U.S.-Russia:  Russia Still Committed to Treaty, Despite Protest Delay

Russia is still determined to ratify the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, despite a decision by lawmakers to postpone a ratification vote to protest U.S. military action against Iraq, Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov said yesterday (see GSN, March 18).

Mamedov told U.S. deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley by telephone that Russia is still committed to the treaty, Agence France-Presse reported.

The two officials agreed the treaty’s ratification “is in both countries’ interest and that of international security as a whole,” according to the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry (Agence France-Presse, March 19).

Some deputies in the Duma opposed the delay in ratification.

“This is a silly thing because our relations with the United States are not simple and there is a threat that they will deteriorate,” said Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent deputy.

Other leading lawmakers, however, harshly criticized the United States and suggested the treaty might not be ratified at all.

Gennady Seleznev, the Duma speaker and a Communist Party member until recently, said the United States was obeying “the law of the jungle.”

“The strong will trample the weak.  And we don’t want to be weak.  Therefore, we will still need the missiles,” he said (Sharon LaFraniere, Washington Post, March 19).

“Let them know there is a serious nuclear power that will really provide for the security of the entire world community and will never allow itself to act by the laws of the jungle,” he added (Eric Engleman, Associated Press/Daily Oklahoman, March 19).

Back to top

North Korea:  U.N. Official Plans to Meet With North Koreans

A senior U.N. official arrived in Pyongyang yesterday to begin a four-day visit to discuss Korean peninsular issues with North Korean officials (see GSN, March 14).

“The D.P.R.K. is an important member of the United Nations and I will report to the D.P.R.K. officials about the result of activities since my last visit,” said Maurice Strong, a special envoy of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (see GSN, Feb. 28).  “There was progress in meeting the immediate humanitarian needs (of the D.P.R.K.) and more international understanding of the need for a peaceful resolution of the issues of the country,” he added (China Daily, March 19).

Japan, meanwhile, said further aggressive North Korean action could scuttle a joint declaration that is designed to pave the way for normalization of relations between Tokyo and Pyongyang (see GSN, Sept. 18, 2002).

“They still have not crossed that line,” said Japanese spokesman Yasuo Fukuda.

Even if North Korea were to test a ballistic missile, the agreement could stand if the missile were not aimed at Japan, officials said.  Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said the two countries should work to keep the agreement alive (see related GSN story, today).

“The Pyongyang declaration between Japan and North Korea is a very important political document and this is still effective,” he said (Reuters/CNN.com, March 19).

New Chinese President Speaks to Bush

Chinese President Hu Jintao, who became head of state Saturday, spoke to U.S. President George W. Bush by telephone yesterday and called for dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang to resolve the nuclear standoff.

“They key point is to commence dialogue in certain forms as soon as possible, especially between the United States and North Korea,” Hu told Bush, according to reports.

China reportedly discontinued oil supplies to North Korea for three days in February, possibly to pressure Pyongyang to pull back from its aggressive stance, according to Japan’s Asahi Shimbun (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, March 19).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Duma Postpones Treaty Vote, Citing Iraq War

Citing the expected U.S. military action against Iraq, Russian lawmakers today decided to delay consideration of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty and did not set another date to take the nuclear weapons disarmament agreement up (see GSN, March 7).

“After yesterday’s statement by the president of the United States, and in conditions of massive pressure by the U.S. administration on the world community, a decision to postpone the ratification was taken,” said Sergei Shishkaryov, deputy chairman of the International Affairs Committee in the Russian Duma.

“We consider ratification very important, but now this step is not justified,” he added.  Shishkaryov said the Duma Council, which sets the agenda for the legislative body, would look at the issue again next month.

The U.S. Senate unanimously approved the treaty March 6 (Associated Press/London Guardian, March 18).

Back to top

North Korea:  Cheney Plans Asia Trip

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney plans to travel to Asia next month to address the North Korean nuclear crisis, he said Sunday on NBCs’ Meet the Press.

“The situation in North Korea is very serious.  We recognize that,” Cheney said.  “We think the key is a multilateral approach.  Everybody always wants us to be multilateral and we think it’s appropriate here,” he added.

Cheney said that North Korea’s neighbors have more at stake in the current standoff than the United States does.

