South Asia:  United States Rejects India’s Argument for Pre-Emptive Action

The United States yesterday dismissed India’s idea of a pre-emptive attack on Pakistan, saying the dispute between the two South Asian rivals over Kashmir was not similar to Iraq (see GSN, April 7).

Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha last week said a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan would be appropriate, claiming the United States had set an example for such action by its invasion of Iraq.  U.S. officials, however, denied that the two situations were comparable.

“Attempts to draw parallel between Iraq and Kashmir are overwhelmed by differences between the two situations,” a U.S. State Department official said.  “We recognize the very serious nature of the situation in Kashmir ... but the two situations are not comparable,” the official added.

The State official noted Iraq’s previous history of aggression toward its neighbors, such as Iran as Kuwait, as well as Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against its own population.  The United States and its allies attacked Iraq only after Baghdad ignored more than a decade of U.N. Security Council resolutions to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction, the official said.

“These circumstances, which made the coalition actions necessary in Iraq, do not apply in the subcontinent and should not be considered a precedent,” the State official said (Anwar Iqbal, United Press International, April 7).

Back to top

North Korea:  Permanent U.N. Security Council Members Still Split on Nuclear Efforts

The five permanent U.N. Security Council members, hampered by Chinese opposition, could not reach agreement yesterday on a joint statement condemning North Korean nuclear efforts, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, April 7).

The United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom met yesterday in a prelude to a meeting tomorrow of the full, 15-member Security Council.  Earlier efforts to bring the five together were unsuccessful when China and Russia decided not to attend (see GSN, March 14).

China had held out against meetings of the permanent members, but attended Monday’s session.

“We hope that the council would react constructively on this issue,” Chinese U.N. Ambassador Wang Yingfan said yesterday.

Other council diplomats, however, said China was not ready to join a council statement criticizing North Korea (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Sacramento Bee, April 8).

Russia also warned that U.S. efforts to censure North Korea could hurt relations between Washington and Moscow, Agence France-Presse reported today.

The nuclear crisis is “very dangerous and not developing in the direction of easing of tensions, but rather the other way,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov said.  “We need to take urgent measures to cool off the situation,” he added.

“The most important thing is to, first, try to clear up relations between the United States and North Korea, so that the (two sides’) fears about each other are eliminated,” Losyukov said.  “Otherwise, the U.N. Security Council discussion could, instead, become a launching pad for a further unraveling of relations,” he added (Agence France-Presse, April 8).

U.S., North Korean Diplomats Meet

Meanwhile, in face-to-face meetings last week, the United States asked North Korea to take part in multilateral talks, AP reported.  U.S. special envoy for North Korea Jack Pritchard met with Han Song Ryol, North Korea’s deputy permanent representative at the United Nations, in three days of talks.

Council diplomats did not know if North Korea had responded, but Pyongyang has long resisted anything but direct negotiations with Washington (Lederer, Associated Press/Sacramento Bee).

U.S.-South Korea Talks Begin

U.S. Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Lawless is in Seoul this week to meet with South Korean officials on the future of the two countries’ relationship.

South Korean defense officials said the talks could focus on moving U.S. forces away from the South Korea’s border with the North, and possibly reducing the number of U.S. military personnel in the country (Associated Press/London Guardian, April 8).

Seoul’s delegation, including Cha Young-koo, the assistant defense minister for policy, is against a drastic reduction in frontline U.S. troops while the nuclear crisis lasts.

“We are opposed to the early relocation of key frontline bases like the 2nd Infantry Division.  The issue can be discussed only after the nuclear crisis is over,” said a Defense Ministry official.

“We will do our best to search for a win-win strategy, beneficial to both countries,” Cha said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, April 8).

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Cites Need for Deterrent Force

Backing away from earlier demands for a nonaggression pact with the United States, North Korea yesterday asserted the need for a “tremendous military deterrent force powerful enough to decisively beat back an attack supported by ultra-modern weapons.”

A Foreign Ministry statement said, “Neither international public opinion nor the U.N. charter could prevent the U.S. from mounting an attack on Iraq.  This suggests that even the signing of a nonaggression treaty with the U.S. would not help avert a war.”

The statement also condemned a planned Wednesday meeting of the U.N. Security Council to discuss Pyongyang’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The statement referred to Security Council actions as a “prelude to war” and said North Korea would not recognize any resolution passed by the Security Council.

“The U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks that the D.P.R.K. will accept the demand for disarming while watching one of three countries the U.S. listed as part of an ‘axis of evil’ already subject to the barbarous military attack,” the spokesman said (Korean Central News Agency, April 7).

North Korea, meanwhile, has cut off contact with Seoul regarding Cabinet-level meetings scheduled for this week.

“We can say that the talks will not be held as scheduled,” said a South Korean Unification Ministry spokesman.  “We are not sure whether North Korea wants to cancel them or postpone them.  So we may know more about that after contacting the North Korean side,” he added.

This week’s discussions were to focus on the nuclear crisis.  North Korea cancelled talks last month on economic and maritime issues, Agence France-Presse reported (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, April 7).

Back to top

South Asia:  India, Pakistan, Label Each Other “Fit Case” For Pre-Emptive Strike

Comparing each other to Iraq, South Asian rivals India and Pakistan have each said the other is a “fit case” for a pre-emptive strike, according to reports.

Pakistan is a “fit case” for a U.S. pre-emptive strike, as was the case with Iraq, because it also possesses weapons of mass destruction, provides a safe haven for terrorists and lacks democracy, Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha said in an interview published yesterday.

Sinha said that he would not oppose a U.S. attack on Pakistan, but it was up to Washington to make such a decision. 

“We can’t go to someone and ask them to attack another country,” Sinha said.  “We will keep pointing out the activities of Pakistan and in them the role of the army, the drug business centered in Pakistan … and how people in [the Pakistan-controlled zone of Kashmir] are repressed and trampled on,” he added.

Adding to the tension between the two countries, Indian Defense Minister Georges Fernandes said yesterday that India was planning to test its Agni 3 long-range, nuclear-capable ballistic missile before the end of the year (see related GSN story, today; The Advertiser, April 7).

Pakistani officials today responded in kind to Sinha’s comments.

“India is a fit case for a pre-emptive strike,” Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said.  “If India thinks, and could do so, then we also have the right to go for a pre-emptive strike,” he said.

India also possesses weapons of mass destruction, Ahmed said.  He added that if India were to take action against Pakistan “it would be eliminated from the globe” (Islamic Republic News Agency, April 7).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Putin Will Push for Arms Treaty Ratification

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Saturday he would encourage lawmakers to ratify the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, a move the lower house of Parliament has been putting off because of the U.S.-led war in Iraq (see GSN, April 4).

The lower house, or State Duma, has indefinitely postponed a discussion on the treaty.

Despite differences with Washington’s invasion of Iraq, “the Russian Federation is interested in seeing this document ratified,” Putin told reporters.

“We will work with deputies of the Federal Assembly (both houses of Parliament) and hope for ratification,” he said (Russia Journal, April 6).

Dmitry Rogozin, the chief lawmaker on the Duma foreign policy commission, said there is “no question of tabling a discussion in coming sessions while fighting is continuing near Baghdad.”

A vote under the current conditions would “endanger” the treaty, he said.

“We cannot put the fate of the treaty at risk,” according to Rogozin.  “When the appropriate moment for ratification comes, we will present it to the Duma,” he added (Agence Presse-France, April 7).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia II:  No Strategic Arms Control Until Top Leadership Changes, Commentator Says

U.S.-Russian arms control verification methods will probably not make significant progress at least until Washington and Moscow are under new leadership, according to a arms control specialist writing in Arms Control Today.

The period following the pending ratification of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty “is likely to become the time of missed opportunity,” according to Nikolai Sokov, a senior research associate for nonproliferation studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.  “Hopefully, however, it is only a prelude to a much more robust arms control process, perhaps when a new generation of Russian and U.S. leaders enters the scene,” he added.

The treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty, calls for warheads to be mothballed but not destroyed.  The United States would be able to secretly reload up to 2,400 nuclear warheads onto ballistic missiles and bombers if bilateral relations between Washington and Moscow turn sour, Sokov said.

Russia lacks the resources to match that rearmament, and Moscow would prefer a tougher verification mechanism to keep tabs on the larger U.S. arsenal, according to Sokov.

“Moscow will be strictly limited in the number of weapons it can deploy.  And this number, furthermore, is likely to be below the 1,700-2,200 missiles allowed by SORT:  Russia’s announced plan (and its initial SORT negotiating proposal) is 1,500 warheads.  That means that, if it comes to a showdown in the future, Russia could face a U.S. nuclear force that is more than three times its size,” the commentary says.

The United States, however, has little incentive to provide a thorough verification mechanism.  The Cooperative Threat Reduction program, under which the United States assists Russia’s disarmament efforts, provides a built-in monitoring system, the commentary says.

“Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), one of the architects of the CTR program, cited the transparency benefits of CTR as one reason for blocking Democratic efforts to add verification measures to SORT,” Sokov wrote.

Aging Russian Missiles

Russia has tentatively planned to keep about 50 SS-18 ICBMs active until the “middle of the next decade,” according to the commentary.

The shelf life of these missiles, and of other Russian systems, might be overestimated and could lead to a Russian nuclear arsenal with fewer than 1,000 deployed warheads.  Moscow might turn to a heavy reliance on multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles to “keep the arsenal at a ‘decent’ level,” according to Sokov (Nikolai Sokov, Arms Control Today, April 2003).

Back to top

North Korea:  Nuclear Crisis Could Turn Into War, U.N. Envoy Says

The North Korean nuclear crisis could deteriorate and a war could break out between Pyongyang and Washington, the U.N. envoy to North Korea said yesterday (see GSN, April 3).

“There is a real potential for this escalating into conflict,” according to Maurice Strong.  “I think war is unnecessary, unthinkable in its consequences, and yet it is entirely possible,” he added.

Strong met with British officials yesterday to discuss the North Korean crisis, Reuters reported.  U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is working to open communications between the United States and North Korea, according to Strong.

“So much of this often arises from a breakdown of trust, a breakdown of confidence, an inability to read the real intentions of signals of others,” he said (Katherine Baldwin, Reuters/Boston Globe, April 4).

North Korea’s official newspaper, Rodong Shinmun, said yesterday that the United States is acting aggressively toward North Korea and could provoke a nuclear war, the London Guardian reported (Jonathan Watts, London Guardian, April 4).

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said that China was now exerting influence on Pyongyang, and that there is a “reasonable prospect” that North Korea could agree to multilateral talks.  In the past, Pyongyang has said it will negotiate only with the United States.

“We certainly welcome the role that China is now playing and would hope that China could continue to be active in exercising some of the leverage it has on North Korea,” Downer said (Shane Green, Sydney Morning Herald, April 4).

China has opposed sanctions against North Korea, but it now transmitting messages between Pyongyang and Washington in an attempt to further dialogue, the Washington Post reported.

“We have realized that we cannot let this situation alone,” said a Chinese foreign policy official.  “So we’ve decided to attempt to influence it, specifically by getting the two sides together,” the official added (John Pomfret, Washington Post, April 4).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Russian Lawmaker Wants to Delay Moscow Treaty Vote

A top Russian lawmaker said the Russian Parliament should delay ratification of the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty while the conflict in Iraq continues (see GSN, Jan. 16).

“This is not the time to discuss the ratification in the State Duma,” Gennady Seleznyov, chairman of the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament, said yesterday.

Lawmakers previously decided to push ratification back at least until this month, in light of Russian opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

A debate over the treaty could develop into “a large political rally” that “could greatly harm not only the Russo-U.S. ties, but also Russia’s relations with other countries,” Seleznyov said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, April 4).

Back to top

Belarus:  584 Nuclear-Capable Missiles Destroyed, Interior Ministry Says

Belarus has destroyed 584 nuclear-capable short- and medium-range missiles, the Belarusian Interior Ministry said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 14).

Technicians have also destroyed the missiles’ launchers and support equipment, according to Victor Ribakov, head of the Belarusian delegation to a U.N. disarmament meeting

“Belarus is convinced that disarmament measures must be taken in order to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons with the eventual aim of destroying nuclear weapons altogether,” according to Ribakov (Rosbalt news, April 4).

Back to top

North Korea:  U.N. Security Council Plans North Korea Meeting April 9

The U.N. Security Council plans to discuss the North Korean nuclear standoff next Wednesday, diplomats said yesterday (see GSN, March 28).

The United States has been urging other countries to issue a joint Security Council statement condemning Pyongyang for its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but China has resisted such efforts.

The meeting is scheduled for place Apr. 9, almost exactly 90 days after North Korea’s announced its withdrawal from the NPT (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, April 2).

Reports have shown uncertainty over whether North Korea’s treaty withdrawal has formally taken effect or when it will.  North Korean officials, when announcing the move, said the withdrawal would take effect immediately (see GSN, Jan. 10), but treaty provisions say a nation can only withdraw after giving notice 90 days beforehand (Greg Webb, Global Security Newswire, April 3).

While China has balked at meetings with the Security Council’s permanent members on a possible condemnation of North Korea, Beijing has agreed to the Apr. 9 meeting with all 15 Security Council members, according to Chinese U.N. Ambassador Wang Yingfan (Lederer, Associated Press).

There is no guarantee, however, that a statement would be issued after the meeting next week, according to U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte.

“There was nothing discussed today about an outcome of these consultations or any prejudgment of any outcome,” he said.

Officials said that China now seems to be pressuring North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

“There does seem to be now a clear sign that China is making a substantial effort to persuade the North Koreans, first of all to engage in multilateral dialogue and secondly to exercise a greater degree of restraint,” Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said yesterday.

Downer also said that a new Northeast Asian security framework might be developed to give Pyongyang its desired sense of security (Agence France-Presse/Financial Review, April 3).

Back to top

North Korea:  U.S. Will Not Sanction Pakistan For Alleged Nuclear Proliferation

The United States announced yesterday that it does not intend to impose sanctions on Pakistan for allegedly sending nuclear technology to North Korea, United Press International reported (see GSN, Apr. 1).

U.S. officials “carefully reviewed facts relating to the possible transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to North Korea and determined that the facts do not warrant the imposition of sanctions under applicable U.S. law,” according to State Department spokesman Phil Reeker (see GSN, Jan. 21).

The United States did announce sanctions this week against North Korean and Pakistani firms for a deal to send North Korean missiles to Pakistan.

“As you will recall, under Executive Order 12938, we imposed these penalties against Khan Research Laboratories, a Pakistani entity.  We also imposed sanctions March 24th on the North Korean entity Changguang Sinyong Corporation under the missile sanctions law,” Reeker said.

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry denied the allegation and said the company would not be hampered by the sanctions.

The sanctions would have “no material impact either on KRL, which had never depended on foreign assistance, nor on our determination to pursue our indigenous missile program,” said a Foreign Ministry statement (Anwar Iqbal, United Press International, April 1).

In the alleged deal, North Korea sent 10 Scud-B missiles to Pakistan to pay for nuclear technology, the Times of India reported.

A Pakistani freighter returned home in late February after loading the missiles in North Korea, U.S. officials said (Reuters/Times of India, Apr. 2).

Back to top

Japan:  Missing Plutonium Was Miscalculated, Overstated

A computing error caused officials to overstate the amount of missing plutonium at a Japanese nuclear fuel reprocessing plant by almost 150 kilograms, the Japan Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 29).

The missing amount is 59 kilograms, not 206 kilograms as was earlier reported in January.  Officials said the recalculation removed the possibility that the plutonium had been taken.

“There is no fear that plutonium was removed and taken outside; there is also no fear that plutonium was lost,” Japanese officials said.

Tokyo reported the recalculation to the International Atomic Energy Agency (Japan Times, Apr. 2).

“The IAEA remains confident in its conclusion that no nuclear material has been diverted from the facility.  This conclusion is based on a range of activities under the NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] safeguards agreement between the agency and Japan, as well as under the Additional Protocol to that agreement which gives the agency broad access to nuclear fuel cycle-related information and locations,” the agency said.  “These corrections have been accepted by the IAEA as being consistent with its verification data,” the statement added (IAEA release, Apr. 1).

Back to top

United States:  House Considering Easing HEU Export Requirements

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee is this week considering new legislation to ease restrictions on highly enriched uranium exports, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Jan. 3).

The proposal would eliminate a 1992 requirement that medical isotope manufacturers agree to reduce their use of highly enriched uranium, and instead begin using low-enriched uranium, in order to continue to receive U.S. uranium shipments.  The proposal was added to a draft energy bill by Representative Richard Burr (R-N.C.), according to Edwin Lyman, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, a nuclear advocacy group. 

The nuclear medical industry has long fought against the 1992 requirement, saying it jeopardizes the supply of important medical isotopes, according to AP.  Lyman, however, opposes rescinding the restriction, saying such a move “needlessly undermines an important nonproliferation law and increases the risk of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons” (H. Josef Herbert, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, April 2). 

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP