“No Progress” on WMD in 2005, Says Davos Group

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The organization behind the annual Davos, Switzerland, meeting of world leaders said yesterday that “no progress” was made in 2005 toward eliminating weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Dec. 23, 2005).

In a report on efforts to meet agreed global goals on a variety of topics, the World Economic Forum also called efforts to eliminate terrorism “largely unsuccessful” last year. It issued the international community low grades for overall peace and security efforts.

“There was no progress towards eliminating weapons of mass destruction in 2005,” wrote the forum’s Global Governance Initiative, which produces the annual report. “The [Nuclear] Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference in May failed utterly to close the gap between advocates of nonproliferation and disarmament [see GSN, May 31, 2005], and the September U.N. World Summit failed to agree on a single recommendation [see GSN, Sept. 22, 2005]. Negotiations with Iran and Korea D.P.R. went ahead but with little progress towards agreement.”

In explaining its bleak assessment of anti-WMD efforts, the initiative also cited the July deal in which India agreed to limited nuclear constraints in exchange for U.S. nuclear-energy cooperation (see related GSN story, today).

“There was some concern internationally that India received too much return for too few commitments and that — while re-engagement by the de facto nuclear-weapons states in nonproliferation issues was to be welcomed — NPT objectives were not sufficiently advanced by this bilateral deal,” the group wrote.

Turning to terrorism, the initiative said international cooperation between police and intelligence agencies improved and noted the April U.N. General Assembly adoption of a treaty on nuclear terrorism. Citing successful attacks in countries from the United Kingdom to Iraq, though, the authors said that “the underlying political and economic causes of the problem remained mostly unaddressed.”

“It seems likely,” they wrote, that “the number of significant international terrorist events” will be found to have continued to rise in 2005.

The yearly assessment is an attempt to score the world’s progress toward objectives on which countries have agreed in international discussions such as U.N. summits, Global Governance Initiative Project Director Ann Florini said here at the report’s launch.

“We’re merely holding the world accountable for whether it is doing what it said it wants to be doing,” Florini said.

The initiative gave the world a score of 3, out of a possible 10, for overall peace and security efforts. Florini said 10 was a “passing” but not excellent score and that zero represented not stagnation but movement in the wrong direction.

This year’s Davos meeting — “known to most of the world as sort of that retreat of plutocrats in the mountains of Switzerland,” U.N. Foundation President Timothy Wirth said yesterday at the report launch — is slated to begin Jan. 25 in Davos.

Discussion topics will include “the emergence of China and India,” “responding to extremism,” “instability in the Middle East” and the “leadership deficit” in “managing global risks,” according to the forum’s Web site.

Back to top

Former U.S. Administrator in Iraq Says Too Many Resources Committed to Finding WMD

Former U.S. administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer said the focus on Iraq’s suspected WMD programs might have undercut U.S. preparedness to deal with the postwar insurgency, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Dec. 8, 2005).

“The fact that there would be some resistance was anticipated. What really caught us by surprise was its intensity,” he said yesterday in New York while promoting his book, “My Year in Iraq.”

“I suppose an argument would be that the intelligence resources were almost entirely devoted to WMD and not to this question of the insurgency,” he added.

Bremer is his book claims that too many resources were spent looking for weapons of mass destruction. He said that in the middle of 2003 the Iraq Survey Group charged with seeking the weapons had a staff of 1,400.

Recounting an exchange he had at the time with a CIA official in Baghdad, Bremer claims he said, “Look, it's pretty unlikely that our troops will be killed by WMD. But every day they're being blown up by Baathist insurgents or terrorists. Finding and eliminating these guys has to be our No. 1 priority.”

However, the hunt for weapons of mass destruction continued for months before those resources were shifted to fight the growing insurgency, according to AP (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Jan. 18).

Back to top

EU Drafts Iran Security Council Referral Resolution

The European powers have prepared a draft resolution calling for the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors to refer Iran’s nuclear dossier to the U.N. Security Council, Reuters reported today (see GSN, Jan. 17).

