Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Jasinski-Thornton - Chap 10 - US Nonprolif Assistance in Russia's Regions - 2004

Jasinski-Thornton - Chap 10 - US Nonprolif Assistance in Russia's Regions - 2004

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14|Likes:
Published by Chuck Thornton

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Chuck Thornton on Sep 10, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Preventing Nuclear Meltdown
Managing Decentralization of Russia's Nuclear ComplexJames Clay Moltz, Vladimir A. Orlov and Adam N. Stulberg
The decline in central financing for Russia's nuclear complex and the known interest of terrorist groups in acquiring fissile material and technologies, has made the state of Russia'sfar-flung nuclear enterprises a pressing international issue.In this important volume, a group of leading US and Russian policy experts - drawing onextensive interviews with officials, facility personnel, and analysts in Russia's regions -explores the intersecting problems of Russian nuclear insecurity and decentralization,including the growing influence of regional, political and economic forces.The work presents insights into both nuclear safety issues and post-Soviet intra-agencygovernance, as well as detailed case studies of critical nuclear regions: the Far East, theUrals, Siberia, and the Volga area. The volume also offers major new findings on theinterface linking Russia's evolving center-periphery relations, its ailing nuclear facilities, andthe role played by foreign assistance providers.
Introduction: Russia's nuclear regions, James Clay Moltz. Federal Nuclear Agencies and the Regions: Center-periphery relations and Russia's nuclear infrastructure, Dmitry Evstafiev and Vladimir A. Orlov; Russian nuclearregionalism at the Federal Center, Nikolai Sokov and Adam N. Stulberg; Minatom's regional strategy, Sonia BenOuagrham; The military, the regions, and nuclear weapons, Michael Jasinski. Case Studies of Russia's NuclearRegions: Nuclear issues in the Far Eastern Federal Okrug, Cristina Chuen; Nuclear issues in the Volga FederalOkrug, Ivan Safranchuk; Nuclear issues in the Urals Federal Okrug, Elena Sokova; Nuclear issues in the SiberianFederal Okrug, Dmitry Kovchegin. The Experience of US Assistance Programs and Conclusions: Theimplementation of US nonproliferation assistance programs in Russia's regions, Michael Jasinski and CharlesThornton; Nuclear decentralization in Russia: lessons learned and new directions, Adam N. Stulberg; Index.
'This book is a significant contribution to the field of Russian studies, political science, and economics, and will beof considerable interest to scholars in the field of nuclear proliferation. The authors – Russian and American – areall knowledgeable and many have direct experience in the nuclear field. The scholarship is of the highest quality,backed by authoritative sources. No other full-length work examines the nuclear issue in the context of Russia'sregions. Preventing Nuclear Meltdown is a real contribution to our understanding of Russia's evolving federalism.'Charles E. Ziegler, University of Louisville, USA
James Clay Moltz, Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA, Vladimir A. Orlov, PIR - Centerfor Policy Studies in Russia, Russia, and Adam N. Stulberg, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Includes 2 b&w illustrations
0 7546 4257 7
Publication Date:
Number of Pages:
270 pages
Binding Options:
Available in Hardback only
Book Size:
234 x 156 mm
British Library Reference:
Library of Congress Reference:
 Suggested citation:Michael Jasinski and Charles Thornton, “The Implementation of US NonproliferationAssistance Programs in Russia's Regions,” in James Clay Moltz, Vladimir A. Orlov, andAdam N. Stulberg, Editors,
Preventing Nuclear Meltdown: Managing Decentralization of  Russia's Nuclear Complex
, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, United Kingdom, 2004, pp. 211-233.
Chapter 10
The Implementation of U.S.Nonproliferation Assistance Programs inRussia’s Regions
Michael Jasinski and Charles Thornton
With the imminent break-up of the Soviet Union and in the context of the late-Soviet economic crisis, the U.S. government undertook an assistance programdesigned to eliminate or reduce threats to the security of weapons of massdestruction (WMD) in the newly independent states (NIS). After the enactment in1991 of the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act, the U.S. and Russiangovernments and their agencies involved in implementing U.S. assistance projectssigned a series of agreements to establish a legal framework for assistanceactivities. These agreements provide a comprehensive set of rights, exemptions,and protections for U.S. assistance personnel and program activities. Agreementswere also signed with other NIS countries possessing nuclear weapons with theintention of helping them transfer these WMD to Russia and eliminate theirremaining WMD infrastructures.The two main U.S. agencies that have implemented assistance programs underthese agreements in Russia have been the Department of Defense (DOD), whichimplements the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, and the Departmentof Energy (DOE), which is responsible for such programs as the Nuclear CitiesInitiative (NCI), Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), and the MaterialsProtection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) program. Other activities areconducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the State Department, and theEnvironmental Protection Agency.These intergovernmental agreements, however, only established the broadframework for implementing the assistance projects. The actual implementationsaw the U.S. agencies and contractors encounter a variety of regional and localfactors that sometimes hindered the projects, although on other occasions
them and helped overcome barriers at the federal level. The characterand importance of these factors varied widely depending on the nature of theproject, the relationship between U.S. and federal Russian agencies, and thepolitical situation in the region. Faced with these factors, the U.S. entities haveadopted a variety of approaches to either minimize their impact or use them toadvance project objectives.
Preventing Nuclear Meltdown
These approaches have varied with the nature of the projects and therelationship between the U.S. agencies and their Russian counterparts. In general,DOD projects have had relatively well-defined and quantifiable objectives, such asthe elimination of strategic weapons systems. In contrast, DOE projects, with theexception of the MPC&A program, have pursued less-well-definable objectives,which sometimes require structural changes (such as downsizing or conversion) inthe Russian enterprises. These differences also extend to the patterns of interactionbetween U.S. and Russian federal government agencies. DOD’s Russian partnersinclude not only the Ministry of Defense (MOD), but also the Ministry of AtomicEnergy (Minatom), the Russian Aerospace Agency (RASA), and others. DOE, onthe other hand, deals almost exclusively with Minatom (again, with the exceptionof the MPC&A program, where its partner is the MOD). Minatom’s virtualmonopoly of power in its nuclear closed cities, where the NCI and IPP projects areimplemented, reduces the problem of interagency cooperation. Due to thesedifferences, CTR project managers and U.S. contractors have tended to becomeclosely involved in managing the regional issues, in the absence of a coordinatingRussian government agency. DOE instead has elected to rely on Minatom toovercome regional obstacles. As a result, DOE program officials have been lessexposed to regional issues, although their programs have also been affected.Another lesson of the U.S. experience with regional factors has been thatregional factors have not been always an obstacle to project implementation. Inmany instances, regional and local government entities have helped removebarriers put in place by central authorities. Russian subcontractors have become aconstituency interested in continuing these programs, while local environmentalgroups have sought to draw attention to such urgent issues as nuclear submarinedismantlement.This chapter first provides some critical background information regardingdecentralization of Russia’s nuclear complex and its relevance to both DOD andDOE programs. It then analyzes the impact of regional factors specifically on theDOD’s CTR program, by evaluating the influence of regional and localgovernmental and nongovernmental entities on project implementation andassessing how DOD has adapted its programs to deal with these issues. Finally, thechapter examines DOE’s experience in Russia’s regions and how has it differedfrom that of DOD. The experiences of the State Department and other lesser U.S.programs in implementing nonproliferation assistance projects are not consideredhere, due to limits of space and a desire to focus on the major trends in U.S.assistance programs.
Background Issues
In spite of the agreements reached between the various U.S. and Russiangovernment organizations, U.S. officials and contractors responsible for projectimplementation found these agreements were insufficient to guarantee successfulimplementation. As a result of Russia’s evolving political and economic landscape,

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->