By Jon Fox
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers yesterday questioned the continued need to fund jobs for Soviet-era Russian scientists, riding the tails of a recent Government Accountability Office report that raised questions about the program’s management (see GSN, Jan. 14). Following the Soviet Union’s political and economic meltdown, the Energy Department in 1994 established the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention to engage former Soviet scientists. By creating short-term work for the Russians and by ultimately creating sustainable private sector employment, Washington hoped to prevent them from selling their WMD expertise to the highest bidder. The Energy Department program has a fiscal 2008 budget of $30 million and has spent a total of about $309 million since its inception. According to a GAO analysis released earlier this month, more than half the Russian scientists examined in the program did not claim to have any specific weapons-related background. “This was certainly an innovative and useful approach to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons technology in the 1990s,” Representative John Dingell (D-Mich.) said during a hearing of the oversight arm of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Since that time, however, the landscape has changed dramatically.” “Russia is now thriving. It is the largest oil producer in the world and the second largest oil exporter after OPEC,” Dingell said. “In short, given Russia’s economic turnaround, it appears the time has come for the IPP program to show Congress its exit strategy.” Suggesting that it was highly unlikely that Russia would let the U.S. Energy Department anywhere near its most valuable nuclear weapons designers and technicians, he said there is “often a thin line between the noble and the naive.” A similar program operated by the State Department focuses not on employing individual scientists but on making particular institutes self-sustaining. The agency aims to “graduate” about 20 institutes a year, said Richard Stratford, the State Department’s acting deputy assistant secretary for nuclear nonproliferation policy, “We’d like to be out of this business by 2012,” Stratford said. The GAO report called for the Energy Department and its National Nuclear Security Administration to develop more accurate ways to evaluate scientists involved in the Russian projects, to coordinate more effectively with the State Department and to re-evaluate the entire program. While DOE officials agreed with most of the GAO recommendations, they rejected the call to reassess the value of the employment program. The agency conducted such an evaluation in 2006 at the request of then-Administrator Linton Brooks, explained Adam Scheinman, NNSA assistant deputy administrator for nonproliferation and international security. While that reassessment suggested then that the program move from a Russian assistance program to more of a financially cooperative effort, members of Congress pointed out that no movement toward this goal was made in 2007. Scheinman acknowledged that the pace of change could have been faster. Robert Robinson, who testified on behalf of the Government Accountability Office, suggested that the Energy Department program has taken on an air of “mission creep.” “When problem X is solved, we move the program into problem Y, into infinity,” he said. “These things shouldn’t go on into perpetuity.” Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), questioned use of IPP funding for projects related to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, an Energy Department push to spread a new nuclear reactor design. The program has engendered some strong opposition, including from within Congress, over concerns that it would lead to the spread of reprocessing technology. Reprocessed plutonium can be incorporated into a nuclear weapon. Stupak also questioned the wisdom of sending funds to Russia, which in turn is sending nuclear fuel to Iran for use in the Russian-built Bushehr reactor. Scheinman said there was not a connection between the U.S.-run program and the Russian-Iranian relationship but could not say if any of the projects funded by the United States are at centers also involved in production of fuel such as that sold to Iran. “I think it’s a slush fund for the national laboratories, I believe that’s what this program has turned into,” Stupak said. GAO officials found that 97 percent of the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention funds being spent on nonproliferation projects in Libya through May 2007 were actually being spent in domestic DOE laboratories to pay for project management. Statutory restrictions on the program, however, limit the percentage of such spending to no more than 35 percent. Noting that a similar, now defunct, DOE program to deal with proliferation concerns at Russia’s Soviet era “nuclear cities,” Stupak said “that one has been shut down, so why can’t this one shut down” (see GSN, Sept. 20, 2006).
