Perhaps the U.S. India Nuclear Deal Isn't Dead After All?

For weeks, the conventional wisdom has been that due to domestic politics in India, the U.S.-India nuclear deal would not come to fruition during the last days of the Bush administration. While this is still the most likely scenario, it appears that the deal’s epitaph shouldn’t be written just yet:

In the face of the Left’s unrelenting opposition to the India-US nuclear deal, the Congress [Party], in a major shift of stance, is seriously evaluating the political fallout of sewing up the India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA without their consent….Congress sources confirmed to Hindustan Times the possibility of the government signing the agreement despite the Communists’ rigid opposition. But the final call would be taken after the UPA-Left committee meeting now slated on June 25.

Will the Congress Party actually call the Left’s bluff? If so, would the Left recall its support for the governing coalition, thereby forcing elections in either November or December? And if the Congress Party goes ahead and signs a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, would there be enough time to complete the next two stages in the deal (NSG approval of an exemption for India and U.S. Congressional approval of the U.S.-India 123 agreement) before the Bush administration leaves office?

There's also this twist, as reported today by the Associated Press:

With no guarantee that the next U.S. president will be as strong a proponent of the deal as Bush, [Indian Prime Minister] Singh and [Congress Party leader Sonia] Gandhi are re-evaluating that position and appear willing to hold elections if the communists won't budge, the businessman said. A major factor in their reasoning, he said, is the early monsoon rains, which could result in a strong fall harvest, pushing down food prices just as the elections would take place. That would also help the government tame inflation, which hit a 13-year high of 11.05 percent Friday.

Be sure to stay tuned!

Highlights of Senate Hearing on State's Arms Control and Nonproliferation Capabilities

Last Friday (June 6) the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Management, The Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia held a hearing entitled “National Security Bureaucracy for Arms Control, Counterproliferation, and Nonproliferation Part II: The Role of the Department of State.”

The witness list for the hearing included two representatives from the Department of State: Ms. Patricia McNerney, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, and Ms. Linda S. Taglialatela, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Human Resources. McNerney’s testimony can be found here.

Friday’s hearing was the second in a series of hearings on the effectiveness of the State Department’s arms control, counterproliferation, and nonproliferation bureaucracy, also known as the T Bureau, particularly in the wake of the reorganizations that resulted in (1) the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA)-State Department merger in 1999 and (2) the merger of the arms control and nonproliferation bureaus into the new Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) in 2005. During the first hearing, witnesses testified that the State Department’s current organizational structure has compromised its ability to implement effective arms control and nonproliferation policy.

Friday’s hearing focused primarily on the diplomatic and human capital readiness challenges confronting the T Bureau. Here are some (paraphrased) highlights from the Q/A:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI): There have been reports that the 2005 merger caused many experienced career officers to leave the new ISN Bureau. How much attrition has ISN experienced since 2005?

Taglialatela: No merit system principles or laws were violated. Everyone had a position to go to after the reorganization. Some employees did choose to leave, but since the reorganization we haven’t experienced a high rate of attrition; things have pretty much stabilized. The State Department has one of the lowest attrition rates in the federal government.

[snip]

Akaka: A witness from the last hearing said that a large number of full time equivalent (FTE) personnel positions were eliminated in the wake of the 2005 merger. Were any FTE positions elminated? If so, why were they eliminated?

Taglialatela: None of these positions were eliminated; they were shifted to other areas of the T Bureau. The total number of FTEs left in ISN was probably less that what was in the Bureau of Arms Control and the Bureau of Nonproliferation because some of those functions were shifted to other areas.

[snip]

Akaka: One of the criticisms of the 2005 reorganization is that the panel tasked with crafting the recommendations for the reorganization operated in near secrecy without the benefit of the Department's human resources expertise. Why was the undersecretary for management not put in charge of implementing this reorganization?

Taglialatela: In hindsight I think the process could have been much more transparent.

[snip]

Akaka: The State Department's Office of Inspector General reports released in December 2004 concluded that the Nonproliferation Bureau was overworked, the Arms Control Bureau was underworked, and the Verification and Compliance Bureau should be downsized and its responsbilities reduced. However, the new ISN Bureau was apparently reduced in staff size far below the total size of the combined number before the merger, while the new Verification, Compliance and Implementation Bureau grew in size and responsibilities. Why the apparent departure from the findings and conclusions of the OIG?

Taglialatela: The Inspector General’s recommendations do not have to be implemented; they only require a response from the Bureau’s to which they’re directed.
McNerney: Secretary Rice and Under Secretary Bob Joseph made the ultimate reorganization decisions, and they felt that it was necessary to take some of the responsibility of the Arms Control Bureau and add it to the Verification and Compliance Bureau

[snip]

Taglialatela: One of the things that needs to be made clear is that from 2004 or 2005 to now, the State Department has not received any additional resources. The bureaus domestically have all lost resources because of reprogramming to staffing our embassy in Iraq, our embassy in Kabul, and expanding our presence in Pakistan.

[snip]

Akaka: The foreign service gives Foreign Service Officers [FSOs] little incentive to obtain the knowledge for leadership positions in nonproliferation and arms control. How would you develop a career path for FSOs in these areas?

McNerney: Spending a couple of years at a functional bureau really doesn't build the kind of relationships out to the embassies. So many of our postings for vacancies go unfilled. There are great challenges, but I've talked to the director general about how he can attract good FSOs through incentives.
Taglialatela: We’re beginning to require that FSOs undertake nontraditional tours (such as in functional bureaus like ISN) before they can move from the foreign service into the senior foreign service.

[snip]

Akaka: Do either of you have any, say three, recommendations?

McNerney:
1. Don’t recreate a separate agency for arms control and nonproliferation. Our employees are proud to be working at the State Department.
2. Create incentives/opportunities for civil servants to advance to senior executive service (SES) positions
3. Hire uniquely for unique expertise

Despite the best efforts of McNerney and Taglialatela to shine a positive light on the ability of the State Department to address critical arms control and nonproliferation issues, the hearing illustrated the numerous inadequacies of the current organizational structure and the serious human capital problems that continue to prevent the T Bureau from effectively carrying out its mission.

Congressional Schedule for DoD and DoE Bills

Provided below is an updated schedule of Congressional action on key Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Energy (DoE) bills, as prepared by David Culp of FCNL. Click to enlarge.

National Security Legislative Wrap-Up

Last week, Congress again postponed action on the Supplemental Appropriations Bill to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once more, the House is expected to act on the bill this week, and perhaps the Senate too. The Senate is also expected to consider the Fiscal Year Defense Authorization bill -- as early as this week but possibly not until after the 4th of July recess. The House Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee will mark up the funding bill that includes nuclear weapons work and non-proliferation funding.

FISCAL YEAR 2009 ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL

The House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee has scheduled its mark-up or writing of this bill for June 17. The full House Appropriations Committee mark-up is scheduled for June 24.

FISCAL YEAR 2008 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL

The Supplemental bill will now be considered by the House for approval, rejection or modification of the Senate-passed measure, before going to the President for signature or a veto. One possible outcome is that the House will now pass the war funding, the GI education bill, and not much else, and the Senate will agree to the House-passed version. However, Senate Democrats are pushing to include in the bill other provisions, including a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Reminder: there will be no House-Senate conference on this bill.

Missile Defense Monitor

Missile defense developments to report over the past two weeks include:

1) On June 5, MDA conducted a successful test of a component of its Aegis BMD system. Unlike the part of the Navy’s Aegis system that uses an SM-3 “hit-to-kill” interceptor to destroy short- to intermediate-range targets during the midcourse phase of their flight, last week’s test of the Sea-Based Terminal (SBT) system used two SM-2 Block IV interceptors, which use blast fragmentation warheads, to destroy a short-range missile during the terminal phase of its flight.

MDA first demonstrated the ability to target short-range ballistic missiles using the SM-2 Block IV interceptor against short-range missiles during a test in May 2006, and hopes to field an initial SBT capability on 18 Aegis BMD ships sometime in FY 2009.

Overall, the Aegis system has now been successful on 12 out of 14 tests since 2002. The most recent success prompted the skipper of the ship from which the SM-2 Block IV’s were launched, the USS Lake Erie, to proclaim, “I am suffering from post-shot euphoria.” Maybe I’ll catch the same malady when I attend Northrop Grumman’s Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) demonstration at the end of June!

2) During a visit to Washington this week, Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg stated that approval of the U.S. proposal to place a missile defense radar in the Czech Republic could be defeated by widespread Czech public opposition.

As yours truly has repeatedly reminded all you missile defense wonks out there (see here for proof), any agreement must be ratified by the Czech parliament (and perhaps even survive a public referendum). Though Secretary Rice is scheduled to sign an agreement on June 10 during a visit to Prague, it’s looking increasingly likely that the U.S. will have to find another destination for its radar.

3) During a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is expected to press NATO members to agree on options for a NATO missile defense system. The long-range anti-missile system the U.S. hopes to deploy in the Czech Republic and Poland would not cover large swaths of southeastern Europe in range of Iranian short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, including parts of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, and almost all of Turkey.

Nine NATO countries are currently working on an Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) system, which is designed to allow NATO countries to coordinate their response to an attack via short- to intermediate range missiles. The system is slated to become “initially operational” by 2010.

Memorandum to Obama and McCain: A New Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Agenda

The past eight years of the Bush administration have been disastrous for arms control and nonproliferation initiatives. The next president, however, can make significant progress in repairing the damage and moving these important issues forward.

As such, I recently prepared a memo to the president-elect, which details four points for a larger arms control and nonproliferation agenda:

• Pursue a Follow-On Agreement to START I
• Build a Bipartisan Consensus Leading to CTBT Ratification
• Urge BWC Universalization, Advance Confidence-Building Measures, and Open Compliance Protocol Negotiations
• Negotiate a Treaty and Other Measures to Ban Space Weapons

Click here to read the full memo to John McCain and Barack Obama.

Analysis of Senate Armed Services Committee Action on FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill (S. 3001)

The Center’s Chris Hellman and Travis Sharp put out their Analysis of Senate Armed Services Committee Action on the FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill (S 3001) yesterday. The full analysis is available here, while an analysis of House action on the FY2009 Defense Authorization is here for comparison.

The Senate Armed Services Committee released its markup of S. 3001, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Defense Authorization bill, on May 1, 2008. The bill, S. 3001, as reported to the full Senate by the Armed Services Committee, fully funds the administration's $612.5 billion FY2009 National Defense request.

S. 3001 provides $542.5 billion for National Defense (function 050), plus $70 billion in "bridge" funding for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for a total of $612.5 billion. Of the $70 billion in war funding, $19.9 billion is for Afghanistan, $49.6 billion is for Iraq, and $500 million is for war-related military construction. $70 billion will not be enough to fund ongoing military operations throughout all of FY2009, but it will, as the Committee's press release notes, "provide sufficient funding to allow the next administration to take office without facing an immediate financial crisis in the DOD budget."

The full Senate may take up consideration of S. 3001 as early as the week of June 16.

Included below are highlights, funding provisions, funding levels, and key policy provisions relating to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues.

BASE BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

Missile Defense – Cuts $270 million from the administration's request for the Missile Defense Agency. Includes an additional $270 million for near-term missile defense capabilities, including Aegis BMD, THAAD, Short-Range BMD, and the Arrow missile program. Places restrictions on the continued development of a third missile defense site based in Europe (see "Key Policy Provisions" below). Eliminates the $10 million request for the Space Test Bed.

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) – Retains the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration RRW request of $10 million, but eliminates the Navy's RRW request of $23.3 million slated for "Phase 3" engineering development activities.

Nonproliferation Programs – Adds $20 million to the administration's $414.1 million request for DOD's Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) ("Nunn-Lugar") program for states of the former Soviet Union. Provides $1.8 billion for the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs, $552 million above the request.

FUNDING PROVISIONS

DIVISION C
Atomic Energy Defense Activities in the Department of Energy (Budget Function 053)
Administration request: $15.9 billion
Committee: $15.9 billion

MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTEMS

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (Missile Defense Agency only)
Administration request: $9.3 billion
Committee: $9.0 billion, $269 million below request

NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAMS

Department of Energy Nonproliferation Programs
Administration request: $1.247 billion
Committee: $1.799 billion ($552 million above request)

DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ("Nunn-Lugar")
Administration request: $414.1 million
Committee: $434.1 million

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR WEAPONS-RELATED ACTIVITIES

National Nuclear Security Administration
Administration request: $9.1 billion
Committee: $9.6 billion, which includes $6.61 billion for "Weapons Activities," $7.4 million below the "Weapons Activities" request
NOTE: $552 million increase in DOE nonproliferation program funding, above, explains growth from $9.1 billion NNSA request to $9.6 billion Committee recommendation)

Defense Environmental Clean-up
Administration request: $5.3 billion
Committee: $5.3 billion

KEY POLICY PROVISIONS

Restriction on Funds for European Missile Defense – Restricts funding for the third missile defense site in Europe until the Polish and Czech governments give final approval. The bill also restricts funding from being obligated until the system has demonstrated through "successful, operationally realistic flight testing, that it has a high probability of accomplishing its mission in an operationally effective manner."

Review of U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense – Requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of the United States. The review must be submitted to Congress no later than January 31, 2010. The bill also requires an independent assessment of the costs and benefits of boost phase missile defense. The study would be responsible for examining the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs, among others.

Just a Bunch of Hot Air

* Special guest post by intern extraordinaire Kevin Shkolnik

When I received this Northrop Grumman flier, I was pretty excited. A demonstration of a Kinetic Energy Interceptor! Cool! To be honest, I didn't really know what a Kinetic Energy Interceptor was, and I haven't even heard the words "kinetic energy" since fourth grade science class. But, it has a picture of fire on it... so it must be cool.


Upon closer inspection, there are a few things about this event that have made me a bit unsure of whether or not I want to go. For starters, the "interactive demonstration" is scheduled to take place in the Rayburn Foyer. The Rayburn Foyer is in the Rayburn House office building, which, based on the flier's photograph of a giant fire ball exploding from a tubular rocket, is no place for a ballistic missile demonstration.

John McCain's "a google" revealed what the Kinetic Energy Interceptor actually is:

KEI is the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) element that is being designed to destroy enemy ballistic missiles during their boost and early midcourse phases of flight.

KEI destroys enemy missiles at their most vulnerable point - the boost/ascent phase of flight. This is the phase when missiles are moving relatively slowly, their location is more predictable, and before reentry vehicles, decoying warheads, or countermeasures can be deployed.

In other words, KEI is EXACTLY what I thought it was.

Note to House interns: you may want to think twice about volunteering to attend this event. My guess is the exhaust fumes of the Interceptor, combined with the imminent fireball unleashed upon impact with the incoming ballistic missile, will be a bit hot (no, not this kind of hot, which also goes on in Rayburn apparently).

Another thing about the flier: I'm not a graphics design expert, but I know ClipArt when I see it. The KEI program received $340 million in fiscal year 2008, and DOD wants $386 million more for it this year. With all that coin, can these guys seriously not afford Photoshop?

Maybe they don't need to worry about it. In its markup of the 2009 Defense Authorization bill released last month, the Senate Armed Services Committee noted that KEI is demanding "a very large sum of funds for a program at such an early stage of development." The Committee added its judgment that the KEI program has "lost focus and direction." Then they cut $45 million from the $386 million request.

Ouch. Can you say program cancellation under the next administration?

It seems as if KEI has fallen on troubled times, like many programs within the missile-defense-industrial-complex. The last thing Northrop needs is an immolated intern in Rayburn next week. So, to the House gawkers who may be loitering around the Rayburn Foyer next week, I beg of you to mind the gap.

All that said... I'll see you at the demonstration.