|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
North Korea: Security Council Delays Action on Korean Nuclear CrisisThe Security Council yesterday held its first formal meeting on North Korea’s nuclear program since a crisis heightened over the issue last month, when Pyongyang announced it was withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Instead of taking any immediate action, the council decided to refer the issue to another group of experts (see GSN, Feb. 19). The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors last week found North Korea was in “noncompliance” with its IAEA safeguards commitments and referred the matter to the United Nations (see GSN, Feb. 12). After a brief closed-door consultation, German U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, this month’s Security Council president, said council members were taking the IAEA report to their own national experts so that they may “draw their substantial and legal conclusions and make their recommendations to the members of the council. On that basis the council will take the matter up and discuss it.” Calling the possibility of North Korea restarting its nuclear weapons program “an important and very complicated issue,” Pleuger said, “The council wanted to refer this to the experts first before discussing it in the council itself.” There is no deadline for the experts to report back to the council, he added. U.S. Deputy U.N. Ambassador James Cunningham said, “We look forward to working with our colleagues on the council on finding a way to achieve a verifiable and irreversible dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program.” He rejected the North Korean contention that the issue should be dealt with bilaterally between Pyongyang and Washington. This is “a matter of concern to the entire international community,” he said (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Feb. 20). Powell Begins Asian Trip Tomorrow U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is scheduled to leave tomorrow for Japan, China and South Korea to discuss the nuclear standoff and attend the inauguration ceremony of South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun, the Associated Press reported. It will be his first visit to the region since the latest crisis began, according to AP. Roh, meanwhile, said that he would oppose any plans to attack North Korea. The president-elect said he is “willing to differ with the United States … if that helps prevent a war.” “An attack on North Korea could trigger a war engulfing the entire Korean Peninsula,” Roh said. “It’s a serious issue, and at this moment, I am against even consideration of such an option,” he added (George Gedda, Associated Press/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb. 20). Powell’s Methods Powell has chosen not to take such trips as often as some of his predecessors and some critics charge that his diplomatic style relies too much on telephone conversations, the Washington Post reported today. Powell reportedly canceled a trip late last year to Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing and has not made any solo diplomatic visits lasting more than two days since last September, according to the Post. Experts said that, in general, longer trips allow officials more time to appreciate the nuances of complicated relationships and issues. Senior officials from Washington should “go to smaller countries and persuade them,” said a diplomat from an East European country that has supported the White House on its Iraq confrontation. “You’ve got Powell and (national security adviser Condoleezza) Rice on TV. Why didn’t they go to Europe … you should have been all over Europe. It’s been missing,” the diplomat added (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Feb. 20). For further information, see: States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)
From February 20, 2003 issue.Iran: Opposition Group Plans to Reveal New Nuclear FacilityAn Iranian opposition group plans to expose a site where they say Iran houses equipment to enrich uranium for building nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Feb. 11). The National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed two nuclear sites last August, which are due to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency this weekend (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002). The group announced it will reveal the new site today and alleged that Tehran has removed equipment from Natanz, one of the sites to be visited by inspectors, the Post reported. Alireza Jafarzadeh, the group’s Washington representative, alleged that Chinese and North Korean experts have aided the Iranian nuclear program. North Korean and Chinese experts oversaw the installation of centrifuge equipment used to enrich uranium near Isfahan and about 50 Chinese have been seen at a uranium mine at Saghand, he said. The centrifuge systems were tested at Kola Electric, a supposed watch factory near Tehran, Jafarzadeh said. The site has two 4,500 square foot rooms, he added. The nuclear effort at Natanz began two years ago, covers 25 acres and has sections that are 25 feet underground and protected by eight-foot-thick concrete, the Washington Post reported. The other facility, at Arak, began in 1996 and is designed to produce heavy water to use plutonium in weapons, according to the Post. That site is set to be ready for testing in April and Iran will claim the heavy water is necessary for industrial use, according to the opposition group. The Natanz site is too big to be Iran’s first enriched uranium project, according to some experts. Iran, therefore, might be running a smaller pilot program now that has paved the way for new facility, they added (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Feb. 20).
From February 20, 2003 issue.Japan: 1995 Defense Study Rejected Weapons DevelopmentEight years ago, Japan studied, and rejected, developing its own nuclear weapons, the Asahi Shimbun reported today. A 1995 Japanese Defense Agency study concluded that the military balance in Asia would have been upset if the country were to do so (see GSN, June 5, 2002). The study, obtained by the Japanese newspaper, found several disadvantages to Japan developing its own nuclear arsenal. For example, a nuclear-armed Japan would have destroyed the basis for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the reliability of the U.S. nuclear umbrella would have been damaged, and Washington would have questioned Tokyo’s commitment to their military alliance, the Shimbun reported. In addition, the political and economic costs of establishing a nuclear weapons infrastructure would have been too high, according to the study. The 1995 report was the second time that Japan examined the idea of developing nuclear weapons, with an earlier study conducted between 1967 and 1970, according to the Shimbun (Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 20). Japanese Defense Agency spokesman Manabu Shimamoto said today that the report was an internal agency document and had never been intended to be made public (Kenji Hall, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 20). For further information, see: States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)
From February 19, 2003 issue.North Korea: Chinese Officials Meet With Pyongyang EnvoyChinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi met North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun yesterday to discuss the nuclear standoff on the Korean Peninsula, CNN.com reported (see GSN, Feb. 18). “Both sides had a deep and broad discussion on the nuclear issue in North Korea, and exchanged views on the issue. Each side also said they want to see the issue resolved through peaceful means and through dialogue,” according to Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue. Chinese officials would not say if the officials discussed Pyongyang’s recent threat to pull out of the 1953 Armistice Agreement (Lisa Weaver, CNN.com, Feb. 18). A South Korean military official said that the North Korean threat was not a new development, Agence France-Presse reported today. “North Korea said in 1994 they were no longer bound by the Armistice Agreement,” the official said. Pyongyang again called for a nonaggression treaty with Washington yesterday, and urged the United States to engage in direct negotiations. “The U.S. is insisting on its strange assertion that it cannot respond to the D.P.R.K. (North Korea)-U.S. talks as they mean a sort of reward for the D.P.R.K. despite the unanimous world public opinion that D.P.R.K.-U.S. direct talks should take place to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue. This is an illogical far-fetched assertion,” said a statement from the Korean Central News Agency. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell will visit Beijing “shortly” to discuss the crisis, Zhang said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Feb. 19). South Korean President Kim Dae-jung said that Japan and South Korea could be forced to build their own nuclear capacity if North Korea continues its weapons development. “If North Korea gets nuclear weapons, the stance of Japan and our country toward nuclear weapons would change,” Kim said (Hamish McDonald, Sydney Morning Herald, Feb. 19). Kim said, however, that the current standoff will probably not end in war. “I believe the danger of war on the Korean Peninsula is slight — in fact, nonexistent,” he said yesterday (Cho/Struck, Washington Post, Feb. 19).
From February 19, 2003 issue.United States: Pentagon Planning Nuclear Weapons MeetingPentagon officials are planning to meet later this year to discuss U.S. nuclear weapons requirements, including the possibility of a new generation of nuclear warheads to target hardened and deeply buried underground bunkers, according to a New Mexico organization opposed to nuclear testing (see GSN, Feb. 14). The Los Alamos Study Group, an advocacy group, published minutes of a Jan. 10 Defense Department meeting on its Web site and said Pentagon officials were planning a secret conference “to discuss what new nuclear weapons to build, how they might be tested … and how to sell the ideas to Congress and the American public.” The document says that the meeting is being planned to consider nuclear issues but there has been no decision to resume nuclear testing. The “genesis” of the planned meeting is an October 2002 memo from Pentagon acquisition and technology chief Pete Aldridge, which deals with “the risk associated with not testing our nuclear weapons,” according to the minutes (see GSN, Nov. 19, 2002). “Although the conference will consider issues related to nuclear testing, it is not the policy of the administration to return to nuclear testing,” the document says. The meeting will produce a “recommended roadmap and offer suggestions,” according to the document. During a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about money requested to study nuclear weapons development (see GSN, Feb. 14). “If the United States sends signals that we’re considering new uses for nuclear weapons, isn’t it more likely that other nations will also want to explore greater use or new uses for nuclear weapons?” Levin asked. Rumsfeld said the U.S. military must be able to reach and destroy deeply buried bunkers. “Not having the ability to penetrate and reach them creates a very serious obstacle to U.S. national security,” he said (Reuters, Feb. 19). Officials are considering holding the meeting “the week of Aug. 4, 2003,” according to the leaked documents. The National Nuclear Security Administration confirmed the validity of the leaked document yesterday but Anson Franklin, the NNSA’s head of governmental affairs, said that “we have no request from the Defense Department for any new nuclear weapon, and we have no plans for nuclear testing,” according to the London Guardian. Greg Mello, head of the Los Alamos Study Group, said that the meeting could be a first step toward the U.S. withdrawal from nuclear treaties. “It is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and U.S. compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” he said (Julian Borger, London Guardian, Feb. 19). “What’s clear is, in this administration, the brakes are off in nuclear development and the push for nuclear testing,” he added (Ian Hoffman, Oakland Tribune, Feb. 19). For further information, see: States Parties to the CTBT (Federation of American Scientists) States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)
From February 18, 2003 issue.North Korea: Pyongyang Threatens 1953 Peace Agreement, Plans New ReactorsNorth Korea’s military threatened today to “abandon its commitment” to the Armistice Agreement that ended fighting on the Korean Peninsula in 1953. The threat followed reports that the United States was preparing new sanctions to impose on North Korea (see GSN, Feb. 13). The Korean Peoples’ Army “will be left with no option but to take a decisive step to abandon its commitment to implement the Armistice Agreement as a signatory to it and free itself from the binding force of all its provisions, regarding the possible sanctions to be taken by the U.S. side against the D.P.R.K,” the army said in a statement (James Brooke, New York Times, Feb. 18). Yesterday, the New York Times reported that U.S. military planners were exploring ways to use U.S. forces to stop North Korean missile and WMD exports. In December, U.S.-requested Spanish forces detained a North Korean ship carrying Scud missiles to Yemen, but U.S. officials decided they had no legal standing to confiscate the shipment and allowed the delivery (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2002). To prevent a recurrence of that situation, U.S. officials said they would need U.N. Security Council authorization to seize such shipments. Nevertheless, the United States was not expected to request that authority soon, according to the New York Times. Instead, the United States would first urge the council, perhaps in the next two weeks, to condemn North Korea’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (see GSN, Jan. 10) and its decision to restart a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, the Times reported (see GSN, Feb. 6). In addition, Washington would continue to push Russia and China to take a more active role in pressuring North Korea to reverse its nuclear course (James Dao, New York Times, Feb. 16). New Reactors Planned Meanwhile, North Korea intends to build four more nuclear plants, with each producing 40 times the power of the five-megawatt reactor that is the focus of international attention, the London Telegraph reported Sunday. Claiming that “desperate measures” were necessary, North Korean energy director Kim Jae Rok told the Telegraph that the new reactors would “enable us to meet the urgent need for electricity supplies in our country” (Mike Thomson, London Sunday Telegraph, Feb. 16). For further information, see: States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)
From February 14, 2003 issue.United States: Congress Battles Over Bush Nuclear AgendaBy David Ruppe The report, Differentiation and Defense: An Agenda for the Nuclear Weapons Program, was released by Representative Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), who chairs the Republican-controlled House Policy Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. It adds a voice to a growing Washington debate over controversial Bush administration policies regarding nuclear weapons and the potential use of force against Iraq (see GSN, March 11, 2002). The report specifically advocates waiving a 1993 congressional prohibition on researching weapons with yields less than five kilotons and calls for an “advanced development program” for new nuclear capabilities. It urges the United States to aggressively develop new, lower-yield nuclear weapons for battlefield use, which advocates argue would be more practical because they might result in fewer civilian casualties than strategic weapons currently in the U.S. arsenal. The report also says the president should have the option of using “nuclear weapons that are capable of holding all targets at risk,” including deep and hardened bunkers. The United States would be “more likely to avoid war, control the escalation of a conflict, or end a conflict on terms acceptable to us,” if the United States “develops a variety of capabilities” for holding at risk what other countries value, the report says. The issue arose elsewhere on Capitol Hill yesterday, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld restated the longstanding U.S. policy to never rule out the possible use of nuclear weapons. “Our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a hearing to discuss the Pentagon’s budget request. Regarding the possibility of war in Iraq, however, Rumsfeld said, “We have every confidence that in the event force is to be used in Iraq, that we can do what needs to be done using conventional capabilities.” Critics charged that the House committee report’s recommended measures would undermine international nonproliferation efforts. “Coupled with the news that Secretary Rumsfeld refuses to rule out the use of U.S. nuclear weapons in Iraq, this report reveals a truly frightening GOP vision of national security policy, which would abrogate our Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments to reduce, not increase, reliance on nuclear weapons,” said Representative Tom Allen (D-Maine) in a statement released yesterday. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the administration’s consideration of using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear Iraq in a looming war could have severe negative global repercussions. “I’m concerned that the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq, in the absence of an imminent, overwhelmingly threat to our national security, would bring a near total breakdown in our relations between the United States and the rest of the world, particularly with regards to the Arab world,” he said. Advocates Bush Pre-Emption Policy The House committee report also endorses the Bush administration’s new policy of anticipatory self-defense, which holds that a state can attack another anticipating that the other might one day pose a threat (see GSN, Sept. 20). In support of the doctrine, the report says, “the United States must further develop tools to detect, defeat or disrupt weapons of mass destruction before they can be used.” The Bush administration, in a national security strategy document released last year, advocated a change in the international legal understanding that pre-emptive force could only be used if a threat was imminent (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002). The change would help justify a possible war on Iraq over its suspected WMD development and stockpiles. “Possession of weapons of mass destruction alone is not sufficient justification for military action. Possession combined with evidence of the intent to use those weapons is sufficient,” the committee’s report argues. Democrats Question Bush Plans Senate Democrats at yesterday’s hearing charged that the administration’s nuclear weapons policies would encourage other countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Referring to the administration’s request for funding research on the lower-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked: “If the United States sends signals that we’re considering new uses for nuclear weapons, isn’t it more likely that other nations will also want to explore greater use or new uses for nuclear weapons, and that other nations won’t listen to our pleas to stay non-nuclear or to stay in the Nonproliferation Treaty, but rather would say, “Well, you’re even relying more — you’re looking at new ways to use nuclear weapons. Why shouldn’t we?” Rumsfeld argued that developing new weapons served a practical purpose. “The world is experiencing an enormous amount of underground tunneling and activities, activities underground that are for production, that are for manufacturing, that are for development, for storage [of weapons of mass destruction],” he said. “And the problem of not having visibility into them, and when one has visibility, not having the ability to penetrate and reach them, creates a very serious obstacle to the U.S. national security,” he said. Noting a recent Los Angeles Times story that the administration has developed plans for possibly using nuclear weapons against Iraq (see GSN, Jan. 27), Kennedy suggested that such a move would “violate a long-held commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of not attacking non-nuclear states that are not aligned with nuclear states” (see GSN, Feb. 22, 2002). Rumsfeld said the administration’s approach was in line with a general, historical U.S. policy “not to rule out various options.” He said there was a need for the Pentagon to draw up a variety of plans, but said the United States has and will continue to maintain a very high standard for using nuclear weapons. “You’ve raised a very sensitive subject, and the implication of it, from the article, is that there’s a likelihood that nuclear weapons would be used. And I think that implication is an unfortunate one,” Rumsfeld said. “The End of Arms Control” Critics have charged that the Bush administration — with its nuclear weapons, missile defense, and pre-emption policies — is turning its back on global arms control and nonproliferation by selecting arms control agreements and initiatives it supports, and rejecting approaches that constrain U.S. military capabilities. The House report addresses such criticism, declaring the United States has reached “the end of arms control” with the former Soviet Union, as tensions have lowered. It says, further, “there are limited opportunities for strengthening arms control regimes in the areas of most concern,” since the current countries of concern are not interested in mutual restraint. The report says arms control “is not an end in itself … It is a tool to enhance security.” David Culp, an analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, disputed those arguments. “North Korea has repeatedly asked to negotiate with the United States and we’re refusing to do it,” he said, adding that the Bush administration was making no effort to meet with Iran about its nuclear and missile programs. The administration wants “to see a return to the nuclear arms race, and that’s what they’re advocating,” Culp said. “We’ve got the worst crisis of nuclear proliferation in decades, and it’s because the United States is threatening the first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states,” he said.
From February 14, 2003 issue.India: Russian Company to Provide Fuel for KudankulamThe Russian nuclear fuel company TVEL and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India have signed a $400 million contract for the Russian company to provide fuel for the Kudankulam nucleare plant, currently under construction, officials said yesterday (see GSN, April 30, 2002). Under the contract, which lasts until 2010, some of the fuel will be provided to India on Russian credit, TVEL said. As previously agreed, India will not be required to return the spent fuel to Russia, the company said. The plant’s first reactor is expected to be completed in 2007 (Associated Press/NewIndPress.com, Feb. 14).
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top