“They’re far more directly affected than we are — Japan, South Korea and especially China,” he added (NBC News, Meet the Press, March 16).

Meanwhile, North Korea said yesterday that the nuclear standoff will determine its sovereignty.

The nuclear crisis “will decide whether the D.P.R.K.’s sovereignty will be trampled down by the U.S. or protected,” said North Korea’s official Rodong Sinmun newspaper (Associated Press/Straits Times, March 18).

Food Aid Resumes

The European Union sent $10 million of wheat to North Korea in the largest food shipment to the starving country in several months, BBC.com reported yesterday.

“With this shipment it will mean we can resume distributions to most, if not all, of all of those we cut off,” said World Food Program spokesman Gerald Bourke (BBC News, March 17).

Back to top

CTBT:  Ivory Coast Ratifies Treaty

The Ivory Coast deposited its instrument of ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with the United Nations March 11 (see GSN, Sept. 30).  To date, 98 nations have ratified the treaty, including 31 of the 44 nations whose ratifications are necessary for the treaty to enter into force (CTBT Organization Web site, Sept. 30).

Back to top

International Response:  Nonproliferation Regime is Under Fire, ElBaradei Says

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

Crises in Iraq and North Korea are contributing to a growing test of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in a statement today.

“The nuclear arms control regime is being challenged and is clearly under stress,” ElBaradei said in his statement to a regular meeting of the IAEA’s board of governors.

Michael Levi, a Federation of American Scientists nuclear expert, agreed with ElBaradei that the nuclear proliferation situation is dire.  He was pleased that the director general addressed Iran, Iraq and North Korea separately, “acknowledging that these do present real crises.”

“One would have to be naive or delusional to disagree with the director’s assessment there,” Levi said.

ElBaradei said the regime is also challenged by nations that have not made their nuclear safeguards agreements official as well as a lack of international endorsement for the agency’s additional protocols, which would allow enhanced IAEA verification and monitoring activities.

“As I have often stated, in states without safeguards agreements in force, the agency cannot provide any nonproliferation assurances,” ElBaradei said.

A failure to approve the Additional Protocol could result in a similar situation to pre-1991 Iraq, “when we failed to uncover Iraq’s clandestine nuclear program,” he added.

Despite the agency’s international lobbying, the number of safeguards agreements and additional protocols that have taken effect “continues to be well below expectations,” according to ElBaradei.

Forty-eight parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty have not brought the safeguard agreements into force and only 29 countries have enforced the Additional Protocol, according to the statement.  The treaty has more than 180 parties.

Iran

ElBaradei also briefed the board of governors on his recent trip to Iran, during which he inspected nuclear facilities.  He described a centrifuge pilot facility at Natanz as “nearly ready for operation” (see GSN, March 10).

A larger centrifuge facility is being developed at the same site, according to ElBaradei.

The United States has accused Iran of developing a secret nuclear weapons program under the guise of a civilian energy effort.  Iran says that it needs a nuclear energy program that will supply Tehran’s burgeoning population and will allow it to export more oil and gas.

ElBaradei said that he stressed to Iranian officials the importance of transparency in their nuclear efforts.

“I stressed the value of bringing an additional protocol into force as an important tool for enabling the agency to provide comprehensive assurances,” he said.

Tehran has previously rejected unannounced inspections, saying that it did not want to place further restrictions on its developing nuclear program.  During the most recent trip, however, Iran reportedly agreed to provide information on its nuclear facilities earlier in the development process.  In addition, Iranian officials will “actively” consider signing the Additional Protocol, ElBaradei said (see GSN, March 13).

Iraq

ElBaradei reiterated earlier assertions that U.N. inspectors have found no evidence “or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq” (see GSN, March 7).

“I should note that, in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA,” he said.

ElBaradei said that he still holds out hope for a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis, but Washington told him last night to withdraw his inspectors from Baghdad, according to the statement (see related GSN story, today).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Duma Committee Recommends Moscow Treaty Ratification

The Russian State Duma’s defense committee recommended last week that the lower house of the Russian Parliament ratify the U.S-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty.  The Duma’s international affairs committee has recommended that a ratification vote be held next week (Associated Press/Moscow Times, March 17).

