The Russian bear growls (2)
Archived Articles | 10 Dec 2004 | Adu RaudkiviEWR
A new Canadian magazine, The Walrus, had a most interesting coverpiece recently, written by Paul Webster," Is the West Rearming Russia ? " Webster’s article was based on widely documented facts.
After 9/11, during the G7+1 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, June, 2002, the leaders of the industrialized world, at the urging of President George W. Bush, pledged 20 billion dollars ( U.S. ) to clean up Russia's graveyard of Soviet era submarines laying in disrepair, likely leaking nuclear waste, at Zvezdochka, one of Russia's largest nuclear submarine repair bases. Canada's share came to $1 billion.
This was a noble gesture on behalf of the West, hoping to keep nuclear waste contained, especially by Canada, which lies next door, across the North Pole, by a nation which was ostensibly in financial ruin.
The emphasis of Webster’s article was that at Sevmash, Russia there is a very secret and large shipyard where they are constructing a new generation of nuclear submarines, while the west is tasked with cleaning up the mess from the past.
While Russian installations that manufacture weapons of all sorts are still as closed as they were during Soviet times, budget infromation in Russia is becoming more readily available. Their defense (?) budget for 2003 was $10.9 billion ( U.S.) with weapons acquisitions amounting $3.45 billion (U.S.). By 2005 the budget is expected to have risen to $7 billion (U.S.) with a weapons budget of a third of that. One might also be aware that Russian costs are much less than those in North America so in real terms, by comparison, the budgets might be closer to twice than predicted.
There are many in the U.S. Congress who are opposed to providing Russians with financial aid while they are rearming, the loudest voice, according to Webster, belongs to Curt Weldon, a Republican Representative from Pennsylvania. Through his work on the House Armed Services Committee he was able to freeze "threat reduction" funding in late 2001 while demanding greater candor from the Russians about their rearmament programs. This was only revoked when the White House wanted Russia's support for the war on Iraq.
The Canadian foreign minister at the time was Bill Graham, a former professor at the University of Toronto. His explanation in light of Webster's questioning him about the ambiguities was equally ambiguous.
The Canadian point-man at foreign affairs, Troy Lulashnyk, using diplomatic double-speak, said, in essence, that since Russia won't clean up their nuclear mess, Canada has to do so. The logic fails us, since Russia is projecting a budgetary surplus in 2004 of $ 3.75 billion. A similar surplus has been posted since 2001. Lulashnyk’s argument finally comes down to "if we don't give them the money, they won't listen to us." As if they listened in the first place.
Webster further interviewed Anatoly Diakov, the head of the Arms Control Center at the Moscow Institute of Technology who pointed out, " Since U.S. ‘belligerence’ in Russian areas of influence, first in Kosovo, then in Cenral Asia, now in Iraq, it is no surprise Kremlin hawks are getting their way these days. " That comment ran a shiver down my spine.
So finally, why are we donating twice their annual military budget to them while they are showing a budgetary surplus, and are re-arming with offensive weapons (submarines and bombers)? We might ask our Member of Parliament or our Congressional Representative for answers.
Viimased kommentaarid
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
Bravo, well written piece.
Russia is full of hazardous waste of every conceivable variety. The "west" has an interest in seeing cleaned-up and, if it is unwilling to pay for it, it simply will not be done.
I knew Bill Graham before he entered politics. At the time, he had a prestigious law practice and a teaching position at the University of Toronto. He was one of the more intelligent, articulate and level-headed individuals that I had ever met. I rejoiced when he entered politics. Now, I'm appalled. Insofar as his dissembling can be penetrated, it seems that he's trying to rationalize an unconscionably opportunistic Liberal foreign policy.
I knew Bill Graham before he entered politics. At the time, he had a prestigious law practice and a teaching position at the University of Toronto. He was one of the more intelligent, articulate and level-headed individuals that I had ever met. I rejoiced when he entered politics. Now, I'm appalled. Insofar as his dissembling can be penetrated, it seems that he's trying to rationalize an unconscionably opportunistic Liberal foreign policy.
Archived Articles
TRENDING
