Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President George W. Bush share a toast last July following Bush’s announcement that the United States would seek to provide civilian nuclear technology to India (Jim Watson/Getty Images). Critics Slam U.S.-Indian Nuclear Technology Deal By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Prominent nonproliferation experts today called on the U.S. Congress to seek fundamental changes in the budding U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation arrangement to reduce the likelihood that it would promote weapons proliferation (see GSN, Feb. 13)...Full Story

Iran to Remove Some IAEA Cameras Iran yesterday announced its intention to remove several International Atomic Energy Agency surveillance cameras from some nuclear facilities, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Feb. 14)...Full Story

Talks to Prepare for BWC Negotiations Conclude Twenty-six countries today were scheduled to finish a two-day meeting on preparations for negotiations later this year on the Biological Weapons Convention, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 9)...Full Story

	Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Critics Slam U.S.-Indian Nuclear Technology Deal By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Prominent nonproliferation experts today called on the U.S. Congress to seek fundamental changes in the budding U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation arrangement to reduce the likelihood that it would promote weapons proliferation (see GSN, Feb. 13). Washington’s plan to share nuclear energy technology with New Delhi would constitute a major exception to U.S. policy toward countries not subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The three critics, two of whom joined other experts in writing members of Congress yesterday to express their concerns about the bargain, said today at an Arms Control Association discussion that India's nonproliferation commitments under the current deal would not justify such an exception. “Unless the agreement as it stands right now is substantially modified as a result of the ongoing negotiations, the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal will contribute to an increased risk of proliferation and nuclear war,” said former U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Staff Director Leonard Weiss, a key figure behind the 1978 U.S. Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. The U.S. administration announced the deal last July and plans to submit it for congressional approval this year. President George W. Bush is slated to visit India next month amid continued talks between the two countries on the question of how India will separate military and civilian facilities under the agreement. Weiss said today that while U.S. technology and materials would be used only for Indian civilian nuclear facilities subject to international monitoring, the arrangement would free up the nuclear-armed country's domestic production capacity for increased work on weapons. The danger of that chain of events is particularly acute given the tense relations between India and nuclear-armed neighbor Pakistan, Weiss said. Weiss added that the deal would devalue the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments of nonweapon countries by effectively rewarding India for developing nuclear weapons outside the pact. The resulting precedent would strengthen the resolve of countries such as Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It could also call into question the five traditional nuclear powers’ commitment to Article 6 of the treaty, Weiss said. In that article, weapon countries vow to pursue nuclear disarmament and commit to an eventual “treaty on general and complete disarmament.” India is seeking to have the deal approved despite safeguards commitments that would fall short of what the five NPT weapon states have in place, said Institute for Science and International Security President David Albright.  “I would call it almost a greedy effort to try to have as much of a plutonium production capability for nuclear weapons as possible,” Albright said of India's stance on safeguards exemptions. India, he said, is trying to “grab everything and put it under a military umbrella” as a way of keeping facilities free of safeguards. Such efforts may be the result of simple “stubbornness,” Albright said, as strategic and production-capacity concerns would not warrant a major escalation of weapon production. “India has to choose,” Albright said. “Does it want nuclear weapons capabilities, or does it want international cooperation?” Albright also criticized India's export-control establishment, which he called poorly organized and inexperienced. “India's attractiveness to proliferant states can be expected to increase” with the advent of U.S. nuclear cooperation, he said. “Is this deal moving too fast, way beyond the ability of India to manage onward proliferation? I would say it is.” Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball said Congress should insist that India cut off fissile-material production as a condition of the agreement. India has parried such suggestions by stressing its support for negotiating an international fissile material cutoff treaty, but according to Kimball, U.S. opposition to that pact renders such support moot. “The FMCT right now remains a distant goal, and leaders in New Delhi know that,” Kimball said. In a press release issued yesterday by the U.S. State Department, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Nuclear Nonproliferation Andrew Semmel said the India agreement would further nonproliferation goals. “This initiative recognizes India's critical energy needs, which can be partly met through nuclear power, as well as the benefits of drawing India into closer harmony with the nonproliferation regime,” Semmel is quoted as saying Feb. 9 at American University here. Semmel highlighted Indian commitments to better export controls, international guidelines on nuclear and missile transactions, IAEA safeguards over facilities designated as civil and continuing a nuclear-test moratorium. Such promises would bring India closer to international nonproliferation standards, he said, stressing that U.S. assistance would not apply directly to Indian weapon programs. “We continue to support NPT universality and encourage all NPT nonparties to adhere to the treaty as non-nuclear-weapon states,” he said, “although India has stated clearly that it has no intention to do so for the foreseeable future.” Back to top       Iran to Remove Some IAEA Cameras Iran yesterday announced its intention to remove several International Atomic Energy Agency surveillance cameras from some nuclear facilities, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Feb. 14). “We are getting ready to remove the cameras in some sites where they were installed according to the (Additional) Protocol,” said Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization. He was referring to Iran’s supplementary safeguards agreement with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, which Tehran has signed but not ratified. Saeedi said Tehran would strictly limit any future international inspections to the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and would not provide additional cooperation or access. “We are in the transition stage and the inspectors will work under the NPT. We will not do anything beyond our commitments to the NPT,” he said (Agence France-Presse I/IranMania.com, Feb. 14). Iran’s decision this week to resume uranium enrichment, albeit on a small scale, heightens the international dispute over its nuclear program, the Washington Post reported today. “They’ve now walked across the line in such a blatant way that it’s hard to see where any other red line could be drawn,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, an analyst with the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. “Now they’ve done what everybody was afraid of.” Diplomats, however, said the U.N. Security Council was unlikely to take any action until March 6, when IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei is expected to present a report on the progress of the investigation of Iran’s activities to the agency’s governing board.  That document is expected to include Iran’s decision to resume enrichment, said a Vienna-based diplomat. Agency inspectors at the Natanz facility reported that Iran is using fewer than five centrifuges, the diplomat said. “This means the IAEA will have to produce a report that is quite negative with regard to Iran,” Fitzpatrick said. “The director general would have been looking to produce a report that described ways in which Iran was cooperating. … Iran is not giving ElBaradei anything to work with here.” Western diplomats added that Iran’s decision to step back from providing additional access to the agency would impede the work of its inspectors. “It is very difficult for us to provide assurance that there is no parallel or secret program happening,” one diplomat said. Russia has offered a compromise deal, whereby Moscow would enrich uranium on Tehran’s behalf, a proposal Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ridiculed in a speech on Saturday. “They say that they will produce the fuel somewhere else and then they will hand it over to us,” he said. “We say, ‘What a surprise!  Do you expect us to be stupid enough to believe you?’” (Molly Moore, Washington Post, Feb. 15). The U.N. Security Council in unlikely to take quick action on the issue, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said yesterday. “There is no action planned at the moment, pursuant to the agreement reached by the five permanent foreign ministers,” Bolton told the New York Sun. Keeping the five permanent Security Council members together on the issue is considered the key goal in the short term, several diplomats told the Sun. The cooperation of China and Russia, both of which have remained opposed to dealing harshly with Iran, is crucial, said one European diplomat. One expert said he expected Iran to retract hard-line positions just before the March board meeting in order to appear conciliatory. “Iran is playing brinkmanship,” said Middle East Data Project President Kenneth Timmerman. “They’ve used that tactic before, indicating interest in proposals they have rejected for 10 years” (Benny Avni, New York Sun, Feb. 15). France and Russia yesterday called on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, United Press International reported. The statement, released in Moscow, urges Iran to abide by IAEA guidelines, “including the suspension of the entire uranium enrichment process,” ITAR-Tass reported. The two countries recognized Iran’s right to a nuclear energy program, however, and said countries that do not have nuclear fuel cycle programs should have access to uranium enrichment services (United Press International, Feb. 15). Moscow announced yesterday that it is not troubled by Tehran’s request to delay until Feb. 20 a meeting to discuss the Russian compromise nuclear proposal, AFP reported. “There is no problem with this. I think that we will host the Iranian delegation,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak was quoted as saying by Interfax (Agence France-Presse II/IranMania.com, Feb. 14). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is scheduled to discuss the Iran standoff with senior European Union officials today, Deutsche-Presse Agentur reported. Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and EU Foreign Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner were expected to attend a morning meeting in Vienna, according to DPA, with Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel expected at an afternoon session. Lavrov yesterday rejected the possibility of U.N. sanctions against Iran. “Sanctions have not solved a single conflict in modern history,” he said. “The people talking about sanctions have political goals,” Lavrov added (Deutsche-Presse Agentur, Feb. 15). The United States yesterday called on Iran to accept the Russian proposal, AFP reported. “That’s an offer that remains on the table. … We’ve expressed support for Iran’s right to have civilian nuclear energy and the proposal that Russia has put forward,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. McClellan said Iran must suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing work, cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency and resume negotiations with the European Union. “If they’re going to start restoring confidence with the international community, those are essential steps that the regime must take,” he said (Agence France-Presse III/IranMania.com, Feb. 14). Iran is reportedly making a push to procure nuclear technology, particularly from Europe, Germany’s DDP news agency reported yesterday. Its efforts are focused in France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Germany, that latter of which alone hosts more than 100 Iranian front companies, DDP reported. “We can scarcely keep tabs on them,” said one European intelligence expert. “This lucrative trade takes precedence over all misgivings over security,” another intelligence source said. Small firms run by Iranians resident in Germany have been playing a large role in the illicit dual-use trade, DDP reported (DDP news agency/BBC Monitoring, Feb. 14). The U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled to meet this week with Turkish Foreign Ministry officials to discuss the standoff, AFP reported yesterday. Gregory Schulte plans to consult “with Turkish officials regarding Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and international diplomatic measures to resolve the issue,” the U.S. Embassy in Ankara announced. “We are saddened to learn that Iran has resumed uranium enrichment. We hope the issue is resolved through diplomacy. There is still an opportunity for that,” Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said yesterday (Agence France-Presse IV/IranMania.com, Feb. 14). Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert yesterday called on the world to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Reuters reported. “From this day today there must be a very concrete, joint action by the international community that will stop the Iranians from continuing their efforts to possess nuclear weapons,” Olmert said. He added that he hoped a debate in the U.N. Security Council would “end up with a clear and powerful action to stop the Iranians” (Reuters, Feb. 14). Back to top       China Denies Links to Suspected Nuclear Exporter China yesterday denied involvement with a Japanese precision instrument manufacturer accused of illegally exporting technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 13). Mitutoyo Corp. is under investigation for shipments in 2001 to Japanese companies in China and Thailand, according to AP. “After our inquiries, we felt that this issue had nothing to do with China,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao (Associated Press/Mainichi Daily News, Feb. 15). Thailand, meanwhile, pledged full cooperation with Japanese and international authorities over the allegations, Agence France-Presse reported. Thai Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamonkhon said he has requested additional information from Tokyo. “As of now we do not have official notification from Japan, but if there is any involvement with Thai nationals, the Thai government is ready to fully coordinate and cooperate with the Japanese government,” Suphamonkhon said. “I can reaffirm that Thailand is fully complying with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Zee News, Feb. 14). Back to top       New Russian Missile Systems to Combat Terrorism New Russian missile systems will be designed to survive nuclear attacks and terrorist strikes, Interfax reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 13). The new systems would not be meant to boost Russia’s nuclear power, according to Maj. Gen. Vladimir Vasilenko, a top defense research and development official. “First and foremost, new strategic missile systems feature increased protection against nuclear effects and conventional weapons, including those in the inventory of sabotage teams and terrorist units,” Vasilenko said. Vasilenko said the missiles are also expected to have improved maneuverability. “Contemporary missiles can efficiently penetrate numerous missile defenses,” he said (Interfax, Feb. 14). Meanwhile, Russia has deployed a new missile defense early warning system, ITAR-Tass reported today (see GSN, Jan. 19). “The means and systems of the ballistic missile defense forces are combat ready,” said Maj. Gen. Sergei Lobov (ITAR-Tass, Feb. 15). Back to top

Talks to Prepare for BWC Negotiations Conclude Twenty-six countries today were scheduled to finish a two-day meeting on preparations for negotiations later this year on the Biological Weapons Convention, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 9). The United States and other Group of Eight nations, Asian countries and India and Pakistan took part in the Tokyo talks. Discussions focused on U.S. opposition to setting up a verification body for the treaty. The fifth treaty review conference ended in 2002 with the failure to create such an oversight body (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2001). Washington had withdrawn from the talks, arguing that inspections could reveal U.S. security and trade secrets, according to AFP. Iran, China, Russia, Pakistan and India have also been hesitant to allow international inspections, AFP reported The next review conference is set to begin in November in Geneva. “The Tokyo conference is aimed at lubricating the conference with oil by offering an unofficial meeting before the Geneva meeting in November,” a Japanese Foreign Ministry official said (Agence France-Presse/DefenseNews.com, Feb. 14). The United States would not negotiate any verification mechanism at the conference, said Carolyn Leddy, senior adviser to the U.S. State Department’s International Security and Nonproliferation Bureau. The agency is open to other proposals, she said at the Tokyo conference. “In examining any of these proposals, litmus test for the United States will be their relevance to the post-9/11 international security environment in which we cannot remain passive, but must succeed in our efforts to eliminate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Anything less is not an option,” Leddy said, according to a State Department release. The release notes criticism of the United States for its stance against a treaty inspections body. Leddy said the United States “supports meaningful, dynamic and proactive strategies to confront proliferation, but we will not accept lowest common denominator approaches which will have little, if any, effect.” Member nations “should ask themselves not what the Biological Weapons Convention can do for them” but rather how they can reduce the WMD threat, she said. “The simple answer [is to] act responsibly,” according to Leddy. She called on individual states to act to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. “Multilateral commitments are only as effective as the actions undertaken by states themselves to implement such commitments,” she said. “Absent national ownership, multilateral obligations are simply empty rhetoric.  And, unfortunately, we know all too well that rhetoric does not make us any safer from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” Leddy added. Leddy said the United States has taken several key initiatives, including developing a national strategy against weapons of mass destruction, supporting a U.N. resolution criminalizing WMD proliferation, and establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative to stop WMD transport (U.S. State Department release, Feb. 14). Back to top       Legislation to Improve Biological Attack Readiness Tops U.S. Senate Committee’s Agenda U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) said his panel this year would press efforts this year to strengthen U.S. biological defense efforts, according to the Biodefense Funding Report (see GSN, Oct. 19, 2005). The senator said the drug industry must work to create new countermeasures to safeguard U.S. citizens. “Though we've made remarkable strides to identify our nation's weaknesses, the fact remains that there are still holes in our biological defense that must be filled to ensure the safety of public health as well as national security,” Enzi said. Filling these gaps will be the “No. 1 priority” for the panel’s Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.). The committee hopes to pass Project Bioshield II, which would provide tax incentives for companies to research and develop countermeasures; intellectual property and patent protections; and liability shields to companies that manufacture vaccines. The last committee action on the legislation was a round-table discussion in July 2005 (Biodefense Funding Report, Feb, 14). Back to top       Norwegian Woman Treated for Anthrax Exposure An employee at a Norwegian military base that is home to a NATO training center and the country’s Defense Joint Operative Headquarters was treated for anthrax exposure after she opened an envelop that contained white powder, the newspaper Aftenposten reported today (see GSN, Jan. 26). The letter was sent from the United States and addressed to U.S. officials. “The police have been called in and they took the powder, which is now sent for analysis,” said DJOH spokesman Erling Kristiansen. The woman, a civilian employee at the base, was examined by health officials and prescribed antibiotics (Aftenposten, Feb. 15). Back to top

Jordan Chemical Plot Suspects Sentenced to Death Nine men were sentenced to death today for plotting a chemical weapons attack in the Jordanian capital of Amman, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2005). Al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and three others received the sentence in abstentia for the plan foiled by authorities in 2004. However, plot mastermind Azmi al-Jayousi and four others were in court when the sentence was handed down (Associated Press/USA Today, Feb. 15). Back to top       Citizens Worried by Russia CW Processing Plans Russian citizens are concerned about untested disposal methods and lack of preparedness for a serious accident as Russia prepares to begin destroying chemical weapons near the town of Mirny, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Jan. 17). Russia this year is expected to being processing 4,000 tons of VX nerve agent at a facility outside the town as Moscow works to meet a Chemical Weapons Convention deadline that requires 20 percent of the national stockpile to be destroyed by 2007. Under the convention, destruction of chemical weapons around the world must be completed by 2012. The world’s largest arsenals belong to Russia and the United States. Russia has only processed 1 percent of its weapons. The United States, on the other hand, has eliminated 35 percent of its stockpile. Some Mirny residents claim Russia is moving too quickly.  Military officials are “in a hurry and they're using a technology that has never been tried before,” said Tatyana Koroleva, a schoolteacher in Mirny. “Life is cheap in Russia.  People are very afraid that we will be betrayed.” Russia plans to move the weapons from a storage facility outside the town to a neighboring building where the weapons would be destroyed.   Workers are to slice off the tops of the shells, add a neutralizing agent and then reseal the weapons. Neutralization takes three months and creates a waste product with low toxicity. “In reality, it will be fast,” said Mikhail Manin, the official overseeing weapons processing in Russia’s Kirov region. “We believe it's more reliable than other methods.” The Maradykovsky facility near Mirny and a disposal site in Kambarka in the Ural Mountains region are scheduled to open this year. The Kambarka facility is scheduled March 1 to begin disposal of lewisite stored there. Due to the looming April 2007 deadline, little time is available for testing of the disposal method, the Post reported. “People are concerned over safety and spillage, especially for the workers,” said Paul Walker, legacy program director at Global Green USA. “We're all really hopeful even though we remain deeply concerned over the safety and the efficacy of an unproven technology.” Russian Union for Chemical Safety President Lev Fedorov said he fears pressure caused by the neutralization process could cause the resealed bombs to leak. “From physics we know that in each container for liquid like this 10 percent of the volume should be left for expansion,” Fedorov said. “They are going to pour 7 percent and leave only 3 percent for 100 days. It’s dangerous.” Russian officials contend the process is safe. “We examined about 50 different technologies and individual proposals,” Viktor Petrunin, general director of the State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology, was quoted as saying in the Russian government newspaper. Russian officials also argued that predictions about problems at an operating weapons processing plant in Gorny turned out to be false. According to the Post, a different neutralization method was used there. “We've tried to have a real dialogue with people like Fedorov, but they seem more interested in stirring up trouble,” Manin said. “It's a painful topic and people make their careers on it.” Preparations have been made for a possible accident, with houses around the facility receiving gas masks and studies conducted to determine environmental changes once processing begins, according to Russian officials. They said evacuation plans would be in place by March. “People will be told where to go depending on the wind,” said Viktor Feofanov, head of the Civil Defense and Fire Security Department in Kirov. “We have done a lot of training with the population and the population will know what routes to take.” Mirny Mayor Yevgeny Yudintsev said his town is “very calm.” Opponents continue to push for the weapons destruction facility to be placed six miles away from Mirny. It is now only 2,000 yards outside the city. Original plans included a 3,000-yard “exclusion zone” around the facility in which habitation would be prohibited. However, this plan proved too costly.  Officials “saw they would have to pay for everyone to move, [so] they reduced it. Very convenient and very cynical,” said regional parliament member Andrei Taranov. Russian officials maintain a safe distance from the plant is 600 to 700 yards. They said the 3,000-yard zone was a suggestion. “Safety is our first concern — not deadlines,” Manin said. “Nothing will happen until everything is ready and we're absolutely confident. This will be a safe operation” (Peter Finn, Washington Post, Feb. 15). Back to top       U.S. Army Destroys Chemical Weapons in Hawaii The U.S. Army yesterday destroyed chemical weapons found on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, television station KHON2 reported (see GSN, Feb. 9). The Army exploded the ordnance on site at Schofield Barracks after determining that the munitions could not safely be moved, officials said. All chemicals contained in the weapons are believed to have been destroyed, the officials added (KHON2, Feb. 14). Back to top       Mustard Gas Leak Found at Deseret Chemical Depot Workers at the Desert Chemical Depot in Utah on Monday found mustard gas leaking from a 155 mm projectile housed in a storage igloo (see GSN, Oct. 20, 2005). After the leak was discovered, workers placed the weapon in an airtight storage container and put air filtration equipment on the igloo, according to a U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency press statement. The leak posed no danger to communities surrounding Deseret, according to the release (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Feb. 13). Back to top

U.S. to Station Aegis Destroyer at Japanese Port The U.S. Navy is preparing to deploy a destroyer equipped with the Aegis antiballistic missile system to a Japanese port, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Jan. 10). The USS Shiloh is scheduled to arrive at the port of Yokosuka later this year, said Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The Shiloh “will have the most advanced ballistic missile defense capability on board,” Roughead said yesterday. Critics complained that the move had more to do with defending the United States than Japan. “Missile defense is essentially to protect mainland America” rather than Japan, said Masahiko Goto, an attorney who is campaigning against the 2005 agreement to station a nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carrier at Yokosuka beginning in 2008. “They want to detect a missile fired from North Korea or China towards America while it is over the Sea of Japan and before it reaches their mainland,” Goto said. South Korea believes Pyongyang is developing long-range missiles that could reach the western U.S. coast, according to AFP (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 15).   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.