DOCSLIB.ORG

Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reduction: the Moscow Treaty Hearings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reduction: the Moscow Treaty Hearings S. HRG. 107–622 TREATY ON STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE REDUCTION: THE MOSCOW TREATY HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JULY 9, 17, 23, and September 12, 2002 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 81–339 PDF WASHINGTON : 2002 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:47 Nov 01, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 81339.001 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JESSE HELMS, North Carolina CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota BILL FRIST, Tennessee BARBARA BOXER, California LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Staff Director PATRICIA A. MCNERNEY, Republican Staff Director (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:47 Nov 01, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 81339.001 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2 CONTENTS Page HEARING OF JULY 9, 2002 Powell, Hon. Colin L., Secretary of State .............................................................. 5 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record to Secretary Powell by the Committee ..................................................................................... 50 HEARING OF JULY 17, 2002 Myers, Gen. Richard B., USAF, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff ........................ 89 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 Rumsfeld, Hon. Donald H., Secretary of Defense ................................................. 76 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record to Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers by the Committee .............................................. 115 HEARING OF JULY 23, 2002 Adelman, Hon. Ken, Former Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Host of DEFENSECENTRAL.com ........................................................ 145 Christiansen, Father Drew, S.J., Counselor, International Affairs, U.S. Con- ference of Catholic Bishops ................................................................................. 163 Gaffney, Frank J. Jr., President and CEO, Center for Security Policy, Wash- ington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 180 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 185 Habiger, Gen. Eugene E., USAF (Ret.), Former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, United States Air Force .................................................................... 138 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 142 Nunn, Hon. Sam, Co-Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Threat Ini- tiative .................................................................................................................... 127 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 133 Paine, Christopher E., Co-Director, Nuclear Warhead Elimination and Non- proliferation Project, Natural Resources Defense Council ................................ 166 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 171 Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record to Hon. Sam Nunn by the Committee ...................................................................................... 198 Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record to General Eu- gene E. Habiger by the Committee ..................................................................... 200 HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 Goodby, Hon. James E., Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. .................................................... 226 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 229 Gottemoeller, Hon. Rose, Senior Associate, Russian and Eurasian and Global Policy Programs, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Wash- ington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 218 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 220 Holdren, John P., Ph.D., Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University ....................................................................... 235 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 239 (III) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:47 Nov 01, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 81339.001 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2 IV Page Ikle´, Hon. Fred C., Distinguished Scholar, Center for Strategic and Inter- national Studies, Washington, D.C. .................................................................... 207 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 208 Perry, Hon. William J., Berberian Professor and Senior Fellow, Institute for International Studies, Stanford University .................................................. 205 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 206 Sokolski, Henry D., Executive Director, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, Washington, D.C. .................................................................................... 247 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 249 APPENDIX Documents Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions, Signed at Moscow on May 24, 2002 Text of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions ................................................... 263 Letter of Transmittal ............................................................................................... 266 Letter of Submittal .................................................................................................. 