The United Kingdom wants the United Nations to make demands of Iran that could be backed by military action if the international community fails to persuade Tehran to give up its controversial nuclear work, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, March 20).
In a confidential letter obtained by AP, British Foreign Office Director John Sawers describes a scenario in which a Security Council resolution in early May would require Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Adopted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, it would be binding and militarily enforceable, Sawers wrote.
Sawers indicated that the deal could be finalized in June, leading to a July foreign ministers meeting of the Group of Eight powers. Sawers expects Western influence over Moscow to “be at its maximum” as the summit in St. Petersburg approaches, he wrote. “However, we are not going to bring the Russians and Chinese to accept significant sanctions over the coming months, certainly not without further efforts to bring the Iranians around,” Sawers wrote. A new package of incentives to persuade Iran to relinquish its nuclear program could be developed to attract Russian and Chinese support for possible action, he said. Sawers yesterday hosted a 4 1/2-hour meeting of top diplomats from the permanent Security Council members plus Germany. Following the meeting, Sawers said “there was a lot of common ground” but that talks would continue. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton had expressed hope that a statement could be adopted after council discussions this afternoon, but Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said after the meeting yesterday that more time was needed. “We remain convinced that we will achieve a presidential statement,” Burns said. “It may take a little bit of time, but it’s going to be worth the time because when we do achieve that statement, it will be yet another clear unified message by the international community that Iran has to heed the words of both the [International Atomic Energy Agency] and the U.N. Security Council.” Diplomats from the six key nations agreed on a brief statement: “We share a deep concern that Iran has failed to respond positively to the IAEA resolution of Feb. 4, continues enrichment and has ceased cooperation under the (IAEA) Additional Protocol” which allows snap inspections, it said. “We will remain in close touch, particularly to finalize draft Security Council action.” The lack of progress after 10 days of negotiations could prompt Western nations to seek a majority resolution rather than a presidential statement, which requires unanimity among the 15 council members, one council diplomat said. China and Russia would then be forced to approve or veto the resolution, or abstain from the vote, according to AP. Moscow and Beijing have continued to oppose aspects of a proposed statement, including a request for IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to report in 14 days on whether Iran is complying with his agency’s demands. China has indicated that it favors a period of 30 to 45 days (Edith Lederer, Associated Press I/Yahoo!News, March 21). Sources close to the talks said Russian officials, backed by the Chinese delegation, were hardest on the draft statement, Reuters reported yesterday. Draft authors France and the United Kingdom plan to take “another look at that text to see if we can refine it a little bit more,” said British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry (Leopold/Arieff, Reuters/International Herald Tribune, March 20). Meanwhile, Iran is preparing to start a 164-centrifuge cascade for uranium enrichment, the New York Sun reported today. “Iran is on the verge of operating a 164-centrifuge cascade with UF6,” a Western diplomat at the U.N. nuclear watchdog in Vienna told AFP yesterday, referring to uranium hexafluoride gas. “Once you learn how to make one washing machine, you can make a thousand washing machines,” one senior U.S. official said recently, describing Iran’s nuclear advances (Benny Avni, New York Sun, March 21). Elsewhere, an exiled Iranian dissident alleged that Iran’s military operates the country’s nuclear program, AFP reported. Researchers at Imam Hossein University in Tehran, most of whom are members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, are involved in the program, said Alireza Jafarzadeh, former spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran. “The IRGC has been furthering its military nuclear project research using universities and academic institutions as a cover,” Jafarzadeh said (Agence France-Presse/IranMania.com, March 20). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday that the West owes Iran an apology over allegations that it is operating a nuclear weapons program, AP reported. “Today they tell our nation that nuclear energy is a bad thing and it is not necessary for our people to have it. But the nation of Iran has stood (for its right),” he said. “Those who head war and crimes accused the Iranian nation of war seeking. They insulted our nation. I do advise them to apologize” (Nasser Karimi, Associated Press II/San Diego Union-Tribune, March 21). Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki today discussed the nuclear dispute with Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri, AP reported. Mottaki and Kasuri discussed “matters of bilateral and mutual interest, including the latest developments with regard to the Iranian nuclear issue,” the Pakistani Foreign Ministry announced in a statement. Kasuri “reiterated Pakistan’s position that a peaceful solution should be found to the Iranian nuclear issue,” and that Pakistan encouraged dialogue between Iran and the European Union on the issue, the statement says (Munir Ahmad, Associated Press III/Pravda, March 21).
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The German government in the coming weeks could be forced to declare and justify its position on the tentative U.S. agreement to export nuclear technology to Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty holdout India, following the introduction of a minority party resolution opposing the deal (see GSN, March 17). The Green Party introduced the resolution in the German parliament on March 7, prompting a short debate on March 10 that found most of the country’s major parties opposed to the deal and the government’s lead Christian Democratic Union party undecided. The German government has been mum so far on the matter, but a debate reportedly is occurring within the Foreign Ministry, which is headed by a member of the coalition Social Democratic Party, whose arms control representative spoke in opposition during the debate. The government is under pressure to make a decision before Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh visits in April. “I presume that the German government already will want to have a position on this deal,” said Oliver Meier, international representative for the Arms Control Association in Berlin. Analysts have not considered Germany among those countries that might oppose the deal in May by rejecting an expected U.S. proposal to exempt India from Nuclear Suppliers Group requirements. The 45-member consensus-run organization requires that non-NPT nations have in place full-scope safeguards — meaning all nuclear facilities safeguarded from weapons production — in order to receive certain nuclear exports from groups members. India has nuclear weapons and limited safeguards in place. Analysts say the deal could aid New Delhi’s weapons program, by facilitating uranium exports into the country for civil energy, potentially freeing up other supplies to manufacture more weapons. The U.S. Congress must also approve the deal for it to go through. That is by no means guaranteed to occur, as both parties are showing signs of support and opposition (see related GSN story, today). The March 10 debate indicated the German government would have to declare and defend the position it chooses at parliamentary hearings in the coming weeks, according to Meier. He said there has been little debate in the German press or so far public interest in the potential deal, but that an explanation of the government’s position could spark interest in the largely antinuclear population. “At least it should foster a more informed debate in parliament,” he said. The German government has a policy of phasing out civil nuclear energy production, a rarity worldwide. The Green Party resolution recommends preconditions for the deal that are certain to be rejected by India. They are: that all Indian nuclear facilities be placed indefinitely under international safeguards, a permanent cap on Indian fissile material production for weapons, India’s accession to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and New Delhi’s end to further nuclear weapons production and its commitment to the NPT requirement to negotiate an end to the nuclear arms race. “Giving consent to a lifting of international nuclear trade restrictions against India can only be in the German or the European interest if India in return makes verifiable, far-reaching and irreversible commitments on nuclear transparency and on disarmament and in a binding manner subjects itself to global nuclear disarmament rules and arms control restrictions,” it says. At the debate, representatives from the Green and the Liberal parties spoke against the deal, as did one from Germany’s other large party and the Christian Democratic Union’s government coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party. “A principle of the NPT is being called into question, a principle which states that we reward states that renounce nuclear weapons with support. ... This principle was important to bring states into the NPT. Now this principle has been unilaterally … obstructed,” said Social Democrat arms control spokesman Rolf Mutzenich. A debate is believed to be under way within the German Foreign Ministry on whether to support the deal, similar to one that took place at the U.S. State Department (see GSN, March 8). “The struggle is clearly within the Foreign Ministry at this point,” Meier said. Karl-Theodor Freiherr zu Guttenberg, the Christian Democratic Union’s arms control spokesman in parliament, in the debate acknowledged the Green Party’s criticisms but also said that the deal might bring India closer to NPT compliance. It is a “matter of judgment,” he said, whether the “agreement despite all negative implications, at least brings India closer to the nonproliferation treaty.” At the same time, he appeared to lament that Europe had not negotiated such a deal for itself before the United States. “Where … is Europe? Where was the European Union? Where is a European foreign policy that also changes strategic orientations and circumstances in the world?” he said.
U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday shared details of the U.S.-Indian nuclear technology sharing agreement with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Reuters reported (see GSN, March 16). Howard is considering the reversal of an Australian policy forbidding the sale of uranium to India because New Delhi has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The discussion between Howard and Bush is seen by some as opening the door for a shift in Canberra’s stance. “My read on it would be, yes, (Howard) is paving the way for a possible change of policy. Whether he does or not depends on how people react to it,” said Dennis Woodward, a political analyst at Monash University. Howard said he and Bush discussed why the United States entered into the agreement as well as the benefits of placing Indian civilian nuclear facilities under international safeguards. “We both agreed that was a very significant step forward and we both of course agreed that India is going to bulk much larger in the affairs of the region because of the enormous economic growth that country is enjoying,” Howard said (Reuters/New York Times, March 21). Bush, meanwhile, yesterday defended the deal, Agence France-Presse reported. He said the proposed agreement would place adequate safeguards on India. Cooperation with India is needed to improve post-Cold War relations, Bush added. “My hope is some day, somebody will be asking a question, ‘Aren't you glad old George W. thought about our entering into a strategic relationship with India?’” he said (Agence France-Presse, March 20). Elsewhere, former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) said that he is concerned that the Indian deal would undermine the “United States’ vital interest” in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported. Nunn urged Congress to place conditions on their support for the agreement, which is required for the deal to become reality. “Congress has a duty to look at the broader framework,” he said. “If I were still in Congress, I would be skeptical and looking at conditions that could be attached.” Nunn said he worries that the deal could promote proliferation of weapon-grade nuclear material and lead to an arms race between India, Pakistan and China. It also would make it more difficult for the United States to confront countries such as Iran and North Korea that are suspected of developing nuclear weapons. The former senator also said the economic benefits of nuclear power are overstated. Under the terms of the agreement, India must separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and place the civilian sites under international safeguards. No safeguards would be placed on India’s fast-breeder reactors, which could produce large amounts of weapon-grade nuclear materials quickly. The reactors are still in prototype phase, the Post reported. The White House initially pushed for a system in which India could produce material for six to 10 weapons a year, but the final agreement would allow the production of up to 50 weapons annually. Nuclear experts said this is well above New Delhi’s current capacity. Nunn said the president must obtain pledges from India that it is not producing weapon-grade nuclear materials. The agreement as is “certainly does not curb in any way the proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material,” he said. “India was a lot better negotiator than we were,” he said. While the plan does not provide U.S. assistance for India’s weapons program, “the reality could be the opposite. The administration has a high burden to explain this,” he said. Nunn added that the reasoning that it is in the interest of the United States to allow buildup of India’s weapons capabilities is “totally counterproductive and dangerous reasoning.” In an interview with the Indianapolis Star, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who partnered with Nunn in the early 1990s to create the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, said he would be convinced the legislation was in U.S. interests if there were “considerable if not complete” safeguards against the creation of nuclear weapons materials. “Nunn's voice carries weight,” said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. “We have waited for a moderate, respected voice to speak clear sense on these matters. Now that he's spoken, it would be very strange if Congress doesn't listen” (Glen Kessler, Washington Post, March 21). [EDITOR’S NOTE: Sam Nunn is chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Richard Lugar serves on the NTI board. NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.]
Pakistan said it has talked with the Nuclear Suppliers Group about a civilian nuclear technology sharing agreement, United Press International reported today (see GSN, March 14). “Discussions were not related to the India-U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation pact,” said Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam. Two delegates from the suppliers group were in Pakistan to discuss Islamabad’s export control systems, according to the Hindu newspaper. The delegates met with Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan. “Members voluntarily coordinate their export controls to non-nuclear weapon states,” Aslam said. She said that while Pakistan has not pursued membership in the group, it fulfills membership criteria. Pakistan has been concerned by the proposed U.S.-Indian nuclear sharing agreement. The United States has declined to offer a similar deal to Islamabad (United Press International, March 21).
The United States could provide energy and economic aid to North Korea beginning next year if Pyongyang abandons its nuclear programs, the Yonhap News Agency reported today (see GSN, March 20). A U.S. goal for next year on North Korea’s WMD programs is to “refine” a nuclear dismantlement verification regime, according to the “FY 2007 Joint Performance Summary” posted last month on the State Department Web site. Washington also plans to urge North Korea to join the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention, and intends to “complete planning and if possible begin negotiations with North Korea on a verifiable missile export ban and limits on indigenous missile programs,” the document says (Yonhap News Agency, March 21).
| 
Back to top
