OPCW chief Rogelio Pfirter yesterday urged nations to meet their treaty deadlines to destroy their chemical weapons (Mannie Garcia/Getty Images). OPCW Chief Presses Weapons Disposal Deadline By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The head of the monitoring body for the Chemical Weapons Convention yesterday lauded nations’ efforts to eliminate their toxic stockpiles, while reminding them that there is a finite amount of time to finish the work (see GSN, Dec. 11, 2006). Rogelio Pfirter, director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, acknowledged the difficulties facing Russia and the United States, which hold the vast majority of munitions covered by the treaty.  ..Full Story

U.S.-Indian Nuclear Talks Make Limited Progress Disagreements over the details of a planned U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal prevented the two nations from completing a key component of the agreement at meetings this week in New Delhi, Reuters reported (see GSN, March 27)...Full Story

Nuclear Testing Would Be Debated, U.S. General Says By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The head of U.S. Strategic Command this week gave the administration’s most explicit statement yet that a need for explosive testing would not end plans for a next generation of nuclear warheads (see GSN, March 21)...Full Story

	Friday, March 30, 2007

U.S.-Indian Nuclear Talks Make Limited Progress Disagreements over the details of a planned U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal prevented the two nations from completing a key component of the agreement at meetings this week in New Delhi, Reuters reported (see GSN, March 27). With the guiding principles of the deal set in 2005, and a U.S. law exempting India from U.S. nuclear nonproliferation rules enacted in December, negotiators met Monday and Tuesday to hammer out technical details in what is being called the 123 agreement, after a relevant section of U.S. code. If finalized, the deal would enable India to purchase U.S. nuclear technology if it opens its civilian nuclear sector to international monitoring.  India’s refusal to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty had historically prevented U.S. nuclear aid, but the U.S. Congress waived that restriction. “We were hopeful that we would be able to make progress to close out all of the issues on the 123 talks,” said U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.  “Some progress was made but in our view, not enough.” “The United States has done its part.  We’ve met every commitment we said we would meet,” he added.  “Right now, I would say the ball is in India’s court.” New Delhi is seeking assurances that it would be able to purchase nuclear fuel even if it resumes nuclear weapons testing, and it has balked at potential restrictions on its ability to separate plutonium from U.S.-provided nuclear fuel, Reuters reported. Burns called on India to make concessions. “Frankly, we negotiated two very good agreements in July [2005] and March [2006] with the Indian government,” he said.  “Now it's time for India to expedite the 123 talks” (Carol Giacomo, Reuters, March 30). Back to top       Nuclear Testing Would Be Debated, U.S. General Says By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The head of U.S. Strategic Command this week gave the administration’s most explicit statement yet that a need for explosive testing would not end plans for a next generation of nuclear warheads (see GSN, March 21). The United States has followed a self-imposed moratorium on nuclear blasts since 1992.  However, the inability to confidently enter the Reliable Replacement Warhead into the stockpile without testing might not end the controversial program, Gen. James Cartwright told the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee on Wednesday. Critics of the administration push to develop a new warhead for the nation’s ballistic missiles have expressed anxiety that a weapon could lead to resumed U.S. nuclear testing, a step they argue would send the wrong message to the world. Lawmakers have repeatedly questioned military and Energy Department officials in recent weeks on the possible need to test, and officials have said a design that is viable without testing is a prerequisite of the program.  The United States has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (see GSN, March 5). Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) asked bluntly if the RRW program would be terminated if testing was needed. The answer was no, at least not immediately. The necessity for testing would be discussed with Congress, Cartwright said.  “I would come back to this committee and tell you why we got to that position and what the criteria or what the detail was behind that.  And then we would have that discussion.” “We would have to seriously consider whether we would want to move forward at that point,” Cartwright told the committee. If approved by Congress, the program could result in the eventual replacement of the entire U.S. stock of nuclear warheads with weapons officials say would be easier and safer to maintain. As Cartwright returned to Capitol Hill yesterday, key lawmakers on a House subcommittee which controls funding of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex called for an open debate on defense policy as the Bush administration pushes for a redesign of the nation’s arsenal. The president’s fiscal 2008 budget request includes a more than threefold increase in funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which would result in the country’s first new nuclear bomb in decades.  Proponents offer an array of arguments for the new warhead, including beefed-up security functions to ensure a weapon is useless if ever stolen by terrorists (see GSN, March 9).  Critics, however, argue the current stockpile is already safe and viable for decades to come (see GSN, Nov. 30, 2006). “It may be an inconvenient truth, but nuclear weapons are a public policy issue that needs to be discussed,” Representative Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), chairman of the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, said yesterday during a series of hearings. In recent weeks, as Energy Department and military officials have come before Congress to discuss the $88 million request for the RRW program, members of Congress have begun to suggest it might be time to take a look at U.S. nuclear weapons policy. “I am troubled by many of the policy decisions that the [Energy] Department is making without what I would consider a serious and in-depth analysis and debate of those issues,” Visclosky told Thomas D’Agostino, acting chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration. “To begin with, I have to say I am troubled by the apparent unbridled enthusiasm of the nuclear weapons complex over the Reliable Replacement Warhead,” he said during a subcommittee hearing yesterday. “Any proposal that is so uncritically supported by the department and the rest of the nuclear weapons enterprise immediately throws up a red flag for me,” he said.  Earlier, Visclosky had described the nation’s nuclear laboratories as “giddy” over the prospect of developing a new warhead. Visclosky pushed Cartwright on whether the current administration has precisely articulated the necessary size of the nation’s nuclear deterrent. Cartwright said this had not yet been done:  “This is a work in progress.” Visclosky suggested he was reluctant to start down “a new road” until this has been determined “within a range.” “RRW is very much an open issue that needs significantly more debate to get to the right answer,” he said. In pushing for the RRW program, administration officials have said that the new warhead design would go hand in hand with a transformation of the nuclear weapons production complex.  The reconfigured complex would allow for a faster production of nuclear warheads as they are needed, they have said.  That would in turn provide for a greater reduction in the nation’s stockpile. The current arsenal, with as many as 10,000 warheads in reserve, is maintained as a hedge against weapon failure and a threat environment that could quickly change, military officials say.  With a capability to produce weapons more quickly, warheads could be manufactured as needed and the stockpile could be decreased. Ranking subcommittee Republican Dave Hobson (Ohio) called for an “unvarnished” account of what the Defense Department needs in terms of nuclear weapons.  “What is the role of nuclear weapons in the 21st century?” he asked. Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), a vocal proponent of nonproliferation as head of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, cautioned that moving ahead with a new warhead could be “misunderstood by our allies” and “exploited by our adversaries.” The program could also complicate work to stem the spread of nuclear weapons and sensitive uranium enrichment technology that can bring a nation nearly to the brink of weaponization. Of the RRW program, Nunn said during the subcommittee hearing, “I am sure there are good reasons and I know General Cartwright has them, but I can only say I have not seen that urgent case.” “I can see, however, that we will pay a very high price in terms of our overall national security if Congress goes forward with this program,” he said. [EDITOR’S NOTE: Sam Nunn is co-chairman and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative.  NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.] Back to top       North Korean Reactor in Poor Shape North Korea might have no qualms about closing down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, as it is in particularly poor condition, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, March 29). Halting operations at the reactor and readmitting international nuclear inspectors are the first two steps expected of Pyongyang under the Feb. 13 denuclearization agreement reached at the six-party talks in Beijing.  In turn, North Korea would receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil and equivalent assistance. North Korea simply does not have the money to fix decaying walls, rusting equipment and the facility’s poorly maintained electric power plant, roads and warehouses, informants told the Times. Technology at Yongbyon is obsolete, developed in the 1950s and given to Pyongyang in the 1980s. It has been more than three years since any U.S. eyes have seen the reactor, which is believed to have produced sufficient fuel for 12 plutonium weapons. “The reactor, storage pond and reprocessing facility were all functional” at that point, said Charles Pritchard, a former U.S. negotiator with North Korea who was on the team that traveled to Yongbyon. “They reminded [fellow team member and former Los Alamos National Laboratory chief Siegfried Hecker] of 1950s Soviet stuff, but still operational,” Pritchard said. An unfinished 50-megawatt reactor “looked dilapidated, and I have my nontechnical doubts about the North Koreans’ ability to restart construction,” Pritchard said (Richard Halloran, Washington Times, March 30). Back to top       Arab Summit Warns of Nuclear Arms Race Arab leaders expressed concern yesterday that the Middle East could be facing a nuclear arms race and encouraged all nations in the region to forgo atomic weapon ambitions, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 16). Long-standing tensions over Israel’s assumed nuclear capability, combined with Iran’s uncertain nuclear goals ,spurred Arab leaders to issue a Riyadh summit statement cautioning countries against “launching a dangerous and destructive nuclear arms race in the region.” As the Iranian crisis has dominated headlines, other Middle Eastern nations have expressed interest in pursuing nuclear programs, which they say would be solely for peaceful purposes, Reuters reported. One of those nations, Saudi Arabia, said it would not seek nuclear weapons (see GSN, Nov. 16, 2006). “We have made it very clear that we are not going down that road under any circumstances,” said Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, who then added, “under any foreseeable circumstances” (Salah Nasrawi, Associated Press/Canada.com, March 29). Back to top       Iran’s Continuing Denial of IAEA Access Request Spurs Meeting of Western Powers in Vienna Western nations this week discussed ramping up diplomatic pressure on Iran for preventing international inspectors from installing cameras at a key nuclear site, Reuters reported (see GSN, March 29). The dispute is over an International Atomic Energy Agency request to place cameras within an underground facility at Natanz, where technicians are installing uranium enrichment centrifuges (see GSN, Feb. 20). IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said last month that Iran’s safeguards agreement required the agency to install the cameras once 500 centrifuges were operating. Iran has placed more than the 500 centrifuges at the site, but it is unclear how many are in working order, according to Reuters. To address the brewing issue, Western diplomats met Tuesday in Vienna to discuss the possibility of calling a special meeting of the agency’s governing board.  They reached no agreement. “The meeting was inconclusive.  There was no consensus over the legalities. It's a matter of interpretation.  The Iranians are very good at exploiting legal gray areas and there are gray areas here,” said one senior diplomat accredited to the agency (Reuters/New York Times, March 30). The United States sought to gauge support for a special board meeting, and found some support from Australia, France and the United Kingdom.  Other nations were less willing, according to the Associated Press. Meanwhile, agency officials have formally asked Iran to allow the cameras and demanded a decision by today, AP reported.  Agency safeguards chief Ollie Heinonen made the request by letter and he spoke to Iranian officials as well (Associated Press/New York Times, March 30). Back to top       China Could Seek Space Nukes, Says U.S. General China’s pursuit of antisatellite weapons could lead it to deploy nuclear weapons in space, a senior U.S. military official said yesterday (see GSN, March 12). China has pursued an “impressive” variety of tools to defeat U.S. space-based technologies, said Gen. James Cartwright, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.  Those tools include an antisatellite missile that was tested in January (see GSN, Jan. 19). “Eventually, they'll probably be looking at co-orbital” weapons, Cartwright said, describing space-based satellite killers.  “Then, the one that you really worry about is introducing weapons of mass destruction into space on a missile.” Subcommittee Chairman Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) shared Cartwright’s concern.  He predicted China would have enough antisatellite weapons by 2010 to “basically knock out most of our satellites in low-earth orbit” (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, March 30). Back to top       Nuclear Deterrent Necessary, NNSA Chief Says The chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration said Wednesday that the United States cannot yet give up its nuclear deterrent, United Press International reported (see GSN, Jan. 4). “Several nations currently possess nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons, and then means to deliver these weapons, and have given no indication they are willing to give then up,” acting NNSA Administrator Thomas D’Agostino said during a Senate Armed Services subcommittee meeting. Nuclear weapons “deter nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction threats against the United States, its forces and its allies,” he said. “While we should not expect that our nuclear weapons will deter terrorist WMD threats, they can deter transfer of nuclear weapons and other WMD from rogue states to terrorist groups,” D’Agostino added. “Nuclear forces are the nation’s ‘insurance policy’ for an uncertain future and remain a key element of U.S. national security strategy,” he said (United Press International, March 29). Back to top       U.S. Opens Radiation Assessment Laboratory The United States has completed work on a new laboratory designed to assess the radiation exposure of victims of potential terrorist attacks involving nuclear or radiological weapons, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced yesterday (see GSN, March 9). The Cytogenics Biodosimetry Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tenn., would aid the medical treatment of radiation victims, according to a NNSA release. “Determining the amount of radiation exposure can ultimately mean the difference between life and death for the victims,” Joseph Krol, head of NNSA emergency operations, said in the release.  “This facility is absolutely unique within the civilian community and it will help to ensure that our nation is ready and able to respond to a nuclear emergency” (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration release, March 29). Back to top

