U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill crosses a street in Manhattan today before his second day of talks with North Korean nuclear negotiator Kim Kye Gwan (Stan Honda/Getty Images). U.S., North Korean Nuclear Negotiators Meet in NYC The chief nuclear negotiators from North Korea and the United States met for four hours yesterday to begin normalization of diplomatic relations following Pyongyang’s pledge to eliminate its atomic weapons program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 5). “There were some preliminary discussions,” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill after his session in New York City with Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan.  Additional meetings are scheduled for today...Full Story

North Korea Faces First Major Test Next Week By Greg Webb Global Security Newswire VIENNA — North Korea will face the first major test of its commitment to a nuclear freeze next week when it meets to discuss verification measures with the top U.N. nuclear inspector (see GSN, March 5)...Full Story

Progress Slows on New Iran Nuclear Sanctions World powers met again yesterday to discuss imposing new sanctions against Iran, but they appeared to be distant from agreeing on how to address Tehran’s refusal to curb its nuclear activities, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 5)...Full Story

	Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Former VP Chief of Staff Convicted The former chief of staff to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was convicted today of four of five charges related to the leaking of a CIA operative’s name, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 31). A federal jury found I. Lewis Libby guilty of two counts of perjury and individual counts of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI.  It absolved him of one count of lying to the FBI. Libby was not charged with  leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, who was identified in media reports in a reported attempt to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.  Wilson was highly critical of the Bush administration’s use of intelligence leading to the invasion of Iraq.  In a February 2002 trip to Niger, Wilson concluded that the Hussein regime was not trying to buy uranium from the African nation for use in an atomic weapons program.  President George W. Bush would make that claim in his 2003 State of the Union address in arguing for the war. Libby faces up to 30 years in prison, though he is likely to receive a significantly less severe sentence (Sniffen/Apuzzo, Associated Press/GSN, March 6). Back to top       WMD Clause Could be Left Out of EU-India Trade Pact A trade and investment agreement between the European Union and India might not include a standard clause calling on New Delhi to oppose weapons of mass destruction, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 13, 2006). Some European Union nations have urged that the clause not be included in the document as they seek to increase trade with the quickly developing nation.  There is debate over whether the deal would constitute a “mixed agreement” with both political and technical components, or be a strictly technical agreement in which the clause would not be required. “Weapons of mass destruction is normally a standard clause in mixed agreements and it’s a trade plus agreement,” EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said.  “This has to be seen, but normally it’s a standard clause.” Two existing European Union-India agreements contain the WMD clause, a European Commission spokeswoman said. Nuclear-armed India has opposed inclusion of the clause, which would require it to meet its existing international nonproliferation commitments.  Those include the chemical and biological weapons conventions, but not the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The clause also calls for countries to move toward joining other nonproliferation and arms control pacts, which would nudge India to sign the nonproliferation treaty.  The clause mandates effective export controls of WMD materials, Reuters reported. “If we were to adopt for India an approach different from the approach we adopt with other countries, I think we would abandon altogether the idea of having a WMD clause with third countries,” said EU nonproliferation and WMD representative Annalisa Giannella (David Brunnstrom, Reuters, March 5). Back to top

U.S., North Korean Nuclear Negotiators Meet in NYC The chief nuclear negotiators from North Korea and the United States met for four hours yesterday to begin normalization of diplomatic relations following Pyongyang’s pledge to eliminate its atomic weapons program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 5). “There were some preliminary discussions,” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill after his session in New York City with Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan.  Additional meetings are scheduled for today. Hill told the New York Times before the meeting that he would be “pressing for disclosure” of all North Korean nuclear programs. Questions have risen recently regarding U.S. claims that the Stalinist state was seeking to develop a production-scale uranium enrichment program alongside its known plutonium effort (see GSN, Feb. 28; Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, March 6). “They need to come clean on it … explain why they are doing it,” Hill said during a forum today (Agence France-Presse II/Spacewar.com, March 6). Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte expressed no doubts today that North Korea had such a program, but did not say whether Washington believes it continues to operate, AFP reported. “I have no doubt that North Korea has had a highly enriched uranium program, and that has been and continues to be the judgment of our intelligence community,” he said in Seoul.  “We would expect that when North Korea makes its declaration of nuclear facilities, that that would be one of the issues addressed in North Korea’s declaration” (Agence France-Presse I, March 6). This week’s U.S.-North Korean talks are aimed at developing an agenda for normalization of relations, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday. “I think that he (Hill) will talk to them about how the process might proceed regarding normalization,” he said. That could include removing North Korea from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and moving toward regular trade relations, the Associated Press reported. In another follow-up from the Feb. 13 agreement, Japanese and North Korean officials met today in Vietnam to prepare for two days of talks on establishment of diplomatic relations and related issues. Pyongyang agreed last month to halt work at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor and allow international nuclear inspectors back into the country, in exchange for 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil.  It would receive another 950,000 tons of fuel aid upon denuclearization (Associated Press/New York Times, March 6). A team from the European Union is also traveling to Pyongyang today for talks stemming from the nuclear agreement, AFP reported.  Officials are representing Germany, Portugal and EU foreign policy head Javier Solana. “The aim of this trip by the EU troika is to promote the rapid implementation of an agreement reached on February 13 in Beijing,” according to an EU statement.  “The outcome of the visit will provide important guidelines for discussions within the EU as to its future relations with North Korea” (Agence France-Presse III/Spacewar.com, March 6). Back to top       North Korea Faces First Major Test Next Week By Greg Webb Global Security Newswire VIENNA — North Korea will face the first major test of its commitment to a nuclear freeze next week when it meets to discuss verification measures with the top U.N. nuclear inspector (see GSN, March 5). International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei is scheduled to lead a six-person delegation to Pyongyang next week.  He plans to leave Vienna Sunday night for Beijing, then move on to North Korea for two days of talks beginning Tuesday.  Other delegation members include the heads of the agency’s safeguards, external relations and legal affairs divisions. Under the Feb. 13 agreement reached in Beijing with its four regional neighbors and the United States, North Korea agreed to freeze its plutonium-related facilities within 60 days.  The agreement calls for the U.N. nuclear watchdog to verify the suspension, but no details were approved in the multiparty talks. The agreement addresses the issue with just one sentence:  “The D.P.R.K. will shut down and seal for the purpose of eventual abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verifications as agreed between the IAEA and the D.P.R.K.” That language leaves considerable leeway, said a Western diplomat here familiar with the agency.  The text makes no mention of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or traditional IAEA safeguards agreements — or even the abandoned U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework which was verified by on-site IAEA equipment and full-time personnel. There are, therefore, virtually no established verification measures to apply to North Korea, the diplomat said.  The details will need to be hand-crafted and, more importantly, approved by North Korean officials. Pyongyang has historically seized upon unpredictable issues to derail nuclear talks, the diplomat said, making next week’s visit extremely important.  Agency officials are avoiding any public comment on North Korea to reduce the opportunity for Pyongyang to seize upon something they say to slow the development of the Feb. 13 accord. Whatever measures are negotiated will require the approval of the agency’s governing board.  Agency officials have said a special meeting of the board will probably convene later this month after ElBaradei’s return. The agency monitored Pyongyang’s adherence to the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which it halted plutonium production.  However, North Korea ejected all IAEA personnel in December 2002 when that agreement collapsed.  It is doubtful that any equipment left behind remains in working condition, the Western diplomat said. Back to top       Progress Slows on New Iran Nuclear Sanctions World powers met again yesterday to discuss imposing new sanctions against Iran, but they appeared to be distant from agreeing on how to address Tehran’s refusal to curb its nuclear activities, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 5). Ambassadors from the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany met last night at the British U.N. mission in New York.  The meeting followed three sessions by phone and in person over the last week, and coincided with a Vienna meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s governing board. While officials had earlier expressed optimism for reaching rapid agreement, that assessment was no longer being offered. “There are some different views here, so we will continue to work,” said Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya.  He said the ambassadorial group would reconvene today. The current debate centers over how much to strengthen sanctions the council imposed in a December resolution that demanded Iran freeze its nuclear activities within 60 days.  Tehran refused to heed that deadline and now the council is looking to ratchet up the pressure. The Western nations are leaning toward more stringent measures, while Russia and China seek a more gradual approach, AP reported. Under discussion are “travel issues, financial issues, arms issues,” said acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff. “We just now need to agree with all the other members of the council on what those measures, what those sanctions should be,” added U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns who met with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon yesterday.  “We hope those deliberations can be conducted in the shortest possible time so that the Iranian government will know that it is really quite isolated on this issue” (Paul Burkhardt, Associated Press I/Washington Post, March 6). The Western position received backing from EU foreign ministers yesterday, who agreed in a joint statement to support Security Council efforts “to adopt further appropriate measures … should Iran fail to comply” with the council’s demands. Meeting in Brussels, the ministers called on the council “to act with the necessary firmness” (Associated Press II/International Herald Tribune, March 5). U.S. Military Option Criticized Meanwhile in Washington, a freshman lawmaker has introduced legislation to limit the president’s ability to use military force against Iran without congressional approval. While Bush administration leaders have generally denied they are considering military strikes against Iran, some recent actions and statements have raised concerns among critics.  President George W. Bush authorized U.S. troops in Iraq to fire on Iranian personnel suspected of aiding Iraqi insurgents, and Bush also ordered a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf.  Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated the administration position that it would not rule out any options against Iran.  “All options are on the table,” he said during a visit to Australia (see GSN, Feb. 26). “This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own,” said Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.).  “We need the Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat.” Webb’s legislation would prevent money from being “obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress.”  The language was offered as an amendment to the supplemental appropriations request for Iraqi war funds. The legislative bid promised to draw Republican opposition, the Washington Times reported. “I don't think it is productive or responsible to place arbitrary restrictions on what is now a hypothetical national security scenario, especially since the language — if not carefully worked — could hamstring our efforts against insurgents and terrorists in Iraq,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio (Christina Bellantoni, Washington Times, March 6). Military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities would probably backfire anyway, according to report released yesterday by a British think tank.  Iran would probably respond to any attacks by accelerating its program and removing all international oversight, says the report by the Oxford Research Group (Oxford Research Group release, March 5). Iran has deployed defenses at its nuclear facilities and plans to test some air defenses today, Agence France-Presse reported. “An exercise will be carried out for the aerial defense system installed around the Isfahan nuclear site today,” said an official statement.  Isfahan is home to Iran’s uranium conversion facility, where uranium ore is converted into a gaseous form that can be fed into uranium enrichment centrifuges elsewhere (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, March 6). Back to top       U.S. Ready to Allow Nuclear Treaty to Expire The United States has rejected Russian requests to negotiate a treaty replace a soon-to-expire strategic weapons pact, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, March 2). Experts from the two nations are scheduled to meet soon, but U.S. officials have expressed no interest in extending the legally binding Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, according to the Times. “We are not going to engage in Cold War-style arms control,” said former Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph. “We don’t want to make nuclear warheads the currency of our relationship with Russia.  Issues like cooperation on combating nuclear terrorism are much more important today.” The START accord, which limits the United States and Russia to 6,000 strategic warheads each on 1,600 delivery systems, is set to expire in 2009.  With it will go its verification regime which consists of highly detailed inspections mechanisms to confirm that each side is meeting the treaty’s terms.  A subsequent agreement, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, calls for cutting the number of deployed strategic warheads to no more than 2,200 each by the end of 2012.  That pact, however, has no verification or monitoring provisions. Russian officials have sought to extend START verification measures. “We propose to our American partners that we launch negotiations to replace the START,” Russian President Vladimir Putin last June. The United States, however, has resisted, preferring less stringent confidence-building measures, the Times reported. Bush administration critics said that position would weaken U.S. security. “Without a verification regime, we'd be dependent on satellites and human intelligence to assess the Russian arsenal,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.  “That would lead to further mistrust and mutual suspicion.” More expert-level meetings are expected to convene this month, according to the Times (Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, March 6). Back to top       Russia to Deploy Upgraded Strategic Bombers Russia plans to deploy two modernized Tu-160s this year, part of an effort to upgrade its fleet of the strategic bombers, RIA Novosti reported today (see GSN, Dec. 8). “We are modernizing the fleet of Tu-160 bombers … and are planning to receive two (modernized) aircraft by the end of this year,” said Lt. Gen. Igor Khvorov, head of the strategic bomber force. The improved fleet would feature new and upgraded Tu-160 Blackjack, Tu-22 Blinder and Tu-95 Bear bombers. There are now 16 Tu-160 aircraft in service, RIA Novosti reported.  They can carry nuclear weapons and have a flight range of 7,640 miles. Strategic bombers on combat duty are not equipped with nuclear weapons, Khvorov said. “At present, strategic bombers are deployed on the ground while on combat duty, but are capable of responding to orders immediately and carry out combat tasks anywhere in the world,” he said (RIA Novosti/Spacewar.com, March 6). Back to top       U.S. Testing Next-Generation Nuclear Detectors The U.S. Homeland Security Department this month in Nevada is testing the next generation of radiation detectors to determine if they justify a cost more than six times as high as the equipment currently in use, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 3, 2006). Each of the new machines, which later this year are scheduled to be tested at the sea cargo terminals in New York, costs more than $370,000. Last October, the Government Accountability Office reported that new detectors show a high incidence of “false negatives” — failure to detect a dangerous material or to identify it as threatening.  The chance of a false negative was even higher if nuclear material was placed near natural and innocuous emitters of radiation such as kitty liter. The new technology — rather than just detecting the presence or absence of radiation — is designed to distinguish between isotopes.  Such an ability would allow inspectors to quickly determine what should be of concern and what could be waved through security points. “We don’t expect this to be 100 percent effective immediately, but we will continue to refine it,” Vayl Oxford, head of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office within Homeland Security, told the AP. Following the tests this month, Oxford would offer his recommendation to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff whether the new machines should be approved for deployment.  In addition to the questions raised in the GAO report, lawmakers have questioned the new technology and are withholding funding until test can confirm it is worth the cost. Homeland Security ultimately plans to install the new detectors at 380 border crossings (Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, March 6). Back to top       Concerns Remain on U.S. Resumption of Nuclear Tests Plans for development of a new U.S. nuclear warhead have spurred concerns that the Nevada Test Site could again be used for atomic blasts, The Salt Lake Tribune reported yesterday (see GSN, March 5). The United States last conducted an atmospheric test explosion at the sprawling site in the early 1960s.  The final underground test at the facility was in 1992. The Bush administration states that the Reliable Replacement Warhead is intended to be developed without nuclear test detonations.  Not everyone is convinced. “I think we’re going down the path of new nuclear weapons, which takes us down the path to new nuclear weapons testing,” said Representative Jim Matheson (D-Utah). Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. also remains opposed to any resumption of testing at the site.  “I think it’s a terrible idea and I hope it’s never resumed,” he said, according to the Tribune. Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah) said Congress is also opposed to new testing. “To assume the door is shut and the potential just isn’t there anymore, I can’t assume that,” Matheson said.  “I think we have to remain ever-vigilant” (Robert Gehrke, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 5). Back to top

Canada Won’t Require Military Anthrax Shots The Canadian military has no plans to institute a program of mandatory anthrax vaccinations similar to that required for some U.S. armed services personnel, the Canadian Press reported today (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2006). “At this point in time, we are not requiring our people to have anthrax vaccinations nor are we considering it,” said Gloria Kelly, spokeswoman for the Canadian Forces health services group. The U.S. military announced late last year it would again require anthrax vaccinations for service members heading to Afghanistan, Iraq and South Korea.  The mandatory program had been halted in 2004 during a court challenge, but was re-established after the Food and Drug Administration ruled the vaccine was safe and effective. There are roughly 2,500 Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan.  The likelihood that they would be exposed to anthrax is low enough to make mandatory vaccinations unnecessary, said Ron Wojtyk of the Canadian Forces health services. U.S. personnel are deployed in Iraq and other areas with a greater risk, he said yesterday. “If we deploy to an area where there is a threat of anthrax or possible release on a bioterrorist type of scenario, then there would be an order for anthrax [vaccinations] and it would be mandatory,” Wojtyk said (Canadian Press/Telegraph-Journal, March 6). Back to top

Former Saddam Official Claims Iran Gassed Kurds A senior official in the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein testified yesterday in Baghdad that Iraq did not have the nerve agent prosecutors say was used to kill thousands of Kurds, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 12). Former foreign minister and deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz told an Iraqi tribunal that there “was no genocide” against Iraqi Kurds, instead implying that Iran might have been behind the attack on the town Halabja that killed an estimated 5,600.  Prosecutors say the attack was part of the Hussein regime’s Operation Anfal campaign that systematically attacked Kurds in northern Iraq. Aziz told the judges that Iran possessed chemical weapons during its war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988.  “You can check with experts,” he said, according to AP. Aziz was a defense witness in the trial of six former Iraqi officials charged with crimes against humanity in connection with the Anfal campaign.  Included among the defendants is Ali Hassan al-Majid, who was also known as “Chemical Ali” for reportedly ordering the use of chemical weapons. The defendants could be hanged if convicted (Associated Press/Los Angeles Times, March 6). Back to top

Iran Rocket Test Raises Questions of Military Plans Iran’s test of a sounding rocket last week has raised more questions than offered answers about Iran’s missile intentions and capabilities, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 26). Initial reports described the test rocket as reaching the Earth’s upper atmosphere, but later accounts have revealed conflicting statements from Iranian officials, according to AP. Similarly, analysts have offered varied assessments of Iran’s ability to build upon the rocket technology to develop long-range ballistic missiles. “They use the same core technologies, with some difference in guidance systems and fuel,” said John Sheldon of the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. “Once they have that capability, whether for satellites or anything else, once you can boost your way up there, then you’re en route to ICBMs, and that’s where they’re headed,” said former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A Russian analyst, however, said Iran could still be years from having an ICBM. Far from a major technological development, the recent test was merely a “bluff,” said Anton Khlopkov, of the Moscow-based PIR Center.  “It was an attempt to influence both the domestic public opinion and the West.” Iran would need 10 years to build an ICBM, he added (Abbot/Dareini, Associated Press/Washington Post, March 5). Back to top

Russian Bombers Could Easily Destroy U.S. Missile Defense Installations, General Says A Russian general said his country’s bombers could destroy missile defense installations the United States hopes to deploy in Europe, the Financial Times reported yesterday (see GSN, March 5). “Since missile defense elements are weakly protected, all types of our aircraft are capable of applying electronic countermeasures against them or physically destroying them,” said Lt. Gen. Igor Khvorov, head of the Russian strategic bomber force. Moscow has loudly and repeatedly blasted U.S. plans to place 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic, arguing that it would undermine Russian strategic security. “Leading states are paying increasing attention in military policy to modernizing their military forces and improving their weaponry,” the Russian presidential security council said in a statement announcing development of a new military doctrine.  “Modern forms of armed conflict are being actively implemented, technologies for use of force are being reviewed, the configuration of military presence is being changed, and military alliances are being strengthened — particularly NATO.” If the U.S. moves forward with its European missile shield plans, Russia has indicated that it could respond by withdrawing from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which banned missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (see GSN, Feb. 16). Washington argues that its missile defense plans for Europe are aimed at countering threats from the Middle East rather than Russia. Discussions on the dispute should be conduced in NATO, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the Times.  She urged the United States to increase talks on the matter with its allies in the West and Russia. The U.S. plans are “incomprehensible,” said Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn.  “We will have no stability in Europe if we push the Russians into a corner,” he said. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek countered questions from other European nations about the U.S. program.  “As for the 18 EU member states who host U.S. military bases, it is not up to them to comment on the existence of such a presence in the Czech Republic,” he said (Financial Times, March 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.