By Greg Webb
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — China agreed Saturday to provide two nuclear power reactors to Pakistan, raising prospects for a new discussion among international nuclear suppliers over whether to exempt another nation from their exporting rules (see GSN, April 11, 2006). Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi announced the signature of the bilateral deal, Kyodo News reported. The agreement calls for China to provide two additional reactors at Chashma, where it has already built one reactor for Pakistan and is completing a second. Qureshi said the two new plants would produce about 680 megawatts of electricity annually. He criticized the recently signed U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal and Washington’s reluctance to offer similar provisions to Pakistan (see GSN, Oct. 14). “China is one country that at international forums has clearly spoken against the discriminatory nature” of the U.S.-Indian agreement, he said, as reported by the Associated Press. International trade rules, as set by China and other members of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, prohibit nuclear sales to nations such as Pakistan and India that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and do not allow international monitoring of all their nuclear activities. India, however, recently gained an exemption from those rules and signed the bilateral nuclear trade agreement with the United States. Qureshi did not say whether Pakistan would seek a similar exemption, Kyodo reported. The existing reactor projects at Chashma were contracted before China became an NSG member, and Beijing has said its future work at those plants would be “grandfathered” by the earlier agreements. The United States and other Western nations have accepted that notion, but have so far not expressed a firm position on future reactors. “Pakistan has expressed interest in increasing domestic nuclear power generation and has made overtures to China for support,” U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Patricia McNerney told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in May. “This is something we continue to watch closely to ensure that both China abides by its commitments to the NSG and to ensure that ongoing Chinese cooperation with Pakistan does not support Pakistan’s unsafeguarded nuclear weapons program.” “The agreement we have with India is unique to India, not a model for anything else,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher said earlier this month in a press round table. “We are absolutely committed to working with Pakistan on Pakistan’s energy needs,” he said, but as for nuclear cooperation, “It’s just not on the table.” “The goal is to help Pakistan with its energy needs,” Boucher added. “When a kid turns on the light bulb to do his homework he doesn’t really care if the light comes from coal, hydro, nuclear or whatever. He cares that the light bulb goes on. We want to help turn the lights on for kids to do their homework.” One nuclear proliferation expert said the Chinese reactor deal was the natural outgrowth of the U.S.-Indian agreement and would have dire consequences for international nonproliferation efforts. “This is the end of the Nuclear Suppliers Group,” said Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. “It’s the end of the control lists being particularly adhered to,” he said of the NSG items that nations have agreed not to export. Indian officials, normally concerned about Pakistani nuclear advances, have remained quiet about Chinese cooperation, he said. “The Indians are OK with this is because they want the nonproliferation regime to collapse. If the regime collapses, they don’t have to worry about the NSG saying no to fuel-making technologies going to India,” Sokolski said.
By James Kitfield
National Journal
WASHINGTON — Seven years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, experts and presidential candidates continue to put nuclear terrorism atop their lists of the gravest threats to the United States. Yet Brian Michael Jenkins, a longtime terrorism expert with the RAND Corp., says that the threat lies more in the realms of Hollywood dramas and terrorist dreams than in reality. There has never been an act of nuclear terrorism, he notes, yet the threat is so potentially catastrophic that it incites fear — and that fear fulfills a terrorist's primary goal. National Journal interviewed Jenkins about his research into nuclear terrorism. National Journal: Why did you decide to delve so deeply into the psychological underpinnings of nuclear terror? Brian Jenkins: Well, I couldn't write about the history of nuclear terrorism, because at least as of yet there hasn't been any. So that would have been a very short book. Nonetheless, the U.S. government has stated that it is the No. 1 threat to the national security of the United States. In fact, according to public opinion polls, two out of five Americans consider it likely that a terrorist will detonate a nuclear bomb in an American city within the next five years. That struck me as an astonishing level of apprehension. NJ: To what do you attribute that fear? Jenkins: I concluded that there is a difference between nuclear terrorism and nuclear terror. Nuclear terrorism is about the possibility that terrorists will acquire and detonate a nuclear weapon. Nuclear terror, on the other hand, concerns our anticipation of such an attack. It's about our imagination. And while there is no history of nuclear terrorism, there is a rich history of nuclear terror. It's deeply embedded in our popular culture and in policy-making circles. NJ: So the fear of nuclear terrorism is not new? Jenkins: Almost as soon as the people involved in the Manhattan Project tested an actual atomic bomb they started to wonder about the possibility of someone using it for terrorist purposes. In the 1970s, some talented nuclear weapons designers studied the issue of whether someone outside of a government program could possibly design and build a workable nuclear weapon. They concluded it was possible, and then postulated who might do such a thing — terrorists! So, in a way, the threat preceded any terrorist actually thinking about the issue. To a certain extent, we educated the terrorists on the subject. NJ: Hasn't al-Qaeda, in particular, focused considerable energy on nuclear weapons? Jenkins: Yes, because terror is the use of violence to create an atmosphere of fear that causes people to exaggerate the strength of the terrorists, and they are very good at that. So in al-Qaeda's media jihad there is a recurrent theme of nuclear terrorism. They realize that if they put the words "terrorism" and "nuclear" in proximity to each other it creates added fear. It also excites their constituency, because nothing excites the powerless more than the idea of ultimate power. NJ: Are you saying that al-Qaeda is interested in nuclear weapons only in the abstract, as a propaganda tool? Jenkins: No. Al-Qaeda has actual nuclear ambitions, there is no doubt about that. When Osama bin Laden was in Sudan, he tried to acquire some nuclear material. The efforts were mostly amateurish, and al-Qaeda was the victim of some scams. Qaeda (leaders) also had meetings with some Pakistani nuclear scientists while in Afghanistan. So, clearly, they were thinking about nuclear weapons. If bin Laden were able to acquire a nuclear weapon, I also suspect that he would use it. My larger point is that al-Qaeda has already become the world's first nonstate nuclear power without even having nuclear weapons. NJ: Do you mean by its ability to incite fear of nuclear terrorism? Jenkins: Yes, and we contribute to that fear. The message clearly coming out of Washington for the last seven years has been a relentless message of fear. We've spent the years since 9/11 discussing every conceivable vulnerability of our society. We talk about the next catastrophic attack not as a matter of "if" but "when," implying that it's unavoidable. NJ: We've created a perfect incubator for terrorist propaganda? Jenkins: Yes, because the whole dynamic lends itself to sensationalism and overdramatization. In a sense, terrorism is a form of theater anyway, and its message is amplified in America's media-drenched society. I've actually had government officials say to me, "We'll deal with nuclear terrorism the way Jack Bauer does on ‘24.’” And I have to remind them that, you know, that's a television show. It's not real life. NJ: Why do you think nuclear terrorism connects so powerfully with the American psyche? Jenkins: Because beneath the veneer of our American optimism are layers of anxiety. We as a nation have been fascinated with the theme of decline and doom going back centuries. We worry about losing our pre-eminent place in the world. We worry that our borders cannot protect our culture (against threats) from without, and (we worry) about subversion from within. If you want to write a best-seller, just write a book (such as) The End of Days or The Late, Great Planet Earth. For the many biblical literalists among us, talk of a nuclear apocalypse and Armageddon just confirms their faith. As the ultimate doomsday scenario, nuclear terrorism condenses a lot of the free-floating anxieties in American society. NJ: How do you break this chain reaction of fear? Jenkins: The first thing we have to do is truly understand the threat. Nuclear terrorism is a frightening possibility but it is not inevitable or imminent, and there is no logical progression from truck bombs to nuclear bombs. Some of the steps necessary to a sustainable strategy we've already begun. We do need better intelligence-sharing internationally and enhanced homeland security and civil defense, and we need to secure stockpiles of nuclear materials around the world. Nations that might consider abetting terrorists in acquiring nuclear weapons should also be made aware that we will hold them fully responsible in the event of an attack. We need to finish the job of eliminating al-Qaeda, not only to prevent another attack but also to send the message to others that if you go down this path, we will hunt you down relentlessly and destroy you. NJ: What should political leaders tell the American people? Jenkins: Rather than telling Americans constantly to be very afraid, we should stress that even an event of nuclear terrorism will not bring this Republic to its knees. Some will argue that fear is useful in galvanizing people and concentrating their minds on this threat, but fear is not free. It creates its own orthodoxy and demands obedience to it. A frightened population is intolerant. It trumpets a kind of "lapel pin" patriotism rather than the real thing. A frightened population is also prone both to paralysis — we're doomed! — and to dangerous overreaction. I believe that fear gets in the way of addressing the issue of nuclear terrorism in a sustained and sensible way. Instead of spreading fear, our leaders should speak to the American traditions of courage, self-reliance, and resiliency. Heaven forbid that an act of nuclear terrorism ever actually occurs, but if it does, we'll get through it. NJ: Seven years after the 9/11 attacks, how do you rate the effort to destroy al-Qaeda? Jenkins: On the negative side of the ledger is the fact that al-Qaeda's top leadership is still intact. The organization has managed to reconstitute itself and find sanctuary inside Pakistan. (Qaeda leaders) remain committed to large-scale acts of violence, and their narrative still has considerable traction with angry young Muslim men, whether in Karachi, Cairo, London or Paris. Their communications have increased in volume and are increasingly sophisticated. NJ: What about the positive side of the ledger? Jenkins: There is no doubt that we have significantly degraded al-Qaeda's operational capability. The leadership is in hiding and on the run, and we've removed some key figures whose talent is not easily replaced. It's much more dangerous and risky for al-Qaeda to operate now. Through an unprecedented level of cooperation among intelligence and law enforcement agencies around the world, we have significantly reduced (its) ability to execute large-scale attacks of the like we saw regularly in the period between 2001 and 2006. The inability to pull off those large terrorist spectaculars that acted as recruiting posters, in turn, has slowed the flow of new recruits. Al Qaeda's indiscriminate violence has also provoked a backlash in the Muslim community, putting (it) on the defensive in places such as Iraq. NJ: What do you consider al-Qaeda's greatest vulnerability? Jenkins: Irrelevancy. As the world moves on to new issues, these virtual jihadists are locked into a closed-loop discourse on the Internet that is increasingly irrelevant. They are participating in a fantasy. That's the biggest fear of the terrorists: One day Osama bin Laden will issue his 450th proclamation, and no one will really be listening.
North Korea has resumed work to meet its obligations under a 2007 denuclearization agreement, the U.S. State Department said Friday (see GSN, Oct. 17). Pyongyang starting in August halted and then began to reverse efforts to disable key facilities at its Yongbyon nuclear complex. It then changed course again after Washington earlier this month removed the Stalinist state from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. The State Department said that International Atomic Energy Agency seals and monitoring technology are again in place and operating, while North Korea has resumed removal of fuel rods from its plutonium-producing nuclear reactor, Agence France-Presse reported. “All the seals are back on, the surveillance equipment is back reinstalled, and the equipment that had been removed is back where it had been,” said agency spokesman Sean McCormack. “In addition to that, they have removed more rods from the reactor. So on the reactor they have actually gone beyond where they were prior to their reversing their disablement steps.” North Korea has removed 60 percent of the fuel rods from the reactor, McCormack said. It was not immediately known when the project would be completed. “Now on the [plutonium] reprocessing and fuel fabrication facilities, they have not yet gotten to that baseline where they were before. There is still work to be done, but (there is) progress on it,” McCormack said. The three plants are crucial components of North Korea’s ability to produce plutonium for its nuclear arsenal. Disablement is intended to prevent them from resuming operations for at least one year. Under the nuclear deal, the process would be followed by full dismantlement of the nation’s nuclear infrastructure. There is still no date for the next full meeting of the six-party talks nations — China, Japan, Russia, the United States and both Koreas, McCormack said. Envoys would formalize measures to verify North Korea’s nuclear activities, a step agreed to by Pyongyang in return for being removed from the terrorism list. “The Chinese, as chair of the six-party process, have not yet announced the date for that (meeting), so I am not going to get out ahead of them," McCormack said. "There are actually dates that are being discussed, not yet fully agreed upon and, therefore, not yet announced” (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, Oct. 17). Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the Bush administration’s top envoy to the talks, indicated yesterday that the next round of negotiations might occur after the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 4, Kyodo News reported (Kyodo News, Oct. 20). Hill said he believed the verification process would result in an accounting of the amount of plutonium produced by North Korea, AFP reported. Nuclear disablement should be finished before the beginning of 2009, he told the Asahi Shimbun newspaper. “I would think sometime (in the) next couple of months, we can get it done," Hill said. That would be followed by removal of fuel from the nuclear reactor to enable “the most important verification element” — examining the facility, according to Hill. The reactor’s lifetime plutonium production could be found using scientific means, Hill said. Washington also wants to know how much test plutonium came out of an experimental reactor during the 1990s. Hill addressed reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was in poor health after possibly suffering a stroke, AFP reported. Some observers have said that Pyongyang’s shift on denuclearization in August might have been a sign that Kim was no longer in control of his nation. “We certainly have impressions that something happened there, but it's not something you could easily see visiting there," Hill said. “What was clear was we had some troubles getting answers from North Korea in August and answers came more quickly in September or the beginning of October. So whatever happened, they seemed to be making decisions again” (Agence France-Presse II/Spacewar.com, Oct. 19). Media reports suggested that North Korea was preparing to issue a statement that might address Kim’s health, the Associated Press reported today. Pyongyang to date has denied that the leader is experiencing any troubles. South Korea today said it had seen no sign indicating a significant change in its neighbor (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 20). “Kim Jong-Il has not been seen in public for a while now, but both Korean and United States intelligence services estimate that he still has control over his administration," South Korean Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee said Friday during a joint press conference with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Agence France III/Spacewar.com, Oct. 17). Meanwhile, there are worries in Washington that the continued dispute over North Korea’s abduction of Japanese citizens could obstruct the denuclearization process, the Financial Times reported yesterday. Japan says that the regime has yet to adequately address the status of all people kidnapped in the 1970s and 1980s for use as instructors for North Korean spies. Tokyo has refused to join other nations in providing rewards to Pyongyang as it progresses toward eliminating its nuclear programs. Japan also publicly aired its frustration over the U.S. decision to take North Korea off the terrorism list. “There is a danger for the North Koreans that [we] could come to the table to codify the bilateral verification and the Japanese threaten to walk,” said one high-level U.S. official. Pyongyang had agreed to revisit the issue, after previously saying that all abductees had either died or been returned to Japan, but Tokyo has not received word on whether that re-examination has occurred, according to a Japanese source. More U.S. pressure is needed, the source said. A U.S. official said that Pyongyang “assured us they would live [up] to the deal the Japanese arranged” (Sevastopulo/Pilling, Financial Times, Oct. 19). "We are very aware the job is not finished, but we also think it is very important the Japanese people understand that denuclearization is in Japan's interest,” Hill told Asahi Shimbun (Satoshi Ukai, Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 20).
The United States and Russia plan next month to conduct talks on the future of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which is set to expire at the end of 2009, the Moscow Times reported (see GSN, Sept. 30). Moscow has pressed for some sort of extension or replacement for the 1991 treaty, which allows the two nations to each deploy no more than 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads and a maximum of 1,600 delivery vehicles. Russian leaders have complained about the Bush administration’s seeming disinterest in pursuing a follow-up agreement. The U.S. State Department said Friday that Moscow and Washington “have held extensive discussions regarding a post-Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreement and we expect to continue those discussions. “With regard to the extension of a START, the parties are obligated to meet no later than one year prior to the expiration date of the treaty, i.e. Dec. 5, 2008, to begin consideration of whether or not to extend the treaty,” the agency said. “The parties to … START will meet in Geneva in mid-November to initiate this process.” The talks are not expected to involve Cabinet-level officials, said State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid. The Bush administration is not likely to reach a new agreement before ceding the White House to the next president in January, said Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association. However, a deal on extending components of the existing pact is possible, he said. “It will take a new administration to bridge differences and find a replacement for START,” Kimball said. The two U.S. senators running for president, Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have said they back talks on arms control deals with Russia, the Times reported (Moscow Times, Oct. 20). U.S. and Russian experts are scheduled to meet this month for talks on the Bush administration’s plans for missile defense installations in Europe, Interfax reported. Moscow has consistently argued that deploying 10 missile interceptors in Poland and an early warning radar in the Czech Republic would constitute a threat to its security. It has threatened a military response to the sites (see GSN, Aug. 21). Washington counters that the facilities would be intended to provide defense against nations such as Iran and could not be used to counter Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal. The talks are intended to address means of resolving Moscow’s concerns, according to U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle (Interfax/iStockAnalyst.com, Oct. 17).
An international commission looking to set an agenda for the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference held its first meeting today in Sydney, Australia, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Sept. 2). The International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, a group led by Australia and Japan, plans tomorrow to resume its first conference of retired diplomats and high-level officials. "We see this as a genuine … nongovernment dialogue which will encourage a sharp focus by the international community on short-term good results from the NPT conference but also to start moving forward again on nuclear disarmament," said Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith. Canberra provided the commission $2.7 million in funding this year. The elimination of all nuclear weapons is not a feasible short-term goal, "but it's the Australian government's long-term objective that the manufacture (and) the possession of nuclear weapons cease," Smith added. The conference — which included delegates from 15 nations, including France, Pakistan, Russia and the United States — notably addressed a civilian nuclear cooperation deal that made U.S. civilian nuclear fuel and technology available to India in exchange for partial transparency of New Delhi’s nuclear sites. Former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, who leads the panel with former Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi, called nuclear nonproliferation an issue that should receive the same attention as the current international economic troubles. "It's a problem of the same magnitude, but capturing zero attention," he said (Rohan Sullivan, Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Oct. 20).
Iran said Friday that it is expecting a delivery of roughly 1,000 tons of equipment from Russia for the nuclear power plant under construction at Bushehr, United Press International reported (see GSN, Oct. 17). The shipment was arranged under a deal between the two nations, said Ahmad Fayazbakhsh, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. Moscow agreed to build the $1 billion Bushehr facility under a 1995 contract with Tehran (United Press International, Oct. 17). Russia today said it anticipated no international hindrances to beginning operations at the site, a milestone expected early next year, Agence France-Presse reported. "From a political point of view, there are no problems with this," ITAR-TASS quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying. "Right now, the final stages of preparing the station for launch are under way.” Ryabkov said the plant would not support any possible Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons. Western nations suspect Iran’s nuclear program involves weapons development, a charge that Iran vehemently denies. "Among the six parties, there is a full understanding that the work at Bushehr has no proliferation risks," Ryabkov said in reference to the five permanent U.N. Security Council member nations and Germany, which are handling international nuclear diplomacy with Iran (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Oct. 20). An Iranian firm involved in work on the country’s nuclear facilities yesterday said that several Western nations have expressed their willingness to support construction of a second nuclear power station Iran plans to begin building by 2012, the Xinhua News Agency reported. "Several Western countries have already declared their readiness to cooperate with Iran on the project," Iran’s Press TV quoted Hamid Soltani, the company’s managing director, as saying. "We will try to use international experience" (Xinhua News Agency, Oct. 19). Meanwhile, Iran failed Friday to secure a two-year nonpermanent seat on the Security Council, the Associated Press reported. U.N. nations gave Japan nearly five times as many votes for the Asian spot on the Security Council, which recently backed a resolution reaffirming three sets of sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear activities. U.S. deputy U.N. envoy Alejandro Wolff said: "It's encouraging and important for Iran to understand that its continued violation of international binding resolutions of the Security Council is reflected in this very poor showing. … Hopefully they will understand that this means that there is no support from the international community for that type of behavior" (Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, Oct. 18). Elsewhere, a leading Iranian human rights advocate has said a strike on her country’s nuclear sites would undermine the efforts of democratic reformers, the Chicago Tribune reported Saturday. "The government will not fall," Shirin Ebadi, an attorney who defends victims of political persecution in Iran, told the Tribune. "An attack will rally people around the government, because of nationalist sentiments. They will defend their country." However, Ebadi questioned the necessity of Iran’s nuclear program and called for the United States to open contacts with Tehran at multiple levels “without preconditions.” "The Iranian people have many problems right now, including the economy. Because military threats endanger a country, what's the point of having this alternative power?” the Nobel laureate said. “There are voices in Iran saying that, but the (Iranian) press is not free to write it" (Hugh Dellios, Chicago Tribune, Oct. 18).
Nineteen nations on Friday completed a nuclear terrorism response training event in Spain, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration announced (see GSN, Oct. 16). The participating countries sent 150 representatives to the exercise, which involved a simulated response to terrorists detonating a radiological “dirty bomb.” “There was an extraordinary amount of useful information exchanged between our counterparts,” NNSA Associate Administrator Joseph Krol said in a statement. “We continue to work together globally to combat the threat of nuclear terrorism” (see related GSN story, today). U.S. officials described their agencies’ capabilities for tracking down and classifying potential radiological and nuclear-weapon ingredients, preparing a coordinated response to a nuclear attack, and gathering forensic evidence from an attack site for use in legal proceedings. The delegation included NNSA officials, FBI agents and representatives from the State and Homeland Security departments. The drill was completed under the 75-nation Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration release, Oct. 17).
Plans for building a $500 million nuclear-weapon component manufacturing facility received approval Thursday from the City Council of Kansas City, Mo., the Kansas City Business Journal reported (see GSN, Oct. 10). The U.S. General Services Administration is expected to pick a private firm by January to construct the 1.5 million-square-foot facility, which would manufacture nonradioactive nuclear bomb parts following the retirement of an aging facility at the nearby Bannister Federal Complex. Council member Ed Ford was the only person to vote against the development plan, stating that “we’re all citizens of the world” and that Kansas City should not be involved in sustaining the nation’s WMD arsenal. However, Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser said the decision would determine only where, not whether, the nuclear components would be built. To move forward with the plan, the federal government must find a developer willing to work below a congressionally mandated funding ceiling of $38 for each square foot. The General Service Administration and the National Nuclear Security Administration must also defeat a lawsuit filed by a coalition of activist groups that oppose the facility. “We fully anticipated a lawsuit from them,” said GSA regional oversight official Brad Scott. “That’s why we took time to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. We feel confident we’ll prevail.” The plaintiffs have argued that the new facility would encourage abandoning the Bannister Federal Complex site without a viable waste removal plan. “The contamination on the (Bannister) site was caused largely during the production of aircraft engines during WWII,” according to a letter from Scott to the City Council. “It has been in the process of being cleaned up ever since, and effectively” (Rob Roberts, Kansas City Business Journal, Oct. 17).
| 
Back to top
