France, Germany and the United Kingdom appear to be closing in on a deal to have Iran suspend its uranium enrichment efforts, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said today (see GSN, Nov. 5).
“Progress has been made and we are waiting now for the final response from Iran,” Solana told Reuters, referring to a tentative agreement negotiated this weekend in Paris.
“It’s very difficult to give a definition of how close we are but my feeling today is that we are pretty close to having an agreement ... let’s hope for new developments in the coming hours, days,” he added. The “basic element of the agreement” involves Iran freezing all enrichment and reprocessing activities, Solana said. “I think if we get an agreement we will not see any reason” to send the case to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, he added (John Chalmers, Reuters, Nov. 8). The preliminary agreement “is to be taken to the capitals of the four countries, and in the next days, if the capitals approve it, it will be announced officially,” top Iranian negotiator Hossein Mousavian told Iranian state television. Mousavian added that he was “not pessimistic” about the chances for an agreement, Agence France-Presse reported. Without disclosing details, he said the preliminary agreement included “a collection of political, economic, security, technological and trust-building cooperation regarding the future of Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities.” The agreement could be approved next week, according to Mousavian. “After the four capitals have agreed, we will begin discussions on implementing this agreement. The next round of discussions will not be so challenging, because the principles will have been set,” he said (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Nov. 7). International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei today expressed cautious optimism over the potential deal, Reuters reported. “I am told it is still a very tentative agreement, it has still not yet been confirmed,” ElBaradei said. “I would hope that this would lead to the desired outcome, which is Iran to suspend processing and enrichment activities and open the way for the normalization of Iran’s relations with the international community,” he said (Reuters, Nov. 7). Elsewhere, a Russian official said Friday that referring Iran’s case to the Security Council could exacerbate regional tensions, AFP reported. “It is very important to refrain from steps that could lead to further tensions,” Deputy Foreign Minister Yury Fedotov told the Interfax news agency. “The IAEA’s opportunities to resolve the problems related to Iran’s nuclear developments have not been exhausted,” Fedotov said (Agence France-Presse/IranMania.com, Nov. 5). Chinese officials said Saturday that Beijing also opposes referring Iran’s case to the Security Council, AFP reported. “It would only make the issue more complicated and difficult to work out,” Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said during a trip to Iran, adding that “the Iranian government is having a very positive attitude in its cooperation” with the U.N. nuclear watchdog (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Nov. 6). Meanwhile, Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Hitoshi Tanaka is expected to travel to Tehran tomorrow to urge Iranian leaders to suspend uranium enrichment, AFP reported. “It is important for Iran to sincerely fulfill resolutions made by the IAEA committee, including suspension of reprocessing activities related to uranium enrichment,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said. “We will deliver this message at the upcoming vice ministerial level talks,” Hosoda added (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Nov. 8). Japanese military sources have said that North Korea in May exported material that could be used to develop nuclear weapons to Iran, Donga reported. Pyongyang sold several kilograms of fluorine gas, a material used in production of fluorinated uranium, which is in turn necessary for enriching uranium, to Iran on May 20, Japan’s Sankei Shimbun reported yesterday. “Iran entered into a treaty with North Korea due to the fluorine import difficulties arising from international trading restrictions, indicating that North Korea is participating in Iran’s nuclear development program,” the sources told Sankei (Won-Jae Park, Donga, Nov. 7).
The International Atomic Energy Agency is investigating the origin of plutonium traces discovered near an Egyptian nuclear facility, diplomats said Friday (see GSN, Nov. 5). The U.N. agency is now looking at whether the traces could have resulted from Egypt’s peaceful nuclear activities or if they are a sign of possible nuclear weapons activity, according to the Associated Press. The agency has received information suggesting that the plutonium may have been released into the environment no later than the 1980s, a diplomat said. “From time to time these things pop up in places they should not be at,” the diplomat said. “Most of the time, there is a reasonable answer.” Egypt unsuccessfully sought nuclear weapons in the 1960s and 1970s from the Soviet Union and China, AP reported. It now has a limited nuclear program for medical and research needs. Egyptian leaders have discussed building a nuclear power reactor (George Jahn, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Nov. 5). Egyptian officials said the U.N. nuclear watchdog inspected nuclear sites in the country last month, according to the Associated Press. Cairo yesterday denied that it was conducting a secret nuclear weapons program. “Following newspaper and news agency reports about alleged Egyptian nuclear activity, the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Electricity and Energy announce that these reports have no basis of truth,” the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “Egypt is the country which has called to keep the Middle East region free from all weapons of mass destruction,” Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said, according to AP. Egyptian presidential spokesman Maged Abdel Fattah suggested that the speculation surrounding Egypt’s nuclear program may be an attempt to discredit IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, who is Egyptian and is seeking a third term in office. “What has been reported by some foreign media was merely an attempt to pressure some international employees with the aim not to renew their assignment,” Fattah said (Maamoun Youssef, Associated Press/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 7).
By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire
UNITED NATIONS — Arms-control advocates should promote a reasonable agenda rather than insisting on “utopian goals” at next year’s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference on the assumption that the re-elected Bush administration will take a hard line in the negotiations, two former U.S. officials said on Thursday (see GSN, June 8). “It would be a fatal mistake to load [the Review Conference] up with new rhetoric and push for unacceptable goals because that just makes it easier for your opposition to reject,” Robert Grey, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. The goal of the arms-control community should be “to take a reasonable, steady, moderate agenda and continue to push it at the NPT Review Conference and not institutionalize the bad behavior that we can expect from the United States but to isolate them if possible,” Grey said. In this way, if the review conference fails, “the onus [will be] on their backs.” There is also a danger of going too far in the other direction, Grey added. “The biggest mistake of all would be to cave in on the principled positions that are now on the table and to modify them further in the direction of wherever this administration wants to take” them, he said. Most important to the conference will be “avoiding harm,” said John Holum, the former U.S. undersecretary of State for arms control. In other words, prevent irreversible escalations such as resuming nuclear testing and deploying weapons in space. Both Grey and Holum served in the Clinton administration. The two were speaking at a forum organized by the Middle Powers Initiative, a nongovernmental coalition of disarmament organizations. The NPT Review Conference is scheduled for May 2005. Its purpose is to review progress in implementing the treaty and to agree to new commitments for the next five years. Most non-nuclear countries will be pressing for continued commitments to disarmament measures agreed to at the 2000 conference. The United States has backed off support for many on those initiatives, including the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Grey and Holum said negotiators should stick to the principles outlined in this year’s New Agenda Coalition resolution. “I find it difficult to imagine a successful outcome to the NPT Review Conference that didn’t embrace the principles outlined in the New Agenda proposal,” Grey said. The New Agenda Coalition — Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden — present a draft resolution to the General Assembly’s Disarmament Committee every year calling on states to fulfill the commitments made at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. This year, instead of a complicated catchall resolution, the New Agenda streamlined its draft to highlight a few key initiatives rather than the 2000 document in its entirety. Those issues include the fissile materials negotiations, further reductions in non-strategic nuclear arsenals, diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines and setting up a subsidiary body in the Conference on Disarmament “to deal with” nuclear disarmament. The goal of the revisions was to appeal to non-nuclear NATO states that have not supported the New Agenda in the past, thus strengthening coalition’s position going into the May conference. They succeeded in obtaining more support from NATO states, although the United States, United Kingdom and France still voted against the resolution (see GSN, Nov. 5). Grey said the resolution represents “the line where you can hold together reasonable consensus. If you divert in terms of nonproliferation and put more emphasis on that and less on nuclear disarmament, then you risk losing the coalition. You’re right about there now.” “Push it either way and you’re going to have trouble,” he added. Beyond the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the two former officials saw more obstacles than openings in arms control in the next four years. Holum said there is “no tangible evidence” that President George W. Bush would change his policies in the next four years. Both said a more hopeful possibility is of a bipartisan arms-control coalition taking hold in Congress. Arms-control efforts “will depend in the next four years very heavily on the moderate Republicans in the Senate,” including Senators Richard Lugar (Ind.), Charles Hagel (Neb.), and John Warner (Va.), Holum said. They did not speak out during the election, but now “I suspect they will be more outspoken,” he said. Grey and Holum felt that a congressional coalition could be formed against resuming nuclear testing and developing space-based weapons, where the Senate could block funding for these programs. They also expect a push for more funding for efforts to safeguard Russian nuclear weapons materials. “The one issue … where we have a real chance of succeeding is on the question of renewing [nuclear] testing,” Grey said. On this issue, Democrats and moderate Republicans can work “in a common cause,” he said, “That is an issue that there is every likelihood that a coalition can be formed that ultimately would prevent that from happening.” Placing weapons is space will likely lead to a showdown in Bush’s second term, they said. They argued that the U.S. withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the deployment of the missile defense system in Alaska have more to do with preparing the way for space-based weapons than missile defenses. “They’re in a take no prisoners mode on this,” Grey said. Space-based weapons “are the jewel in the crown, they will not negotiate it, they will not agree to anything,” he added. “It’s a dumb way to go but that’s the way they’re going.”
The presidents of South Korea and the United States agreed last week on the pressing need to find a solution to the North Korea nuclear crisis, Reuters reported Saturday (see GSN, Nov. 5). In a telephone conversation with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, U.S. President George W. Bush pledged to push for resumption of the six-party talks involving North Korea, South Korea, Russia, China, Japan and the Untied States, Roh’s office said in a statement. “President Roh proposed making the North’s nuclear problem a joint project to solve with close cooperation and to lay the groundwork for peace on the Korean Peninsula and in the world,” his office said. “The two leaders agreed to strengthen efforts to hold the six-way talks as soon as possible.” Roh met Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura on Saturday to discuss the nuclear talks. Machimura said Tokyo would press Pyongyang to resume talks before the end of the year, the Kyodo news agency cited Japanese officials as saying. In another meeting, Machimura and South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon “basically agreed” to halt work on two light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea for another year, according to Kyodo. The United States, South Korea and Japan, according to previous news reports, agreed to extend the suspension during a meeting of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) in New York last month (Reuters, Nov. 6). Bush’s re-election last week means Pyongyang is likely to feel pressure to return to the negotiating table, Chinese and U.S. analysts said, according to Knight Ridder. “The North Koreans understand that they have to cut a deal to survive,” said Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum CSIS research center. “At some point, they are going to have to come back.” The Bush administration could soon toughen its approach to North Korea if the talks do not lead to progress, some officials in Asia have said. Tougher measures could include referring the issue to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions or stepping up efforts to intercept North Korean ships. Others believe Washington will remain committed to the talks, Knight Ridder reported. “President Bush has maintained the principle of a peaceful settlement of the North Korean nuclear issue over the past four years, and I see that there will be no major changes,” Ban told KBS Radio in Seoul on Friday. “It is premature to assume that (Bush’s policy) will turn hard-line immediately,” Ban added (Tim Johnson, Knight Ridder/Bradenton Herald, Nov. 6). Meanwhile, newly declassified documents indicate that the United States planned as recently as 1998 to retaliate with nuclear weapons in the event of a North Korean attack on South Korea, United Press International reported. Between January and June 1998, 24 F15-E bombers flew simulation missions at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina, dropping mock nuclear bombs on a firing range, the Korea Times reported yesterday (United Press International/Washington Times, Nov. 7).
The events leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as the war’s aftermath, offer several lessons for future nuclear nonproliferation efforts, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said last week (see GSN, Nov. 2). During a speech Thursday at Stanford University in California, ElBaradei described the Iraq conflict as “the most dramatic” action of late to address the threat of nuclear proliferation. Among the lessons that can be learned from the conflict, he said, was the value of international inspections. “The nuclear inspection process — while requiring time and patience — can be effective even when the country under inspection is providing less than active cooperation. When international inspectors are provided adequate authority, aided by all available information, backed by a credible compliance mechanism, and supported by international consensus, the verification system works,” ElBaradei said. He also said, though, that effective inspections need adequate time to be carried out and their results need to be “accepted in good faith.” Inspections conducted prior to the war received neither, ElBaradei said. “It is true that the record and mode of behavior of [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s regime did not inspire much confidence; but it is also true that we had not seen any clear and present danger involving weapons of mass destruction, after months of intrusive inspection,” ElBaradei said. Another lesson learned from the Iraq conflict is the need to “exercise maximum restraint” before engaging in military action, ElBaradei said. Unless “extreme conditions” are present to support a pre-emptive attack against a country suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, he said, then “diplomacy in all its forms … should be the primary avenue of choice” (International Atomic Energy Agency release, Nov. 4). ElBaradei denied Friday that his comments were intended as criticism of the United States, according to the Associated Press. “It’s unfortunate that people try to put the wrong spin on a very important issue,” he said. “In war or peace we all lose, if we don't agree,” ElBaradei told the Associated Press. “The U.N. was hurting, the (U.S.-led) coalition was hurting because of the lack of agreement” on what to do about Iraq (George Jahn, Associated Press/Miami Herald, Nov. 5).
Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix on Saturday called on the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, according the Associated Press (see GSN, Sept. 24). “U.S. ratification of a comprehensive test ban treaty would be likely to have a positive domino effect on China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Israel,” Blix said. “It would make the development of new types of nuclear weapons much more difficult.” Blix also said that Iran and North Korea would need to be given economic incentives and “guarantees about security against attacks from outside” to abandon their nuclear programs. The nuclear standoffs in both countries should be resolved through diplomacy, Blix said. “The war that was waged in Iraq is not a model that many want to see followed,” he said (Nirmala George, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Nov. 6).
| 
Back to top
