Time for Nunn-Lugar to Retire?

Over the weekend, Gabirel Schoenfeld of the Hudson Institute wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for an end to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program. While recognizing that the CTR program was appropriate in the 90s, Schoenfeld argues that changing circumstances have eliminated the need for the program. Russia is no longer in upheaval, Russia's economy has rebounded, and Russian defense spending is increasing. As a result, Schoenfeld argues that US funds that pay for dismantling and safeguarding Russia's nuclear arsenal free up money to be spent on military and nuclear modernization.

While some some of his points seem convincing, it may be worth another look.

First, Schoenfeld is optimistic that the Russian economy will recover allowing for them to pay for nuclear safety and deconstruction. However, it is important to remember that in the second quarter Russia's economy contracted by a record 10.9 per cent. Yes, there are signs that the economy might be recovering, but Russia is certainly not in the clear yet. Schoenfeld admits that the Russian economy remains dependent on oil and gas exports. As a result, changing economic conditions could put strains on Russia's budget, which (if Russia was paying for a Nunn-Lugar program on its own) could lead to cuts in nuclear safety. If nuclear modernization is indeed a priority for Russia, it seems unlikely that they would make cuts there.

Second, Schoenfeld argues that we should think twice before continuing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on CTR. His main worry is that the Nunn-Lugar program is helping to fund Russia's military modernization. Schoenfeld writes that, "Money is fungible. If the U.S. were not defraying the costs of safeguarding or dismantling Russia's deteriorating weapons of mass destruction, Moscow would be compelled to do so out of its own pocket."

However, what this arguments misses is the relative size of the Nunn-Lugar program compared to US and Russian defense budgets. A Reuters report from about a year ago, summarized Russia's new military spending:

"Putin, who is now a powerful Russian prime minister, announced earlier this month that nearly $95 billion will be allocated to defense and security in 2009.
That is a 27 percent increase on the previous year, but still a fraction of total U.S. defense spending, which this year was more than $600 billion.
Russia has already been spending heavily on enhancing its nuclear deterrent. The Topol-M, a new land-based mobile nuclear rocket, has entered service and the Bulava submarine-launched missile is in development."

At about four hundred million dollars a year, the Nunn-Lugar program is extremely small compared to the defense budgets of both the US and Russia. Even if Schoenfeld is right that Russia would start paying for nuclear safety if the US cut Nunn-Lugar, they would likely have enough money to continue to pay for nuclear modernization.

Third, Schoenfeld's assumption that, "Russia has an interest even more compelling than ours in the safety and surety of its nuclear systems" might not be true. According to former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Barack Obama, terrorist theft of nuclear and biological weapons remains an important national security concern for the United States. The Arms Control Today Report that quotes Cheney and Obama points out that, "Although the threat is global, the overall effort is still culturally, politically, and financially very much rooted in one region: the former Soviet Union." While Russia does have an interest in nuclear security, the potential threat of a terrorist group with a weapon of mass destruction is a more primary concern of the United States.

On the other hand, it is important to point out that Schoenfeld is not the only critic of the Nunn-Lugar program. An older analysis by Bruno Dupré for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that Nunn-Lugar should be reinvented. According to Dupré, "We did not anticipate or deal with the emergence of clandestine illicit networks involving public-private partnerships. A new generation of sub-state proliferation has now established itself at regional and trans-regional level. It is time to look beyond Russia to address a more global trans-regional threat."However, this seems to be an argument for expanding CTR beyond Russia, not cutting US funding to Russia.

The question before Congress and the Obama administration is this: Do the benefits of securing Russia's arsenal from theft by terrorist groups out weigh the costs of freeing up more money in Russia's budget? (In the preliminary budget, it looks like Obama has found a middle ground. A modest funding cut to the CTR program, while still prioritizing nuclear security in Russia.) The answer probably depends on how effective the program is, and at what cost. However, it seems like the Nunn-Lugar CTR program should not retire yet.