U.S. President George W. Bush today said he will sign a formal strategic arms reduction treaty when he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin May 24 in Moscow (see GSN, May 6).
“The treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War,” Bush said.
Putin said he was “satisfied” with the treaty reached by U.S. and Russian negotiators.
“We are satisfied with the joint work,” the Russian president said. “Without the interested, active position of the American administration and the attention of President Bush, it would have been difficult to reach such agreements.”
In the three-page agreement, both the United States and Russia have agreed to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads. A major area of contention between the two countries was whether to make the reductions permanent, according to the Associated Press. Under the treaty, some of the warheads slated for reduction will be destroyed and others will be stored, said senior U.S. administration officials. Russia is also likely to keep some of its warheads in storage, said a senior administration official. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Russia still objected to the idea of reversible reductions.
Bush previously had stated a desire for a U.S.-Russian arms reduction agreement to be a legally binding agreement but not a formal treaty, AP reported. Now, the treaty to be signed by Bush during his visit to Moscow later this month will need to be approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Russian Parliament strongly supports Putin (Ron Fournier, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, May 13).
U.S. and Russian negotiators completed final agreements on the arms reduction treaty today during a meeting in Moscow, said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack (Reuters/New York Times, May 13).
Recent U.S. intelligence reports shared with Congress indicate that Russia is preparing to resume nuclear testing, the New York Times reported yesterday. The news prompted the House of Representatives to approve legislation calling for increased access to Russian nuclear sites.
Russian activities on the Arctic island Novaya Zemlya resemble past nuclear test preparation activities at the site, according to a new intelligence analysis disclosed to select House and Senate members.
In response, Representative Curt Weldon said he was so alarmed by the classified intelligence report that he introduced an amendment to the fiscal 2003 national defense authorization act that would establish a program for U.S. and Russian scientists to exchange visits to the Nevada Test Site and Novaya Zemlya (see related GSN story, today). The House passed the bill, including the amendment, Friday (Thom Shanker, New York Times, May 12).
Weldon said Saturday he did not intend for the amendment “to accuse Russia of anything,” but rather to allow access to nuclear weapons sites “unlike anything we’ve had before.”
If enacted, the legislation would also reverse a ban on research to develop nuclear weapons capable of destroying chemical and biological weapons sites (Associated Press/Washington Post, May 12).
Preparing for U.S. Tests?
Some legislators and analysts expressed skepticism about the intelligence reports and expressed concern that claims of Russian nuclear test preparations are laying the groundwork for a resumption of U.S. nuclear testing (see GSN, April 23).
“The administration seems to want to resume nuclear testing and to develop new nuclear weapons,” said one member of Congress who attended the intelligence briefing.
“The Bush administration appears to be slowly but steadily moving in the direction of removing the obstacles preventing a resumption of U.S. testing and developing a rationale for resuming testing,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
The Bush administration has refused to support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty but has said the United States has no plans to resume nuclear testing and will continue to abide by a testing moratorium (Shanker, New York Times).
The White House refused to comment on the Times’ report of the intelligence analysis and said the administration expects Russia to follow its voluntary moratorium (Reuters/New York Times, May 12).
Russia has signed and ratified the CTBT, which is not yet in force pending the ratification of several nuclear-capable states (Greg Webb, GSN, May 13).
Russian Reaction
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said U.S. indications that Russia would resume tests are false, the Russian Interfax news agency reported, according to Agence France-Presse.
“Russia is demanding that the U.S. administration clarify the reason for such declarations, if we are to have new strategic relations based on mutual trust and respect,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, May 13).
Russian officials said their country would follow the constraints of the CTBT (Shanker, New York Times, May 12).
Russia has followed a moratorium on full-scale nuclear testing since October 1990.
The U.S. intelligence reports and congressional action come as U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin prepare for a summit (see related GSN story, today) in Russia May 23-26 (Associated Press/Washington Post).
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Friday approved a major bill that would, among other things, bar the Bush administration from developing or modifying new nuclear weapons for earth penetration missions and cut $812 million from the administration’s $7.8 billion missile defense programs.
The committee version of the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill, which has yet to reach the Senate floor, differs distinctly in those areas from a version of the bill passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, also on Friday, perhaps foreshadowing a conference showdown over those two elements of administration strategic posture.
The House fully authorized the administration’s layered missile defense effort and, with bipartisan support, repealed a 1995 law barring research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons for earth penetration, adding a restriction that bars development only.
“I think we’re facing close votes on the Senate floor for both missile defense funding and the new nuclear bunker buster,” John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World said.
Jon Wolfsthal, an associate at the Nonproliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, does not believe there will be a big fight when members of both houses try to reconcile differences over nuclear policy in conference.
“Nuclear policy issues tend to take a back seat to hardware issues,” he said. “There will be some debates, there will be some constraints placed, there will be some modifications, but it’s going to be at the margin.”
The two houses also differed on funding for Energy Department nonproliferation programs and on whether to extend the Pentagon’s nonproliferation work beyond the former Soviet states, as has been proposed by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) (see GSN, April 29). The Senate version would allow it, the House version would prohibit it.
Earth Penetrator Dispute
Funding for the earth penetrator, or “bunker buster” bomb, was opposed by the Senate committee “as a result of growing uncertainty about the administration's plans for the nuclear weapons employment policy and future nuclear weapons development,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said in a press release after the vote.
In addition, the energy secretary would be directed to “clearly and specifically identify any funds requested in the future for new or modified nuclear weapons,” Levin said.
The administration, in its annual budget, had requested $15.5 million for studies of options for improving U.S. capabilities for destroying deep and hardened targets, including modifying a previously developed nuclear earth penetrator (see GSN, March 19). That weapon is said to have insufficient penetrating capabilities and would carry a warhead above five kilotons, which experts expect could create massive civilian casualties depending on where it is used.
The House bill would allow research and “design of a testing device” on low-yield nuclear weapons, which produce an explosion less than five kilotons and theoretically would cause fewer casualties, possibly making such a weapon more usable, although some experts say the numbers still would be massive.
“No president should have their hands tied by outdated laws that stifle research and development into new technologies that will safeguard us in the future,” Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), the amendment’s author, said in a statement after the vote.
“Without research and development in bunker-busting capabilities, America’s only option in a world of chemical and biological weapons is to focus on responding to an attack, rather than preventing one,” he said.
Weldon’s amendment won bipartisan support after significant compromise on the original language. It originally proposed conditions under which the ban on low-yield deployment could be repealed and proposed joint U.S-Russia collaboration on the development of conventional nuclear penetrating weapons.
One of the conditions for repealing the 1995 ban was if “another nation has conducted a nuclear test for the purpose of developing new or improved nuclear weapons.” The New York Times reported Saturday that administration officials had briefed members of Congress, including Weldon, on evidence suggesting Russia is preparing to resume nuclear testing (see related GSN story, today).
Under the compromise version, the Energy Department “can do concept definition work, they can do research work, they can do design work, they can build a wooden mock-up, but they cannot bend metal or do fissile component parts until the law itself is changed,” said Representative John Spratt (D-S.C.), who authored the 1995 law, explaining his support for the amendment.
Missile Defense Differences
The Senate committee’s bill drew divided Republican support, with eight of the 12 Republican committee members voting in opposition. All 17 Democrats voted for the bill.
Senator John Warner (R-Va.), the committee’s ranking Republican, cited the “drastic” reduction in missile defense funding for the opposition, reduction he said all Republican committee members opposed.
The $812 million cut was moved to shipbuilding programs and other strategic programs.
The missile defense cuts were made “in activities which were duplicative, premature or had execution problems,” Levin said. He had previously said just $50 million of $800 million allocated to the ballistic missile defense systems element was spent last year.
The committee cut $100 million from the Space-Based Infrared System-High program, citing cost and schedule problems and program restructuring.
The Senate committee’s version also would increase congressional and senior military oversight of the ballistic missile defense work, which would reverse to some degree an administration initiative to free the program from traditional cost and scheduling measurements.
It would require a major review and report by the defense secretary to Congress on the cost and schedule progress of the major elements of the program, as well as an annual Pentagon operational assessment and review of the cost schedule and performance criteria for the missile defense programs.
Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish in January assigned the newly created agency new “nonstandard” approaches to measuring missile defense program success, including “expanded authority” to make decisions under “streamlined executive oversight and reporting,” according to a Pentagon memorandum.
Both House and Senate bills propose the largest increase to the defense budget in more than 20 years, of approximately $35 billion as requested by the president.
Other Differences
While both houses fully authorized the administration’s request for Pentagon nonproliferation programs with Russia and other former Soviet states, the House version would cut $39 million from the administration’s $1.1 billion request for Energy Department nuclear nonproliferation programs, citing in part nearly $60 million in “unobligated balances” from the current fiscal year intended for eliminating weapon-grade plutonium in Russia.
The Senate authorized a $15 million increase to that budget, with the extra money to go for research on a new generation of radiation detectors for use by homeland defense authorities.
The Senate bill also would require Energy to examine ways to increase the speed at which it can dismantle nuclear weapons resulting from future reductions.
Administration officials earlier this year said they were not seeking funding to begin in 2003 new operationally deployed warhead reductions scheduled through 2012, which have been proposed by U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin (see GSN, April 16).
In a major announcement, the White House today announced an agreement between the two countries to sign a treaty specifying those reductions (see related GSN story, today).
The Pakistani military mobilized its nuclear weapons in preparation for conflict with India in 1999 without the knowledge of the Pakistani prime minister, according to a former senior White House adviser (see GSN, March 19).
The military mobilized the arsenal as the Indian army pushed Pakistani forces back across the line of control dividing Kashmir, and then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif flew to Washington to ask for U.S. intervention, according to Bruce Riedel, a senior adviser to former U.S. President Bill Clinton. Riedel’s comments are to appear in a paper to be published by the University of Pennsylvania, according to the London Times.
Clinton asked Sharif whether he knew his military was preparing its missiles, and Sharif agreed a nuclear strike would be a catastrophe, according to Riedel.
Intelligence experts told Riedel at the time that a Pakistani nuclear strike on Bombay would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 people (Bhatia/Walker, London Times, May 12).
India Celebrates Nuclear Test Anniversary
Meanwhile, the Indian ruling National Democratic Alliance congratulated the Indian people on the fourth anniversary of India’s 1998 nuclear weapons tests in a resolution passed Saturday (see GSN, Feb. 15).
“Four years ago, on this day, India conducted nuclear tests which not only proved the expertise of our scientists but also the firm determination of the Vajpayee government to protect the interests of the nation in spite of world pressure,” the resolution said.
India conducted underground nuclear tests on May 11, 1998, and Pakistan followed with tests within a month (Agence France-Presse, May 11).
By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — As the United States prepares to send an envoy to North Korea, a longtime regional analyst said Friday that Bush administration policies are increasing military dangers in the region and could even lead to war (see GSN, April 30).
“I’m not optimistic … but I do think there are ways to deal with” U.S.-North Korean tensions, said Selig Harrison in remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Harrison, a senior researcher at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Center for International Policy, spoke at Carnegie to launch his new book, Korean Endgame: A Strategy for Reunification and U.S. Disengagement.
North Korea is prepared to negotiate a solution to U.S. concerns regarding missile proliferation and nuclear weapons development, Harrison said, citing various North Korean leaders and diplomats.
It would cost the United States little to persuade North Korea to stop transferring missiles and missile technology — and a higher price to end all development of nuclear weapons — but the Bush administration refuses to pay any price, Harrison said. Any resumption of talks will not matter if U.S. leaders do not change their intractable attitude (see GSN, May 3).
“If we won’t give, they won’t give,” he said.
North Korea sees the United States as a threat and is afraid of a U.S. military strike — which is key to understanding North Korean policies, Harrison said. U.S. President George W. Bush’s January speech labeling North Korea as part of an “axis of evil” was counterproductive to U.S. interests because it further convinced North Korea that the United States poses a threat, he said (see GSN, Feb. 11).
Give a Little, Take a Little
The United States and North Korea are entering into a dangerous phase similar to the crisis that preceded the signing of the 1994 Agreed Framework — in which North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons program in exchange for two light-water nuclear power reactors, Harrison said (see GSN, April 10). In the 1990s crisis, the United States had demanded that North Korea allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of nuclear facilities. Now the United States is demanding the country allow even broader IAEA inspections, he said.
Instead of demanding North Korean concessions without offering anything in return, the United States should synchronize its concessions with North Korean concessions, Harrison said. The United States wants nuclear inspections and an end to missile proliferation. In turn, it should offer some of what North Korea wants — mostly food and energy assistance, he said.
Harrison offered several proposals for changing Bush policy to improve stability on the Korean peninsula, including reaching an agreement on missile transfers, working to continue the North Korean missile test moratorium and introducing step-by-step nuclear inspections.
First Priority: Missile Exports
The first priority must be negotiating an agreement to end North Korea’s sale of missiles and missile technology to other countries, he said. It should be first on the agenda partly because it is the easiest agreement to reach and has a history of negotiations behind it.
The United States could offer “in kind” compensation for loss of revenue from selling missiles and technology abroad, rather than provide cash — something North Korea has demanded before, Harrison said (see GSN, Feb. 21). Food and energy aid in exchange for an end to missile exports would be a possible solution, he said.
Missile Test Moratorium
Meanwhile, the United States must bring North Korea into a process of dialogue, or else officials are likely to resume missile tests, Harrison said.
North Korea instituted a voluntary moratorium on long-range missile tests in 1999, Harrison said. The moratorium was to last at least until 2003 with the provision that U.S.-North Korean relations would continue to improve, but the Bush administration has taken a hostile tone and failed to state normalizing relations as one of its goals, Harrison said (see GSN, Jan. 15). The Bush administration is “demonizing and goading” North Korea, he said.
Nuclear Inspections
According to the 1994 framework, the IAEA must conduct inspections when a significant portion of the reactors is complete but before key nuclear components are delivered, and those inspections are not happening, Harrison said. The Bush administration, however, insists North Korea allow more expansive inspections than the agreement requires and also wants the IAEA inspections to begin immediately, he said (see GSN, April 17).
North Korea is unlikely to accept immediate IAEA inspections because the construction of the reactors is far behind schedule, Harrison said. The Agreed Framework called for both reactors to be constructed by 2003.
Current estimates, however, predict that if North Korea and the other parties involved in the reactor construction implement all their steps, the first reactor should be complete in late 2008 and the second by late 2009, said Marc Vogelaar, spokesman for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, the consortium responsible for building the reactors.
Meanwhile, North Korea faces a severe energy crisis. If the United States offered more food and energy aid, North Korea would probably allow a few more specific IAEA inspections, Harrison said.
Step-by-Step
The disagreement over inspections could lead to a serious escalation between North Korea and the United States, Harrison said, suggesting that instead of insisting on immediate inspections, the United States should offer a “stage-by-stage” inspection system directly linked to progress in constructing the nuclear reactors.
Under such an arrangement, North Korea would agree to accept certain inspections when the U.S.-led organization constructing the reactors completes a specific part of the project (see GSN, May 6).
Harrison said he has presented the proposal to the Bush administration and North Korean leaders. The North Korean foreign minister told him the idea is interesting but does not really matter since construction on the reactors has barely begun.
KEDO began excavating the reactor site in September and plans to begin pouring concrete in August, Vogelaar said, but he said the organization has completed construction of the necessary auxiliary facilities, including a harbor and “a whole village” for thousands of workers. The actual construction of the reactors is the “cherry on the cake,” he said.
The IAEA inspectors must be allowed to conduct inspections, but it is unrealistic to believe North Korea will accept such inspections without reciprocal concessions from the United States, Harrison said.
Nuclear Japan?
If the United States refuses to pay a price for North Korean concessions on missiles and nuclear weapons, then North Korea could become a nuclear weapons state, Harrison said. One of the primary reasons a nuclear-capable North Korea would be antithetical to U.S. interests is that in exchange, Japan would probably go nuclear, too, he said.
Japan has the ability to create nuclear weapons, and there are right wing Japanese leaders who want them, Harrison said (see GSN, April 8). If North Korea develops nuclear weapons, it will provide support to advocates of a Japanese nuclear weapons program, he said.
An Israeli who exposed information about Israel’s nuclear program appeared in court today requesting that secret documents from his trial be made public and asking for permission to meet with his British attorneys.
Mordechai Vanunu, serving an 18-year prison sentence for treason in Israel, has spent several years in solitary confinement. Israeli authorities recently allowed him to spend outdoor recesses with other prisoners.
No decision was made today in the Supreme Court hearing, which mostly involved a ruling that Vanunu cannot access the protocols of his trial, said Avigdor Feldman, Vanunu’s Israeli attorney.
“The decision is absurd. The trial is about him. He was the defendant in the trial. Just as he was present at the trial, he should be allowed to read the protocols,” Feldman told Israel Army Radio.
Israel sentenced Vanunu, a former nuclear technician, in 1988 for giving pictures of Israel’s nuclear reactor near Dimona to the London Sunday Times. Israel has never confirmed it has nuclear weapons, but experts said Vanunu’s pictures provided evidence that the country had the world’s sixth-largest nuclear weapons stockpile (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2001). The CIA more recently estimated that Israel has between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons.
Public debate (see GSN, Jan. 16) in Israel over the policy of nuclear ambiguity has increased in recent years (Associated Press/Jerusalem Post, May 13).
| 
Back to top
