United States Reaffirms Preventive War Policy

By David Francis
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — In a national security document released yesterday, the Bush administration reasserted its right to use military force against any country believed to threaten the United States, even if no attack is imminent (see GSN, Sept. 20, 2002).

The policy, first outlined in the 2002 National Security Strategy released during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, allows for preventive military action to stop countries from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

“To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to pre-empt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use pre-emption as a pretext for aggression,” the 2006 National Security Strategy says.

According to the document, the policy used to justify the invasion of Iraq remains in place, despite no unconventional weapons being found in the country.

“If necessary … under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack,” the document states. “When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. This is the principle and logic of pre-emption. The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same.”

National security adviser Stephen Hadley is expected to speak in more detail about the new strategy document here this afternoon at a United States Institute for Peace event.

The strategy names Iran and North Korea as the two greatest security challenges facing the United States. 

“For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community,” the document says. “Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons.”

The strategy says the United States plans to continue to work with its European Union partners and Russia on a diplomatic solution and to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

North Korea “presents a long and bleak record of duplicity and bad-faith negotiations. In the past, the regime has attempted to split the United States from its allies,” the strategy says. However, the United States and its allies in the region have joined in calling for Pyongyang to give up its nuclear programs. 

Until the nuclear issue is resolved, the United States “will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct.”

The United States also vowed to continue working to keep fissile materials out of the hands of terrorists, touting its Global Threat Reduction Initiative as a way to secure loose nuclear materials. The program attempts to locate missing weapons as well as track and reduce known nuclear material stockpiles.

The White House said that changes to world security, such as increased threats of terrorism and the atomic programs of Iran and North Korea, require a new approach to nuclear deterrence.

“Our deterrence strategy no longer rests primarily on the grim premise of inflicting devastating consequences on potential foes. Both offenses and defenses are necessary to deter state and nonstate actors, through denial of the objectives of their attacks and, if necessary, responding with overwhelming force,” the strategy says.

To meet the challenges presented by changing global security conditions, the White House is developing: a New Triad defense strategy with nuclear and conventional offensive strike systems, active and passive defenses, including improvements to missile defense; and a military infrastructure capable of responding to nuclear attacks.

“These capabilities will better deter some of the new threats we face, while also bolstering our security commitments to allies. Such security commitments have played a crucial role in convincing some countries to forgo their own nuclear weapons programs, thereby aiding our nonproliferation objectives,” according to the strategy.

The document says the United States is seeking improved capacity to detect and respond to biological attacks, secure such weapons located in vulnerable areas and limit the spread of materials that could be used to make weapons. 

“The United States is working with partner nations and institutions to strengthen global biosurveillance capabilities for early detection of suspicious outbreaks of disease. We have launched new initiatives at home to modernize our public health infrastructure and to encourage industry to speed the development of new classes of vaccines and medical countermeasures,” the strategy says.

The Bush administration also vowed to continue to work to prevent terrorists from obtaining chemical weapons and to improve domestic and international surveillance and defense capabilities.

Back to top

U.S. Declassifies First Documents from Iraq War

The United States yesterday released the first set of records collected from Iraq to be declassified since the March 2003 invasion, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 13).

The documents indicate that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein knew of reports that Iraqis and Saudis were going to Afghanistan to fight in the U.S. war against the Taliban after the 2001 terrorist attacks

More documents are expected in the coming months that could address Iraq’s suspected WMD programs and alleged ties to al-Qaeda

The Defense Department Web site notes that the United States “has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) has asked for millions of pages of documents and audio recordings found before and during the war to be made available. 

“Whether Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or hid or transferred them, the most important thing is we discover the truth of what was happening in the country prior to the war,” Hoekstra said (John Solomon, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, March 16).

Back to top

France, U.K. Urge U.N. Action on Iran

France and the United Kingdom yesterday called on the U.N. Security Council to move quickly to approve their draft resolution aimed at seeking Iran’s compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency demands over its nuclear program, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 15).

The five permanent members of the council have made no progress on bridging the gap between China and Russia and the Western powers, AP reported.

British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry nonetheless expressed hope for a deal by next week.

“By this time next week I will be disappointed if we have not got something on the table of the council,” he said. 

A second round on informal talks was set for this afternoon, with the entire 15-nation Security Council in attendance, AP reported.

One proposal being circulated would express “the conviction that continued Iranian enrichment-related activity would intensify international concern,” while another would reaffirm that WMD proliferation “constitutes a threat to international peace and security,” AP reported.

French U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said the council must “put its weight” behind IAEA demands that Iran stop uranium enrichment. That would “show that the international community is serious,” he said.

De La Sabliere expressed concern with the body’s slow progress.

“There is a little time to discuss, but not too much — time is running out,” he said. “What is happening on the ground in Iran is a reason for us to act swiftly” (Nick Wadhams, Associated Press/San Jose Mercury News, March 16).

Jones-Parry said the council’s five powers are considering a presidential statement instead of a full resolution, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday.

A nonbinding presidential statement has the “double advantage” of expressing solidarity — all 15 members must sign on for passage — while providing an incremental approach, he said.

“That is ... at any stage this process can be reversed if Iran changes its views and actually cooperates,” Jones-Parry said. “If it doesn’t, then the council will have to continue looking at it and logically will have to think of something else.”

He added that he saw a high level of agreement among the permanent members.

“I don’t want to say we’re lacking consensus,” he said, adding that all five share goals of nonproliferation and denying Iran a nuclear weapons capability (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, March 15).

China and Russia are urging a negotiated settlement, Reuters reported today.

“We both believe we need to seek political solutions to the issues through diplomatic channels,” said Russia’s ambassador to China, Sergei Razov.

“Russian and Chinese cooperation has played an important role in keeping the Iran nuclear issue on the track of diplomatic solution,” he said (Reuters/Yahoo!News, March 16).

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today she believes the Security Council will come to a correct decision regarding Iran , AFP reported.

“I am quite certain that the Security Council will find an appropriate vehicle for expressing again to the Iranians the desire and indeed the demand of the international community that Iran return to negotiations,” she said (Agence France-Presse II/Interactive Investor, March 16).

Meanwhile, a U.S. House of Representatives committee yesterday approved legislation to bolster sanctions on Iran, AP reported.

The House International Relations Committee approved the bill by a 37-3 vote over Bush administration objections. The White House said the legislation would limit its flexibility in resolving the nuclear standoff with Tehran.

The legislation would end U.S. economic aid to any country allowing investment in Iran’s energy sector. 

Representative Tom Lantos (Calif.), the committee’s top Democrat, said Tehran cannot be dealt with through benign persuasion.

“We can only hope to inflict such severe economic pain on Tehran that it would starve the leadership of the resources they need to fund a costly nuclear program,” he said.

More than 350 House members are said to support the bill, according to AP. The Senate is considering similar legislation (George Gedda, Associated Press/The Hindu, March 15).

Elsewhere, a reformist cleric in Iran has questioned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nuclear stand, AFP reported.

“We should have a strong diplomacy, avoid making unwise remarks that would further complicate the issue, build confidence and boost cooperation,” said former parliament speaker Mehdi Karrubi, according to the Tehran Times.

“We should not allow the Iranian nuclear issue to be referred to the Security Council,” Karrubi said.

“I am sure that sanctions will lead to great difficulties. I hope that the issue will be solved through negotiations,” he added (Agence France-Presse III/IranMania.com, March 15).

Back to top

Report Calls for Greater Russian, U.S. Cooperation to Resolve Iranian Nuclear Standoff

By David Francis
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Relations between the United States and Russia must improve if the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program is to be resolved, according to a report released last week by the Council on Foreign Relations (see GSN, March 15).

The report, entitled Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do, found that U.S.-Russian relations have soured to the point that agreement between the two nations is rarely possible. A bipartisan panel of experts led by former Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), former Congressman and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) and Council of Foreign Relations senior fellow Stephen Sestanovich warned that without improved relations, negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program will continue to be difficult. 

“Contention is crowding out consensus. The very idea of ‘strategic partnership’ no longer seems realistic,” the report says. 

The United State and Russia have been able to come to consensus of some issues. In the past, the United States had been opposed to the plan for Russia to supply nuclear fuel for Iran’s Bushehr because of fears that Tehran would acquire technology that could be used for a nuclear weapons program. As the Iranian nuclear crisis has escalated, however, Washington has quieted its objections to Iran having nuclear power.

“The people of Iran deserve nuclear energy,” U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA Gregory Schulte said last week in Vienna.

The Bush administration has supported European and Russian offers to guarantee Iran a supply of nuclear fuel if Tehran agrees not to develop uranium enrichment technology.

The $800 million reactor at Bushehr is being built under the terms of a 1992 deal in which Moscow agreed to support Tehran’s development of civil nuclear technology. Russia has agreed to provide nuclear fuel to the reactor to be used for civilian energy purposes, and then would collect spent fuel once it has been processed.  

