- Home
- About
-
Staff
- Commentaries by FPS Staff
- Rusakovich Andrei Vladimirovich
- Rozanov Anatoliy Arkadievich
- Research Briefs
- Tihomirov Alexander Valentinovich
- Shadurski Victor Gennadievich
- Sidorchuk Valery Kirillovich
- Brovka Gennady Mikhailovich
- Gancherenok Igor Ivanovich
- Malevich Ulianna Igorevna
- Prannik Tatiana Alexandrovna
- Selivanov Andrey Vladimirovich
- Sharapo Alexander Victorovich
- Testimonials
-
Conference Proceedings
- Amber Coast Transport Initiative Project Concept
- Nato and Belarus - partnership, past tensions and future possibilities
- OSCE High-Level Seminar on Military Doctrine
- Poland-Belarus: perspectives of cross-border cooperation
- Polish-Belarussian Transborder Customs Cooperation: сurrent Problems and Challenges
-
Reports
- We see the significant reduction of the U.S. Army in Europe
- NATO's International Security Role
- International seminar on issues in the Collective Security Treaty Organization
- Belarus-Turkey: The ways of cooperation - 2011
- Belarus - Poland: two decades of international relations
- Belarus-Turkey: The ways of cooperation - 2009
- International seminar Belarusian Diaspora: Past and Present
- The first Round Table
-
News Releases
- The conference on Overcoming the financial crisis
- Round Table on history and future of Belarus-Poland cooperation
- Seminar on Belarusian diaspora: past and present
- The conference on Belarus in the Modern World
- The conference on Economic, legal and informational aspects of cooperation in customs sphere
- Comments
- Contact
Belarus fulfilled its promise to retaliate to the US sanctions. Minsk suspended its agreement with the United States to give up its 220-kilogramm stockpile of enriched uranium. What are the implications of this decision?
Under the December 2010 agreement, Belarus would send its uranium to Russia by 2012, which would return a less purified grade product. To date, only 10% of the stockpile has left Belarus. Belarus was reasonable enough to add that it will continue to provide physical safety of the uranium. The U.S. State Department said it regrets Minsk’s decision and hopes the country will destroy its stockpile as planned. Soon Minsk will have even more to regret, however.
First, the announcement will further hurt Belarus’ international reputation. Of course, it was already best known as an authoritarian state where elections are rigged and the KGB arrests people at will. But now Belarus can no longer claim the reputation of a peaceful and responsible state, which it has aspired to since it gave up Soviet nuclear weapons in 1996. As a reward for its decision in 2010, Belarus was invited to attend the 2012 nuclear security summit. However, yesterday’s move will ensure that the country remains isolated and is welcome only at the regional events sponsored by Russia.
Second, the announcement is helpless with regard tothe sanctions to which it is responding. In December 2010, the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. estimated that only about 40 kilograms of the stockpile is weapons grade. Belarus will not be able to use its uranium to blackmail Washington.
At the same time, freezing the nuclear deal will further worsen Belarus’ relations with Washington and all the institutions where Washington leads. By backing out on the agreeement Belarus is giving up its chance for financial support support at the time when Belarus' economy is in dire need of Western investment and loans. One enterprise after another will have to be purchased by Russia.
Finally, suspending the agreement undermines Belarus’ plans for diversifying its energy supply. Back in 2010, the United States promised to support Belarus’ effort to design and build a safe nuclear power plant. Now Belarus will surely have to rely on Russia and will never become self-sustained.
VC
