By Greg Webb
Global Security Newswire
VIENNA — More than 100 nations sought today to build pressure on just 10 countries to allow a global treaty banning nuclear weapons tests to take effect (see GSN, Sept. 26, 2005).
Bringing the pact into force would initiate “an effective measure of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation,” the group said in a final consensus statement approved today at a special conference here convened to discuss strategies to promote the treaty.
“We knew we were going to be in for the long haul,” Dutch diplomat Jaap Ramaker said in a panel discussion today. “And the long haul it has been, indeed,” added Ramaker, a key player in disarmament diplomacy over the past two decades who now serves as special representatives to nations pursuing the treaty’s entry into force. With strong U.S. leadership during its negotiation, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was opened for signature in 1996, and 177 states have since signed the pact that would prohibit all explosive nuclear testing. Earlier testing treaties have limited the size of nuclear tests and required that they be conducted underground to better contain radioactive material. The latest treaty’s provisions for entering into force have resulted in slow progress. “Unfortunately, one has to acknowledge again that there is little positive dynamism in matters of entry into force of this most important treaty,” assessed Russian delegation leader Alexander Zmeyevsky, speaking to the conference. The treaty requires that 44 specific nations, chosen in 1996 because they possessed nuclear facilities, must ratify the pact before it can take effect. Only 10 countries have not taken that step, but the group’s composition has led experts to question whether the treaty can take effect any time soon. Chief among the holdouts is the United States, which changed its position toward the treaty when President George W. Bush took office in 2001, reflecting the Republican Party’s general opposition to the agreement. The GOP-led Senate rejected the treaty in 1999. Today, Washington finds itself in the company of North Korea and Iran among countries that have not fully joined the treaty. The other holdouts preventing entry into force are China, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Israel and Pakistan. Such is the Bush administration’s disregard for the treaty that it sent no representatives to the meeting, preferring not to respond to the waves of criticism issued by dozens of nations over the past two days. This week’s meeting was the fifth such session, and the United States attended only the first one in 1999. Bush administration officials have expressed concern that the treaty is unverifiable and could prevent the United States from ensuring that its nuclear arsenal remains safe and works properly. Also reflecting its disinterest, the United States has failed to pay its full dues to the treaty’s implementing organization which has established a global network of scientific tools designed to detect the smallest of nuclear blasts. By being more than a year in arrears, the United States has lost its voting rights in the organization. According one organization document, Washington owed more than $28 million as of last week. This represents about one-quarter of the agency’s annual budget. Congress is considering a bill to fund the U.S. contribution, according to Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association. The Bush administration has requested $18 million, less than its current annual obligation to the organization of about $20 million. The U.S. Senate has allocated $28 million and the U.S. House has suggested $10 million, a difference that will soon be decided in a conference meeting, Kimball said. Washington was a target of many nations over the past two days, as illustrated by Malaysia, which criticized U.S. efforts in 2005 to shorten the time needed to prepare a nuclear test and to pursue development of a new type of nuclear warhead (see GSN, July 25). “The failure of this nuclear-weapon state to ratify the treaty … is undermining this most important instrument against nuclear testing,” said Malaysian representative Dato’Mohammed Arshad Hussain, speaking for the Nonaligned Movement. Prospects for Other HoldoutsOther holdout nations have expressed varying amounts of support or opposition to the treaty. China signed the treaty early on, but has not yet ratified the pact, perhaps waiting for Washington to go first, according to some analysts here. Officially, a Chinese diplomat reported that the issue is simply waiting on lawmakers for action. China has “submitted the treaty to the National People’s Congress for its review. As the supreme legislative institution, the National People’s Congress would review the treaty in a comprehensive and detailed way in accordance with the procedures of the law,” said Chinese delegation leader Ambassador Tang Guoqiang. Colombia has also expressed support for the treaty, but has claimed to have a legal difficulty in finalizing the agreement. Colombian law reportedly does not allow the government to ratify treaties that are not yet in force, creating a quandary when the treaty cannot enter into force without Colombian ratification. Three nations — India, North Korea and Pakistan — have simply refused to sign the treaty and prospects for signature appear dim. Kimball today criticized a pending U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal for failing to pressure New Delhi even to refrain from nuclear testing, much less join the treaty. Terms of the nuclear deal call for the United States to aid India in acquiring nuclear fuel even if U.S. supplies are cut off in response to an Indian nuclear test (see GSN, Aug. 6). North Korea ImplicationsMany nations here also criticized North Korea’s decision last year to conduct a small nuclear test (see GSN, Oct. 16, 2006). The test had one positive result, however, in that it ably demonstrated the treaty’s verification system, which first detected the blast using seismic sensors and later confirmed the nature and size of explosion by measuring air samples. Despite the slow progress toward the treaty’s entry into force, Kimball offered some optimism. “U.S. ratification of the CTBT is within reach,” he told today’s seminar, and Washington’s approval should free up other holdout nations. The key is next year’s U.S. presidential and congressional elections. Every major candidate from the Democratic Party has publicly supported the treaty, he said. Even with presidential support, though, the treaty’s U.S. passage cannot be guaranteed because two-thirds of the Senate must consent as well. Even if Democrats make gains in the Senate next year, they will probably still need to persuade about a dozen Republicans to support the treaty, Kimball estimated.
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — Plans appear to be jelling at the U.S. Defense Department for developing a new, intermediate-range conventional missile that could be launched from submarines, according to Pentagon sources (see GSN, Aug. 15, 2006). Initial conceptual work has begun on a “Submarine-Launched Global Strike Missile” that could be carried by four U.S. Navy Ohio-class submarines undergoing conversion from their longtime nuclear weapons-carrying role to use solely in conventional missions. Behind the scenes, the idea appears to be gaining steam among Pentagon leaders as a potential backup to their 2006 proposal to modify a small number of nuclear-armed Trident D-5 submarine-launched missiles for conventional strikes. Government officials are examining the possibility of funding the intermediate-range missile at $120 million in fiscal 2008 and $140 million in 2009 if prospects for modifying the longer-range Trident D-5 remain dim on Capitol Hill, Global Security Newswire has learned. The Pentagon’s earlier proposal to field conventional D-5 missiles aboard submarines that also carry their nuclear-armed counterparts has proved to be a political hot potato. Lawmakers have curtailed funds for the “Conventional Trident Modification” effort, citing worries that Russia or other major powers might misinterpret a conventional D-5 launch as a nuclear salvo and unleash a nuclear response (see GSN, Aug. 1). The conventional weapons are to be used in a relatively new military mission called “prompt global strike,” in which the Pentagon seeks to field highly precise weapons capable of hitting an urgent target anywhere around the world within 60 minutes of a launch order. The weapons might be used in instances in which targets are fleeting, such as when a terrorist has been located a safe house or a rogue nation is readying a nuclear missile for launch. Lacking a long-range conventional missile capability today to stage such rapid attacks, the president is left only with nuclear weapons, and those remain unlikely to be used, a former U.S. strategic commander has told Congress (see GSN, March 9). While lawmakers generally support the idea of building conventional weapons that could substitute for nuclear-tipped missiles, skepticism about fielding the conventional Trident has hamstrung Pentagon plans. “If Congress outlaws [the conventional Trident missile] but does not outlaw conventional [prompt global strike in general], then what have we got in our brains to carry on?” asked one Defense Department official, interviewed last month on condition of anonymity. The answer: Pentagon officials have begun to quietly develop a “Plan B,” exploring payload and engineering options for the intermediate-range Submarine-Launched Global Strike Missile, which would be carried on conventional-only vessels. To nudge that effort along, defense officials are drawing from $20 million in fiscal 2007 funds that Congress appropriated for technologies usable in a number of future prompt global strike weapons (see GSN, Aug. 17). The Pentagon’s growing interest in a new Submarine-Launched Global Strike Missile reflects an evolving view that funds previously earmarked in future-year budget plans for a Conventional Trident Modification technology demonstration might be better spent on demonstrating a more politically viable weapon, defense officials said. “It pays to have a range of options and technologies and industrial base components that can be selected for future systems,” the Defense Department official said last month. Developing a brand new missile might also hold considerable technical appeal for Pentagon and industry officials. Starting with a clean design slate could allow for a more effective conventional destructive capability than the existing D-5 re-entry vehicle offers, according to defense experts. Building a missile that is smaller than the D-5 also might allow a lower unit cost in production, after research and development is complete. Once in use, the new missile could also offer shorter flight times to target. However, with an anticipated maximum range of approximately 2,000 nautical miles — about half that of the Trident D-5 — the new missile would have to be launched closer to its target. The new missile would not necessarily be strictly an alternative to the conventional Trident. Should that program move forward, it appears that the intermediate-range weapon might still be developed in tandem to augment the modified D-5’s capabilities, defense sources said. Assuming the intermediate-range weapon enters initial stages of development in the near term, technology demonstrations could begin as early as fiscal 2011, according to defense sources. These tests would be limited to simply proving the design concept. Underwater test launches could begin before the end of 2012, officials said. The technology demonstrations would be followed by a potentially expensive “system development and demonstration” phase, according to defense sources. The missile might be initially fielded sometime between 2015 and 2018, defense officials said. Early planning envisions potentially fitting two of the missiles per launch tube, according to these sources. Each Trident submarine undergoing conversion has 24 tubes, but the Navy plans to use some of the tubes to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles and special operations forces. The Pentagon remains “a long way from figuring out” how many of the global strike missiles would be carried aboard each submarine, one defense official said this week. In May, a National Academy of Sciences study panel found that the intermediate-range missile approach “presents less technical risk than the others being proposed.” Missile payloads could include “larger munitions such as an earth penetrator for attacking deeply buried facilities,” the group stated in a congressionally mandated interim report (see GSN, May 16). Ironically, altering the focus of prompt global strike development efforts from the conventional Trident D-5 to the intermediate-range missile still might not assuage critics’ concerns about launch ambiguity, according to some nuclear weapons experts. Russia — currently the only nuclear power with an advanced early warning system — might mistake the launch of an intermediate-range weapon from a converted Ohio-class submarine for a U.S. nuclear strike using a “depressed-trajectory” Trident D-5, said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists. Launching the missile in a flatter arc allows for a shorter flight time to target and less time for an adversary to detect and react to an incoming attack, according to experts. The U.S. Navy in 2005 carried out a D-5 flight test off the East Coast using a depressed trajectory that gave the missile a 1,200 nautical mile range — “right in the range of that [intermediate] missile,” Kristensen said. The Defense Department has not given up hope that the Conventional Trident Modification will go forward, according to officials. Pentagon budgeters have tentatively allocated $118 million in fiscal 2009 and $103 million in 2010 for that effort, which could lay the groundwork for initial fielding in 2010, GSN has learned. Overall, the Pentagon is eyeing $160 million in fiscal 2009 and $148 million in 2010 for technologies developed by the Army, Air Force and Navy across the prompt global strike mission, according to a draft Defense Department budget slide reviewed by GSN. In the latest budget action on Capitol Hill, the Senate Appropriations Committee zeroed the $175 million in fiscal 2008 funds the White House requested for Trident missile modification. The panel moved $125 million into a new multiservice account for prompt global strike, directing that the Pentagon use the funds “for engineering and development of alternatives to the conventional Trident missile program.” House appropriators carried out a similar move over the summer, shifting all funds out of the conventional Trident account and investing $100 million in the multiservice account. The House bill would allow some of those pooled funds to be used for the conventional Trident, at the defense secretary’s discretion.
The United States agreed yesterday to provide $35 million for the Czech Republic to return 2 metric tons of spent highly enriched uranium fuel to Russia, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Sept. 28, 2005). Under the deal signed by U.S. Ambassador Richard Graber and Czech Trade Minister Martin Riman, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration is also expected to assist in improving security at the Czech research reactor in Rez and in converting the reactor to use proliferation-resistant low-enriched uranium as fuel. The agreement marked a new initiative in a U.S.-Russian program to repatriate highly enriched uranium from foreign nuclear reactors. “The signature of this agreement is an example of the international community working collectively to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, and is the kind of concrete international security action that increases both U.S. security and that of our allies,” Graber said. To date, nations from the former Soviet bloc have returned 1,100 pounds of highly enriched uranium to Russia. After it is repatriated, the uranium is blended down to a low enrichment level at which it cannot be used in nuclear weapons (Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Sept. 17).
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner yesterday re-emphasized his country’s commitment to diplomacy as a means of pressuring Iran to halt its controversial nuclear activities, the New York Times reported (see GSN, Sept. 17). Kouchner was rebuked by Iran and criticized by some French officials for discussing the possibility of war with Iran in an attempt to step up international pressure on the country over its nuclear program. “The worst situation would be war,” Kouchner said. “And to avoid the worst, the French position is very clear: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, and work with our European friends on credible sanctions.” Kouchner said that no military action is being planned against Iran and he did not expect the United States to take military action against the country during the term of U.S. President George W. Bush. The Sarkozy administration is pressing European nations to impose sanctions on Iran separate from a third round of U.N. Security Council penalties that could take several months to pass. “These would be European sanctions that each country, individually, must put in place with its own banking, commercial and industrial system,” Kouchner said. “The English and the Germans are interested in talking about this.” High-level officials have said the French foreign intelligence service believes that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon earlier than dates anticipated by U.S. intelligence officials. The United States estimates that Iran’s nuclear program could yield a bomb between 2010 and 2015 (Bennhold/Sciolino, New York Times, Sept. 17). Following a Russian warning that war with Iran would prove “catastrophic,” Kouchner during a meeting today was expected to urge Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to adopt a harder line against Tehran, Agence France Presse reported. Their meeting came before a planned session Friday of the U.N. Security Council, which is expected to examine proposed sanctions against Iran for its refusal to halt enriching uranium, which could produce a nuclear bomb ingredient. Anticipating a possible attack on Iran, Moscow has prepared plans to evacuate Russian nuclear specialists from Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant now under construction, said Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov. Losyukov said that military intervention in Iran would “worsen the situation in the Middle East” and “bring a very negative reaction from the Muslim world.” “Of course I cannot know what is being thought in the United States,” he said, adding that an attack on Iran “would be a big diplomatic and political error.” U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei yesterday discouraged countries from taking premature military action in the nuclear standoff with Iran, but he added that French statements about the likelihood of military conflict were “a lot of hype” (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Sept. 18). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discounted Kouchner’s threat of war if Tehran pursues nuclear weapons development, the Associated Press reported. “We do not take these threats seriously,” Ahmadinejad said. “Media speculations are different from real words and we do not take these remarks seriously.” Iran has denied that it intends to develop a nuclear weapon (Associated Press I/Google News, Sept. 18). Meanwhile, retired U.S. Army Gen. John Abizaid said yesterday the United States could prevent Iran from using nuclear weapons should every effort fail to prevent Iran from acquiring them, the Associated Press reported. “Iran is not a suicide nation,” said Abizaid, who led U.S. Central Command for almost four years. “I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon.” He said that Iranian officials acknowledge U.S. military superiority, and they would not risk attacking the United States with a nuclear weapon when such a move could provoke a catastrophic retaliation. “I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear,” Abizaid said. “There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran,” he said. “Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well” (Associated Press II/International Herald Tribune, Sept. 17).
Six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program could resume as soon as next week, after Pyongyang expressed discomfort with plans to conduct negotiations this week, a South Korean official told Agence France-Presse today (see GSN, Sept. 17). “North Korea was feeling uncomfortable with the Sept. 19 opening of the six-party talks. It gave no reason,” the official said. He said the negotiations are likely to begin again “sometime after the Chuseok holiday” on Sept. 25. “I do not take the delay seriously. It has not always been easy to handle North Koreans. I believe it has nothing to do with the future prospects for six-party talks,” the official said. The U.S. State Department indicated that the negotiations would be held in Beijing a week after the original date, AFP reported. Pyongyang agreed in February to close its nuclear program, in exchange for energy, security and diplomatic benefits from the other nations in the multilateral discussions — China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. It has halted operations at its Yongbyon nuclear complex and expressed willingness to fully disclose and disable nuclear facilities. Reports that Syria has been receiving help from North Korea in building a nuclear facility could undermine that progress, according to AFP (see GSN, Sept. 17). Pyongyang has denied the reports, today calling them an effort to undo efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties with the United States, Reuters reported. “This is sheer misinformation,” a North Korean Foreign Ministry official told the KCNA news agency. “The above-said story is nothing but a clumsy plot hatched by the dishonest forces who do not like to see any progress at the six-party talks and in the D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations,” the spokesman said (Reuters/Washington Post, Sept. 18). There should be no immediate impact from the Syria allegations on the six-party talks, observers told the Korea Herald. “It appears that the information is being leaked to the press in order to show North Korea that they (the U.S.) also have a card they can use to pressure them,” said Kim Tae-woo, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses. “Should North Korea really be proven to have participated in proliferating nuclear programs, the repercussions will be more than what the U.S. government could handle,” he said (Lee Joo-hee, Korea Herald, Sept. 18). Meanwhile, the first shipment of Chinese fuel oil to North Korea arrived Sunday at the port of Nampo, Reuters reported. The postponed talks had also been linked to delays in oil delivery. “China’s oil aid plan is currently being put in place, and we hope it will be completed soon,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu. North Korea stands to receive a total of 1 million tons of oil and related assistance in return for denuclearization. South Korea has already supplied 50,000 tons, and the United States is expected to ship another 50,000 when China completes this delivery (Reuters).
A senior Indian nuclear analyst said yesterday that the government in New Delhi appears to be making progress in enacting a pending civilian nuclear trade agreement with the United States in spite of strong opposition from Indian communists, the Hindustan Times reported (see GSN, Sept. 13). “I think the deal is on track,” said K. Subrahmanyam, who is leading a task force tracking Indian nuclear policy. “I do not think the deal is off-track. I think the government is proceeding broadly according to schedule.” He made the comments as Anil Kakodkar, chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, represented India at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Kakodkar did not say whether he planned to address the agency about a safeguards agreement that India must negotiate with IAEA officials before New Delhi can seek approval for the deal from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group. “The safeguards agreement will not be a very complicated affair,” said Subrahmanyam, noting that standard agreements exist for nations with and without nuclear weapons stockpiles. “The India-specific agreement would be a hybrid agreement which will blend elements from both,” he said. After the IAEA safeguards agreement is settled, U.S. officials are expected to lobby the Nuclear Suppliers Group to offer a special exception for providing nuclear fuel to India, which is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. U.S. lawmakers must approve the deal by an “up-down” vote before the end of February 2008, after which the country would be focused heavily on the 2008 presidential election, the Times said. Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee is now visiting South Korea, a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, in an attempt to raise support for the resumption of Indian nuclear trade after a three-decade pause. South Korea has not supported the U.S.-India agreement as it has contended with North Korea’s nuclear program. Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon is making a similar pitch to China. Subrahmanyam said he expects the administration of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to continue pushing to put the nuclear deal into operation. “Mukherjee and Menon are on a mission to persuade these two countries about the deal in the [Nuclear Suppliers Group],” he said. “All those things (canvassing for support) will not be done unless India meant business on going ahead with the deal” (Nilova Chaudhury, Hindustan Times, Sept. 17).
The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog yesterday urged countries to ratify a safeguards amendment to a nuclear terrorism prevention treaty, the U.N. News Service reported (see GSN, July 7). “Out of 128 states parties, only 11 so far have accepted the amendment,” International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said of the amendment that would require strengthened nuclear materials protection by nations that have joined the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. “I would urge all states parties to do so,” he said at the agency’s general conference in Vienna. “With the renewed interest in nuclear power generation, comparable attention and commitment must be given to ensuring the nuclear safety and security infrastructure that must go with it,” ElBaradei added. ElBaradei said that while IAEA measures have improved nuclear security, “much remains to be done in shaping the nuclear security framework, in building up-to-date security systems and in dealing with the legacy of past lax security.” “This is not a problem that can be solved overnight; it takes time and resources to achieve a sustainable, internationally acceptable level of nuclear security,” he said (U.N. News Service, Sept. 17).
India and Pakistan are expected to discuss safeguards for their respective nuclear arsenals at the two nations’ next round of peace talks in October, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 19). The talks are scheduled from Oct. 18 to 22 in New Delhi. On the agenda are “conventional confidence-building measures,” intelligence sharing to deter terrorism, and systems to prevent an accidental exchange of nuclear weapons, according to the Indian Foreign Ministry. The neighboring rivals began peace talks in January 2004. Negotiations have moved at a “glacial pace due to the political trust deficit between the two sides,” said Uday Bhaskar, former head of India’s Institute of Defense Studies and Analysis. He anticipated that negotiators would consider their governments’ nuclear doctrines. “For instance, India has declared a no first use of nuclear weapons, Pakistan does not agree to that,” Bhaskar said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Sept. 18).
| 
Back to top