The Russian proposal to dispose of spent fuel indicates its desire to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the report states, and is a way to restrain Tehran from using the nuclear technology to create an atomic arsenal.

 “The United States should now recognize explicitly what has been implicit in its position for some time: that a Russian policy that limits nuclear cooperation with Iran to nonsensitive technologies would justify dropping our historic objections to the Bushehr reactor,” the report states.

The U.N. Security Council is due to meet tomorrow to decide what action to take against Iran for defying the International Atomic Energy Agency and beginning uranium enrichment activities.   France, the United Kingdom and the United States are pushing for the complete stop of all nuclear activity in Iran, while Russia and China support limited work for civilian purposes.

The United States must also engage Russia to advance strategic interests, including stopping Tehran from producing nuclear weapons, the report states. The United States needs Moscow, as it is the “only power that can effectively threaten Iran with nuclear isolation if it continues to build sensitive nuclear fuel-cycle facilities.”

Russia, for its part, must inform Iran that its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions put nuclear cooperation at risk and put the international community in the position to oppose Tehran’s use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. 

“As the only major power that engages in nuclear cooperation with Iran, Russia could play a pivotal role in creating a framework that restrains these [nuclear weapon] activities. Its agreement with Iran to take spent fuel from the Bushehr reactor back to Russia as well as its proposal to enrich uranium in Russia for Iranian reactors indicate Moscow’s readiness to play a constructive role,” the report states.

Differences on Iran also prevent the United States and Russia from creating a framework in which to cooperate on promoting nuclear energy. This hampers President George W. Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, which looks to spread to use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes around the world. 

According to the report, a nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and Russia “would reflect Russia’s status as a major factor in nuclear commerce, from fuel supply and storage to reactor sales and advanced research.”

“With such an agreement in place, Russia and the United States can plan and then implement long-term arrangements for spent-fuel storage, which would be a critical component of secure fuel-supply arrangements that can persuade countries to forgo their own enrichment and reprocessing facilities,” the report says.

There is common ground to build upon. Russia and the United States have worked well together in Cooperative Threat Reduction programs to secure WMD materials in former Soviet states, the report says. However, the Cooperative Threat umbrella agreement expires this June. The report calls for extending this agreement so that a review of existing programs can be conducted and the need for future programs identified.

Also needed is agreement on common security standards for nuclear weapons and materials in Russia as well as increased Russian transparency with respect to facilities formerly used to make biological weapons, according to the report.

The two sides must also work together to secure nuclear materials from around the world for reprocessing. Tactical nuclear weapons arsenals, especially on the Russian side, must be secured to ensure that they do not end up in the hands of terrorists, the report says.

Back to top

U.S. Says India Deal Improves World Security

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today in Australia that the U.S.-Indian nuclear technology sharing agreement would improve global security, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 15).

Rice, at a press conference with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, said the deal “strengthens security by expanding the reach” of the International Atomic Energy Agency “to have access to Indian civil nuclear facilities which it currently does not have.”

“Everyone understands a growing economy like India needs energy supply and civil nuclear energy is clean, it protects the environment, it can be plentiful and currently India is not capable of pursuing civil nuclear power to the degree that it will need to,” she said (Associated Press, March 16).

Downer, while agreeing with efforts to engage India, did not wholly endorse the deal, and said Australia does not plan to end its policy barring sales of nuclear material to countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 7).

Still, Rice said she was pleased that Canberra has backed the agreement somewhat, Asia Pulse reported.

“I appreciate that the Australian government ... has said that they think the deal itself is a good deal,” she said. “I think the issue of whether or not one agrees to participate in fuel supplies is a quite separable issue and is one for the Australians to determine.”

“It’s not one that is at issue with the United States by any means,” she added (Asia Pulse, March 16).

Russia, on the other hand, is going ahead with plans to sell uranium to New Delhi, AFP reported.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov is expected to sign the deal during a visit to India that begins today. India has defended the agreement, saying it does not violate current international regulations.

“There is no violation of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines and Russia has approached the NSG under the safety exception clause,” the Indian Foreign Ministry said, referring to the clause that allows fuel transfers if a lack of fuel could pose a nuclear danger.

“India has had to seek urgent and limited supplies of uranium fuel to enable (the Tarapur plant) to continue its operations in safety. The United States is aware of the urgent need for fuel for Tarapur,” the Foreign Ministry said (Elizabeth Roche, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 16).

Meanwhile, President George W. Bush faced tough questions yesterday about the nuclear sharing agreement from an unlikely source — an 85-year old retiree. 

Bush was taking questions at a Washington area retirement center when he was challenged by former U.S. official Lawrence Weiler, who worked on the U.S. team negotiating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Los Angeles Times reported.

“Mr. President, there are some — and I guess I would include myself — who have different views about the Indian agreement, because they're concerned about the effect that the agreement will have on the capacity of India to stimulate its own production of nuclear weapons,” Weiler told Bush, who was there to promote his Medicare prescription drug program. 

Weiler asked the president to consider a “no-first-use” policy for nuclear weapons.

“The basic bargain there was that other countries would give up their nuclear weapons if we, the nuclear powers, would engage in a program of nuclear disarmament. The point is that we cannot expect that agreement, that basic agreement, to hold if the United States … has the position that we might initiate a nuclear war if it is necessary,” Weiler said.

“I’ll take your words to heart, and think about it. Thank you.  No commitment standing right here, of course,” Bush replied.

“Part of the Indian deal is to actually get them to formally join some of the institutions that you helped — your work created,” Bush added (Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times, March 16).

Back to top

Scientists, Federal Studies Question U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Program

Nuclear scientists and some federal studies indicate that the Bush administration’s plan to spread nuclear power around the world puts nuclear fuel supplies at risk of diversion by terrorists, the Christian Science Monitor reported today (see GSN, March 15).

The United States has promoted the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership as a way to reduce the amount of nuclear waste from reactors and stop weapons proliferation by using a new fuel technology called UREX-Plus. Officials said this technology could end the three-decade U.S. moratorium on reprocessing spent fuel, a process that produces plutonium.

“The goal of GNEP is recovery of the energy in a way that doesn't promote weapons,” Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said last month.

However, critics and Energy Department studies have indicated that UREX-Plus is not difficult to weaponize. A 2004 Energy Department study reported that the substance was only a bit more “proliferation resistant” than the PUREX process used by other nations. PUREX has been criticized by the United States as being vulnerable to proliferation.

“The bottom line is that UREX-Plus is not much more proliferation resistant — by their own estimates,” said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.

Proliferation-resistant material is so radioactive that to handle it would cause death, is easily detected and is difficult to turn into weapons fuel.

Federal studies have indicated that UREX does not meet these criteria.

For example, an Energy Department report found that UREX emits less than 1 rad per hour, while the National Academy of Sciences says the “spent fuel standard” should be 1,000 rads per hour, or enough to kill a person in 30 minutes. UREX also does not meet International Atomic Energy Agency standards for self-protection, according to the Monitor.

The UREX technologies “would still produce a material that is not radioactive enough to deter theft and could still be used to make nuclear weapons,” said Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“UREX-Plus is just PUREX with lipstick,” said Frank von Hippel, former assistant director of national security in the White House Science and Technology Office.

Government scientists have contested these claims. 

“There's only one step where this material has low self-protection, not up to the max, and then it’s heavily guarded,” said Phillip Finck, deputy associate laboratory director at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. “This process, UREX-Plus, is much more proliferation resistant than things developed in the past.”

The 2004 Energy Department study that found small differences between UREX-Plus and PUREX “should be performed again in view of the real technological changes since then,” he said.

Finck last week proposed adding a radioactive element to the UREX-Plus that would increase the self-protection of the fuel but also add billions of dollars to the price tag of the project, the Monitor reported.

Government researchers have also contended that unlike PUREX, which can easily be converted in weapon-usable materials, UREX “is not attractive or useable as weapons material,” Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said last month.

However, some Energy Department scientists have refuted this claim, arguing that plutonium with impurities can still be used in nuclear weapons.

A “subnational group using designs and technologies no more sophisticated than those used in first-generation nuclear weapons could build a nuclear weapon from reactor-grade plutonium,” a 1997 Energy Department study found. The explosion would be the size of the blast at Nagasaki and even a “fizzled explosion” would destroy the center of a major U.S. city (Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor, March 16).

Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Bodman yesterday asked Russia to invest technological and financial resources into the nuclear energy partnership, the Moscow Times reported.

The program will be a “multibillion-dollar, multiyear, if not multidecade, initiative,” Bodman said.

Bodman, during a meeting with Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko, asked Russia to join the program.

“The hope is, by gathering the resources of our potential partners we can reduce the costs and time,” Bodman said, adding that Russia’s expertise in fast neutron reactor technology could playa large part in the partnership (Yuriy Humber, Moscow Times, March 16).

Back to top

Libya, France Sign Nuclear Research Agreement

Libya yesterday signed a nuclear technology deal yesterday with France, the first of its kind since Tripoli agreed to abandon its WMD efforts in 2003, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 6).

“This accord represents a qualitative leap in relations between the two countries and proves that Libya has transformed its weapons of mass destruction into constructive weapons,” said Libyan Public Works Minister Maatuk Maatuk.

“Libya is reaping the benefit of its decision to get rid of WMDs. We hope this accord will enable us to develop cooperation (with other countries) on peaceful programs,” Maatuk said.

“We are telling the world that we are moving towards the development of Libyan nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” he added. The agreement includes research and use of nuclear technology for medical and agricultural purposes (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 15).

Back to top

China, Russia Call on North Korea, U.S. to Resolve Sanctions Dispute and Resume Nuclear Talks

China and Russia today called for an end to the financial sanctions dispute between North Korea and the United States so that multilateral nuclear negotiations can resume, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 13).

“From December of last year, the dispute between (North Korea) and the United States over financial issues has posed an obstacle to the six-party talks process,” said Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Li Hui.

“We hope both countries will bear in mind the larger interests to seek an early settlement of the financial dispute so that the second session of the fifth round of six-party talks will be resumed at an early date,” he said.

Russia’s ambassador to China, Sergei Razov, expressed similar views.

“We also hope that the relevant parties will find the early solution to their dispute so as to remove any obstacles to the talks,” he said during a joint press conference in Beijing (Agence France-Presse, March 16).

South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok said today that Washington is stepping up engagement with Pyongyang, the Associated Press reported.

“The United States now has various thoughts when looking at North Korea. It wants to look at the North from a little wider perspective,” Lee said. “This can, from some aspects, be a source of challenges, but also a source of opportunity.”

Lee added that he believes the United States is committed to resolving the nuclear standoff (Bo-Mi Lim, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, March 16).

Back to top

Trial of German Engineer Accused of Aiding Libyan Nuclear Program to Open Tomorrow

The trial of a German engineer charged with violating export laws to aid Libya’s former nuclear weapons program is scheduled to begin tomorrow, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 19).

Gotthard Lerch is suspected of collaborating with the clandestine network established by former top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan between 1999 and 2003. He faces a maximum prison sentence of 15 years if convicted, according to AP.

Lerch’s attorney, Gottfried Reims, said information from the CIA and other foreign intelligence services would vindicate his client.

Foreign intelligence services “must know that Mr. Lerch, for instance, had nothing to do with this,” Reims told AP.

German prosecutors have said that Lerch received more than $34 million for work that included overseeing procurement of uranium enrichment centrifuges for Libya and supplying vacuum technology for their production in South Africa (Stephen Graham, Associated Press, March 16).

Back to top

Leak at Newport Chemical Depot Originated from Drain

A leak of VX nerve agent wastewater that occurred earlier this week at the Newport Chemical Depot in Indiana originated from a drain in the bottom of a mixer-reactor, according to the commanding officer at the facility (see GSN, March 15).

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Scott Kimmell said in a press release that a plug on the reactor came loose as two workers at the Newport Chemical Agent Disposal Facility tried to tighten it. Around 300 gallons of the waste product escaped but was contained (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, March 15).

Back to top

Tokyo Sarin Attacker Again Appeals Death Sentence

A former Aum Shinrikyo cult member today appealed a Tokyo High Court decision to uphold his death sentence for his involvement in the deadly 1995 Tokyo subway sarin attack, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 15).

Attorneys for Tomomitsu Niimi said their client was loyal to Aum founder Shoko Asahara and was compelled to follow his instructions, Kyodo News reported (Associated Press, March 16).

Back to top

Japan Seen as Top Partner in U.S. Missile Defense

A senior U.S. defense official said last week that Japan is Washington’s most important international partner in its missile defense program, United Press International reported yesterday (see GSN, March 9).

Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Policy Peter Flory told a House Armed Services subcommittee that Tokyo’s commitment to spend around $1 billion has made it the largest partner in U.S. missile defense.

“The United States and Japan have agreed to work together to develop a more capable sea-based interceptor,” Flory said.

Flory added that the United States is negotiating a missile defense-related Defense Technical Cooperation Agreement with Russia (Martin Sieff, United Press International/SpaceWar.com, March 15).

Back to top