U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, shown yesterday in Cairo, dismissed as a stalling tactic an Iranian proposal to have France oversee uranium enrichment activities within Iran (Nasser Nasser/Getty Images). West Rejects Iranian Proposal U.S., British and French officials yesterday rejected an Iranian proposal to allow a French consortium to oversee nuclear fuel production in Iran, the New York Times reported.  The offer was merely an effort to buy time and to divide members of the U.N. Security Council, who may soon consider whether to impose economic sanctions against Tehran, several officials said (see GSN, Oct. 3). “There is nothing substantive behind [the proposal],” said a senior French official.  “This is not the first time the Iranians have tried to divide the international community.”..Full Story

North Korean Threat a Negotiating Ploy, Experts Say North Korea’s threat to conduct a nuclear test is widely seen as a tactical ploy designed to force the United States into direct talks and to lift economic sanctions, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 3)...Full Story

Nonproliferation Regime in Crisis, Russian Official Says By Jon Fox, Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The global nonproliferation regime has been pushed to a state of crisis by the spread of uranium enrichment technology, the deputy head of Russia’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency said here yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 29)...Full Story

	Wednesday, October 4, 2006

Bolton Faces Tough Road for Senate Confirmation U.S. Senate confirmation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is in jeopardy again, the Christian Science Monitor reported today (see GSN, July 27). Bolton has been serving without formal Senate approval since 2005, when President George W. Bush gave him a recess appointment following a turbulent congressional review period (see GSN, Aug. 1, 2005).  With the Senate now in recess until after the Nov. 7 elections, the earliest Bolton could be confirmed would be in a lame-duck session. “The skies aren’t looking too favorable for Bolton,” said one U.S. official.  “If he wants to plan anything, it might be a move back to Washington.” The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was preparing to take up his confirmation early last month, but that effort was derailed when Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) indicated he could not yet support Bolton. Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) is waiting for signals from the White House before he proceeds, according to his spokesman Andy Fisher. A committee vote was “still possible,” Fisher said, but it would be “up to the administration as to how they want to push it following the election” (Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 4).  In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Chafee said he had concerns over U.S. policy in the Middle East and that he believed Bolton was key player in formulating that policy (TPM Cafe.com, Sept. 8). Chafee’s lack of support counteracted an earlier Republican gain when Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) indicated in July that he would support Bolton’s confirmation after he had played a major role in undermining it last year (see GSN, June 21, 2005; LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor). Also early last month, a bipartisan group of 64 former U.S. diplomats and officials sent a letter to Lugar opposing Bolton’s confirmation, reaffirming a letter they sent last year (see GSN, March 29, 2005). “On many occasions, Mr. Bolton's hard core, go-it-alone posture prevented an outcome at the U.N. that would have better served U.S. interests. We urge you to reject his nomination,” the letter says (DiplomatsAgainstBolton.com, Sept. 5). Back to top

West Rejects Iranian Proposal U.S., British and French officials yesterday rejected an Iranian proposal to allow a French consortium to oversee nuclear fuel production in Iran, the New York Times reported.  The offer was merely an effort to buy time and to divide members of the U.N. Security Council, who may soon consider whether to impose economic sanctions against Tehran, several officials said (see GSN, Oct. 3). “There is nothing substantive behind [the proposal],” said a senior French official.  “This is not the first time the Iranians have tried to divide the international community.” Another senior European official said the proposal “seemed to have the intention of distracting” (Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, Oct. 4). “The idea of a consortium is actually an old idea.  It has been around for a while and the Iranians have floated it before,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during a visit to Cairo.  “I fear that this may instead, therefore, be a stalling technique because we don’t want to get to the basic issue which is that Iran has to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing in order to begin negotiations” for a long-term solution to the nuclear crisis, she added. Rice said Iran needs to suspend its sensitive nuclear activities soon or the Security Council would act to back up its demand earlier this year that Iran implement such a freeze. “The international community is running out of time because soon its own credibility in terms of enforcing its own resolutions will be … a matter of question,” she said (Sylvie Lanteaume, Agence France-Presse/MiddleEastOnline, Oct. 4). The United Kingdom was preparing to push for sanctions within the next two weeks because it appears Iran is unwilling to suspend its nuclear program, a British official told reporters yesterday. The foreign ministers of the council’s permanent members have “agreed that these steps should be incremental, they should be proportionate and they should be reversible if the Iranians take the steps that are required of them” (Ewen MacAskill, London Guardian, Oct. 4). U.S. Intelligence Assessment Meanwhile in Washington, the top U.S. intelligence official restated his assessment that Iran is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and would do achieve that goal in as few as four years if Tehran continues its current program. “We do not have any fast facts that could demonstrate to you a particular date by which we are certain Iran will have a nuclear weapon, said National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.  “But yes, it is our judgment, based on all the information available to us, that Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons and, secondly, that they are on a path to achieve that within the next several years.”  “The estimate that we have made is that somewhere between 2010 and 2015 is when we judge Iran is likely to have a nuclear weapon if it continues on its current course,” he added. One former U.S. official, however, said that assessment lacked a strong basis. “If there was really hard evidence that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, I think that we would know about it for sure,” said Gary Sick, who has worked on the National Security Council for three presidents and is now at Columbia University. “I think there would be a lot of evidence from the [International Atomic Energy Agency].  There would be specific evidence of specific sites that need to be visited.  There would be photographic evidence, and the like,” he said.  “We do not have any of that.  That does not prove that they are not building a weapon or that they would not in the fullness of time decide to do that.  But I think that we are talking about intentions here.  And I, for one, find it not easy to read Iran's intentions.” Negroponte said the evidence of Iranian nuclear weapon ambitions is persuasive, according to Voice of America. “You have to have insights into intention, you have to look at past behavior,” he said.  “I mean, among the factors we consider in the case of Iran is that in the past they’ve had a secret military program until it was revealed.  We know that for 20 or 30 years Iran has been interested in acquiring nuclear capability.  You can judge from their procurement practices.  There is a whole variety of indicators that you can look at to get some sense of exactly what the intentions of a country are.” He said that U.S. intelligence abilities have improved since the Iraq war began, giving him more confidence in his assessment. “We have done quite a bit of work on ‘lessons learned’ from the situation in Iraq, different mechanisms and procedures to improve the quality of our intelligence collection and analysis and our judgments,” he said (Gary Thomas, Voice of America, Oct. 3). Back to top       North Korean Threat a Negotiating Ploy, Experts Say North Korea’s threat to conduct a nuclear test is widely seen as a tactical ploy designed to force the United States into direct talks and to lift economic sanctions, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 3). “The evidence has grown, especially with the missile launch (see GSN, July 5), that North Korea has its own escalation ladder, and they would agree to postpone a test only for the right price,” said Michael Green, a former U.S. National Security Council point man on North Korea. There is no indication of a test in the immediate future, according to U.S. intelligence officials.  Spy satellites in recent weeks have detected activity at what is thought to be Pyongyang’s main test site, but officials could not determine whether that indicated preparations for a nuclear test. Japanese spy satellites as of yesterday not picked up activity at the site that would indicate test preparations, according to the Asahi newspaper (Associated Press I, Oct. 4). Officials from the United States and other nations involved in the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program warned Pyongyang against carrying out a test, the Times reported. Such a move would be “a very provocative act by the North Koreans,” said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “Japan and the world absolutely will not tolerate a nuclear test,” said Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. China called on North Korea to “exercise necessary calm and restraint,” while urging other nations to “peacefully resolve their mutual concerns through dialogue” and “not take actions that escalate tensions.” In considering whether to test a nuclear weapon, Pyongyang has “calculated that they can take the heat from China and Japan, and they are not losing much from South Korea anyway,” Green said.  He said he does not believe Washington would pay the price needed to avert a nuclear test. “You could argue it wouldn’t be an all-bad thing,” said one administration official, “because it would finally unify the Chinese, and the Russians and the South Koreans,” who have expressed reservations about pressuring Pyongyang (David Sanger, New York Times, Oct. 4). The North Korean announcement of its pending test arrived as U.S. and South Korean officials pushed for a new round of multilateral nuclear talks, the Washington Post reported.  This latest move could strengthen the position of administration officials who favor boosting sanctions against North Korea, possibly even using a naval blockade, in order to increase its isolation (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Oct. 4). Failure to resume the six-nation talks significantly increases the likelihood of a North Korean nuclear test, South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok said today. “The government believes there is a high possibility of a nuclear test if efforts to resume the six-party talks end in failure,” he said “We are taking measures on the assumption that North Korea is more likely (than not) to conduct a nuclear test,” said Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung.  “We are working to come up with countermeasures with significant weight on the possibility” (Lim Chang-Won, Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, Oct. 4). A report by Republican staff on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee found that a North Korean nuclear test could drive Japan, Taiwan and even South Korea to seek their own nuclear weapons, the Associated Press reported. Better intelligence must be gathered on the secretive Stalinist state, according to the 36-page report (Katherine Shrader, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, Oct. 4). Diplomats and experts questioned the likelihood of an arms race spurred by a North Korean nuclear test, Agence France-Presse reported. “There will be no domino effect.  The U.S. security guarantee is the best bet for the region,” said nonproliferation analyst Francois Heisbourg. “A North Korean test would be a very visible confirmation that they have nuclear weapons but everybody already knows and assumes they have the weapons,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, a researcher at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Heisbourg said, though, that a North Korean nuclear test might give Iran confidence in handling the international standoff over its nuclear program. “If Iran sees that North Korea has not been attacked by the Americans, Iran could conclude that getting a nuclear weapon gives immunity,” he said (Michael Adler, Agence France-Presse II, Oct. 3). Back to top       Nonproliferation Regime in Crisis, Russian Official Says By Jon Fox, Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The global nonproliferation regime has been pushed to a state of crisis by the spread of uranium enrichment technology, the deputy head of Russia’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency said here yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 29). Ambassador Nikolai Spassky said the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was by no means on its “deathbed,” but that the pact — long the basis for keeping nuclear proliferation in check — faced serious challenges. “It’s perfectly alive and kicking, but it’s undergoing a very severe crisis,” Spassky said during a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Under the treaty, nations have the right to pursue nuclear fuel cycle technology for peaceful, energy-producing purposes.  Yet the uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing technologies that nations can pursue under the eye of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are “proliferation prone,” he said. The centrifuge technology that can enrich uranium to the low level needed to make viable reactor fuel can be used to create the weapon-grade material with extremely high levels of uranium 235.  “Sometimes we forget this basic reality, but it is so,” Spassky said.  “A nuclear fuel cycle by itself is daily producing the nonproliferation crisis.” Critics have called the right to pursue reactor fuel production technology a loophole in the treaty.  Spassky labeled it a “very serious contradiction” that can only be addressed by nations making concessions in a “voluntary way.” In the current Iranian nuclear crisis, the U.N. Security Council has demanded that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment research, believed by the United States and other world powers to be part of a covert weapons program.  Iranian officials have repeatedly said the program is peaceful and have defended their right to enrich based on the treaty language. Spassky called for an international effort to encourage nations to voluntarily limit their rights to enrichment and reprocessing technology.  Such an effort would require the central involvement of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he said, and must be based on trust and economic incentives. Altering the treaty to close the loophole is not an option, he said.  “It’s also a very sad reality.  If we open the treaty, it will amount to opening a Pandora’s Box because we couldn’t manage it. … It would crumble.” Squaring nonproliferation concerns with increasing global energy demands will become an increasingly important thread in U.S.-Russian relations, Spassky said, given the “unbelievable growth of nuclear energy in the world.” That growth highlights the importance of the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, designed to provide reliable nuclear fuel supplies to nations and to recollect used fuel, and a similar Russian initiative, he said (see GSN, May 25).  Part of his current visit to Washington has been spent talking to U.S. officials about “dovetailing” the two plans. One version of a U.S. spending bill for fiscal 2007 trims nearly half of President George W. Bush’s requested budget for the partnership program — from $250 million to $130 million. “We have quite a lot to gain doing these things together,” Spassky said.  “It can be managed only through joint work.” A bilateral relationship that seemed in jeopardy of a total collapse in recent years has been undergoing “most fundamental changes,” Spassky said.  He described U.S.-Russian relations now as a “pragmatic partnership.”  Cooperation on nonproliferation and counterterrorism concerns will be central in the future, he said. “We should aim to make as much progress as we can with the current administrations” of Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Spassky said. He called for a U.S accord with Russia permitting cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  During the Group of Eight summit in July, Putin and Bush announced plans for formal discussions on an agreement that could allow Russia to import, store and possibly reprocess tons of spent fuel that the United States had supplied to other countries. That such an agreement is not in place is an “intellectual atrocity,” he said, while holding out hope that it could be completed before the two leaders leave office.  “I’m keeping my fingers crossed.” Spassky said Russia has recently received an offer on a cooperation agreement from the United States.  “We consider it to be a very constructive offer and we are negotiating on the basis of it.” Russia has been seeking an agreement since the 1990s, but previously the United States had been opposed to a broad nuclear trade deal due to concerns about Russian construction for the Bushehr nuclear power reactor in Iran. Regarding the Russian nuclear complex, Spassky said the era of weak security at Russian facilities and the need for U.S. funding in that sector had ended. “That’s not the situation right now,” he said.  “Right now, I’m frankly not sure where nuclear facilities are more secure, in Russia or the United States.  It’s practically dealt with. “Now the situation is not of us asking for money.  We don’t need money,” he said.  “We actually don’t need it.  It creates more problems for us.  It’s easier and more convenient for us to pay ourselves for our own domestic projects.” Back to top       Putin Ratifies Nuclear Terror Treaty President Vladimir Putin has signed the Russian law ratifying the U.N. nuclear terror treaty, a presidential release announced yesterday (see GSN¸ Sept. 25).  Approved by both houses of parliament in September, the measure adopts the International Convention for the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism. The convention is “the first universal treaty designed to prevent acts of terrorism with weapons of mass destruction,” says the release.  “The convention provides for a mechanism of cooperation between states to prevent acts of nuclear terrorism and also for exchanging information linked to uncovering, preventing and suppressing” other terrorist acts (Russian presidential release, Oct. 3). Treaty terms call for the pact to enter into force after 22 nations have submitted their ratifications (U.N. release). Back to top       Y-12 Plant Completes Uranium Consolidation The Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Tennessee has completed relocation and consolidation of roughly 240 containers of highly enriched uranium, the Associated Press reported Tuesday (see GSN, March 30). The move immediately saved $17 million that would have been spent on security improvements for the production building where the material had been stored, according to Y-12 site manager Ted Sherry. “Over the long term, we will avoid spending approximately $137 million in security costs between 2006 and 2018, when operations are scheduled to begin at the (new) uranium processing facility,” Sherry said in a statement. A permanent $350 million uranium storage facility is scheduled to open in 2008 at Y-12 (Associated Press, Oct. 3). Back to top

Postal Service Prepared for Future Anthrax Attacks The U.S. Postal Service has installed more than 1,000 biological agent detectors at its facilities since the 2001 anthrax mailings, a crime that the FBI says remains under intense investigation after five years without an arrest, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Sept. 29). “We have fully deployed the fleet of biodetection systems” at 271 mail processing facilities, said Postal Service Vice President Tom Day. The Postal Service spent $800 million to install the machines, and pays $70 million annually in operations costs.  That yearly amount is likely to reach $120 million. A version of the biodetection system capable of scanning larger, flat parcels is expected to be deployed in 2007, Day said. Scanners are designed to detect anthrax and two other biological agents, which Day would not identify, AP reported. Most powder found seeping from a parcel is a harmless substance such as flour, baking powder or a crushed pill, Day said.  Leaking packages are often caused by the mailing of inappropriate items, such as animal body parts. “They deep freeze them and, unfortunately, the dry ice is exhausted and we’ve had a number of cases where red liquid is oozing from the parcel,” Day said. Detectors have screened roughly 60 billion parcels without false alarms.  No biological agents have been detected.  “That, you would have heard about,” Day said. William Burrus, president of the American Postal Workers Union, said many of his organization’s members feel more needs to be done to protect postal employees.  While the detection systems function well, not all mail goes through processing facilities.  Large business mailers, for example, drop off parcels directly for delivery. Two postal workers in Washington, D.C., were among the five people killed in the anthrax attacks.  Seventeen FBI agents and 10 postal inspectors remain assigned to the investigation, AP reported.  More than 9,100 interviews have been conducted and more than 6,000 grand jury subpoenas issued. The case “will be solved and the person or persons responsible will be brought to justice,” FBI Director Robert Mueller said last month (Schmid/Sniffen, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 3). Back to top       Researchers Develop New Weapon Against Anthrax Researchers at Clemson University have developed a new strategy for preventing infection by weaponized anthrax, United Press International reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 22). “For anthrax to be effective, it has to be made into a fine powder that can easily enter the lungs when inhaled,” said chemist Ya-Ping Sun in a press release from the South Carolina university.  “What we have done is come up with an agent that clings to the anthrax spores to make their inhalation into the lungs difficult.” The researchers coated carbon nanotubes with sugar molecules that would attract anthrax spores.  The process would produce clusters large enough to prevent inhalation, thus preventing infection, researchers wrote in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (United Press International, Oct. 3). Back to top

Israeli Missile Defenses Get $150 Million From U.S. The U.S. Congress has approved spending $150 million to boost Israeli missile defenses, the Jerusalem Post reported Saturday.  The U.S. Senate passed the fiscal 2007 defense appropriations bill Friday, a day after the House passed the same measure (see GSN, Sept. 28). The money doubles the amount initially requested by the Bush administration, and $135 million of the funds would support continuing co-production of the Arrow missile interceptor, the Post reported (see GSN, Dec. 2, 2005). Additional funds would be used in developing systems to defend against short-range rockets, such as the thousands of Katyusha rockets fired by Hezbollah during this summer’s conflict on the Lebanese border, according to the Post (Martin Sieff, United Press International, Oct. 3).   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.