268 Article-by-Article Analysis of the Treaty Between the United States of Amer- ica and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions ................ 270 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:47 Nov 01, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 81339.001 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2 TREATY ON STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE REDUCTIONS: THE MOSCOW TREATY TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2002 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, WASHINGTON, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m. in room SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., [chairman] presiding. Present: Senators Biden [presiding], Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Nel- son of Florida, Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, and Allen. The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. It is a genuine pleasure to have the Secretary of State back before us. I might state for the record that I have been here for a lot of Secretaries of State and seven Presidents, and this is a man who when he tells you he is going to do something he does it. He said he would be available to the committee. Obviously, this hearing is something for which any Secretary of State would be available. I just want the record to show that I personally appreciate not only his willingness to testify as often as he has, but also his ability to help the hearing reporter. There’s a Secretary of State, I tell you. Secretary POWELL. I do not want him to miss a word. The CHAIRMAN. The thing I am most happy about is he is not running for the U.S. Senate in Delaware. But I do want to thank you personally, Mr. Secretary. Never once have I ever called you and you have not responded. You always are available and keep me and the committee informed. So let me say again good morning and welcome. Today the committee begins its consideration of the Strategic Of- fensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which the President submitted to the Senate on June 20 for its advice and consent to ratification. On July the 17 we will take testimony from the Secretary of De- fense Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Meyers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Later hearings on July 23 and September 12 will feature outside experts. The treaty signed in May by Presidents Bush and Putin is a very important step forward in U.S.-Russian relations and toward a more secure world. Cutting the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Issue Brief for Congress Received Through the CRS Web
    Order Code IB92089 Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Russia Updated March 14, 2003 Stuart D. Goldman Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Post-Soviet Russia and Its Significance for the United States Political Developments Economic Developments Economic Reform Foreign Policy Defense Policy Fundamental Shakeup of the Military Control of Nuclear Weapons U.S. Policy U.S.-Russian Relations U.S. Assistance IB92089 03-14-03 Russia SUMMARY Vladimir Putin, catapulted into the ber 11, however, Russia has adopted a much Kremlin by Boris Yeltsin’s resignation, was more cooperative attitude on many issues. elected President on March 26, 2000 by a solid majority that embraced his military The military is in turmoil after years of campaign in Chechnya. Parties backing Putin severe force reductions and budget cuts. The did well in the December 1999 Duma election, armed forces now number about one million, giving Putin a stable parliamentary majority as down from 4.3 million Soviet troops in 1986. well. Putin’s top priority is to revive the Weapons procurement is down sharply. economy and integrate Russia into the global Readiness, training, morale, and discipline marketplace. He has also strengthened the have suffered. Putin’s government has increa- central government vis-a-vis the regions and sed defense spending sharply but there is brought TV and radio under tighter state conflict between the military and the control. Federal forces have suppressed large- government and within the military over scale military resistance in Chechnya but face resource allocation, restructuring, and reform.
    [Show full text]
  • POLICY BRIEF by George Bunn & John B
    ary ald Reagan Libr Courtesy Ron POLICY BRIEF by George Bunn & John B. Rhinelander LAWS September 2007 Reykjavik Revisited: Toward a World Free of Nuclear Weapons It would be fine with At their October 1986 Reykjavik summit meeting, Ronald Reagan me if we eliminated all and Mikhail Gorbachev agreed orally that their two governments should "nuclear weapons. eliminate all their nuclear weapons. Reagan said, “It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons.” Gorbachev replied, “We can do that.” Reagan’s secretary of state, George Shultz, participated in the – Ronald Reagan, discussion. While that proposal later floundered over U.S. plans for October 1986 missile defense and differences over the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) " Treaty, the goal of going to zero nuclear weapons is highly relevant today.1 George Shultz, now at the Hoover Institution on the campus of Stanford University, organized a conference to review the goal of Reykjavik in October 2006, the 20th anniversary of the Reykjavik This policy brief made possible summit. He invited former high-level government officials and other by the Lawyers Alliance for World experts to consider major changes in current U.S. nuclear-weapon control Security, an independent partner and reduction policies, including the ultimate goal of a world free of of the World Security Institute. nuclear weapons. He had the assistance of Sidney Drell, a distinguished Stanford physicist who has long been an adviser to the U.S. government 1 The best treatment of this extraordinary meeting is Don Oberdorfer, The Turn (1991), chap. 5, 155-209, including page 202 for the Reagan- Gorbachev quotes (This has been republished under soft cover under the new title, From The Cold War To A New Era: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1983-1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Organized Hypocrisy and International Organization Michael Lipson Department of Political Science
    Dilemmas of Global Governance: Organized Hypocrisy and International Organization Michael Lipson Department of Political Science Concordia University 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, QC H3G 1M8 Tel. (514) 8484-2424, ext. 2129 Fax (514) 848-4072 e-mail: [email protected] DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite without permission Comments welcome. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Toronto, Ontario, June 1-3, 2006. Dilemmas of Global Governance: Organized Hypocrisy and International Organizations Critics of international organizations on the political left and right frequently accuse international institutions of hypocrisy. Yet the academic literature on international organizations lacks an explicit theory of the sources of inconsistencies on the part of international institutions. This paper argues that hypocrisy on the part of international organizations is an inevitable consequence of contradictory pressures in their organizational environments. Drawing on neo-institutionalist organizational sociology and work on “organized hypocrisy” applied to other settings, the paper presents a typology and framework for analyzing the bases and consequences – both positive and negative – of different forms of hypocrisy in global governance and formal international organizations. The argument is illustrated with reference to organizational hypocrisy on the part of the United Nations and the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Dilemmas of Global Governance Introduction In the
    [Show full text]
  • Soviet Transcaucasus 1917-1945: Nations in Transition
    SOVIET TRANSCAUCASUS 1917-1945: NATIONS IN TRANSITION A Master’s Thesis by DİDEM AKSOY Department of International Relations İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University Ankara September 2013 SOVIET TRANSCAUCASUS 1917-1945: NATIONS IN TRANSITION Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences of İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University by DİDEM AKSOY In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BİLKENT UNIVERSITY ANKARA September 2013 I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in International Relations. --------------------------------- Dr. Hasan Ali Karasar Supervisor I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in International Relations. --------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Erel Tellal Examining Committee Member I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in International Relations. --------------------------------- Assist. Prof. Dr. Kürşad Turan Examining Committee Member Approval of the Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences --------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Erdal Erel Director ABSTRACT SOVIET TRANSCAUCASUS 1917-1945: NATIONS IN TRANSITION Aksoy, Didem M.A., Department of International Relations Supervisor: Dr. Hasan Ali KARASAR September 2013 This thesis analyzes the nationalities policy of the Soviet Union with a special emphasis on three major Transcaucasian nationalities, i.e. Georgians, Azerbaijanis and Armenians. The thesis focuses on the Soviet nationalities policy and attempts to shed light on the history of these three Transcaucasian nationalities within the context of this policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard University
    HARVARD UNIVERSITY ROBERT AND RENÉE BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 2000-2001 ANNUAL REPORT 2 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 2000-2001 Annual Report Director’s Foreword 5 Overview From the Executive Director 7 Environment and Natural Resources Program TABLE 8 OF Harvard Information Infrastructure Project 52 CONTENTS International Security Program 71 Science, Technology and Public Policy Program 109 Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project 155 WPF Program on Intrastate Conflict, Conflict Prevention, and Conflict Resolution 177 Events 188 Publications 219 Biographies 241 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 3 2000-2001 Annual Report 4 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 2000-2001 Annual Report Director’s Foreword —————————————♦ For the hub of the John F. Kennedy School’s research, teaching, and training in international security affairs, environmental and resource issues, conflict prevention and resolution, and science and technology policy, the first academic year of the new century has been bracing. According to our mission statement, The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs strives to provide leadership in advancing policy-relevant knowledge about the most important challenges of international security and other critical issues where science, technology, and international affairs intersect. BCSIA’s leadership begins with the recognition of science and technology as driving forces transforming threats and opportunities in international affairs. The Center integrates insights of social scientists, technologists, and practitioners with experience in government, diplomacy, the military, and business to address critical issues. BCSIA involvement in both the Republican and Democratic campaigns. BCSIA was privileged to have senior advisors in both camps in one of the most unforgettable American elections in recent memory.
