May 22, 2003
AN UPHILL CLIMB AT EVIAN
By Congressman Duncan Hunter
Getting rid of weapons of mass destruction is a great
idea, embraced by all nations, with one implicit condition: the United States
must pay for almost everything. Next week [June 1-3], President Bush
travels to the French Alps for three days of talks with leaders of the world’s
largest economies and Russia – the G-8. This year’s host, France, suggests
focusing the summit on several major themes, including the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction—good advice, but no more than that unless the
French president helps to implement already existing agreements within the
exclusive club. The group’s principals, the leaders of the world’s wealthiest
nations, need a reminder that world-wide nonproliferation projects demand
of them real financial contributions, not just idle chatter.
During last year’s summit in Canada,
the G-8 decided on an ambitious funding strategy to support nonproliferation
and disarmament efforts in the states of the former Soviet Union and, eventually,
elsewhere. Under the arrangement, the United States would contribute
$10 billion over the next decade, with the group’s other charter members—Japan,
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom—plus the European Commission
raising an equal amount over the same period.
Disappointingly, the “10-plus-10-over-10”
plan has only highlighted an unwillingness on the part of G-8 members to
address serious nonproliferation issues. Paris, for example, recently
announced that it had earmarked only $750 million for the nonproliferation
effort over ten years, a relatively tiny share given the size of France’s
economy. Most other members have promised as much or less, with one
state committing just $200 million to date.
All told, our wealthiest allies
have identified $6 billion, three-fifths of their pledge, while the U.S.—on
track to meet its funding requirement years ahead of schedule—will boost its
nonproliferation and disarmament spending by about 14 percent next year, most
of it from the Department of Energy and an already overburdened Department
of Defense. Unfortunately, our friends’ tightfisted attitude toward
the 10-plus-10-over-10 plan is merely a symptom of a larger cooperation problem
facing the U.S. Despite Washington’s sustained appeals to do more, our
European allies have only reluctantly contributed to U.S.-led nonproliferation
projects in the former Soviet Union.
In fact, our European friends have
collectively contributed a little more than one percent of the costs of building
a billion dollar-facility intended to destroy nerve gas-filled munitions in
the Russian town of Shchuch’ye. Some European states—which stand to
gain as much from the project as the U.S.—have promised additional funds to
the risky project, but none of the nominal contributions exceed $6 million
a year. Few, if any European capitals have yet to make Russia’s residual
weapons of mass destruction a spending priority. By contrast, the U.S.
is on track to spend nearly two billion on world-wide nonproliferation and
disarmament projects in 2004, with American taxpayers likely handing over
$170 million on the Shchuch’ye initiative alone.
Enhanced funding from Russia also
will help prevent another “Krasnoyarsk” – a city in central Russia where U.S.
taxpayers recently funded a $100 million plant to neutralize volatile missile
fuel. It will never be operated because the Russians diverted the fuel
to their space program before the plant was even completed – and never bothered
to tell us.
President Bush should not miss
the opportunity to argue for larger European, Canadian, and Japanese contributions;
but the Congress, too, needs to act. Proposed legislation would begin
this process, making a portion of the Shchuch’ye project’s funding contingent
on foreign assistance. The House Armed Services Committee recently
endorsed H.R. 1588, bipartisan legislation that would guarantee over $70 million
and match, on a two-to-one basis, up to another $100 million. In other
words, the Committee recommends creating a financing mechanism that would
create incentives for other countries to honor their commitments to nonproliferation.
A second provision in this year’s
bill would help enforce guidelines established in last year’s G-8 agreement
by creating incentives for Russia to open up its secret biological research
facilities, some of which are suspected of harboring illegal weapons programs,
and others that would benefit from security upgrades to prevent theft.
Another section would give teeth to the G-8 guideline requiring “clearly defined
milestones” by requiring Russia to obtain, and transfer to Washington, land-use
permits necessary to construct and operate disarmament facilities so nonproliferation
dollars are not unnecessarily wasted on facilities that cannot be used because
of Russian red tape.
Taken together, these and other
elements in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act would
ensure accountability, promote transparency, and improve nonproliferation
cooperation in Russia and among other members of the G-8 whose rhetorical
commitment to eliminating threats from weapons of mass destruction has so
far surpassed their willingness to commit real resources. The United
States should continue to take the lead in combating proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction; it serves our interests to do so. However, America’s
commitment must not become an excuse for other countries to duck their financial
responsibilities. The funding formulas, requirements for accountability,
and incentive structures created in legislation the House of Representatives
will consider this week are the best means of ensuring that our global nonproliferation
focuses on results, rather then rhetoric.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee
Copyright The Washington Times