Three major European nations are readying new financial incentives to be granted Iran if it restores a moratorium on its uranium enrichment activities and resumes new nuclear negotiations, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, May 9).
The deal would include energy aid and increased trade with Western nations. The United States indicated support for the initiative, according to the Post, while U.S. efforts to secure a tough U.N. resolution remain bogged down in negotiations. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on Iran to “return to the negotiating table.” “I would just like to say to the people of Iran: Obviously, if there is a way for Iran to accept the will of the international community, to accept proposals for civil nuclear power, this is the time for Iran to take that possibility, because no one wants to isolate the Iranian people,” she said. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, a noted hard-liner on Iran, also yesterday endorsed the effort by France, Germany and the United Kingdom. European diplomats said they hoped to persuade Russia and China to back tougher measures if Tehran remains indifferent to the renewed overture. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Monday that an “ambitious package” of incentives — including expanded commercial ties, energy guarantees and preservation Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy — were being formulated (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, May 10). A top Middle East adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow would make a renewed offer to guarantee enriched uranium to Iran and other countries with civilian nuclear programs, the Washington Times reported today. Yevgeny Primakov told the Times that the proposal calls for declared nuclear-weapon states to produce and supply enriched uranium to non-nuclear weapon states. He said Russia might present the plan at the summit of the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, scheduled to take place in St. Petersburg in July. “The idea is that countries interested in uranium enrichment for peaceful means will turn to well-established members of the nuclear club for that purpose, instead of pursuing that process themselves,” Primakov said. He said Iran would be “one of many” recipients of the fuel. “This will allow Iran to comply with the offer without losing face,” he said (Svetlova/Martin, Washington Times, May 10). Rice continued to press for a Security Council resolution on Iran invoking Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows for enforcement measures such as sanctions or military intervention, despite continued opposition from Beijing and Moscow, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. “The international community is united that there must be a strong message to Iran through the Security Council that their behavior to date is unacceptable,” she said. “The United States believes very strongly in a mandatory statement from the Security Council to Iran.” Asked whether invoking Article 40 of the chapter would be possible, which would allow Iran more time to comply with council demands, Rice said, “I’m not going to get into the diplomacy. Let’s give it time to work” (Agence France-Presse I/IranMania.com, May 9). The White House announced yesterday that it would make no formal written response to a letter sent to President George W. Bush by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, AFP reported. “We’ve already given our response,” said National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones, referring to comments by Rice and other officials. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the letter was not intended to influence members of the U.N. Security Council. “The letter from Ahmadinejad to Bush was not aimed at influencing the nuclear question. We are awaiting the reaction of the person it was addressed to,” Asefi said (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, May 9). Ahmadinejad, traveling in Indonesia, said Iran would “absolutely not back out” of defending its right to develop nuclear technology, the Associated Press reported. “They pretend that they are concerned about the nature of the nuclear program of the Islamic republic of Iran,” he said. “This is a big lie.” “Today the people of Iran are not just defending their own rights, but also those of other nations,” he added. “They [Western powers] want to prevent other countries from reaching the pinnacle of science and technology.” Ahmadinejad also defended his decision to send the letter to Bush. “If they choose not to answer our question, it depends on them,” he said. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, after meeting with Ahmadinejad, offered to help mediate the standoff between Iran and the West. Yudhoyono’s spokesman said Iran appeared open to the proposal. Meanwhile, a representative of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei offered suggestions on ways to resolve the issue in a letter to Time magazine, and Hassan Rohani, Iran’s former top nuclear negotiator, said Tehran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol to its nuclear safeguards agreement, allowing for short-notice inspections (Chris Brummitt, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 10). Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, who holds the EU rotating presidency, said yesterday that Iran could be persuaded to give up any nuclear weapons ambitions if the United States becomes directly involved in negotiations with Tehran, Reuters reported. “What I would like is a process that doesn’t spiral into a crisis but one that leads in a positive direction,” Schuessel said. “But we need the full participation of the Americans,” he said (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, May 9). U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that, given incorrect intelligence on prewar Iraq’s WMD programs, assessing Iran’s intentions should be done carefully, CNN reported. “You’re dealing with a closed society there, so clearly one has to be very careful,” Rumsfeld said. “The intelligence community had views on Iraq,” he said. “That information was available to the president, to me. It was the information that was available to [former] Secretary [of State] Colin Powell and [then National Security Advisor] Condi Rice, when they and [former CIA Director] George Tenet worked on [Powell’s] presentation for the United Nations over a period of many days.” “It’s a tough business. It’s a difficult thing to be right all the time. And the information was not correct. Does that give one pause? You bet,” he said (CNN.com, May 9).
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The German government in a recent letter to opposition Green Party officials refused to indicate how it would weigh on a proposed U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation agreement, with the apparent intent of waiting to see whether the U.S. Congress will pass legislation enabling the deal (see GSN, March 21). The proposed deal could enable Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty-defiant India to obtain sensitive international nuclear exports intended only for civil power production. India has said such trade would be safeguarded from military use. For the deal to proceed, however, the U.S. Congress and the multinational Nuclear Suppliers Group would need to revise their export controls. Germany is one of 45 members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and it or any other participating country could block proposed exceptions to group guidelines to allow nuclear trade with India. Consensus is required for approval. With the hope of drawing the government out, Green Party lawmakers recently submitted several questions on the government’s assessments of the deal and on its intentions. The government’s responses, in a letter in German dated May 3 and obtained by Global Security Newswire, mostly avoided statements that would indicate overall support for or opposition to the deal or insight into the government’s views on potential legal or practical implications. Questions and AnswersFor instance, asked what implications the deal might have for efforts to encourage all countries to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the government wrote that promoting universal adherence to the treaty would be a “long-term process” and that Berlin could not currently judge the potential impact of the agreement. Asked what India would need to do to ensure its plan for separating military and civilian nuclear facilities is credible from a nonproliferation perspective and gain German support in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the government said “a final evaluation is not yet possible.” Asked whether nuclear material imports allowed by the deal might enable India to free up domestic nuclear fuel supplies for nuclear weapons, the government answered that nuclear fuel sought by New Delhi is intended solely for its civilian program. “They are not answering the question at all,” said Oliver Meier, an international representative for the Arms Control Association in Berlin. The government did, though, directly answer the Green Party question of whether it understood that proposed Indian safeguards on certain nuclear facilities would be permanent. “The government understands this to mean” that a redeclaration of safeguarded facilities as closed to monitoring “would not be possible,” it wrote, adding, “That is also the understanding of the U.S. government.” In apparent response to the government’s answers, the Green Party issued a critical press release. “The federal government is obviously politically overburdened by the challenge of answering questions about the U.S.-India nuclear deal. Allegedly it has neither clear understandings about the Indian nuclear program or the U.S.-Indian agreement on nuclear cooperation,” the May 5 press release in German said. The government appears to be “keeping all options open,” Meier said. “One of the few things that they’re firm on is that the NSG will not discuss this before United States [Congress] has acted on this proposal. And so until then, the German government is hiding behind Congress and not willing to come out in the open.” “There are other states in the NSG that would share some of the same reservations that the German government has, so I think there would be room for taking an initiative on this and they’ve not so far.” Officials MumSince U.S. and Indian officials outlined the proposed agreement in early March, German officials and those of other Nuclear Suppliers Group members have mostly avoided publicly indicating support or opposition to the deal. In a March 23 news interview, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was quoted as saying the apparent International Atomic Energy Agency support of the deal is a positive consideration. He also asked, though, whether “it wouldn’t have been better to come to such an arrangement at a later date given the ongoing negotiations with Iran.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel was said to have criticized the proposed deal in a March 9 private phone conversation, according to a March 27 Der Spiegel report. However, after April talks in Germany with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Merkel reportedly said regarding the deal, “We are on a positive path,” and also, “We will be following discussions taking place in the U.S. Congress which has to ratify it.” At a March planning meeting, the Nuclear Suppliers Group decided not to formally consider the deal during its annual plenary session this month in Rio de Janeiro. Group members Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden reportedly expressed concern that the deal could hurt international nonproliferation efforts (see GSN, March 24). Members otherwise have appeared reluctant to take a firm public position on the deal. That includes nations that reportedly have expressed concerns. “With likeminded countries in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), New Zealand has flagged its concern about what the implications of the U.S.-India cooperation initiative might be for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” New Zealand Disarmament and Arms Control Minister Phil Goff stated by e-mail in response to questions from Global Security Newswire. Wellington has sought more details about the proposed deal, he wrote, and that information will “inform New Zealand’s position.”
A massive non-nuclear explosion at the Nevada Test Site will be postponed due to problems with paperwork, The Salt Lake Tribune reported yesterday (see GSN, May 8). “The proposed detonation of Divine Strake will take place no earlier than June 23,” a National Nuclear Security Administration official said in a federal court statement filed Monday. The test previously had been scheduled for June 2. It is designed to assess U.S. capabilities to destroy buried, hardened enemy facilities. There are problems with U.S. environmental documents related to the detonation of 700 tons of an ammonium nitrate-fuel oil mixture at the desert location, said attorney Robert Hager, who represents residents opposed to the test. Government attorneys on Monday said a new “decision document” to address safety and environmental concerns was expected to be released yesterday, delaying the schedule for hearings and filing of key paperwork. Hager that even with the latest environmental assessments, it remains unclear that the surrounding area would be safe from old nuclear fallout at the site that could be kicked up in the explosion. “We would like it to be a permanent delay, and we are prepared to go forward (demanding better information on the environmental assessment in court until we) put this matter to bed forever,” he said. Utah lawmakers expressed satisfaction at the announcement of the delay. “I’m concerned with getting all the facts out for public view,” said U.S. Representative Jim Matheson (D). “So, this postponement may help accomplish that.” “We would appreciate more time,” said Peter Carr, spokesman for U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R). “We’ve been trying to work with [the Defense Threat Reduction Agency] to get the information that we requested during our briefing and in our letter, and we’ve had problems getting that information so far” (Fahys/Gehrke, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 9). Hatch is pressing the Defense Department to prove that Divine Strake would not spread nuclear contamination, the Tribune reported yesterday. He expressed dissatisfaction with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s response to his previous query. “My skepticism on this matter is well-placed,” Hatch wrote in a letter to agency Director James Tegnelia. “My objective in this matter is clear: to ensure that this proposed test will not result in further radiological exposure to the citizens of Utah and those of the downwind area.” The National Nuclear Security Administration and Defense Threat Reduction Agency issued a document yesterday indicating that additional studies have convinced the agencies that the test would have no significant environmental impact. Hatch asked that the Utah congressional delegation receive a map of contaminated areas and geological structures to allow for assessment of the test, according to the Tribune (Robert Gehrke, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 10).
The International Atomic Energy Agency announced yesterday that it has prepared sufficient monitoring measures at Brazil’s newly opened Resende uranium enrichment plant, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, May 8). “There are safeguard measures that have been agreed that will meet the agency’s requirements that there will be no diversion of nuclear material,” said IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire. Vidricaire did not, however, confirm that enrichment has begun at Resende according to AFP (Agence France-Presse/Mail & Guardian, May 9).
A U.S. nuclear expert said yesterday that the United States should offer North Korea a “positive incentive” to resume negotiations on its nuclear program, the Yonhap News Agency reported (see GSN, May 8). “I think the North Korean regime has to see a positive reason to give up its nuclear weapons capability,” said Robert Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. He said the Bush administration should offer Pyongyang “some assurance that Washington will be prepared to coexist peacefully with it and eventually have normal diplomatic relations with it.” Even though the Bush administration has said U.S. financial regulatory actions against North Korea are separate from the nuclear issue, Einhorn said Pyongyang believes the moves reveal U.S. intentions of undermining the regime. He added that some hard-line U.S. officials have engaged in unnecessarily offensive rhetoric. “Every once in a while, a senior official makes a statement that raises a question about whether it is genuinely prepared to coexist with North Korea and abandon a policy of regime change,” Einhorn said. “In terms of the format of engagement, I think the Bush administration was correct to pursue a multilateral framework. But at the same time it is also important to be prepared to engage with North Korea directly and bilaterally,” he said (Lee Chi-dong, Yonhap News Agency, May 10).
| 
Back to top
