North Korea:  IAEA Calls on Pyongyang to Take “First Step”

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency called on North Korea yesterday to take the “first step” in resolving the conflict surrounding its nuclear program by agreeing to comply with its international nonproliferation obligations (see GSN, Jan. 6).

“I hope that D.P.R.K. will seize this opportunity to come into compliance,” IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said following a meeting of the agency’s Board of Governors, which approved a resolution outlining North Korea’s obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the 1994 Agreed Framework.  “I hope D.P.R.K. will understand ... that compliance, and not defiance, is the way for a solution to this issue,” he said.

Pyongyang must first choose to abide by its obligations before an international dialogue to address North Korea’s economic and security concerns could begin, ElBaradei said.  Representatives from several countries, including Japan, South Korea and the United States, indicated during the board meeting that they would begin cooperating with North Korea, but only when it complies with its obligations, he said.

“I hope they [North Korea] also understand that they need to take that first step into coming in compliance before a dialogue could start with all concerned parties,” ElBaradei said.  “I think that has been also made very clear by members of the board, that once D.P.R.K. took the first step ... the way is opened for a comprehensive discussion ... on all their security issues and economic assistance,” he added. 

ElBaradei noted that yesterday’s resolution had been approved by a consensus of the 35-member board, without dissent, illustrating the level of international concern. 

“Everybody shares the concern, shares the act of deploring what the D.P.R.K. has done, subscribe to the game plan or plan of action that is inscribed in the resolution.  So that, I think, is significant,” ElBaradei said.  “It sends a powerful message to the D.P.R.K.,” he added (Federal News Service transcript, Jan. 6).

If North Korea continues to fail to abide by its obligations, however, the IAEA would have no choice but to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council, ElBaradei warned yesterday during an interview with PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

“The enforcement power lies with the Security Council,” ElBaradei said.  “I think under our charter if North Korea or any other country were to be judged in noncompliance with its nonproliferation obligation, then we are bound to report to the Security Council and then the whole question goes to the Security Council, and it is then up to the Security Council to decide what would be the next step,” he added.

ElBaradei said he informed North Korea of the agency’s decisions and was awaiting a reply.  While there is no formal deadline for North Korea to come into compliance, it is “an urgent situation,” he said.

“I think North Korea understands the urgency of the situation, and it’s a question of weeks and not months,” ElBaradei said (Ray Suarez, PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Jan. 6).

United States Praises Resolution

U.S. officials yesterday praised the IAEA resolution and criticized both North Korea’s actions in relaunching its nuclear program and its motivations for doing so.

“We are delighted with this text,” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John Wolf.  “This says exactly what we hoped it would say.  This is a very good text,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Jan. 7).

In a statement before the IAEA board meeting, Kenneth Brill, U.S. representative to the U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Vienna, lashed out at Pyongyang for failing to abide by its obligations by attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

“The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons in spite of its Nonproliferation Treaty commitments,” Brill said.  “We call on North Korea to reverse its current course, to take all steps necessary to come into immediate compliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement, and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program, both plutonium and uranium, in a comprehensive and verifiable manner,” he added.

Brill discounted North Korea’s stated reasons for restarting its nuclear program, which include energy needs and a fear of U.S. aggression.  North Korea’s 5-megawatt reactor produces little electricity and its plutonium reprocessing facility has no electrical power function, Brill said.  He added that North Korea has no “legitimate peaceful use” for plutonium or highly enriched uranium. 

Brill also criticized North Korea’s claims of being under threat from the United States as “nonsense,” noting the U.S. desire to resolve the situation through diplomacy.

“President [George W.] Bush and other senior U.S. officials have repeatedly stressed that we intend no military action against North Korea and believe the present situation can and should be resolved peacefully through diplomatic means,” Brill said (U.S. State Department release, Jan. 6).

Diplomatic Efforts

The United States continued its diplomatic campaign with its Asian allies Japan and South Korea yesterday to help resolve the North Korean nuclear issue.  U.S. diplomats held separate meetings in Washington with senior Japanese and South Korean representatives and the three parties are expected to release a trilateral statement on common goals and approaches today, the Washington Post reported.

South Korea’s national security adviser is also expected to arrive in the United States today to meet with senior White House officials, including U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, by the end of the week, according to the Post.

In their meeting with U.S. diplomats, South Korean diplomats did not put forth a proposal, which had been reported in the South Korean media, that would require both the United States and North Korea to make compromises to resolve the issue.  Seoul might have floated the proposal over the weekend as a trial balloon, but dropped support for it once the United States indicated it would maintain its hard-line position, according to some U.S. officials.

“There is no proposal,” a South Korean official said. “We discussed some ideas of how to solve this question, and we had a frank exchange of views on how we see the situation as of now,” the official added.

The three countries are likely to agree on a common statement, a senior U.S. official said.  “I am sure we will agree on a statement and it will be tough,” the official said (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Jan. 7).

Sanctions Mean War, Pyongyang Says

While the United States considers efforts to increase North Korea’s economic isolation, Pyongyang warned today that attempts to impose economic sanctions would lead to war.

The U.S. detainment last month of a shipment of Scud ballistic missiles to Yemen was part of a containment strategy that “means total economic sanctions aimed at isolating and stifling the D.P.R.K.,” the state-owned Korean Central News Agency said (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2002).

“Sanctions mean a war and the war knows no mercy.  The U.S. should opt for dialogue with the D.P.R.K., not for war, clearly aware that it will have to pay a very high price for such reckless acts,” KCNA said (Nick Macfie, Reuters, Jan. 7).

For further information, see:

Agreed Framework Text

KEDO

NPT Text

States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)

U.N. Background on NPT

Back to top

India:  New Strategic Command Needs Several Months to Prepare

India is expected to need several months to establish its new strategic forces command — part of the newly formalized command-and-control structure for its nuclear arsenal, the Economic Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 6).

The groundwork for the command, which will be mainly based in central India, will begin once its first commander in chief is chosen in the next few days, Indian defense officials said.  Air Marshal T.M. Asthana is expected to be chosen for the position, the Economic Times reported.  The new command is expected to consist mainly of the Army’s two operational missile units — the 33rd Missile Group, which handles the 150 kilometer-range Prithvi missile, and the Agni Missile Group.  The command will also employ civilian experts from agencies such as the Atomic Energy Department and the Defense Research and Development Organization, an official said.

The new command will also need several years to develop an effective nuclear triad utilizing land-, air- and sea-based weapons delivery systems, the Economic Times reported (see GSN, Dec. 3, 2002).  While experts consider nuclear-capable ballistic submarines to be the most effective delivery system, India’s attempts to domestically develop a nuclear submarine — the Advanced Technology Vessel project — and the naval Sagarika ballistic missile, have stalled, according to the Economic Times.

“They are still years away from completion,” an Indian defense official said (Rajat Pandit, Economic Times, Jan. 7).

Back to top

Russia:  Five Delta-Class Nuclear Submarines Dismantled Last Year

Russia dismantled 17 nuclear submarines last year, including five Delta-I ballistic missile submarines, a Russian Atomic Energy Ministry source said Saturday (see GSN, July 16).

Norway and the United States assisted the dismantlement program, ITAR-Tass reported (ITAR-Tass, Jan. 4 in FBIS-SOV Jan. 4).

Meanwhile Japan has decided to resume its support of Russian submarine dismantling efforts, Asahi Shimbun reported last month.

An agreement on the effort was reached in 1999 but Russian concern over military secrets and confusion in Moscow has prevented any progress, Asahi Shimbun reported.  Despite Japan spending more than $130 million on the effort, all 41 Russian submarines in the Far East remain intact, which prompted Japanese officials to suspend the program last spring.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi plans to announce the decision to restart the effort this month during his visit to Russia, Asahi Shimbun reported (Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 28, 2002).

Back to top

Pakistan:  Musharraf Says Nuclear Quotes Were Wrong

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said Friday that he was misquoted last month when discussing a potential nuclear conflict with rival India.  In that report, Musharraf warned India of “unconventional” war if it attacked Pakistan (see GSN, Dec. 30, 2002).

“This is a distortion and I have been misquoted,” Musharraf said.  “No one in his right state of mind can talk of a nuclear war,” he added.

Musharraf said that he had in fact been talking about Kashmir and intended to warn India that Pakistan would use guerrilla warfare to combat any Indian forces crossing the line of control in Kashmir, Pakistan’s The News reported (Pakistan’s The News, Jan. 4 in FBIS-NES, Jan. 4)

Back to top

United States:  Energy Tightens Laboratory Controls After Security Audit

U.S. officials have tightened controls on foreign scientists visiting government laboratories in response to an audit from Energy Department Inspector General Gregory Friedman, released in early December, Energy Daily reported today.

Two Energy Department laboratories were faulted by the audit for allowing scientists from Iran, China and Russia into unclassified areas without performing proper background checks or obtaining the correct approval.  Officials are concerned that a scientist in an unclassified area might try and obtain classified information in the laboratory, Energy Daily reported. 

After reading the draft report in December, Energy Deputy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow issued an interim guidance to tighten controls and pushed for completing a policy directive for visits by foreign scientists to unclassified areas.  That directive is expected early this year, Energy Daily reported.

A laboratory operated by the Energy Department’s science office allowed an Iranian scientist access to an unclassified site for five days before counterintelligence officials “recognized that background checks had not been completed and that required approvals had not been obtained,” the audit said.

According to a sampling by the audit, the same laboratory issued site badges to 40 percent of the visiting scientists before they received the proper approval.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham must give approval for visits by scientists from countries that the State Department designates as sponsoring terrorism.

A second laboratory — run by the National Nuclear Security Administration — fared better in the audit but was criticized for failing to check scientists’ visa and passport information (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, Jan. 7).

Back to top

North Korea:  IAEA Gives Pyongyang Last Chance

The International Atomic Energy Agency today gave North Korea one more chance to reverse its decision to bar international inspectors from the Yongbyon nuclear facility and to threaten to restart a nuclear reactor there (see GSN, Jan. 3).

North Korea must comply within weeks or the IAEA will be forced to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council, according to agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.

“All cases of noncompliance must be consistently addressed in a uniform fashion, namely zero-tolerance,” ElBaradei said. He held out hope, however, that a diplomatic solution can be achieved.

Meeting in a special session today, the agency’s Board of Governors approved a resolution outlining North Korea’s nuclear obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the 1994 Agreed Framework.

“Unless the [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] takes all necessary steps to allow the agency to implement all the required safeguards measures, the DPRK will be in further noncompliance with its safeguards agreement,” the resolution says.

Analysts said the decision to give North Korea one more chance to turn back reflects the belief at the United Nations as well as in Washington that an armed confrontation with North Korea must be avoided at all costs.  The last time the IAEA threatened to report North Korean nuclear violations to the U.N. Security Council, in 1993, Pyongyang said such a move would be considered a declaration of war.

The Yongbyon reactors had been mothballed under a 1994 deal with the U.S. in which North Korea agreed to end its weapons program in exchange for fuel oil supplies and two nuclear reactors that would be more difficult to use for the development of nuclear weapons.

Washington halted the oil shipments in December after saying Pyongyang had admitted to a covert nuclear program.

The IAEA resolution calls for the reestablishment of surveillance measures at North Korea’s nuclear facilities and the “full implementation of all the required safeguards measures, including the return of IAEA inspectors.”

The IAEA initiative was welcomed in Washington, where President George W. Bush has repeatedly called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis.  Increased administration focus on Iraq is a primary reason for Washington’s intent to defuse the confrontation through diplomatic channels.  But reclusive North Korea’s suspected possession of nuclear weapons and a fearsome military facing off against its democratic neighbor South Korea is cause enough to approach with caution (Bryan Bender, Global Security Newswire, Jan. 6).

