South Asia. As this topic will receive full attention in the following panel on export control, I will not delve into further detail on it, but instead consider the future of nuclear export controls in a strategic sense.

Increasingly, those who are engaged in nuclear technology development, particularly for electricity generation purposes, are interested in new approaches that have limited crossover to the weapon sector. They want to avoid the situation inherent in Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk, rather than continuing to proceed along that trajectory. For that reason, the nuclear industry today is beginning to concentrate on developing proliferation-resistant reactors that will minimize the production of weapons-usable material in their cycles. Ideally, proliferation-resistant reactors would burn up plutonium rather than breed it.

Although such reactors may be 20 years or more from commercial application, it is important that a new strategic approach is developing in the nuclear industry. The industry is emphasizing proliferation resistance along with other attributes such as minimization of nuclear waste, and stringent design for safety and security. If this trend develops successfully, it will simplify the export control problem for nuclear technologies. It may also prove to be the best way to fulfill the promise of peaceful nuclear uses in the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the efforts of the United States and the international community to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their related technologies.

The attacks of September 11, 2001, and recent anthrax exposures have heightened longstanding concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The United States and the international community have initiated a number of successive efforts over the years to secure these weapons and prevent their spread. There is renewed need to maintain strong international controls over such weapons and related technologies, as well as the need to reevaluate the effectiveness of the controls. I will describe and provide observations based on work we have conducted over the past several years on each of the mechanisms the United States has historically used to reduce proliferation risks.

Summary

The United States has used four key policy instruments to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: (1) international treaties, (2) multilateral export control arrangements, (3) U.S. export controls, and (4) security assistance to other countries. Each instrument is important to the collective framework for preventing the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and associated technologies to terrorists or rogue states, but each also has limitations.

International treaties obligate members to restrict transfers of WMD technologies, but their effectiveness depends on whether treaties can be verified and enforced and whether all countries of concern are members. These treaties also depend on the integrity and honesty of the countries party to the treaty.

Multilateral export control arrangements are voluntary, nonbinding agreements under which countries that produce the technologies used to develop weapons of mass destruction agree to restrict the transfer of these technologies. Such arrangements depend on the national discretion of member governments, which are free to implement these arrangements as they see fit. Member countries do not always agree on which countries and technologies are of greatest concern. We are currently examining how the extent to which members abide by their commitments, establish laws and regulations to restrict transfers, and coordinate their actions with other members limit these arrangements.

U.S. export controls set the legal and regulatory conditions under which goods and technologies can be exported. While the goal of export controls is to prevent the transfer of sensitive technologies, a number of factors hinder their implementation. These include a failure to assess the security risk associated with the transfer of sensitive goods and technologies, and difficulties in screening out end-users and monitoring the use of items after export.

Security assistance to other countries helps control or eliminate nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and otherwise stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. efforts have helped make large quantities of WMD-related materials more secure and have supplemented the incomes of several thousand former Soviet scientists in hopes they will not sell their knowledge to terrorists or countries of concern. However, the cost of U.S. efforts to reduce the proliferation risks of former Soviet WMD has been and will continue to be substantial, and it will take much longer than was once thought to secure sensitive materials and weapons. In addition, the United States' ability to demonstrate that these efforts have had a positive impact is limited primarily because of Russian restrictions on U.S. access to relevant sites and materials and inherent difficulties in assessing the effect of U.S. aid on the motivations of former Soviet scientists.

Background

U.S. policy states that weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems pose a direct and serious threat to the national security of the United States, and its friends, forces, and allies. President Bush has said that the United States must have a comprehensive strategy to counter this complex and dangerous challenge. Terrorists or rogue states can acquire weapons of mass destruction by buying materials and equipment from countries that produce and export them or by stealing them from inadequately protected stockpiles in states of the former Soviet Union. Elements of U.S. current nonproliferation strategy are to (1) strengthen existing international nonproliferation treaties, promote new ones that meet U.S. interests, and upgrade the means of verifying them; (2) persuade or induce proliferating governments to change course; (3) deny proliferators the supply of equipment, material, or technology from abroad; and (4) use U.S. threat reduction programs to secure or eliminate weapons of mass destruction and missile capabilities left over from the Cold War.

With the increasing globalization of the world economy, dual-use items and technologies used to develop weapons of mass destruction cannot be effectively controlled without cooperation among exporting and transit countries. Thus, foreign purchasers denied a critical item by one country may be able to obtain the same item from another country that does not control its exports as stringently. The U.S. government has made it a priority to strengthen and deepen multilateral cooperation on export controls.

The goal of the U.S. export control system is to manage risk. Exports to some countries involve less risk than to other countries, and some exported items involve less risk than others. In controlling the export of sensitive dual-use technology, U.S. policy seeks to balance the U.S. economic interest in promoting economic exports with the need to maintain national security by preventing the proliferation of technologies used to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Effectiveness of International Treaties Relies on Enforcement Mechanisms