International Response:  G-8 to Assess Progress on Preventing WMD Spread

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — How the world’s richest countries are progressing in preventing terrorists from getting materials for weapons of mass destruction will be one of the topics on the agenda when the heads of state of the Group of Eight industrialized states meet June 1-3 in Evian, France.

At its June 2002 summit in Kananaskis, Canada, the G-8 agreed to establish a Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction and on six principles to prevent terrorists from getting weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, June 28, 2002).  Zacharie Gross, the desk officer for nuclear disarmament issues in the French Foreign Ministry, said yesterday that in the year since the Global Partnership was launched, there has been “a common realization that this is a threat to all of us.”

Before this, Gross told Global Security Newswire, it was mostly “a small number of countries, in this case nuclear weapons states,” such the United States and France, that were working with Russia.  But after Kananaskis, more countries, with different views on nuclear weapons and nuclear power, are getting involved.  The Global Partnership has created “a level playing field for all interested actors to work efficiently,” Gross said.

The Global Partnership specified Russia as the initial focus of its work.  “Among our priority concerns are the destruction of chemical weapons, the dismantlement of decommissioned nuclear submarines, the disposition of fissile materials and the employment of former weapons scientists,” the Kananaskis statement said.

In announcing the partnership, the G-8 also pledged to raise $20 billion to support its projects over the next 10 years.  Gross said $18 billion has been pledged, with more than $1 billion on hand for use this year.  Countries outside of the G-8, such as Norway and Switzerland, have contributed funds, he added.

Gross said the work could expand beyond Russia. Ukraine has expressed interest “in benefiting from this program,” Gross said, and the G-8 could pursue this in the second half of this year.  He said he had no information concerning what types of projects Ukraine might have in mind.

In the year since the agreement was reached, Gross said, there have been both negative and positive trends.  One development is “a trend of growing awareness,” he said.  “Kananaskis was an important moment for the international community, world leaders and opinion makers ... to realize that this is an issue for the whole world, not only for some regions.”

On the other hand, “You have worrying trends of proliferation,” Gross said, citing the situation in North Korea and “concerns and preoccupations about what is going on in Iran.”  The United States, the United Kingdom and France have said elements of Iran’s nuclear program are more consistent with a drive for nuclear weapons than with nuclear power generation.

The war in Iraq, undertaken with the express purpose of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was divisive within the G-8 but is not having “any sort of concrete effects” on the Kananaskis agreement, Gross said.  “We see it [the Kananaskis principles] as an alternative to coercion; it is acting preventively,” he said.  “It also complements the normative approach of international agreements and multilateral treaties.  You need to have all the tools available and use them as efficiently as possible.  The cooperative approach is obviously one of the most welcomed and promising.”

The six principles “to prevent terrorists, or those that harbor them, from gaining access to weapons or materials of mass destruction” are strengthening multilateral treaties in these fields; developing measures “to account for and secure” such materials; developing measures to protect “facilities which house such items”; developing international cooperation to “deter and interdict ... illicit trafficking in such items”; maintaining effective export controls on materials that might be useful for producing weapons of mass destruction; and adopting measures to “manage and dispose” of stocks of nuclear chemical materials that are no longer needed, “based on the recognition that the threat of terrorist acquisition is reduced as the overall quantity of such items is reduced.”

While many of the points covered in the principles are not new, presenting them “as a coherent package is new,” Gross said.  “We have been pursuing outreach activities to get a maximum number of countries to subscribe to these principles,” he said.

French Foreign Ministry officials last week briefed diplomats attending the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty meeting here on the Kananaskis principles.

Back to top

Iraq:  Bush Administration to Allow IAEA Inspectors to Return Eventually

The United States will permit International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to return to Iraq at some point to verify Iraq’s compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, according to a diplomat cited by Reuters today (see GSN, May 6).

“There is no question that inspectors from the IAEA will eventually go back to Iraq,” said the diplomat.  “They are the guardians of the NPT,” the diplomat added.

The diplomat did not say precisely when the United States would allow IAEA inspectors to return to Iraq, but did say it was apparent that the United States envisioned the IAEA playing a “long-term role in Iraq.”

The diplomat did not address to the possible return of other inspectors from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which was reponsible before the recent war for investigating Iraq’s suspected chemical, biological and missile programs (Reuters/MSNBC.com, May 7).

A U.S. military team searching for evidence of Iraq’s past WMD efforts has found information that might shed some light on Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program, according to the New York Times.

During a search of a Baghdad building yesterday, soldiers from Mobile Exploitation Team (MET) Alpha found a “top secret” intelligence memo that describes an offer made by Islamic militants to sell nuclear materials to Iraq, the Times reported.  The memo, dated May 20, 2001, was prepared by an Iraqi intelligence station chief in an African country and detailed an offer made by a “holy warrior” to sell uranium and other nuclear materials.  While the offer was rejected at the time because of the “sanctions situation,” the source was eager to provide aid at a more opportune time, according to the memo (Judith Miller, New York Times, May 6).

Biological Weapons

Meanwhile, the U.S. Defense Department is expected to announce today the results of a two-week investigation of a suspected mobile biological laboratory that was recovered in Northern Iraq, a senior Bush administration official said.

Equipment found inside the truck included a fermenter attached to the floor that could be used to produce biological agents, the official said.  The truck appears to be similar to one of the mobile biological laboratories Secretary of State Colin Powell described to the U.N. Security Council during a Feb. 5 presentation on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, a senior administration official said (see GSN, Feb. 5).

The truck and its equipment had been previously cleaned with bleach, resulting in no finds of any actual agents, the official said.  Intelligence analysts, however, have determined that “there doesn’t seem to be any legitimate use for it, other than as a biolab,” the official added (Pincus/Dobbs, Washington Post, May 7).

Sanctions

Germany has agreed to support a Security Council resolution being prepared by the United States that would lift sanctions against Iraq, according to USA Today.  Germany does not plan to insist on “strict linkage” between the new resolution and evidence that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction, a senior German official said (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, May 7).

Back to top

International Response:  IAEA Chief Offers Steps to Nonproliferation

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, in a Le Monde commentary this week, outlined steps “urgently required” if countries still intend to “try to combat the spread of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] through a collective, rule-based system of international security.”

Even as “nuclear weapons have continued to have a position of prominence as the currency of ultimate power,” ElBaradei wrote, “the objectives embodied in the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons ... are under growing stress.”

Among indicators of such stress, ElBaradei cited continued, acknowledged possession of nuclear weapons by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as Pakistani and Indian demonstrations of nuclear capability.  He said Israel “is generally presumed” to have nuclear weapons and that North Korea, which has repudiated the treaty, “is suspected of working to acquire” them, adding that poorer countries have sought biological and chemical weapons and that “subnational groups” could follow suit.

“Faced with this reality, must we conclude that it is futile to try to combat the spread of WMD through a collective, rule-based system of international security — and that we have to acquiesce to living in a world plagued with the constant threat of a nuclear holocaust or other disasters?”  ElBaradei asked.  “I do not believe so.  But reliance on a system of collective security to curb the proliferation of WMD will require bold thinking, a willingness to work together and sustained effort.”

The director general called for modernizing collective security via the United Nations “in terms of both preventive diplomacy and enforcement action.”  He recommended a change in Security Council membership “to include the major political and economic powers in today’s world”; “new working concepts, tools and methods”; early intervention mechanisms; the development of sanctions “that target governments rather than the governed”; limits on veto power; and a broadening of the council’s “definition of what situations ‘constitute a threat to international peace and security’ to cover efforts to acquire WMD, as well as the brutal suppression of human rights.”

ElBaradei’s other recommendations were an end to “pre-emptive strikes,” steps to “delegitimize the acquisition or use of WMD,” “a comprehensive regime to ensure that WMD and their components will not fall into the hands of terrorists,” decisive action on “chronic disputes that create the greatest incentives for acquiring WMD” and a collective effort to “address global sources of insecurity and instability” — including by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, improving governance and addressing the “increasingly perceived schisms between cultures and civilizations” (IAEA release, May 5).

Back to top

Iran:  IAEA Hears Iranian Defense of Nuclear Program

Reza Aghazadeh, president of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, briefed a closed meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna yesterday in an effort to deflect allegations of a secret Iranian nuclear weapon program (see GSN, May 6).

The United States has repeatedly accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons and U.S. officials are expected to press the IAEA to find Tehran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

“We are reaching a point where it is going to be difficult for Iran to prove that it is meeting its obligations under the” treaty, said a high-ranking U.S. official.  “We are hoping that a vote in June … will find them in violation,” the official added.

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton has pointed to gas centrifuges as evidence of Iran’s advanced nuclear capability (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002).

“We think … the overall clandestine way Iran has carried out this activity demonstrates why Iran is in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its safeguards agreement with the IAEA,” Bolton said.

A Western diplomat who heard Aghazadeh’s speech said the situation was concerning.

“It was a skillful performance,” said the diplomat.  “They tried to give the image of transparency without providing substance about their nuclear program.  We think they are hiding things,” the diplomat added.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov said, however, that the United States needs strong evidence to bring its allegations to the IAEA.

“For someone to be accused, one needs very hard proof.  So far there is no such proof either in the U.S.A. or in other countries,” he said (Geneive Abdo, Boston Globe, May 7).

During his presentation, Aghazadeh said that Tehran’s program was “only for peaceful purposes,” according to another diplomat present at the meeting (Associated Press/Raleigh News and Observer, May 6).

Back to top

North Korea I:  Washington Considers New Approach

The White House is considering adopting a policy toward North Korea that would combine new talks to resolve the conflict over Pyongyang’s relaunched nuclear program with increasing pressure by targeting North Korea’s illicit trade and ballistic missile sales, U.S. and Asian officials said yesterday (see GSN, May 6).

The new approach, which is expected to be further developed today during a meeting of U.S. President George W. Bush’s top foreign policy advisers, helps create a compromise between those who supported further talks with North Korea and those calling for a stronger approach, according to the Washington Post. 

“We signed up for the hard side in order to get the soft side,” said an official who favored further discussions.  “Some people only want the hard side,” the official said.

As part of the new approach, the Bush administration plans to insist that any new talks with North Korea include Japan and South Korea, in addition to China, officials said.  Such talks will also include the prospect of a policy that would “tighten the screws” on North Korea’s illicit trade activities, two officials said.

There is still debate within the White House as to how much the United States and its allies should begin to pressure North Korea, including whether to threaten new actions or to slowly begin them, officials said.  The Bush administration could also outline a progression of measures, such as first targeting illicit trade that finances Pyongyang and then moving against North Korea’s legal ballistic missile trade, the Post reported.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence analysts within the past 48 hours have detected increasing signs that North Korea has begun reprocessing its stockpile of 8,000 spent fuel rods to obtain plutonium, U.S. sources said yesterday.  During a series of talks with the United States and China in Beijing last month, North Korea claimed it had already begun reprocessing its spent fuel rods, but no signs of such activity had been detected until now (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, May 7).

Back to top

North Korea II:  Gallucci Says Nuclear Export Should Trigger U.S. Force

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — If North Korea attempts to sell nuclear weapons the United States should take military action, former U.S. diplomatic envoy Robert Gallucci said today (see GSN, May 6).

The United States should attempt to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the current nuclear crisis with North Korea, but nuclear proliferation is a line that Pyongyang should not be allowed to cross, according to Gallucci, the chief U.S. negotiator of the 1994 Agreed Framework that froze North Korea’s nuclear development program (see GSN, Feb. 27).

“Transfer [of nuclear materials] is the redline” for military force, Gallucci said.

During negotiations in Beijing two weeks ago, North Korea reportedly demanded steep economic and diplomatic concessions in exchange for dismantling its nuclear and missile development programs.  North Korean negotiators also told Assistant U.S. Secretary of State James Kelly that they had nuclear weapons and might test them or export them, depending on U.S. actions, according to reports.

Negotiations “start with extreme positions,” said Gallucci, now the dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.  Washington should pursue a diplomatic resolution to the standoff, but it would be “unacceptable” for nuclear weapons to be transferred to terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, he said.

U.S. officials, including U.S. President George W. Bush, have said they support a diplomatic resolution and a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula but Washington has not eliminated the possibility of a military strike.

In support of a diplomatic solution, Gallucci also said it would be hard to detect the export of a baseball-sized piece of plutonium.

“I don’t know how we can see that coming,” he said, adding that Washington should “deal with the problem long before it gets to that.”

Back to top

South Asia:  Pakistan Offers to Restore Ties With India

Following a similar move by India, Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said yesterday that his country would reopen air, road and rail links with India (see GSN, May 6).

Jamali announced plans for several new measures yesterday designed to help improve relations with India, including the release of Indian fishermen who had been detained after entering Pakistani waters, the return of both countries’ embassies to full staff and the resumption of cricket and field hockey matches between the two countries.  Both India and Pakistan have said their gestures could help lead to talks later this year to help resolve the status of the disputed Kashmir region.

“It is my hope that India will seize the moment, put aside the acrimony of the past and purposefully move forward with Pakistan to peacefully resolve all issues, including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir,” Jamali said (John Lancaster, Washington Post, May 7).

Jamali said he favored a tiered approach to negotiations with India, concluding with a bilateral summit between the countries’ leaders (Associated Press/USA Today, May 7).

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan praised the moves, a spokesman said yesterday.

“The secretary general warmly welcomes the series of reciprocal steps India and Pakistan have recently taken to ease tensions and improve bilateral relations,” the spokesman said in a press statement.  “He hopes that these steps … will lead to the strengthening of peace and stability in the entire South Asian region,” the spokesman added (U.N. release, May 6).

India, however, has rejected Pakistan’s offer, calling it “completely inadequate” because it does not address the issue of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, according to wire services.

Pakistan is attempting through its offer to return to a situation that existed between the two countries before a Dec. 13, 2001, attack on the Indian Parliament that India has claimed was supported by Pakistan, an official Indian source said. 

“Pakistan has tried to go back to the pre-Dec. 13 position without doing something tangible on cross-border terrorism,” the source said.  “This is an indication of a mindset which is not very positive,” the source added (Straits Times, May 7).

Senior Indian and Pakistani officials have warned that the chance of war between the two nuclear-armed rivals could dramatically increase if negotiations fail.

“The most dangerous moment is always when high expectations are dashed,” an Indian politician said (Edward Luce, Financial Times, May 6).

The United States yesterday called on India and Pakistan to exercise caution as they worked to improve relations.

“Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.  “Certainly there’s a lot of good things going on and we welcome that, we’ve encouraged that, we’re working with them on that.  But there’s certainly more things to do and more things that we’ll be talking to them about,” he said. 

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is expected to arrive in the region today for talks with both Pakistani and Indian officials.  During the talks, the U.S. delegation plans to focus on the issue of Kashmir, diplomatic sources said.  The United States plans to call on Pakistan to improve relations with India before attempting to seek a solution on the Kashmir issue, according to the sources.  The United States also plans to tell India that while it will call on Pakistan to end its support for cross-border terrorism, it also will not allow India to conduct a pre-emptive attack on Pakistan (Anwar Iqbal, United Press International, May 7).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Senior Russian Lawmaker Predicts Strong Support for Moscow Treaty

A senior Russian lawmaker said yesterday that he expected the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty to receive strong support when the lower house of the Russian Parliament debates its ratification next week (see GSN, May 5).

Konstantin Kosachyov, deputy chairman of the State Duma International Affairs Committee, said he expected the treaty to receive at least 260 votes.  At least 226 votes are needed for the treaty to be approved (RosBusinessConsulting Database, May 7).

Back to top

United States:  Air Force Considering Modifying Some Minuteman 3 ICBMs

The U.S. Air Force Space Command is considering enhancing the capabilities of a small number of Minuteman 3 ICBMs, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported this week (see GSN, June 11, 2002).

The Minuteman 3 Elite program would modify a small number of the 500 Minuteman 3 ICBMs in the U.S. arsenal, said an Air Force official.  Such modifications could include adding GPS navigation technology to the missile’s guidance system, extending the missile’s range or modifying the ability to adjust warhead effects, according to Aviation Week.  Such enhancements would be available in less than five years from the start of the program, which supporters say could be in 2006 (Robert Wall, Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 5).

Back to top

Smallpox:  U.S. Military Immunizes More Than 400,000; Civilians 34,000

The U.S. Defense Department has immunized more than 400,000 military personnel, the Pentagon announced today (see GSN, May 6).

Assistant Secretary of Defense William Winkenwerder said the program has had lower rates of complications than occurred historically with smallpox vaccinations.

“We believe the program has been a real success and our experience would support that conclusion,” Winkenwerder said (U.S. Defense Department release, May 7).

Meanwhile, the civilian smallpox immunization program has immunized fewer than 35,000 volunteers as of April 25 (see chart below; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention release, May 2).

State / City	Number of Immunizations
Alabama	451
Alaska	94
Arizona	39
Arkansas	976
California	1,425
Chicago	50
Colorado	224
Connecticut	598
Delaware	107
Florida	3,555
Georgia	134
Hawaii	173
Idaho	197
Illinois	148
Indiana	765
Iowa	475
Kansas	447
Kentucky	741
Los Angeles County	212
Louisiana	1,106
Maine	39
Maryland	693
Massachusetts	77
Michigan	625
Minnesota	1,471
Mississippi	404
Missouri	1,253
Montana	89
Nebraska	1,388
Nevada	0
New Hampshire	275
New Jersey	657
New Mexico	130
New York City	232
New York	528
North Carolina	1,209
North Dakota	402
Ohio	1,721
Oklahoma	298
Oregon	79
Pennsylvania	93
Puerto Rico	7
Rhode Island	22
South Carolina	811
South Dakota	730
Tennessee	2,429
Texas	3,450
Utah	256
Vermont	83
Virginia	760
Washington	446
Washington D.C.	75
West Virginia	734
Wisconsin	754
Wyoming	404
TOTAL	34,541

Back to top

CWC:  United States Will Miss 2007 Treaty Deadline, Group Says

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Even as U.S. officials and legislators chide Russia for straying from a Chemical Weapons Convention deadline to destroy its chemical weapons, an international nongovernmental organization has charged that the United States will do the same.

The treaty requires all parties to destroy their entire chemical weapons stocks by 2007, but allows parties to request extensions that would not go beyond 2012.

Paul Walker, director of Global Green USA’s Legacy Program, said it is possible neither the United States or Russia would even meet the extended deadline for destroying their chemical weapons.

“There is not a snowball’s chance in hell” the United States will meet the treaty’s 2007 goal and, “We’re going to have a hard time meeting 2012,” he said.  The United States has not sought an extension so far, but Russia has made clear that it will need one (see GSN, Oct. 9, 2002).

Walker said Russia was even more certain than the United States to miss the 2012 deadline (see GSN, Nov. 11, 2002).

He made the charges last week at the treaty’s first five-year review conference in The Hague.  U.S. officials there have not responded to requests for comment.

As evidence of Walker’s charges, his colleague Stephen Robinson, a Green Cross International program coordinator in Switzerland, cited a 2001 Congressional Research Service assessment of an internal U.S. Army report.

The Army report, according to the Congressional Research Service, demonstrated significant delays at all U.S. chemical weapons destruction sites. 

The Army responded at the time that the report was reflecting a “worst-case scenario,” and last week U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker told the treaty conference that U.S. destruction efforts were on schedule.

“Since entry into force, we have met every treaty milestone, and to date have destroyed over 22 percent of our stockpile,” he said.

Citing Army documents in 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported that the destruction program would probably go past the 2007 deadline and result in a cost increase from a projected $15 billion to $24 billion.

A Complex Task

Walker attributed the projected delays in part to inherent difficulties in destroying the estimated 31,000-ton U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons agents.

“I think the issue is … the fact that even though the United States is pressing ahead with over $1 billion funding every year for our program, the programs remain susceptible to political winds and technical crises which are to some extent unpredictable,” he said.

He said the Army’s decision in the 1980s to incinerate its chemical weapons was also a problem.  Community concerns about the safety of the method prompted lawsuits that held up site construction, and congressional legislation has stalled construction at two sites in Pueblo, Colo., and Richmond, Ky., he said. 

“I think it was a big mistake a couple of years ago to put all of our eggs in the incinerator basket,” he said.

U.S. Facilities in Different Stages of Operation

The Army was forced to abandon incineration plans for the sites at Pueblo, Richmond, Aberdeen, Md. (see GSN, Dec. 11, 2002), and Newport, Ind. (see GSN, Nov. 19, 2002).  Nonincineration facilities have since been constructed at Aberdeen and Newport and formal decisions are pending on what destruction technology to use at the Pueblo and Richmond sites (see GSN, July 25, 2002).

The Army’s use of incinerators at Umatilla, Ore. (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002), Anniston, Ala. (see GSN, March 3), and Tooele, Utah (see GSN, April 29), meanwhile, has proven technologically challenging, with glitches stalling operations over the past year, Walker said.

Umatilla has been unable to begin incineration because it has not met Environmental Protection Agency requirements, he said.

While incineration was considered to be the most mature technology for chemical demilitarization in the 1980s, he said “the technology is so complicated, and so difficult to manage and maintain, that what we’re finding is it has become fairly problematic to operate.”

A fourth incinerator in Pine Bluff, Ark., is still being prepared (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2002).

In 2000, the Army completed destroying 400,000 munitions containing VX, mustard and sarin, and 2,031 tons of mustard agent at an incineration facility on Johnston Atoll, a Pacific island.  The shutdown of that facility is currently underway following a significant cleanup (see GSN, April 30).  The island also was used for nuclear testing in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Destruction a Concern

While noting U.S. progress last week, Stephen Rademaker told the review conference that “destruction of chemical weapons, on the whole, is not proceeding at the rate foreseen in the convention, and this lack of progress must concern us all.”

He pointed to Russia: “While we welcome the recent beginning of destruction operations at Gorny in the Russian Federation, destruction of the Russian stockpile remains a significant challenge” (see GSN, April 28).

For further information, see:

CWC Text

OPCW Main Page

CWC States Parties

Pentagon Executive Summary of CWC

Back to top

Israel:  Former Defense Ministry Official Warns of Continued Missile Threats

Despite the victory of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, Israel still faces ballistic missile threats from other Middle Eastern countries and it needs to expand its missile defenses, Uzi Rubin, a former Israeli Defense Ministry official, said last week (see GSN, April 15).

Rubin highlighted the growing missile threats posed by several countries, particularly Iran.

“Iran has passed the point of no return,” Rubin said during a breakfast sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation.  “Their missiles will be developed and deployed.  Even a change in regime will not stop them,” he said.

These continued threats make it important for Israel to maintain and improve its missile defense capabilities, according to Rubin.  He praised the performance of the Israeli-built Arrow missile interceptor and the U.S.-built Patriot 2 missile interceptor during the recent war with Iraq.  More Arrow and Patriot batteries, however, are needed, Rubin said.

“We need to look at our assets … we need more battery assets,” Rubin said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, May 2).

Back to top