North Korea:  IAEA Finds North Korea in “Noncompliance”

The International Atomic Energy Agency today formally sent the North Korean nuclear crisis to the U.N. Security Council after determining that North Korea has violated its nuclear nonproliferation commitments (see GSN, Feb. 11).

None of the agency’s 35-member Board of Governors voted against the resolution, but Russia and Cuba abstained.  Russia has opposed escalating the crisis, according to Reuters (Rake/Charbonneau, Reuters, Feb. 12).

“The D.P.R.K. is in further noncompliance with its obligations under its safeguards agreement with the agency,” the IAEA’s resolution says (IAEA release I, Feb. 12).

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said North Korea has been in “chronic noncompliance” since 1993, and the agency was not able to fulfill its duties to ensure that Pyongyang was abiding by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

“Since 1994 the D.P.R.K. has sought shelter behind the U.S.-D.P.R.K. Agreed Framework, claiming a legally untenable ‘unique status’ under the NPT to circumvent compliance with its nonproliferation obligations,” ElBaradei said.  North Korea “displayed complete disregard for its obligations under the safeguards agreement by cutting all seals and impeding the functioning of surveillance cameras that were in place in its nuclear facilities,” ElBaradei added (IAEA release II, Feb. 12).

Anticipating the IAEA move, European foreign policy chief Javier Solana said yesterday that he hoped the Security Council would not act too aggressively toward North Korea.

“I don’t think it is the moment to impose sanctions.  I think sanctions will contribute to the opposite of what we want to take — which is to defuse the crisis,” Solana said during a visit to Seoul (Korea Herald, Feb. 12).

Also speaking yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell declined to limit possible U.S. policies.

“We have all of our options available to us,” Powell the U.S. Senate Budget Committee.  “The option we’re pushing is a diplomatic one, and we want to do it within a multilateral framework,” he added (James Dao, New York Times, Feb. 12).

Moscow is still trying to find an alternate solution to the nuclear crisis.

Russia is planning “numerous steps” to push Washington and Pyongyang to talks,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov said in statement to the Interfax news agency.

“We feel there is potential for dialogue between the United States and North Korea and believe that this chance should be used before making any important decisions,” his statement said (Dao, New York Times).

“The North Koreans have told us about their desire to hold a dialogue with the United States,” Losyukov said.  “The Americans have told the same thing.  We need to figure out why, unfortunately, this is not happening while the crisis continues and — if not getting even worse — then at least staying at the same level,” he added (Dawn, Feb. 12).

U.S. lawmakers from both parties have criticized the White House for its approach to North Korea.

“There needs to be informal dialogue,” said Representative Kurt Weldon (R-Pa.).  “That’s the biggest problem now.  No one is having discussions,” he added (Dao, New York Times).

Moscow is afraid that taking the issue to the Security Council could be “one more step that might trigger retaliation by Pyongyang,” according to a Western diplomat.

Many IAEA board members, however, fear that the future of the organization hangs in the balance.

“We never had a state walk out of the NPT before.  We never had a state tearing up the safeguard agreements (which provide for IAEA inspections of nuclear sites) before,” said a senior diplomat.

CIA Director George Tenet said yesterday that Pyongyang is attempting to make Washington accept a nuclear North Korea.

North Korean leader “Kim Jong Il’s attempts this past year to parlay the North’s nuclear weapons program into political leverage suggest he is trying to negotiate a fundamentally different relationship with Washington — one that implicitly tolerates the North’s nuclear weapons program,” he testified to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Feb. 12).

North Korea today asked the United Kingdom to push the United States to open dialogue with Pyongyang.

“We think because the U.K. has a special relationship with the U.S., we expect the U.K. can play a certain role in relations between our country and the U.S.,” said Ri Hui Chol, a senior North Korean Foreign Ministry official (Reuters/MSNBC.com, Feb. 11).

British Foreign Office minister Bill Rammel rejected the suggestion.

“This isn’t a bilateral issue between the U.S. and North Korea.  It is an issue for the entire international community,” he said (Gideon Long, Reuters, Feb. 12).

Washington Holding Back Food Aid

The United States is temporarily holding back shipments of food to North Korea because of reports that the humanitarian supplies are being redirected to the North Korean army and Pyongyang’s political elite.

“We are going to continue to be there, because we don’t use food as a weapon,” said Tony Hall, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. food agencies.  “But we are going to be darn sure that if we tell you where the food is supposed to be and you give it to someone else, then we’re going to wait, and we’re going to be darn sure that our food is getting through to the right people,” he added.

No U.S. food aid has been pledged to the program yet this year.

“We will give, we just don’t know when,” said a U.S. official.

Food program officials “try to follow the food, but what we’re hearing is they will take the food out, and they will actually see the food being given to the people.  The food program leaves, and (government officials) grab the food and take it from (the recipients),” Hall said (Nicole Winfield, Washington Times, Feb. 12).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Experts Call For “Nuclear Czars” to Oversee Nonproliferation Efforts

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States and Russia should each appoint a senior official — a nuclear nonproliferation “czar” — to oversee each country’s nuclear nonproliferation efforts, U.S. and Russian scientific advisers said in a joint December 2002 letter released last week by the U.S. National Academies (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002).

In their letter to the U.S. and Russian academies, John Holdren, chair of the U.S National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control and Nikolai Laverov, a member of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Science and Technology Advisory Council, reported on the progress of a joint U.S.-Russian committee that has worked to develop recommendations to strengthen cooperation in nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

“There can be no doubt ... about the interest of proliferant states and terrorist groups in trying to exploit the continuing inadequacies in the protection of nuclear weapons, materials, technologies and expertise in order to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities; and there can be no doubt about the intolerable consequences that would ensue if even one such weapon were exploded in a U.S. or Russian city,” Holdren and Laverov said in their letter.

Yesterday, CIA Director George Tenet told a U.S. Senate committee, “The desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge.  Additional countries may decide to seek nuclear weapons as it becomes clear their neighbors and regional rivals are already doing so.  The ‘domino theory’ of the 21st century may well be nuclear.”

One of the U.S.-Russian committee’s main recommendations is that both the United States and Russia should appoint a full-time, high-level official to oversee each country’s nuclear nonproliferation efforts.  These officials would also be responsible for improving bilateral cooperation and would update their presidents on the progress and needs of nonproliferation programs.

The idea of appointing a single official to mange nonproliferation efforts is not new.  Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, now co-chairman of the private Nuclear Threat Initiative, made a similar recommendation during a speech in mid-November 2002.  While serving in Congress, Nunn co-sponsored the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which provides U.S. assistance to securing former Soviet weapons of mass destruction and related materials.

“The first step is to put our own houses in order — identifying, accounting for, and securing the weapons and materials in Russia and the United States,” Nunn told a nonproliferation conference in Washington.  “Each president should appoint one high-level person, reporting directly to the president, to take full responsibility for this issue, and this issue alone,” he added.

Some experts have argued that, if a nonproliferation czar is created, the position should be a new one, and not merely another responsibility for an existing White House official.  For example, some have said a new deputy national security adviser, who would also have their own staff, should fill the position, said Matthew Bunn, senior research associate at the Managing the Atom Project at Harvard University.  A disadvantage to this, however, is that National Security Council staff members are only accountable to the White House, and the official in charge of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts needs to be both responsible to the president and Congress, Bunn said.

Regardless of the exact position developed, the new official has to be part of the White House with direct access to and full confidence of the president, Bunn said.  He made a similar point in a May 2002 report, Securing Nuclear Weapons and Materials: Seven Steps for Immediate Action.

“[U.S.] President [George W.] Bush needs to appoint someone in the White House who reports directly to him, who has no other mission but this — someone tasked to wake up every morning thinking, ‘What can I do to keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands today?’” said the report, co-authored by Holdren and Anthony Weir, both of Harvard’s Managing the Atom Project.

Although many experts have said that a White House-level official is needed to act as a nonproliferation czar, there has been little consideration of the idea within the Bush administration, Bunn told GSN, adding that it was unlikely that any action would be taken.  Those officials in charge of nonproliferation programs, now scattered among various U.S agencies such as the Defense, Energy and State Departments, have quietly opposed placing so much control in the hands of the White House, he said, adding that such officials would be unlikely to “go on the record” with their criticism.

Up on Capitol Hill, however, there has been much more support from Congress for the idea, Bunn said.  For example, in 1996, legislation was proposed to establish a single position to oversee nonproliferation programs, but that provision was ultimately watered down and an existing deputy national security adviser simply added monitoring nonproliferation issues to his other responsibilities. 

Even so, there has been “strong support for this idea on Capitol Hill for a number of years,” Bunn said.

It is unlikely, however, that the current Congress will introduce a bill to create a nonproliferation czar position, Bunn said.  He noted that Republican-led Congresses typically avoid dictating to a Republican president how to set up his administration.

Fissile Materials

The committee has also recommended several measures to reduce the amount of available fissile materials.  For example, priority should be given to consolidating Russian stockpiles of highly enriched uranium at fewer, more secure storage sites and on returning to Russia small stockpiles of Soviet-era HEU currently outside of Russia.  The committee praised the August 2002 joint U.S.-Russian-Yugoslav mission to return more than 100 pounds of HEU to Russia from a Yugoslav research reactor (see GSN, Aug. 23, 2002).  Enough fissile material was recovered during that mission to produce two nuclear weapons, according to reports.

The U.S.-Russian “Megatons to Megawatts” program, under which the U.S. Enrichment Corp. purchases uranium taken from Russian nuclear weapons for use as fuel in nuclear power plants, needs to be expanded, Holdren and Laverov said in their letter (see GSN, Oct. 4, 2002).  The agreement, signed 10 years ago Monday, has provided the United States with enough fuel to power a city the size of Boston for about 230 years, USEC has said.  Even so, Russia should accelerate the conversion of weapon-grade materials to fuel beyond the rate needed to implement the U.S. purchase agreement, the committee recommended. 

While the U.S.-Russian HEU deal is currently designed to ensure that the Russian uranium does not further depress the worldwide LEU market, “proliferation concerns should take priority over economic ones,” Holdren and Laverov said.

The United States and Russia also need to expand their efforts to convert research and test reactors to use low-enriched uranium, Holdren and Laverov said, noting that efforts to convert U.S. research reactors to LEU use have been stalled because of a lack of funding.  “This issue needs more attention in both countries, as a matter of urgency,” they said.

In September 2002, the nonprofit Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council released a report calling for increased support for a joint U.S.-Russian program to develop alternative fuels for research reactors to aid in their conversion to LEU use (see GSN, Sept. 27, 2002).  RANSAC noted several concerns regarding the U.S.-Russian Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors program, including a lack of funding and technical difficulties in converting research reactors to use the developed alternative fuel assemblies.

“It is vitally important that this effort receive renewed political and financial support in both the United States and Russia,” the RANSAC report said.  “The program could make an important contribution to the effort to eliminate vulnerable HEU stockpiles in Russia and those other countries that possess Soviet-designed research and test reactors,” it added.

A high priority should be placed on international cooperative efforts to decommission Russian nuclear submarines, Holdren and Laverov said.  They noted that the nuclear fuel in use in Russian submarines is at varying states of enrichment.  Because of this, “some of the spent fuel may represent a significant proliferation hazard and most of it represents a serious radiological terrorism hazard — both to theft and radiological dispersion and to sabotage,” they said.

Training

The committee has recommended that the United States and Russia should also increase funding to train nonproliferation workers and to make them fully aware of the threats of diversion of fissile materials (see GSN, Dec. 6, 2002).  Programs should also be created to train new nonproliferation workers and managers in order to fill that gaps likely to be created by strengthening and expanding nonproliferation programs, according to Holdren and Laverov.

“Those involved today in guarding and managing nuclear material need training to make them fully understand the importance of the role they are playing in ensuring U.S., Russian and world security,” Holdren and Laverov said in their letter.  “They are literally at the front line of the global struggle to stem the spread of nuclear weapons, and many of them do not know it,” they added.

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  Sam Nunn is co-chairman and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]

Back to top

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

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP