Legal experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived in Tehran yesterday to hold talks on the possibility of Iran signing the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement that would allow more intrusive monitoring of Iranian nuclear activities (see GSN, Aug. 4).
The three-member team met with Iranian government lawyers to discuss the fine points of the agreement, according to Saber Zaeimian, a spokesman for the Iranian nuclear agency.
The United States has accused Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear energy program. Washington is “working with the IAEA to make sure that they do not continue on this course, which is unacceptable,” according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Islamic conservatives in Iran, however, have been urging government leaders to reject the Additional Protocol (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Aug. 4).
Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, the top Iranian judiciary official, supported the anti-protocol push.
“The Iranian leadership, with the support of the people, will not give in to pressure, and the representatives of the people and the students will resist America’s aim to impose its will by force,” he said (Beirut Daily Star, Aug. 5).
The four countries that join the planned multilateral talks with the United States and North Korea might not line up squarely on Washington’s side, Reuters reported today (see GSN, Aug. 4).
The talks are scheduled to include North Korea, the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia.
“The U.S. is expecting it to be five pressuring one; will it?” said Ralph Cossa, head of the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. “Certainly everyone agrees that North Korea has to give up its nuclear weapons but most also want the U.S. to offer some carrots. So there will be pressure on both North Korea and the U.S. at the meeting,” he added (Jane Macartney, Reuters/Yahoo!News, Aug. 5).
North Korea, meanwhile, stopped its radio and megaphone propaganda campaign across the demilitarized zone this weekend. Pyongyang is attempting to win friends before the talks begin, the New York Times reported.
“Ultimately the North Korean game is to split South Korea and other countries away from the United States,” said Marcus Noland, a Korea expert at the Institute for International Economics in Washington. “Ultimately the North Koreans want their charm campaign to soften up South Korea and other countries and make them less likely to back the United States in any kind of coercive diplomacy,” he added (James Brooke, New York Times, Aug. 5).
The White House, meanwhile, has defended last week’s speech by Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton. Bolton called North Korean leader Kim Jong Il a “tyrannical dictator” (see GSN, July 31).
“He was speaking for the administration,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday, “and I think his remarks last week reiterated things we’ve previously said” (CNN.com, Aug. 4).
State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said the comments had been cleared by administration officials before the speech was given. North Korea said it would not negotiate with Bolton in the future, but Reeker said that the U.S. delegation to the talks would be selected by U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell (State Department transcript, Aug. 4).
Arms control experts are concerned that a newly established distribution network, consisting of lesser-developed nations, could help countries to circumvent existing nonproliferation regimes to obtain the materials and equipment needed to develop nuclear weapons, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Sunday (see GSN, June 20).
The success of Iran and North Korea — two lesser-developed nations — in obtaining the equipment and materials needed to develop nuclear weapons has raised concerns that other lesser-developed countries, as well as terrorist organizations, could follow suit, according to the Chronicle. There are also concerns that Iran and North Korea, as well as other countries, could be serving as “secondary proliferators” by providing materials and equipment to other countries.
“There’s been increased concern about those new suppliers,” said Jon Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nonproliferation Project. “The last year has really brought it home in spades, in large part because of Pakistan and their reported role in spreading the centrifuge technology. If they haven’t been the primary suppliers, they have been the professors,” he said.
The growth of this proliferation network has raised concern among arms control experts that the current nonproliferation mechanisms — international treaties and national export control systems — may be inadequate, the Chronicle reported.
“Even guys like me, who support the treaties and want to see them flourish, understand that realistically they are not enough anymore,” said Leonard Spector, a nonproliferation expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
“You have to say that there’s more going on than we can manage with the traditional tools,” Spector said. “What has changed is that by the end of the Cold War, the countries working on getting the bomb were threatening to us, in this country. That was a major, major change,” he said.
Another concern is that these secondary proliferators have also begun exchanging information on how to circumvent existing controls, such as by establishing front companies to obtain WMD-related materials, according to the Chronicle.
“The face of proliferation has changed a lot in recent years,” said Robert Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It isn’t terribly new; we saw this in the ‘90s. But what we’re seeing more of is, these countries are turning to each other for components and subcomponents and technology that they didn’t have before,” he said (James Sterngold, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 3).
By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire
Preventing North Korea from smuggling nuclear weapons is the most important task facing the United States in the crisis on the Korean Peninsula, according to a study released Friday (see GSN, Aug. 4).
As the latest nuclear standoff nears its first anniversary, North Korea appears ready to re-enter multilateral talks and discuss U.S. concerns about Pyongyang’s nuclear development. Pyongyang appears to have given in to U.S. demands that South Korea and Japan be involved in the negotiations. The six-party talks will also include Russia and China.
The most pressing danger, however, is not a North Korean nuclear attack but rather the threat of nuclear proliferation, according to a simulation conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Experts assembled at CSIS in May to role-play a response to the North Korean crisis.
“North Korea is dangerous but somewhat contained,” according to a report from the simulation. The “greatest risk is posed by proliferation … stopping the transfer of nuclear weapons is crucial,” the report says.
Experts from CSIS sounded a cautious tone last week on the possibility of talks with Pyongyang.
“Negotiations, if they do take place, are only the first step in the process of dealing with North Korean proliferation,” said Anthony Cordesman, a CSIS expert in strategy.
The talks may offer little hope for a lasting solution to the crisis, according to Robert Einhorn, a senior CSIS adviser and a former senior nonproliferation official at the State Department.
“With the North Koreans sounding increasingly as if they are determined to acquire and retain nuclear weapons, and the deeply divided Bush administration ambivalent at best about reaching an agreement with a regime it considers untrustworthy and repugnant, there is little basis for optimism about the next round of Beijing talks,” Einhorn said.
Two Chinese students at U.S. universities have provided China with U.S.-developed data that has enabled Beijing to produce a material that could be used in long-range ballistic missiles, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Aug. 1).
According to a U.S. Defense Department report, the two students — one at Iowa State University and the other at Pennsylvania State University — provided China with data to develop Terfenol-D, a material that can be used in a multiple warhead missile stage. The data was stolen within the past three years, an FBI official said.
“This is a classic example of how the Chinese collect dual-use military technology,” the FBI official said. “Students come here; they get jobs; they form companies,” the official added.
China is using students and scientists to help develop military technologies, according to the Pentagon report. Beijing also uses “husband-wife teams,” the FBI official said (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, Aug. 5).
The FBI believes China has established more than 3,000 “front” companies to aid in its espionage activities, according to the Associated Press. The bureau has listed China as posing the greatest espionage threat to the United States in the next 10 to 15 years, AP reported.
“They figured out that what they want is throughout the United States, not just embassies, not just consulates,” FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence David Szady said. “It’s a major effort,” he said.
To help stem that threat, the FBI has begun strengthening its counterintelligence efforts, transferring more than 160 agents to counterintelligence duties and establishing counterintelligence operations in all bureau field offices, according to AP. FBI officials have also begun to hold meetings with representatives from businesses and universities to assess potential espionage threats (Curt Anderson, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Aug. 4).
About 150 U.S. officials are expected to meet this week at U.S. Strategic Command headquarters to discuss the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, according to Reuters (see GSN, Aug. 1).
The meeting, scheduled for Thursday at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska, will involve officials from the U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, State Department, the National Nuclear Security Administration and the National Security Council, said Pentagon spokesman Maj. Michael Shavers. The meeting will be chaired by Pentagon official Michael Wynne, acting undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics.
“They’re going to take a look at the status of the nation’s nuclear stockpile, particularly with an eye toward the Moscow Treaty that says we’ve got to get our stockpile numbers down, and how do we do that in a manner that still allows us to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent,” Shavers said, referring to the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (see GSN, July 24).
Some arms control experts are concerned, however, that the meeting could lead to resumed U.S. nuclear testing and the development of new nuclear weapons, according to Reuters. The meeting could result in the determination of a military requirement for a new type of nuclear weapon, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
“Traditionally, once there has been a stated need by the uniformed military for a new weapon to deal with some contingency or some threat that’s out there, that has been the catalyst for design, engineering, development and testing of nuclear weapons,” Kimball said (Will Dunham, Reuters/Planet Ark, Aug. 5).
The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance said last week that the U.S. Energy Department should shut down the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., until criticality safety procedures are improved, according Energy Daily (see GSN, Dec. 6, 2002).
The group has issued a report saying that some nuclear warheads and fissile materials were stored at the facility under leaking roofs, exposing them to flooding in the event of heavy rains and creating a criticality hazard. In addition, warheads and fissile materials are stored in various types of containers, leading to confusion among Y-12 workers as to proper criticality measures, according to Energy Daily.
NNSA spokesman Steven Wyatt, however, has denied that the Y-12 facility was unsafe, saying its operations complied with regulatory requirements.
“Contrary to the claims raised by the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, the Y-12 National Security Complex operates in a safe manner that protects worker and public health and safety,” Wyatt said (see GSN, July 30;George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, Aug. 5).
| 
Back to top