The resolution being circulated among IAEA members asks Iran “to help the (IAEA) clarify questions regarding possible nuclear weapons activities” and calls on agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei “to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Security Council,” a diplomat from one of the EU-3 nations — France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

The document “requests the director general to continue with his efforts to implement the agency’s safeguards agreement with Iran … with a view to providing credible assurances regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities in Iran.

The board is expected to consider the resolution at an emergency meeting from Feb. 2-3. Amendments to the draft are expected.

The five permanent Security Council members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — are in discussions about how to proceed if the issue is referred to the body, Western diplomats told Reuters

Some Iranian officials, meanwhile, called for a renewed diplomatic effort with the European powers.

“Iran still invites the EU-3 to continue talks. Iran still believes that diplomatic methods are the best methods to solve this issue,” Hossein Entezami, spokesman for Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Reuters (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Jan. 18).

Entezami also reiterated a warning that referral would result in Iran’s curtailing international inspections and resuming uranium enrichment, Agence France-Presse reported.

Diplomats told AFP today that Security Council referral was a near certainty.

“One way or another it will move to New York,” said one European diplomat.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said yesterday that the crisis would be a test of the council’s effectiveness.

“If the Security Council can’t deal with something like the Iranian nuclear weapons program, then it’s hard to imagine what circumstances the (U.N.) charter contemplated the council would be involved in,” Bolton said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, however, said today he believed there was only a “weak” chance of Security Council referral (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Jan. 18).

Asked whether Moscow would vote for referral, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said other options should first be considered, the Associated Press reported.

“I don’t think that the potential of the IAEA’s governing board has been exhausted and the European troika has the same opinion,” Lavrov said yesterday.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, called on all sides to “remain restrained and stick to solving the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations.”

Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, however, took a harder line.

“Under no circumstances can Israel allow someone with hostile intentions against us to have control over weapons of mass destruction that can endanger our existence,” he said (George Jahn, Associated Press I/Baltimore Sun, Jan. 17).

Several countries, including France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom, have said talk of sanctions is premature, the New York Times reported today.

“We don’t see this leading straight into sanctions,” said one senior British official. “We want to build gradual sustained pressure over time.”

Iran has formally proposed a resumption of nuclear negotiations with the European powers, the Times reported.

Javad Vaidi, deputy head of the Supreme National Security Council, said in a letter delivered today that Tehran remained determined to “continue its full cooperation” with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran “spares no effort in removing ambiguity on its peaceful nuclear activities through dialogue and negotiation,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Times.

The letter adds that Tehran “is prepared to make the process a success.”

The letter did not, however, indicate whether Iran would again suspend its sensitive nuclear activities, as the European Union and others have demanded.

“It is unacceptable,” said a German official, who described the letter as “a lot of nice words without any concrete offer.”

The British official added that Iran’s letter was “vacuous because the Iranians have created the conditions to make it impossible to talk.”

The letter also expressed a desire to pursue negotiations with Russia, the Times reported.

Lavrov yesterday reaffirmed Moscow’s compromise proposal offering uranium enrichment in Russia on Iran’s behalf, but also warned Iran to resume its nuclear freeze.

“Talks presuppose an obligation,” he said. “The Iranian obligation was to stick to the moratorium.”

The British official questioned whether anything would come of the Russian offer.

“I think Iran is playing with the Russia proposal for tactical reasons,” the official said (Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, Jan. 18).

Meanwhile, ElBaradei reportedly held a secret meeting on Sunday with Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, diplomats told AFP yesterday.

Ali Larijani was “seeking to foil” the emergency IAEA meeting, said one diplomat.

“The talks with ElBaradei revolved, among other issues, around the issue of IAEA inspectors entering nuclear sites without prior coordination,” the diplomat said (Agence France-Presse/Khaleej Times, Jan. 17).

Elsewhere, Egypt and Saudi Arabia this week urged U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to allow more time for negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, AP reported.

Saudi King Abdullah expressed support for “giving negotiations a chance” before pushing for Security Council referral, said officials close to the talks.

A spokesman for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called on Iran to “show more flexibility and cooperation, and we call for a continuation of dialogue with Iran.”

He added that Egypt could not “ignore our long-standing principled position ... which refuses to put all this fuss and focus on the Iranian nuclear program without looking at Israel’s nuclear arsenal” (Salah Nasrawi, Associated Press II/North County Times, Jan. 17) .

Israeli Army Chief of Staff Dan Halutz has ruled out pre-emptive military strikes against Iranian nuclear installations, AP reported today.

“Even though we are talking about an immediate threat, we aren’t the ones who should do this,” the Yediot Ahronot daily quoted Dan Halutz as saying.

The Haaretz daily, meanwhile, reported that Israel was holding talks with U.S. and European officials about possible sanctions and other measures against Iran.

Proposals included an oil embargo, barring Iran’s soccer team from the World Cup soccer tournament, denying visas to Iranian officials and preventing Iranian aircraft from landing abroad, AP reported (Ravi Nessman, Associated Press III/Irish Examiner, Jan. 18).

Some experts have said that the world should accept the likelihood that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, the Christian Science Monitor reported today.

“I’m not saying I think a nuclear Iran should happen, but I think it’s going to happen, so we have to prepare for that and deal with it,” said Leon Hadar, a foreign-policy expert at the Cato Institute.

A “rogue” nation armed with a nuclear weapon could evolve, Hadar said.

“You can argue that [China’s] behavior since it acquired nuclear weapons became more responsible,” he said, while the nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan might have helped those countries avoid war over the disputed region of Kashmir. A similar understanding of “mutually assured destruction” could someday develop between Israel and Iran, Hadar said.

Some experts have suggested that the International Atomic Energy Agency could suspend nuclear cooperation with Iran. The Nuclear Suppliers Group could act to restrict transfers of nuclear technology to Iran.

Other experts suggested reducing imports of oil that comes through the Strait of Hormuz between the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. All Iranian oil exports pass through that zone.

Existing and new pipelines could be used to transfer oil from the Saudi Peninsula to ports, reducing the economic impact on the United States and other nations.

“It’s also an indication of what the world is really prepared to do to handle Iran,” said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. “If you’re not prepared to do this, you’re not going to do very much” (Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 18).

Back to top

U.S.-India Deal Not Likely Soon, Expert Says

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A U.S.-Indian nuclear technology trade deal proposed in July will probably not be concluded soon, a several key details and procedural steps remain to be settled, a U.S. congressional expert said Friday (see GSN, Dec. 7, 2005).

“This is a very fluid situation. There will be a lot of negotiating over the details of this agreement. And in my view, it’s unlikely that anything will happen quickly. Why is that?  Because the devil’s in the details … [and] there are a lot of details to be worked out,” said Sharon Squassoni, a national defense specialist for the Congressional Research Service, speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Such details, she said, include determining: a credible and defensible plan for separating Indian civilian and military nuclear facilities; what kinds of safeguards will be applied to civil Indian facilities; and, more generally, the terms of the proposed “full civil nuclear energy cooperation” between the two countries.

India reportedly has not yet contacted the International Atomic Energy Agency to talk about safeguards, she said. As part of the deal, India has said it would identify and separate civilian and military facilities, place civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, and sign and adhere to an Additional Protocol allowing for more intrusive inspections of its civilian nuclear facilities.

Furthermore, congressional support would be needed for any deal to progress because current U.S. export control laws restrict trade with states that do not allow IAEA safeguards over all their nuclear activities, she said. 

“Congressional views are critical. We’ve heard some strong statements by the chairmen of the House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” she said.  

The latter, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), said at a hearing in November that Congress must assess the nonproliferation implications of any proposed deal, she said.

Squassoni listed “a few wild cards” that also could affect a deal: impact from Bush’s trip to India this year; the details of India’s facility separation plan; how the multilateral Nuclear Suppliers Group reacts to proposals that would exempt India from its export control restrictions; and how China, France, Russia and Canada react to any deal.

Squassoni said she was aware of a draft agreement under development by the United States, but said it has not been finalized and probably not yet shared with India.

A U.S. official last year suggested a deal could be settled early this year, in time for President George W. Bush’s anticipated visit to New Delhi in the coming weeks (see GSN, Oct. 27, 2005). Squassoni said that is unlikely to occur.

“For those people who hope that the president could go to New Delhi with an agreement in his hands sign it, and that Congress would OK it. It’s not going to happen,” she said.

Back to top

North Korea Confirms Kim Visit to China, Expresses Hope for Nuclear Standoff Resolution

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has said he wants to resolve the crisis over his country’s nuclear weapons programs peacefully, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Jan. 17).

Pyongyang today confirmed Kim’s visit over the past week to China, where he and Chinese officials “unanimously agreed to consistently maintain the stand of seeking a negotiated peaceful solution” to the standoff, the North’s official news agency announced.

Pyongyang has, however, refused to resume negotiations on the issue unless the United States lifts sanctions it imposed to punish illicit activities allegedly carried out by Pyongyang.

Kim called on Beijing to join him in overcoming “the difficulties in the six-way talks and to find a way to move forward,” the Korean Central News Agency announced.

Chinese President Hu Jintao reaffirmed support for the negotiations, AP reported (Burt Herman, Associated Press/Washington Post, Jan. 18).

The top U.S. envoy to the stalled talks, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, visited Beijing within hours of Kim’s departure, Agence France-Presse reported today.

South Korea’s Dong-A Ilbo daily reported that Hill and Kim Kye Gwan, North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator, would meet in Beijing.

A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman would not confirm the meeting (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, Jan. 18).

Hill also declined to comment on the reported meeting, but said he had constructive discussions with Chinese officials, Reuters reported.

“We had a meeting hosted by the Chinese. I talked to the Chinese.  It was a good discussion,” he said (Chris Buckley, Reuters, Jan. 18).

Meanwhile, a former South Korean official warned yesterday that further action by the United States against North Korea could backfire, AFP reported.

“Coercive measures such as large-scale sanctions and interdiction of D.P.R.K. ships as part of the Proliferation Security Initiative have the potential to trigger a major conflict,” said former Unification Minister Park Jae-kyu.

He said North Korea has more to gain from a peaceful resolution of the standoff.

“Its dire economic situation means that it is in no condition to risk a war,” Park said.

Seoul believes that “exerting overt pressure on the North Korean government would not really help alleviate the North Korean people’s suffering,” he added. “Nor would a U.N. resolution be compatible with the goal of prodding the North to resolve the nuclear issue (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, Jan. 17).

Back to top

Brazil Uranium Enrichment Delayed

Brazil has once again postponed plans to begin uranium enrichment intended to produce fuel for its two nuclear energy reactors, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 7, 2005).

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva planned to inaugurate the Resende uranium enrichment facility this month, but the event was postponed twice due to budget shortfalls, according to AFP.

The enrichment work would cost Brazil an estimated $15.2 million annually, according to the Nuclear Industries of Brazil. The proposed fiscal 2006 budget, however, is more than $5 million below that amount, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse, Jan. 17).

Back to top

2002 U.S. Intelligence Assessment Shows Doubts on Sale of Uranium from Niger to Iraq

U.S. State Department analysts in 2002 concluded that various obstacles made it “unlikely” that Baghdad had obtained uranium from Niger before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Dec. 5, 2005).

A recently declassified memo states that the sale would have required “25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers” to leave Niger and travel 1,000 miles across at least one international border. Diplomatic and economic hurdles also existed, according to the memo.

Doubts about the Niger-Iraq connection were raised one year before President George W. Bush cited the sale in his 2003 State of the Union address as one of the reason to go to war against Iraq. Coalition forces since the invasion have found no indications that Iraq had existing nuclear programs or other ongoing WMD efforts prior to the invasion.

News reports, along with the Robb-Silberman report last year on U.S. intelligence failures on Iraq, have mentioned doubts about the intelligence surrounding the sale. However, this is the first time the actual intelligence assessment has been seen. 

The White House would not comment on the memo. 

“This matter was examined fully by the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission, and the president acted on their broad recommendations to reform our intelligence apparatus,” said National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones.

