Iran:  Uranium Mining, Reprocessing, Could Lead to Nuclear Weapons

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Iran’s announcement yesterday that it plans to develop its own source of nuclear material — and then intends to reprocess the spent fuel — paves the way for a nuclear weapons program, according to U.S. officials and nuclear analysts (see GSN, Feb. 10).

The effort described by officials could give Iran the ability to enrich uranium to weapon-grade levels or to produce plutonium, an element created during the operation of nuclear reactors.

“Iran’s ambitious and costly pursuit of a complete nuclear fuel cycle only makes sense if it’s in support of a nuclear weapons program,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday.

An Iranian program to produce fresh fuel and enrich uranium “would give them the option to make weapon-grade uranium,” Frank von Hippel chairman of the Federation of American Scientists and a Princeton University professor, told Global Security Newswire today.

The Associated Press yesterday quoted Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, as saying that Tehran hopes “to process the spent fuel and provide fuel for plants inside the country soon.”

Iran’s state-run Islamic Republic News Agency today reported that a facility in the central city of Isfahan would process the uranium into “yellow cake,” the final stage before nuclear fuel pellets are produced.  Despite scheduled development assistance from China, that factory was built with domestic resources, according to an IRNA report.

“Reaching the production phase of the factory producing the ‘Yellow Cake’ … that produces the main substance needed in manufacturing nuclear fuel, is in itself a great scientific achievement of eventful significance,” said Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Officials repeated yesterday’s assertion that Iran is producing the uranium only for energy purposes.

“The Islamic Republic’s policy is clear:  We want the nuclear know-how, but we are not interested in the proliferation of arms,” Aghazadeh said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the U.N. atomic agency’s director general, has pushed his visit to Iran up a few days, to Feb. 22, and plans to meet with Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, according to a report today from Agence France-Presse.  IAEA officials said, however, that they were not surprised by yesterday’s announcement.  An agency official visited Iran’s uranium mine in 1992, according to IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming.

“We have been aware of this mine and the intentions of Iran to exploit it,” Fleming said.

Russian Nuclear Cooperation

While Moscow has agreed to supply nuclear fuel for the light-water reactor it is building for Iran at Bushehr, Tehran’s plans to develop its own uranium source will circumvent its obligation to return Bushehr’s spent fuel to Russia, Boucher said (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2002).

“It puts a goodly part of the nuclear fuel cycle outside of the control of whoever’s providing the reactor and the fuel.  The agreement as we understood it … had been that Russia would provide the fuel and take it back after it was used in the reactor,” Boucher said.

A planned Iranian-built nuclear reactor might be a heavy-water facility, from which plutonium can be produced more easily, according to von Hippel. 

“The situation is far from clear, but certainly ought to supply the [United States] with new arguments to persuade Russia to end its nuclear cooperation with Iran,” von Hippel said.

Back to top

North Korea:  China Rejects U.S. Appeal for Help on North Korea

Beijing today rebuffed U.S. requests that it be more involved in negotiations to resolve the Korean nuclear crisis, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 10).

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said the issue should be settled between Pyongyang and Washington.

“We believe the two parties are best able to solve the issue peacefully,” Zhang said.  “Although it touches upon regional security and nuclear proliferation, the key to resolving this issue is the resumption of dialogue between the U.S. and North Korea,” she added.

Qiyue would not say if her statement was a rejection of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Sunday appeal for more Chinese involvement in the nuclear standoff (Associated Press/Times of India, Feb. 11).

Back to top

Russia:  Moscow Agrees to End Plutonium Production

Moscow has approved a plan that would halt production of weapon-grade plutonium at three facilities by the end of 2006, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Jan. 30).

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov authorized the closing of two nuclear reactors in Siberia by the end of 2005 and another by the end of 2006.  A 1997 agreement with the United States to end plutonium production has been delayed by disagreements over Washington’s financial commitment to the effort, AP reported.

The reactors currently provide heat and electricity for their surrounding communities, so the United States has agreed to contribute to the construction of replacement power facilities, according to AP (Associated Press/Newsday, Feb. 11).

Back to top

China:  Beijing Tests Missile With Multiple Warheads, Report Says

China has conducted a successful test of a Dongfeng 21 medium-range missile that was equipped with multiple warheads, Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun reported Saturday (see GSN, Sept. 25, 2002).

The Yomiuri Shimbun reported that the missile, which is believed to have been equipped with multiple-warhead technology, was launched in December (Hiroyuki Sugiyama, Yomiuri Shimbun, Feb. 8).

China denied conducting the tests or developing a missile to counter U.S. missile defenses.

“Concerning this question, there is nothing to confirm,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue.  “The reported allegations that some national defense construction of China’s is oriented against a certain weapons system is utterly groundless,” she added (AFX News, Feb. 11).

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Acknowledges Nuclear Plans

Iran publicly announced yesterday that it plans to construct a nuclear power capacity entirely from domestic sources.  Iran will mine uranium, process it into nuclear fuel, and process the subsequent spent fuel, according to reports (see GSN, Feb. 4).

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said yesterday Iran is prepared to begin extracting uranium from mines located about 200 kilometers from the city of Yazd in the central part of the country, Khatami said.  There are also plans to construct facilities in the cities of Isfahan and Kashan to process uranium for use as nuclear fuel, he said, adding that Iranian experts have been trained in the civilian applications of nuclear technologies (Islamic Republic News Agency, Feb. 9).

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said the Islamic nation would process spent nuclear fuel, the Associated Press reported.

“With the completion of the Isfahan plant, we hope to process the spent fuel and provide fuel for plants inside the country soon,” Aghazadeh said (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, Feb. 10).

Aghazadeh said work on the fuel preparation plants has started (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002).

“The preliminary steps have taken place and very extensive research has already started,” he said.   “We have taken some steps but we still have a long way to go to have this plant come onstream,” he added.

Khatami denied that Iran was seeking to expand its nuclear capabilities in order to develop nuclear weapons.  Iran has decided to produce about 6,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear power, he said, noting that the Bushehr nuclear plant, currently under construction by Russia, is set to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity.

“I assure all peace-loving individuals in the world that Iran’s efforts in the field of nuclear technology are focused on civilian application and nothing else,” Khatami said.  “This is the Iranian nation’s legitimate right,” he added (Islamic Republic News Agency).

Back to top

North Korea:  United States Pushes China, Russia to Pressure Pyongyang

U.S. officials have criticized China and Russia in recent days for insufficiently pressuring North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions, the Washington Post reported Saturday (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“They’re carrying Pyongyang’s water instead of ours,” said a senior U.S. official.  “They could cut them off, and in six months North Korea would be in dire circumstances,” the official said.

U.S. President George W. Bush said he spoke to Chinese President Jiang Zemin Friday and “reminded him that we have a joint responsibility to uphold the goal that we talked about in Crawford (in October), that goal being a nuclear-weapons-free peninsula; that we have responsibilities, joint responsibilities; that Russia has a responsibility.”

Bush also said that “all options are on the table.”

U.S. officials recently told Beijing that its response to the situation could damage the U.S.-Chinese relations, the Post reported (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Feb. 8).

South Korea’s second highest-ranking official, meanwhile, said that he does not believe North Korea has nuclear weapons, the Associated Press reported.

“North Korea is believed to have extracted enough plutonium to make one or two bombs before 1994,” Prime Minister Kim Suk-soo said today.  “Since there has been no confirmation that it actually has produced nuclear weapons, we believe that they do not have any,” he added.

Missile Test Warning

U.S. Ambassador Howard Baker, Washington’s envoy to Tokyo, warned of a possible North Korean missile flight test over Japan, the Associated Press reported today

“We hear reports that they may engage in a missile test, perhaps overflying the island of Japan,” Baker said (Christopher Torchia, Associated Press/Newsday, Feb. 10).

Food Aid Reduced

The U.N. World Food Program, meanwhile, announced it is cutting humanitarian food supplies to hundreds of thousands of North Koreans because of slumping donations (see GSN, Jan. 6).

“What we’re having to do now, because the resourcing situation has not improved, is to start cutting off beneficiaries in the eastern half of the country,” said WFP spokesman Gerald Bourke.  “To have to make cutbacks in that area is extremely serious because these are among the people in North Korea who are suffering most,” he added.

