|
Agenda 2000 Management
of Dinner debateorganised
16 May 2000, Brussels At the invitation of Cogema, Framatome and Siemens, associate members, the European Energy Foundation is organising a dinner-debate on the "Management of Russian plutonium in excess." The end of the Cold War put forward the question of the future of strategic materials, and, in particular, of weapons grade plutonium originating from the dismantling of Russian and American warheads. After several years of discussions in different international fora, involving the US, Russian and European governments, the door is open for a successful multilateral action in Russia. This dinner-debate was followed a few days later by the conclusion of an agreement by Presidents Clinton and Poutin which binds the USA and Russia each to dispose of 34 tonnes of weapons grade plutonium so that it can never be used for nuclear weapons, which is tantamount to neutralising thousands of potential atomic bombs. Moreover, President Poutin securing the ratification of the Start 2 and Start 3 Treaties by the Duma in April of this year made the signature of this agreement possible. *** After the topic was presented by the Chairman of the meeting, Dr Rolf Linkohr, the President of the Foundation, who provided the back-ground details given above and sketched out the possible paths open at the technical level for resolving the problem of weapons grade plutonium, the American and Russian positions were explained by a number of prominent figures. Dr Michael Guhin, the
U.S. negotiator for the aforementioned
agreement, first of all pointed out
that this agreement was merely the beginning
of a process that could span the next
decade and ensure that this excess weapons
plutonium could not subsequently be used
again for nuclear weapons. The process
that had been outlined involved investment
and operational costs put at 4 billion
dollars for the Americans (use as fuel
in reactors and immobilisation) and more
than 1.7 billion dollars for the Russians
(use as fuel only). Russia could not
shoulder the entire cost and so help would
be needed from the International Community
– and more particularly from Europe –
to make up the shortfall. The G-8 leaders,
which will meet on the Japanese Island
of Okinawa, are expected to take more
concrete steps on this issue (see excerpt
of the Okinawa G8 meeting, July 2000). For his part, Dr Vladimir Shidlovskii, the Head of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Department at the Russian Ministry of Industry and Nuclear Energy (Minatom), summed up the Russian position which differed from the American position in so far as surplus weapons grade plutonium was considered by Russia as a fuel which could produce energy in certain nuclear reactors. Other countries shared this position, but not by the USA, which stressed the risks of proliferation. In this respect, there was already a measure of co-operation between Russia, France and Germany which was working very well, and Belgium and Italy are also interested. The G8 in Okinawa should provide an opportunity for progress and Russia was calling on the European Union for support in this area. Finally, Marc Defferennes, the European Commission’s representative, briefly described the contents of the Joint Action adopted in December 1999 by the Council in the context of the CFSP (Common foreign and security policy). A first tranche of 9 million euro had been released for launching projects for chemical and nuclear disarmament. This Joint Action revealed the European Union’s desire to be active and involved in the sphere of non-proliferation and disarmament, given the importance of the subject for its own security and stability. The Commission had been entrusted with implementing the Joint Action. Ensuring co-ordination with the activities already being undertaken at bilateral level would be a priority. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |