The Si-o-Se Pol bridge in the Iranian city of Isfahan, where officials are resuming some uranium processing work (AFP photo/Behrouz Mehri). Germany, France, U.K. Criticize Iran Nuclear Moves; IAEA Says Tehran “Managed” Inspectors Three European nations yesterday offered sharp criticism of Iran’s plan to process uranium, while an internal report by the International Atomic Energy Agency contradicted Iran’s claims that it granted unrestricted access to inspectors, the Los Angeles Times reported (see GSN, March 31)...Full Story

U.S. Senate Approves IAEA Additional Protocol By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate unanimously approved a resolution yesterday ratifying the Additional Protocol to the U.S. nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (see GSN, March 4)...Full Story

NGOs Criticize Draft U.N. Nonproliferation Resolution for Ignoring Disarmament By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — Nongovernmental experts on arms control and international law yesterday criticized a draft resolution before the Security Council designed to deny terrorists and other “nonstate actors” access to weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, March 25)...Full Story

	Thursday, April 1, 2004

NGOs Criticize Draft U.N. Nonproliferation Resolution for Ignoring Disarmament By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — Nongovernmental experts on arms control and international law yesterday criticized a draft resolution before the Security Council designed to deny terrorists and other “nonstate actors” access to weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, March 25). John Burroughs of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy said that while “there is clearly an urgent need to prevent nuclear proliferation involving nonstate actors,” this resolution is the wrong vehicle. The NGOs’ made two major criticisms: the draft ignores the role of disarmament in promoting nonproliferation and it would turn the Security Council into a kind of global legislature. The text “refers only to the prevention of proliferation, and is silent, rhetorically or substantively, on the imperative of disarmament,” said Burroughs. “It’s absolutely hypocritical because there’s nothing in it about the disarmament obligations of the five nuclear states under the NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty]” (see GSN, March 30). Those five states — the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and China — are also the five permanent members of the council. Susi Snyder, director of the U.N. office of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, said, “It is safe to say that the world would be much more receptive to collective action on preventing proliferation involving nonstate actors if there was progress instead of backsliding on the arms control/disarmament front.” The draft, if approved, would require states to “adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws” to deny nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, their components and “means of delivery” (such as missiles and drones) to any “nonstate actors.” The text invokes Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, meaning the requirements of the resolution would be legally binding. The United States and United Kingdom had been negotiating with the other permanent members of the council since December. The text distributed to the 10 elected members last week was approved by all five permanent members. In releasing the draft, British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said the draft “fills a gap in the nonproliferation regimes” because governments are subject to international controls, but “what there aren’t are obligations targeted at the terrorists.” He added, “What we have to do is stop the ultimate nightmare: the bringing together of weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist.” Burroughs said the draft “imposes no obligations on the P5” — the permanent five council members — because those five also have veto power over any council action, but “it certainly affects countries outside the NPT because it’s going to place obligations, for example, on Pakistan to ensure that nuclear materials do not find their way via nonstate actor networks to other countries.” In February it was revealed that the father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The NGOs also called for a public meeting of the council before any action is taken. “A resolution of this magnitude, which does not involve all nations during the deliberations, will only inspire distrust and resentment,” Snyder said. Snyder said she and Burroughs had met so far with four of the elected members of the council. “In general, they have been supportive of the idea of an open debate, especially in noting that because this resolution affects so many that by passing it without an open debate it would not allow for their voices to be heard,” she added. Snyder said the delegates they talked to were “concerned with the lack of transparency over the initial negotiations on this resolution and have been concerned with the definitions — or lack of definitions — and some of the terms.” Burroughs said that at first, he “was more sympathetic to the idea of a Security Council mandatory resolutions, but as I studied the issue, I began to see what the consequences would be for international law if suddenly the Security Council becomes an ongoing global legislature.” The precedent for the council imposing mandatory obligations on countries without any treaty negotiations is Resolution 1373, the counterterrorism resolution adopted in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sep. 11, 2001. The resolution requires states to enact national legislation that would make it harder for terrorists to operate or hide resources in all countries (see GSN, March 29). Like Resolution 1373, Burroughs said this draft “would represent a far-reaching assumption of authority by the Security Council to enact global legislation requiring each state to modify its national legal system and policies.” He added, “There is nothing in the U.N. Charter that confers such authority on the Security Council. Rather the Charter contemplates multilateral agreements entered into by states as the primary mode of global lawmaking.” The authors of the draft were aware of this concern when they publicized the draft last week. Jones Parry said the draft “does not represent the Security Council trying to impose its will to replace the role of properly negotiated multilateral regimes, it is a responsible reaction by the Security Council to a real threat.” The NGOs proposed instead that any resolution on the subject not be mandatory requirements but rather “guidelines and requests” for states to address the problem. In addition, implementation should be in the hands of the secretary general, not the president of the council. This way it “would remove the basis for any claim of ‘enforcement,’“ said Burroughs, and “would be an excellent opportunity to involve the concerned international bodies in this matter” if the work was done by the secretary general rather than the council. German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, who assumes the rotating presidency of the council today, said the sponsors have not yet asked for consultations over the draft. If asked, “we would certainly do that,” he said. “We are completely open.” Pleuger said Germany supports the draft “because there is a gap in international law pertaining to nonstate actors.  We cannot wait for normal procedure of international law of negotiating a convention or a treaty. We have to act, the urgency is there, so the resolution in principle is a good move.” On the other hand, he said, “There is certainly room for improvement.” Germany has proposals “that relate the resolution to disarmament and disarmament obligations that are already existing under international law because there is a connection, of course. Weapons that are disarmed cannot be proliferated, it’s as easy as that.” Back to top       United States Lifts Sanctions Against Five Russian Entities By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States has terminated nonproliferation-related sanctions imposed against four Russian entities and one individual during the late 1990s, according to two notices published today in the Federal Register (see GSN, Sept. 16, 2003). In 1998, the United States imposed sanctions against Europalace 2000, the State Scientific Research Institute of Graphite (Grafit) and the MOSO Co. for aiding Iran’s ballistic missile program, a U.S. State Department official told Global Security Newswire today. The United States the following year sanctioned the Scientific Research and Design Institute of Power Technology, also known as NIKIET, for aiding Iran’s nuclear efforts, according to the official. The sanctions imposed against the four Russian academic institutions and companies were for an indefinite duration and included a ban on U.S. government assistance and procurement and a ban on imports to the United States, the State Department official said. The sanctions were lifted today because there was no evidence that the four entities were still aiding Iran, because such a move was found to be in the U.S. national interest, or both, the official said. He added that the U.S. Commerce Department is working to lift an additional sanction that required U.S. companies to obtain governmental approval before exporting items to the entities. The State Department also announced today that sanctions have been formally lifted against Anatoliy Kuntsevich, who was sanctioned in 1995 for engaging in chemical weapons proliferation activities. The State Department official said that Kuntsevich was aiding the chemical weapons program of a state sponsor of terrorism, but refused to identify the country. The State Department lists seven countries on its official terrorism sponsor list — Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria and Sudan. In the mid-1990s, Kuntsevich, a retired Russian lieutenant general of chemical troops, was charged with illegally shipping 800 kilograms of precursor chemicals to Syria and of attempting to smuggle an additional 5.5 tons of chemicals, according to reports. Russian authorities, though, later dropped those charges. The sanctions against Kuntsevich have been officially terminated because he is dead, the State Department official said.    A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington told GSN today that Moscow “appreciates” the U.S. decision to remove sanctions against several entities. Russia now hopes that the United States will “objectively” examine the federal entities that are still under sanctions and choose to terminate the measures, embassy spokesman Yevgeniy Khorishko said. Back to top       U.S. Plans Simulated Chemical, Biological Weapons Tests for Nevada Test Site The United States plans to release certain chemical and biological agents at the Nevada Test Site, the Pahrump Valley Times reported last month (see GSN, Oct. 8, 2003). The National Nuclear Security Administration began notifying local officials in Nevada in October about the planned testing, according to Mike Skougard, environmental team leader for the agency’s Nevada site office. The U.S. Department of Energy released a letter on Oct. 1 explaining that the tests would entail release of nonpathogenic, noninfectious biological materials — specifically, bacillus globigii, bacillus thuringiensis, bacillus subtilis, erwinia herbiola, and a male-specific bacteriophage, a noninfectious, or dead Influenza A virus. All were described in the letter as microbial agents that can simulate pathogens, according to the Pahrump Valley Times. The chemical releases will be used “to try and learn how to identify and track potential releases of these chemicals,” according to Skougard. He said “most of what we’re looking at are not actual chemical weapons” and that the United States has treaty obligations preventing the release of many of the most toxic chemical agents. He added that the “concentrations of chemicals we would be releasing are quite low” and that “at no time will any member of the general public be exposed.” Skougard said the tests could result in some damage to wildlife, but added that the site has a long track record of safety in regard to plants and animals. “In the 20 years plus we’ve been doing releases there we’ve not been able to identify any adverse effects,” he said. “It’s really had no effects on plants or animals downhill from the release site,” he added (Mark Waite, Pahrump Valley Times, March 19). Back to top       Canada Unprepared for Terrorism, Lawmakers Say Canada is not ready to respond to a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction, according to a study released yesterday by a Canadian Senate committee (see GSN, March 24). The report by the Standing Committee on National Security and Defense concludes that a biological attack on the country would be devastating. While vaccines exist for such pathogens as anthrax, plague and smallpox, Canada only has an emergency plan for managing a smallpox outbreak, the report states (see GSN, Nov. 18, 2003). “Canada has a history of muddling though” man-made or natural disasters, the senators said.  “In a world that has become much more unpredictable,” they added, “muddling through is not enough” (John Ward, Canadian Press/Yahoo!News, March 31). Back to top

Germany, France, U.K. Criticize Iran Nuclear Moves; IAEA Says Tehran “Managed” Inspectors Three European nations yesterday offered sharp criticism of Iran’s plan to process uranium, while an internal report by the International Atomic Energy Agency contradicted Iran’s claims that it granted unrestricted access to inspectors, the Los Angeles Times reported (see GSN, March 31). The report said “the agency’s [January] visit was ‘managed’ by the Iranians in the sense that the inspectors were not permitted to take pictures with IAEA cameras or use their own electronic equipment.” Iran asserted earlier this month that the inspectors had unrestricted access to nuclear sites during the visit (Douglas Frantz, Los Angeles Times, April 1). Meanwhile, Germany, France and the United Kingdom yesterday said in a strongly worded joint statement that Iran’s plan to process uranium at a plant in Isfahan “sends the wrong signal regarding Iran’s readiness to implement a suspension of its activities relating to uranium enrichment.”  The statement also says the move would “make it more difficult for Iran to restore international confidence in its activities.” The three countries called on Iran to “explain its announcement and its intentions.” The United States has long maintained that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program, while Germany, France and the United Kingdom broke with Washington in September to offer Iran a nuclear technology sharing deal in exchange for a complete abandonment of its uranium enrichment program, according to Reuters (David Crossland, Reuters, March 31). Back to top       U.S. Senate Approves IAEA Additional Protocol By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate unanimously approved a resolution yesterday ratifying the Additional Protocol to the U.S. nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (see GSN, March 4). The Additional Protocol, which the United States signed in 1998, would give the agency the authority to conduct more activity at U.S. civilian nuclear facilities. President George W. Bush earlier this year called on the Senate to approve the measure as quickly as possible; his signature is needed to ratify the protocol. Supporters of the Additional Protocol said that the major benefit of U.S. ratification would be in setting an example for other countries to follow. “The Additional Protocol, when universally ratified and implemented by all member states of the IAEA, will not solve all of our proliferation problems, but Senate ratification will further ensure that U.S. efforts to persuade all member states to adopt the Additional Protocol will be supported by concrete U.S. action,” Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said yesterday on the Senate floor, as cited in the Congressional Record. Senator Joseph Biden (Del.), the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, yesterday noted past examples in which other countries were willing to support international nonproliferation agreements after the United States signed on. “Our willingness to accept IAEA safeguards helped to secure the world’s agreement to the NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty]. Similarly, our stated willingness to accept the Additional Protocol was crucial to gaining the world’s agreement, in 1995, to the indefinite extension of the NPT. And our ratification of the Additional Protocol will strengthen our ability to convince more non-nuclear weapons states to sign their own additional protocols,” Biden said, as cited in the Congressional Record. Lugar said the Additional Protocol would not affect the U.S. nuclear weapons program because the United States has the right to exclude the application of IAEA safeguards. He also said that the Bush administration assured his committee that the likelihood of the IAEA conducting an inspection within the United States was “very low.” The resolution ratification contains several provisions to ensure that the Additional Protocol does not infringe on U.S. national security, according to Biden. For example, the president must certify to Congress that all necessary regulations are in place and site vulnerability assessments are completed within 180 days of the measure’s entry into force. The ratification resolution also addresses issues such as protection of classified information, the U.S. intent to use its special rights as a declared nuclear weapons state and the addition or deletion of declared sites to the agency, Biden said. “In short, the committee has covered all the bases to ensure that adoption of the Additional Protocol will support our nuclear nonproliferation policy without endangering sensitive national security information,” he said. “Breakout” Programs Biden also warned yesterday, though, that the Additional Protocol may not be sufficient to stop countries seeking to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of civilian programs. In such a “breakout” scenario, according to Biden, a country could develop the necessary infrastructure and materials all under IAEA safeguards, and then quickly withdraw from the NPT and begin weapons production. Several proposals have been made in recent months to address such a scenario (see GSN, Feb. 12). IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei called for multilateral facilities to be responsible for the enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel. For his part, Bush proposed that members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technologies to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants. The group is a 40-member organization that establishes export control regulations for nuclear trade.  Biden said the United States and other countries should reach a “consensus” on the issue before next year’s scheduled NPT Review Conference. “We have a window of opportunity, and we should use it,” he said. Back to top       North Korea Could Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorist Groups, U.S. Military Officials Warn By Marina Malenic Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Two U.S. military commanders said yesterday that North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons, and the possibility of those weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists, were among their greatest military concerns (see GSN, March 31). While North Korea’s conventional military capabilities have remained constant for “the past 12 or 24 months,” the continued development of Pyongyang’s “asymmetrical threat” is of greater concern, Navy Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, and Army Gen. Leon LaPorte, commander of U.S. forces in Korea, told the House Armed Services Committee. “As we assess the military capability of North Korea … the thing that concerns us the most is the development of their asymmetrical threats, their special operating forces, their weapons of mass destruction,” LaPorte said. “I think the conventional threat will remain constant. It’s the asymmetrical threat, with weapons of mass destruction, that is the unknown,” he added. Fargo added that North Korea’s potential sale of nuclear materials to terrorists is of grave concern. “I think our largest concern would be if nuclear material was sold to al-Qaeda, clearly,” he said. “They have the will and the skill, obviously, to carry out a devastating terrorist attack. … That is a kind of nightmare scenario, and that’s why we feel so strongly about a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula,” he added. LaPorte added that the threat of North Korea taking part in such weapons transfers is credible given Pyongyang’s record of arms dealing. “They’re a known proliferators of missiles, missiles technology, narcotics and other illegal activities,” LaPorte said. “What’s to prevent North Korea from deciding to sell to other nations or terrorist organizations nuclear grade — weapons grade material? Given the history of North Korea relative to selling missiles and missile technology it’s a concern we must address,” he added. Back to top       U.S. Radiation Sensors Often Detect Harmless Materials, Sources Say U.S. customs and law enforcement officials often have to deal with harmless materials setting off false alarms in their efforts to detect shipments of nuclear or radiological weapons into the United States, the Scripps Howard News Service reported today (see GSN, March 23). In most cases, radiation detectors are triggered by harmless objects that contain small amounts of radioactive materials, according to Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist David Mercer. Such objects include Brazil nuts, which contain potassium 40; kitty litter, which contains thorium and potassium 40; and propane, which contains radium 226, according to the News Service. In rare cases, the detectors do pick up something suspicious, Mercer said. “So far we’ve seen no major terrorist activity, although we have seen some smuggling,” he said, refusing to provide additional details (Sue Vorenberg, Scripps Howard News Service/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 1). Back to top

Cuba Poses Biological Threat to U.S., Bolton Says The Bush administration reaffirmed this week its assessment that Cuba could be using its biotechnology industry to research and develop biological weapons (see GSN, Nov. 19, 2003). “The administration believes that Cuba remains a terrorist and BW threat to the United States,” said U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton in prepared testimony Tuesday to the House International Relations Committee. “We are concerned that Cuba is developing a limited biological weapons effort,” he said, also charging that Cuba has aided biotechnology research — “including extensive dual-use technologies with BW applications” — in other countries listed as state sponsors of terrorism. Bolton restated language used by administration officials in 2002 to describe their concerns over Cuba: “The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited developmental offensive biological warfare research and development effort. Cuba has provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states. We are concerned that such technology could support BW programs in those states. We call on Cuba to cease all BW-applicable cooperation with rogue states and to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.” Despite his charges, definitive findings on Cuba’s biological weapons plans were difficult to make, Bolton said, because “existing intelligence reporting is problematic, and the intelligence community’s ability to determine the scope, nature and effectiveness of any Cuban BW program has been hampered by reporting from sources of questionable access, reliability and motivation.” Nevertheless, “I believe the case for the existence of a developmental Cuba[n] BW R&D effort is strong,” Bolton said (U.S. House International Relations Committee release, March 30). Cuba lashed out at Bolton for his comments, accusing him of seeking “pretexts and justifications” for a U.S. attack, Reuters reported today. “Mr. Bolton either suffers from schizophrenia, a permanent obsession with Cuba or doesn’t have an ounce of shame,” Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque said. “U.S. public opinion knows that our country has rejected the accusations that we produce violent weapons or conduct research on biological arms, that all this is false,” he said (Reuters, April 1). Back to top