The State Department conducted several reviews in early 2002 of intelligence indicating that Iraq was trying to secure uranium ore for its suspected nuclear program. U.S. Gen. Carlton Fulford Jr. went to Niger to investigate the claims and came back with doubts. The CIA sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to look into the matter, and he returned with doubts as well. Since then, Wilson has become an outspoken critic of the Bush administration.

However, the review obtained by the conservative legal organization Judicial Watch produced more widespread doubts. It found that Niger was “probably not planning to sell uranium to Iraq” because France controlled the uranium trade and could stop a sale. It also discounted intelligence that a sales agreement was reached between Niger and Iraq in 2000, finding that Niger’s president, Mamadou Tandja, would not risk losing foreign aid from the United States and other nations.

The memo also found that Niger could not have transported 500 tons of uranium. “Moving such a quantity secretly over such a distance would be very difficult, particularly because the French would be indisposed to approve or cloak this arrangement,” according to the memo.

Judicial Watch investigations director Chris Farrell said the State Department memo was “a very strong, well-thought-out argument that looks at the whole playing field in Niger, and it makes a compelling case for why the uranium sale was so unlikely.”

A Bush administration official would not say whether the president saw the document before the 2003 State of the Union address.

The official added: “The White House is not an intelligence-gathering operation. The president based his remarks in the State of the Union address on the intelligence that was presented to him by the intelligence community and cleared by the intelligence community. The president has said the intelligence was wrong, and we have reorganized our intelligence agencies so we can do better in the future.”

Wilson said he did not recall reviewing the memo but said it raises questions about the White House’s insistence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium.

“All the people understood that there was documentary evidence” that the intelligence was wrong, he said (Eric Lichtblau, New York Times, Jan. 18).

Back to top

Pakistan, India Include Nukes in Peace Talks

Peace talks this week between Pakistan and India have included several measures related to the two countries’ nuclear and missile programs, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Oct. 3, 2005).

Pakistan yesterday presented plans to reduce the likelihood of the unauthorized use of nuclear weapons and of nuclear accidents, according to Pakistani Foreign Office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam.

“We also proposed to India that an agreement on notification of flight testing of missiles should be expanded to include cruise missiles, which have been tested by both countries,” she said.

Pakistan also presented plans to make the region a ballistic missile free area, Aslam added.

Both sides today are expected to “finalize a schedule of meetings” on other issues and to set the agenda for a meeting later this year between their foreign ministers, said Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Jan 17).

Back to top

Bush to Announce Nuclear Waste Recycling Plan

U.S. President George W. Bush this month is expected to announce a nuclear waste recycling initiative during his State of the Union speech, Energy Washington Week reported today (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2005).

Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell has said the administration’s plan focuses on waste recycling, particularly on improving the existing PUREX process used in France to a technology tentatively named UREX-plus, sources said.

“The new technology would make it more proliferation resistant, but not as safe as keeping it where it is,” said one critic.

Sources familiar with the plan said there were two options for dealing with the waste while the technology is developed or until the planned Yucca Mountain waste depository opens — shipping it to France or Japan for reprocessing, or moving the waste to U.S. sites where the new technologies are to be developed.

The new program was developed by the Global Nuclear Energy Initiative, an Energy Department task force seeking a solution for the growing amount of nuclear waste in the United States. The department is expected to request $250 million for that initiative alone and up to $400 million for various reprocessing projects in fiscal 2007, sources told Energy Washington Week.

Administration sources said the initiative is intended to complement the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada.

“This would eliminate the need for a second permanent repository,” said one official (Energy Washington Week, Jan. 18).

Back to top

Australia, China to Begin Uranium Talks

Negotiations on the export of uranium from Australia to China for use in Chinese nuclear power plants are expected to begin today, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 13).

John Carlson, director general of the Australian Safeguards and Nonproliferation office, will lead Australia in the talks. Negotiations are expected to last two days. 

Discussions on safeguards against the use of the uranium in weapons are expected.   International Atomic Energy Agency oversight would be included in the safeguards, according to a spokeswoman for Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane.

“It's non-negotiable basically. There are a series of guidelines under which we will export to a second party,” she said (Agence France-Presse, Jan. 18).

Back to top