By Seamus Kraft
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — International nuclear nonproliferation efforts have numerous blind spots and the United States is losing its leadership position in nuclear security knowledge, three nonproliferation experts testified Tuesday before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee (see GSN, July 9). Lawrence Scheinman of the Monterey Institute’s James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies warned that the United States was slipping behind other nations regarding nonproliferation interest and know-how. U.S. nonproliferation researchers are working with “20-year-old safeguard technologies” to secure “new reactor and fuel designs, which is not a good idea,” Scheinman said. “There has really not been a significant research activity in place since the 1990s,” he noted. The United States needs to better train and insert its own vanguard of scientists into IAEA activity or continue losing influence at the agency, according to Scheinman. “If you go to the IAEA now, you find that the French are all over the place, the Japanese are all over the place, getting their points in. What we need to do is to be able to get our points in,” he said. Leading U.S. nuclear nonproliferation researchers are retiring and no one is there to take over, Sheinman said, “because there’s not much demonstration that there is a sound financial basis to take them forward.” Deficiencies in nonproliferation talent could breed deficiencies in thorough nuclear oversight, allowing peaceful nuclear programs to cloak military efforts, said Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Diverting nuclear material from a civilian to a military program is quite easy, he said. While the International Atomic Energy Agency is in charge of detecting such diversions, it has missed several cases of nations moving material to unsafeguarded activities. Sokolski cited Iraq, Romania, South Korea, Egypt and Iran as countries that have in the past diverted nuclear material from a peaceful to a military program. He also cited an IAEA report that found its inspection cameras had experienced 30 hours of “blackouts” over the last six years, creating an opportunity for diversion activity. “For most of the nuclear facilities it inspects, the IAEA does not know day to day” whether its monitoring equipment is functioning, Sokolski said. “During those blackouts, entire fuel rods could be removed … to convert into bomb fuel,” he added. Multilateral ControlIn addition to these concerns, Scheinman said nations must agree to multilateralize the production of nuclear fuel if they want to prevent the spread of dangerous technologies to nations of proliferation concern. “There is no identifiable and acceptable substitute short of international ownership and control of the nuclear fuel cycle,” he said, though he admitted that such efforts had repeatedly failed to generate international support (see GSN, June 19). Nonproliferation consultant Fred McGoldrick cautioned the Senate panel not to lean too hard on a potential international program that would provide nuclear fuel to countries for energy purposes, thereby keeping them from developing technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons. “An international fuel bank is not going to be a magic bullet,” McGoldrick said. A bank is “highly unlikely to have a direct impact on a country like Iran, [which] is determined to acquire such [nuclear fuel processing] facilities for national security reasons,” he added. In that vein, Sokolski insisted that the United States couple a fuel bank with a much more aggressive tone regarding acquisition of nuclear fuel technology. The United States currently says “everyone has an absolute, unqualified right to make nuclear fuel,” Sokolski noted. “Our position right now … is identical to that of the state of Iran. You’re not going to win with a fuel bank if you keep saying that.” McGoldrick called Sokolski’s suggestion “ham-fisted,” pointing to the “visceral reaction” elicited by former U.S. State Department arms control chief John Bolton when he questioned Iran’s right to nuclear energy (see GSN, May 23, 2006). All three experts agreed that the U.N. nuclear watchdog is the most effective nonproliferation instrument available but that it must be strengthened or risk failing in its mission. The agency will become “a kind of glorified ‘Keystone Cop’ operation that you call in when you have a problem and you want to buy time by having them inspect the daylights out of something and not come to a conclusion,” Sokolski said. Ranking committee Republican Richard Lugar (Ind.) urged policy-makers to refocus their attention on nonproliferation strategies. “Our enthusiasm may wax and wane,” but nuclear issues endure and must be dealt with “in an international setting,” he said. Lugar has addressed some of the witnesses’ concerns in a new nonproliferation bill by proposing an international low-enriched uranium reactor fuel bank and a boost in funds for IAEA safeguards research. Lugar recently visited the IAEA nuclear safeguards research facility outside of Vienna and found it to be sorely “in need of upgrading and modernization to do its job,” said spokesman Andy Fisher. The U.N. site trains nuclear inspectors, develops inspection instruments, and analyzes nuclear-related samples gathered from the field. The measure would provide the U.N. nonproliferation research facility with $10 million in fiscal 2008, Fisher said. Lugar is also seeking $50 million in fiscal 2008 for creation of the International Nuclear Fuel Authority, he said. The funding would help to meet the conditions of a private grant to the agency to establish a fuel bank program. The Nuclear Threat Initiative, backed by U.S. investor Warren Buffet, pledged last year to give the agency $50 million to create the fuel bank, contingent upon the agency persuading its members to contribute an additional $100 million. [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.]
India today released the draft text of a plan to implement a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Aug. 2). U.S. and Indian officials had already revealed most details of the document, which they finalized late last month. The text appears to satisfy many Indian demands that had delayed finalizing the agreement. The deal indicates U.S. plans to assist Indian efforts to find other nuclear suppliers in case Washington is forced to pull out of the deal. A U.S. law enacted last year calls for the cancellation of U.S. assistance if India tests a nuclear weapon. In addition, the deal allows India to separate plutonium from fuel originally supplied by the United States. To ensure that such material is not directed toward a military program, the deal required fuel to be reprocessed at a dedicated facility supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Lawmakers in India and United States must approve the deal before it can be finalized. India must also finalize an inspection agreement for its civilian nuclear plants with the International Atomic Energy Agency and win approval from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the 45-nation organization that sets international nuclear trade rules (Associated Press/Washington Post, Aug. 3). The agreement’s wording seems to give the two nations some flexibility on nuclear weapons testing, suggesting that Washington could base its response to an Indian test on strategic concerns faced by India, Agence France-Presse reported today. “The parties agree to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation of cooperation,” said the text of the agreement. “They further agree to take into account whether the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation resulted from a party's serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to similar actions by other states” (Agence France-Presse/Channel NewsAsia, Aug. 3). India’s nuclear rival Pakistan said yesterday the agreement could destabilize South Asia region by leading New Delhi to produce weapons in unsupervised plants, Bloomberg reported (see GSN, July 31). Strategic balance in the region “would have been better served if the United States had considered a package approach for Pakistan and India,” said a statement by the Pakistani National Command Authority, an official body that includes President Gen. Pervez Musharraf (Paul Tighe, Bloomberg, Aug. 3). India’s ambassador to the United States said the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal would not pressure New Delhi to cooperate with the United States on issues such as Iran’s nuclear program, Reuters reported today. “Linking this agreement with any other issue — today it be Iran, tomorrow it can be some other issue — will be counterproductive,” said Indian envoy Ronen Sen, according to Outlook magazine. “It would be totally unrealistic to expect a large and vibrant democracy like India to give up its independence of judgment and action” (Reuters, Aug. 2).
More than 2 tons of nuclear equipment believed bound for Iran has been seized in Switzerland, the Jerusalem Post reported today (see GSN, Aug. 2). A Swiss company was suspected to have been involved in the sale of the equipment estimated at nearly $700,000 in value, Al Watan reported. Swiss officials and the Iranian Embassy in Switzerland declined to comment on the report (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 3). Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday encouraged Arab states to boost pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear efforts, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Aug. 1). Gates said an ongoing financial offensive on Iran waged through U.N. financial and trade sanctions is helping to put pressure on Tehran, but in meetings this week in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other nations discussed the potential for heightened military cooperation. “Iran is actively engaged right now in activities that are contrary to the interests of most of the countries, virtually all of the countries … that we just visited as well as the United States, as well as Iraq,” Gates said. “We just can't wait years for them to try to change their policies,” he said as he returned to Washington from the United Arab Emirates. Gates said that Middle East leaders expressed concern about Iran’s nuclear program. “Without being country-specific, in terms of concern with Iran, there was no difference of opinion,” he said. Gates also encouraged more Arab states to participate in sanctions against Iran. “The more countries in the world that cooperate in the U.N. sanctions, and in bringing pressures to bear on this government, that its policies are antithetical to the interests of all of its neighbors, the better off we'll be,” Gates said. “That was basically our message. … We'll need to work together," he said. "There is not really room for bystanders here.” It was not immediately clear how much progress Gates made in encouraging Arab states to step up pressure on Tehran, AFP reported. While there are concerns, none of the Gulf Arab monarchies believe Iran’s nuclear program to be an immediate threat, a high-level U.S. defense official said. “We have a given period of time," the official said, adding that the Iranians "are working away at it” (Jim Mannion, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Aug. 2).
Nuclear weapons would not be used to attack terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan during a Barack Obama presidency, the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential contender said yesterday, drawing fire from other candidates (see GSN, June 21). “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance” in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama said. Obama quickly hedged his statement, according to the Washington Post. “Let’s scratch that,” he said. “There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.” Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), another presidential candidate, chided Obama for his seemingly off-handed remarks about nuclear strategy. “Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing use and nonuse of nuclear weapons,” Clinton said. “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with regard to use or nonuse,” she added. Clinton withheld criticism of an Obama speech Wednesday in which he said he would employ counterterrorism forces in Pakistan without receiving approval from Islamabad, the Post reported. Another Democratic candidate did respond. “Over the past several days, Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused,” said Senator Christopher Dodd (Conn.). “He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.” Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution supported Obama’s declarations. “He’s certainly right to say you would never use a nuclear weapon to get Osama bin Laden,” O’Hanlon said. Conventional options could be used if intelligence agencies found bin Laden, he added (Anne Kornblut, Washington Post, Aug. 3). Meanwhile, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) said Tuesday he would threaten attacks on Islam’s holiest cities to deter potential nuclear terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, the Associated Press reported. “If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” said the Republican presidential contender. “That’s the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do,” he added at a campaign event. In 2005, Tancredo said “you could take out” the sacred places of Islam in response to a nuclear terrorist attack, AP reported. A U.S. Islamic rights group lambasted Tancredo for his statement. “Perhaps it’s evidence of a long-shot candidate grasping at straws and trying to create some kind of a controversy that might appeal to a niche audience of anti-Muslim bigots,” said Ibrahim Hooper of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic relations. A Tancredo spokesman said the candidate stood by his statements, AP reported (Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Aug. 2).
Nonproliferation experts have said President George W. Bush’s plan to convert weapon-grade plutonium into civilian nuclear reactor fuel could result in more, not less, fissile material worldwide, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Aug. 2). Russia and the United States agreed in 2000 to each convert 34 metric tons of plutonium into mixed-oxide (MOX) nuclear reactor fuel. Russia, however, wants to build a new reactor model that could potentially produce more plutonium than it eliminates. “There is not a lot of reduction in national security risk associated with this program,” said weapons expert Thomas Cochran of the National Resources Defense Council. “The U.S. might just as well store this stuff,” he added. Some unease with conversion might stem from deep-seated aversion to nuclear power of any type, said former U.S. fissile material disposal chief Laura Holgate. “I think it’s a good idea to dispose of plutonium,” Holgate said, calling the South Carolina MOX facility the “least bad option.” Construction of the $4.8 billion U.S. conversion facility began yesterday near Aiken, S.C. It is scheduled to start recycling plutonium in 2016 at an annual cost of $100 million, the Times reported (Matthew Wald, New York Times, Aug. 3).
The European Union customs commissioner said yesterday that a U.S. cargo screening initiative would disrupt trans-Atlantic trade and force European countries to pay for U.S. security, according to the Financial Times (see GSN, July 30). “Experts on both sides of the Atlantic have already considered this measure to be of no real benefit when it comes to improving security, while it would disrupt trade and cost legitimate EU and U.S. businesses a lot of time and money,” Laszlo Kovacs said in a statement. Congress last week approved legislation that would require foreign seaports within five years to conduct radiation screening of all U.S.-bound cargo. Extensions on that mandate could be given to certain ports in two-year increments. Kovacs said the United States rushed into the container security program without consulting its European allies, the Times reported. “I also regret that the USA did not await the results of the pilot actions that the EU and U.S. customs are about to launch before pressing ahead with this piece of legislation,” he said. The scanning measure would strap a “very heavy burden on EU business and ultimately its taxpayers,” according to the European Commission. Significant renovations could also be required at European ports. U.S. importers have also decried the measure (see GSN, July 26). While no scanning cost estimates were available, each container costs $30 to $50 to move, according to London-based Drewry Shipping Consultants. Kovacs called for a selective screening system based on risk analysis instead of inspecting each container. “This would find a balance between legitimate trade facilitation and customs security, an approach that the European Union has always supported,” he added (Andrew Bounds, Financial Times, Aug. 2).
Israel is weighing plans to build a civilian nuclear power plant, a move that could increase transparency about the nation’s nuclear activities, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper reported Wednesday (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2006). The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office and the Infrastructure Ministry have recently discussed building the plant under international supervision. Israel’s power grid has stretched thin and some officials in Jerusalem view nuclear energy as more environmentally sound than coal-generated electricity. Nuclear power experts estimated the plant could cost $2 billion to build over eight years — four for planning and permits, four for construction, Yedioth Ahronoth reported. Energy experts have been wrestling with how to build a civilian nuclear facility without uncloaking Israel’s widely suspected arsenal of nuclear weapons (Amir Ben-David, Yedioth Ahronoth, Aug. 1).
| 
Back to top
