Iran could receive incentives from the United States if it agreed to abandon uranium enrichment, U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday (see GSN, May 25).
“The Iranians walked away from the table. They’re the ones who made the decision, and the choice is theirs. If they would like to see an enhanced package, the first thing they’ve got to do is suspend their operations, for the good of the world,” Bush said, according to Reuters.
Bush called a letter he received earlier this month from his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “interesting, but said the document “didn’t address the issue of whether or not they’re going to continue to press for a nuclear weapon. That’s the issue at hand.” Bush added that he and visiting British Prime Minister Tony Blair discussed ways of persuading Russia and others that the U.N. Security Council must act if Iran continues to defy the international community. “We’ve got to continue to work to convince [Iran] that we’re serious, that if they want to be isolated from the world, we will work to ... achieve that,” Bush said. Meanwhile, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said a meeting of foreign ministers from the Security Council permanent member nations and Germany would “likely be in Europe and likely be at the end of next week.” Diplomats told Reuters that it could take place in Paris (Giacomo/Bohan, Reuters/Yahoo!News, May 26). The meeting is expected to be a continuation of Wednesday’s discussions in London on a package of incentives and possible punishments for Tehran, the Associated Press reported. “The positive aspect is that they’re moving closer to an agreement on the content of the package,” said British Ambassador to the United Nations Emyr Jones Parry. “The package concept is a signal to Iran of what is available if they comply” with the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the alternative of “running into direct confrontation and the possibility of sanctions,” he said. Political directors from the six nations spent six hours Wednesday scrutinizing and reworking the package of trade, economic cooperation and political incentives that the European Union proposed to Iran in August, along with possible punishments if Iran does not agree to suspend uranium enrichment. There was no discussion of the contentious proposal by France, the United Kingdom and the United States to make that demand mandatory, a senior diplomat said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/ABC News, May 26). Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations said his country wants to work directly with the United States to resolve the issue, CNN reported. “We are prepared to engage in serious discussion in order to resolve this issue, and we have not made any exception with regard to the United States,” Ambassador Javad Zarif said yesterday. Zarif said Iran would have to pledge not to pursue nuclear arms. He said that “from a sober, strategic analysis, Iran’s security will be decreased by possession or pursuit of nuclear weapons, rather than increased.” Zarif recommended that Washington “ban the pressure tactics, the intimidation tactics” and begin bilateral discussions with Tehran. “If they’re looking for solutions, why are they not talking to one side of the problem?” he said. “There is a resolution to this situation, and the resolution is easily attainable, provided you look for it.” He also said the incentives and punishments being crafted by the West would not be an effective solution to the standoff. “It’s not whether Iran likes carrots,” he said. “Iran likes respect. Iran demands respect. If there is to be a solution in Iran, Iran has to be part of the solution. We don’t expect others to cook for us something and then present it to us and then tell us, ‘Eat it or else.’ This is not the way Iranians do international business” (CNN, May 26). The U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency yesterday expressed doubt that Iran would give up uranium enrichment, the Washington Times reported. “We shouldn’t fool ourselves. The president of Iran is not someone who is swayed by normal diplomatic demarches,” said Ambassador Gregory Schulte. While Ahmadinejad “wants a crisis,” according to Schulte, Washington and its allies “have to make clear to him and to the leadership that there is a better path to take.” IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, met this week with Bush administration officials in Washington, is scheduled to update the agency’s Governing Board on the situation at a June 12 meeting in Vienna, Schulte said. “At this point, I don’t think [ElBaradei] will have much to report,” he said. Schulte also rejected arguments that a proposed U.S. civilian nuclear deal with India had undermined Washington’s effort to isolate Iran over its nuclear work. “I hear that argument a lot more in Washington than I do in Vienna,” he said. While international inspectors have found Iranian nuclear scientists “technically competent” and “motivated,” Schulte said the possible schedule for Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear capability remained unknown. “Anybody who gives an exact time frame on that probably doesn’t know what he is talking about,” he said (David Sands, Washington Times, May 26). Blair said on Wednesday that he did not want conflict with Iran, given that British forces were already committed elsewhere, Agence France-Presse reported. “We don’t want a conflict with Iran, we have got enough on our plate doing other things. But if Iran goes out of its way then to breach its international obligations, of course the international community through the U.N. Security Council has got to take up the issue,” Blair told al-Jazeera. “Nobody is targeting Iran,” he added. “People are simply worried because they appear to be in breach of their nuclear obligations and because they are supporting terrorism around the Middle East,” he said. “I think Iran continually makes this mistake. It thinks that America and its allies are out to get Iran,” Blair added (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, May 25). Russian National Security Council secretary Igor Ivanov is scheduled to hold nuclear talks in Iran this weekend, AFP reported. Ivanov was invited by his Iranian counterpart, Ali Larijani, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, according to an Iranian source (Agence France-Presse II/IranMania.com, May 25).
The Clinton administration knew North Korea was developing a uranium-based nuclear weapons program, even though it had pledged in 1994 to give up all nuclear work in exchange for two light-water reactors provided by a U.S.-led international consortium, experts said this week (see GSN, May 25). The Bush administration in 2002 presented evidence to North Korea on the secret uranium program. Pyongyang denied the charge, and the dispute undid the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which Pyongyang had agreed to freeze its nuclear activities in return for the light-water reactors and other aid. North Korea subsequently expelled international inspectors and withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The Clinton administration probably was aware of the North Korean program, according David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. “What alarmed the Bush administration was when they started seeing procurement for thousands of centrifuges,” Albright said. “That’s what qualitatively changed the situation.” Robert Gallucci, the top U.S. negotiator of the 1994 deal, confirmed the Clinton administration’s knowledge of the uranium program earlier this week. “The Clinton administration concluded ... that North Korea cheated on the Agreed Framework, that getting gas centrifuge components from Pakistan was inconsistent with the framework,” he said (Lee Dong-min, Yonhap News Agency I, May 25). South Korea and the United States today reaffirmed their support for the six-party talks aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programs, Agence France-Presse reported. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the lead U.S. negotiator for the stalled talks, said Washington “takes very seriously the six-way talks process” following a meeting in Seoul with Chun Yung-woo, South Korea’s top envoy. Chun said North Korea should resume negotiations without expectation that such action alone would result in rewards. “There is no other way but North Korea making up its mind and returning to the talks,” he said. Chun said he and Hill were preparing ways to “prevent the negotiation from lapsing back into a stalemate once they resume in the future” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 26). Experts at the International Institute of Strategic Studies said yesterday that North Korea’s reported preparations for a missile launch is likely a pressure tactic, Yonhap reported. “Reported activity at a test site for the long-range Taepodong missile may be North Korea’s way of sending a reminder that it has its own ways to increase pressure,” the think tank said in a report. “Pyongyang judges that the Bush administration is not serious about negotiations and that the financial controls are evidence of hostile intent,” the report says, referring to Washington’s financial crackdown on Pyongyang’s alleged money laundering, smuggling and other illicit operations. The report adds that neither side believes the other willing to make concessions necessary for resolution of the nuclear standoff. “The Bush administration sees financial sanctions, and an increasing emphasis on human rights in North Korea, as justifiable in their own right,” it says (Yonhap News Agency II, May 25).
The U.S. House of Representatives did not include any funding for the planned mixed-oxide fuel production facility in South Carolina in its approved fiscal 2007 energy bill, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, May 26). The MOX plant at the Savannah River Site would be used to convert 34 metric tons of weapon-grade plutonium into a fuel that could be used at power reactors. Russia has pledged to eliminate an identical amount of plutonium. “We’re making the country safer. It gets the weapons-grade plutonium in a fashion that cannot be used by terrorists,” said Representative Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.), who voted against the energy bill. The Senate has not yet voted on its version of the energy bill, meaning funding could be reinstated in the final legislation. “At this point it’s very early in the congressional process,” said Julianne Smith, spokeswoman for the National Nuclear Security Administration. “Things can change at any point, especially in Congress.” Construction of both facilities has been delayed by questions of liability for U.S. contractors working at the Russian site, and Moscow’s demands that the United States fund the entire project, AP reported (Associated Press/The Times and Democrat, May 26).
The United States has impeded Swiss efforts to prosecute three nuclear smuggling suspects linked to former top Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, May 31, 2005). Friedrich Tinner, a mechanical engineer and Swiss national, is suspected with his two sons, Urs and Marco, of providing the Khan network (see related GSN story, today) with uranium enrichment technology and equipment. Authorities also believe Urs Tinner helped develop a Malaysian factory that produced thousands of gas centrifuge parts. Switzerland’s federal prosecutor on four separate occasions in the last year asked U.S. officials for documents and other evidence on the Khan network, a spokesman for the prosecutor said. “Swiss authorities are asking for additional assistance from U.S. authorities, but we haven’t gotten an answer so far,” said Mark Wiedmer, press secretary for the Swiss attorney general’s office. “We are confident the American authorities will provide the information we need.” The Swiss officials contacted the Justice Department, which has an information-sharing agreement with Switzerland pertaining to international criminal cases. They also contacted the State Department’s undersecretary for arms control and international security, according to officials. A top U.S. nuclear expert yesterday told a House International Relations subcommittee that the U.S. government had “ignored multiple requests for cooperation” on Khan network prosecutions. “The prosecutors have not received a reply, or even a confirmation that the U.S. government received the requests,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. “I find this lack of cooperation frankly embarrassing to the United States and to those of us who believe that the United States should take the lead in bringing members of the Khan network to justice for arming our enemies with nuclear weapons,” he told the panel (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, May 26).
Members of the U.S. Congress yesterday sought further inquiry of the smuggling network established by former top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, May 15). “We have given Pakistan a get-out-of-jail-free card on the single worst case of proliferation in the past 50 years,” Representative Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) said during a House subcommittee hearing. Pakistan announced earlier this month that it had closed the case and that foreign investigators would not be allowed access to Khan. The White House should push Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to continue investigating the matter, lawmakers said. Representative Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said Khan’s alleged connections to the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea make the situation worthy of additional review by Musharraf. “Some question whether the A.Q. Khan network is truly out of business, asking if it’s not merely hibernating. We’d be foolish to rule out that chilling possibility,” Royce said. “Vigilance and greater international pressure on Pakistan to air out the Khan network is in order,” he said. The Khan matter “is far from closed,” according to David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. “Many questions remain about what Khan and his associates supplied other countries, particularly Iran,” he told the panel. He said outstanding questions involving Iran include the level of assistance on developing uranium enrichment centrifuges and the potential delivery of warhead designs. “These areas remain especially troubling as we try to determine exactly how close Iran could be to building nuclear weapons and what sensitive information may remain in circulation around the world that could fall into the hands of other enemies of the United States, including terrorists,” he said. Khan began bringing Iranian scientists to Pakistan as early as 1988 for training, Leonard Weiss, a former staff director of the U.S. Senate governmental affairs committee, told the hearing (P. Parameswaran, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 25).
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday that the world must abandon nuclear weapons lest it return to the “mutual assured destruction” policy of the Cold War, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, May 15). The world faces the danger of having 20 to 30 nuclear weapons states unless there is a halt to development of atomic arsenals, he said. “Efforts to control the spread of such weapons will only be delaying the inevitable — a world in which each country or group has laid claim to its own nuclear weapon. Mutually assured destruction will once again be the absurd hallmark of civilization at its technological peak,” ElBaradei said in a speech the graduating class of The Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. Mutual assured destruction posited that a nuclear first strike could never occur because it would automatically induce an equally devastating response from the nation under attack, leaving both countries ruined. “No one has seriously taken up the challenge of developing an alternative approach to security that eliminates the need for nuclear deterrence,” ElBaradei said. “But only when such an alternative system is created will nuclear-weapon states begin moving toward nuclear disarmament. And only when nuclear-weapon states move away from depending on these weapons for their security will the threat of nuclear proliferation by other countries by meaningfully reduced,” he said (William Mann, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 26).
Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran yesterday expressed optimism about the future of his country’s nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States, but acknowledged that work remains to see it passed by the U.S. Congress, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, May 24). U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns “gave me an account of where it stands [in Congress],” Saran said following a meeting in London. “There is still work to be done.” Burns told Saran that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pushing Congress to approve the deal, AFP reported. Saran said the “outlook was positive and encouraging.” “The sum total is that we can move ahead on the nuclear deal,” he said. Under the deal, India would have access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology after a 30-year ban. In return, it would allow international monitoring of all nonmilitary reactors (Agence France-Presse, May 26). The agreement is crucial to India’s economic growth, Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee said today, Reuters reported. “I do hope this arrangement will get the ratification of the U.S. Congress, and after that the Nuclear Suppliers Group will recognize and help India to have access to technology, materials and equipment to pursue our peaceful civilian nuclear program,” Mukherjee said in Tokyo. “We require energy to ensure our rapid development,” he said. Mukherjee played up India’s nonproliferation record. “Though India is not a signatory to [the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty], we have accepted all of the obligations, most of the obligations, under the treaty voluntarily,” he said. “We require minimum credible deterrent,” Mukherjee added. “We want to achieve minimum credible deterrent to meet our requirement” (Reuters/Yahoo!News, May 26).
| 
Back to top
