Six world powers agreed today on a draft U.N Security Council resolution to strengthen economic and political sanctions designed to pressure Iran to curb its nuclear activities, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Jan. 18). “We are united in the assessment that a nuclear armament of Iran would have dramatic consequences for the Middle East and even beyond. So we are and remain agreed that we must and will continue to work together … to ensure that it does not happen,” said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He spoke after hosting a meeting in Berlin with foreign ministers from the five permanent Security Council members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Officials did not immediately provide details of the new resolution, but a European diplomat said it calls for boosting existing sanctions rather than crafting new ones. Two previous council resolutions called for freezing the foreign-held assets of certain Iranian individuals and firms as well as discouraging the travel of some Iranian officials. A U.S. official suggested, however, there were new measures. The draft resolution “increased the severity of the sanctions and it expands the sanctions in some of the categories,” the official said Steinmeier said the resolution would be put before the entire council in coming weeks (Melissa Eddy, Associated Press/Washington Post, Jan. 22). In Tehran, Iranian officials earlier said that new international sanctions would have little effect on their nation’s pace of nuclear development. “The Iranian nation is striding on the path toward fulfilling its goals within the framework of its legal rights,” government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters in a weekly briefing. “Adoption of a possible new resolution will not have any effect on our people” (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, Jan. 22). Meanwhile, Russia today delivered its fifth shipment of nuclear fuel to the nuclear power plant under construction in southern Iran, AP reported. The 11-ton fuel shipment arrived this morning at the Bushehr site, which is expected to receive the remaining fuel in three shipments over the next several weeks, Iranian state media reported. “Of 82 tons of initial fuel needed for the Bushehr nuclear power plant, 55 tons have been shipped to Iran so far,” said the Iranian television report (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press II/International Herald Tribune, Jan. 22). Elsewhere, John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told AFP yesterday that Israel could resort to military intervention in Iran to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. “One can say with some assurance that in the next year the use of force by the United States is highly unlikely,” Bolton said during an Israeli national security conference. “That increases the pressure on Israel in that period of time … if it feels Iran is on the verge of acquiring [nuclear weapons] capability, it brings the decision point home to use force” (Agence France-Presse II/Google News, Jan. 21).
The International Atomic Energy Agency expressed confidence in South African nuclear security efforts in the wake of the attempted raid on a research reactor in November, the Sowetan newspaper reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2007). The U.N. nuclear watchdog announced last week that experts were in South Africa “to exchange views on the lessons learned” from the Nov. 8 incident in which two groups tried to storm the Pelindaba nuclear facility. Security guards were able to fend off one group following an exchange of gunfire, but the other intruders entered secure areas, stole a computer and shot an employee before escaping (see GSN, Nov. 14, 2007). The international inspectors determined that personnel at the site were “taking appropriate actions which they could not add to” and “that no nuclear installation was (ever) under threat,” said Chantal Janneker, a spokesman for the National Energy Corporation of South Africa, or NECSA. The U.N. nuclear watchdog team added that “NECSA provides adequate protection for its nuclear installations [and] that NECSA has good practices in respect of its security system that should be shared with (other IAEA members),” Janneker said. The South African National Nuclear Regulator, however, has asked NECSA officials to conduct additional security patrols at Pelindaba, rotate its control room staffers and clear foliage to eliminate hiding places for possible intruders. “The NNR remains concerned about the situation and has … directed NECSA to implement additional security measures and undertake a comprehensive review of all current security provisions,” said National Nuclear Regulator spokesman Phil Nkwashu. “Furthermore, similar oversight measures will be undertaken at other South African nuclear facilities where it is deemed necessary,” he said. His agency has reviewed evidence that “points to negligence on the part of some of the NECSA security personnel,” Nkwashu said. A number of security workers at Pelindaba were suspended while NECSA officials investigated the incident. “NECSA has initiated disciplinary action against the staff members concerned,” Nkwashu said (The Sowetan, Jan. 21).
Retired military leaders from five nations have argued in a recent manifesto that western nations must not give up their ability to conduct pre-emptive nuclear strikes in order to eliminate threats posed by weapons of mass destruction, the London Guardian reported today (see GSN, Nov. 6, 2007). The U.S. Defense Department and NATO secretary general have received the document, which is expected to be addressed at the alliance’s April summit in Romania. The report was prepared by retired U.S. Gen. John Shalikashvili, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, and former top military officials from France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. They argue that a “first strike” nuclear capability is still an “indispensable instrument” today given that there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.” “The risk of further (nuclear) proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible,” the document states. “The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction,” the authors wrote. Threats to the West include WMD proliferation, terrorism, and political and religious fanatics, they stated. “Proliferation is spreading and we have not too many options to stop it,” said one of the authors, retired German Gen. Klaus Naumann. “We don’t know how to deal with this.” NATO must prove “there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option,” he added. The authors called for a “directorate” of U.S., European and NATO leaders able to respond quickly to an emergency and backed the right to use military force when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings,” even if the U.N. Security Council has not signed off on the response (Ian Traynor, London Guardian, Jan. 22). A senior Russian military official indicated Saturday that his country was also prepared to use nuclear force to head off threats, the Associated Press reported. “We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand … that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons,” said Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, Russian military chief of staff. A retired Russian general said that Baluyevsky was simply restating military doctrine dating to 2000 that allows for use of nuclear weapons to eliminate the threat of a nuclear strike or major conventional attack against Russia or an allied nation. The threat underlines the weakness of Russia’s conventional forces, analysts said. “Baluyevsky’s statement means that, as before, we cannot count on our conventional forces to counter aggression,” said military analyst Alexander Golts told Ekho Moskvy radio. “It means that, as before, the main factor in containing aggression against Russia is nuclear weapons” (Steve Gutterman, Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 19).
Officials within the Bush administration are debating how to deal with the North Korean nuclear standoff, as weeks pass by with no indication that the Stalinist state is prepared to meet a key requirement under a disarmament plan, the New York Times reported Saturday (see GSN, Jan. 18). The Bush administration is looking for a foreign policy victory from the six-nation negotiations on North Korea’s nuclear program. The optimum result of the years-long process would have Pyongyang fully eliminating its nuclear programs — weapons included — in return for energy, economic and security benefits. The second phase of the 2007 plan called for Pyongyang to submit a full declaration of its nuclear programs by Dec. 31. The regime said it submitted a list in November but U.S. officials say the document was not sufficiently comprehensive. Remaining issues include North Korea’s suspected uranium enrichment activities, warhead and weapon-grade nuclear material production figures, and potential nuclear proliferation activities. “The issue of the declaration is important because that which they declare must later be abandoned,” a senior administration official said. North Korea might simply be waiting for the next administration, according to the newspaper. Some officials at the State Department and in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney say the confrontation level needs to be increased, while U.S. envoy Christopher Hill has urged patience, the Times reported. “Some people make the argument that we’re just pursuing a policy of talks that go nowhere,” said one administration official. Hill acknowledged that the six-party talks provide “no refuge for those in need of instant gratification. He told the Times, though, that “when asked for alternatives … even the noisiest critics fall silent.” President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice still appear to support Hill’s position. Work has progressed in the disablement and dismantlement of the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, the other major second-phase component of the denuclearization deal. “Bush can say, with credit, that he has achieved more than any other administration as far as dismantlement,” said Gary Samore, a negotiator for the 1994 Agreed Framework on North Korea nuclear program. “He can say that he managed to freeze further production, and handed the next administration a diplomatic process” (Helene Cooper, New York Times, Jan. 19). North Korea today complained again that the United States was to blame for the lack of movement on the nuclear disarmament agreement, Agence France-Presse reported. “The U.S., which pledged … to take our country off the list of states sponsoring terrorism by the end of last year, is still reluctant to implement the promise,” the cabinet newspaper Minju Josun stated in a commentary. “If the U.S. really intends to make progress in denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, it should fulfill its obligations” (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Jan. 22). Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department on Friday separated itself from statements made by Jay Lefkowitz, U.S. special envoy on human rights in North Korea, United Press International reported. Lefkowitz in a speech last week expressed doubt that Pyongyang would prove willing to give up its nuclear arsenal. “(Jay) is the envoy for issues related to human rights in North Korea. He is not, however, somebody who speaks authoritatively about the six-party talks,” said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. He would not say whether Lefkowitz faced discipline for his comments. “He’s still the envoy,” McCormack said (United Press International, Jan. 18).
Difficulties in producing new U.S. nuclear warheads should lead the Bush administration to focus on extending the life cycle of existing weapons and on reducing the size of the nuclear arsenal, a U.S. watchdog group said Friday (see GSN, Sept. 28, 2007). In a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, the Project on Government Oversight expressed concern over the cost of producing new plutonium cores for the W-88 warhead, a process that POGO said has required the department to waive more than 70 previously established manufacturing requirements. Once manufactured at the now-closed Rocky Flats facility in Colorado, the W-88 pits are now being produced in limited numbers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The facility has produced about 10 pits since the first was completed last year, the letter says (see GSN, June 11, 2007). The laboratory’s development of new production techniques — including molding the plutonium into precise shapes instead of machining it — have spurred multiple delays and huge cost overruns, POGO said. The new methods, which required waivers from earlier standards, have also raised uncertainty about the safety and reliability of the new warheads, according to POGO. “While some of the waivers may have been administrative, POGO has learned that at least some of them were not, but were in fact waivers from technical specifications,” says the letter to Bodman from POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian. “Any waivers from [previous specifications] diminish the quality of the manufacturing process,” the letter says. “And large numbers of waivers indicate a poor quality process.” The cost and uncertainty of manufacturing an existing warhead design should deter officials from pursuing a new design, a Bush administration goal that was slowed by Congress last year (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2007). Officials have touted the Reliable Replacement Warhead as a way to ensure a long lifespan for U.S. nuclear weapons without conducting explosive nuclear testing. “If we are having trouble making a few new pits for an old existing, tested system like the W-88, why would we buy a pie-in-the-sky promise that DOE can credibly and competently manufacture RRWs?” the letter says. “It is illogical to be giving up on the current stockpile whose pits are projected to last for over 100 years,” the letter adds, referring to a 2006 study determining that plutonium pits can be expected to perform reliably for decades (see GSN, Nov. 30, 2006). The Energy Department ought to alter its efforts to produce new warheads, the letter says. “The solution is to minimize the possible risk to the stockpile, to the taxpayers, and to international arms control efforts by focusing on Life Extension Programs and continuing to accelerate the dismantlement of excess warheads,” the letter concludes (Project on Government Oversight release, Jan. 18). Laboratory officials rejected the POGO claims and expressed full confidence in the new W-88 pits, the Associated Press reported. The new production methods do not “compromise the integrity of the parts. The bottom line — the pits produced meet all functional quality requirements for use and are fully accepted by [the National Nuclear Security Administration],” said NNSA spokesman Bernard Pleau. The new specifications “have been fully explored, fully vetted and fully accepted by NNSA and engineering analysis (conducted) by us,” added laboratory spokesman Kevin Roark. That view was also shared by one scientist on the panel that determined the long life-expectancy of existing U.S. weapons. “The manufacturing process for the W-88 has been incredibly, thoroughly vetted,” said Raymond Jeanloz, of the University of California at Berkeley (Josef Hebert, Associated Press/Google News, Jan. 20).
The United Arab Emirates is drafting a nuclear energy policy for review by major world powers and the International Atomic Energy Agency, putting the country on track to become the first Middle Eastern nation to pursue such an effort with international backing, the Financial Times reported Sunday (see GSN, Jan. 15). The United Arab Emirates and five other countries in the region last year informed the U.N. nuclear watchdog of their interest in developing nuclear power capabilities for civilian use. The United Arab Emirates said it plans to import uranium fuel for its nuclear plants and has no intention of enriching its own uranium, a process that can produce a nuclear-weapon material. The country is also prepared to sign the Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement with the agency, which would allow IAEA investigators to conduct short-notice inspections of its nuclear facilities, according to one governmental official (Rhoula Khalaf, Financial Times, Jan. 20).
Analysts last week struggled to forecast the prospects of a U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal following the official departure of a key U.S. official, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Jan. 18). The lead U.S. diplomat on the deal, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, on Friday announced that he would leave the administration in March. However, he indicated he would remain available to support the nuclear deal’s progress. The deal calls for India to purchase U.S. nuclear technology and materials, but international guidelines barring such trade must first be modified. Congress in late 2006 dropped similar U.S. laws prohibiting key nuclear sales to nations outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2006). U.S. lawmakers, however, would have another opportunity to review the deal if the international rules are dropped. More importantly at the moment, the deal has faced intense political opposition from key supporters of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s ruling coalition. Burns’ departure might indicate that the Bush administration has conceded the deal’s doom, said one expert. “It could go either way,” said Sharon Squassoni, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “You could see this as a concession that it is looking increasingly unlikely that all the pieces will be in place to get the deal through Congress, and that it is not going any further.” On the other hand, Burns’ resignation from his full post could enable him to devote more time to the Indian deal, she said, because he would not be required to address other critical issues in the undersecretary’s portfolio. A former Bush administration official endorsed that view. “He is willing to see this baby through, and I think he will pull it off,” said Teresita Schaffer, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ South Asia program. “I don't see this as any administration signal that they are giving up.” Another analyst said Burns’ potential role would be irrelevant. “I can't see that this announcement will have a great effect," said deal critic Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “This is a deal that is already on life support” (Desmond Butler, Associated Press/Washington Post, Jan. 19). Indian critics of the deal reaffirmed their opposition Sunday, when the Communist Party of India (Marxist) released a draft resolution for an upcoming party congress. “The party and the Left decided that they would do whatever is necessary to block the agreement,” says the draft resolution. The communist party has agreed to let the Singh government negotiate, but not sign, an inspections agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, another step needed for the deal to take effect. “Faced with the political consequences of such a confrontation with the left, the Congress [party] and the [United Progress Alliance coalition] decided not to proceed further with the operationalization of the agreement,” the draft resolution says. “This is a significant step forward in the struggle to prevent the United States making India its junior partner” (The Hindu, Jan. 21). Meanwhile, British officials expressed interest Friday in pursuing their own nuclear trade possibilities with India if the U.S. deal goes forward, the Press Trust of India reported. The U.S.-Indian pact would “open opportunities for collaboration which do not exist at present,” said British High Commissioner Richard Stagg, who spoke to reporters in advance of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s first official visit to India this week. "Civil nuclear cooperation (between India and the U.K.) is dependent on international status (of rules of trade),” he said, indicating British support for exempting India from current rules, PTI reported (Press Trust of India/Khaleej Times, Jan. 19).
Two Russian long-range bombers were scheduled to conduct weapon tests today off the European coastline as part of a major naval exercise, Reuters reported (see GSN, Nov. 21, 2007). The “Blackjack” bombers were under escort from Norwegian F-16s and British Tornado jets as they moved to join Russian aircraft carriers, battleships and antisubmarine craft on the Bay of Biscay, an Atlantic Ocean gulf off the coastlines of France and Spain, Russia’s air force said. The test near the two NATO member nations is part of a Russian push to project its military might internationally, Reuters said. “The air force is taking a very active part in the exercises of the navy's strike force in the Atlantic,” Russia's air force said in a statement. “Today, two strategic Tu-160 bombers departed for exercises in the Bay of Biscay, which … will carry out a number of missions and will conduct tactical missile launches.” Moscow announced in December that 11 Russian naval vessels and 47 aircraft would conduct maneuvers in the Mediterranean and then move to the Atlantic to carry out further drills. Russian Tu-95 “Bear” strategic bombers were set to participate Wednesday, Reuters reported. “This is the biggest exercise of its kind in the area since Soviet times,” a Russian navy spokesman said (Guy Faulconbridge, Reuters/Washington Post, Jan. 22).
| 
Back to top
