Before launching its Sept. 6 air strike on Syria, Israel shared intelligence with the United States indicating that North Korean personnel had entered Syria to support that nation’s nuclear program, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Sept. 19). The Bush administration chose not to act against the countries, however, because action might have hurt progress in ongoing North Korean denuclearization talks (see related GSN story, today). The White House has declined to comment on Israel’s attack or the intelligence used to justify it, but Bush said yesterday that “the exportation of information and/or materials” would undermine negotiations intended to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear activities. “To the extent that they are proliferating, we expect them to stop that proliferation, if they want the six-party talks to be successful,” he said in reference to ongoing negotiations between China, Japan, Russia, the United States and North and South Korea. Sources told the Post that the United States offered Israel some evidence to support its assertions before Israel launched its strike on a Syrian facility (Kessler/Wright, Washington Post, Sept. 21). U.S. intelligence had indicated possible nuclear cooperation between North Korea and Syria before Israel presented its case to Washington, the Financial Times reported yesterday. One senior U.S. official said the matter would have to be included within the declaration of nuclear activities that Pyongyang is required to submit under a February denuclearization agreement (Demetri Sevastopulo, Financial Times, Sept. 20). The Israeli attack was reported to have hit a site near Syria’s northern border with Turkey in the middle of the night to minimize potential casualties. Syrian officials said the strike caused no casualties, the Post reported. “There is no question it was a major raid. It was an extremely important target,” said Bruce Riedel, a former intelligence officer at Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. “It came at a time the Israelis were very concerned about war with Syria and wanted to dampen down the prospects of war. The decision was taken despite their concerns it could produce a war. That decision reflects how important this target was to Israeli military planners.” Three days before the attack, a North Korean vessel arrived at a Syrian port carrying what was reported to be cement. While Israeli sources have said the ship might have held nuclear equipment, others have said it carried only missile parts and some have suggested that the ship’s arrival only happened to coincide with the air strike. One source suggested the attack was a response to fears about leaks on the intelligence to the press. Questions remain on the strength of the intelligence, how much aid North Korea might have been providing, and how seriously Syria might be pursuing a nuclear program, according to the Post. It is possible that Pyongyang was simply ridding itself of unwanted material. Some North Korea analysts questioned why North Korea would have undermined its denuclearization talks by exporting nuclear technology to other countries. “It does not make any sense at all in the context of the last nine months," said Charles Pritchard, president of the Korea Economic Institute and a former U.S. negotiator with North Korea (Washington Post). “It is highly unlikely that the Israeli attack had anything to do with significant Syrian-North Korean nuclear cooperation,” Joseph Cirincione, nuclear policy director at the Center for American Progress, told the Financial Times. “The basic, well-documented fact is that the 40-year-old Syrian nuclear research program is too basic to support any weapons capability,” he said (Financial Times). While several U.S. sources remain skeptical of a nuclear collaboration between North Korea and Syria, one said the unusual amount of secrecy surrounding the U.S. and Israeli intelligence findings suggests that Israel’s attack was a response to “more than a run-of-the-mill missile transaction,” the New York Times reported today. “The Israelis are very proud of what they are doing; they are boasting about it,” said a U.S. official working directly with Israeli officials. “But we don’t know enough yet about what they actually hit” (Myers/Erlanger, New York Times, Sept. 21). Meanwhile, former Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu received rebukes from politicians and media sources after he was the first to publicly acknowledge the air strike, Agence France-Presse reported. Netanyahu said in an interview Wednesday that he backed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert before launching the strike. “When a prime minister does something that is important in my view and necessary to Israel’s security … I give my backing. And here, too, I was a partner in the issue from the start, and I gave my backing,” the Likud party leader said when asked about the attack. Netanyahu said "yes" when asked if he congratulated Olmert on the strike, but he refused to elaborate on the mission’s purpose. His remarks brought a swift response. “Bibi has remained the same Bibi. I have no idea if this was stupidity, folly or a desire to hop on the carriage, a desire to be a partner, a desire to steal credit,” said Labor party official Eitan Cabel (Ron Bousso, Agence France-Presse/Google News, Sept. 20). Meanwhile, senior Syrian and North Korean officials met for talks today in Pyongyang, the Associated Press reported. Syrian Baath Arab Socialist Party organizational director Saaeed Dawood met with Korean Workers’ Party Central Committee secretary Choe Tae Bok. The officials discussed strategies for tightening relations between the two nations and other matters, the state-run Korean Central News Agency said without giving further details (Associated Press/Washington Post, Sept. 21).
By Jon Fox
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The world’s thirst for energy over the next 25 years is likely to increase by 50 percent, creating a corresponding need for more nuclear reactors to supply that power, a scientific forum of experts convened at the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded (see GSN, Sept. 18). This expected expansion of nuclear technology must be matched by the minimizing of the proliferation risk associated with the spread of sensitive nuclear know-how, including enrichment and reprocessing technologies, the forum chairman wrote in a summary of the two-day meeting this week. “The agency needs to continue its work in trying to build consensus on the establishment of an international fuel bank or the development of other acceptable international arrangements” guaranteeing fuel supplies and avoiding the need for indigenous fuel cycle capabilities, wrote Gareth Evans, president of the International Crisis Group. Evans’ forum report addresses the crux of the dilemma faced by the U.N. nuclear watchdog as it appears nuclear energy is poised to see a vast expansion: How can the agency balance its role as promoter of peaceful nuclear energy with the need to constrain the spread of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons? The same technology that nations can use to create nuclear reactor fuel or reprocess the spent material for continued use could be harnessed to make fuel for a nuclear weapon. It is this dual-use nature that is at the heart of the Iranian nuclear crisis. Tehran contends its centrifuge enrichment research is purely for peaceful energy production purposes, but the United States and other nations believe it is part of a weapons program (see GSN, Sept. 19). To continue to verify that nations are not turning nuclear technology to military ends those countries that have nuclear weapons must be committed to disarmament, the forum found. “Disarmament and nonproliferation are two sides of the same coin,” Evans wrote. “Therefore, the sustainable strengthening of nuclear verification must be accompanied by sustained cuts in nuclear arsenals and the implementation of further steps towards a nuclear weapons-free world.” Public confidence in effective verification measures is “likely to be a precondition for the significantly expanded use of nuclear energy,” the forum found. “The pressure for nuclear weapons proliferation is not going to go away,” Evans wrote. “It remains something of a miracle that the prediction widely made in the 1960s that there would now be at least 20-30 nuclear weapons states has not been realized, and it cannot be assumed that this miracle can be sustained — particularly when the nuclear weapons states remain so conspicuously indifferent to their own obligation under Article 6 of the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] to take serious continuing steps toward nuclear disarmament.”
The U.S. envoy to the United Nations said yesterday that the United States expects the U.N. Security Council to impose new sanctions on Iran within the next few weeks for Tehran’s refusal to halt its disputed nuclear activities, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Sept. 20). Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said that the Bush administration aims to pave the way for a new sanctions resolution during a meeting today in Washington of the political directors from China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Top foreign officials from the six countries plan to meet Sept. 27 in New York. “I expect the issue to be transferred to New York, to the Security Council, in the next several weeks,” Khalilzad said. “We expect that we would … get an agreement in the next few weeks. That's our expectation. That's what we're working towards.” Russia said this week that it opposes additional sanctions, but Khalilzad said that U.S. and Russian officials would continue to discuss the matter. “We think the time has come to move forward, and the next few weeks will be critical,” he said. Khalilzad said that Iranian officials would be offered talks with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice if the country stops its uranium enrichment efforts, and that Washington would make sure that Tehran receives nuclear fuel to produce power using a civilian reactor. The United States remains in a “diplomatic phase,” he said. Leaders in Washington, however, have not sworn off military action to resolve the nuclear standoff. Regarding a possible third set of sanctions, Khalilzad said only that they should pressure Iran’s leadership and those involved in the country’s nuclear program to comply with U.N. Security Council demands. A high-level U.S. official said the new sanctions proposed by the White House would freeze the assets of several Iranian banks and require all nations to search cargo heading to or coming from Iran for nuclear materials and equipment (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/NASDAQ, Sept. 20). Meanwhile, President George W. Bush said yesterday that the United States is taking warnings of war by France and the actions of Iran’s president seriously, United Press International reported. Responding to a reporter’s question about the French foreign minister’s remarks this week about a possible “war” with Iran if it acquires nuclear weapons, Bush said the United States is focusing on diplomacy. “I have consistently stated I am hopeful we can convince the Iranian regime into giving up” its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons through diplomatic pressure, Bush said. He added that U.S. allies have attempted to tell Iran that “there is a better way forward than isolation … and that the free world is not going to tolerate" Iran’s provocative statements and actions (United Press International, Sept. 20). Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy directly accused Iran yesterday of pursuing nuclear weapons development while emphasizing that his government was not seeking a war with Tehran, Agence France-Presse reported. “Iran is trying to obtain an atomic bomb,” Sarkozy said during a television interview. “That is unacceptable and I tell the French people it is unacceptable.” Iran has maintained that it is not seeking nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is intended only for power production. The nuclear standoff “is an extremely difficult affair, but France does not want a war,” Sarkozy said (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, Sept. 20). U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday that “Iran does not constitute a certain and immediate threat for the international community,” AFP reported. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency asked the international community to “give peace a chance,” emphasizing that U.N. inspectors have not yet found any secret radioactive materials or underground production sites in Iran. At the same time, he said that “Iran has not yet completely revealed all the aspects of its nuclear program” (Agence France-Presse II/Middle East Times, Sept. 20).
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has requested a second examination of an August incident in which nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were loaded on to an Air Force bomber and flown over several states, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 14). Personnel at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota on Aug. 30 placed six missiles on the B-52 bound for Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. That action violated a decades-old service policy barring U.S. bombers from flying with nuclear weapons during peacetime. The Air Force is investigating the incident and expects to finish its review in a matter of weeks, said spokesman Lt. Col. Ed Thomas. Meanwhile, Gates requested that former Air Force chief of staff Larry Welch head up a review by a Defense Science Board panel on the implications of the mishap. The question to be answered is “does this incident reflect a larger problem with regard to the security and transfer of munitions?” said Gates spokesman Geoff Morrell. The second review is not a reflection of concerns about the current investigation by Air Combat Command, Morrell said. “I think [Gates] believes in an incident of this nature, it’s important to get to the bottom of it,” he said. “And he believes an outside set of eyes may be additionally helpful to, sort of, get a better sense of what went wrong and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future.” The Defense Science Board consists of civilian experts who provide advice to the Pentagon on scientific, technical and other issues (Robert Burns, Associated Press/San Luis Obispo Tribune, Sept. 20).
A report released today by a British science organization states that the country possesses enough plutonium to fuel 17,000 weapons of equal size to the weapon that destroyed the Japanese city of Nagasaki in 1945, Reuters reported (see GSN, Feb. 18, 2005). The United Kingdom’s stockpile of more than 100 metric tons of plutonium has doubled in the past decade as the country has reprocessed spent uranium fuel produced by its nuclear power plants, the Royal Society report states. The United Kingdom must stop reprocessing uranium to prevent the stockpile from continuing to grow, according to the organization. “There should be no more separation of plutonium once current contracts have been fulfilled,” the report says. Spent uranium fuel is reprocessed to produce uranium that can be reused as fuel, but reprocessing also yields plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons. “Just over six kilograms of plutonium was used in the bomb that devastated Nagasaki,” said Geoffrey Boulton, head author of the report. “We must take measures to ensure that this very dangerous material does not fall into the wrong hands.” Researchers concluded that the safest response would be to leave highly radioactive spent uranium fuel in that form after removing it from the reactor. Another option would be to convert the material to produce mixed-oxide fuel pellets that would not be reprocessed, Reuters reported. “Spent fuel is more radioactive and therefore harder to handle than plutonium — and more difficult to use in nuclear weapons because it would need to be reprocessed first,” the report says (Jeremy Lovell, Reuters/Washington Post, Sept. 20).
North Korea should continue efforts to shutter its nuclear program, the International Atomic Energy Agency said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 19). The agency’s general conference approved a resolution emphasizing the “importance of the early and complete implementation of the Feb. 13 agreement,” Agence France-Presse reported. Pyongyang pledged during six-party talks in February to permanently close its nuclear program in exchange for energy assistance and security and diplomatic concessions. It has halted operations at its Yongbyon nuclear complex but has not begun declaring and disabling the program. The U.N. nuclear watchdog “encouraged the D.P.R.K. … to implement fully its commitment to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs, as a step toward the goal of the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” (Agence France-Presse, Sept. 20). China today confirmed that the next round of six-party talks are scheduled from Sept. 27 to 30, Reuters reported. The negotiations had been expected to resume this week but were postponed with no official explanation. The delay followed reports that North Korea was helping Syria to build a nuclear facility, a claim both nations deny (see related GSN story, today; Reuters/Washington Post, Sept. 21).
An advisory panel to the U.S. State Department is preparing two reports on the threat of international nuclear proliferation, Inside the Pentagon reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 13). The purposes of the studies by the International Security Advisory Board are detailed in “terms-of-reference” documents issued in February when the studies were authorized. The panel in one report is expected to address the potential connection between growing use of atomic energy and nuclear proliferation. “Ever-increasing energy demands, security of energy supplies, and environmental considerations are driving the debate on the need for a greater investment in nuclear energy,” the terms-of-reference document states. “A large increase in nuclear power production would mean uranium enrichment for reactor fuel and spent fuel reprocessing would expand, perhaps with a corresponding increased risk of the spread of critical fuel-cycle technologies to new countries. The consequences for nuclear weapons proliferation could be profound.” The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty allows for the peaceful use of atomic energy by all member states. The International Atomic Energy Agency, Russia and the United States have been considering strategies for providing nations with reactor fuel to deter them from developing fuel-cycle technologies that could support nuclear weapons programs (see GSN, Sept. 20). Among the issues expected to be addressed in the study are the implications of expanded use of nuclear power on the nonproliferation regime, the existing nonproliferation program for this sector, and new or revamped proposals to address the threat. The board has largely finished the study and expects to review it on Oct. 19, said State Department spokesman Jim Kelman. The panel is also looking at the potential for additional nations to seek nuclear weapons over the next 10 years and potential responses to this threat, Inside the Pentagon reported. The known or suspected nuclear weapons programs of North Korea and Iran “pose a major threat to the nonproliferation regime,” the terms-of-reference document states. “Other countries may pursue similar paths.” Among the issues to be addressed in the second report are conditions that could promote nuclear proliferation; the functionality of treaties, diplomacy and other existing measures in preventing proliferation; and new initiatives for preventing additional nations from developing atomic weapons. The report is expected to be finished by the end of 2007, Kelman said (Christopher Castelli, Inside the Pentagon, Sept. 20).
A resolution approved yesterday at the International Atomic Energy Agency general conference calls for freeing the Middle East of nuclear weapons, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2006). Fifty-three IAEA member nations supported the resolution sponsored by Egypt that calls for a making the region a nuclear-free zone, while 47 abstained. Israel and the United States voted against the measure. The resolution urged “all states of the region, pending the establishment of the [nuclear-free] zone, not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or permit the stationing on their territories or on territories under their control of nuclear weapons.” The resolution also called on “nuclear–weapons states and all other states to render assistance in the establishment of the zone.” Israel has officially neither confirmed nor denied that it possesses nuclear weapons, but its “nuclear ambiguity” policy was seemingly undermined in late 2006 when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared to suggest that Israel was a nuclear weapons power (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2006; Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Sept. 20).
| 
Back to top