For further information, see:

U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)

Bush Announces Moscow Treaty

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Moscow Treaty

Back to top

North Korea I:  China Avoids Security Council Meeting on North Korea

The United States has been pushing the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to unanimously condemn North Korea for withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but has met Chinese resistance, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, March 13).

U.S. officials last week arranged a meeting of the permanent members to negotiate a council statement on North Korea, but only U.S., French and British representatives attended, AP reported.

“We are trying to ask (the council) to understand that diplomatic efforts (are) going on and we do see the possibility that we could bring the parties together for a dialogue,” Chinese U.N. Ambassador Wang Yingfan said.  “So we do not wish at this stage that there should be the involvement of the Security Council,” he said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, March 14).

Beijing is apparently supporting North Korea’s call for direct negotiations with Washington while Moscow remains undecided, Reuters reported.

U.S. President George W. Bush told South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun that the United States is still committed to multilateral talks.

A South Korean official said his government will work to close a “perception gap” between foreigners who are more nervous about the current crisis and many South Koreans, who are not.

“We know the situation better than others,” said South Korean Finance Minister Kim Jin-pyo.

North Korea, meanwhile, might be only weeks from launching a Rodong missile, which has not happened since August 1998, according to Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun (Eckert/Wilson, Reuters, March 14).

Surveillance Flights Resume

The United States has restarted surveillance flights near North Korea and the U.S. aircraft have not been bothered by North Korean forces, according to Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of U.S. Pacific forces.  The flights resumed Wednesday and had been suspended after North Korean fighter jets intercepted a U.S. aircraft March 2, AP reported.

“We retain our right to fly these unarmed surveillance and reconnaissance flights in international airspace, as we do throughout the world,” Fargo told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Pentagon is taking “prudent measures” to ensure the safety of the flights, Fargo said (Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, March 14).

Back to top

North Korea II:  Interview With New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, after being approached by emissaries of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, conducted critical talks with North Korean officials this winter over that country’s nuclear threat (see GSN, Jan. 13).  Richardson has vital negotiating experience with North Korea and Iraq after serving in the Clinton administration as U.N. ambassador and energy secretary.  He also was an international troubleshooter during his 14 years in the U.S. Congress.

Veteran diplomatic correspondent Lee Michael Katz interviewed Richardson for the National Journal on March 10.  In the edited excerpts below, Richardson offered a window into North Korean motives and dangers, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and U.N. divisions over Iraq.

National Journal:  Are you concerned that there is so much attention on Iraq that not enough is being paid to dangers from North Korea?

Bill Richardson:  North Korea poses a strong threat to the United States, but not as severe as Iraq.  Nonetheless, the Bush administration needs to address the North Korea issue more effectively.  Face-to-face talks are needed to resolve our differences and ease tensions.

Adopting the multilateral approach — getting China, South Korea, and others to lean on North Korea — is not going to work without the United States being a decisive part of pressure on North Korea to reduce its nuclear arsenal.

NJ:  We’ve recently seen a North Korean missile test and the buzzing of a U.S. military plane (see GSN, March 10 and March 4).  Will North Korea’s [leader] Kim Jong Il use preoccupation with [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein to try to provoke the United States?

Richardson:  Most definitely.  I believe the North Koreans are looking at the American distraction with Iraq to press their points even further.  This is why it’s in America’s interest to defuse it, whereby there will be an agreement:  In exchange for not attacking North Korea, that country would reduce its nuclear arsenal.  We don’t need to have three crises at the same time — the war on al-Qaeda, Iraq, and North Korea

The North Koreans typically escalate their rhetoric and actions right before they believe they’re entering into a negotiation with the United States.  The reality is, they’re not restarting their reprocessing plant or taking overly belligerent actions, except for these missile tests.  I’m not trying to excuse them, but it’s important to engage them effectively instead of trying to isolate and contain them.  That’s not going to work.

NJ:  Can America ignore North Korea while going forward with Iraq?

Richardson:  No.  They’re a major hostile power, and they need to be treated differently.  I’m not of the school that we should keep the military option alive in North Korea.  The difference between Iraq and North Korea is, with Iraq, diplomacy can no longer be an instrument.  With North Korea, diplomacy is the only instrument we have available.

NJ:  Do you see North Korea as a U.S. policy failure?

Richardson:  We let them take the rhetorical advantage with all their provocative statements.  We appear to be not responding — without a policy.  I believe Secretary [of State Colin] Powell is going to move in the right direction.  I remember being in the administration when you are overwhelmed.  It’s hard to deal with more than one crisis and the volume of decisions and activity.

NJ:  Do you think the administration is paralyzed by the Iraqi situation?

Richardson:  There’s no question the president himself is consumed by this issue.  We ought to give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt.  But if it persists much longer — the lack of discussions with North Korea — we’re going to end up paying more than we should in a potential agreement.  And we may drive them into more isolation, which is dangerous because then they make foolish decisions.

NJ:  If President Bush hadn’t been so negative about South Korea’s “sunshine policy” of engaging with North Korea, dismissive of Kim, and preoccupied with the “axis of evil,” would this situation have happened?

Richardson:  The reality is, North Korea broke the framework agreement before President Bush took office.  A good part of the fault lies with North Korea.  But I don’t think President Bush’s axis-of-evil statement was helpful, nor the apparent hostility which many in the administration seem to have with Kim Jong Il.  There’s no question, he’s not a human-rights champion.  But why go out of your way to antagonize someone that may have two nuclear weapons and a million-and-a-half-plus army on the border of one of our allies with 37,000 American troops?

The administration needs to be more careful in their rhetorical tactics to not get into the problems we seem to have with the U.N. Security Council and our NATO allies by appearing to be bullying everybody.

NJ:  Could Korean tensions result in miscalculation, such as the shooting down of a plane, that could lead to war?

Richardson:  North Koreans are capable of miscalculation.  They’re prone to hostile acts and gaffes.  I believe North Korea would not engage the United States, but why take the risk?

This is why face-to-face talks are the best answer to any potential miscalculation or act of irrationality on the part of North Korea.  Keeping third-country pressure like China is only marginally effective.  I fail to see why it’s in China’s interest to want to defuse the crisis on the Korean Peninsula.  China probably likes instability brought upon by the North Korean situation to keep us in check in the area which they want to dominate.

NJ:  What prompted your North Korea talks?

Richardson:  The North Koreans reached out to me because they felt they couldn’t get any kind of response from the Bush administration.  They have felt neglected.  That doesn’t mean their concerns are right and righteous.

They felt the axis-of-evil statement was unnecessary.  They observed to me, it seemed that the Bush administration wanted to wipe out every single Clinton administration initiative with North Korea — and they were perplexed.  They felt insulted the Bush administration was trying to needlessly isolate them and put them on the back burner.  And that deserved a response.

I believe it’s a cry for attention.  It’s a cry for “let’s resolve our differences.”  That doesn’t mean you do it on their terms.

NJ:  Any chance you will hold more talks?

Richardson:  I don’t think so.  I’ve got enough problems with the New Mexico Legislature.

NJ:  Are we just willing to accept that North Korea is a nuclear power?

Richardson:  Their only card is the nuclear option.  The reality is, they are a nuclear power.  We should probably accept that, but at the same time try to curb its use and its proliferation and engage them, not keep them isolated.  They’re resilient.  Probably one of the poorest nations on Earth, they seem to survive.

NJ:  Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that the U.S. should consider pulling its troops from their front-line trip-wire position in Korea.  Is that a good idea?

Richardson:  Eventually we should look at reducing our force there, but it should only be in consultation with South Korea.  We clearly should not be where we’re not wanted.  I was troubled the new South Korean president seemed to be wanting American troops out.  A lot depends on North Korea’s behavior and the attitude of our friends like Japan, who may want our troops there for protective reasons.

NJ:  How do you think the Iraq and North Korea situations would be playing out if Bill Clinton were still president?

Richardson:  We would make major efforts not to have three crises at the same.  I think the major concentration would be the war with al-Qaeda, and we’d be dealing with Iraq at a lower decibel level, but with the same level of determination to disarm ... with much more multilateral support.  And we would be directly engaging with North Korea — that’s the difference.  There would be increased dialogue and probably some progress right now.

NJ:  You were also energy secretary.  Questions were raised in Congress about the Energy Department’s nuclear technology transfer to train North Koreans.  Do you see any problems?

