U.S., Russia must keep Iran away from uranium cookie jar

Combined, Russia and Iran control about 50 percent of the world's natural uranium reserves. At a hearing entitled "Russia, Iran and Nuclear Weapons: Implications of the Proposed U.S.-Russia Agreement", Chairman Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) expressed his concerns that Iran
is enriching uranium faster than sanctions are being applied to prevent this. The proposed civil nuclear cooperation agreement between U.S. and Russia would reduce Iran's incentives to expand its own uranium enrichment which would be used to make reactors or bombs.

Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Flo.) noted that the House adopted the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, prohibiting the submission to Congress of a nuclear cooperation agreement with any country assisting Iran's nuclear programs, by a vote of 397 to 16. However, the administration ignored this and went ahead with the agreement.

Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) testified but was exempted from questioning. Markey opposed the nuclear cooperation agreement saying it aided construction and fueling of the Bushehr nuclear reactor and was part of President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program which plans to 'reinvigorate civilian nuclear reprocessing'. Markey noted that the Bush Administration
itself does not believe Russia's proliferation activity has stopped.

Unlike Markey, John C. Rood, acting under Secretary of State, was questioned by no less than 12 committee members. When asked by Senator Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) as to whether he would sign the so-called 123 Agreement (section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act) if it was modified, Rood would
not give a straight answer. Rood supported the agreement and gave assurance that the steps Russia has put in place in its agreement with Iran mitigated America's own concerns

Only time will tell

At a meeting today sponsored by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasia Affairs, spoke on the potential actions of the new Medvedev administration.

Dmitri Medvedev took office Wednesday as Russia’s third president. Medvedev officially elected Vladimir Putin as prime minister. Fried discussed the future actions of the United States in reference to the new administration and discussed what changes could occur.

Fried stressed that the United States actions towards the new Administration would remain the same as it has been in the past, and that the U.S. would negotiate with Russia when “interests and principles overlap.”

Concerns were raised about the abuses of the democratic system, the restrictions on the political debate during the campaign season, and the civil liberties and human rights issues that the Russian government has been dealing with, as well as the Russian government’s interactions with Georgia and Ukraine.

When asked whether or not he felt Medvedev will take the country in a new direction or work under the same constraints as Putin, Fried said, “only time will tell.” But he expressed hopes that the new administration would be more supportive of Ukraine and Georgia’s efforts to join NATO and let them determine their own future.

Pentagon PM report

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen briefed the press at the Pentagon. The made a brief opening statement about how May is Military Appreciation Month and then took questions.

Gates stressed that there is no plan to extend the tour of the 3,400 Marines currently in Afghanistan. He said that "no one has suggested even the possibility of extending that rotation and I'd be loath to do that." Mullen followed up that further additions of Marines to Afghanistan are "very much tied to troop levels in Iraq." Gates said that a transition for the Marines from Iraq to Afghanistan "should it occur would be very challenging."

On Myanmar the Secretary said that the Essex Strike Group has been offloading helicopters in Thailand where drops of supplies could be available in Myanmar within hours. The rest of the naval assets in the region have begun to head toward Myanmar in the even that the U.S. military is granted access to give aid. Both the secretary and the admiral stressed that under no circumstances would the U.S. move in without the permission of the Myanmar government. "The tragedy is compounded by the fact that if you look at what our Navy was able to do both with the tsunami and the Pakistani earthquake there is an opportunity here to save a lot of lives and we are fully prepared to help and help right away, it would be a tragedy if these assets, people didn't take advantage of them." Gates emphasized that the U.S. offer to help is totally non-political.

Secretary Gates said that the expulsion of two U.S. military attaches was merely a ti-for-tat response to an earlier expulsion of Russian diplomats from the U.S. for spying. He said that the major aspect of this is reciprocity. Gates, former head of the CIA and a PhD in Russian studies, said that there are intriguing developments coming out of Russia.

There seems to be a steady concern for the size of the force coming from the Department of Defense, especially regarding retention. Gates said that the Defense Department's opposition of the revised GI bill was that education benefits would be made available only after three years of service, instead of six years which is what the DoD would like to see. Gates said that the main concern from troops is the transferability of benefits to a spouse or child and that the Defense Department, in the interest of maintaining a qualified force would like to make these available after at least one reenlistment. Additionally, this concern about retention played out in a question about stop-loss. A higher overall number of military personnel are being stop-lossed now than in 2005. Gates said that stop-loss has been necessary to maintain unit integrity and that one of the main reasons for stop-loss was the 15-month deployments in Iraq. After the brigade combat teams are reduced to 15 in July, Gates said that he expects stop-loss to be reduced in September.

Is the U.S. ready for the NATO summit?

The Council on Foreign Relations held a conference call for journalists on the outlook for the upcoming NATO summit in Bucharest. James Goldgeier Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations and Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall Senior Fellow for Alliance Relations both gave their input.

Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall spoke first and said that never before has NATO been doing so much or so little all at the same time. She explained this comment to mean that since NATO is involved in so many missions; Afghanistan, training missions in Iraq, exercises in supporting the African Union in Somalia and Sudan, and ongoing operations in the Balkans, that there has been too little focus on the strategic vision for NATO’s future. She said that the strategic problems that affect all NATO counties are not limited to Afghanistan or Kosovo but countering nuclear proliferation, managing Russia, containing China, dealing with climate change and dealing with Islamic extremism.

A major point that came up is the difficulty of NATO allies to help in Afghanistan when there is very little support domestically for the Allies to send more troops for combat. Germany in particular has been a point of contention as the German public support for participation in the war in Afghanistan is very low. The caveats attached to NATO and non-NATO allies in Afghanistan have been frustrating to the Pentagon as it limits the usefulness of NATO alliance participation and puts American combat troops at greater risk. Sherwood-Randall also emphasized the need for more non-military support in a statement of strategic vision. She said that while our troops are doing great work they need more non-military support, particularly in the Afghanistan mission.

Goldgeier focused more on the other large agenda item of the NATO summit, which is the consideration of NATO action plans for admitting Albania, Macedonia, Ukraine and Georgia into the NATO alliance. Russia has been outspoken in their opposition of Ukraine and Georgia’s membership and there has also been concern on the U.S. side whether or not these countries will act more as consumers of NATO security and less as contributors. Goldgeier said that United States is just not prepared for this summit and to talk about what is necessary for expansion of the alliance because the current summit will feature a lame duck administration and next year’s summit will feature a brand new administration which won’t have much time to prepare for the 60th anniversary summit.

Forecasting the Future: What Will Take Place When Bush Attends NATO Summit?

The Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) held a press briefing discussing President Bush’s upcoming trip to the NATO summit. The panel leading the hearing investigated the effectiveness NATO, soon to celebrate its sixtieth anniversary, has had in policing the world, American involvement in Afghanistan, European involvement in Kosovo, missile defense, and the possible admittance of new nations into NATO.

Janusz Bugajski, director of the CSIS New European Democracies Project, emphasized how Membership Action Plans (MAPS) are sometimes successful, but limited, guidelines for the three nations trying to become allied with NATO to follow. As Bugajski cautioned, MAPS is not always effective for hopeful nations trying to gain admittance into the alliance.

Bugajski noted that US and Russian tension might “reach a head” over Ukraine’s possible admission into NATO. While President Bush is seen as a strong supporter of NATO enlargement, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Bugajski explained, sees Ukraine’s entrance as an undercut in their strategy to influence Ukrainians.