James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction with training & analysis

June 6, 2002

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify this afternoon on a subject of high importance to international security: Russian exports of equipment and technology that may contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles for delivering them.

Sadly, Mr. Chairman, this is an area where we are seeing history repeat itself and where, it seems, Moscow has failed to absorb the unmistakable lessons of the past.

In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the world witnessed eager, profit-oriented exporters carelessly sell sensitive commodities that recipient states later misused to support weapon-of mass-destruction programs.

During the '60s, the United States and Canada provided India the CIRUS research reactor, but they did so under weak controls. Later, India misused the facility to produce plutonium for its 1974 nuclear test.

In the 1970s, the desire for profits and influence led France to sell Iraq the Osiraq reactor (which Israel destroyed in 1981) and to promise Pakistan and South Korea facilities for extracting weapons-usable plutonium from spent nuclear power plant fuel. The 1970s also saw Germany offer Brazil, then under military rule, the equipment needed to produce fissile materials. Only the strongest diplomatic intervention by the United States persuaded France and Germany to curtail the most sensitive of these exports.

In the 1980s, weak interpretation and enforcement of export controls in a number of Western countries, particularly Germany and Switzerland, enabled Pakistan to acquire crucial facilities to support its nuclear weapons effort, permitted Libya to build the Rabta chemical weapons plant, and allowed Saddam Hussein to advance multiple weapon-of-mass-destruction and missile programs.

Slowly, but with increasing resolve, Western suppliers recognized the dangers of allowing profit to guide their export decisions, and they have moved to tighten export control rules and enforcement. Today, the newly appreciated danger that terrorist organizations are seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction makes this mission all the more urgent.

Unfortunately, Moscow has not heard the message and, driven by the desire for profit, is engaged in a wide range of unwise exports. (See table, attached.) The Bush Administration has highlighted Russia's disturbing trade with Iran in the nuclear and missile areas, which I will not reiterate here. But the Russian government is also permitting -- indeed encouraging -- other, highly disturbing exports.

• It has opened the nuclear Pandora's box in Syria by selling a large research reactor to that country, which we consider to be a state-sponsor of terrorism and which is known to have an extensive chemical weapon and missile arsenal. Although, like the Osiraq reactor, this facility will be subject to monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the reactor will help train Syria's first generation of nuclear scientists and, like Osiraq, has sufficient power for the clandestine production of plutonium.
• Moscow, similarly, has enhanced the prestige of the widely condemned military junta in Myanmar by signing a contract to provide that state with its first research reactor.
• Moscow is also helping to refurbish the Tajoura Nuclear Research Center, in Libya, a country with a significant chemical weapon arsenal and which is seeking to expand its missile capabilities. Although the Tajoura reactor is under IAEA inspection, Russia's assistance will mean more and better training for Libyan nuclear specialists, whose next project may be a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
• Most troubling, however, is that at a time when the international community is intensely concerned about the threat of nuclear war in South Asia, Russia is assisting India to develop nuclear-capable cruise and ballistic missiles and is seeking to "cash in" through major sales to India's civilian nuclear power program. These activities violate the long-standing rules of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

I should underscore, Mr. Chairman, that these exports are neither inadvertent, nor the result of smuggling activities that by-pass official controls. Indeed, not only are these exports all blessed by officials in Moscow, but these same officials have deliberately manipulated Russian export control laws to permit these sales.

It is clear, for example, that Russian cruise missile technology exports, while technically complying with the MTCR, will provide India the ability to build systems with greater range and payload capabilities that would violate that regime, if exported directly. India has a widely-known history of exploiting missile technology in this way, a history to which Russia is cynically turning a blind eye.

Moreover, to permit the export of 58 metric tons of fuel for the Tarapur reactors, Russian export control officials grossly distorted an exception to the Nuclear Supplier Group Guidelines. The Guidelines permit exports to countries like India on safety grounds, only if such exports are "essential to prevent or correct a radiological hazard to public health and safety. which cannot reasonably be met by other means." Russian export officials asserted that the export of the Tarapur fuel met this standard -- a view that all other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, save Belarus, have publicly and repeatedly rejected.

Although these exports do not involve smuggling, smuggling of Russian WMD and missile commodities remains a distinct and dangerous dimension of Russian weapons of mass destruction and missile exports. The most notorious case of smuggling involved the sale of some 800 missile components by Russian entities to Saddam Hussein, in 1995. UN inspectors discovered many gyroscopes and other components in Iraq, where Iraqi officials had dumped them into the Tigris River in an attempt to hide them from the UN teams. Although details of the smuggling operation were widely publicized, Russian authorities never prosecuted those involved.

Indeed to this date, there have been few prosecutions in Russia for smuggling activities, and those that have occurred have resulted in minimal penalties for offenders. Given the dangers of leakage of WMD materials from Russia, it is extremely unfortunate that efforts to prevent such leakage, on which the United States is spending hundreds of millions of dollars, are not being reinforced by the deterrent effect of aggressive Russian prosecution.

Given these patterns, it seems clear that the fundamental problem is a lack of political will in Moscow to enforce a disciplined export control system, an export control system that gives a higher priority to nonproliferation than to profit.

How can we change this situation? The Bush Administration, like the Clinton Administration, has tried a number of approaches, but with only limited success. It has raised U.S. concerns at "the highest political level," most recently at the May 2002 Moscow Summit. It has imposed sanctions against specific Russian entities involved in improper exports. It has publicized Russia's departures from international norms. It has spent millions training Russian export control officials. Despite these efforts, the problems persist.

I would like to suggest several new avenues to reinforce these nonproliferation efforts.

First, it may be time to indicate more forcefully that other members of the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Nuclear Suppliers Group are dissatisfied with Russia's behavior. My first thought was to seek to expel Russia from these groups for a period of time. Russia is not a member of the Australia Group, which harmonizes chemical- and biological-weapon related export controls, but that organization is able to work quite effectively without Moscow's participation.

Administration officials have pointed out to me, however, that expulsion would entail many diplomatic headaches, not the least of which is the fact that neither the MTCR nor the NSG has established rules for removing or suspending members.

At a minimum, such a process is needed for the future, so that the groups can discipline their wayward members. A U.S. call for such procedures, a step which all observers would know was initiated with Russia in mind, would be one more signal to Moscow of the seriousness of U.S. concerns.

In the meantime, the United States should reinforce the public shaming of Russia through the equivalent of a nonproliferation "scarlet letter." In its official pronouncements describing the members of these organizations Washington should include a note or asterisk stating that the "United States" or "some members" of the groups "have raised concerns that Russia is not in full compliance with the guidelines of the [the Missile Technology Control Regime] [Nuclear Suppliers Group]. [*]

A second approach would be to take a leaf from domestic U.S. law enforcement. Here it is common practice for federal officials, through the seizure of wrongdoers' assets or the imposition of fines, to seek to deprive malefactors of the financial gains they have obtained from their illicit activities. In addressing Russian export controls, the United States could adopt a parallel strategy by reducing dollar-for-dollar the benefits it provides Russia, so as to offset the profits Russia makes from improper exports.

It might be possible, for example, when the United States periodically "rolls over" Russia's sovereign debt to reduce the total amount of debt postponed by an amount equal to Russia's profits from dangerous exports. This, in effect, would force Russia to disgorge its illicit gains to pay off the amount of debt so accelerated.

The Clinton Administration was reluctant to link macro economic stabilization activities to nonproliferation, but this approach would have a modest impact on the overall Russian economy while sending a very strong signal regarding U.S. concerns.

Finally, we have to ask ourselves, "How do we lead Russian officials to place nonproliferation over profit?" In the end, the issue is one of education. For more senior officials, education, it seems, must be conducted in public, exposing them collectively to international calumny for their inappropriate policies. But more junior officials, those training to become officials, and journalists can be taught through more traditional means -- for example, through mid-career training and degree-granting programs that stress nonproliferation values and through exchanges with Western countries that have embraced and implemented such values.

***
This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

RUSSIAN WMD AND MISSILE EXPORTS OF GREATEST CONCERN TO THE UNITED STATES