Workers at the Newport Chemical Depot in Indiana move a container of VX nerve agent to a weapons disposal facility. U.S. chemical weapons disposal is now not expected to finish until 2023 (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency photo). U.S. Chemical Weapons Disposal Set to Finish in 2023 The United States is now not expected to completely eliminate its chemical weapons stockpile until 2023, more than a decade beyond what is allowed by an international treaty, USA Today reported (see GSN, Nov. 15). The Chemical Weapons Convention calls for member nations to dispose of their arsenals no later than 2012.  Washington earlier this year indicated that disposal of nearly 30,000 metric tons of chemical agent would not be finished before 2017.  ..Full Story

IAEA Nuclear Aid to Iran Still On Hold By Greg Webb, Global Security Newswire VIENNA — Diplomats at the International Atomic Energy Agency headed today toward deferring a decision on providing international assistance to Iran for construction of its heavy-water reactor at Arak (see GSN, Nov. 20)...Full Story

Reports Differ on Possible China-India Nuclear Talks As Hu Jintao makes the first visit by a Chinese president to India in a decade, there are conflicting reports about a possible nuclear trade deal between the two nations, similar to a deal that New Delhi is seeking with the United States (see GSN, Nov. 20)...Full Story

	Tuesday, November 21, 2006

U.S. Confirms End to Sanctions on Russian Company The United States yesterday confirmed its intention to lift sanctions from a Russian company that had been accused of supplying WMD-related material to Iran, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Nov. 20). “I can confirm that we thought about it and decided to lift the sanctions on Sukhoi,” a U.S. official said.  The decision is expected to go into effect following publication this week in the Federal Register. Washington in August banned the jet maker and six other companies from Cuba, India, North Korea and Russia from doing business with the federal government.  All were alleged to have violated the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act. The decision to lift the sanctions on Sukhoi does not change the status of the other sanctioned Russian firm, arms exporter Rosoboronexport, the U.S. official said.  “Each case was determined on its merits,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Interactive Investor, Nov. 20). Back to top

IAEA Nuclear Aid to Iran Still On Hold By Greg Webb, Global Security Newswire VIENNA — Diplomats at the International Atomic Energy Agency headed today toward deferring a decision on providing international assistance to Iran for construction of its heavy-water reactor at Arak (see GSN, Nov. 20). The issue has stymied a normally uneventful meeting at the International Atomic Energy Agency, where a committee meets annually to discuss providing IAEA technical cooperation to nuclear-related projects around the world.  “It will be kicked forward to Thursday,” when the agency’s Board of Governors begins its last meeting of the year, said one Western diplomat here. Iran has requested eight areas of assistance from the agency this year, including help to ensure the safety of its heavy-water reactor. The United States and some other Western nations have opposed the assistance, arguing that heavy-water reactors produce plutonium that could be used to make nuclear weapons. “Given past board decisions, continued questions about Iran’s nuclear program and the risk of plutonium being diverted to use in a weapon, the United States joins with others who cannot approve this project,” U.S. Ambassador Gregory Schulte told the committee yesterday. Typically, requests for assistance are handled routinely by the committee without fanfare, but this session has taken on added relevance as nations angle to influence the negotiation among U.N. Security Council powers over how to handle the Iranian nuclear crisis.  Tehran has so far ignored a council resolution demanding that it freeze its sensitive nuclear activities, in particular any programs that could produce enriched uranium or plutonium. Iranian delegation head Ali Asghar Soltanieh defended Iran’s plans in a statement to the committee this morning. The Arak reactor, scheduled for completion in 2009, would “mainly produce radioisotopes for medical, agricultures [sic] and industrial applications,” he said.  Iran elected to pursue a heavy-water reactor because it could do so with no international assistance, he said, and the project was begun before Tehran had gained confidence that it could enrich uranium.  Heavy-water reactors are fueled with natural uranium, which Iran can mine domestically. Soltanieh hinted that Iran has regretted its decision to cooperate with the agency after revealing its two-decade-old program almost four years ago. “One could simply conclude that if Iran was not a party to the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty], its nuclear issue was not put as an agenda item, no resolution was passed, no intrusive inspection was made, the nuclear dossier was not referred to the U.N. Security Council, and at this juncture its proposed humanitarian project [was] not under scrutiny.” For its part, agency officials expressed frustration with the U.S.-led efforts to sideline the Iranian cooperation. “It is the judgment of the [agency] Secretariat that all projects listed [in the Iranian request] are in conformity with the relevant Security Council resolution, and that specifically these projects do not contribute to enrichment-related or [plutonium] reprocessing activities in Iran,” said Ana Marie Cetto, the agency’s head of technical cooperation, in a statement to the committee. Another Western diplomat said the agency had done its job and the matter was now a political decision for the nations on the board. “We’ve ticked off all the boxes,” the diplomat said.  “This has become an East-West, nuclear have-have not issue.” The committee today made no decision and is expected tomorrow to formally refer the Arak issue to the board, according to diplomats and other officials. The conflicts seen this week are likely to be mirrored on the board, because the nations comprising the two bodies are essentially the same, as are the personnel involved. The board has a history of making decisions by consensus, but it dramatically veered from that course early this year when it resorted to a vote to decide to refer the Iranian crisis to the U.N. Security Council (see GSN, Feb. 6, 2005). Meanwhile in Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his nation would be able to produce its own nuclear fuel next year, the Associated Press reported. “Pressure by the U.S. and Israel aimed at violating the rights of the Iranian will not succeed,” he said yesterday in Tehran. Back to top       Reports Differ on Possible China-India Nuclear Talks As Hu Jintao makes the first visit by a Chinese president to India in a decade, there are conflicting reports about a possible nuclear trade deal between the two nations, similar to a deal that New Delhi is seeking with the United States (see GSN, Nov. 20). The Boston Globe reported Monday that China and India could sign an agreement during Hu’s four-day visit. The Globe, citing two anonymous sources familiar with the pending agreement, reported that the deal enabling the exchange of nuclear technology between China and India would be announced Thursday at the conclusion of Hu’s visit. However, the Associated Press reported today that no significant agreements are expected during Hu’s visit. “I am visiting India to enhance friendship, increase mutual trust, strengthen cooperation and chart the future course for our relations,” Hu said in a statement. New Delhi might, though, seek China’s backing for the U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear agreement, the AP reported (Rajesh Mahapatra, the Associated Press/phillyBurbs.com, Nov. 21). The reported China-India deal could mark a new stage of aggressive jostling between Beijing and Washington for India’s friendship. “The U.S. always said it wants to use India to balance China,” Sun Shihai, deputy director of the Institute for Asia Pacific Studies at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, told the Globe.  “China feels it needs to engage India more (and) develop some kind of Russia-China-India cooperation” that can offset U.S. hegemony.  “So there is some kind of competition happening.” Some in New Delhi see the potential deal with China as a way to inject some balance into Indian foreign policy and tilt it away from the United States. “Traditionally, India’s always been nonaligned and had an independent foreign policy,” an Indian official familiar with negotiations told the Globe.  “Recently, India had been moving very close to the U.S., and with this deal India will become equidistant between the U.S. and China” (Jehangir Pocha/The Boston Globe, Nov. 20). Hu is traveling to Pakistan following his trip to India, and he also expected to sign a nuclear agreement with Islamabad. Pakistan has asked China to build as many as six nuclear reactors with at least 600 megawatt capacities although precise details of the expected agreement remain veiled, Reuters reported. “The political intent is quite certain.  The specifics are less certain, but this will be a political gesture above all,” one diplomatic observer in Beijing told Reuters. Pakistan, a nation that like India developed nuclear weapons outside the bounds of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, has a checkered proliferation history.  Former chief Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, now under house arrest in Karachi, has been accused of running a veritable nuclear Wal-Mart, selling technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya. As the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal has moved forward, Pakistan has called for a deal of its own with the United States. Washington to date has rejected Islamabad’s requests (Reuters/Express India, Nov. 16). “With the U.S. using India to checkmate China, China will counter by supporting Pakistan,” Kaiser Bengali, an analyst in Karachi, told the Christian Science Monitor. Forging links through nuclear technology and trade is a new tack, however.  “Using the nuclear card is a new phenomenon,” he said. Critics caution that softening nuclear trade controls could throw the nonproliferation regime into disarray.  “This is a sign of chaos,” said Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution.  “There is no game plan” (Sappenfield/Montero, The Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 21). Back to top       Report Backs Increased Australian Uranium Exports Australia should eliminate restrictions on uranium enrichment and exports, limits that were instituted to keep the country’s material from being used in nuclear weapons, according to a government report released today (see GSN, Oct. 11). Commissioned by Australian Prime Minister John Howard in June, the study suggests that the country could more than triple domestic revenue from the ore if restrictions are lifted, the Associated Press reported. Australia sits on the world’s largest deposits of uranium, a metal that can fuel nuclear reactors at various levels of enrichment.  If highly refined, the extraordinarily dense element can serve as fuel for an atomic bomb or it can be converted to plutonium at the core of a reactor. The Australian government now only permits operations at three uranium mines, yielding $441 million a year in revenue.  That number could leap by $1.4 billion annually with relaxed regulations, according to the report. “Consultations revealed support for the expansion of Australian mining and export of uranium,” the report states.  “Skill shortages and government policies restricting the growth of the industry should be urgently addressed.” “Current legal and regulatory impediments should be removed,” it adds. Australian uranium sales are expected jump following a recent deal to supply China’s quickly expanding energy market.  Canberra is also considering supplying uranium to India, which developed nuclear weapons outside the constraints of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, according to the AP (Rod McGuirk, Associated Press/The Houston Chronicle, Nov. 21). Back to top       Summit no Boon to North Korea Standoff, Analysts Say Talks among world leaders at a regional summit last week in Vietnam are not likely to have helped end the standoff over North Korea’s nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 20). Participants at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum expressed “strong concern” over Pyongyang’s Oct. 9 nuclear test, backed U.N. sanctions that followed the explosion, and urged quick resumption of six-party talks on the nuclear crisis. “This is most likely to stiffen Kim Jong Il’s resolve,” said Ken Quinones, a professor of Korean Studies at Akita International University in Japan.  “He wishes to avoid any appearance of bowing to international pressure.” There was little movement in moving forward with the September 2005 agreement in which North Korea agreed in principle to end its nuclear program in return for aid from the other negotiating nations. “Nothing that was achieved at APEC with regards to North Korea could not have been achieved by officials working on the phone, said U.S. foreign policy expert Paul Harris of Hong Kong’s Lingnan University. There were no meetings involving officials from all five nations — China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States, AFP reported.  That was partly intentional, to avoid sending the wrong message to North Korea, but also partly due to frustration with the United States, analysts said. “The assumption was that the Americans would enter the room and try to get everyone to come around to their position.  That’s not a negotiation,” Harris said. While officials called for “substantive results” at the next round of six-party talks, there was no description of what that would actually involve, according to observers. “All of the parties would rather wait and see, so they can define success as whatever happens in the future,” Harris said (Peter Harmsen, Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, Nov. 20). The lead negotiators from China and the United States met yesterday and today in Beijing to plan for the next multilateral negotiations, AFP reported. “I believe we will have the six-party talks probably in the middle of December,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said today after meeting with Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei.  “I came up to talk with my counterpart about the preparations for the six-party talks and see how we’d like to proceed and we had very good discussions on that.” “The most important thing is that we are well planned” for the next round of talks, Hill said (Robert Saiget, Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, Nov. 21). Meanwhile, the European Union yesterday imposed sanctions on North Korea in response to its nuclear test, AFP reported. Following the lead of the U.N. Security Council, ministers from the 25 EU nations agreed to ban shipments of weapons materials and luxury goods to or from North Korea.  Entry restrictions into EU nations are also being placed on “individuals designated as being responsible for … North Korea’s policies in relation to its nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related and other WMD-related programs, together with their family members” (Agence France-Presse III/DNAIndia, Nov. 21). The international community must bind together to support sanctions if they are to succeed in pressing North Korea to end its nuclear ambitions, experts said yesterday. There is a “need for full cooperation in all aspects of the program including the interception and inspection of cargo on North Korean ships,” said former U.S. Treasury Department sanctions office chief Robert Newcomb (Reuters/Washington Post, Nov. 20). Elsewhere, the incoming South Korean intelligence chief yesterday described the nuclear test as a limited succ missile, AFP reported. “It succeeded in making a nuclear explosion but did not succeed in (conducting) a complete nuclear test,” said Kim Man-bok, director-designate of the National Intelligence Service.  The explosive yield of the test is believed to have been less than one kiloton. Kim told lawmakers that Pyongyang “has to make (nuclear weapons) smaller and lighter, but it has not advanced to that level.”  It would be “a few more years” before warheads can be placed on missiles, he said. He also acknowledged North Korea’s highly enriched uranium program, but said “it is estimated that the development has not been completed” (Agence France-Presse IV/SpaceWar.com, Nov. 21). Back to top       Vote Expected in Early 2007 on Trident Replacement The British Parliament is expected to have the chance to vote in early 2007 on the estimated $38 billion plan to replace the Trident nuclear missile system, the Financial Times reported Saturday (see GSN, Nov. 17). Publication of plans to replace the submarine-launched missiles could be publishing within weeks.  Defense Secretary Des Browne expects to submit his proposal to the Cabinet before the end of the year. That would be followed by a debate and potential vote in the House of Commons, the Times reported (Christopher Adams, Financial Times, Nov. 18). Back to top

U.S. Suspects Several Nations of Seeking Bioweapons Iran, North Korea and Syria have all taken steps toward developing biological weapons banned under an international treaty, a  senior U.S. official said yesterday (see GSN. Nov. 20). Assistant Secretary of State John Rood told delegates at the sixth review conference of the Biological Weapons Convention that the three countries — of concern due to their “support for terrorism” — all skirted the controls of the ban on bioweapons, Reuters reported. “We believe that Iran probably has an offensive biological weapons program in violation of the BWC,” Rood said.  “We also believe North Korea has a biological weapons capability and may have developed, produced and weaponized for use. “Finally, we remain seriously concerned that Syria … has conducted research and development for an offensive BW program,” Rood said. Iran and North Korea are full treaty states.  Syria has signed but not ratified the pact.  All three nations have previously denied seeking biological weapons. “I categorically reject what the U.S. delegation has said about my country,” said Iranian envoy Alireza Moaiyeri.  “Their baseless allegations are contrary to the spirit of the review conference.” Syrian and North Korean diplomats had no immediate response to Rood’s comments, according to Reuters.  Representatives from treaty nations meet every five years to review the convention.  At the last meeting in 2001 the United States successfully led opposition to a verification protocol for the convention.  Measures such as spot checks on biological laboratories could encourage industrial espionage, Washington contended.  The 155 treaty states instead agreed to work on other areas, such as improved cooperation in international disease surveillance and codes of conduct for scientists. Moving forward from 2006, Rood said the United States wants to see enforcement of national laws addressed to prevent biological weapons from falling into the possession of terrorist groups (Richard Waddington/Reuters, Nov. 20). Rood said it would be irresponsible to take steps to strengthen the convention, “yet turn a blind eye to the problems with the foundation itself,” he said according to a U.S. government release.  The U.S. government is anxious to bring all countries into the 155-member treaty, he said. Noncompliance with the ban is best dealt with directly, he said, adding that the international community must “root out violators that undermine the integrity of the convention” (Jacqui Porth/Washington File, Nov. 20). Back to top

U.S. Chemical Weapons Disposal Set to Finish in 2023 The United States is now not expected to completely eliminate its chemical weapons stockpile until 2023, more than a decade beyond what is allowed by an international treaty, USA Today reported (see GSN, Nov. 15). The Chemical Weapons Convention calls for member nations to dispose of their arsenals no later than 2012.  Washington earlier this year indicated that disposal of nearly 30,000 metric tons of chemical agent would not be finished before 2017.  The latest schedule is detailed in documents obtained by the newspaper. There are a number of reasons for the delays, according to Defense Department spokesman Chris Isleib.  These include technological difficulties in construction of disposal facilities, regulatory hurdles that must be overcome, and safety and security requirements that must be met. “Destroying these weapons safely is not a fast or simple process,” Isleib told USA Today. Two U.S. disposal plants have finished their work and five are currently operating.  Construction and operations at the last two planned facilities would be slowed under the Pentagon plan.  Disposal of weapons at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado would finish in 2020, followed three years later by work at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused the Defense Department of “again backsliding on its commitment.” The new schedule is “simply unacceptable,” he said in a statement.  “They would subject the people living near (stockpiles) to the dangers of chemical weapons well into the 2020s.” The estimated cost for complete weapons disposal has increased from $2 billion in 1986 to $32 billion today (Peter Eisler, USA Today, Nov. 21). The new schedule would increase the cost of weapons disposal at the Pueblo Chemical Depot by $600 million, to $3.2 billion, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported today (see GSN, Oct. 12). Elimination of 2,600 tons of mustard agent at Pueblo previously was expected to end in 2014.  “The DOD’s mismanagement of the chemical weapons destruction program” is to blame for the revised schedule, said Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.). The Pentagon is considering a plan to save $150 million by shipping waste created by chemical neutralization of weapons agent to another site for final processing, the Gazette reported.  That is likely to meet stiff opposition, said John Klomp, chairman of the Citizens Advisory Commission. “First, you’re shipping what is still a toxic waste over the road,” he said.  “Second, there are political boundaries that may not allow you to ship through their area, and third, and most importantly, there could be litigation which could hold up the project for a long period of time.  We don’t want this project to go back on hold” (Pam Zubeck, The Gazette, Nov. 21). Back to top       Five Nations Establish CWC National Authorities Five additional nations have established national authorities required by the Chemical Weapons Convention, ahead of the conference of states parties to the treaty next month, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons announced yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 8). The Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Liberia, Micronesia and Tuvalu all designated existing agencies as their national authority. All but eight of the 180 treaty states had designated authorities as of Nov. 20, the organization said. The duties of a national authority include implementing treaty obligations on the state level and acting as the point of contact for the organization and other states parties to the convention. The 11th Conference of the States Parties to the treaty is scheduled from Dec. 5 to 8 in The Hague (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons releases I, II, III, IV and V, Nov. 20). Back to top       New Jersey Township Backs CW Waste Disposal Leaders of a New Jersey municipality have voted in support of plans to dump the waste product of VX nerve agent disposal in the Delaware River, apparently in hopes of receiving a boardwalk, the Associated Press reported Saturday (see GSN, Oct. 20). The U.S. Army is using chemical neutralization to dispose of 250,000 gallons of VX stored at the Newport Chemical Depot in Indiana.  It has planned to ship hydrolysate waste created by the process to a DuPont plant in New Jersey for final processing.  The treated waste would then be deposited in the river. Officials from Delaware and New Jersey have strongly objected to the plan, which is presently on hold pending additional study. The three-member Maurice River Township committee earlier this month decided to back the Army plans, AP reported. “The Army is offering different bonuses for going along with that,” committee member Norm Frankel told The Press of Atlantic City.  The committee hopes the Army would build a new boardwalk that would provide improved recreational access through marshland. The Army Chemical Materials Agency has not made any offer of a boardwalk, a spokesman said.  A DuPont spokesman said talks were under way but that a deal had not been finalized (Associated Press/NorthJersey.com, Nov. 18). 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.