Richardson:  No.  I think training North Koreans in nuclear nonproliferation and training Russians has been one of our best programs.  What you want to do with a hostile country is penetrate it, and bring moderate influence, good training, and good behavior to temper their excesses.

NJ:  Iran is a new topic of concern in Washington for having a far more advanced nuclear enrichment program than previously thought.

Richardson:  It is a danger.  Iran is a major power in the Persian Gulf, where we have a lot of our troops.  There, I believe multilaterally is our best option.  Get our European and NATO allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency to try to curb that use.  This is why it’s important to have a strong U.N. and other institutions to help us deal with problems.  It’s better to have support for our goals than being isolated.

NJ:  Are you worried if the United States goes into Iraq without U.N. approval and without Germany, France, and Russia, it will damage long-term U.S. interests?

Richardson:  Yes.  The strongest alliance in the world is the NATO alliance, and repairing it by the U.S. going alone is going to take years and years.  France, Germany, Russia, and others have acted precipitously and irresponsibly, but that doesn’t mean we don’t try to work out our differences.  I worry about the stability of the Western world if countries like the U.S., France, and Germany have fractious relationships.

I have never seen our relationship with our major allies so tattered.  This doesn’t mean that it’s our fault.  The U.N. is weakened often by its own inaction.  Being the world’s only superpower also has its burdens.  The United States should lead more with diplomacy rather than bullying.

NJ:  You’re not a candidate, but what would you do differently on North Korea and Iraq if you were president?

Richardson:  I would engage North Korea directly.  With Iraq, I would build international support in the Security Council — and then go for military action if that didn’t work.

While I realize we probably must go forward with military action, I worry it will have a very negative impact on the economy of the states, the role of the federal government in helping our states in areas like Medicaid, homeland security, and education.  We’ve got to be full partners.  Right now, it’s a one-way street.

Back to top

Iran:  Recent Developments Vindicate U.S. Rhetoric, Powell Says

Recent news about Iran’s surprisingly advanced nuclear capabilities has proven that U.S. alarms about Iran’s intentions are justified, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday (see GSN, March 13).

“We’ve raised this issue repeatedly.  We’ve talked about the ‘axis of evil’ and been criticized for it,” Powell told the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations.

“And lo and behold, we discover they had a far more robust nuclear infrastructure that could be used for weapons development than people had thought, or wanted us to believe.  We were seen as suspicious, and we shouldn’t be moving in this direction, but now we have a real concern.  When you marry that up with their continued support for terrorist organizations that foment terror in Lebanon and other places throughout the Middle East, I believe that our concerns with respect to Iran were well founded,” he said (David Gollust, VOA News, March 14).

Back to top

North Korea:  Uranium Effort Moving Quickly, Official Says

North Korea is closer to producing highly enriched uranium than has previously been reported, a senior U.S. official testified yesterday (see GSN, March 12).

“The enriched uranium issue, some have assumed, is somewhere off in the fog of the distant future.  It is not, Mr. Chairman.  It is only probably a matter of months and not years behind the plutonium,” Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“It’s essential that North Korea not reprocess its spent fuel into plutonium.  That could produce significant plutonium within some six months.  But the highly-enriched uranium alternate capability is not so far behind,” he said.

Kelly also defended the Bush administration’s refusal to engage in bilateral negotiations before North Korea abandons its nuclear efforts.  Some senators questioned the White House stance.

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) said North Korea has rejected multilateral talks and “we need to now find some common ground here that would let us step back from this pending crisis.”

“I am mystified, along with many other people why we are taking a position contrary to those of our allies in the region who are far more at risk than we are immediately, when they have urged us to move in a direct talk basis,” Dodd said.

Kelly said, however, that Pyongyang must be convinced that a multilateral solution is in its best interest.

“The other side of their demand for bilateral negotiations is demand that the outcome of these be something that is verified only by the United States.  The International Atomic Energy Agency is not supposed to be a part of that.  That’s just an unacceptable development for us.  The IAEA has to be involved in the nuclear weapons issues around the globe,” he said.

Kelly also noted that the United States has left open the possibility of holding direct negotiations with North Korea, but the conditions are stringent.

“Of course, for full engagement, North Korea will need to change its behavior on human rights, address the issues underlying its appearance on the State Department’s list of states sponsoring terrorism, eliminate its illegal weapons of mass destruction programs, cease the proliferation of missiles and missile-related technology, and adopt a less provocative conventional force disposition,” Kelly said.

He told the committee the White House is intensively addressing the situation and that he is in daily communication with Secretary of State Colin Powell to discuss the crisis.

North Korea, however, seems intent on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, Kelly said, calling that action “a very serious measure.”

“We have no assurances they are not going to reprocess.  They’ve been working on nuclear weapons for 20 years, and there’s not the slightest sign that they have any interest in stopping,” he added (David McGlinchey, Global Security Newswire, March 12).

Spy Flights To Resume

The Pentagon announced that reconnaissance flights will resume near North Korea after Pyongyang’s air force intercepted a U.S. aircraft and tried to force it to land earlier this month.  Air-traffic surveillance planes and Aegis-radar ships will be positioned nearby to warn of any approaching North Korean aircraft, CNN.com reported (Barbara Starr, CNN.com, March 12).

If a North Korean plane is approaching, it is not clear what action the U.S. forces would take.

“You could just fly east,” said a senior defense official.

“One thing is sure, you wouldn’t be giving a pilot the authority to fire away at will,” said another source (Doug Struck, Washington Post, March 13).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Nunn, Lugar Say Nuclear Proliferation Should be U.S. Top Priority

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) yesterday urged the Bush administration to make the risk of terrorist nuclear weapons acquisition its top foreign policy concern, saying increased high-level attention and more funding are needed.  Lugar and Nunn spoke at a press conference releasing a Harvard University report on steps to keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.

“We are calling for an acceleration and reprioritization of U.S. threat reduction programs to ensure that the most urgent threats are addressed first,” said Lugar, who with Nunn in the early 1990s authored a law that created the Pentagon’s Cooperative Threat Reduction, or “Nunn-Lugar,” program.  That effort provides aid to secure and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and their core materials in the former Soviet Union.  The Energy Department also conducts similar programs to secure former Soviet nuclear materials.

“At some point we’ve got to take this seriously as a nation,” Lugar said.

Lugar and Nunn called on President George W. Bush to designate one person responsible for developing and coordinating a national strategy to prevent nuclear proliferation and urged that it become the administration’s top foreign policy priority (see GSN, Feb. 12).

“Sam Nunn and I at every iteration of Nunn-Lugar called for one person, one administration person, or barring that the National Security Council head, to take up this problem in a comprehensive way on the basis that it is the most important foreign security problem.  That has yet to occur, whether it was the Clinton administration or the Bush administration,” Lugar said.

“I think this report underlines that the president has to offer that leadership, and really he has got to get somebody, if he is not going to take it on personally, to be the chief honcho over this,” Lugar said.  The Harvard report, Controlling Nuclear Warheads and Materials: A Report Card and Action Plan, was commissioned by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a private foundation headed by Nunn.

Caution on War With Iraq

Addressing the current Iraqi crisis, the senators did not directly criticize the administration’s focus on disarming Iraq, including a possible war.

Nunn warned, however, that starting a war against Iraq without Russian and other support through a U.N. Security Council resolution, as the Bush administration has threatened, could damage international cooperation on securing nuclear materials globally.

“It takes a global effort to basically address all of these problems.  You’ve got to get cooperation from Russia, otherwise your biggest stockpile of this material is not going to be properly secured,” he said.

“Whatever we do in the various battles has to fit into an overall strategy.  What we do in Iraq, what we do in North Korea, has an effect on our cooperation, not only in this arena but in dealing with terrorism in general,” Nunn said.

Lugar echoed Nunn’s comments, saying, “The total threat here has got to be the bottom line of our foreign policy.”

To prevent nuclear proliferation, Bush needs to apply the same extraordinary attention as he currently devotes to Iraq, said Matthew Bunn, a report author and a senior research associate at Harvard’s Project on Managing the Atom.

More Attention Needed

According to a “scorecard” published by the Pentagon, the Nunn-Lugar program has helped deactivate more than 6,000 nuclear warheads, as well as hundreds of ICBMs, silos, launchers, bombers and other equipment, and helped improve security at facilities and storage sites.

The scorecard says, however, that after 10 years the program has completed less than half of its goals.  Furthermore, it has made little headway in getting Russia to account for and fully secure its tens of tons of weapon-grade plutonium and hundreds of tons of highly enriched uranium. 

The Harvard report argues that the scope and pace of the program has been insufficient for addressing the nuclear proliferation problem.

“Across a very wide range of potential metrics, much less than half of the job has been accomplished,” said Bunn.

“While the president and senior officials of his administration, including Secretary of Energy [Spencer] Abraham, have worked hard to accelerate these efforts, that rate remains painfully slow — slower than it needs to be to have a good chance of winning the race to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists,” he said.

The report provides a list of steps terrorists would probably follow to acquire, prepare and detonate a nuclear weapon or fissile material.  It also describes how threat reduction programs and law enforcement and emergency teams could intervene to prevent catastrophe by acting at certain “chokepoints.”

Ideally, Bunn said, threat reduction activities could prevent terrorists from acquiring the material in the first place.

“The actual theft of a nuclear weapon or nuclear material [is] the hardest thing for the terrorists to do, the easiest thing for us to block,” he said.

The report says al-Qaeda terrorists have been trying to obtain bomb-making materials for 10 years and said Russian officials believe terrorists have reconnoitered Russian nuclear weapons four times since 2001, twice at storage sites and twice on transport trains.

It says that by last October, only 37 percent of potentially vulnerable weapon-grade fissile material in Russia was protected by security upgrades.

Plan Needed Report Said

The report provides a new analysis of the consequences of a hypothetical 10-kiloton terrorist nuclear weapon detonated mid-day in Manhattan, projecting that such a weapon would kill 500,000 people immediately, wound hundreds of thousands of additional victims and cause more than $1 trillion in direct economic costs.

“These facts lead immediately to an inescapable conclusion:  The United States and its partners must do everything in their power to ensure that every nuclear weapon, and ever kilogram of HEU [highly enriched uranium] and plutonium, wherever it may be in the world, is secure and accounted for, to stringent standards,” the report says.

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

Back to top

Iran:  Atomic Energy Chief, U.N. Envoy Defend Nuclear Activity

Iran is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but the United States wants to prevent Iran from having even a nuclear energy program, Iran’s top nuclear energy official said in an interview published yesterday in Le Monde (see GSN, March 12).

Gholamreza Aghazadeh said Iran could benefit from producing nuclear energy but that U.S. efforts are compromising the country’s prospects.  He said Iran would be willing to enter into further commitments renouncing the pursuit of nuclear weapons if Western sanctions against it were lifted.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is reviewing Iran’s nuclear capabilities amid U.S. concerns that Iran is using nuclear energy as a cover for development of nuclear weapons, notably at a facility in Natanz that Aghazadeh acknowledged has uranium enrichment capabilities.  Time reported this week that IAEA inspectors recently found Iran’s nuclear program to be more advanced than was previously thought.

Aghazadeh told Le Monde that because “Iran is a signatory of all the treaties forbidding these weapons,” the country “does not even have the intention” of seeking nuclear weapons.  “It was at the invitation of our government that the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors came to Iran, in late February — a gesture that shows that we are acting transparently,” Aghazadeh said (see GSN, Feb. 21).

Aghazadeh said Iran’s production of enriched uranium, “under IAEA supervision, is at 5 percent.  To make weapons of mass destruction, we would need more than 90 percent enriched uranium.  That would necessitate other technologies that Iran does not have and is not seeking to obtain.  And anyway, it is impossible to make nuclear weapons without anyone finding out.”

Rejecting U.S. suggestions that Iran is violating its IAEA commitments, Aghazadeh said, “The Americans are against the very principle of a civilian nuclear program in Iran.  Since they cannot say so, they try to sow doubts about our intentions.  But our interlocutor in this matter is the IAEA, which helps countries to obtain nuclear technology and makes sure they do not abuse it.  The IAEA is up to date on all our activities; we have opened our doors to the inspectors, who are even today in our nuclear energy plant in Natanz.”

Asked why Iran did not at first reveal the existence of the Natanz site and an apparent heavy water production site in Arak, Aghazadeh said that “nothing in the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) requires us to do so.”

“All the IAEA asks of us is to inform it 180 days before uranium is brought into the factory.  We have not yet reached that point, and yet I myself informed the agency well before Natanz was being talked about.  Within the agency, I made declarations about the fuel site and announced the establishment of a 6,000-megawatt nuclear plant.  I even invited [IAEA chief] Mr. [Mohamed] ElBaradei to come to Iran in September 2002, even though nothing required me to do so,” Aghazadeh said.

“Iran is acting legally,” Aghazadeh told Le Monde.  “And anyway, what other country gives details in newspapers about its nuclear activities?  Does France do so?  Are the Americans ready to lay out all their nuclear plans?” (Afsane Bassir Pour, Le Monde, March 12, GSN translation).

An Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, revealed the existence of the Natanz nuclear facility in August (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002).  In an interview published today in the Washington Post, Iranian U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif said the Iranian government did not at first disclose its activities at the facility because of concerns that U.S. pressure could lead foreign suppliers of nuclear components to drop out of the project.  He added, though, that Iran told the IAEA in June about the activities, a claim that could not be confirmed yesterday by an IAEA spokesman cited by the Post.

Following a visit last month during which ElBaradei found 160 gas centrifuges for enriching uranium at the Natanz plant and amid reports that the number is set to grow rapidly, ElBaradei urged Iran to sign an Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement that would give inspectors greater latitude (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, March 13).  Aghazadeh said Iran has “nothing against” signing the protocol, under certain conditions.  “The Westerners have imposed sanctions on us,” he said.  “We are therefore waiting for the lifting of these sanctions before signing,” he said.

Asked about Russian offers to provide Iran with enriched uranium, Aghazadeh said Iran “needs another 6,000 megawatts of electricity.  Who will give us enriched uranium?  We asked the Europeans to help us, but they refuse.  That is why we are asking that the sanctions be lifted.  Then we would be ready to sign the Additional Protocol” (Pour, Le Monde).

Zarif told the Post that Iran will seek to aggressively expand its nuclear energy program because of fears the United States could persuade suppliers such as Russia, China and Ukraine to stop shipping nuclear components to Iran.

“You don’t expect Iran to sit still,” Zarif said.  “We don’t have any confidence that two years down the road, the pressure by the United States may or may not work on our suppliers.  We have to create a source of self-sufficiency, which will include a fuel cycle program.”

“If the United States did not follow this policy of simply trying to deny Iran access to nuclear technology for any purpose, I don’t think you would have had all these scenarios that we are confronting.  Unless the United States changes its behavior, we will see more of the same,” Zarif said.

“The United States,” he added, “does not believe in the IAEA. ... The United States wants Iran not to have nuclear power, period” (Lynch, Washington Post).

For further information, see:

NPT Text

States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)

U.N. Background on NPT

Back to top

South Africa:  Nuclear Disarmament Lacked Transparency

South Africa’s nuclear disarmament — which has lately been cited as a model for what could happen in Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 24) — succeeded in ridding the country of nuclear weapons but the country was not open with the public about the history of the program, the Los Angeles Times reported today.

“As an exercise in transparency, it is best spelled M-U-D,” said Renfrew Christie, dean of research at the University of the Western Cape.  Authorities imprisoned Christie for more than seven years for spying on the nuclear program on behalf of the African National Congress.

Prior to leaving power, South Africa’s apartheid government announced in 1993 that it had operated an extensive nuclear weapons program until 1991, when South Africa signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.  Then-President F.W. de Klerk announced that South Africa had assembled six nuclear weapons, but had dismantled them, along with nuclear weapons facilities. 

“The documentation was never made available,” Christie said.  “There’s never been a public accounting.  It was essentially a secret operation.  It’s not the way anyone should want Iraq to go about it,” he said.

Government officials, however, said there is little to do now.

“There was a feeling that you could not leave the new black government with the bomb or much information about it,” said Leslie Gumbi, director for disarmament and nonproliferation at South Africa’s Department of Foreign Affairs.

The apartheid-era South African government destroyed 12,000 nuclear documents, according to Garth Shelton, an associate professor of international relations at the University of Witwatersrand.

“It’s not to say that the new government does not want to give out information,” Gumbi said.  “But when it comes down to it, we’re left with almost nothing,” he added (Nita Lelyveld, Los Angeles Times, March 13).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP