On June 29, six men were arrested in Moldova for attempting to sell uranium to an undercover security agent, who was posing as a North African buyer. On July 15, the House of Representatives passed the FY 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R. 2354).  Though they occurred on different continents, the two events are closely connected.

The House bill cut funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Second Line of Defense program by over $75 million below the FY 2012 request.  The program installs radiation detection equipment to interdict nuclear trafficking at borders, airports and strategic ports in Russia, other former Soviet Union states and further afield.

The bill also cut the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) by $85 million below the FY 2012 request.  The cut would have been more draconian but for an amendment offered by Reps. Fortenberry (R-NE) and Sanchez (D-CA) to add $35 million to the program.  

GTRI is the key U.S. program in the global cooperative effort to secure and eliminate nuclear materials, including highly enriched uranium, at an accelerated rate.  
The Moldovan incident is a warning, as are all nuclear smuggling incidents, that the threat of the theft or sale of dangerous nuclear materials is real.  Securing and interdicting these materials is an urgent national security priority, and funding for the programs that support these efforts (such as GTRI) must reflect the urgency of the threat.  Maj. Gen. Bruce Lawlor, the director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Technology, Security and Policy, argues that, “the odds of terrorists successfully acquiring nuclear material have increased in their favor.”

The men arrested in Moldova were caught in possession of roughly two kilograms of Uranium-235.  The smugglers likely carried low-enriched uranium, according to Russian nuclear specialists, since they only asked for €20 million or $29 million for it, too low a price tag for highly enriched uranium (HEU).  The exact details remain murky, however.

Low-enriched uranium cannot be used in a nuclear weapon.  In order to make a bomb using this material, a terrorist group would need to further enrich it to highly enriched uranium.  This process demands a great deal of expertise and advanced technology, and is likely beyond the means of a terrorist group.  

In March 2010, two smugglers were caught with 18 grams of HEU in Georgia (see former intern Candice DeNardi and Gen. Gard’s post here), which is weapons-grade material.  While 25 kg of HEU is needed for a crude nuclear device, a terrorist group could piece together material from multiple purchases.

According to a May 2011U.S.-Russia joint threat assessment on nuclear terrorism sponsored by Harvard University, the International Atomic Energy Agency has documented 20 cases of theft or loss of HEU or plutonium confirmed by the states concerned, and additional cases are known to have occurred.  The study also warns that what is unknown is how many cases may have gone undetected, or how much stolen material may still be outside of state control.

Inexplicably, the House has twice – in FY 2011 and FY 2012 – cut funding for the very programs that keep nuclear materials off the black market.  While government spending undoubtedly needs to be reigned in, budget cuts to successful programs to mitigate the threat of nuclear terrorism are foolish and shortsighted.      

Congress should also act to bolster the penalties for the theft and smuggling of nuclear materials.  

Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in the last Congress introduced the Nuclear Prevention Trafficking Act in the Senate and House, respectively, which would make selling nuclear material a crime against humanity, simplify prosecuting traffickers and strengthen penalties for those convicted.

The Obama administration recently submitted implementing legislation to Congress for the 2005 Amendment to Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.  Both treaties would augment the international counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism legal framework.

Swift Congressional approval of these common sense nuclear security measures would greatly strengthen U.S. efforts to combat and prevent nuclear smuggling and nuclear terrorism.

THE HILL BLOG

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/172803-war-powers-resolution-consistently-ignored

In 1973, in my first job in Washington, D.C., I helped to pass the War Powers Resolution. At the time, it seemed like a good idea.

The country was reeling from the Vietnam War that had proved so divisive and caused so many casualties. Many blamed Presidents John F. Kennedy for surreptitiously getting the country into a war, Lyndon Johnson for using falsehoods to win approval of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Richard Nixon for his secret plan to end the war that led to many more years of fighting and dying.

War powers advocates argued that the measure was essential for Congress to reassert its power to make war that had atrophied since the declaration of war against Germany and Japan in 1941 – the last time Congress so declared.

President Harry F. Truman ignored Congress when in 1950 he sent troops to Korea to stave off a North Korean advance into the South. Almost 1.8 million Americans fought in Korea, with some 33,600 American deaths. But there never was a congressional authorization, and Congress continued to appropriate funds to prosecute the war.

The War Powers Resolution also appeared to be a check against Nixon’s power, a President recently overwhelmingly re-elected who was becoming more and more enmeshed in the Watergate scandal.

Indeed, I played only a bit role, helping to convince some liberals such as Representatives Bella Abzug (D-NY) and Robert Drinan (D-Mass.) that Congress was not ceding additional power to the President by giving him or her 60 or 90 days to conduct war without approval of Congress.

Fast forward to today. Every President since 1973, including Barack Obama, has decided to ignore the law as an unconstitutional assertion of power or reinterpreted it as with Libya.

Congress has been deaf, dumb and blind to this lack of presidential compliance. Oh sure, Members give tough speeches, but they won’t stop the wars. The don’t want to be blamed if the conflict goes sour.

Congress has the means to fight back: the power of the purse. Even if the Supreme Court would have ducked a constitutional confrontation between the Executive and Legislative branches on war powers, Congress could have cut off funds for the many conflicts since that time.

But Congress has blinked time and time again, most recently on Libya. On June 24, the House of Representatives refused to authorize U.S. military action in Libya but also refused to limit funding. Last week, the House delivered similar confused messages.

Many Members of Congress have denounced Obama’s war. Rather than denounce Obama – or Bush in Iraq or Reagan in Panama or Truman in Korea – they should protest their own inaction.

For the fault, Dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in the lap of Congress.

Or as Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”  

Even if the House eventually votes to cut off funds for Libya, the Senate is not likely to go along.  Even if the Senate were to go along, the President could veto the measure and a two-thirds majority would be required to overcome the veto.

The time has come. If Presidents and Congress are going to ignore legislation, it is no better than an appendix. It is time to expunge the law. Better to have no law rather than one that is ignored by all parties.

=======

John Isaacs is Executive Director of Council for a Livable World, and has been active on national security issues before Congress since 1972.

“There is little connection between the fighting and dying being done by our young men and women in Afghanistan’s valleys, farmlands and cities and keeping our nation safe from a terrorist attack,”

-Rep. James McGovern (D- MA) and Matthew Hoh, “Change course in Afghanistan,” The Worcester Daily Gazette, 7/20/11

Rep. McGovern, a Massachusetts Representative, and Matthew Hoh, former Marine Corps Captain and State Department official in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a board member of the Council for a Livable World, describe President Obama’s strategy to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by summer 2012 as “insufficient.”  The 18-month plan does not reflect the domestic debt crisis or U.S. goals and capabilities in Afghanistan.

McGovern and Hoh make the case that U.S. national security is intertwined with economic security, and, therefore, the strategy is not responsible or realistic.  Though Congress is embroiled in a battle over cutting spending, the government continues to borrow nearly $10 billion a month to pay for the war, adding to the debt.  “Where is the sense in borrowing money to build a bridge or school in Afghanistan that later gets blown up – while telling our cities and towns that we have no money to help them with their needs?”  Though development efforts in Afghanistan are worthy, at what cost to U.S. lives and economic or national security?

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to ensure that the Taliban would no longer provide a safe haven for Al-Qaeda.  Today, Al-Qaeda has been almost entirely uprooted from Afghanistan, and the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden proved that neither 100,000 nor 70,000 troops are necessary to weaken the organization.  After 2012, roughly 70,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan (with gradual withdrawal) and will continue to fight for a mission they have already completed.  

Beyond the original aim, the U.S. has undertaken social, political and economic development to attempt to leave Afghanistan with peace, a functional government and human rights protections.  However, many Afghanistan experts have argued that the only solution is political.  The President should be encouraging a negotiated settlement and bringing the troops home now, McGovern and Hoh write.  Despite high hopes, the U.S. military cannot “advance the cause of peace, protect the rights of women and ethnic minorities, or strengthen civil society,” and they will lose their lives trying.  

There is no space for compromise or a middle course, and no more time to debate this issue, the writers maintain. This spring was the deadliest spring in the ten years that the U.S. has been in Afghanistan.  “We don’t need to wait 18 more months to change course. We need to do it now.”

By John Isaacs and Matthew Reichert

Am I an isolationist if . . .

I support key international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank that facilitate international economic cooperation and engineer collective action?

I feel safer knowing that the bilateral New START treaty with Russia reduces the global threat of nuclear weapons, and I believe that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a key element in containing the spread of nuclear weapons?

I back the Asian security alliances with Japan and South Korea?

I believe in free-trade agreements that assist American prosperity?

I deem the U.S.-China trade relationship essential to American and worldwide economic stability?

I strongly endorse the democratic movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere?

I support a reset of relations with Russia to ensure cooperation on a number of issues?

I hope that the United States undergirds European Union efforts to solve the economic challenges of debt-laden countries such as Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal?

I back United States and international efforts to negotiate with Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear weapons programs?

I urgently endorse persistent American efforts to ensure a safe, secure Israel existing alongside a free and independent Palestine?

But . . .

I am unwilling to sacrifice American lives to spread freedom and engage in state-building in far away lands where American security is not clearly at stake.

The answer is a clear-cut no . . . but the neo-cons are manipulating the debate over U.S. troops in Afghanistan and around Libya.

Too many neo-conservative leaders, Republican candidates, and reporters are tossing around the epithet “isolationist” to falsely characterize those who do not continue to support the indefinite presence of tens of thousands of American troops in Afghanistan, or who question the application of U.S. military force in Libya.

Part of the debate among Republicans emanates from the G.O.P. nomination race that has revealed a deepening schism in the Republican Party over the direction of American foreign policy and our willingness to employ military power to shape world events. The old doctrine that American military superiority should be utilized proactively to prevent the rise of a regional competitor, to preemptively strike against potential threats, and to implant freedom and democracy around the globe, is fading from the Republican mainstream.

Unfortunately, the shrinking militant interventionist wing of the party, mostly comprised from the old guard of neo-conservatism and led by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), seeks to adulterate the new discussion of pragmatic military non-interventionism in the G.O.P. with the label of “isolationism.”

The term “isolationism” has historically described a doctrine that repudiates not only military intervention abroad but international alliances and institutions, and foreign economic commitments.

It is clear that the McCain-Graham characterization confuses a temperate perspective of pragmatic military non-interventionism with the radically inward-turning doctrine of isolationism that reached its high point between World Wars One and Two.

Unfortunately, this misrepresentation has entered the mainstream, where its careless use by reporters and candidates threatens to undermine a prudent and timely discussion of the limits of American power.

A more accurate understanding of the “isolationist” doctrine is necessary to prevent a narrow group of militant interventionists from falsely redefining the foreign policy conversation. The misused term “isolationism” should be relabeled as foreign policy pragmatism.

On the land-based deterrent, my sense right now, that’s the last one to be recapitalized. The challenge here is that we have to recapitalize all three legs and we don?t have the money to do it. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James C…