North Korea, shown displaying some of its ballistic missiles in a 1992 parade, has tested seven missiles in the past two days (Getty Images). North Korea Tests Seven Missiles North Korea has launched seven missiles into the Sea of Japan in the last two days, prompting international outcry and calls by Tokyo for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, June 30)...Full Story

U.S. Lawmakers Trust Indian Nuclear Intentions By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Before approving draft legislation to waive export controls on India’s nuclear weapons program, U.S. lawmakers last week rejected proposed requirements that India not use such exports to indirectly increase its nuclear weapons capabilities, with key members arguing India could be trusted not to do so (see GSN, June 29)...Full Story

G-8 Nations Tout Progress on WMD Work in Russia By Chris Schneidmiller, Global Security Newswire MOSCOW — The number of Russian submarines carrying nuclear fuel continues to dwindle as a multinational effort presses forward to deny terrorists access to former Soviet weapons of mass destruction, representatives from several countries said yesterday (see GSN, May 16)...Full Story

	Wednesday, July 5, 2006

G-8 Nations Tout Progress on WMD Work in Russia By Chris Schneidmiller, Global Security Newswire MOSCOW — The number of Russian submarines carrying nuclear fuel continues to dwindle as a multinational effort presses forward to deny terrorists access to former Soviet weapons of mass destruction, representatives from several countries said yesterday (see GSN, May 16). The Group of Eight industrial powers agreed in 2002 to raise up to $20 billion over 10 years for disarmament work, beginning in Russia. A number of other countries have since pledged their support for the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. The project had four main goals: increasing security of nuclear and radiological materials, chemical weapons disposal, securing alternative employment for former weapons scientists, and dismantling nuclear-powered submarines. “We know terrorists have done some serious damage without [weapons of mass destruction] and we don’t want to think about what they would do with them,” said Allan Poole, senior coordinator for the Global Partnership Program in the Canadian Foreign Ministry. Poole and other speakers addressed their countries’ spending and collaboration on the project, but did not address concerns regarding the seemingly slow overall rate of spending, on the second day of a two-day conference here. The first-time event, “Towards a Russian National Dialogue on Nuclear Nonproliferation, Global Partnership and Threat Reduction, was organized by Green Cross, the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency and the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, and featured government officials from several nations, along with representatives of various nongovernmental agencies. Elimination of decommissioned submarines — and securing the highly enriched uranium fuel that once powered them — was a central topic yesterday. Russia has designated 197 submarines for dismantlement. Work is finished or under way on 159 of the vessels. Canada has allocated $150 million toward the project, largely focusing on Russia’s Arctic Fleet. It plans to support transportation of 11 submarines for disposal, and to pay for the dismantling of 12 submarines carrying 24 nuclear reactors. “This is probably the most successful part of the Global Partnership program for Canada, just because we’re ready to move so quickly on that,” Poole said. “The end is in sight as far as the Arctic fleet is concerned.” The United Kingdom to date has supported the dismantlement of three nuclear submarines, while Norway is funding its fourth dismantlement, officials said. The focus has been on vessels in northwest Russia, possibly at the expense of deteriorating submarines in the country’s Far East fleet, forum participants said. “There are a lot more attack subs waiting for dismantlement in the Far East,” said Paul Walker, director of the Legacy Program at Global Green USA. Matt Taylor, general director of the Global Nuclear Disarmament Fund, asked Rosatom deputy chief Viktor Kovalenko about Japanese media reports of severe environmental damage caused by contamination from two submarines in the Pacific Ocean. “I wouldn’t say catastrophe. All submarines are kept in appropriate ways to promote environmental safety,” Kovalenko replied. “The best way would be to eliminate those submarines. If we find assistance … we will be able to address this situation much faster.” Poole said Canada plans to look into dismantlement of Russian submarines in the Pacific Ocean with Japan, South Korea and Australia. Joined inextricably with submarine dismantlement is safe storage and reprocessing of fuel removed from those vessels. The United Kingdom is pursuing several efforts, said David Randall Thomas, senior program manager for Northwest Russian Projects at the British Trade and Industry Department.  The Andreeva Bay site alone stores 21,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies in poor conditions, Thomas said. The British government plans to place a temporary cover over one building and to build a decontamination facility while the fuel waits to be moved to the Mayak site for reprocessing. The United Kingdom’s annual contribution of 32.5 million pounds also funded construction of a facility due to open in fall for storage of spent nuclear fuel from Russian ice breakers. France is also conducting similar work with Russian submarines and related facilities, including remediation of the former Gremikha naval site, said Denis Flory, nuclear counselor for the French Embassy in Moscow. It expects to spend 750 million Euros over 10 years. Several countries are working to rid Russia of hundreds of radioisotope thermoelectric generators — vulnerable sources of radiation that are used to power light houses and other equipment. The United States spent $490 million in fiscal 2005 and has allocated $590 million in this fiscal year for its various Global Partnerships programs, said Mark Whitney, executive director of the Energy Department’s Moscow office. Through fiscal 2005, the United States had provided security upgrades for 47 nuclear warhead sites and 26 atomic materials sites, and equipped 78 border crossings with equipment for the detection of smuggled nuclear or radiological material. Further upgrades should be completed by the end of 2008, Whitney said. The next five years are to be spent transitioning sites in Russia to sustainability, and after 2013 they would be operated solely by Moscow. “We only have a little over two years left and we have a lot of work to do, but we have a schedule and we have commitments from the U.S. and Russian governments and we plan to get this done,” Whitney said. Some projects will continue past 2008. The United States has passed the halfway mark in plans to buy 500 metric tons of downblended highly enriched uranium for U.S. nuclear power reactors (see GSN, June 29). The 13-year-old program is scheduled for completion in 2013. The final three Russian nuclear reactors that produce weapon-grade plutonium are due to be closed by 2010, replaced by fossil fuel plants for production of heat and electricity (see GSN, June 26). The United States also continues to support repatriation of Russian highly enriched uranium fuel from foreign research reactors. The effort has collected 130 kilograms to date in nine shipments and ultimately would collect material from 20 reactors in 17 nations, Whitney said (see GSN, May 30). Whitney and other speakers acknowledged challenges in their projects and the sensitive relationship with Russian officials reluctant to provide full access to nuclear and other sites. Canada has contributed $65 million to a U.S.-Russian program to eliminate nearly 70 metric tons of highly enriched uranium. The program has been delayed by questions of liability for U.S. contractors working on the Russian site, forcing Ottawa to roll the money over from year to year. “I would have to say on this we are disappointed, because we reprofile money because every year we can’t spend it,” Poole said. The liability issue is said to have been resolved, but Russia and the United States have not signed a formal agreement (see GSN, Nov. 9, 2005).  Verifying the maintenance of security upgrades remains a concern for Washington. That might have to be done through use of cameras or third parties trusted by the Russians, Whitney said. Back to top       South Korea to Establish Export-Control Task Force South Korea plans to establish next week a weapons technology control team to keep commercial products that may threaten global stability from potential terrorists, Asia Pulse reported yesterday (see GSN, June 21). The effort aims to tighten oversight over commercial and military technology used to make weapons of mass destruction including missiles and chemical weapons, the Ministry of Science and Technology said. The team starts work next week, on the heels of requests to enhance enforcement of the Wassenaar Arrangement, an international export control system designed to restrict sales of dual-use technologies. “In the past, the Commerce and Industry Ministry was responsible for keeping tabs on this, but there have been calls for a more concerted effort,” a Science Ministry official said. “While the United States is particularly anxious about the issue, South Korea, as a responsible member of their international community, needs to be more careful.” The government said many companies were unaware of the rules and sold sensitive materials. Seoul has since developed a database allowing for companies to cross-check products prior to shipping. The country recently penalized companies for not following protocol. Companies in violation of the treaty could be barred from trading and have licenses suspended (Asia Pulse, July 4). Back to top

U.S. Lawmakers Trust Indian Nuclear Intentions By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Before approving draft legislation to waive export controls on India’s nuclear weapons program, U.S. lawmakers last week rejected proposed requirements that India not use such exports to indirectly increase its nuclear weapons capabilities, with key members arguing India could be trusted not to do so (see GSN, June 29). The House Armed Services and the Senate Foreign Relations committees last week overwhelmingly approved legislation that would waive 27-year-old export restrictions on India despite its nuclear weapons program. Critics of the bill have argued that allowing India access to foreign uranium for civil energy production would free up limited Indian uranium reserves that would enable the nation to massively expand its weapons capabilities. “This agreement should not be used to accelerate India’s nuclear weapons program,” said Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Key supporters argued India could be trusted not to do so. “Part of my reason for voting for it is based on trust. Now that’s not usually a good way to vote for agreements,” said Senator Joseph Biden (Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  “But part of this is based upon my trust in the present Indian government’s and Indian peoples’ intentions, and their commitment beyond the letter of this, their commitment to the spirit of this agreement,” he said. Many senators “believe that in the underlying agreement there is already a sufficient understanding of the [proposed] division” between India’s civil and military activities,” said Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), citing the proposed terms of a nuclear cooperation deal the Bush administration is negotiating with India. Biden was among Democrats and Republicans who voted 13-5 to defeat an amendment proposed by Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) requiring the U.S. president to obtain assurances from India that U.S.-supplied nuclear fuel would not “facilitate the increased production by India of highly enriched uranium or plutonium” in nuclear weapons facilities. Senator George Allen (R-Va.) said Feingold’s provision could “offend the sensibilities of a sovereign nation, a country who we are trusting,” and could be “potentially a deal killer.” The prospect that Feingold’s amendment would prompt India to pull back was also why Senator Lincoln Chaffee (D-R.I.) said he would vote against it even though he said he supported its intent. In the end, Kerry voted for the unsuccessful amendment, which he said would have merely reaffirmed a key understanding in the proposed deal. “I think the amendment was harmless in that regard. I think it just further expressed what is an already agreed upon expectation,” he told Global Security Newswire just after the vote. He said he was not concerned that India would expand its nuclear weapons capabilities with assistance from the deal. “I’m not concerned about it. I don’t believe that that will happen.” House International Relations Committee members rejected a similar amendment proposed by Representatives Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) as well as one put forward by Howard Berman (D-Calif.) that would have required India to end weapons fissile material production before it receives U.S. fissile material. “If you think that Prime Minister Singh represents the people of North Korea and that he’s suddenly going to rip off his Gandhi mask and reveal that he’s really [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il, then there’s cause to be concerned. But what we’re dealing with is a historic, long-term, demonstrable ally of the United States,” said Representative Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). Representative Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) argued the United States could not impose on India decisions about its strategic weapons capabilities and called the amendments “deal killers.” Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said such amendments would be deal killers, but in an opening statement also urged the administration “to pay close attention to congressional concerns.” The House committee instead passed a nonbinding amendment stating that United States trade will not help India build nuclear weapons, and one that would encourages India to reduce its fissile material production for weapons. The nonbinding measures are insufficient, said one congressional critic after the House vote. “The Committee failed its responsibility to safeguard American national security by refusing to bar assistance a foreign nuclear weapons program,” said Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who is not on that committee. Reading the Treaty U.S. and Indian experts have said India could increase its annual nuclear weapons production capacity by at least five-fold, to 50 per year, were it to obtain foreign fuel now barred by the United States and other nuclear suppliers because of its nuclear weapons program. Some have said India also could manufacture more powerful thermonuclear weapons were its domestic resources freed up. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty requires its parties not assist in any way the nuclear-weapon programs of states such as India that have remained outside the pact. In answers to questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, the State Department acknowledged that more indigenous uranium could be available for India’s weapons program if foreign sources were available. It argued though that that the supply would not violate the treaty, asserting the treaty was not intended to prohibit such indirect benefits. Ten critics responding to the statement argued such trade would violate the treaty’s requirement to refrain from assisting a state’s nuclear-weapon program “in any way” (see GSN, June 21). Question of Intent Deal supporters also have pointed to statements by Indian officials that they have and intend to maintain a “minimal credible deterrent” of nuclear forces, to argue India will not greatly expand its arsenal. Indian officials though have refused to say what that phrase means, said Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball in an interview Monday. “The administration is simply hoping that India will exercise restraint.” At an event in Washington in March, India’s Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said his government has “provided as part and parcel of this agreement” an “assurance to our partners that whatever they do with us in the civil nuclear energy field will not have any kind of impact as far as our strategic program is concerned.” “There is no reason why it should be expected that merely because we have an agreement on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation that suddenly the floodgates will be opened by India for larger and larger nuclear weapons. That is certainly not how we see our intention,” he said then, according to a partial transcript on the Indian Embassy Web site. U.S. officials have insisted the United States and India have entered a new era of trust.  “Today, there is a new strategic partnership between our countries, a partnership based on democratic values, common interest, strong commercial ties and a climate of trust and good faith between our governments,” Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech Thursday. Critics have said that if India’s current government were to lose power in some future election, its assurances of restraint be disregarded. India’s leading opposition party and nuclear weapons establishment “have given every indication to believe that they would like to expand India’s strategic nuclear capabilities,” Kimball said. A leader of India’s top opposition party, the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, said so much according to a The Times of India story Friday. “Our strategic muscle will slip into U.S. hands once our deterrence is reduced. BJP reiterates that such a deal is unacceptable and cannot bind India in the future,” BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi said in the story. His party, when in power in 1998, ordered five nuclear weapons tests. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) last week argued India’s intentions matter less than what capability the proposed deal might provide it. She cited a recent Congressional Research Service assessment regarding treaty compliance that “the question for the United States is not whether India intends to ramp up its weapons program with freed-up uranium, but whether U.S. and other states’ actions create a new capability for India to do so” (see GSN, June 29). Back to top       U.S. Seeks U.N. Security Council Resolution on Myanmar in Wake of Reported Nuclear Purchase Attempts The United States has circulated a draft resolution at the U.N. Security Council condemning Myanmar as a “threat to peace and security” in the wake of indications that the Southeast Asian country, formerly known as Burma, has attempted to purchase nuclear-weapon technology from North Korea, the Australian reported today (see GSN, Jan. 24, 2002). Western intelligence agencies discovered the effort late last year, though it is believe that no nuclear material was transferred, according to the Australian.  Though Pyongyang and Rangoon severed all formal ties in 1983, Myanmar leader Than Shwe and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il have been engaged in intensive proxy diplomacy designed to re-establish formal relations, the Australian reported. The draft resolution is under Chapter Six of the U.N. Charter, which does not authorize immediate punitive measures. It makes no mention of Myanmar’s nuclear ambitions, focusing instead on the country’s human rights record. Experts have said it would not pass at the Security Council due to Chinese opposition (Greg Sheridan, The Australian, July 5). Back to top       Iran Postpones EU Nuclear Meeting Iran today postponed talks with the European Union, pushing the critical meeting over a nuclear compromise package offer to Tehran by the world powers to tomorrow, Reuters reported (see GSN, July 3). EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana expressed surprise after top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani informed him of the move via telephone. “I was surprised to hear that Ali Larijani ... has decided at the last minute to postpone his trip to Brussels as previously agreed with him to take place today,” Solana said in a statement. “I have made clear to the Iranians and to Dr. Larijani that we want to proceed rapidly to examine the ideas I put to him early last month.” Solana said he would meet Larijani in Brussels tomorrow and again on July 11. An EU diplomat said Tehran was reacting to a visit to the European Parliament on the same day by the leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The group was the first to publish critical details of Iran’s clandestine nuclear program in 2002 (Hafezi/Taylor, Reuters/Washington Post, July 5). Meanwhile, Iran yesterday rejected calls from China and Russia for a quick response to the incentives package, the Associated Press reported. Russian President Vladimir Putin said he would like talks on the package to begin before the July 15-17 summit of the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations. “We would really like our Iranian partners to accept the proposals,” Putin said. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Beijing hopes Iran will “respond to the package at an early date.” However, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki reiterated that Iran planned to respond to the offer in mid-August. “The August date announced by Iran was based on the necessity for a comprehensive and accurate study of the package and is unalterable,” the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Mottaki as saying (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press/Washington Post, July 4). U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said Sunday that if Tehran continued enriching uranium after July 12, world powers would “probably consider some of the measures that have to do with action by the Security Council,” Reuters reported. However, other Western diplomats said there is no firm, enforceable deadline for a response from Tehran. “There is no deadline with a trigger. We’re not going to resume work on the [Security Council] resolution if Iran hasn’t responded (by July 12), no matter what people say to the contrary. The Russians and Chinese will not want to do anything as long as Iran appears to be seriously studying the offer,” said a European G-8 diplomat. “Iran holds all the cards,” he added. “Iran is clearly playing for time. Everyone in the G-8 knows that. ... But nothing can happen with Iran because everybody agreed that we should wait until it’s clear what Iran’s response is going to be,” a senior Western G-8 diplomat told Reuters. Several diplomats complained about a lack of coordination in setting deadlines for Iran to respond. One International Atomic Energy Agency diplomat called the deadlines “bluster ... to keep the pressure on, to remind the Iranians that they’re (the West) serious about taking other action if the Iranians turn the offer down.” None of the diplomats who spoke to Reuters expected Iran to reject the offer. “I don’t think they would say ‘No,’ and I think it’s hard to expect a clear ‘Yes.’ Rather they’ll try to drag out the process, a method that has worked successfully for over three years,” an EU diplomat said (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, July 4). In Tehran, Top Iranian clerical leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has announced a new privatization program aimed at preparing Iran for membership in the World Trade Organization, the Washington Post reported today. Analysts said the announcement indicates that Iran wants to be more engaged with the world. “As far as bringing Iran out of isolation and joining with international organizations, it’s a positive step,” said Davoud Hermidas Bavand, a professor of international law at Tehran’s Supreme National Defense University. The formation of a new foreign relations panel, announced last week, may also indicate dissatisfaction President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s policies. Khamenei named Kamal Kharrazi, the man Ahmadinejad removed as foreign minister last year, as head of that panel. “I think it’s significant,” said a European diplomat in Tehran. “Personally, I think it amounts to trying to put limits to the president” (Karl Vick, Washington Post, July 5). Back to top       China Envoy to Visit North Korea Next Week Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu is expected to visit North Korea on Monday to discuss ways of reviving stalled six-nation negotiations on Pyongyang’s nuclear program, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, July 3). “China is consulting with all parties to look for constructive ways to promote the progress of the talks,” said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu (Reuters, July 4). Back to top

Pentagon Faces Continuing Opposition to Chemical Weapon Destruction Techniques The Army’s chemical weapons disposal bill in 1987 was predicted to cost $2 billion — $26 billion less than what the cost has reached today, and it has only completed one-third of the project, the Washington Post reported yesterday (see GSN, May 10). The $28 billion price tag to dispose of 27,768 metric tons of chemical weapons in the military stockpile is the result of technical hurdles and community activists challenging the incineration process used to eliminate many of the weapons, the Pentagon said. “We underestimated the job, the complexity of the job and this high-hazard environment we have to operate in,” said Michael Parker, director of the Army’s Chemical Materials Agency. The United States has the second-largest inventory of chemical weapons. Russia has 40,000 tons of weapons and will also probably miss a 2012 treaty deadline to finish disposing of its weapons. The United States is incinerating weapons in Alabama, Arkansas, Oregon and Utah and has completed the project on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific. Activists, however, have demanded that the Pentagon chemically neutralize weapons in Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky and Maryland. Work was completed in Maryland, but plants have yet to be constructed this year in Colorado and Kentucky. Though the United States hopes to get a five-year extension, Parker estimated that the neutralization sites could finish their weapons by 2014. “We are making progress every day,” Parker said. “Some days are better than others.” Pentagon officials said incineration is more efficient but opponents have argued that the emissions could have long-term effects on communities. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group in Berea, Ky., have spent almost 20 years to get the Army to chemically neutralize warfare agents. “We basically ended up forcing them to consider alternative disposal methods,” McConnell said. “Environmental cleanup, I guess, is not high in the mission statement” of the Defense Department. Parker said the Army was only being practical in incinerating the weapons and does not contest chemical neutralization. “Incineration was a much more mature technology in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s,” Parker said. “The department was put in an impossible bind. The Congress mandated some very aggressive disposal schedules, and in order to comply with the law the department pursued the single option that was available, which was to use incineration technology” (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, July 4). Back to top       Experts Find WWII Shells, Bombs Near Chinese School Japan is lagging in the disposal of its chemical weapons, Chinese officials said after technicians today unearthed World War II-era artillery shells and bombs near a school in China (see GSN, May 2). In a shallow pit about 200 meters away from a junior high school play yard, Chinese and Japanese experts suited in protective gear removed a cache of shells and bombs filled with poison gas, the Associated Press reported today.  The Chemical Weapons Convention obligates Tokyo to dispose of munitions abandoned in China by 2007, but the Chinese and Japanese governments want to extend the deadline to 2012 because of the scale of the problem of locating all of the weapons Japan left behind in China during World War II (see GSN, April 28). Officials expected to finish excavating the schoolyard munitions next week and relocate them to a new disposal site in Harbaling where 30,000 other chemical weapons are stockpiled, Liu said. Abandoned weapons “have been affecting the development of towns and cities where they are buried and threatening people’s lives,” he said (Associated Press, July 5). Back to top

North Korea Tests Seven Missiles North Korea has launched seven missiles into the Sea of Japan in the last two days, prompting international outcry and calls by Tokyo for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, June 30). Six missiles were launched over the course of four hours early yesterday morning, according to the Post, with a seventh fired today. However, a long-range Taepodong 2 potentially capable of reaching U.S. territory appeared to fail after 35 seconds. The other six missiles were all short- or medium-range systems, Japanese and U.S. officials said. The Taepondong 2 came closest to Japanese territory, falling within 312 miles of the coastal city of Niigata, the Post reported. Tokyo announced it would bar entry to a North Korean ferry operating between the two countries and banned North Korean officials, ship crews and flights from entering Japan. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said Japan would submit a draft resolution in the afternoon. “We hope we have a strong and unanimous signal from the council that this kind of behavior is unacceptable,” said Bolton. White House spokesman Tony Snow said more tests were anticipated and called them an affront to the international community. “This is not a U.S.-North Korean matter, and we’re not going to let the leader of North Korea transform it into that,” said Snow. China’s and South Korea’s reactions were more subdued. “We are seriously concerned with the situation which has already happened. We hope that all the relevant sides can remain calm and restrained and do more things which are conducive to peace and stability … and not take any actions to escalate and complicate the situation,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said on the ministry’s Web site. South Korean officials condemned the launches but said they were still “carefully considering” their earlier threats to cut off aid in the event of a test. Elsewhere, the NATO North American Council today issued a statement expressing “grave concern.” It called the tests a “serious threat to the region and the international community at large” requiring “a firm response.” Analysts and some diplomats said the tests could undermine the six-nation nuclear talks, stalled since September. “The U.S. has called for North Korea to return to the six-party talks, but after what the North Koreans have done, the talks have in effect fallen apart,” said Terumasa Nakanishi, a Kyoto University expert on North Korea.  Military experts said Pyongyang’s economic problems and a 1999 moratorium on ballistic missile launches may have set its missile program back. “The failure of the Taepodong 2 shows that they are still at the first stage of their next major breakthrough in missile technology. That doesn’t mean their other missiles aren’t dangerous, but this one is not ready,” said Motoaki Kamiura, director of Tokyo’s Japan Military Affairs Research Center. However, the launches did prove that North Korea still has missiles capable of reaching all of Japan and South Korea. “Clearly the Taepodong 2 was not ready, but North Korea was sending a message,” said Kim Woo Sang, a North Korea expert at Seoul’s Yonsei University. “They wanted to demonstrate that while they might not be a threat to the U.S. as the failure of Taepodong 2 shows, they can still absolutely be a threat to South Korea and Japan” (Washington Post, July 5). Countering other news reports, the head of Russia’s General Staff, General Yuri Baluevsky, said yesterday that North Korea launched a total of 10 missiles, Reuters reported. “Ten rockets were launched. According to one set of data, they were rockets of different classes. According to another set of data, they were all intercontinental. I can only say what class they were after receiving the technical data,” he said (Reuters, July 5). Meanwhile, Washington was prepared to use its limited missile defense system to shoot down the Taepodong 2 if it appeared headed toward U.S. or allied territory, the Washington Times reported today. Most countries issue international notices to airmen and mariners when missile or space launches are carried out, according to the Times, but North Korea does not follow such protocols (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, July 5). Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the top U.S. envoy to six-party nuclear talks, is scheduled to depart for consultations in Asia today, Yonhap news agency reported. Meanwhile, South Korean presidential assistant Song Min-soon arrived in Washington yesterday and said he would meet U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today and tomorrow. “The South Korean government has already indicated that the people will no longer support aid to North Korea in case of a missile launch,” Song said. The missiles were launched within a few minutes of the lift-off of the U.S. space shuttle Discovery and as the United States celebrated its Independence Day. “We do consider it provocative behavior,” said Hadley (Yonhap news agency, July 4). Hadley said U.S. President George W. Bush, celebrating Independence Day and his 60th birthday two days early, was briefed each time a missile was launched, Agence France-Presse reported. “We’ve been doing a lot of preparations for this. It wasn’t that he was surprised.  I think his instinct is this just shows the defiance of the international community by North Korea,” said Hadley. The White House said North Korea had violated a missile test moratorium and perhaps also the September 2005 agreement at the six-party talks. Mike Cuckarek, a spokesman for the U.S. Northern Command, said there was “no threat to the U.S. or its territories” (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, July 5). Analysts said the test-launches were aimed at forcing Washington to hold direct talks with Pyongyang, AFP reported today. “It wanted to shock the United States, attract U.S. attention and force Washington to change its policy toward Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program and missiles,” said Paik Hak Soon of the Sejong Institute. “In the short term, the United States will angrily react to the launch but it will see the only long-term solution is direct talks with North Korea because it has no effective countermeasures,” Paik said (Park Chan-Kyong, Agence France-Presse/Manila Times, July 5). While Beijing was reportedly angered by the tests, analysts said it is unlikely to endorse a tough response, AFP reported today. “China is extremely upset over the behavior of North Korea, this is something that China did not want to see,” Shi Yinhong, director of the USA Research Center at the People’s University of China, told AFP. “China will adopt stronger measures than before to bring more pressure on North Korea, but these actions will be limited,” said Shi (Agence France-Presse II/Manila Times, July 5). Back to top

Japan Expected to Speed Missile Defenses North Korean missile tests yesterday and today could propel Japan’s efforts to build a joint missile defense program with the United States, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, June 23). “The missile launches are a profound turning point for Japan’s security,” said Takehiko Yamamoto, professor of international politics and regional security at Waseda University in Tokyo.  North Korea’s 1998 missile firing over Japan led Tokyo to increase missile defense cooperation between Tokyo and Washington, and yesterday’s test, experts said, would again affect Tokyo’s strategies. “The 1998 Taepodong 1 shock gave Japan a reason for going ahead with spy launches and beginning talks about a missile defense system,” Yamamoto said. “Today’s launches gave Japan another good reason for confirming the need for the system and developing it as soon as possible.” The recent tests were “a big surprise to Japan, which had thought the chances of North Korean missile launches were slim,” said Motoi Tamaki, director of the Modern Korea Institute and expert on the Japan-North Korea issue. “Due to the launches, public opinion in Japan will grow for swift development of interceptor missiles and may fuel a debate about proactive action against North Korea’s military threat,” Tamaki said. Japan and the United States signed a joint agreement last month to develop a missile interceptor for the ballistic missile system (see GSN, June 23). Japan began this fiscal year its next-generation Standard Missile 3 system with the United States which continues through March (see GSN, June 7). Dealings between Japan and North Korea have been difficult as a result of a dispute over the kidnapping of Japanese civilians by Pyongyang agents in the 1970s and 1980s. Japan Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made a surprise visit to Pyongyang in 2002 to sign a joint declaration with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to halt long-range missile tests (see GSN, Sept. 17, 2002). “The launches will also seriously damage what Koizumi has achieved in his effort to normalize ties with North Korea,” said Tetsuro Kato, professor of Politics at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo. “Today’s launches obviously violated the Japan-North Korea declaration and will automatically erase Koizumi’s diplomatic achievement over the North Korean issue” (Agence France-Presse/Todayonline.com, July 5). 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.