U.S. Army Plans to Begin VX Neutralization at Newport With or Without a Byproduct Disposal Plan The U.S. Army said yesterday it will move ahead with its planned destruction of VX nerve agent at an Indiana chemical depot, while Delaware lawmakers passed a resolution opposing the final phase of the plan calling for further VX treatment in New Jersey and disposal of the chemical byproducts in the Delaware River, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 25). Neutralization will begin at the Newport Chemical Depot in about two months, even if the waste disposal plan falls through, said Col. Jesse Barber, a project manager for the Army Chemical Materials Agency. He said the Army could store the byproduct at the Indiana site as an alternative to the disposal plan (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, April 1). Meanwhile the Delaware state Senate passed a resolution yesterday opposing the treatment and disposal plan, according to The News Journal. Members of the Delaware and New Jersey congressional delegations on Monday requested a formal review of the Army’s plan by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has commented on the proposal but has not conducted an independent study (The News Journal/Delaware Online, April 1). Back to top

Taiwan Reportedly Planning Missile Development Taiwan reportedly plans over the next decade to produce 150 surface-to-surface missiles capable of striking targets in China, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, March 4). According to Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, Taiwan plans to develop 30 medium-range and 120 short-range missiles, AFP reported. Jane’s reported that the planned missiles will be based on Taiwan’s Tien Kung surface-to air missile.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced Tuesday approval of the sale of long-range radar systems to Taiwan, according to AFP. The $1.8 billion radar package would help Taiwan to “identify and detect ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and (other) threats,” the agency said (Agence France-Presse/Straits Times, April 1). China today criticized the planned radar sale. “We have always opposed U.S. sales of advanced weapons to Taiwan,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan. “Especially under the current complicated and sensitive situation across the Taiwan Strait, we ask the United States to be faithful to what it says and abide by its promises and not send the wrong signal to Taiwan’s independence (seekers),” Kong said (CNN.com, April 1). Back to top

SBIRS-High Satellite Launch Delayed One Year The launch of geostationary satellites for the Space-Based Infrared System High program has fallen a year behind schedule because of technical problems in other sections of the effort, U.S. Air Force Program Executive Officer for Space Lt. Gen. Brian Arnold said yesterday (see GSN, March 31). The SBIRS-High system is set to consist of five geostationary satellites and two payloads on highly elliptical orbit (HEO), according to Defense Daily. To correct technical problems discovered on one of the HEO payloads, however, workers were diverted from the geostationary satellites, accounting for the delay, Arnold said. Due to the delay, the first launch of the geostationary satellites would be moved from October 2006 to fall 2007, Defense Daily reported. Arnold and other officials have also said that the fiscal 2005 cost of the SBIRS-High program has exceeded the White House budget request of $510 million, according to Defense Daily. Two years ago, officials declared that the program had breached the Nunn-McCurdy law, which sets requirements that must be met by a program that has exceeded its cost by 25 percent to continue. Arnold said yesterday, though, that the recent cost increase is not in breach of the Nunn-McCurdy law. “We are in an overrun condition,” he said (Amy Butler, Defense Daily, April 1).       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.