts, to promote democracy, to open markets, to raise  living standards, to prevent the spread of dangerous weapons, and to meetother dangers no nation can meet alone. And we believe that one key toforging such coalitions is American leadership.

The bipartisan center that believes America must play an active rolehas often disagreed about how we ought to play our role -- from CentralAmerica in the 1980s to Bosnia in the 1990s. But even when we differ overpolicy, we do not differ over purpose. And we share a conviction that Americamust have the means and the will to lead.

With that in mind, and to advance the critical discussion of America’srole, let me suggest some of the principles that internationalists shouldbe able to agree upon. Every one of them is being challenged today.

First, we should agree that America must have the strongest, best trained,best equipped military in the world, to deter potential adversaries andif need be defeat them. That’s why the President has worked with Congressto reverse the decline in military spending over the last decade.

But we should also agree that it is just as vital to reverse the declinein spending on international affairs that began more than a decade ago.We need to invest in the programs that keep our soldiers out of war --that prevent conflicts, promote freedom, boost prosperity, fight terrorismand drugs, meet our share of global responsibilities, and bring friendsand allies to our side. We not only need a Defense Department that hasthe resources to respond to more than one major crisis at the same time;we need a State Department with that ability as well. Otherwise, our militarywill no longer be our last resort in times of crisis. It will be our onlyresort.

Second, we should agree that while America cannot and should not respondto every outbreak of violence and injustice around the world, neither canit afford never to respond. For local conflicts can affect our nationalinterests and have global consequences.

Americans have long recognized this would be true of a renewed conflictin the weapon-rich and tolerance-poor Middle East, or in Korea. It couldbe true of a war in South Asia between nuclear-armed states. It was trueof the war in the Balkans, which would have spread beyond Bosnia and Kosovohad we let it boil. It can be true when mass killing and displacement threatento throw whole regions into chronic turmoil. Internationalists can questionwhether our national interests in each case justifies a particular kindof involvement -- unilateral or multilateral; military, economic, orhumanitarian.But they should not question whether these interests exist.

After all, virtually every big war started as a small war that the worlddid not care enough to do something about. Sometimes, not acting is theright choice. But not acting must be a conclusion, not a conviction.

That puts an extra premium on a third principle we should be able toagree upon: America must be willing to act alone when our interests demandit, as we have many times in the last six and a half years. But we shouldalso support the institutions and arrangements through which other countrieshelp us bear the burdens of leadership. That's why we must pay our duesand our debts to the UN, and do our part when others take responsibilityfor making peace: whether Europeans in the Balkans or Asians in East Timoror Africans in Sierra Leone. Otherwise we will be left with a choice infuture crises between doing everything ourselves and doing nothing at all.

Fourth, all internationalists agree that it was imperative for Americato fight the Cold War against stifling, expansive oppression and that wealways will be ready to resist threats to our freedom and way of life andthat of our allies. At the same time, we should agree that America doesn'tneed a great enemy to be a great country. And if the end of the Cold Warhas given us a chance to weave our former adversaries Russia and Chinainto the global community as stable, peaceful, open, law abiding states,we should do everything in our power to seize it.

To do that, we need to see both Russia and China with a sense of realism.

The question we face about Russia is no longer whether we will be threatenedby its strength, but whether it will become too weak. Will it become unableto maintain stability and achieve prosperity at home, or to control theflow of people, weapons and technology across its borders? Will it becometrapped, as it seems to be now, in cruel, unending cycles of violence inthe North Caucasus that claim innocent lives and undermine the confidenceof its friends? Realism tells us the road ahead is full of such obstaclesfor Russia and that only Russians can travel it. But it also tells us Russiahas overcome enormous obstacles in ten years -- from an empire to anation-state,from totalitarianism to democracy, from communism to a flawed but freemarket economy.

Internationalists can differ about the best strategies for encouragingthat transformation. But we should not lose faith in our capacity, despiteall the difficulties, to help achieve it, nor can we abdicate our responsibilityto try. In fifty years, I seriously doubt anyone will say we did too muchto support the emergence of a stable, democratic Russia. They are morelikely to say we did too little.