Los Alamos Wants to Open Biodefense Lab The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration is considering a request from the Los Alamos National Laboratory to begin limited operations at a biodefense laboratory, the Albuquerque Journal reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 4, 2005). The Biosafety Level 3 facility would promote the New Mexico laboratory’s research of potential bioterrorism threats, through work with diseases such as anthrax and plague.  Its opening has been delayed three years by a legal challenge and an extended environmental review. The laboratory asked its parent agency for approval to use the facility to research nonlethal materials, work officials say is already being done in other areas at Los Alamos. The environmental review of the BSL-3 facility is continuing.  However, interim operations are allowed under the National Environmental Policy Act as long as they do not affect subsequent decisions on operations. That would “absolutely not” occur in this case, said NNSA attorney Lisa Cummings, “because there’s no investment of resources.” “It’s not doing anything to the facility that can’t be reversed,” she said. The head of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, which first revealed the request, disagreed, the Journal reported. “By a hidden decision to begin interim operations, (NNSA and LANL) are overthrowing the whole federally required public review process in an attempt to get their foot in the door,” said Jay Coghlan, whose group first sued to force more extensive environmental reviews of the laboratory. A findings draft from the review should be published in May, Coghlan said.  He said his group might sue if the security agency approves interim research at the laboratory.  Cummings said she did not know when a decision might be made on the matter (John Arnold, Albuquerque Journal, March 29). Back to top

OPCW Chief Presses Weapons Disposal Deadline By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The head of the monitoring body for the Chemical Weapons Convention yesterday lauded nations’ efforts to eliminate their toxic stockpiles, while reminding them that there is a finite amount of time to finish the work (see GSN, Dec. 11, 2006). Rogelio Pfirter, director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, acknowledged the difficulties facing Russia and the United States, which hold the vast majority of munitions covered by the treaty.  However, he did not directly address the common understanding that neither country will have completed weapons disposal by April 29, 2012. “We have a final deadline … which I as director general of the organization have to record as being a sort of sacrosanct commitment for all possessor states,” Pfirter said at a one-day conference here on the convention.  “From the perspective of the organization it is crucial that that deadline be met and that therefore no effort be spared for the accomplishment of the cause of the convention.” The conference organized by the environmental group Global Green USA came one month before the 10th anniversary of the entry into force of the treaty banning the production, stockpiling and use of weapons containing materials such as mustard gas or sarin nerve agent. Until recently, April 29 of this year was also the date at which all 182 treaty member nations were required to have fully destroyed their chemical arsenals.  Five of the six known weapons possessors obtained extensions during the December meeting of CWC states parties.  The treaty allows nations to extend the final destruction deadline by a maximum of five years. Russia and the United States received full five-year extensions, as did the governments in Beijing and Tokyo for cleanup of weapons abandoned by the retreating Japanese army in China at the end of World War II.  India, Libya and South Korea requested and received lesser extensions. As of 2007, weapons possessor states have destroyed 25 percent of the 70,000 metric tons of the world’s known “Category 1” agents — those considered most dangerous and which have no uses beyond weaponry.  Russia by the end of April anticipates having eliminated 8,553 metric tons of its world’s-largest stockpile of 40,000 tons of weapons agent, thereby meeting the intermediate goal for disposal of 20 percent of the arsenal, said Vladimir Yermakov, senior counselor at the Russian Embassy in Washington.  One plant has finished work, two are operating and the final four are scheduled to open in 2008 and 2009. Moscow this year plans to spend $960 million on chemical weapons disposal, and estimates the entire effort would cost $7 billion, Yermakov said.  He thanked the United States and 15 other nations for pledging $2 billion for the effort, but dinged them by saying that they had so far provided Russia with less than a quarter of that amount. “The chemical weapons elimination is now in full swing,” Yermakov said during a panel discussion, giving no hint that there are any doubts in Moscow about Russia’s ability to meet the deadline. Experts in the field have been less optimistic, given the size of the Russian stockpile, the relatively late start of disposal in 2002, and the lack of progress on finishing the plant at Shchuchye, which would process 5,400 tons of nerve agent.  The United States has allocated more than $1 billion for the project, which remains unfinished amidst a contracting dispute (see GSN, March 1).  “It seems to me that neither Russia nor the United States will meet the 2012 deadline,” said Paul Walker, director of the Legacy Program at Global Green USA.  During a press conference today with Pfirter he announced his organization’s push for additional funding and cooperation to more rapidly eliminate the two nations’ stockpiles. U.S. officials on the panel acknowledged the likelihood of missed deadlines. “We will be a little challenged in meeting that, for a whole bunch of reasons, but we’re actively doing what we can to execute that mission,” said Dale Ormond, acting director of the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency. The United States is on track to meet the December milestone under the new schedule for disposing of 45 percent of its nearly 28,000-ton agent stockpile, Ormond said.  It has already destroyed 1.8 million munitions, including all bombs containing sarin, and finished operations at two plants. U.S. officials have cited a number of obstacles to meeting the final deadline, including the complexity of the work, scheduled and unanticipated work stoppages, delays in acquiring operating permits, and challenges in handling decaying munitions. Ormond said he expected disposal at the five plants now in operation to be finished “in the ballpark” of April 2012.  The primary deadline challenges lie with facilities that have yet to be built at weapons depots in Blue Grass, Ky., and Pueblo, Colo. Development of those chemical neutralization facilities was to be accelerated following the Sept. 11 attacks.  However, the designs proved too costly for the Defense Department, which ordered less-expensive redesigns.  The projects also had to overcome regulatory hurdles before moving forward. The Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program submitted redesigns last year, and preliminary construction is under way at both sites.  After being on “caretaker” budget status in fiscal 2006, the program received $349 million this year and is due to see $351 million in fiscal 2008.  Figures for following years are not known, but ACWA deputy program manager Bill Pehlivanian said he was optimistic that the agency would continue to receive sufficient funding. The program plans over the next two fiscal years to finalize designs of the plants and begin their construction.  The latest estimates call for weapons disposal at Pueblo to finish in 2020, and for work to be completed at Blue Grass in 2023.  “I think we can pull it back from 2023,” Pehlivanian said. Other Nations and Challenges The only nation not to request a weapons disposal schedule extension last year was Albania, which is wrapping up incineration of 16 tons of materials including sulfur mustard and lewisite.  The project faced technical problems since beginning in May 2005, but is expected to finish in May, slightly beyond its deadline. “The government is honored to declare that the process of destruction of chemical weapons will be successfully accomplished and Albania will be a country free of any kind of chemical weapons,” Aleksander Sallabanda, Albanian ambassador to the United States, said during the panel discussion. The exact provenance of the weapons, found in November 2002 in a poorly secured bunker, remains something of a mystery given the absence of records from the communist regime in the 1980s, when the weapons arrived, Sallabanda said.  Walker pointed out that Chinese letters appeared to be printed on the containers in which the materials were stored. Representatives from India, Libya and South Korea did not attend the conference to discuss weapons disposal in their countries.  India and South Korea — the latter of which OPCW officials never actually identify by name — have both eliminated 80 percent of their agent stockpiles, Pfirter said, while Libya has not begun destruction of 23 tons of mustard gas but is expected to meet its new deadline of 2010. “It seems quite clear that the destruction of stockpiles is important not just for the country involved, but is important for the overall credibility of the convention to expect from the other countries … to also comply with their obligations in full,” Pfirter said. The Argentinean diplomat declared that the organization’s challenges would not end when the six nations have destroyed their chemical stockpiles.  It would continue on as a “watchdog” against chemical weapons proliferation, he said. There are still 13 nations to be brought into the treaty, including North Korea, Iraq and several other Middle Eastern states.  Some of these are suspected of stockpiling toxic agents. Recent attacks in Iraq involving chlorine show that the potential threat of chemicals is not restricted to weapons held by states (see GSN, March 29). The agency plans to increase its focus on inspections of the thousands of “other chemical production facilities” used by industry around the world, Pfirter said.  Twenty percent of these could be quickly converted from producing harmless chemicals to producing deadly materials. Back to top

Japan Deploys PAC-3 Missile Interceptors Japanese Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile interceptors arrived this morning at an air force base 25 miles north of Tokyo, Reuters reported (see GSN, Oct. 12, 2006). This is the first time the Japanese government has deployed its own PAC-3 interceptors, which are intended to counter a missile threat from North Korea. “We consider it very meaningful to deploy the air defense missiles close to metropolitan Tokyo, which is the center of business and political activities,”  according to a statement from Iruma air base spokesman Kazumasa Echizen.  “We will continue our efforts to be ready for any possible emergencies.” A group of roughly 50 demonstrators protested the arrival of the PAC-3 systems at Iruma. “Bringing PAC-3s to places like Iruma makes them the focus of interception strategy and therefore at risk of becoming the target of attack by other countries,” a group said in a statement. The pace of deployment of air defenses in Japan has increased following North Korea’s 2006 missile launches and nuclear test. Additional deployments are expected at several bases around Japan in coming years.  The United States has PAC-3 systems at a base on the island of Okinawa, along with ship-based Standard Missile 3 interceptors at Yokosuka, Reuters reported (Takanori Isshiki, Reuters, March 30).   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.