United States foreign policy, nonproliferation: The Bush and Clinton administrations' approaches to Ukraine's inherited nuclear weapons

The overarching purpose of this dissertation was to examine similarities and differences between the Bush and Clinton administrations' approaches to the denuclearization of Ukraine during 1991–1996. The primary period of focus was 1992–1994. The research problem was why, despite its substantial diplomatic progress on Ukraine's denuclearization, was the Bush administration unable to secure a firm commitment from Ukraine to return the nuclear warheads to Russia. Similarly, what were the reasons, besides building on the successes of the Bush team, why the Clinton administration was able to secure a firm denuclearization commitment by the end of its first year in office.; The method used was the case study approach, the first case consisting of the Bush administration and the second case the Clinton administration. The research design involved the creation of a chronology of events; the stipulation of research questions; the building of a conceptual framework involving cognitive and organizational approaches; the collection of data from first-hand sources (interviews) and documentation; the conducting of the two case studies, including process tracing and triangulation; and a comparison of the two cases.; The main findings are that the Bush administration suffered from both cognitive and organizational shortcomings, despite its success with the Lisbon Protocol and the initiation of the HEU sale. Its main cognitive failing was its singular focus on the START II Treaty, with a lower prioritization granted Ukrainian denuclearization (upon which START I and START II were dependent). In addition, the administration's lack of understanding of Ukrainian sensitivities foreshadowed the lack of a nuanced approach to Ukraine. The Bush administration's main organizational failing relative to Ukraine was that its prioritizing and option review were conducted by Bush and a very small group of senior advisors, a process that limited policy alternatives. The Clinton administration, though it continued to give high priority to Ukraine's denuclearization, took a more open-minded approach to Ukraine's problems and requirements. It also enjoyed a more diffuse foreign policy decision making process that allowed greater choice of options.