As for China, realism cautions us to be prepared for a future in whichthis emerging power emerges as a threat. But we should not presuppose thatoutcome, or make it more likely by acting as if it has already happened.Realism also tells us to see China in all its complexity: As a countrythat has lifted hundreds of millions of its citizens from poverty and expandedpersonal freedoms, but whose progress is constrained by resistance to politicalreforms vital to its long-term growth and stability. The best way to promotethe right outcome is to protect our security, while continuing a policyof principled, purposeful engagement with China's leaders and its people.

A fifth principle internationalists ought to agree upon is that whilewe should not rely on treaties alone to protect our security, it is inAmerica's interest to establish standards of international conduct thatreflect our values and play to our strengths.

More than 30 years ago, when we signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty,pessimists were sure that despite its provisions, there would be dozensof nuclear-armed nations by the year 2000. That hasn't happened, in partbecause of the restraint and deterrence that comes from global rules withglobal backing. In 1975, we signed the Helsinki Accords with the SovietUnion, a country we couldn't trust that was in violation of every articlein the treaty. Yet the U.S.S.R.'s embrace of human rights, however disingenuousat the time, gave its people a powerful tool in their struggle for change.

In particular, we do not tie our hands by getting others to accept standardswe already have chosen to live by ourselves. That is part of our argumentfor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would help freeze the developmentof nuclear weapons around the world at a time when we have an overwhelmingmilitary advantage. Now, one of the great challenges for internationalistsin both parties is to find the common ground on this treaty that the truncateddebate in the Senate prevented. I hope we can have a process of quietconsultationin the months ahead. We must also find a way in the coming year to moveforward with defenses against missile attack, while working to preservethe ABM treaty. A missile defense can be part of a sound national securitystrategy. But it cannot be the sum total of a strategy.

Many other ambitious tasks demand American leadership and engagementin the coming year. Most reflect the opportunities of the post-Cold Warpeace: forging a comprehensive peace in the Middle East and securing thepeace in the Balkans; helping Russia stabilize its economy as it conductsits first democratic transfer of power; bringing China into the WTO whilespeaking plainly about human rights; building on hopeful developments betweenGreece and Turkey to make progress in the Aegean, particularly on Cyprus;securing new energy routes from the Caspian Sea that will allow newlyindependentstates in the Caucasus to prosper; supporting extraordinarily hopeful andimportant democratic transitions from Nigeria to Indonesia;  launching a new global trade round; enacting the African and Caribbeantrade bills; pressing ahead with debt relief for countries finally embracinggood government.

Others reflect new dangers and new challenges: easing tensions betweenIndia and Pakistan; helping Colombia defeat the narcotraffickers who threatenits democracy; fighting proliferation, terrorism and the nexus betweenthem; restraining North Korea's missile program and Iran's; containingIraq; reversing global climate change.

That is an agenda which reflects America’s interests and deserves bipartisansupport. The President will work hard with the Congress to make it ourcommon agenda. And he will make the case once again that we can seize thechallenges ahead only if we have the resources to match our interests,only if America remains a builder of coalitions, only if we remember thatfew of our hopes will be realized if we cannot convince others to embracethem as well.

Perhaps the most important principle every internationalist should agreeupon is that there is a difference between power and authority. Power isthe ability to compel by force and sanctions; there are times we must useit, but as a final, not a first resort. Authority is the ability to lead,and we depend on it for virtually everything we try to achieve. Our authorityis built on very different qualities than our power: on the attractivenessof our values, on the force of example, the credibility of our commitmentsand our willingness to work with and stand by others

Historians tell us that this moment of predominance for America maybe fleeting. That’s hard for many people to imagine, in part because thereis no threat to our power in the world today. But there is a threat toour authority. It lies in the impulse of some to stand alone in the worldin a way that would squander our advantages, alienate our friends, diminishour credibility, betray our values, and discredit our example. We cannotlet that happen.

The Administration has an obligation to reach out to critics who shareour belief that America must lead and not stand alone. I hope they, too,will defend the common ground we share, so that the bipartisan center willhold, and America's tradition of leadership will be preserved for generationsto come. I will dedicate my very best efforts to that task in the monthsahead.

return to menu

Section Menu:

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