U.S. President George W. Bush last night delivered his third annual State of the Union address (AFP photo/Kevin Lamarque). Bush Reasserts Prewar Iraqi WMD Threat By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — In the face of scant evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion last year, President George W. Bush last night reasserted his prewar contention that the U.S. action was justified by a WMD threat posed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein...Full Story

U.S. Expert Shown North Korean “Plutonium,” Remains Skeptical About Weapon Program By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — North Korean officials this month showed a working nuclear reactor and what they claimed was a piece of plutonium metal to former Los Alamos National Laboratory head Siegfried Hecker, the scientist said today (see GSN, Jan. 16)...Full Story

Continuing Iranian Centrifuge Production Causes Increasing Concern There is growing concern among Western diplomats and nuclear experts that Iran’s continued efforts to acquire uranium enrichment centrifuges violates its recent pledge to suspend enrichment activities, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Jan. 15)...Full Story

	Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Bush Reasserts Prewar Iraqi WMD Threat By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — In the face of scant evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion last year, President George W. Bush last night reasserted his prewar contention that the U.S. action was justified by a WMD threat posed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. “Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day,” Bush said in his third annual State of the Union address. He said, further, that the war has served, and would continue to serve, as a useful tool to persuade other nations to give up their illicit WMD activities. “Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world,” he said. Bush’s address, however, made no mention of intelligence information about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that he and other and top administration officials previously cited to justify the war — a matter of intense controversy with critics having charged the administration with making unsupported and exaggerated claims of Iraqi arms. U.S. inspectors have discovered no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Instead, Bush referred nonspecifically to “programs” and “activities” described in an interim report issued last fall by U.S. inspections leader David Kay. He said also, “We are seeking all the facts.” Describing the Threat Addressing both houses of Congress and appearing on all major television networks, Bush said the Iraqi threat justified the invasion even without U.N. Security Council authorization. “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people,” he said. At an earlier point in the speech, he said U.S. inspectors have discovered illicit Iraqi WMD efforts. “Already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations,” he said. The Kay report, released last October provided no definitive evidence of illicit weapons or programs. It says that no evidence had been found of any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and there was no evidence of active chemical or nuclear programs before the war. It says there were preliminary conclusions of Iraqi “WMD-related program activities,” based partially on information suggesting research had taken place on organisms that could be used for biological warfare and on discoveries of concealed equipment (see GSN, Oct. 3, 2003). The report also says there was evidence of missile development activities that would eventually have led to a breach of U.N. restrictions. The Washington Post has since reported that some Iraqi missile activities never went beyond sketches in a notebook. Without disclosing any further evidence or releasing a final report, Kay reportedly now is seeking to leave his position and many of the weapons inspectors reportedly either have returned to the United States or were diverted to other activities in Iraq (see GSN, Jan. 16). A Lesson to Others At other points in the speech, Bush suggested that the U.S. action in Iraq has had positive effects in combating WMD proliferation. “Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime’s weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Col. [Muammar] Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off, and far more secure, without weapons of mass murder,” he said. “Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible and no one can now doubt the word of America,” he said. With respect to current negotiations with Iran and North Korea over suspected nuclear weapons activities, Bush said, “different threats require different strategies.” “Along with nations in the region, we are insisting that North Korea eliminate its nuclear program. America and the international community are demanding that Iran meet its commitments and not develop nuclear weapons. America is committed to keeping the world’s most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world’s most dangerous regimes.” Democratic Criticism Speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party in response to Bush’s speech, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized his continuing assertion that Iraq posed a WMD threat. “The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence. He embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history and he failed to build a true international coalition,” she said. Pelosi also charged the administration with failing to devote enough resources for securing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons materials around the world, an apparent reference to the U.S. Defense Department’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program and comparable Energy Department activities. “One hundred percent of the enriched uranium and other material for weapons of mass destruction must be secured. Today, the administration has refused to commit the resources necessary to prevent [those materials] from falling into the hands of terrorists,” she said. Back to top       U.S. Congressional Delegation to Visit Libya A six-member U.S. congressional delegation is scheduled to arrive in Libya Sunday to meet with Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi, according to The Hill (see GSN, Jan. 20). The delegation will be led by Representative Curt Weldon (R-Penn.) and its visit will be the first by U.S. lawmakers since U.S. diplomatic relations with Libya were cut in 1979, The Hill reported. In addition to meeting with Qadhafi, the delegation will also visit one of Libya’s WMD-related sites. “What I want to reinforce to Qadhafi, with a face-to-face meeting with a U.S. plane landing on the tarmac in Tripoli, is that ‘you’ve taken the first step,’” Weldon said. “You’ve taken the first step in renouncing your nuclear weapons program and your weapons of mass destruction. We’re here to say thank you and to acknowledge that and to see some of that evidence,” Weldon added. Weldon also said that the National Security Council “is totally aware” of his delegation’s trip. “They will never probably say they are supporting it; that’s always the case,” he added (Hans Nichols, The Hill, Jan. 21). Back to top       Bush Administration Modifies Export Control Lists As part of a four-year interagency review of the U.S. munitions list, the Bush administration is set to notify Congress of changes to four list categories, Defense Daily reported today (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2003). Items on the U.S. munitions list are subject to export control regulations, according to Defense Daily. A senior U.S. Defense Department official said the Bush administration plans to notify Congress about updates in four list categories — military vehicles, training equipment, protective equipment and auxiliary equipment. The updates are not subject to congressional approval, Defense Daily reported. So far, the review process has completed reviews of seven munitions list categories, including toxicological agents and nuclear weapons design, according to Defense Daily. The full list review is expected to be completed by the end of the year (Sharon Weinberger, Defense Daily, Jan. 21). Back to top

U.S. Expert Shown North Korean “Plutonium,” Remains Skeptical About Weapon Program By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — North Korean officials this month showed a working nuclear reactor and what they claimed was a piece of plutonium metal to former Los Alamos National Laboratory head Siegfried Hecker, the scientist said today (see GSN, Jan. 16). The officials presented the evidence as part of a multifaceted effort to convince Hecker, in the country as part of an unofficial U.S. delegation, that they have what they repeatedly called a “deterrent,” Hecker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in an open hearing this morning. Despite those efforts, the North Korean officials did not convince Hecker that Pyongyang has a nuclear weapon or the capability to produce one. “What they did demonstrate,” he said, “is that they have the industrial capability, the equipment and the technical know-how” to produce plutonium. “It would be a poor assumption to think that the North Koreans would not be able to build at least some sort of rudimentary nuclear device,” Hecker added in a session with reporters after the hearing. “They clearly wanted us to confirm what they had been telling the world for some time,” he said, referring to North Korea’s claims of reprocessing and reactor operation. Hecker told the senators that spent fuel appears to have been removed from a storage site at the Yongbyon nuclear facility (see GSN, Jan. 15), that the North Korean officials presented a piece of metal that could have been plutonium, that a five-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon was operational and that North Korean officials denied categorically having a program to produce highly enriched uranium. Hecker Describes Empty Pond, Supposed Plutonium Piece, Working Reactor Touring the Yongbyon nuclear site with the chief engineers of the facility, Hecker was taken to a cooling pond that once stored 8,000 spent fuel rods that North Korea now claims it has reprocessed for weapon-grade plutonium. Hecker said today that “none of the structure that had been built” with U.S. help to monitor the material after the 1994 U.S.-North Korean freeze agreement “was there anymore.” Most of the spent fuel was obviously gone, he said, since many canisters were missing and others were open and empty. The officials then claimed that they had demonstrated that the fuel had been removed, Hecker said, but the scientist objected that some of the canisters remained closed and could still contain spent fuel. In response, the North Koreans allowed him to choose a canister at random and opened the canister, revealing it to be empty. “For all intents and purposes, those fuel rods are gone,” Hecker said. The scientist said he was then taken to a radiochemical laboratory where the North Korean officials sought to demonstrate they were separating weapon-usable plutonium from the spent fuel. He was allowed, he said, to view hot cells where such work is conducted, but the hot cells were not operational and the officials repeated their claim that reprocessing of the spent fuel was completed six months ago. Hecker said he asked to see, but was not shown, gloveboxes in which plutonium would have been extracted. Hecker said that when he objected to the officials’ assertion that they had now shown him they had reprocessed the spent fuel, “They said, ‘Would you like to see the product?’” Two glass jars were produced, Hecker said, one containing what was claimed to be 150 grams of plutonium oxalate powder and the other containing what was described as a 200-gram piece of plutonium metal alloy, which was funnel-shaped and appeared to have been cast recently. “I looked at it very closely, and you know, it looked like it could be plutonium,” Hecker said. Hecker was allowed to hold the jar, which he said was “warm but not very warm” ― plutonium is radioactive and would have such an effect ― and of a weight that “seemed about right.” A Geiger counter was produced to test gloves Hecker had worn to handle the jar, and the counter registered radioactivity as soon as it was turned on, Hecker said. “Everything was consistent with it being plutonium, and something in there was radioactive, because the probe went off,” Hecker said. Hecker said there is no conclusive proof the object was plutonium and that if it was plutonium, it did not necessarily come from a recent reprocessing campaign. He appeared skeptical, however, about the possibility that North Korea did something with the spent fuel from the cooling pond other than reprocess it. “The fuel rods … had been moved. They could be stored someplace else … but quite frankly, that would make no sense” because such a move would be dangerous, Hecker said. Yongbyon’s five-megawatt reactor was working during the delegation’s visit, which implies that another 8,000 fuel rods are inside, Hecker said, adding that the North Korean officials said they have another 8,000 fresh rods ready to insert into the reactor. “It is making plutonium as we speak,” he said. “I said, ‘Of course, you’re making plutonium.’ They said, ‘We’re making heat and electricity,’” said Hecker, adding that the North Korean officials acknowledged plutonium was a byproduct of the process. Construction appears to have halted on a planned 50-megawatt reactor at the site, Hecker said, describing the construction site as a shambles. Hecker said the officials appeared to be trying to convince him of their claim that they have a nuclear deterrent but that he resisted, insisting that demonstrating such a claim would entail producing evidence of the capability to make a weapon from nuclear material and to deliver such a weapon. “They several times sort of went to the final punchline and said … ‘Look, now you have seen our deterrent’ … and they used this word, ‘deterrent,’ in a very ambiguous fashion,” Hecker said. The scientist added that North Korean officials used the terms “weapons of mass destruction” ― in the context, a clear reference to nuclear weapons, according to Hecker ― and “arsenal.” He said he told them they had “made a pretty good case” that they can produce plutonium metal but had demonstrated no capacity to build a nuclear device. North Korea Denies Seeking Highly Enriched Uranium Hecker said the North Korean officials denied categorically having a highly enriched uranium program despite reports that they admitted to such a program in 2002 meetings with U.S. officials (see GSN, Oct. 17, 2002). According to Hecker, North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gue Gwan said, “We do not have a highly enriched uranium program, and furthermore, we never admitted to having one.” Kim said North Korea has no program, no equipment and no expertise in the area, said Hecker. Hecker said U.S. delegation head John Lewis of Stanford University pressed the North Koreans on the point and that they responded, “We decided to go the plutonium route some time ago, and that’s where our expertise is.” North Korea has suggested that ambiguities of translation may have led the U.S. diplomats initially to conclude the North Koreans were admitting to a uranium enrichment program. Hecker said Lewis was given a text produced at the time by North Korean scribes and is working with translators to attempt to determine whether such an admission was made. “Whatever was said before or not said, this time the vice minister left no ambiguity,” said Hecker. The committee’s top Democrat, Joseph Biden (Del.), expressed particular concern about the highly enriched uranium claim, calling North Korea a proliferation risk and noting that it would be easier for a terrorist group to make a rudimentary nuclear device with uranium than with plutonium, an assessment seconded by Hecker. Biden criticized the Bush administration for its handling of the North Korean nuclear question. “I’m not at all sure North Korea, under any circumstance, is willing to yield its nuclear capacity,” Biden said, but “so far, I don’t think the administration has made a sufficient effort.” In particular, he said there has been “too little dialogue” between the two countries. Biden said the “outlines” of a solution in North Korea are clear: Pyongyang must give up any nuclear weapon activity in exchange for U.S. security guarantees, sanctions relief and normalization of diplomatic relations. He expressed concern that Japan and South Korea could move to become nuclear weapon states if the situation continues unchanged. Delegation Member Blasts Bush Administration In a New York Times commentary today, Hecker delegation member Jack Pritchard criticized the quality of U.S. intelligence on North Korea and the Bush administration’s policy aims as “amateurish” and in need of “adult supervision.” Prithcard, a former U.S. envoy to North Korea, criticized U.S. intelligence analysts, citing in particular North Korea’s removal of spent fuel from the Yongbyon cooling pond. “American intelligence believed that most if not all the rods remained in storage, giving policy-makers a false sense that time was on their side as they rebuffed North Korean requests for serious dialogue and worked laboriously to devise a multilateral approach to solving the rapidly escalating crisis,” Pritchard said. That approach is not promising, he said, urging the Bush administration to adopt a more willing stance to talk to North Korea without the complicated preparation required of six-party negotiations. The administration should begin by naming a North Korea policy coordinator to solidify U.S. policy, which has been marred by interagency squabbling, Pritchard said. Back to top       Continuing Iranian Centrifuge Production Causes Increasing Concern There is growing concern among Western diplomats and nuclear experts that Iran’s continued efforts to acquire uranium enrichment centrifuges violates its recent pledge to suspend enrichment activities, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Jan. 15). Iran announced last year that it would suspend uranium enrichment activities following negotiations with France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Diplomats have said, however, that those countries have begun to question Iran’s commitment to its pledge because Tehran has continued efforts to produce and assemble centrifuges. Iranian diplomats have argued that Iran is adhering to its suspension pledge because the centrifuges are not currently enriching any uranium. According to diplomats, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana discussed the issue of continued centrifuge production when he met with the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rohani, during a visit to Tehran last week. French officials also discussed the issue with Rohani when he visited Paris last week, diplomats said. One diplomat said that the issue of what constituted enrichment activities was not adequately discussed during the negotiations between Iran and the three European countries. “Right from the beginning, everybody asked, ‘what is suspension,’ but the Europeans and Iranians never defined it,” the diplomat said. The International Atomic Energy Agency is continuing to negotiate with Iran over the exact definition of “suspension,” AP reported. One diplomat said that IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei “feels strongly” that Iran should also cease centrifuge production (Associated Press/USA Today, Jan. 21). The United States is likely to bring up the issue when the IAEA Board of Governors meets in March, which carries a possibility that Iran could be referred to the U.N. Security Council for further action, diplomats said. “If the Iranians want to go to the Security Council, they are going about it the right way,” said one diplomat. “We are in the middle of a negotiation. Like all negotiations with Iran, it’s hard work. You have to do a lot to get a little,” the diplomat said (Anton La Guardia, London Telegraph, Jan. 21). Back to top       India Remains Committed to Pakistani Dialogue, Senior Official Says By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — India will follow through with a planned peace dialogue with its South Asian rival Pakistan, a senior Indian official said here yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 13). During a regional economic summit held in Islamabad earlier this month, India and Pakistan agreed to begin a joint dialogue next month to resolve outstanding bilateral issues — an effort that both sides expressed hope would resolve the lingering dispute over the Kashmir region, which has often threatened to become a flashpoint between the two nuclear-armed countries (see GSN, Jan. 6). During remarks yesterday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha said India “remains committed” to beginning the dialogue next month, despite planned parliamentary elections this year. The elections “should not affect this process of dialogue since there is … the broadest political consensus in favor within India,” Sinha said. Sinha refused, however, to provide additional details about the planned dialogue, such as its possible agenda, where it will be held, or a specific date, saying that India and Pakistan “have both agreed to keep the media out of it.” “I said that expectations run ahead of reality. Why do expectations start running ahead of reality? Because somebody speculates.  And we are not going to speculate,” he said. While in Washington yesterday, Sinha met separately with U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell. During those meetings, the two sides discussed a number of issues, including the planned dialogue and the recent joint U.S.-Indian announcement of expanded cooperation in several areas, such as civilian nuclear activities and high-tech trade (see GSN, Jan. 13). During brief remarks at the State Department following his meeting with Sinha, Powell praised the planned dialogue, noting past tensions in South Asia when Sinha previously visited the United States. “When the minister and I were here together some 18 months ago, I guess it was, we were worried about a conflict breaking out in the region, and how that conflict might escalate. And here today, we are able to talk about the success that the Indians and the Pakistanis achieved recently in Islamabad,” Powell said. “We are very pleased at these developments, as you might imagine,” he added. According to Sinha, a number of factors helped to prepare the way for the planned dialogue, including recent confidence-building measures such as the reopening last week of a rail link between India and Pakistan; and a continuing cease-fire that was reached in November — a cease-fire Sinha described as the “most comprehensive” yet (see GSN, Nov. 25, 2003). In addition, Sinha also praised a pledge made by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf during the meeting earlier this month in Islamabad to prevent terrorists from operating in all territory under Pakistani control. “There is a change in our attitude; there is a change in Pakistan’s attitude. If we had not changed, we had not been flexible, then the outcome in Islamabad would not have been possible,” Sinha said during his remarks at the Wilson Center. While calling on the international community to “shed [its] cynicism” based on past failed efforts, Sinha also sought to play down expectations of India and Pakistan reaching a far-ranging agreement during the planned dialogue. “We are entering a complex process. We won’t reach solutions overnight. What is, however, entirely possible and within our control is to stay engaged. Recent developments have demonstrated one simple truth — our chances of resolving the most contentious issues are higher when we tackle them in a warm, friendly and supportive environment,” Sinha said. Back to top       Pakistani Nuclear Investigation Turns to Former Army Chief Pakistani authorities are investigating whether former Chief of Army Staff Gen. Aslam Beg was involved in aiding Iran’s nuclear program, the London Times reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 20). Beg was brought in for questioning after Abdul Qadeer Khan, the “father” of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, told authorities that Beg had authorized nuclear cooperation with Iran, according to the Times. Beg is believed to have attempted to persuade the civilian governments of Pakistan from 1988 to 1991 to transfer nuclear-related technologies to Iran in exchange for $12 billion, which would have been used to fund the Pakistani military, PTI reported. The offer was rejected (Zahid Hussain/London Times, Jan. 20). Beg has previously publicly advocated a strategic partnership between Iran and Pakistan, according to the New York Times. In an interview in November, though, Beg denied approving any transfers of nuclear-related technologies. “I was privy to the nuclear policy,” Beg said. “There was a policy of restraint,” he added. Meanwhile, Pakistan yesterday banned its nuclear weapons scientists from leaving the country as Islamabad continued its investigation into possible nuclear proliferation, according to the Times. Military spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan Khan said the travel ban was intended as a security precaution. “Until the time investigations are completed … the government has to ensure that the scientists are present here,” he said (Masood/Rohde, New York Times, Jan. 21). So far, Islamabad has released three nuclear scientists and officials that had been detained as part of a probe into at least 11 scientists and officials with the A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories, Pakistan’s main nuclear weapons facility, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid said today. Rashid also said that Pakistan began its probe into possible proliferation activities by nuclear weapons scientists and officials after receiving a letter from the International Atomic Energy Agency in November (Agence France-Presse/Arab Times, Jan. 21). Family members of some of the remaining detainees yesterday publicly called for their release, according to the Associated Press. “First, they treated them as heroes of the nation,” said Sobia Nazeer Ahmad, daughter of KRL director Nazeer Ahmad. “Then they treated them like criminals,” she said (Patrick McDowell, Associated Press/Khaleej Times, Jan. 21). Back to top

Annan Urges U.N. Disarmament Conference to End Stalemate U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday warned the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament that it risks continuing its long-standing impasse unless enough political will is mustered to revitalize it (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2003). In his message to the conference’s opening session this year, Annan said the conference had made progress in achieving disarmament goals, such as witnessing the fourth anniversary of the Mine Ban Convention, but “recent events have inspired demands for new efforts to strengthen the effectiveness of arms control and disarmament agreements and to revitalize the multilateral disarmament machinery, including the Conference on Disarmament, ... the world’s sole multilateral disarmament negotiation body.” The incoming president of the conference, Amina Mohamed of Kenya, said the conference had seen “enormous developments” since the conference’s last session in September, citing Libya’s decision to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention. She also welcomed moves by North Korea and Iran to resolve their nuclear issues. She said there was a clear need, however, to discuss the direction of the conference and to build on what had so painstakingly been done. She said that although the conference was brimming with experience, consultations, ideas and proposals, it appeared unable to take advantage of what was available to it (U.N. release, Jan. 20).   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.