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei and safeguards head Olli Heinonen earlier this month visited a facility where Iran is developing its advanced line of P-2 uranium-enriching centrifuges, Reuters reported (see GSN, Jan. 24). The officials received first-time access to the site as they seek to resolve remaining questions on Iran’s past and present nuclear activities, said diplomats close to the U.N. nuclear watchdog inquiry. Western powers have suspected that Iran’s nuclear program is aimed at weapons development, though a recent U.S. intelligence assessment said Iran’s military nuclear program ended in 2003. Iran vowed to address the agency’s outstanding concerns about its nuclear work within four weeks of ElBaradei’s visit to Tehran on Jan. 11-12. Tehran has disclosed some details to the agency on its development of the advanced centrifuges, originally announced by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2006, which could enrich uranium at a much faster rate than technology now in use. “This was a research and development lab for their new design of P-2 centrifuge that they were able to see,” one diplomat said. ElBaradei plans to report on his visit to the site and the results of the wider investigation around Feb. 20, said the diplomat. Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council is preparing to impose a third sanctions resolution against Iran for its uranium enrichment program, which could produce a nuclear weapon ingredient. “The Iranian reaction will be interesting to this resolution. It certainly will not be helpful, and it might be detrimental for their cooperation in finishing up the (inquiry). We're at a very delicate juncture. Iranian hard-liners less inclined to cooperate with the IAEA could be strengthened,” the diplomat said. “Very good progress has been made this month. The IAEA is in the very last stretch, focusing on the most sensitive issue, the alleged efforts to weaponize (nuclear material), and the involvement of the military,” the official said, adding that Iran seemed to be consenting to terms allowing short-notice inspections of their nuclear facilities by allowing the officials to visit the centrifuge laboratory. “This visit to this new R&D centrifuge lab is in effect implementing the Additional Protocol. Of course this (access) needs to be formalized by Iran but this was a voluntary measure on their part covered by the protocol," the diplomat said. Western officials said that such an inspection regime could help to alleviate suspicions about Iran’s nuclear intentions. “Iran wants to present this gesture (visit) as a step forward so they can stave off more sanctions. It’s clear they won’t be able to do that,” a Western diplomat said. “More broadly, Iran was supposed to come forward with final answers by end of December. They didn’t. The face that they are continuing to play this game of dripping out information only goes to prove that they are not being up-front,” the diplomat said (Mark Heinrich, Reuters I, Jan. 23). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said yesterday that the draft sanctions resolution approved Tuesday by six major powers “welcomes the progress made between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency” and contains no harsh punitive measures, Reuters reported. “The measures in this draft do not have a tough sanctioning character,” Lavrov said, adding it would “call on countries to be alert in their transport relations with Iran so that those relations are not used to transport (potentially dangerous) materials.” Lavrov’s statement suggests that U.S. officials were unable to attain a consensus for severe sanctions against Iran during Tuesday’s meeting in Berlin, according to Reuters. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated that the United States was willing to pursue diplomatic relations with Iran if it halts its sensitive nuclear efforts. “If Iran would suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities — which is an international demand, not just an American one — then we could begin negotiations, and we could work over time to build a new, more normal relationship,” she said at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland (Reuters II, Jan. 23). Meanwhile, a 90-minute meeting last night between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and head Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili produced no breakthroughs in efforts to resolve international tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, the Associated Press reported. Solana and Jalili made little progress on the standoff over Iran’s uranium enrichment drive or on other issues during the working dinner in Brussels. The two men discussed the nuclear standoff “without entering in details” said Solana spokeswoman Cristina Gallach. “The meeting was designed to keep the channel of communications open, taking advantage of Mr. Jalili’s visit to Brussels,” she said (Associated Press/PR-inside.com, Jan. 23). Elsewhere, the Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran today received its sixth shipment of nuclear fuel from Russia, Agence France-Presse reported. The Bushehr facility has received roughly 66 tons of nuclear fuel to date, completing around 80 percent of the 82-ton delivery scheduled for completion in the next several weeks, Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency said (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Jan. 24).
There is no reason for panic over the slowdown in the North Korean denuclearization process, two experts said in a commentary published today in the Washington Post (see GSN, Jan. 23). “The finger-wagging, told-you-so naysayers in and out of the Bush administration should take a deep breath. There is no indication that North Korea is backing away from its commitments to disable key nuclear facilities and every reason to expect this process to unfold slowly, with North Korea taking small, incremental steps in return for corresponding steps from the United States and others in the six-party discussions,” stated David Albright and Jacqueline Shire, respectively president and senior analyst at the Institute for Science and International Security. Nations in the six-party talks last year approved a multistep plan intended to end with dismantlement of Pyongyang’s nuclear programs. In return, it would receive energy, diplomatic and security benefits. The Stalinist state last year halted operations at its Yongbyon nuclear complex and has begun disabling its sole operating reactor and two other key facilities at the site. However, tensions have risen since North Korea missed a Dec. 31 deadline to declare the full scope of its nuclear activities. U.S. officials have said a list submitted in November is not sufficiently comprehensive while Pyongyang says Washington has failed to follow through on its promise of rewards. North Korea reportedly stated in the declaration that it possesses 30 kilograms of separated plutonium and claimed it did not have a uranium enrichment program, a long-held suspicion of the Bush administration. “Does the quantity of separated plutonium make sense? Yes,” the commentary says. “In short, 30 kilograms is at the lower end of the range of plutonium that we have assessed North Korea could have separated” (see GSN, Jan. 11). Negotiators must not let Pyongyang slip out of its pledge to provide details of uranium enrichment efforts, Albright and Shire wrote. However, they argued that U.S. officials “misread (at best) or hyped” the existence of a major initiative and that there is little reason to believe that North Korea produced highly enriched uranium. The uranium issue and North Korea’s reported involvement in a suspected Syrian nuclear program (see GSN, Oct. 10, 2007) should not spell the end to the six-party process, the commentary says. The denuclearization deal “brings North Korea into the fold, bit by bit, making it harder for it to slip back into the arena of illicit deals and keeping a bright light on its activities,” the analysts said (Albright/Shire, Washington Post, Jan. 24). A Japanese newspaper published by an organization friendly to the North Korean regime said Pyongyang is prepared to meet its commitments if the United States does the same, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. “The D.P.R.K. has a firm resolution to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. The key is whether the U.S. and other parties are implementing their duties,” according to the Choson Sinbo (Agence France-Presse, Jan. 23). Meanwhile, a U.S. Energy Department official said yesterday that the United States at some point could help find work for North Korean nuclear experts, Kyodo News reported. No specific plan has been yet considered, said Adam Scheinman, assistant deputy administrator for nonproliferation and international security at the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration. Before receiving such assistance, North Korea would have to issue the full nuclear declaration and make further headway in its nuclear disablement efforts, he said (Kyodo News, Jan. 23).
Russia continued an Atlantic Ocean military exercise this week that featured strategic bombers and a nuclear-capable cruise missile test, the London Times reported (see GSN, Jan. 22). The activity involved two “Blackjack” bombers flying near a Russian naval flotilla near the Bay of Biscay, and was set to include “Bear” and “Backfire” strategic bombers, according to the Times. The exercise includes 11 Russian naval vessels led by the nation’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. One battleship in the group launched a Bazalt nuclear-capable supersonic cruise missile, the Times reported. Experts cautioned against reading too much in to the display of power. The Russian fleet is capable of launching only 30 of its 300 ships at any time, said analyst Pavel Felgengauer. “They have put them all together and sent them to the Atlantic. This is just an attempt to show the flag before the presidential elections and to tell people at home that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s eight years have restored Russia’s imperial greatness,” he said. “The Admiral Kuznetsov is due to go in for repairs when it returns home. There are two tugs with it now because everybody understands that it could go bust at any moment” (Tony Halpin, London Times, Jan. 22).
U.S. President George W. Bush approved a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Turkey this week, saying it would serve as a boon to nonproliferation, the White House said (see GSN, Oct. 17, 2007). On Tuesday, the president sent U.S. lawmakers a July 2000 accord in which then-President Bill Clinton pledged to provide Turkey with U.S. support in developing a nuclear energy program, Agence France-Presse reported. The deal “permits the transfer of technology, material, equipment (including reactors), and components for nuclear research and nuclear power production,” a White House official said. “It does not permit transfers of sensitive nuclear technology, restricted data, or sensitive nuclear facilities or major critical components of such facilities.” In a letter to Congress, which could pass a bill to nullify the agreement, Bush said the deal would “serve as a strong incentive for Turkey to continue its support for nonproliferation objectives and enact future sound nonproliferation policies and practices.” The deal extends for an initial 15 years and would then be automatically renewed for five-year terms unless Turkey or the United States decide to cancel the arrangement (Agence France-Presse/Google News, Jan. 24).
A senior White House official said the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is a greater concern than the insurgency faced by President Pervez Musharraf, the Press Trust of India reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 23). “The bigger issue with regard to Pakistan, of course, has to do with internal political stability and righting themselves politically, and then ultimately the security of the nuclear weapons,” said Douglas Lute, deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan. Unrest under the state of emergency declared last year by Musharraf and the subsequent assassination of political opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has increased concerns that radicals might gain access to a Pakistani nuclear weapon. U.S. and Pakistani officials have said repeatedly that the weapons are secure. “It seems to me that the political situation is fragile” following Bhutto’s death, Lute said. He added, though, that “with the steps that have been taking place, the relief of the state of emergency and the firm scheduling now of elections, that we may be on a path where Pakistan will right itself and stabilize” (Press Trust of India, Jan. 23). Meanwhile, the U.S. Central Command is seeking plans for increased U.S. armed forces training of the Pakistani military to counter the insurgency, the Associated Press reported. A planning order from Central Command chief Adm. William Fallon instructs lower-ranking commanders to produce ideas for aiding Pakistan’s counterinsurgency efforts through 2015 (Robert Burns, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Jan. 24).
Bush administration efforts to hold nuclear weapons proliferation in check could ultimately prove unsuccessful, analysts said in an Associated Press article published today (see GSN, Jan. 10). While U.S. officials and diplomats continue to push against nuclear weapons development, North Korea has delayed declaring its nuclear assets while Iran has not betrayed any sign of intimidation in the face of new international sanctions over its nuclear program, AP said. “It is clear to everyone that the Bush strategy has failed,” said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “The only question is whether he can adjust quickly enough to salvage something from this mess.” Cirincione said yesterday that North Korea offered the “best hope” for disarmament “provided Bush sticks with negotiations.” North Korea vowed last year that it would give up its nuclear programs in exchange for diplomatic, security and energy incentives. “We have U.S. scientists in North Korea actually dismantling plutonium reactors,” Cirincione said. “We are a lot better off than we were two years ago when they were testing weapons.” Cirincione said that Iran poses a more difficult challenge for the Bush administration. “The president doesn't want to abandon his confrontational approach and engage Iran directly in negotiations to curtail their program in exchange for the kind of agreement we are offering North Korea,” he said. The Bush administration’s momentum in confronting Iran was slowed last month with the release of a U.S. intelligence assessment concluding that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Since then, White House officials have contended that Iran continues to defy two U.N. Security Council resolutions by pushing ahead with a uranium enrichment program it could tap for nuclear weapons development. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told AP that the U.S. intelligence estimate ruined the Bush administration’s strategy on Iran. “It is shredded at this point,” he said. Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon said the Bush administration has done a “reasonable job” dealing with Iran by slowly intensifying economic pressure against the country and working with other Western powers on diplomacy with Tehran. “It has not been a dramatic failure,” he told AP. “I would give him a gentleman’s B.” However, O’Hanlon criticized the administration for not pursuing a nuclear disablement agreement with North Korea years earlier. That could have prevented the country from quadrupling its nuclear arsenal and conducting a 2006 nuclear bomb test, he said. O’Hanlon said he would grade the White House’s performance on North Korea “in the realm of a D” (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Jan. 24).
| 
Back to top
