By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire
VIENNA — The U.N. nuclear watchdog’s governing board adjourned this evening amid general expectations it would quickly pass an Iranian resolution, a document that prompted Iran today to warn it could respond by ending its voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment (see GSN, June 15).
“This is not a threat. Enrichment activity is the legitimate right of all members” of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iranian spokesman Hossein Mousavian told reporters here. U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Brill responded to such statements by accusing Iran of “intimidation” tactics. Despite the strong words from Iranian officials here and in Tehran, diplomats close to the talks continued to portray the Board of Governors’ meeting as the most harmonious in recent memory and to predict the resolution would pass later this week with only minor alterations. The United States and other countries fear that Iran’s enrichment effort — along with other nuclear activities about which the agency says Iran has provided changing and contradictory information — could be part of a program to develop a nuclear weapon. Under the current draft resolution, the board would say it “deplores” Iran’s level of cooperation with the agency’s inspectors, who have been seeking to clear up concerns about Iran’s programs since last year. In a paragraph that has spurred controversy, the board would call on Iran to reconsider its acknowledged decisions to produce uranium hexafluoride, which critics fear could be used as feed material for uranium enrichment, and to build a heavy-water nuclear reactor that experts say would be more useful for a plutonium-based nuclear-weapon program than for producing power. As the 35 board members adjourned this evening, diplomats said the British-French-German resolution could be formally submitted tonight, a move that does not require the board to be in session. The panel today completed all remaining items on its agenda except the Iranian case. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi today in Tehran expressed concern that the resolution’s three sponsors could be implicitly seeking to alter the terms of an agreement they obtained last year from Iran to suspend uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Iran says the agreement allows it to carry out the activities mentioned in the resolution’s troublesome paragraph. “We have to wait to see the results of the Board of Governors’ meeting in order to adopt an appropriate decision. … If the Europeans do not act in accordance with their commitments, then there is no reason for Iran to abide by its commitment unilaterally,” Kharazi said. Khatami said Iran has complied with the terms of the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, which allows for enhanced inspections by the agency and which Iran has signed but not ratified, “as an example of good understanding, and suspended the process of uranium enrichment voluntarily.” “Despite the fact that the EU [European Union] trio had undertaken to facilitate transfer of nuclear technology to Iran and cooperate closely at regional and bilateral levels, they have not kept with their pledges on various pretexts,” the president said. Mousavian said Iranian legislators’ decision on whether to ratify the Additional Protocol could depend in part on this week’s board resolution. “If they feel this is a one-way street, they may resist,” he said. Brill told reporters here the Iranian officials are seeking to intimidate the board. “What we’ve seen is a full-court press of intimidation by the government of Iran and its delegation here. … People who are trying to produce electricity for light bulbs don’t engage in this kind of behavior,” Brill said, referring to Iranian claims that its nuclear programs are for energy production. Mousavian said that if the resolution were passed in its current form, “This would be counterproductive for continuation of cooperation between Tehran and Europe. … This would create disturbances on the Iranian side if this draft is going to be finalized.” “Of course, always there are other options” for Iran besides its current stance, he said, but Iran is most likely to choose “the option of cooperation.” Mousavian rejected an IAEA claim that Iran has acknowledged seeking many thousands of magnets for use in uranium-enrichment centrifuges. According to an IAEA report issued ahead of the current board meeting, Iran told the agency that it explored, via a private company’s dealings with a “European intermediary,” the procurement of 4,000 of the magnets and possibly even “higher numbers.” “This is a big lie,” Mousavian said today. He said Iran sought “not more than 150” magnets, adding, “This is now clear for the agency.” The Iranian spokesman attributed concern about Iran’s programs to the United States having “put a lot of pressure in order to politicize the Iranian issue.” “Now, for a majority of board members, it is clear that there is no atom bomb or no diversion of military activities,” he said. Most sources here continued to call the talks unusually smooth despite today’s escalation of rhetoric, saying the next real clash over Iran would come at a future board meeting. “It’s considerably less difficult than I’ve seen it,” said a Western diplomat last evening. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, asked today whether negotiations over Iran were progressing more easily than at past board meetings, replied, “Much.” One participant in the meeting was overheard this morning to say, “This is the most unexciting board I’ve ever seen. The big battles only will come later this year.”
By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton came under fire from U.S. lawmakers yesterday for continued delays in implementing a U.S.-Russian effort to eliminate almost 70 tons of weapon-grade plutonium, enough to make thousands of nuclear weapons (see GSN, May 10). In the late 1990s, the United States and Russia each agreed to eliminate 34 tons of plutonium, but the effort has been effectively stalled by a dispute over liability protection in the event of an accident or act of sabotage at a Russian facility. In previous threat-reduction agreements, which seek to help Russia eliminate or secure former Soviet WMD stockpiles and materials, Moscow agreed to accept liability in the event of an act of sabotage or accident in exchange for foreign aid. Regarding the plutonium disposition effort, however, Russia has taken the position that if a U.S. contractor is involved in an incident, then either it or the United States should be held responsible. According to reports, the Bush administration is divided as to how to resolve the debate, with the Defense and State departments seeking more rigorous liability protections, while the Energy Department is satisfied with a less stringent approach. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday, lawmakers criticized the lack of progress in resolving the dispute. “Why a program of this much global importance should be blocked by something as basic as liability remains beyond me. I’ve been amazed that the leadership of the United States and Russia cannot resolve this issue. Failure to resolve this issue is simply not consistent with the urgency that the administration has attached to nuclear proliferation,” Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) said in testifying before the committee. Bolton is the State Department’s top nonproliferation official, and Domenici questioned his effectiveness in resolving the dispute. “I submit that Mr. John Bolton, who has been assigned to negotiate this, has a very heavy responsibility. And I hate to say that I am not sure to this point that he’s up to it,” Domenici said. “If he doesn’t think it’s important enough to solve, this issue of liability, then I submit that you ought to get somebody that can,” Domenici added. Bolton told the committee that one of the issues delaying the resolution of the liability dispute is Russia’s lack of progress in ratifying an “umbrella” agreement used to establish the U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction program. That agreement, which was agreed to by the Russian State Duma in the early 1990s, contained what Bolton said was a “blanket exemption” from liability for all activities funded through the CTR program. The agreement expired in 1999, at which point it was signed again by both the United States and Russia, but it has yet to be ratified by the Russian State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament. According to Bolton, the United States is concerned that accepting a lesser liability standard for plutonium disposition before the umbrella CTR agreement is approved may affect the liability standard used in CTR projects. While the Russian government agreed to submit the CTR umbrella agreement for ratification after the recent elections, it has yet to do so, Bolton said. If the agreement were submitted it would likely be approved, he added. “We feel that the ratification of the CTR umbrella agreement is critical, because whatever liability provisions are worked out on other programs — and it’s not inevitable that the CTR liability provisions would apply — but it is critical that we not undercut or weaken the liability provisions we have under CTR,” Bolton said. The Bush administration is “committed” to resolving the dispute, Bolton told the committee, adding that progress is being made on the design and regulatory approval of facilities to convert the plutonium into mixed-oxide fuel. Senator Joseph Biden (Del.), the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that more needed to be done at the presidential level to resolve the dispute. The Bush administration should use the possibility of progress in other issues important to Russia, Biden said, as “leverage” in moving forward on the liability dispute. “The president has got to pick up the phone, get on the line, and find out whether [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is going to keep his commitments, and whether you guys, what I would suggest you be doing, is figuring out whatever leverage points we have with Putin. There’s a lot of things he wants and needs right now,” Biden told Bolton during the hearing.
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate yesterday rejected an attempt by Democrats to block funding requested by the Bush administration for research and development of new nuclear weapons capabilities. An amendment to the fiscal 2005 defense authorization bill, proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), would have prohibited $37 million requested by the administration for researching the high-yield Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and research and development on other nuclear weapons capabilities, possibly including low-yield nuclear weapons, in a program called the Advanced Concepts Initiative. The House last month authorized the requested funding in its version of the bill (see GSN, May 21). Full funding for the program, however, still is uncertain. A Republican-controlled House Appropriations subcommittee last week completely eliminated funding for those nuclear weapons programs, along with money to build a new nuclear pit manufacturing facility (see GSN, June 10). The National Nuclear Security Administration “needs to take a ‘time-out’ on new initiatives until it completes a review of its weapons complex in relation to security needs, budget constraints, and this new stockpile plan,” wrote Chairman Dave Hobson (R-Ohio) shortly after the subcommittee decision. David Culp, a lobbyist of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers), said he anticipates the House will pursue at least some reduction through the appropriations process. “The question now is whether there it is a small reduction or big reduction,” he said. ‘New Nuclear Arms Race’The Kennedy legislation, co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), and Russell Feingold (Wis.), was defeated in a 42-55 vote that went mostly along party lines. Five Democrats — Evan Bayh (Ind.), Ernest Hollings (S.C.), Zel Miller (Ga.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) — voted against the measure. Senators James Jeffords (I-Vt.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (D-Mass.) did not vote. In a debate before the vote, Democrats charged the programs would harm U.S. efforts to persuade other countries to forgo nuclear weapons development. “America should not launch a new nuclear arms race,” Kennedy said. “Even as we try to persuade North Korea to pull back from the brink, and even as we try to persuade Iran to end its nuclear weapons program, even as we urge the nations of the former Soviet Union to secure their nuclear material and arsenals from terrorists, the Bush administration now wants to escalate the nuclear threat by developing two new kinds of weapons for the United States,” he said. “It is a shameful double standard,” he said. ‘Peace Through Strength’Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) challenged the idea that pursuing the programs could threaten U.S. national security. “I believe that we do have peace through strength,” he said. Echoing administration arguments, Allard said the proposed funding is only “to study options for modernizing our nuclear deterrent,” but is important for ensuring the United States maintains a credible deterrent and necessary for moving toward a smaller stockpile. “Over the last several years, the Department of Defense closely examined our nuclear weapons posture … [and found that] increasingly, irrational rogue nations and nonstate actors had emerged as a greater threat to U.S. security than our historical adversaries,” he said. Given the suspected proliferation of deeply buried and hardened bunkers by some potential adversaries for housing command-and-control facilities, ballistic missiles and the development of weapons of mass destruction, “Our ability to deter such undesired activities is greatly eroded,” Allard said. Kennedy argued that new nuclear weapons of high- or low-yield would not be usable against such bunkers and could turn world opinion against the United States. The use of a nuclear bunker-buster in Baghdad during the Iraq war, he said, “Would have killed hundreds of thousands of people, including aid workers and journalists. We would have turned the entire area into a radioactive wasteland, and all to capture the person we captured with conventional means a few months later.” IntentionsThe Bush administration has said that the programs are intended only to explore concepts, and that no requirements or plans have been developed for new nuclear weapons. The administration earlier this year, though, disclosed long-term cost projections for RNEP research and development, totaling as much as $485 million over the next five years (see GSN, March 10). “This is a clear indication of what the administration is intending,” Kennedy said. Another indication was given in the administration’s 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, a major strategic weapons planning document leaked early that year. It recommended developing a “new level of capability” for striking hardened and deeply buried facilities “by 2007, with new technologies deployed by 2012.” “The fight will continue for many more months and years,” John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World arms control organization, said in a statement. “President Kerry will certainly kill the program if he is elected. President Bush will have significant difficulty moving from research into production if he is re-elected,” he said.
By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire
VIENNA — Reversing course after paying only half its expected contribution last year to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Technical Cooperation Fund, Japan made a late payment of $7 million in recent months to put the fund’s fiscal 2003 finances back on track, according to a document obtained today by Global Security Newswire (see GSN, March 10). The agency’s members have agreed on an interim solution in a dispute between rich and poor countries that some observers said was at the root of Japan’s initial nonpayment, a Western diplomat here said today in an interview. Through the Technical Cooperation Fund, the agency provides countries with assistance in developing peaceful nuclear technology — most often, for medical and nuclear-safety programs — in exchange for the countries’ renunciation of nuclear weapons. The fund typically backs about 700 projects at any time and spent $105 million in fiscal 2003. As the No. 2 contributor to the fund behind the United States, Japan dealt the agency a serious blow by refusing to pay its expected $14 million last year. At a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors in March, diplomats expressed concern that the fund’s troubled finances could jeopardize the larger nuclear bargain. With Japan’s late payment and other recent payments by countries such as Spain and Mexico, however, the fund has now received about $65 million, or 86.8 percent of its roughly $75 million target, in fiscal 2003 donations. The 86.8 percent rate of attainment was just shy of the fund’s projection of 90 percent. Most of the remaining $40 million in spending for the fiscal year came through pre-existing funds. A Western diplomat here said the late heroics have not erased concerns about the fund’s future financial health, however. “Because of the experience of last year, we’re worried,” the diplomat said. Although Japan always claimed budget shortfalls were the reason for its decreased payment, the cut came amid a dispute at the agency in which Tokyo was a primary player. Pitting wealthy countries such as Japan against poor countries such as Brazil was the question of whether and how much recipient countries should contribute to cover the costs of their Technical Cooperation Fund projects. In the past, recipient countries were required to pay 8 percent of the value of projects they undertook with Technical Cooperation assistance. The Board of Governors last year suspended the payments, known as “assessed program costs,” which led to acrimony between developed and developing countries. In recent months, an IAEA working group has found what the diplomat called an “interim solution” to the problem: For the next two years, the assessed program cost will be replaced by a “national participation cost.” Recipient countries are to pay 5 percent of the value of projects, including an advance payment of half that amount. The approach could later be made permanent. “The projects do not start until the government of the recipient country has paid at least 2.5 percent of the expected cost,” the diplomat said. “If they won’t pay part of it” subsequently, the diplomat added, “God knows what we’re going to do.” Current payments and pledges would give the fund a 54-percent rate of attainment for fiscal 2004, compared with a target set once again at 90 percent. A rate of 54 percent at this stage of the year would not normally be cause for concern, the diplomat said, but “the experience of 2003 has made us more cautious in our projection of resources.” In the coming months, in preparation for the yearly IAEA General Conference in September, member countries will also hash out Technical Cooperation Fund targets for the next two-year budgeting period. “What’s good,” the diplomat said, “is that they’ve reached a consensus” on an approach to assessed costs. “We are confident that the resource picture for this year will improve,” the diplomat added.
North Korea’s Asian neighbors have indicated they do not expect breakthroughs during next week’s round of nuclear talks set to begin next Wednesday, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, June 15). “The Korean Peninsula’s nuclear problem is very complicated,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue. “It is very difficult for any side to expect to resolve all the issues in one round or two rounds of talks,” she added. Analysts say North Korea’s bilateral negotiations with South Korea and Japan, as well as continuing trade with China, may have emboldened Pyongyang to resist granting concessions next week, according to the Post. Other analysts have noted that Kim Jong Il’s regime may be biding its time until after the U.S. presidential elections. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), the presumptive Democratic nominee, has said he favors direct engagement with North Korea. Japan continues to “closely” share the U.S. position that North Korea must submit to a “complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement” of all its nuclear programs, said Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiro Okuyama. “We have no indication to demonstrate that the U.S. has become more flexible,” Okuyama said (Anthony Faiola, Washington Post, June 16). The United States said it would not pull back from its demand for the full end of all North Korea’s nuclear programs at the six-party talks, the Financial Times reported today. One U.S. official dismissed speculation that Washington was softening its position ahead of the talks, but another anonymous U.S. official acknowledged there was a policy debate within the Bush administration. “There are some battles still going on,” he said. However, he added that a decision had been made to stick to the dismantlement ultimatum (Dinmore/Ward, Financial Times, June 16). Meanwhile, analysts said yesterday that North Korea could open its nuclear programs to IAEA inspections if the United States agrees to allow compensation, Agence France-Presse reported. “During the talks there will be a possibility of some movement, but there is not a big chance that there will be a breakthrough,” said Peking University North Korea expert Cui Yingjiu. “If the United States can agree or can accept that some fuel oil or other aid can be given by other parties, in exchange for North Korea announcing a freeze on its nuclear weapons program and its acceptance of IAEA inspections, then this would be a step forward,” Cui added. A U.S official in Washington said yesterday that the United States would not oppose aid in exchange for a freeze of North Korea’s nuclear programs, according to Agence France-Presse. “We’re not against a freeze and we’re not against people saying if they freeze on the way to dismantlement they might even do something for the North Koreans,” the official said. “But it has to be clear that any freeze is a step toward elimination of nuclear programs,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, June 16).
The International Atomic Energy Agency announced Monday that it would halve the number of nuclear inspections it conducts in Japan, the Asahi Shimbun reported (see GSN, June 2). Inspections in Japan, which have averaged five per year, account for 10 percent of the agency’s inspections budget. The agency believes the country’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful, Asahi reported. Resources saved from the reduction could be reallocated for inspections in Iran and other countries suspected of developing nuclear weapons, according to Asahi. Australia, Norway and Indonesia are the only other countries on a reduced inspections schedule. However, these three possess only research reactors, while Japan maintains reactors for power generation, according to Asahi (Yukio Aoki, Asahi Shimbun, June 16).
A number of strategic military efforts initiated by the Bush administration, such as research into new nuclear weapons and missile defense, could be triggering a new arms race with Russia, the Christian Science Monitor reported today (see GSN, May 26). “They think that we’re kind of crazy to be pursuing (missile defense),” said Marshall Goldman of the Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard University. “It is just another example in their minds of how the U.S. is still fighting the Cold War,” he said. In one apparent response to U.S. military moves, Russia has worked to extend the service life of its SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs, and purchased from Ukraine an additional 30 SS-19s, according to the Monitor. Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin described the SS-19s as having a “combat potential,” including the ability to penetrate missile defense systems, that is “without peer.” Russia is also working to develop a new type of maneuverable warhead that could defeat missile defense, according to the Monitor. Some analysts have said that the research into the new warhead capable of being deployed on the Topol-M ICBM might not have occurred had it not been for U.S. missile defense efforts. “It’s hard to tell if (the breakthrough) would have been possible without (concern for U.S.) missile defense,” said Pavel Podvig at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. “Missile defense has no real military value ... but at the same time, it has very serious political value. Missile defense is not such a serious issue that it drives us back into the Cold War, but it makes dismantling that system much more difficult,” Podvig said (Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, June 16).
| 
Back to top