South Korea Continues Diplomatic Push

South Korea, meanwhile, is expected to present a compromise solution to the nuclear dispute during talks with Japan and the United States today in Washington, AP reported.

A potential solution is for North Korea to give up its nuclear program in exchange for resumption in fuel oil shipments from the United States, although verifying North Korean nuclear inactivity would probably be contentious, AP reported.

Talks between South Korea and the United States are slated to continue, with South Korean national security adviser Yim Sung-joon visiting Washington this week and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly heading to Seoul.  Yim will also visit Japan to discuss his consultations with U.S. officials, AP reported (Paul Shin, Associated Press, Jan. 6).

The compromise will ask U.S. President George W. Bush to write a letter guaranteeing that the United States will not attack North Korea, the New York Times reported Sunday.  In return, Seoul will ask Pyongyang to restore international controls on its nuclear program, the Times reported (James Brooke, New York Times, Jan. 5).

Washington, however, has said it will not negotiate with North Korea until that country’s leadership abandons efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  The United States alleges that North Korea already abandoned a similar agreement — the 1994 Agreed Framework that gave Pyongyang the promise of two light-water nuclear reactors and free fuel oil in exchange for closing a plant that could generate weapon-grade plutonium — the Times reported.

“We have no intention to sit down and bargain again, to pay for this horse again,” said State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher.

“We are not entering into a negotiation,” he said, “in order to get them to commit to something that they’ve already committed to,” he added (Brooke/Rosenthal, New York Times, Jan. 4).

White House officials said, however, that Bush would not reject the new proposal automatically.  Bush has said that the United States will not attack North Korea and an agreement to confirm that might be acceptable.

“The new guys in South Korea want to introduce some new ideas, and that’s not unhealthy,” said a White House official.  He agreed with the State Department that old negotiations with Pyongyang should not be redone.

“We can’t get caught making concessions to get them to meet the commitments they’ve already made,” he said.

U.S. Food Aid Slow to Arrive

Although U.S. officials have said that humanitarian food shipments to North Korea would not be impeded by the nuclear dispute, those shipments have been suspended, the Times reported today.

The suspension of food aid by the United States and Japan and the curtailment of shipments from South Korea have resulted in a situation in which the U.N. World Food Program will miss its distribution goals “by a wide margin,” according to the program.

“We’re very concerned about it,” said a program official.  “We understand that there are political considerations.  But this is a population that is suffering, with women and children the most vulnerable,” he added.

White House officials said they are not withholding the food for political reasons, but that the shipments have stopped because of lapses in monitoring where the food is sent.

“Our intention is to go forward, but we do need to solve these monitoring problems first,” said a Bush administration official.

World Food Program officials, however, said they believe that food is reaching civilians and is not being redirected to feed North Korea’s military.

“We have relatively good confidence that the food is reaching the people who need it,” said a program official (Steven Weisman, New York Times, Jan. 6).

Official Says Russia Will Help Defuse Crisis

Russia agreed to “make joint efforts to ease the crisis,” after talks between South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Hang-kyung and his Russian counterpart, Alexander Losyukov, AP reported.

Russian officials will attempt to convince the parties to meet for talks but did not promise to mediate them.

“The slide to unacceptable actions must be stopped,” Losyukov said.  “Obviously, our contacts with North Korean colleagues will be intensified,” he added (Hans Greimel, Associated Press/Washington Times, Jan. 6).

Back to top

India:  New Delhi Unveils Formal Nuclear Command Structure

India Saturday unveiled its newly formalized command-and-control structure for its nuclear arsenal and restated its “no-first-use” nuclear weapons policy (see GSN, Dec. 31, 2002).

India’s nuclear weapons are now under the control of the two-layered Nuclear Command Authority, the Cabinet Committee on Security announced after meeting to review the readiness of India’s nuclear arsenal.  The NCA is made up of a political council and an executive council, according to The Hindu.  The political council, headed by the prime minister, has the sole authority to order use of nuclear weapons, the security committee said.  The executive council, headed by the national security adviser, participates in the NCA’s decision-making process and carries out the orders of the political council, the security committee said (C. Raja Mohan, The Hindu, Jan. 5).

The security committee also approved the creation of a commander in chief for India’s strategic forces.  Indian Air Marshall T.M. Asthana is expected to be appointed to the position, the Times of India reported (Rajat Pandit, Times of India, Jan. 4).

India has worked since 1998 to establish a formal nuclear command-and-control structure and its creation demonstrates that India is a responsible nuclear power, defense analysts said.

“When you join the nuclear club, these are the rules of the game,” said Aswini Ray of the Center for Political Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.  “This is about assuring the international community that India is behaving in a responsible fashion,” Ray added (Edna Fernandes, Financial Times, Jan. 6).

The formalized nuclear command structure will also help to reduce the risk of an accidental weapons launch, weapons specialists said.

“Until now, India’s nuclear weapons doctrine was seen as more of a draft.  There was an ambivalence, and the announcement removes that,” said Uday Bhaskar, deputy director of the Institute of Defense Studies and Analysis.  “It enhances regional stability and sends a positive signal,” Bhaskar added (Unni Krishnan, Reuters/Washington Times, Jan. 5).

Nuclear Doctrine

In its announcement, the security committee also reaffirmed several aspects of India’s nuclear weapons policy, including pledges not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states and to limit India’s nuclear capability to a “credible minimum deterrent” (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2002).

While India has decided to maintain its no-first-use policy, its retaliation to a nuclear attack would be “massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage,” the committee warned (Mohan, The Hindu).

India also retains the right to respond to a biological or chemical weapons attack against its troops with nuclear weapons, even if the attacker does not possess nuclear weapons itself, the committee said. 

“In the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons,” the committee said (Pandit, Times of India).

For further information, see:

Indian Government

Back to top

International Response: Moscow to Speed Up HEU Removal at Soviet-Era Research Reactors

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Russia will increase cooperation this year with the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency to dispose of highly enriched uranium at up to two dozen nuclear research facilities located primarily in the former Soviet Union or former satellite states, according to a senior Russian official.

“We are planning joint programs to step up nuclear [and] radiation safety and physical protection of the facilities that are located in what are now foreign countries,” Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said Dec. 27. 

While praising Russian plans, private experts believe a more coordinated effort is needed to identify research centers that are at risk, earmark the needed funding, negotiate transfer agreements and then quickly secure the highly enriched uranium.  They contend that the current process, which includes negotiations within, then between, governments and the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, is taking much too long in light of the growing threat of nuclear terrorism.

Officials say discussions are underway to streamline the process, which can take a year from conception to completion.  For example, the United States and Russia first agreed to finance the transfer of highly enriched uranium from the research reactor located in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in March, but the material has yet to be removed (see GSN, Mar. 13, 2002).  U.S. officials had set a goal of the end of 2002 to remove the material (see GSN, Oct. 22, 2002).

Rumyantsev cited the highly publicized operation in Belgrade last year as the model for future joint operations to prevent weapon-grade material from being stolen or diverted by terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Aug. 23, 2002).  U.S., Russian, IAEA and Yugoslav officials removed more than 100 pounds of highly enriched uranium from a research reactor at the Vinca Institute, enough to construct up to three nuclear bombs. 

The United States paid $2.5 million for the project out of State Department nuclear threat reduction funds, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a private nonprofit group, provided $5 million for environmental cleanup at the Vinca Institute.

Former Soviet and East European Facilities

There are about 350 sites in 58 countries that possess highly enriched uranium, according to nonproliferation experts.  Of those sites, about two dozen have enough material to build an atomic weapon, they say (see GSN, Sept. 3, 2002).  Most of those countries are former Soviet republics or were otherwise allies of Moscow and thus eligible for nuclear cooperation during the Cold War. 

Rumyantsev highlighted several countries as likely partners in securing large quantities of HEU in the coming year.  “In the CIS [former Soviet] countries there is a large number of nuclear reactors for research purposes,” he said. “In the first place [there is] Ukraine.”

“There are also reactors in countries other than the CIS — in the Baltics, [including one located at] Ignalina,” in Lithuania, Rumyantsev said.  “There are also reactors in countries of Eastern Europe — in Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Finland,” he said.

He said negotiations continue on securing the uranium from the Uzbek reactor.  “Now we are considering the question about the return of spent nuclear fuel from the research reactor in Uzbekistan to Russia — for technological storage and processing.  This kind of activity is being pursued.”

International officials have several options for securing these facilities, including “downblending” their fuel from highly enriched to low-enriched uranium, decommissioning them in return for U.S. and other grants to keep scientists afloat until they can find suitable alternative work, or assisting in decommissioning facilities that have already ceased reactor operations.

Process Unnecessarily Prolonged

Despite increased Russian cooperation — and what observers consider increased willingness to take back nuclear material Moscow provided to research facilities over the years — experts believe the overall approach to securing these research reactors needs to be accelerated.

“It takes more than a year in each case just to figure out who’s doing what,” said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard University and a U.S. government adviser on nonproliferation issues.  “After Sept. 11 we can’t afford to do that,” he said.

Within the United States alone, several agencies must play a role and efforts to coordinate their activities often fall victim to bureaucratic impediments.  The State Department is responsible for funding, out of the nonproliferation and disarmament fund; the Energy Department contains the relevant nuclear expertise; the Defense Department is responsible for the transportation of sensitive materials; and private, charitable entities such as the Nuclear Threat Initiative have also played a role.

“What’s needed now is a single focused program with money, expertise and authority in a single set of hands to negotiate these removals all over the world,” Bunn said.

Meanwhile, Bunn said large quantities of highly enriched uranium are at risk not only in the former Soviet states and Eastern Europe, but also within Russia itself.  He estimates there are 30 tons of weapons-usable nuclear material in Russia. 

“There are quite a number of HEU-fueled research reactors and fuel fabrication facilities in Russia,” he said.  The Energy Department is currently assisting Moscow in consolidating this material, and Russia appears “much more interested” in disposing of their excess uranium fuel, Bunn said.

In addition, some of the most at-risk facilities are outside the former Soviet sphere, but could receive similar aid.  The United States, for example, has an established program to retrieve highly enriched uranium from research reactors it fueled (see GSN, Sept. 27, 2002).

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group, Inc.]

Back to top

North Korea:  Incoming South Korean President Working Toward Deal

South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-Hyun has already established communications with North Korea and will this month announce a possible deal that could resolve the current nuclear crisis on the peninsula, aides say (see GSN, Jan. 2).

“We have been in contact with the North through various channels to find out what it really wants and we believe that the United States wants South Korea to play a role as a mediator so that Washington can reach a compromise without losing face,” a top assistant said.

The deal will be presented in mid-January, according to Lim Chae-Jung, head of Roh’s transition committee.

“A compromise deal is being prepared which will call for both [U.S.] President [George W.] Bush and (North Korean leader) Chairman Kim Jong Il to make concessions,” Lim said (Agence France-Presse/Bangkok Post, Jan. 3).

The deal might ask the United States to guarantee the security of the North Korean leadership and assure economic aid, a source close to the transition team said.

“The South could recommend that Washington declare its nonaggression stance formally and promise to ease economic sanctions while telling the North to scrap its suspected nuclear weapons program,” the source said.

U.S., South Korean and Japanese officials will meet in Washington early next week to discuss policy on North Korea (Korea Herald, Jan. 3).

South Korea also plans to coordinate its policy with Russian officials during Vice Foreign Minister Kim Hang-kyung’s visit to Moscow today, AFP reported (AFP/Bangkok Post).

Lee Tae-sik, South Korean deputy foreign minister, was sent to Beijing to “resolve North Korea’s nuclear issue peacefully through dialogue,” according to South Korea’s Foreign Ministry.

The United States announced yesterday it would not attempt to use humanitarian food shipments as a bargaining chip with North Korea, the Globe and Mail reported.

“We don’t intend to curtail food for political reasons,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher (Paul Koring, Associated Press/Globe and Mail, Jan. 3).

Seoul Declines United Stand Against Washington

South Korean officials rejected North Korean offers to join forces against the United States, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported today.

Seoul also warned Pyongyang not to go to far with its aggressive behavior.

North Korea “should not attempt to test the limit of the patience of the international community,” said South Korean Unification Minister Jeong Se Hyun (Paul Shin, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 3).

Back to top

United States:  Los Alamos Chief Loses Job; Monday Is Last Day

Amid ongoing allegations of theft and corruption, Los Alamos National Laboratory Director John Browne will resign Monday.  He said in a statement that “only a change in leadership will restore the confidence that is needed for (Los Alamos) to carry out its difficult and important mission,” the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, Nov. 22, 2002).

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham praised Browne’s decision, but suggested the Energy Department might demand even more change in the institution operated by the University of California.  In a letter to university President Richard Atkinson, Abraham said he questioned the university’s ability to run the laboratory and said there may be a “systematic management failure at Los Alamos.”

Los Alamos has been shaken by allegations of equipment theft and credit card abuse.  Two law enforcement professionals who were brought in to investigate were fired in November and have publicly announced that their dismissal was an attempt to cover up their findings.

Joseph Salgado, the laboratory’s principal deputy director, will also step down on Monday and leave Los Alamos, the Times reported.  Browne will stay on as a senior researcher.  Atkinson announced the resignations yesterday and also announced establishment of an oversight committee and new requirements that direct many Los Alamos employees to report directly to university leadership (Rebecca Trounson, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 3).

George Nanos, a retired U.S. Navy vice admiral, will step in as the interim director.

“The controversy was so strong and so critical of management that I personally thought the best thing for me to do was resign and to have the university come in and take it to the next level of performance,” Browne said (Leslie Hoffman, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Jan. 3).

Abraham has said he will “fully evaluate the university’s capacity to operate” Los Alamos and a review is due April 30.

In his letter to Atkinson, Abraham said the problems at the laboratory “have called into question the University of California’s ability to run the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).  This, I know you will agree, is an untenable situation given the critical role that the Los Alamos National Laboratory serves in protecting our nation’s security and must be remedied to ensure we return Los Alamos to its pre-eminent position in science and national security” (Edward Walsh, Washington Post, Jan. 3).

Back to top

North Korea:  South Korean, Chinese Officials Discuss Nuclear Issue

South Korean and Chinese officials met today and discussed North Korea’s nuclear program with the aim of reducing tensions between Washington and Pyongyang (see GSN, Dec. 31, 2002).  Meanwhile, U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday he believed a peaceful solution to the issue could be reached.

South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Tae-shik, in a meeting with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi, is believed to have called on China to increase pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons efforts, according to Reuters.

China and South Korea provided few details as to what transpired during the meeting, according to Reuters.

“The two sides exchanged views on bilateral relations and common concerns on North Korea nuclear issues,” a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement said.

A diplomatic source said the meeting could help efforts to solve the nuclear issue peacefully, Reuters reported.

“I think it will help improve the atmosphere to resolve this nuclear issue in a peaceful manner,” the source said.  “It is always good for the surrounding countries to discuss this issue.  In that sense, I think it may have some influence on North Korea,” the source added (Tamora Vidaillet, Reuters, Jan. 2).

Washington Seeks Diplomatic Solution

Bush said yesterday that he believed the North Korean nuclear issue could be resolved through diplomacy, but did not explicitly rule out the threat of military action.

“There is strong consensus, not only among the nations in the neighborhood and our friends, but also with international organizations, such as the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that North Korea ought to comply with international regulations.  I believe this can be done peacefully, through diplomacy, and we will continue to work that way,” Bush said during an informal press conference in Crawford, Texas.  “All options, of course, are always on the table for any president, but by working with these countries we can resolve this,” he added.

Bush also said he looked forward to a visit by South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun once he is in office (U.S. State Department release, Jan. 1).

Pyongyang Calls for Inter-Korean Cooperation

North Korea called on its southern neighbor today for support against the United States in the conflict over its nuclear program.

“It can be said that there exists on the Korean Peninsula at present only confrontation between the Koreans in the North and the South and the United States,” Pyongyang said in its New Year’s message.  “There is neither reason nor condition for the fellow countrymen to strain the situation and disturb peace against the fellow countrymen as the North and the South are heading for reconciliation, unity and reunification,” the message said.

Some experts have said North Korea’s calls for inter-Korean cooperation are based on economic concerns, which have increased with the threat of U.S. action to further isolate the country.

“North Korea has been digging deeper into isolation these days, and the United States is pouring hot water into the hole to force it to come out,” said Koh Yoo-hwan, a North Korea expert at Dongkuk University in Seoul.  “At this hard time, North Korea increasingly sees that South Korea is its only friend, as it tries to avoid the brunt of U.S. diplomatic pressure,” Koh said (Sang-hun Choe, Associated Press/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 2).

Humanitarian Situation

North Korea faces a dangerous food shortage as supplies are expected to begin running out next month, said Rick Corsino, director of the U.N. World Food Program’s operation in Pyongyang.  Once those supplies are gone, the program will be forced to stop providing food to about 3 million of its 4.5 million “most vulnerable” aid recipients, including millions of children, pregnant women and the elderly, he said.

The U.S. efforts to increase pressure on North Korea and to further isolate it economically, along with attempts to persuade Pyongyang’s neighbors to do the same, have led to fears of food being used as a weapon.  U.S. officials have denied that the Bush administration has called on Japan, South Korea, China and Russia to use all means, including food aid, to pressure North Korea into abandoning its nuclear efforts.  The United States itself will base its decision on whether to continue humanitarian aid to Pyongyang solely on the basis of need, officials said.

Instead of denying further humanitarian aid outright, the United States can accomplish the same effect by delaying its decision on whether to do so while food supplies run out, analysts said.  The United States could also allow other countries to indicate that large amounts of developmental aid would be forthcoming only if North Korea gives up its nuclear program, they said (Sonni Efron, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 2).

A senior Bush administration official has said the United States plans to provide the same level of humanitarian aid to North Korea this year as it has in the past.

“We expect to continue providing the same level of aid to the (U.N.) World Food Program in Korea as we have in the past,” the official said on Tuesday in reply to written questions from Reuters.  “We don’t use food as a political weapon,” the official added (Reuters/New York Times, Jan. 1).

Back to top

South Asia:  India, Pakistan Exchange Nuclear Lists

India and Pakistan exchanged lists of nuclear installations yesterday under an agreement intended to prevent attacks on nuclear facilities, The Hindu reported today (see GSN, Jan. 2, 2002).

The exchange marks the 12th time the countries have shared their lists under the Agreement on the Prohibition of Attack Against Nuclear Installations and Facilities between India and Pakistan.  The agreement, which was signed in 1988 and came into effect in 1991, calls for an exchange of nuclear facility lists Jan. 1 of each year.

The Indian list was given to the Pakistani High Commission representative in New Delhi, and the Pakistani list was handed over to Vikram Misri, the first secretary of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad (Amit Baruah, The Hindu, Jan. 2).

The Pakistani list reportedly contained six nuclear facilities while the Indian list was unchanged from last year, with 11 sites, United Press International reported (United Press International, Jan. 1).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP