The International Atomic Energy Agency announced yesterday that it would convene an emergency board meeting Feb. 2 to formally discuss the international crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 18). The United States and the European Union, meanwhile, rejected Iran’s request for further negotiations on the issue. “I think we’re long passed the point of talk,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. “We expect action from the regime in Iran.” “Iran can’t have it both ways. They can’t say they want to engage in negotiations and then continue to thumb their nose at the international community,” McClellan said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said “there is not much to talk about” after Iran’s decision last week to resume sensitive nuclear work. “I think it’s up to the Iranians to demonstrate that they are not just talking but they are serious,” Rice said yesterday before meeting with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Washington. Solana added that Russia has proposed that an informal U.N. Security Council discussion on the issue precede any decision on referring Iran to the international body. He did not express hope for the idea. “The timing is wrong,” Solana said. “The actions of the Iranians require a rapid response” (Agence France-Presse I/IranMania.com, Jan. 18). The United States and the European Union have, however, told Russia that they do not want to immediately impose sanctions on Iran, the New York Times reported today. U.S. and EU diplomats said they were pushing to convene a Security Council debate before returning the issue to the U.N. nuclear watchdog. “We are pursuing a gradual approach,” said one European diplomat. “We are trying to tell Iran that what the IAEA is telling them is exactly what the Security Council thinks. It’s an empowering process for the IAEA” (Steven Weisman, New York Times, Jan. 19). Previous EU predictions that Iran’s dossier would be referred to the council as soon as next month were “looking a bit sick,” a top EU diplomat told Reuters. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasted the EU powers for circulating a draft resolution to IAEA board members calling for Iran’s referral to the Security Council. “It is clear this is politically motivated,” Ahmadinejad said. “We are asking them to step down from their ivory towers and act with a little logic.” Iran has begun lobbying developing nations on the agency’s Board of Governors, Reuters reported. Ahmadinejad traveled to Syria yesterday, while other top officials are visiting India, Egypt and South Africa (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Jan. 18). Iran’s ambassador to the agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said yesterday that Iran would prohibit short-notice international inspections if its case is sent to the Security Council. “All the activities which we are voluntarily doing in accordance with Additional Protocols, including the complementary accesses (and) short-notice access that we have granted ... even to the military sites, will not be continued any more,” Soltanieh told the BBC (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Jan. 19). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his French counterpart, Philippe Douste-Blazy, are scheduled to discuss the issue today in Moscow, AP reported (Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press/Pravda, Jan. 19). Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Tehran remained open to compromise, AFP reported today. “We have not closed the path to compromise,” Larijani told the BBC. “For obtaining nuclear fuel there are many methods and formulas, and we can continue negotiations and use the different opportunities that there are in the world. I don’t think the path is closed,” he said. “I am surprised they are so sensitive about nuclear research in Iran. I heard one U.S. official has said Iran doesn’t have the right to nuclear research. This is an awful thing to say in today’s world,” he added (Stefan Smith, Agence France-Presse II/Khaleej Times, Jan. 19). China today called for “restraint and patience” on the standoff, AFP reported. “We believe diplomacy is still a good option to resolve this problem,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan. Kong added that Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing had discussed the issue with his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, via telephone yesterday (Agence France-Presse III/Interactive Investor, Jan. 19). Elsewhere, the Russian company leading construction of the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran announced a possible change in its work schedule, ITAR-Tass reported on Tuesday. “Russian proposals to change the schedule of construction-assembly and start-up work at the nuclear power plant were motivated only by technological considerations,” Atomstroyexport said in a statement. An Atomstroyexport delegation was in Iran to discuss possible delays, it added. “The preliminary approval of the final schedule of work to build the Bushehr nuclear power plant is scheduled for February,” the statement says (ITAR-Tass/RedOrbit.com, Jan. 17).
By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke yesterday criticized the current U.S. approach to dealing with an Iranian leadership he described as “rational” but capable of harming the United States if provoked (see GSN, May 27, 2005). Clarke said U.S. policy, which he characterized as needlessly confrontational, fails to take into account the complexity of the situation surrounding Iran’s suspect nuclear program. He said Iranian intentions are heavily shaped by factors such as President George W. Bush’s 2002 inclusion of Iran in a global “axis of evil” and the presence of U.S. troops on either side of the country, in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The problem with the Iran nuclear issue is that we see it in isolation sometimes,” Clarke said in a speech at the Center for National Policy. For those in the region, however, “it is interlocked with what’s going on in Iraq,” he said. Clarke described the United States and European countries as rushing to bring Iran’s suspect nuclear programs before the U.N. Security Council without thinking through the usefulness of the approach. He said economic sanctions against Iran, the most widely discussed possible Security Council action on the matter, would take a decade or more to have an impact. “What’s going to happen during that decade in terms of Iranian-sponsored terrorism in response?” he asked. The United States could have an even steeper “price to pay” for bombing an Iranian nuclear facility, Clarke added. “Iran can go after us in Iraq, using terrorism, in a way that would make the insurgency we’re facing today look minor. … They’re not just going to sit there and take us blowing up a nuclear facility and not respond,” he said. Clarke advocated other efforts to “affect internal decision-making” in Iran, citing in particular the possibility of offering economic incentives to Iran in a bid to secure cooperation on the nuclear question. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has in recent months stoked international concern by denying Israel’s right to exist and questioning whether the Holocaust occurred. However, Clarke described as “rational” the broader Iranian leadership, which includes Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Council of Ministers. “I think they’re rational,” he said. “I don’t think the new president is particularly rational, but I think the collective leadership is.” Low-key warning tactics, Clarke indicated, might also work better than confrontational public statements or actions. To illustrate the option, he alluded to U.S. actions after the 1996 truck bombing of a housing complex in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, an allegedly Iranian-backed operation that killed 19 U.S. airmen and one Saudi. Clarke was a National Security Council official at the time. “We did respond, not publicly, but we did respond, and we sent a message that said, ‘We know you did it.’ … There hasn’t been a problem since,” Clarke said.
The chief U.S. and North Korean envoys to multilateral nuclear disarmament talks met yesterday in Beijing, Reuters reported (see GSN, Jan. 18). Wu Dawei, China’s chief negotiator, also attended the meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill and North Korean negotiator Kim Kye Gwan, said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan. The officials discussed Washington’s accusations of Pyongyang’s involvement in illicit financial activities and the illegal drug trade, diplomats said. Some analysts said sanctions the United States enacted in retaliation to the alleged activities have put considerable pressure on North Korea. “It seems North Korea is suffering very much because its foreign currency sources are being blocked by the U.S. moves,” said Kim Sung-han, head of North America studies at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security in South Korea. “North Korea feels it is running out of time,” Kim said. He added that Pyongyang is looking for a compromise with Beijing, whereby effects of the sanctions could be alleviated in exchange for a return to nuclear negotiations. “In that sense, it could lead to the resumption of six-party talks earlier than expected,” he said, theorizing that negotiators could meet in March or April (Buckley/Herskovitz, Reuters, Jan. 19). Some experts said Beijing pressured North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to resume talks during his state visit earlier this week, Agence France-Presse reported. “It seems that North Korea came under heavy pressure from China to return to six-party talks,” said Park Soo-gil, a North Korea expert at Korea University. “In exchange for strong support from China in the economic field and in other areas, Kim agreed to facilitate the talks,” Park said. Other analysts said South Korea and China could be devising a face-saving measure for North Korea to admit to some illicit financial activities while also claiming Pyongyang’s ignorance of the operations. “This is something apparently Seoul and Beijing may be cooking up and if so I would give them an A for creativity,” said Peter Beck, North East Asia project director for the International Crisis Group. “But it is so implausible that such activities could go ahead without the knowledge of the government in such an authoritarian country that I am not sure it even passes the laugh test,” Beck said (Agence France-Presse, Jan. 19). U.S. Representative James Leach (R-Iowa), chairman of the House International Relations Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, said Kim’s visit to Beijing was a positive development, the Associated Press reported. “The more that he sees the world and sees what change can bring to North Korea, the greater the odds North Korea might change direction,” Leach said. He added that while “there’s always a case for accuracy and frankness” in describing North Korea, “we should always be aware that words matter.” “Throwaway lines may make us feel good, but they’re not going to advance the ball,” said Jonathan Pollack, an analyst at the U.S. Naval War College. “Even if we find this a reprehensible regime with no redeeming values whatsoever, it is the regime that we have to deal with,” he said (Foster Klug, Associated Press/The Herald-Sun, Jan. 19).
Two arms control experts in an article in the January-February issue of Arms Control Today recommended an international effort to decommission unneeded research reactors fueled with highly enriched uranium to ensure that the material does not end up in the hands of terrorists (see GSN, Nov. 8, 2005). “The greatest opportunity for would-be nuclear terrorists or countries seeking a quick bomb or two are poorly secured sites that contain significant quantities of highly enriched uranium, (HEU) — uranium containing a high percentage of the chain-reacting isotope uranium 235,” wrote Alexander Glaser and Frank von Hippel. “HEU is the material of choice for terrorists or for states that seek to proliferate clandestinely without testing their weapons.” Glaser and von Hippel said China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States — which account for more than 90 percent of civilian HEU demand and inventories — must cooperate to secure the material. They recommend the nations work together to convert and clean up highly enriched uranium, setting an example that other nations could follow. The experts said Russia’s participation in any program is essential. “Many of these facilities are in urban locations with only modest security, presenting potential targets to would-be nuclear terrorists. A large fraction are in Russia, which has yet to give adequate priority to cleaning out facilities containing HEU that is no longer needed,” they wrote. “At several sites, there is enough HEU to make more than 10 gun-type weapons.” They warned that Russia must participate in efforts to decommission these facilities and that international assistance is needed. “The reluctance of Russia’s government to give this effort high priority domestically at the same time that the leading Russian nuclear institutes have been asking for U.S. funding for projects to convert or decommission their HEU-fueled reactors illustrates the importance of working directly with the institutes as well as on a government-to-government level. This bottom-up approach, in which U.S. programs engage the Russian institutes directly and the institutes help get their government’s approval, has been key to virtually all successful U.S.-Russian cooperative nuclear security initiatives,” they wrote. The United States also plays an important role. Glaser and von Hippel said the Bush administration’s recent acceptance of “limitation to U.S.-Russian cooperative efforts on HEU cleanout to ‘third countries’ illustrates the types of misstep that can occur when high-level officials are not adequately informed.” The experts called for the decommissioning of smaller reactors. “If the international community takes its responsibility to prevent nuclear terrorism and to support nonproliferation efforts seriously, a global cleanout of civilian HEU could be achieved within the next five to eight years,” they conclude (Alexander Glaser and Frank von Hippel, Arms Control Today, January/February 2006).
India and Pakistan yesterday agreed to have experts from each country work on nuclear weapons doctrine to build trust between the two nuclear rivals, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 18). Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammed Khan “agreed to mandate two expert groups to continue consultations on security concepts and nuclear doctrines,” according to a statement released following two days of peace talks in New Delhi. These experts would work to reach an agreement “on reducing the risk of nuclear accidents or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons,” the statement said (Agence France-Presse/Business Recorder, Jan. 18).
The Bush administration appears to have dismissed concerns over India’s potential violation of a 1956 agreement in which New Delhi pledged it would not use U.S. nuclear material for military purposes, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 18). The move eliminates a potential roadblock to the planned U.S.-Indian nuclear technology sharing agreement, according to Reuters. State Department documents released by a Senate panel reveal that the department could not determine whether India violated the agreement through the operation of its 40-megawatt Cirus reactor. The reactor, supplied by Canada, produces much of India’s weapon-grade plutonium. India used plutonium from the facility in its first nuclear test in 1974, causing Canada to halt the two countries’ atomic cooperation. The 1956 agreement dictated that heavy water supplied by the United States for Cirus be used only for civilian purposes. “A conclusive answer (on whether a violation occurred) has not been possible,” said Undersecretary of State for Nonproliferation Robert Joseph. Joseph contended that it was impossible to conclusively determine whether the heavy water supplied to India was used to produce the plutonium used in the test. Disagreements over the scope of the agreement also confuse the matter. However, Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control claimed Joseph is “flatly wrong.” Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center said Joseph’s statements are “unbelievable and shameful.” “We know in fact that plutonium produced by the Cirus reactor was produced with U.S. heavy water,” Milhollin said. Instead of concentrating on the Cirus reactor, “the administration believes the most productive approach is to focus on India's new commitments under (the July 18, 2005) joint statement,” Joseph told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Administration officials will not examine the matter further because “they don’t want to know” and do not want to hold India responsible, Milhollin said (Carol Giacomo, Reuters, Jan. 18). Meanwhile, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns is expected to meet today with Indian officials in New Delhi to discuss the 2005 deal, the Associated Press reported. Differences over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program will be set aside to push the deal forward, according to officials from both countries. “We're confident that an agreement between the two governments can be worked out,” Burns said. “It's not easy, it's quite challenging and complex, but it is an agreement that is in the interest of both our countries.” Under the agreement, New Delhi must separate civilian and military nuclear programs and allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of the civilian facilities. In return, Washington would share its nuclear know-how and give India nuclear fuel, according to Reuters. Separation of the facilities is “an enormously complex task and that is at the heart of the negotiations,” Burns said (Matthew Rosenberg, Association Press, Jan. 19).
France warned today it was prepared to use nuclear weapons against any state that sponsors terrorist attacks on French territory, Reuters reported (see GSN, Oct. 5, 2005). “The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part,” said President Jacques Chirac. “This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind,” Chirac said. Chirac said the number of nuclear warheads deployed on some French submarines had been reduced as part of a strategy allowing for targeted strikes. “Against a regional power, our choice would not be between inaction or annihilation,” he said. “The flexibility and reactivity of our strategic forces would enable us to exercise our response directly against its centers of power and its capacity to act” (Reuters/Financial Times, Jan. 19).
| 
Back to top