    [Show full text]
  • The American-Scandinavian Foundation
    THE AMERICAN-SCANDINAVIAN FOUNDATION BI-ANNUAL REPORT JULY 1, 2011 TO JUNE 30, 2013 The American-Scandinavian Foundation BI-ANNUAL REPORT July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013 The American-Scandinavian Foundation (ASF) serves as a vital educational and cultural link between the United States and the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. A publicly supported nonprofit organization, the Foundation fosters cultural understanding, provides a forum for the exchange of ideas, and sustains an extensive program of fellowships, grants, internships/training, publishing, and cultural events. Over 30,000 Scandinavians and Americans have participated in its exchange programs over the last century. In October 2000, the ASF inaugurated Scandinavia House: The Nordic Center in America, its headquarters, where it presents a broad range of public programs furthering its mission to reinforce the strong relationships between the United States and the Nordic nations, honoring their shared values and appreciating their differences. 58 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10016 • AMscan.ORG H.M. Queen Margrethe II H.E. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson Patrons of Denmark President of Iceland 2011 – 2013 H.E. Tarja Halonen H.M. King Harald V President of Finland of Norway until February, 2012 H.M. King Carl XVI Gustaf H.E Sauli Niinistö of Sweden President of Finland from March, 2012 H.R.H. Princess Benedikte H.H. Princess Märtha Louise Honorary of Denmark of Norway Trustees H.E. Martti Ahtisaari H.R.H. Crown Princess Victoria 2011 – 2013 President of Finland,1994-2000 of Sweden H.E. Vigdís Finnbogadóttir President of Iceland, 1980-1996 Officers 2011 – 2012 Richard E.
    [Show full text]
  • August 10, 2016 the Honorable Edward J. Ramotowski Deputy
    August 10, 2016 The Honorable Edward J. Ramotowski Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services Bureau of Consular Affairs U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20520 Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Ramotowski: We, leaders and members of the higher education community, are writing to bring to your attention that the current visa renewal process is harming the United States. Requiring the renewal of academic visas abroad is disrupting scholarship, impeding research, and is an undue hardship that our international scholars currently endure. Most students admitted on F visas are admitted under “duration of status” and they are allowed to stay in the country as long as they are a student, whether their visa expires or not. However, students who leave the country after their visa has expired have to apply to renew it before they can be re-admitted. Most nonimmigrant visas, including class F visas, must be renewed at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate office abroad and the Department of State recommends that applicants apply in their home country. The visa issuance and renewal process has been shortened over the past several years, and we are grateful for the Department of State’s efforts thus far to improve the process. However, requiring visa renewals be done abroad is impacting our scholars in a number of ways: 1. The time required to travel and renew academic visas abroad is an interruption to international student’s academic career, is detrimental to the undergraduate students in their classes, and stalls cutting-edge U.S. based research. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT 2D Session HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 104–582 "!
    104TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 104±582 "! PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3144, THE DEFEND AMERICA ACT OF 1996 MAY 16, 1996.ÐReferred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. Res. 438] The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House Resolution 438, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION The rule provides for consideration in the House with two hours of debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking mi- nority member of the Committee on National Security. The rule waives all points or order against the bill and against its consider- ation. The rule also makes in order without intervention of any point of order one minority amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by Mr. Spratt or his designee and which is printed in this report. The rule provides that the substitute shall be debatable separately for one hour divided equally between the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. THE AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE SPRATT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, OR A DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 1 HOUR Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1996''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: 29±008 2 (1) Short-range theater ballistic missiles threaten United States Armed Forces wherever engaged abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • New Documents on Mongolia and the Cold War
    Cold War International History Project Bulletin, Issue 16 New Documents on Mongolia and the Cold War Translation and Introduction by Sergey Radchenko1 n a freezing November afternoon in Ulaanbaatar China and Russia fell under the Mongolian sword. However, (Ulan Bator), I climbed the Zaisan hill on the south- after being conquered in the 17th century by the Manchus, Oern end of town to survey the bleak landscape below. the land of the Mongols was divided into two parts—called Black smoke from gers—Mongolian felt houses—blanketed “Outer” and “Inner” Mongolia—and reduced to provincial sta- the valley; very little could be discerned beyond the frozen tus. The inhabitants of Outer Mongolia enjoyed much greater Tuul River. Chilling wind reminded me of the cold, harsh autonomy than their compatriots across the border, and after winter ahead. I thought I should have stayed at home after all the collapse of the Qing dynasty, Outer Mongolia asserted its because my pen froze solid, and I could not scribble a thing right to nationhood. Weak and disorganized, the Mongolian on the documents I carried up with me. These were records religious leadership appealed for help from foreign countries, of Mongolia’s perilous moves on the chessboard of giants: including the United States. But the first foreign troops to its strategy of survival between China and the Soviet Union, appear were Russian soldiers under the command of the noto- and its still poorly understood role in Asia’s Cold War. These riously cruel Baron Ungern who rode past the Zaisan hill in the documents were collected from archival depositories and pri- winter of 1921.
    [Show full text]
  • Kazakhstan Missile Chronology
    Kazakhstan Missile Chronology Last update: May 2010 As of May 2010, this chronology is no longer being updated. For current developments, please see the Kazakhstan Missile Overview. This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here. Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation. 2009-1947 March 2009 On 4 March 2009, Kazakhstan signed a contract to purchase S-300 air defense missile systems from Russia. According to Ministry of Defense officials, Kazakhstan plans to purchase 10 batteries of S-300PS by 2011. Kazakhstan's Air Defense Commander Aleksandr Sorokin mentioned, however, that the 10 batteries would still not be enough to shield all the most vital" facilities designated earlier by a presidential decree. The export version of S- 300PS (NATO designation SA-10C Grumble) has a maximum range of 75 km and can hit targets moving at up to 1200 m/s at a minimum altitude of 25 meters.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historical Legacy for Contemporary Russian Foreign Policy
    CHAPTER 1 The Historical Legacy for Contemporary Russian Foreign Policy o other country in the world is a global power simply by virtue of geogra- N phy.1 The growth of Russia from an isolated, backward East Slavic principal- ity into a continental Eurasian empire meant that Russian foreign policy had to engage with many of the world’s principal centers of power. A Russian official trying to chart the country’s foreign policy in the 18th century, for instance, would have to be concerned simultaneously about the position and actions of the Manchu Empire in China, the Persian and Ottoman Empires (and their respec- tive vassals and subordinate allies), as well as all of the Great Powers in Europe, including Austria, Prussia, France, Britain, Holland, and Sweden. This geographic reality laid the basis for a Russian tradition of a “multivector” foreign policy, with leaders, at different points, emphasizing the importance of rela- tions with different parts of the world. For instance, during the 17th century, fully half of the departments of the Posolskii Prikaz—the Ambassadors’ Office—of the Muscovite state dealt with Russia’s neighbors to the south and east; in the next cen- tury, three out of the four departments of the College of International Affairs (the successor agency in the imperial government) covered different regions of Europe.2 Russian history thus bequeaths to the current government a variety of options in terms of how to frame the country’s international orientation. To some extent, the choices open to Russia today are rooted in the legacies of past decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues
    Order Code IB98038 CRS Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues Updated March 13, 2002 Amy F. Woolf Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Nuclear Weapons After the Demise of the Soviet Union Location of Nuclear Weapons in the Former Soviet Union Continuing Concerns about Command, Control, Safety, and Security Russia’s Nuclear Command and Control System Safety and Security of Stored Nuclear Warheads Former Soviet Nuclear Facilities and Materials Cooperative Programs For Nuclear Threat Reduction The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program Program Objectives and Funding Implementing the Programs International Science and Technology Centers Material Protection, Control, and Accounting Programs Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Nuclear Cities Initiative Bilateral Meetings The U.S.-Russian Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation (The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission) The Strategic Stability Working Group (SSWG) Safeguards, Transparency, and Irreversibility Talks Arms Control Proposals Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons Agreement on the Disposition of Weapons-grade Plutonium Sharing Early Warning Data Alert Rates for Strategic Nuclear Weapons CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL READING IB98038 03-13-02 Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues SUMMARY When the Soviet Union collapsed in late Reports of Russian nuclear materials for 1991, it reportedly possessed more than sale on the black market, when combined with 27,000 nuclear weapons, and these weapons evidence of weaknesses in the security systems were deployed on the territories of several of have raised concerns about the possible theft the former Soviet republics.
    [Show full text]