By Sam Kane and Kingston Reif What Are These Conventions? -CPPNM was opened for signatures in 1980, and entered into force in 1987. The original convention required signatory states to maintain adequate physical protection of nuclear materials in international transport. The 2005 amendment to CPPNM extended these physical protection standards to nuclear facilities and […]
Do You Even Have to HASC: House Republicans Still Love the Bomb
Just when you thought the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee (HASC) couldn’t possibly go any crazier on nuclear weapons and missile defense, it doubled down on its fanaticism during last week’s mark up of the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The result is a bill that if passed into law would significantly weaken US national security.
Early in the morning of June 6th the Committee approved its version of the NDAA (H.R. 1960) by a vote of 59-2. The legislation authorizes $552.1 billion for national defense (function 050) and $85.8 billion for overseas contingency operations (largely for the war in Afghanistan), for a total of $637.9 billion. Like the President’s budget request, the Committee completely ignores sequestration.
While Committee Republicans warn that cuts to the defense budget are eroding the US military, they continue to insist on wasting millions of dollars to sustain an excessively large nuclear arsenal designed to confront Cold War threats that no longer exist. Spearheaded by Reps. Michael Turner (R-OH), Mike Rogers (R-AL), and Doug Lamborn (R-CO), the Committee’s iteration of the NDAA includes numerous profligate funding proposals and policy provisions on nuclear weapons and missile defense, such as:
- funding for a third national missile defense site on the East Coast of the United States that military leaders did not ask for and do not want;
- constraints on the Pentagon’s ability to implement New START in violation of our international obligations;
- limits on changes to US nuclear posture and further reductions below New START even if they may be in US security interests;
- money above the President’s budget request for the unrealistic and unaffordable B61 life extension program; and
- limits on the availability of funds for vital programs that reduce the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists and detect nuclear weapons tests.
The House passed defense authorization bills containing similarly flagrant constraints the previous two years, but due to opposition in the Senate, the final version of these bills either eliminated or significantly watered down the objectionable provisions. Expect the Senate to raise objections again this year, as the latest proposals once again defy national security and fiscal sense. The Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to mark up its version of the defense authorization bill later this week.
The White House is likely to threaten to veto the final version of this year’s NDAA if it includes many of the provisions contained in the Committee’s legislation, especially the limitations on New START implementation and further nuclear weapons reductions.
With the full House slated to debate the NDAA this week, expect House Democrats to submit amendments challenging the Strangelovian pathology of their Republican counterparts.
Head over the Center website to read the rest of the analysis.
Following Up on the Obama-Xi Summit: What’s Next for North Korea’s Nuclear Program?
Now that the shirtsleeves of President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping have been rolled back down, it is time to evaluate the fruits of this past weekend’s US-China summit, particularly with regards to North Korea. When compared with previous US-China meetings, there were no fashion faux pas, no hecklers, and no one accidentally referring to Xi’s home country as the “Republic of China.” Nonetheless, those looking for so-called “deliverables” on the North Korean issue were likely disappointed by the summit’s outcome.
Speaking to reporters on Saturday, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon said that, after a “lengthy discussion,” the two presidents “agreed that North Korea has to denuclearize…and that we should work together to deepen US-China cooperation and dialogue to achieve denuclearization.” While this is certainly not a negative development, it does not represent anything that the two sides have not said before, and falls somewhat short of hopes that the summit would yield a formal framework between the US and China on how the two countries plan to tackle the North Korean issue.
So, where does this leave us now? Without question, there are several reasons to be optimistic about the prospects of concrete US-China action vis-a-vis Pyongyang…
1. China’s Toughening Line on North Korea: I touched upon this in my previous post, but the Chinese government has recently given several indications that it plans to “get tough” with its provocative ally. Not only has the PRC privately pushed Pyongyang to return to six-party talks, but it has also backed up those insistences with more-concrete actions, such as supporting tougher UN sanctions, closing key North Korean bank accounts, and restricting the number of visas issued to North Korean guest workers.
2. China Has Very Good Reasons to Push for a Denuclearized North Korea: In an insightful post on his blog, Via Meadia, Walter Russell Mead argues that, besides the obvious rationale of wanting to avoid a nuclear-armed North Korea, China also has deeper reasons for wanting to denuclearize the Korean peninsula. As Mead astutely points out, a nuclear North Korea incentivizes Japan to build up its military strength, pushes Tokyo and Seoul deeper into the protective arms of the United States, and, I would add, lends further credence to the Obama administration’s “Asian pivot.” Given this, a case could certainly be made that it is in China’s geostrategic interests to push Pyongyang to denuclearize.
3. A Slightly-Less-Provocative Posture from North Korea: Though North Korea continues to repeat its commitment to maintaining a nuclear arsenal, it has, in recent weeks, avoided taking any overtly-provocative actions in the vein of its nuclear and missile tests from earlier this year. Moreover, tensions between North and South Korea seems to have cooled – the two sides recently re-opened a cross-border hotline, and met on Sunday to set up cabinet minister-level talks for later this week (though it now appears that that particular dialogue has been put on-hold).
But there are also a couple of reasons to be pessimistic:
1. How Hard is China Willing to Push? Yes, it is true that the PRC has toughened its stance towards North Korea in recent months. However, questions remain as to how much pressure Beijing is really willing to exert against its recalcitrant neighbor. The Chinese government’s fear of a North Korean collapse leading to chaos along the PRC/DPRK border, as well as resulting in a unified, US-allied Korea is an oft-cited (most recently by the AP’s Matthew Pennington) reason for Chinese inaction on the North Korean issue.
2. We’ve Been Here Before With North Korea: Avid Pyongyang-watchers will have to forgive me for seemingly stating the obvious, but here goes: historically, North Korea has had a tendency to engage in provocative behavior, dial down tensions and express a willingness to return to negotiations, only to later restart the cycle with another round of provocations. Thus, we should be careful of ascribing too much meaning to Pyongyang’s toned-down rhetoric, or its overtures to Seoul.
GITMO, Missile Defense, Nuclear Reductions & Message Amendments: Understanding the Implications of the NDAA
Isaacs stated, “The House and Senate Armed Services Committee pride themselves on passing a bill, which they have done for 51 straight years – they don’t want to be the committee that wrote the bill which was vetoed.”
Do You Even Have to HASC: House Republicans Still Love the Bomb
by Kingston Reif Just when you thought the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee (HASC) couldn’t possibly go any crazier on nuclear weapons and missile defense, it doubled down on its fanaticism during last week’s mark up of the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The result is a bill that if passed into law […]