Stygius: Pete Domenici, John Bolton & Sea Island

Previously:

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) recently secured from Condoleezza Rice a commitment to resolve the issue of plutonium liablity with Russia. This dispute is undermining the Cooperative Threat Reduction umbrella agreement, and Domenici has been furious about the lack of resolution. It has frozen the disposition of plutonium, and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton has adopted a passive stance and done nothing to resolve the issue.

In anticipation of his April 7 hearing for his nomination as UN Ambassador, John Bolton said his nonproliferation record should be evaluated on the basis of "the Proliferation Security Initiative, the G-8 global partnership or adopting UN resolutions." Michael Roston's recent piece dealt with Bolton's "success" with the PSI. This post addresses Bolton's claim to success with the G-8.

Last year's G-8 meeting at Sea Island produced some broad agreements and financial commitments, the centerpiece being the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative. Absent, however, was any resolution to the US-Russia dispute over handling liability during plutonium disposal. This dispute has paralyzed the disposition of some 68 tons of plutonium.

Below the fold, I am reproducing Senator Domenici's 15 June 2004 oral statment before Dick Lugar's Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (Also, a recent March 13 article from Albuquerque conveys Domenici's displeasure with Bolton's UN nomination.) Last June, Domenici testified that John Bolton wasn't up to the job of securing nuclear material in Russia. Specifically, he criticized Bolton for the absence of plutonium liability from the Sea Island summit:

Perhaps your committee could discuss this liability isssue with the Honorable John Bolton when he testifies in a few minutes. You might ask why, after plutonium disposition was discusssed in previous G-8 summits, it was omitted from agreements at Sea Island.

The written statements from that hearing are available here. However, I think Domenici's oral comments deserve airing (and in searchable HTML at that).

From, Sea Island and Beyond: Status Report on the Global Partnership Against Weapons of Mass Destruction (US Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, 108th Congress/2nd session; 15 June 2004, S. HRG. 108-675).

Full Oral Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator from New Mexico:

Well, let me say I am pleased to do that. But first let me say to you and Senator Biden, I am very hopeful that because you have taken this issue, and clearly have significant jurisdiction, that you will proceed and this will not be the last even by this committee. It is clear that things are not going right, and I will talk a little about why, but I think it is imperative that you insist that the executive branch continue to handle this matter with real dispatch.

So let me start. Senator Lugar and Senator Biden, I thank you for inviting me to provide the opening testimony at this hearing. The subject of your hearing is of great personal importance to me. I have valued your leadership and partnership in working against the threat of weapons. Together with Senator Biden, just a few weeks ago we authored a comprehensive amendment on Global Clean Out of Nuclear Materials. This legislation provides new authority in the global fight against terrorism and against the threat that terrorism will use nuclear or radiological materials against us or anywhere in the world to destroy the foundations of freedom.

The events of September 11 demonstrated the lengths to which terrorists would go to attack our own soil. We need to constantly remember that an attack using even a crude nuclear weapon could lead to 100 times the casualties which were suffered on September 11. Nuclear nonproliferation is a deadly serious business and those who do not take it so are fools.

I was, as you also were, watching the information flowing out of the recent Sea Island G-8 summit meeting. Although positive agreements were announced, I have yet to hear that progress on nuclear proliferation was as dramatic as I had hoped or as dramatic as the world needs. I find the outcome quite disappointing. There has been progress in this vital area, but certainly not as rapid as we need.

Creation by Secretary Abraham of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative is one positive step. Another is the President's Proliferation Security Initiative. Progress in Libya has been dramatic. The HEU deal that, incidentially, I rescued in 1999 by endorsing a $325 million infusion of funds, continues to reduce the stockpiles of HEU, a prime concern for proliferation.

But more needs to be done. Leading up to this summit, there was no shortage of calls for decisive action. I hope that recent Senate acceptance of the global cleanup package would add focus and emphasis on the importance of treating proliferation of nuclear weapons. Thirteen Senators joined in sponsoring it, including the chairman and ranking members ofyour ocmmittee, Armed Services, and Energy. If ever we had the right people to do somthing signficiant, we do have on this bill.

Of particular frustration to me is the very slow progress on plutonium disposition. After I began that program with an infusion of $200 million several years ago, the program has been blocked by disagreement over liability provisions. Why a program of this much global importance should be blocked by something as basic as liability remains beyond me. I have been amazed that the leadership of the United States and Russia cannot resolve this issue. Failure to resolve this issue is simply not consistent with the urgency that the administration has attached to nuclear proliferation. Good proposals for the resolution have been circulated, but not accepted so far.

This same liability dispute impacts other programs as well and has blocked progress on the Nuclear Cities program. If you like it or not, it would seem that it should not be blocked, as it has been. President Bush has emphasized the immense threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. I wonder if he has been advised that the liability issue is preventing destruction of enough plutonium for about 10,000 weapons. That is what the plutonium amount that we put the money in in an Appropriations Committee without any authorizing [sic]. We just went and told the Appropriation Committee what it would do, and you would not believe their response. They put in both the money for the HEU and the money for plutonium.

Perhaps your committee could discuss this liability isssue with the Honorable John Bolton when he testifies in a few minutes. You might ask why, after plutonium disposition was discusssed in previous G-8 summits, it was omitted from agreements at Sea Island. I submit that Mr. Johyn Bolton, who has been assigned to negotiate this, has a very heavy responsiblity and I hate to say that I am not sure to this point that he is up to it. I am not sure that he attaches the signifance that we do. Perhaps he can tell you how he does and why he has not been able to produce and agreement.

I regret saying that, but I recall vividly when we did not have enough power, enough so-called horsepower, to get this done, and all of a sudden it was indicated by the State Department that he was the man, that he had great authority, that they needed him because he was the right kind of person. Well, I submit he ought to tell you why he has been unable to do this.

You know what the liability issue is. It ought to be resolved. If he cannot do it, somebody ought to be put in his place that will do it. If he does not think it is important enough to solve this issue of liability, then I submit that you ought to get somebody that can. I regret saying this, but it is too long for plutonium to be sitting around after an agreement is made when 10,000 nuclear devices can be built by it. It is a giant step forward and in my opinion, the right kind of emphasis will be given to this.

That is my testimony and I will leave a copy of it for you in the event you did not get my words.

[End statement]

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:

Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.