Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has agreed to a one-day visit to Iran for discussions on the controversy over Tehran’s nuclear development, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, June 30).
“Mohamed ElBaradei will arrive in Tehran on an official visit on July 9,” said Iranian atomic energy agency spokesman Seyed Khalil Mousavi (Agence France-Presse, July 1).
The IAEA confirmed that ElBaradei is planning to visit, but said that no date has been agreed on (Parisa Hafezi, Reuters, July 1).
The visit is in response to an Iranian invitation “to discuss the implementation of nuclear safeguards,” according to a statement from the agency.
Iran’s nuclear chief, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, visited Moscow yesterday and that his country’s nuclear cooperation with Russia was in line with international law and “rather transparent.”
“Nuclear ties between Russia and Iran have bright horizons,” Aghazadeh said during a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov (George Jahn, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 1).
Moscow’s Foreign Ministry said that Russian officials urged Tehran to sign the Additional Protocol to allow more intrusive IAEA monitoring of Iranian nuclear activities (Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times, July 1).
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in Tehran for talks yesterday, said Iran must “unconditionally and quickly” sign the protocol. Iranian officials did not agree to further inspections, but Hassan Rowhani, head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Straw that Tehran invited ElBaradei to clear up “technical problems” over international inspections (Azadeh Moaveni, Los Angeles Times, July 1).
Japan Oil Contract Delayed
Japan, meanwhile, apparently gave in to U.S. pressure to delay an imminent oil contract with Iran, Reuters reported today. The $2 billion agreement to develop Azadegan — one of the world’s largest untapped oil fields — was due to be signed soon.
“Crude oil is very important for Japan, but on the other hand, the nuclear development issue has turned into a big international concern,” said Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda. “We will make a final decision looking at future developments,” he added (Reuters/PlanetArk, July 1).
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — For the first time in decades, the Russian Navy sent no strategic missile submarines on patrol last year, according to data released by U.S. naval intelligence.
Likely explanations include low funding, safety concerns and a view in Moscow that the United States no longer poses a strategic threat warranting the patrols, analysts say.
“Why bust a gut to get your subs out to sea if finances aren’t there, if there are particular safety considerations, if there is not a particular threat you are trying to deter with your sub patrols?” said Joshua Handler, a former Princeton University researcher.
Peter Huessy of the U.S. National Defense University Foundation said the figures suggest Moscow “can’t very well be worried about us attacking them.”
“Would you keep all your subs in port if you were worried about being attacked?” he said.
However, Hans Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the exact cause remains uncertain.
“What’s unclear, obviously, is whether this is something that reflects a decision, or whether they are being forced to do this because of technical problems or prioritization,” he said.
“They could have decided that these things are just not the priority anymore,” said Kristensen, who obtained the latest figures from the Office of Naval Intelligence through the Freedom of Information Act and recently published them in the July/August issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Downward Trends
Combining the new information with earlier data collected by Handler, Kristensen said the number of Russian strategic submarine patrols decreased since the end of the Cold War from 37 in 1991 to 13 in 1997, and to none in 2002.
The number of attack and cruise missile submarine patrols also decreased from 18 in 1991 to 13 in 1997, and to one in 2001 and three last year.
The trends follow a decrease in the operational availability of Russian strategic submarines, according to Kristensen. Russia currently has 14 operational nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, down from 62 in 1990, he writes in the Bulletin.
The Bulletin says Russian ballistic missile submarines did participate in exercises last October that involved intercontinental ballistic missile, cruise missile and antiballistic missile tests (see GSN, Oct. 25, 2002).
“But that is qualitatively different from disappearing for a month or two under the Arctic ice pack,” Handler said.
Kristensen said Russian submarines have the capability of launching from port, but said that option is not ideal.
“They can’t hit all the targets they want to hit from port. And also they are very well vulnerable obviously when they lie there,” he said.
Handler said the Russians might put submarines on patrols if they felt it was essential for security.
“Sure, they don’t have the money, and the subs might be a little bit more unsafe than ours, but they obviously do not feel their national security is collapsing by virtue of having no sub patrols,” he said.
The patrol estimates come amid signs of decreasing strategic tensions between the United States and Russia, but the Russian patrol reductions have not been mirrored by the United States.
Kristensen said the United States deploys 14 strategic submarines, which perform an average of 3 1/2 patrols per year, each lasting about 70 days followed by in-port maintenance and training.
Hair-Trigger Concerns
A recently released RAND study suggested that deteriorating Russian strategic capabilities might increase the risk of a U.S.-Russian nuclear confrontation.
It concluded that Russia’s shrinking strategic forces and weak early warning system are increasing the U.S. strategic superiority, prompting Russia to keep its mostly land-based forces on high alert, possibly increasing the likelihood of an accidental or unauthorized launch (see GSN, May 22).
The study said financial reasons, as well as U.S. submarine tracking abilities, have led Russia to operate its strategic submarines close to Russian waters.
It recommended keeping U.S. strategic missile and attack submarines away from Russia, saying the strategic submarines enable the United States to strike Russia in as little as 10 to 15 minutes.
The Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, announced in January 2002, indicated that the United States intends to keep its strategic triad of bombers, submarines and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles in operation, but four Trident ballistic missile submarines will be removed from strategic service and nearly 4,000 sea-, land- and air-launched strategic warheads will be removed from their delivery platforms.
Citing improving Russian relations, the review set a goal of taking all but 2,200 of its 6,000 deployed strategic warheads off their delivery platforms by 2012. The policy was codified in the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which entered into force one month ago (see GSN, June 2).
Russia relies principally on its land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles for deterrence, Kristensen said. He said U.S.-Russian abandonment of the never-implemented START II Treaty in favor of the new treaty has enabled Russia to continue to deploy the bulk of its strategic forces on multiple-warhead ICBMS.
North Korea may be developing small nuclear warheads to arm missiles aimed at Tokyo and U.S. forces in Japan, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, June 30).
The information is contained in a recent intelligence assessment that Washington has passed along to Japan, South Korea and other allies. U.S. satellites have identified a nuclear testing facility at a North Korean site called Youngdoktong, according to CIA officials. The site has equipment to explode conventional explosives that could compress a plutonium core to initiate a nuclear explosion.
The compact weapons could be developed in under a year, according to the assessment. Intelligence officials warned, however, that the timeline is based on “a best guess rather than a solid estimate.”
White House officials are also concerned that North Korea is building five or six potentially miniature nuclear weapons, the Times reported.
“This would give them the range they never had before and the chance to spread their threat far beyond South Korea,” said a senior Asian official (David Sanger, New York Times, July 1).
U.S. Wants KEDO Project Halted
Washington does not want the Korean Energy Development Organization to continue to build nuclear reactors in North Korea while the nuclear standoff continues, KEDO Executive Director Charles Kartman told South Korean officials yesterday.
“He said that the nuclear crisis is closely linked to the light-water reactor project,” said Wi Sung-lac, director general of North American affairs at the Foreign Ministry. “He said the North’s acceptance of the multilateral talks … would help deal with the light-water reactor project,” Wi added (Seo Soo-min, Korea Times, July 1).
Militarizing South Korea
The United States has recently sent $11 billion in military equipment to South Korea, the Christian Science Monitor reported today.
“This is a great deal of new military equipment,” said Seongho Sheen, a research fellow with the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu. “Although the U.S. government has repeatedly said it has no intention of attacking, from the North Korean perspective it looks like the U.S. is preparing for war,” Sheen added.
The equipment includes Patriot missile defense systems and precision-guided munitions (Robert Marquand, Christian Science Monitor, July 1).
By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — A plan to defuse the nuclear standoff on the Korean Peninsula received support from Congress today but criticism from the State Department (see GSN, June 30).
Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) yesterday publicly released his two-stage, 10-point plan. He has already presented the plan to U.S. and U.N. officials in Washington and to North Korean officials during a visit to Pyongyang at the end of May.
“Very solid, it has a great foundation,” said Representative Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas), who was part of the congressional trip to Pyongyang. Ortiz said he believes the plan had a good chance of succeeding, and he encouraged the State Department to use it to open dialogue with North Korea.
“We should be trying to negotiate from a position of strength, which we have,” he said.
North Korean officials have publicly announced they are developing nuclear weapons and privately told the United States that they already have them.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher would not directly discuss the merit of Weldon’s plan yesterday, but he appeared to dismiss it when he said that Washington will not pay North Korea to end its nuclear weapons program. As part of the first phase, Weldon said U.S. allies should provide up to $5 billion in annual aid if North Korea is willing to renounce its nuclear weapons program and allow inspections of its nuclear activities. The plan calls for most of the money to come from Japan and South Korea.
“We have made very, very clear our position. We are not going to pay to get the North Koreans not to do something that they shouldn’t have been doing to begin with,” Boucher said.
Weldon’s plan also calls for a one-year nonaggression treaty as part of the first stage. If North Korea meets its obligations, the nonaggression treaty would become permanent and Pyongyang’s nuclear infrastructure would be dismantled within two years, according to the plan. The plan also calls for diplomatic overtures from both sides.
Boucher refused to comment on the idea of a nonaggression pact.
Ortiz said that he does not see the aid to North Korea as a payoff to end nuclear weapons development.
“I see this as avoiding a war,” he said.
France is donating more than $46 million to a fund that addresses hazards from the deteriorating Russian nuclear fleet in the Barents Sea, the European Bank announced yesterday (see GSN, May 22).
The money will be used to address environmental, safety and security problems associated with the nuclear fleet.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development manages the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership Support Fund, which addresses the decommissioned Barents Sea fleet. A bank official said the fund is part of the Group of Eight’s efforts to address weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, June 6).
The bank’s French director, Jean-Pierre Landau, said Paris wants the fund to become “the central player in this priority area for the G-8 partnership.”
The fund now has more than $185 million, the EBRD reported (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development release, June 30).
Russia launched nine satellites into orbit yesterday using a converted SS-19 ballistic missile, Press Trust of India reported (see GSN, May 27).
The launching of the Rokot space-launch vehicle from the Plesetsk cosmodrome delivered the Canadian MOST and Czech MIMOSA satellites into orbit, as well as the mock-up module of Russia’s new generation Monitor. The other six satellites launched belong to Japan, Denmark and the United States (Press Trust of India, June 30).
| 
Back to top
