Stanford University's Center for International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) started a project on defense conversion in the Soviet Union in early 1990. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the project has concentrated on defense conversion in Russia. The objectives of the project are to study and assist the process of demilitarization through the diversion of military production assets, broadly interpreted (facilities, personnel, technology, etc.), and building a civilian industry and infrastructure.

As a part of this project, CISAC sponsored an international conference on defense conversion on December 1-2, 1992. This report summarizes the authors' impressions, following the conference, of the status of privatization and conversion in Russia, and of U.S. government and business involvement in those processes. The conclusions drawn and the recommendations made are our own, based on both conference presentations and our own research.

The purpose of this document is to explore a plan for the application of cooperative naval measures in the Pacific to meet political, economic, and military changes and to serve the interests of all countries in the region.

What guidance does international law provide in determining who succeeds to the treaty obligations of a large nation-state when it splits up? This Article will consider, first, the general rules of inheritance in such a case and, second, what has happened so far in four concrete areas.

Setting the context for the crisis that has fragmented the former USSR, this reader presents key essays by notable Western scholars who have shaped the debates within the field of Soviet nationality studies. Focusing first on the historical development of the Soviet multiethnic state, the discussions then turn to specific problem areas, including federalism, elites, economy, language policy and nationalism.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 and the emergence of 15 independent states on its territory mark the end not only of the Soviet system itself but also of a centuries-long process of state-building that created the Russian empire. In the process of serving and extending this empire, the Soviet state unwittingly stimulated a process of nation-building among its constituent peoples. which ultimately contributed to its collapse. The papers presented in this volume are an attempt to analyze and comment on the origins, evolution, and demise of protracted experiment.

This book is essentially a series of case histories of U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms control negotiations, as seen from the American side. It describes the processes of governmental decisionmaking for arms control in Washington, D.C., and the techniques for joint U.S.-Soviet decisionmaking at the negotiating table.

As general counsel of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and member of U.S. delegations to disarmament conferences for eight years, the author was in a unique position to assess the difficulties of fashioning an arms control treaty that could pass muster within the executive branch of the U.S. government, be approved by U.S. allies, be successfully negotiated with the Soviets, and then win the approval of the U.S. Senate. This process will be even more complex now that the United States will face at least four nuclear powers from the former U.S.S.R.

The book has three purposes. The first is to add to the recorded history of the following negotiations: the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, the ABM Treaty of 1972 and its companion SALT Interim Agreements, and the 1987 INF Treaty. The author asks in each case, What did the president and his assistants do (or fail to do) to negotiate a successfulu agreement?

The second purpose is to use the case book approach, common in law schools and business schools, as a teaching device for those who wish to learn how the American government made decisions about arms control negotiations, how U.S.-Soviet negotiators reached decisions, and what the results of the decisions have been.

The book's third purpose is to generalize about what works and what does not work in the complex world of arms control negotiations, including information on the impact of negotiating committees and comparisons of the process for negotiating arms control treaties with that for achieving arms limits through action and reaction, without written agreement. The concluding chapter looks to the future: What changes will occur in the arms control process given the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union?

Stanford University's Center for International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) has undertaken a project to work with elements of the Soviet defense industry to help them convert production from military to civilian uses. In this project we refer to conversion as the use of defense industry facilities, personnel, and/or technology for the production of nondefense products and services. One aspect of this work is to facilitate cooperation between U.S. and Soviet companies. Representative Les Aspin, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), asked the Center to initiate this project. The Institute of U.S.A. and Canada Studies (ISKAN) of the Soviet Academy of Sciences is coordinating the Soviet Union's participation.

In recent years issues in international security have been increasingly influenced by economic factors. This is evident in the defense budgets of the major powers as well as in arms transfers to regions such as the Middle East. Furthermore, arms control has taken on a broader meaning, involving unilateral cuts and confidence-building measures to supplement negotiated structural arms-control agreements.

The principal objective of this project is to assist the Soviet defense industry in their defense conversion activities by:

• Analyzing the conversion problem in the Soviet Union and, if appropriate, extracting lessons from the U.S. experience.
• Assisting the Soviets in contacting and exploring cooperative ventures with appropriate U.S. companies.
• Stimulating discussions among Soviet defense experts and U.S. government officials and academics on appropriate changes to trade policy.

This paper deals with defense conversion (broadly interpreted) in the newly independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet Union (FSU), with emphasis on the situation in Russia. Our premise is that economic progress is a sine qua non for political stability and the growth of democratic institutions, and hence for international security. Therefore it is in the best interests of all countries, and primarily the United States, to assist the economic reforms in the NIS. We further believe that the efficient use of a considerable portion of the assets of the military-industrial complex is necessary if the economic reforms are to succeed.

In this paper we analyze some of the major barriers to conversion, and the incentives and problems involved in providing external assistance for this conversion, as well as steps that can only be accomplished internally. The paper includes a description of a project on conversion in the Soviet Union and later in Russia, undertaken in early 1990, at the Center for International Security and Arms Control (CISAC). The work has included interactions between Soviet and Russian industrialists, government officials, and scholars with their counterparts, as well as with members of the legal and financial communities, in the United States. The report also contains a case study of conversion and privatization at one enterprise, the Saratov Aviation Plant. The report concludes with recommendations (summarized below) to both industry and government in the United States and in the NIS. This work has been supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Since this paper was drafted many of our recommendations have been adopted through policy statements; however, in many cases, realization of these policies is still subject to final congressional action, administrative implementation, IMF negotiations with the governments of the NIS, and legislation by the NIS.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union has brought new nuclear non-proliferation dangers and opportunities. Both revolve around the approximately thirty thousand nuclear weapons and the fissile materials for perhaps ninety thousand nuclear bombs in the former Soviet Union. The weapons are now deployed in only four of the newly independents states - most in Russia, but some still in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. "Loose Nukes" is the colloquial description of one aspect of the new threats.

New positive and negative assurances from all five permanent members of the UN Security Council are now vitally important, not only to provide support to Ukraine and every other non-nuclear-weapons state's legitimate concerns, but to advance the vital goals of nuclear non-proliferation prior to the critical 1995 NPT review and extension conference.

Stanford University's Center for International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) started a project in early 1990 following a proposal from Marshal Akhromeyev,specialadvisor to President Gorbachev and Les Aspin, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.  The intent was to bring a delegation of Soviet defense executives, government officials and academicians to the United States. The objectives of the project were to study and assi§t the process of demilitarization through the diversion of military production assets, broadly interpreted (facilities, personnl., technology, etc.), and to building a civilian industry and infrastructure. In spite of changes in the project agenda, the objectives remain the same. These objectives are being addressed by informing the debate in the Russian and American
governments as well as in the international financial institutions, recommending innovative conversion efforts, interacting directly with Russian defense enterprises and American companies interested in cooperative business activities, and participating in scholarly analyses through publications and topical conferences.