The International Atomic Energy Agency yesterday showed documentation to its 35-nation governing board suggesting that Iran might have pursued nuclear weapons development after 2003, the year a U.S. intelligence assessment said Tehran suspended its military atomic program, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 25). “Certainly some of the dates … went beyond 2003,” said Simon Smith, British envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, following the closed-door session. The intelligence was culled from various sources, including an agency probe into Iran’s nuclear program and intelligence from member nations, Smith said. “The assumption is this was not something that was being thought about or talked about, but the assumption is it was being practically worked on,” he told journalists, noting that IAEA officials presented a “fairly detailed set of illustrations and descriptions of how you would build a nuclear warhead, how you would fit it into a delivery vehicle, how you would expect it to perform.” International powers have suspected Iran of secretly seeking nuclear weapons, but Tehran maintains its atomic work is focused solely on producing energy. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, yesterday called the new documents “forgeries.” Another diplomat said some information put forward at the meeting centered on an Iranian report on nuclear activities that analysts have said could be related to weapons development, AP reported. The Iranian report did not indicate clearly whether it was addressing past nuclear activities or programs that were continuing in 2004, the diplomat said. However, there could be significance in any indication of a sustained Iranian interest in nuclear weapons development after 2003. The new evidence also included an Iranian video displaying missile re-entry vehicle mock-ups, according to a high-level diplomat who attended the meeting. IAEA safeguards chief Olli Heinonen said the part’s design indicates it was engineered for nuclear warhead delivery, the diplomat said. Other evidence pointed to Iranian work on warheads and missile flight patterns where “the height of the burst … didn’t make sense for conventional warheads,” the diplomat said. Mohammad Khazaee, Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, said that intelligence provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency was “baseless” and possibly forged by an Iranian opposition organization. “I'm afraid to say that, according to my information, some of these allegations were produced or fabricated by a terrorist group, which are listed as a terrorist group in the United States and somewhere else in Europe,” he said in possible reference to the Mujahedeen Khalq, or the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran. The group was named a terrorist entity by the United States in 1997 and by the European Union in 2007 (George Jahn, Associated Press I/Washington Post, Feb. 26). Meanwhile, the United States said it expects rapid movement on a third sanctions resolution to pressure Iran to suspend its controversial nuclear activities, officials said yesterday after the U.S. State Department hosted a meeting of diplomats from the five permanent U.N. Security Council member nations and Germany. One high-level U.S. official said there have been no changes to the mild punitive measures contained in the original resolution drafted last month. A vote on the resolution is likely to come within 10 days, the U.S. official said. However, a unanimous decision is not anticipated from the 15-nation body (Anne Gearan, Associated Press II/International Herald Tribune, Feb. 26). “Really we cannot be supportive of further sanctions,” said Giadalla Ettalhi, Libya’s envoy to the United Nations. Libya holds a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council. U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Russian and Chinese officials have sought a focus on incentives rather than penalties in pressing Iran to halt uranium enrichment activities, Reuters reported. “They also reaffirmed their commitment to the dual-track approach for responding to the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program,” he said. However, Khazaee said Iran views any demands that it suspend uranium enrichment to be illegal and vowed that the new sanctions would not curb Tehran’s nuclear work. “It would not be logical to comply with the resolution,” he said. “We do not see any reason to suspend our enrichment (of uranium)” (Sue Pleming, Reuters/Washington Post, Feb. 25). Khazaee added yesterday that imposing new sanctions on Iran “will harm the credibility” of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Agence France-Presse reported. If a new sanctions resolution damages the agency’s reputation, he said, “The big question would be that in future: which credible agency is going to monitor the nuclear activities of other countries?” (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, Feb. 25). Elsewhere, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today held what she called an “extensive discussion” on the Iranian nuclear standoff with her Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. China has long maintained support for denuclearization incentives that could allow Tehran to accept a negotiated resolution for the stalemate. “We believe we should continue to adopt a dual-track approach,” Yang said. “At the end of the day, the results can only be achieved by peaceful negotiation” (Agence France-Presse II/Spacewar.com, Feb. 26).
By Greg Webb
Global Security Newswire
OSLO, Norway — Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz today led a chorus of high-level experts supporting the eventual global elimination of nuclear weapons, adding momentum to a renewed international focus on the long-deferred goal of disarmament (see GSN, Jan. 23). “We are at a tipping point. The danger is all too real,” he told a conference hosted by Norway’s Foreign Ministry. “The simple continuation of present practice with regard to nuclear weapons is leading in the wrong direction. We need to change that direction.” Shultz’s tenure as secretary of state came during iconic Republican President Ronald Reagan’s eight-year administration. His support, along with fellow former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has given new credibility to the prospect of multilateral nuclear disarmament. The two Republicans have co-authored two Wall Street Journal commentaries in the past 14 months calling for steps that could lead to abandoning nuclear weapons. Joining Shultz and Kissinger for the commentaries were two influential Democratic policy leaders, former Defense Secretary William Perry and Nuclear Threat Initiative chief Sam Nunn (see GSN, Jan. 15, 2008 and Jan. 4, 2007). “We cannot wait for a nuclear Pearl Harbor or 9/11. We must get ahead of the game to prevent an even more catastrophic event than those that have been seared into our memories,” Shultz said. “If we wait — if a nuclear accident occurs — the world will be changed so dramatically that we will not recognize it.” “So wake up, everybody. The danger is real and the potential consequences are of catastrophic proportions,” he added. Other high-level nuclear abolition advocates agreed. “I am not sure that many people realize just how devastating today’s nuclear weapons are — hundreds of times more powerful than the bombs which obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” said International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei. “A handful of missiles carried today on a single bomber or submarine could wipe out the entire population of a country.” The sheer quantities of global nuclear weapons and materials increase risks of accidental use or theft by terrorists, he said. “Out of 27,000 [U.S. and Russian] warheads and many tons of highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium, what are the chances that some weapons or material might go astray? In the past year alone, we have heard alarming stories about aircraft armed with nuclear missiles going missing and of nuclear facilities and equipment protected by little more than bicycle locks,” ElBaradei said (see GSN, Feb. 13). Shultz and others said the elusive goal of total nuclear disarmament is a problem that can be solved with adequate attention from world leaders. “A sensible, practical, doable process exists to deal effectively with the problem,” he said. “Well, the problem is staggering, but practical doable identifiable steps can be taken that will put us on the road to success.” Some conference participants said the complete elimination of nuclear weapons would probably remain just a goal for decades to come, but that exploring possible paths to the goal is worth pursuing today. This week’s conference was organized to promote such a discussion and includes the participation of the nonproliferation field’s biggest names. Participants today recommended a variety of such steps, such as: —negotiating deeper nuclear reductions between Russia and the United States; —effecting measures to increase the decision time needed to launch nuclear weapons, in part by removing those weapons from high-alert status; —speeding efforts to improve security over nuclear weapons; and —beginning talks to remove forward-deployed nuclear weapons with an eye toward their eventual dismantlement. “The end point seems really quite unachievable and the challenges of getting there seem very daunting, but I haven’t heard any ridiculous ideas today. I’ve heard sensible pathways to elimination that one has to consider very carefully even if only to dismiss them,” said Jeffrey Lewis of the New America Foundation. “That’s very impressive. I think that’s a very different debate than we’ve had the past 20 years.” “Serious people, who are careful what they say in public so they don’t damage their reputation, have gathered at a very expensive hotel to hold a very serious discussion about eliminating nuclear weapons,” he added. One key hurdle to an eventual nuclear weapon ban could be the challenge of describing what elimination entails, that is, the question of to what degree nations would be required to dismantle nuclear weapons, destroy their components and eliminate weapon-grade uranium and plutonium. “I define a world without nuclear weapons as a world in which nuclear explosive devices are put on the museum shelf. No one makes them anymore, no one has them in their arsenal, no one includes them as weapons. Nuclear explosive devices are disassembled, their fissile pit that makes them up is melted down, destroyed,” said Richard Butler, former head of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq and now leader of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Historian Richard Rhodes, conducting documentary interviews at the conference, was somewhat more specific. It should take “a year to make a bomb for any country that decided to abrogate its agreements. That would leave a year for the rest of the world to do something about it,” he said. Other participants, however, said such specificity was unnecessary. “It doesn’t matter how it’s defined as long as all the major states have agreed on it,” said George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It’s not about absolute physical properties, it’s about relationships between states and the security that they have and they feel for each other.” “The point isn’t that any one answer is right or wrong, or worse or better. The point is that if all the states agree, then that’s the answer,” Perkovich added. “Right now we have nuclear order built on the idea that some countries have a bunch of nuclear weapons and that’s OK, the rest aren’t supposed to get them. That’s not stable,” he said. “So now you’re looking for a new order that’s stable. And people are assuming that needs to be at zero [nuclear weapons]. Well, that could well be, because it’s equitable at zero. But as you get closer, you could decide that [low numbers] are stable. As long as people agree, then it’s stable.” Above all, progress must begin, ElBaradei stressed. “We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for their security,” he said. “Ultimately, the prohibition of nuclear weapons should be a peremptory norm of international law, which is not treaty-dependent, similar to the prohibition of genocide, torture and slavery.”
The United States yesterday provided $23.8 million for operations of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Bat Treaty Organization (see GSN, Sept. 18, 2007). Washington has now earned its voting rights within the organization preparing for implementation of the global prohibition on nuclear test blasts. The United States lost voting rights last year when it failed to pay its full contribution. Taking exchange rates into account, the funding provided yesterday is slightly less than the required U.S. contribution for 2008. It represents more than one-fifth of the organization’s $111 million operating budget for this year. “This is a very welcome development,” CTBTO Executive Secretary Tibor Toth said in a press release. “The United States is a major contributor to this organization. We are dependent on their funds to build up the verification regime.” The organization plans to build 35 monitoring stations in 2009 and to maintain operations at another 250 sites. The treaty has yet to enter into force. It must first be ratified by China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States (Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty release, Feb. 26).
U.S. officials said yesterday that the nations involved in negotiations on North Korea’s nuclear program should begin tracking any transfers by the regime of nuclear material or equipment to other nations, the Washington Times reported (see GSN, Feb. 25). The move follows reports that Pyongyang had provided support for suspected Syrian nuclear efforts. North Korea has denied the claims (see GSN, Feb. 22). As part of its October agreement to close down its nuclear programs, Pyongyang “reaffirmed its commitment not to transfer nuclear materials, technology and know-how.” “The North Koreans promised not to engage in nuclear proliferation,” said Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill. “We want to make sure they follow through on their pledge.” North Korea stands to receive energy, diplomatic and security benefits from giving up its nuclear complex. Negotiations have faltered this year over a full nuclear declaration required under the deal; Pyongyang said it provided the list in November, but Washington said the document failed to address several suspected uranium enrichment activities and other key areas. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is in Asia this week to push the six-party process forward. She said Friday she wanted talks in China, Japan and South Korea to include “how we use the six-party framework to address proliferation issues,” the Times reported. Russia is the fifth nation involved in talks with North Korea. “I’m of the mind that we have the right group of countries at the table, with the right set of incentives and disincentives to address not just denuclearization, which obviously is extremely important, but also proliferation,” she said (Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, Feb. 26). Rice today urged Chinese leaders to press North Korea to move forward with the nuclear dismantlement process, the Associated Press reported. Pyongyang has halted operations at its Yongbyon nuclear complex. However, it missed the Dec. 31 deadline to submit the nuclear declaration and has slowed the process of disablement of three key facilities. North Korean officials have linked the slowdown to unhappiness over the pace at which it is receiving rewards for denuclearization. “What I am expecting from China is what I am expecting from others: Use all influence possible with the North Koreans to convince them that it is time to move forward,” Rice said in Beijing. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said that his government was “consistently committed to the six-party talks and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” He indicated that Beijing had and would continue to press Pyongyang on the issue (Matthew Lee, Associated Press/Washington Post, Feb. 26). New South Korean President Lee Myung-bak yesterday assured Rice he would also promote a nuclear-free peninsula, Agence France-Presse reported. “President Lee said he would do all he could to strengthen U.S.-[South Korean] cooperation on the six-party process,” Hill, top U.S. envoy to the six-nation negotiations, said following Rice’s meeting with Lee (Lachlan Carmichael, Agence France-Presse, Feb. 25).
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is scheduled to meet tomorrow with the leader of a major Indian opposition party in an attempt to win its support for a U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear trade agreement, the Press Trust of India reported (see GSN, Feb. 25). Gates is set for one-on-one talks with Lal Krishna Advani, leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which last year rejected the nuclear agreement in its current form. The agreement would make U.S. nuclear fuel and technology available for India to expand its nuclear energy sector (see GSN, Nov. 8, 2007). New Delhi would, in turn, open its civilian nuclear facilities to international monitoring. During a two-day visit to New Delhi, Gates is also expected to meet with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Defense Minister A.K. Antony and national security adviser M.K. Narayanan (Press Trust of India/Zee News, Feb. 25). Indian President Pratibha Patil said yesterday she hopes that the deal can be finalized despite stonewalling from communist parties allied with Singh’s ruling party, Reuters reported. “There is fresh spine in the government in taking on the communists,” political analyst Mahesh Rangarajan said. “The government knows this is the last chance for the deal.” Indian communists have maintained that the nuclear deal would undermine the nation’s sovereignty and security, but they permitted Singh’s administration to pursue a required safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. “Our position is what it was — that is: do not proceed to operationalize the deal,” said Sitaram Yechury of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). “We will continue to hold the same view when the IAEA agreement draft comes to us” (Krittivas Mukherjee, Reuters, Feb. 25).
The United Kingdom is set today to join the U.S.-led program to increase use of nuclear power around the world, the Press Association reported (see GSN, Feb. 5). The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is intended to help meet the growing international need for electricity without promoting nuclear proliferation or climate change. It presently has 20 member nations. “The U.K. shares in the vision of improved nonproliferation and nuclear waste management and recognizes the real benefits of initiatives such as GNEP to implement the right solutions and further develop international standards and best practice,” British Business Secretary John Hutton said in a press release. “With a new generation of nuclear energy now set to be part of the U.K.’s future energy mix, the U.K. is in a position to play a role in this global initiative,” added Hutton, who is expected to sign an agreement today during his visit to Washington (Press Association/Google News, Feb. 26).
Norway and the United Kingdom plan to dismantle a Russian nuclear submarine under the British Global Threat Reduction Program, according to a press release issued yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 6, 2007). The two nations plan to share the $7.7 million price tag to scrap the decommissioned November-class submarine. Dismantlement is set to occur at the Nerpa Shipyard under the management of the British nuclear consulting firm NUKEM Ltd. “The nuclear legacy of the former Soviet Union still presents a serious risk. A nuclear accident in Russia or a terrorist incident using radioactive material in a dirty bomb would have global implications,” British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said in the press release. “International cooperation is vital to ensure these threats are addressed within an acceptable timescale and it is in our interest to help Russia dispose of its nuclear legacy and ensure risks are managed to a standard expected in the U.K. and Norway,” he said. The United Kingdom has to date dismantled one Victor-class and two Oscar-class nuclear submarines under its program to reduce biological, chemical and nuclear threats (British Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Department release, Feb. 25).
The Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee could see its nuclear weapon work significantly expanded or reduced under options being considered for the U.S. atomic complex, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2007). National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous arm of the Energy Department, over the next decade intends to consolidate facilities and reduce staffing under its “Complex Transformation” plan. The intent is to “make the U.S. nuclear weapons complex smaller, and more responsive, efficient and secure,” according to a government draft report. The primary option for Y-12 under the NNSA plan calls for facility to build the second stage of nuclear weapons and to be the U.S. “uranium center of excellence.” However, other options include making it home to most nuclear warhead work, reducing its workload or moving all its atomic duties to other locations. “No decisions are final at this point,” said Tom Smith, Y-12 division manager for strategic planning and transformation. Y-12 has been undergoing modernization for several years, including demolition of dozens of old buildings and some construction. Work is nearly 75 percent complete on a $549 million storage site for weapon-grade uranium. It would cost between $1.4 billion and $3.5 billion to build a new uranium processing plant, early estimates indicate. The federal government is conducting a series of forums around the United States to receive public input on plans for the nuclear weapons complex. Two hearings today are scheduled in Oak Ridge on the Y-12 plant. The sessions are the best chance in two decades for the public to make its voice heard on nuclear weapons production, according to peace activist Ralph Hutchison (Frank Munger, Knoxville News Sentinel, Feb. 25).
| 
Back to top