The United States cut its donations to the program over concerns about food distribution, according to Reuters.  The program had planned to feed 6.5 million North Koreans in 2003 (Tamora Vidaillet, Reuters, Feb. 10).

Back to top

North Korea:  U.S. Officials Investigating Troop Reduction, Reports Say

U.S. military officials, working with Seoul, may be investigating ways to reduce the military’s presence in South Korea, USNews.com reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 6).

Senior aides to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that modern military technology and improved South Korean armed forces allow a potential reduction in U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula.  The move would not signify a weakened alliance between the two countries, USNews.com reported (Mark Mazzetti, USNews.com, Feb. 6).

During talks with South Korean envoy Chyung Dai-chul, Rumsfeld indicated Washington was willing to reduce forces from the peninsula if Seoul wanted, according to a South Korean television report.

U.S. officials said no such move was imminent, however.

“We have no intention of withdrawing forces from Korea.  Our commitment remains strong to continue the stationing of our forces to deter the North’s threat and keep the regional balance,” said Thomas Hubbard, the U.S. ambassador to Seoul.  “The capabilities of the Korean military have increased, and the balance in military aspects of the relationship has changed,” he added (Seo Hyun-jin, Korea Herald, Feb. 7).

Chyung himself denied the reports.

“I am the one who met with Rumsfeld.  He did not mention a withdrawal or reduction of U.S. forces stationed in the South,” Chyung said.  U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney “did not make such a comment, either,” he added (Korea Herald, Feb. 7).

U.S. Can Fight in Two Theaters

Meanwhile, U.S. officials said yesterday that North Korea should not attempt to take advantage of the crisis in Iraq.  The United States will maintain a strong military presence in the region to deter North Korean aggression, the New York Times reported.

“No options have been taken off the table,” said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during testimony yesterday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  “The options of sanctions, the option of additional political moves, no military option’s been taken off the table, although we have no intention of attacking North Korea as a nation,” he added (James Dao, New York Times, Feb. 7).

Powell also said the United States is capable of conducting simultaneous military action in Iraq and North Korea, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Senate Democrats, however, criticized the White House approach to the situation.

“North Korea is a grave threat that seems to grow with each day that passes without high-level engagement,” said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle (S.D.).  “The president should stop downplaying this threat, start paying more attention to it, and immediately engage the North Koreans in direct talks,” he added.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) accused the Bush administration of “designed neglect.”

Powell disagreed with this assessment.

“North Korea is a more direct threat to South Korea and to China and Russia than anyone else,” he said.  “Now, those nations are also encouraging us: ‘Quick.  Quick.  Talk to the North Koreans.’  And we are prepared to engage with the North Koreans and we’re prepared to talk to them.  But what we can’t find ourselves in the position of doing is essentially panicking at their activities and their demands,” Powell added (Sonni Efron, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 7).

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton yesterday said that Washington should offer Pyongyang food, energy and technology to abandon its nuclear aspirations.

“North Korea is a poor country.  They can’t grow their own food.  It’s the most isolated society in the world.  Their only cash crops are bombs and missiles,” Clinton said during an appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live.  “Nobody in the region wants them to have these weapons.  The only reason they had weapons was either to sell them or to be paid not to sell them,” he added.

Clinton said that all regional partners must assure Pyongyang food, energy and security in exchange for a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

“I think the diplomatic course is right,” Clinton said.  “The president and the administration have said they want to handle it diplomatically, but I think you have to be firm in public and absolutely brutal in private.  You cannot let them become a nuclear arsenal because the pressure on them to sell these bombs will be overwhelming.  They have no other way to make money,” he added (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 7).

Back to top

United States:  Pentagon Needs More Long-Range Bombers, Hunter Says

The United States needs to develop a new long-range, stealth bomber to meet potential threats, according to Representative Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (see GSN, Jan. 2, 2002).

Hunter also said the United States needs at least 50 long-range stealth bombers and the Pentagon should reconsider its decision to retire more than 30 B-1 bombers (see GSN, April 5, 2002).

“I think we would be well-served to retrieve those out of the boneyard,” he said (Jim Skeen, Los Angeles Daily News, Feb. 5).

Back to top

United States:  Bush Budget Reflects Nuclear Weapons Ambitions

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s fiscal 2004 budget request reflects the White House push for a strengthened nuclear deterrent and has already prompted criticism from lawmakers who worry that a heightened reliance on nuclear weapons will prove both unnecessary and destabilizing.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday was questioned by members of the House Armed Services Committee about the administration’s plans during testimony over the budget submission, sent to Congress on Monday (see GSN, Feb. 3).  Lawmakers signaled a coming debate on Capitol Hill over the wisdom of the administration’s nuclear ambitions.

The proposed budget calls for significant increases in nuclear weapons-related activities.  For example, the Energy Department is seeking $6.4 billion next year for nuclear weapons programs, a 9.1 percent increase from the previous year, according to budget documents.

The money will be used to certify, along with the Defense Department, the safety, security and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, including efforts to extend the operational life of currently deployed nuclear warheads, including the W-87, B-61, W-76 and W-80 warheads, according to the documents.

The budget proposal also includes $320 million to manufacture plutonium pits, the triggers in a nuclear weapon that experts say could deteriorate over time, risking long-term effectiveness (see GSN, Sept. 20, 2002).

“As the Nuclear Posture Review issued by President Bush acknowledges, a nuclear capability is going to be a key element of our national defense in the foreseeable future,” said Bryan Wilkes, National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman.  His agency, part of the Energy Department, develops and maintains U.S. nuclear weapons.

One of the thrusts of the nuclear review, released in January 2002, is the potential need to develop a new or modified nuclear warhead capable of burrowing through concrete and other hardened structures where weapons of mass destruction might be hidden (see GSN, Oct. 10, 2002). 

With $15 million, Los Alamos National Laboratory is conducting a study of the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which could be a modified version of the B-61.

The seriousness of this effort was underscored last week when the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency announced it is seeking proposals for a computer modeling system to help predict how effective nuclear weapons might be in destroying underground targets and the likely effects of radioactive fallout.  The $1.26 billion program is scheduled to be complete in 2006, according to the DTRA request for proposals (see GSN, Feb. 3).

The possibility that the United States would develop what critics charge would be a more usable nuclear weapon yesterday prompted one member of the House committee to ask Rumsfeld to defend the administration’s position.

“At a time when this committee has not yet received a report required in the [2003] defense authorization bill on the potential uses of the robust earth penetrator, or whether or not we can still use conventional weapons to defeat hardened targets, I am deeply concerned that the administration is pushing the envelope on trying to design a new generation of smaller, more usable nuclear weapons, creating a more unstable and dangerous world,” Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) said during a question and answer period.

Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers and Pentagon budget chief Dov Zakheim appeared before the committee as part of the Congress’ annual review of the president’s budget request.

Rumsfeld tried to assure the committee that the department is still only researching the possibility of developing such a weapon and that no new nuclear designs are on the drawing board.

“I’m 99 and nine-tenths positive there is no new weapon development of the nature that you’re describing,” Rumsfeld responded.

The variety of nuclear weapons-related efforts called for in the budget request are nevertheless cause for great concern, according to critics. 

“You put all these pieces together and the administration is moving in the direction of creating a new type of nuclear weapons that would probably require nuclear testing,” said Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association.  “This is a slow-motion slide backward to the Dr. Strangelove days,” he said.

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Readies Nuclear Reactor

North Korea yesterday said it has either restarted or will soon restart a nuclear reactor that could produce plutonium for nuclear weapons and hinted that it could attack first if threatened by the United States, according to reports (see GSN, Feb. 5).

“The D.P.R.K. (North Korea) is now putting the operation of its nuclear facilities for the production of electricity on a normal footing after their restart,” a statement from the North Korean KCNA news agency said, according to Reuters.

The statement was unclear in Korean as well, according to a South Korean official.  It could be interpreted to mean “poised to restart,” the official said (Nesirky/Allen, Reuters, Feb. 6).

“We have confirmed that the North has moved fresh fuel rods to the nuclear reactor and it will not take long for it to be reactivated,” said a South Korean official (Seo Hyun-jin, Korea Herald, Feb. 6).

Daniel Pinkston of the Monterey Institute of International Studies said the reactor was probably not yet running.

“What they are saying is that they are in the process of normalizing, of restarting operations.  It could be very soon now,” he said.

Japanese officials said they were concerned by the statement and were investigating to see if it was true.

“We are very much concerned that they have been engaged in an escalation of tension and … brinkmanship and we urge the North Koreans to stop doing this kind of thing,” said Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hatsuhisa Takashima (Nesirky/Allen, Reuters).

The International Atomic Energy Agency expressed dismay with North Korea’s announcement.

“Without the presence of our inspectors we could not certify this alleged nuclear activity,” IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.  “However if it is true, the IAEA deplores the operation of nuclear facilities without safeguard inspection,” she added (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 6).

“We are now on a slippery slope away from negotiations and toward potential confrontation,” said C. Kenneth Quinones, a former U.S. State Department specialist who was involved in the 1994 closing of the plant.

North Korea claims it is forced to reopen the plant at Yongbyon to generate electricity for the nation.  Experts said the plant would not produce a significant amount of electricity and the plant will more likely be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported.

“I don’t see anything being put in place to slow that process,” Quinones said yesterday.  “Pyongyang is certainly not slowing it.  And the Bush administration right now is in a very hard-nosed stance,” he added (Doug Struck, Washington Post, Feb. 6).

Pre-Emptive Prerogative

Pyongyang expressed anxiety about recent plans for a U.S. military buildup in the region and one official said that North Korea maintains its right to launch a pre-emptive attack.

“The United States says that after Iraq, we are next,” said Ri Pyong Gap, deputy director of North Korea’s Foreign Ministry.  “But we have our own countermeasures.  Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the U.S.,” Ri added.

The situation now is more serious than the confrontation a decade ago, according to Ri.

“The present situation can be called graver than it was in 1993.  It will be touch and go,” Ri said (Jonathan Watts, London Guardian, Feb. 6).

Back to top

Iraq:  Powell Presents U.S. Evidence of Nuclear Efforts to U.N. Security Council

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell provided new information to the U.N. Security Council yesterday outlining Iraqi efforts to develop and conceal its alleged nuclear weapons program (see GSN, Feb. 5).

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein “is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb,” Powell said.

The United States has obtained intelligence information from a number of sources outlining Iraq’s attempts to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines — both of which can be used in a centrifuge uranium enrichment program, Powell said.  For example, in 1999 and 2000 Iraq negotiated with several companies throughout the world to purchase a magnet production plant capable of producing magnets weighing between 20 to 30 grams — the same size of magnet Iraq used in its uranium enrichment program before the 1991 Gulf War, he said.

Hussein has also devoted more attention to Iraqi nuclear scientists, or as Hussein calls them, his “nuclear mujahedeen,” Powell said.  “He regularly exhorts them and praises their progress.  Progress toward what end?” Powell asked.

In his presentation, Powell described to the council Iraq’s attempts to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes, which can also be used in a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment program.  Iraq has said the tubes were used to build conventional rockets; a charge that Powell criticized, noting that the specifications for the tubes had become more refined with each effort to acquire the tubes.  For example, the latest shipment included tubes with an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces.

“I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things:  First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets,” Powell said.  “Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don’t think so,” he added (White House release, Feb. 5).

Other experts, however, have challenged the U.S. claims that the aluminum tubes were meant for an Iraqi nuclear program, according to the Washington Post.  The International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees nuclear inspections in Iraq, reported last month that the tubes were not suitable for use in an enrichment program without significant modification (see GSN, Jan. 10).  Other sources have said the tubes matched the dimensions of rockets already in Iraq’s arsenal and that Iraq ordered the same tubes during the 1980s to restock its rocket supply, the Post reported.

While the tubes may not have been perfectly designed for use in a uranium enrichment program, Iraq might have ordered them anyway in an attempt to hide its intentions, said Khidhir Hamza, a former Iraqi physicist who defected in 1994.

“Of course Iraq would not order cylinders with exact specifications for centrifuges, because such tubes would never have been shipped,” Hamza said.  “This is a standard Iraqi ploy,” he added (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Feb. 6).

For further information, see:

Powell’s presentation slides (U.S. State Department)

Back to top

North Korea:  Washington Says Talks With Pyongyang Will Happen

The United States said yesterday it intends to hold direct talks with Pyongyang, the Baltimore Sun reported (see GSN, Feb. 3).

“Of course, we’re going to have to have direct talks with the North Koreans.  There’s no question about it,” said U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage during testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The White House is preparing for the talks by meeting with allies in the region and in Europe, said U.S. officials.  There is not, however, a timetable in place for the talks and Washington wants an international consensus before entering discussions so “this thing doesn’t rub entirely off on us to come up with a solution” (Mark Matthews, Baltimore Sun, Feb. 5).

Armitage said Washington is wary of North Korea selling its nuclear material.

“Our major fear is that North Korea would pass on fissile material,” he said (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, Feb. 5).  “I don’t think that, given the poverty of North Korea, that it would be too long after she got a good amount of fissile material … that she would be inclined to engage with somebody, a nonstate actor or a rogue state,” Armitage added.

He also told the committee that the difference between North Korea and Iraq is the intent of their leaders.

“We know, we think, what (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il wants,” Armitage said.  “Some economic benefits and things of that nature,” he added.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, wants to “intimidate, dominate and attack,” Armitage said (Matthews, Baltimore Sun).

Japan said yesterday that international dialogue is needed in the wake of the Bush administration’s decision not to fund the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (see GSN, Feb. 4).

“We must talk with relevant countries,” said Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (The Japan Times, Feb. 5).

Pyongyang said, meanwhile, that it would not send a representative to a Feb. 12 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency that could forward the Korean nuclear crisis to the U.N. Security Council.

The burden in the crisis is on the United States to prove that it has no hostile intent, according to Park Eui Chun, the North Korean ambassador to Moscow (Seoul Yonhap, Feb. 1 in FBIS-EAS, Feb. 1).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Senate Committee Recommends Approval of Moscow Treaty

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee today passed a resolution to approve the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2002). 

Signed by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin last May in Moscow, the treaty would remove several thousand nuclear warheads from front-line military service by 2012 (see GSN, May 24, 2002).

The committee passed the resolution with conditions requiring a single report studying how U.S. nuclear reductions and nonproliferation assistance can help Russia implement the treaty and an annual report on U.S. and Russian implementation of the treaty.

The next step is for the full Senate to agree to the treaty, needed for Bush to ratify the treaty.

The treaty has been criticized for not requiring destruction of any weapons and for lacking specificity (see GSN, Aug. 5, 2002).

“I want to reiterate my view that the goal of meaningful nuclear arms reduction can only be achieved by dismantling and destroying these weapons,” said Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who criticized the treaty, but voted for the resolution nevertheless.

“I hope that it will be the first step in a more comprehensive binding plan to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that are stored and deployed by our two countries,” Feingold said in a statement.

The treaty requires all but a maximum of 2,200 strategic warheads to be removed from each country’s respective bombers, submarines and missiles by the end of 2012.  The treaty then expires, technically allowing the two countries to return those warheads to service the following day, officials and experts have said.

The resolution recommended that the president continue strategic offensive nuclear reductions “to the lowest possible levels consistent with national security requirements and alliance obligations of the United States.”

Bush administration officials have said they would pursue no further strategic arms reduction treaties with Russia.

The resolution also urged the president work with Russia to improve Moscow’s accounting of its nonstrategic nuclear weapons and to ensure their security.  Estimates of the size of the Russian nonstrategic stockpile range up to 12,000 warheads, which experts say are easier to steal than strategic weapons and easier to provide illicitly to other states or groups.

Back to top

Indian Response:  Foreign Secretary Highlights Pakistani-North Korean Links

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The world must focus on the nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation links between Pakistan and North Korea, now being “ignored,” Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said here yesterday.

Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Sibal said that while the current conflict over North Korea’s relaunched nuclear program must be addressed, attention should also be paid to nuclear and missile transfers between North Korea and other countries.  The New Yorker reported last month that a June 2002 CIA report outlined Pakistan’s exchange of nuclear technologies for North Korean missile components (see GSN, Jan. 21).  The father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, A.Q. Khan, has also reportedly made a number of secret trips to North Korea (see GSN, Nov. 25, 2002). 

Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri pledged last week, however, that his country would not aid North Korea, or any other country, in developing nuclear weapons (see GSN, Jan. 30).

India’s commitment to nonproliferation has been “unwavering and its record impeccable,” Sibal said, noting that India has strengthened its nuclear and missile-related export controls (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002). 

Scientific Cooperation 

During his speech yesterday, Sibal noted India’s desire to increase scientific and technological cooperation with the United States, which has been constrained in the past because of India’s nuclear efforts (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2002).  U.S. law prohibits nuclear transfers to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, such as India.  India also does not belong to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is an informal export control regime that establishes guidelines for nuclear transfers  

Sibal criticized such nonproliferation regimes, saying they both act as an undue constraint on India and that they fail to combat clandestine proliferation.

“It is evident that international ad hoc proliferation control regimes, designed on different assumptions of proliferation and for a different era, are clearly ineffective in meeting the resulting threats to international peace and stability,” Sibal said.

“Developing countries, which exercise self-discipline and adhere to the rule of law and transparency, find themselves facing both the constraints of the ad hoc control regimes and a deteriorating security environment from unchecked clandestine proliferation,” he said.

India’s nuclear weapons are “purely a defensive approach” and act primarily as a deterrent, Sibal said.  He said India has demonstrated nuclear restraint in several ways, including its continued testing moratorium, its no-first-use policy and its policy of refusing to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states (see GSN, Jan. 10).  India, however, will never accept that there can be only five nuclear weapons states, Sibal said.

Increased U.S.-Indian scientific cooperation was a subject of Sibal’s recent meetings with several senior U.S. officials, including Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster.  India and the United States have made progress in understanding each other’s security and nonproliferation concerns, but more needs to be done to increase scientific and technological cooperation, which would have economic benefits for both countries, Sibal said.

“The dialogue that we have had ... demonstrates — at least from our perspective — that what separates us on these issues is not interest or approach but a historical point in time that put us on the opposite sides of a legal divide,” he said.

Kashmir

Sibal yesterday also made a number of veiled criticisms of Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf for supporting terrorism and for failing to end cross-border infiltration into the disputed province of Kashmir — long feared to be a potential flashpoint between the two nuclear-armed South Asian rivals.

“The leader of a country whose right hand commits terrorist acts against India and the left hand cooperates against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, one part of whose discourse is a rallying call in favor of terrorism against India and the other rallies against those who target the West ... cannot be a reliable partner in the combat against terrorism,” Sibal said.  “You cannot with the one hand water poisonous weeds and with the other hand spray weed-killers,” he added.

The outside world, including the United States, needs to bring more pressure on Pakistan to abide by its commitments to end cross-border terrorism, Sibal said, adding that India was disappointed with such efforts so far.  He said the United States was able to pressure Pakistan into abandoning its support for the Taliban, which Pakistan’s intelligence services played an important role in creating. 

“In the global war against terrorism there is no room for double standards ... of terrorism directed against the West and that directed against the others, of the former being untarnished evil and the latter requiring resolution of its root causes,” Sibal said.

While India realizes the United States needs Pakistan’s support for its efforts to rebuild and stabilize Afghanistan, efforts to reduce Pakistani support for terrorism should not be seen “as a favor to India but as a part of the international combat against terrorism,” Sibal said, adding that terrorist infrastructures used against India could also be used against other countries.  An end to cross-border terrorism will also help pave the way for a dialogue to begin between India and Pakistan and a normalization of relations, he said.

“Pakistan represents everything that is in the forefront of U.S. concerns:  religious fundamentalism, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction in possession of a failing state, a military dictatorship masquerading behind a pale democratic facade,” Sibal said.  “A big challenge India and the U.S. face is to make Pakistan a genuinely moderate state,” he added.

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP