U.S.-Russia:  Duma Approves Moscow Treaty

The lower house of the Russian Parliament today voted to approve the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which aims to cut both countries’ deployed nuclear arsenals by two-thirds by 2012 (see GSN, May 13).

Members of the State Duma voted 294-134 to approve the treaty’s ratification, according to Reuters. The U.S. Senate has already ratified the treaty (see GSN, March 7; Reuters/My Way, May 14).

Approval from the upper house of the Russian parliament, the Federation Council, is still required before Russia can ratify the pact, according to the Associated Press, but no problems are anticipated because the Federation Council has historically followed the Duma’s lead in approving treaties.

During a meeting yesterday with Duma leaders, Russian President Vladimir Putin praised the treaty.

“Its provisions enable us to develop our strategic forces at a level of reasonable sufficiency, in line with the country’s economic capabilities and the dynamics of the military and political situation in the world,” Putin said.

Russian Communist Party lawmakers have opposed the treaty’s ratification.  Communist lawmaker Nikolai Kolomeitsev today proposed that the Duma drop the issue, AP reported.

“This treaty is a gift to [U.S. President George W.]  Bush,” said Communist Party chief Gennady Zyuganov.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov attended today’s Duma debate which was held behind closed doors to allow lawmakers to receive answers to sensitive questions related to Russia’s nuclear forces, AP reported.

In the draft ratification document, the Duma also called for more funding to maintain Russia’s nuclear arsenal on a “level that would guarantee the deterrence against any aggression” (Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 14).

Back to top

United States:  House Committee Approves Bush Nuclear Priorities

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Following the lead of their Senate counterparts, the Republican majority of the House Armed Services Committee yesterday largely overcame Democratic challenges and approved new measures to expand nuclear weapon research and to shorten the time needed to prepare a nuclear weapon test (see GSN, May 8).

The action occurred during a continuing markup session of the 2004 defense authorization bill and was accompanied by a candid debate between committee Republicans and Democrats over the merits of researching, developing and building new nuclear weapons.  The Senate Armed Services Committee approved similar measures last week (see GSN, May 9).

In a series of nearly or totally party-line votes, the House committee rejected amendments by Democrats that would have:

*         cancelled $15 million for studying a nuclear weapon for striking deeply buried targets and $6 million for researching and developing new nuclear weapons (the proposal would have used the money to study ways to use conventional weapons for the same purposes);

*         instituted a one-year moratorium on developing all new nuclear weapons in 2004; and

*         required the administration to notify Congress 18 months before conducting a nuclear test.

In another nuclear weapons-related Republican victory, the committee approved a measure to shorten the time needed to prepare a nuclear test from the current 32 months to 18 months.

Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons

In a partial victory for the Democrats, however, the committee passed a measure to allow the Energy Department to conduct research, but not development, of low-yield nuclear weapons, which are those with yields equivalent to less than five kilotons of conventional explosives.  The Bush administration has argued that such weapons would be potentially useful for striking deeply buried targets and chemical and biological facilities.

The measure, approved in a compromise arranged with Representative John Spratt (D-S.C.), would only partially repeal a 1993 law he co-authored that bans some research and development and all production of low-yield nuclear weapons.  The Senate Armed Services Committee passed language that goes further, authorizing a repeal of the ban on research and development.

“We loosened the original prohibition a bit to permit more extensive research, but reaffirmed that it is not the policy of the United States to develop low-yield nuclear weapons,” Spratt said in a statement today.

“The action in the House sends an important message: that the United States is not backsliding towards development of new battlefield nuclear weapons,” he said.

John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, said the compromise arranged with Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) represented a singular win for Democrats who are in the minority.

“The fact that we did not lose everything is something of a victory,” he said, adding the approved language “maintains the intent of the law passed 10 years ago” by not approving development and production of low-yield nuclear weapons.

Indicating some Republican unhappiness with the compromise, Representative Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) called the Senate version of the bill a better one and Representative Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) said she favored a complete repeal, adding, “That seems to be more of the direction the Senate is going in.”

Debate Over America’s Nuclear Role

As the amendments were being considered, Democrats and Republicans engaged in perhaps their most candid debate so far over the Bush administration’s policies to consider producing nuclear weapons that might be used in roles other than deterrence or as a last resort.

Democrats charged that administration-backed measures approved in the bill would signal that the United States is shifting away from supporting international nonproliferation norms, based on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.  That treaty’s approach is to encourage countries to abstain from nuclear weapons in exchange for the gradual disarmament of five declared nuclear weapon states, including the United States.

The question, said Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), is whether the United States is committed to nonproliferation or is it seeking one set of rules for itself and another for the rest of the world.

He expressed concern that pursuing new nuclear weapons would “signal to the world there isn’t much of a difference between a nuclear weapon and a conventional weapon.”

Republicans argued consideration of low-yield nuclear weapons, which would produce less surface damage than larger nuclear weapons, is needed for putting the leadership of potential adversaries at risk.

Thornberry suggested the current U.S. arsenal of large-yield weapons “may not be credible.”

Democrats, however, argued that low-yield nuclear weapons would be ineffective against deeply buried targets while still causing devastating collateral damage.

On U.S. Leadership

At least one Democrat argued the United States should lead by example and refrain from developing new nuclear weapons to encourage adherence to global nonproliferation norms.

That view was challenged by Wilson, who argued that strategy has “failed miserably” to persuade certain countries from refraining from attempts to acquire new nuclear weapons, naming Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Russia.

“Burying our head in the sand and hoping our example will persuade others to do the same is folly,” she said.

Thornberry questioned Russia’s restraint in developing new nuclear weapons.

“This argument that we have to lead by example and other countries are going to follow along when we show how great and restrained we are, it hasn’t worked as far as Russia” is concerned, he said.

Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) stated the United States would need to eventually develop and build new nuclear weapons.

“We’re going to have to develop new nuclear weapons after a while, build new systems.  We’ve got aging systems now in our nuclear weapons inventory and we’re going to have to replenish them,” he said.

Weldon, the committee’s second-ranking Republican, however, suggested the idea of developing a new nuclear strategy should be better considered.  Weldon said he would introduce today an amendment to create an independent commission to consider future U.S. nuclear weapons strategy over 18 months.

“Perhaps it is time to step back and create a broader commission to assess where we are headed with respect to nuclear weapons,” he said.

Back to top

Pakistan-North Korea:  Former Pakistani General Denies Nuclear Cooperation

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — In a sharp rebuttal of longstanding allegations, a former Pakistani general said last month that his country had nothing to gain and much to lose by sending nuclear technology to North Korea.

“It is impossible that you would trade nuclear technology for anything, there is nothing worth it.  Especially nothing from North Korea,” said retired Pakistani Brig. Gen. Feroz Khan, now a visiting scholar at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.

The New York Times reported last year that Pakistan had given North Korea nuclear assistance in exchange for missile technology.  U.S. officials recently sanctioned a Pakistani company that Washington accuses of providing the nuclear assistance (see GSN, April 1).

A primary reason that Pakistan would not trade nuclear technology for North Korean missiles is China, according to Khan.  China has opposed the idea of a nuclear Korean Peninsula and maintains close ties with Islamabad.

“One country Pakistan cannot afford to anger at any cost is China … it is certain, we will never do a thing to anger China.  We would lose them as a strategic partner,” he told Global Security Newswire in an interview.

Khan also faulted the United States for its allegations without providing proof of the alleged transfer.  To make accusations as serious as nuclear proliferation, “credible evidence must be presented,” he added.

India-Pakistan

India and Pakistan have been making conciliatory statements recently, but Khan said that a productive and meaningful dialogue that produces a lasting peace will most likely not come without outside pressure (see GSN, May 13).

“There is so much venom and so much hatred, they will have to be brought into a dialogue, and there is no hurry to do that,” Khan said.

He also questioned the idea that the two nuclear-armed states are prevented from engaging in another conventional war because of their nuclear arsenals.  India and Pakistan have fought three wars since achieving independence from the United Kingdom in 1947.

“They think they can push the situation and they believe the other side will accept it.  In this process of brinkmanship, they may be crossing the threshold.  It’s hard to manage nukes in a crisis,” Khan said.

Back to top

North Korea:  Roh, Bush Meet Today to Discuss North Korean Crisis

South Korean leader Roh Moo-hyun is to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush today in an attempt to find a common approach to the North Korean nuclear crisis, BBC News reported (see GSN, May 13)

Roh is pushing for a peaceful resolution to the standoff, while Bush has not ruled out sanctions or a military strike against North Korea, BBC News reported (BBC News, May 14).

Reactor Construction Continues

While Washington and Seoul seek a common ground, work is continuing on two nuclear reactors in North Korea that are being provided by the United States, South Korea and Japan under a 1994 deal to freeze Pyongyang’s nuclear activities, the Associated Press reported.

“No one has officially said the deal was dead, and work on the reactor project is ongoing,” said Kim Jong-ro, a spokesman at the South Korean Unification Ministry, who said South Korea has paid $850 million toward the effort so far.

The reactor is being built by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, which is led by the United States and includes South Korea, Japan and the European Union.  There are 605 South Korean, 353 Uzbek and 99 North Korean workers involved in the construction, according to the Associated Press (Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle, May 14).

North Korea Has Several Nuclear Weapons, Former General Claims

A man who said he was a North Korean general before defecting last year to the South claimed that Pyongyang has many nuclear weapons.

“The North Korean army even has tens of nuclear weapons it has developed itself in addition to those made by the former Soviet Union,” the general said in an interview with the Japanese publication Gekkan Gendai.

The general, operating under the pseudonym “An Yong Chol,” said North Korea has four Soviet-made missiles with a range of 8,000 kilometers, sufficient to reach the United States.

The magazine said he was the most senior defector since Hwang Jang Yop, the top ideologue and secretary of the Workers Party, who came to the South in 1997.

Some experts are skeptical about his story.

“The former Soviet Union was most careful not to allow the proliferation of nuclear weapons, even to Warsaw Pact allies,” Hideshi Takesada, a Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies professor, said.  “This may possibly be a defector who has been sent by the North or wants to whip up fear as a gift to the North,” he added (News24, May 14).

Washington Reacts to Proclamation

The United States yesterday said it is “regrettable” that North Korea yesterday declared “dead” the 1991 Joint Declaration for a Non-Nuclear Korean Peninsula, which prohibits both countries from developing nuclear weapons, according to U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Reeker.

“It follows North Korea’s violation of its other international nuclear obligations.  And again, I would just say that we urge North Korea, in keeping with the desire of its neighbors, of the international community as a whole, to verifiably and irreversibly terminate its nuclear weapons program,” he added (State Department release, May 13).

Back to top

Iran:  Russia Defends Nuclear Assistance to Iran

Russia does not have enough evidence of a clandestine Iranian nuclear weapons program to halt nuclear assistance to Tehran, Russian Nuclear Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said today (see GSN, May 6).

“If the international community gives sufficiently weighty arguments in connection with the Iranian nuclear program not in favor of Iran, we are ready to discuss them” during an upcoming meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rumyantsev said.  “In the course of regular bilateral contacts, the Iranian leadership is constantly assuring us about the exceptionally peaceful nature of its nuclear program.  In addition, the construction of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr has been already placed under IAEA control,” he added.

The IAEA is preparing a report on Iran’s nuclear activities and a meeting would be held in Vienna to discuss Tehran’s nuclear program, Rumyantsev said.

After the report is complete, Russia will discuss “relevant recommendations,” he added (German Solomatin, ITAR-Tass, May 14).

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Says Inter-Korean Nuclear Agreement is “Dead

North Korea declared a 1991 inter-Korean nuclear agreement to be “a dead document,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency said yesterday (see GSN, May 12).

Complaining of U.S. aggression, a KCNA statement said “The inter-Korean declaration on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula was thus reduced to a dead document due to U.S. vicious hostile policy to stifle the D.P.R.K. with nukes.”

North Korea also announced that the goal of a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula was “completely derailed” (Korean Central News Agency, May 13).

The Joint Declaration for a Non-Nuclear Korean Peninsula mandated that North and South Korea “will not test, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons.”

The pact also dictated that Pyongyang and Seoul only use nuclear power for peaceful purposes and promise not to possess facilities for reprocessing or enriching nuclear material (David McGlinchey, Global Security Newswire, May 13).

The United States, meanwhile, refused a request from South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun to forgo the possibility of a pre-emptive military strike on North Korea.

U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Washington would keep “all options open,” although the White House claims it has maintained its commitment to a multilateral solution.

“We, of course, seek a peaceful diplomatic resolution to the issues involving North Korea,” National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday.  “While not taking any options off the table, we’re working very hard toward that goal — a multilateral solution,” he added (Joseph Curl, Washington Times, May 13).

Nuclear Weapon Devices Seized in Hong Kong

Meanwhile, Japanese officials are investigating a business run by a Korean resident of Japan for allegedly attempting to export devices to develop nuclear weapons, Asahi Shimbun reported.  The devices — en route to North Korea — were seized in Hong Kong.

Japanese trade ministry officials filed a criminal complaint April 24 against the company, known as Meishin, for allegedly attempting to export the industrial transformers that could be used to enrich uranium.  The Japanese government must sanction the export of such devices, and officials reportedly blocked Meishin’s attempt to export the same devices in November (Asahi Shimbun, May 9).

Back to top

NPT:  Commitments Against the Use of Nuclear Weapons Still a Distant Goal

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — The goal of nations that have renounced nuclear weapons to be secure in the commitment that they will not be threatened with nuclear weapons appears to be even more elusive because of policy changes in the nuclear powers that make the use of these weapons more possible and because of the looming proliferation crises in various parts of the world.

This issue was one of the key concerns during the annual meeting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which ended here on Friday (see GSN, May 9).

The treaty is regularly described as a bargain in which the non-nuclear states promise to forgo the nuclear option and the nuclear states promise to work towards nuclear disarmament.  Implicit in the idea of renouncing nuclear weapons is the desire by these states for an unequivocal, legally binding commitment by the nuclear powers not to be threatened or attacked with nuclear weapons.  In other words, protection can be found in the treaty, not in possessing nuclear weapons.

Such commitments are called negative security assurances since the promise is not to do something.  Positive security assurances are the commitments to come to the assistance of an attacked victim.

At the Geneva meeting, New Zealand’s Ambassador Tim Caughley said unequivocal negative security assurances “would surely be an incentive to all non-nuclear weapon states to avoid taking the option of developing a nuclear weapons program.”  Such assurances “would be a concrete advantage to non-nuclear weapon states to have this assurance provided by the nuclear weapons states,” he added. 

Caughley spoke for the New Agenda Coalition of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden.  The coalition is an ad hoc group working to persuade the nuclear powers to embark on a series of steps leading to nuclear disarmament.

Historically, achieving negative security assurances has been difficult because four of the five nuclear weapons states that belong to the NPT — the United States, Russia, United Kingdom and France — have always attached conditions to assurances, such as retaining the right to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state aligned with a nuclear power. China is the only country to give an unequivocal commitment not to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.  The three other nuclear powers — India, Pakistan and Israel — are not parties to the treaty.

The Nonaligned Movement and the New Agenda Coalition have lobbied for years for legally binding negative security assurances.  The New Agenda submitted a working paper to this year’s meeting that includes a draft protocol on security assurances that could be added to the NPT.

If the world had such commitments, “it would narrow down hugely the potential dangers of a larger range of countries developing nuclear weapons,” Caughley said in an interview with Global Security Newswire last week.  “We see this as a way of addressing both nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation issues.  It is a tool open to us that we believe is capable of delivering that very same objective,” he added.

However, events are moving in the opposite direction with new strains developing over North Korea’s withdrawal from the NPT and charges, leveled largely by the United States, that Iran is illegally developing a nuclear weapons program.  How these questions are resolved will have an effect on the security assurances debate.  In addition, new U.S. policies, including the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, that envisions numerous scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons, is moving Washington even further away from the non-nuclear states’goal of an unequivocal commitment.

The current standoff over North Korea presents a special dilemma.  North Korea has withdrawn from the NPT and is threatening to resume a program that can produce nuclear weapons.  The committee sidestepped the issue last week, not wishing to be seen as interfering with the talks between the United States and North Korea.

Jean du Preez of the Monterey Institute of International Studies said, “There is an irony in the whole debate” on how to deal with North Korea. One of the reasons North Korea uses to justify a weapons program is “retaliation to the U.S. threatening it with nuclear weapons,” he said.  But if North Korea can be coaxed into giving up its nuclear ambitions, “the North Koreans are likely to get some kind of an assurance from the United States that it will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons as an incentive to halt or freeze its program,” said du Preez.  “The irony is that state parties to the treaty need to threaten to develop nuclear weapons in order to get security assurances” while states in compliance get no such guarantees. “There’s a message in that,” he added.

If the United States “is willing to do that to get the North Koreans back into the fold of the nonproliferation regime, they surely should be willing to give a legally binding commitment to those states that in full compliance with their treaty obligations,” said du Preez, a former South African diplomat.

A similar situation may be developing with Iran.  The United States has charged, including during this NPT meeting, that aspects of the Iranian nuclear program are more in keeping with a weapons program than an energy program.  Like North Korea, du Preez said, “The Iranians could also argue that they feel threatened by the United States.”  Together with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran and North Korea were called the “axis of evil” by U.S. President George W. Bush.

The key difference from North Korea is that Iran is a member of the NPT and as such is regularly inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  “If they can prove to be in compliance with the treaty’s provisions” through IAEA inspections, du Preez said, “The Iranians also deserve the security such a protocol or legal instrument would provide. That would strengthen the treaty regime as a whole because that would show that a state has decided to prove to the international community that it does not want to pursue nuclear weapons … but as an incentive for that they deserve to get an assurance that it will not be threatened or that nuclear weapons will not be used against it.” 

The United States is insisting that Iran sign an IAEA protocol that allows the agency more latitude in conducting inspections.  In Vienna on May 6, Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh told the IAEA his government “has no difficulty accepting this protocol,” but “at the same time, it doesn’t intend to ratify and enforce the provisions of this protocol without any conditions.”  Because conditions cannot be imposed on protocol negotiations, this was interpreted to mean conditions reached with the United States.

If Iran agrees to tougher inspections, du Preez said, “The United States and others need to be encouraged to, once the IAEA has given it a clean bill of health, refrain from continuing to threaten Iranians.  It would be in the spirit of the treaty.” 

The New Agenda wants to see any negotiations to take place in the context of the NPT, rather than the Conference on Disarmament, the Geneva-based body mandated to negotiate arms control treaties.  Some nonaligned countries and Russia have suggested placing the issue on the CD’s agenda.

Caughley told the NPT meeting that negotiations within the NPT “would provide a significant benefit to the treaty parties and would be seen as an incentive to those who remain outside the NPT.  Security assurances rightfully belong to those who have given up the nuclear weapon option as opposed to those who are still keeping their options open.”

Du Preez said CD negotiations, where India, Pakistan, and Israel are members, “would give these states the recognition they do not deserve as nuclear weapon states” thus “you would lose the incentive that the treaty provides. Why would you need to join the treaty if you could negotiate issues of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation outside of the treaty?”  Beside, he said, the CD has been deadlocked for several years; adding security assurances to the agenda would only add to the deadlock.

Back to top

South Asia:  India Readies “Road Map” for Bilateral Talks

India has prepared a “road map” for possible talks with Pakistan to reduce tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals, Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha said yesterday (see GSN, May 12).

“Every step is clear in our mind,” Sinha said.  “There is no confusion and we will proceed according to the plan,” he said.

India and Pakistan will use the planned talks to build a framework for a possible future summit, Sinha said.

“The thawing has already begun but there will be no dramatic gestures,” Sinha said.  “The general approach is to begin with official-level talks leading up to a political summit,” he said.

Pakistani Information Minister Rashid Ahmed said talks could begin as early as June.  “I am not giving any date or confirmation,” he added (United Press International, May 12).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Duma Schedules Moscow Treaty Discussion Tomorrow

The Russian State Duma will resume efforts tomorrow to consider approving the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 7).

The Duma made the decision today to take up the treaty, which is also known as the Moscow Treaty, according to lawmaker Andrei Kokoshin.  The discussion of the treaty — which outlines plans for the two countries to cut their deployed nuclear arsenals by two-thirds by 2012 — has been delayed because of Russian objections to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The ratification discussion will take place the same day that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is scheduled to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg (Associated Press, May 13).

Back to top

North Korea:  Roh Wants Peaceful Resolution to Nuclear Crisis

South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun wants planned talks with U.S. President George W. Bush to focus on the countries’ common desire to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis peacefully, the Associated Press has reported (see GSN, May 8; Christopher Torchia, Associated Press/Yahoo!  News, May 12).

Roh will encourage Bush to issue a public promise to resolve the conflict peacefully, the according to the Washington Times.

“The mere thought of a military conflict with North Korea is a calamity for us,” Roh said.  “If possible, we think it is much more reasonable for us to induce North Korea to reform itself and to open up to the outside world,” he added.

South Korea is, however, “fully prepared and fully braced for a possible calamity,” Roh added (Fran Coombs, Washington Times, May 12).

“Previous South Korea-U.S. summits have been burdened by high expectations,” Roh said.  “I hope the talks will confirm our common approach to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue, and also the importance of the South Korea-U.S. alliance,” he added.

Cautioning that the talks will not produce “spectacular” results, Roh said that “on matters of detail, there are different points of view.  But on the big matters of principle, we are in accord” (Torchia, Associated Press/Yahoo! News).

A U.S. official said Washington is attempting to keep a unified approach to Pyongyang with South Korea and Japan.  Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is scheduled to visit Bush in Texas next week, the New York Times reported.

The other challenge, according to the official, is “coming up with the right mixture of a willingness to negotiate with a willingness to confront” (Sanger/Shanker, New York Times, May 11).

Back to top

Iran:  Washington, Tehran Talking in Geneva

As U.S. officials push accusations of Iranian nuclear development, Washington and Tehran have engaged in three rounds of secret talks in Geneva this year, USA Today reported (see GSN, May 9).

White House envoy Zalmay Khalilzad is reportedly heading the U.S. delegation in the discussions, which are set to resume next week.  Despite clandestine diplomatic contacts, the United States is pushing the International Atomic Energy Agency to censure Tehran for what Washington believes is a secret nuclear weapons development program.

The two countries have not had diplomatic relations in 23 years but the Iranian Parliament and public seem open to re-establishing ties, according to USA Today.

“The debate is taking place both in Iran and the United States,” an Iranian diplomat said.  “We are ready to discuss reestablishing relations on the basis of mutual respect,” the diplomat added.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed the idea of renewing diplomatic relations any time soon.

“The issue of diplomatic relations is not on the table right now for either side,” Powell said.  “But in terms of communicating with the Iranians, we have such ways, and we use them on a regular basis,” he added (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, May 11).

The burgeoning relationship, however, may have been damaged by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Wall Street Journal reported today.

Tehran believed the United States would attack the anti-Iranian militia Mujahedin-e-Khalq during the invasion while Washington asked Iran not to send fighters over its border with Iraq.  The White House has begun disarming the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, but Iran is attempting to influence the situation in Iraq, the Journal reported.

Iranian agents are telling Iraqis that Washington does not have staying power and U.S. influence will not be around for too much longer, according to a U.S. official.

“The message is, ‘Don’t get too close to the Americans,’” the official said.

The more U.S. President George W. Bush appears to threaten Iran in coming months, “the more active Tehran will be in Iraq to try to keep us tied down so we can’t focus on them,” said a U.S. intelligence official (David Cloud, Wall Street Journal, May 12).

Back to top

South Asia:  Armitage Meets With Top Indian Officials

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met Saturday with top Indian officials, including Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, as part of an effort to help reduce tensions between India and Pakistan (see GSN, May 9).

Armitage said it would be India’s responsibility to assess Pakistan’s intentions with regard to the issue of cross-border terrorism in the disputed region of Kashmir, a potential flashpoint between the two countries.  He added that it was not the United States’ responsibility to give India assurances over Pakistan’s pledges to end cross-border terrorism (Amit Baruah, The Hindu, May 11).

Vajpayee Criticizes Sanctions

Meanwhile, Vajpayee yesterday said that technological sanctions against India were discriminatory because several countries “guilty of missile and nuclear proliferation” continue to receive aid.

India remains subject to sanctions imposed after it conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, as well as to sanctions imposed during the 1980s under the Missile Technology Control Regime, Vajpayee said.  He also complained that India was a victim of a “double standard.”

“Countries guilty of missile and nuclear proliferation have not attracted sanctions,” Vajpayee said.  “Some even continue to receive liberal economic assistance,” he said without naming specific countries.

India has never received recognition for its self-imposed restraint on nuclear- and ballistic missile-related transfers, Vajpayee said.  “We have denied ourselves many lucrative contracts and joint ventures,” he said (Reuters/Business Recorder, May 12).

During a series of meetings last week with U.S. officials, Indian National Security Adviser Birjesh Mishra called on the United States to provide India with dual-use technologies for its nonmilitary space and nuclear programs.

During his visit to the United States, which ended Saturday, Mishra told U.S. officials that India was seeking dual-use technologies for use in its scientific research and development programs and not for military purposes.  The Bush administration, however, said U.S. nonproliferation laws prevent the transfer of technologies to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, such as India (Jawed Naqvi, DAWN, May 12).

Back to top

Al-Qaeda:  United States Questions Mohammed on Nuclear Links

U.S. intelligence officials are questioning Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, captured March 1 in Pakistan, about a possible link between the al-Qaeda terrorist group and Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, Time magazine reported this week (see GSN, May 1).

Mohammed — who has reportedly denied a link between Khan and al-Qaeda — was the third-highest official in al-Qaeda before his capture, according to Time.

Two years ago, Pakistan removed Khan from nuclear and military posts, and he is now constantly accompanied by a security detail, Time reported.  U.S. officials are concerned, however, that Khan can still disseminate nuclear information.

“He moves around very freely and has everything he needs inside his head, if not his briefcase,” said a U.S. official (Burger/McGirk, Time, May 19).

Back to top

United States:  Northrop Grumman Receives Two Contracts to Upgrade B-2 Bombers

Northrop Grumman has received two contracts to upgrade the nuclear-capable B-2 stealth bomber to carry smart bombs and to upgrade the bomber’s radar system, the Los Angeles Daily News reported last week (see GSN, Oct. 17, 2002).

The company has been awarded a $31.7 million contract to produce a bomb rack assembly that will allow the B-2 to be equipped with up to 80 500-pound guided munitions.  Under the contract, the company will convert 45 existing bomb rack assemblies to the new design.  In addition, Northrop Grumman has also been awarded an $85.9 million contract to continue a project to improve the B-2’s radar system (Jim Skeen, Los Angeles Daily News, May 8).

Back to top

CTBT:  Kuwait Ratifies Test Ban Treaty

Kuwait ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty May 6, according to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, bring the total number of treaty ratifiers to 101 (see GSN, May 6).  Kuwait is not one of the 44 nations that must ratify the treaty before it can enter in force, only 31 of which have done so (CTBT Organization release, May 6).

Back to top

NPT:  Geneva Meeting Ends Admitting Problems

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — The parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty concluded their annual meeting this afternoon with an acknowledgement that the treaty and the nonproliferation regime face serious challenges (see GSN, May 1).

In his summary report of the meeting, Ambassador Laszlo Molnar of Hungary, the chairman of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference, wrote that states “stressed the increasingly grave threat to the treaty and international security posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. … The gravity of this threat reinforces the need to strengthen the treaty.”

North Korea, which withdrew from the treaty earlier this year (see GSN, April 10) and Iran were criticized for not complying with the treaty by pursuing nuclear weapons, while the nuclear weapons powers, particularly the United States, were criticized for not pursuing nuclear disarmament. The United States was also criticized for embracing military doctrines that envision more uses for nuclear weapons.

Molnar’s summary was meant to take all these opinions into account without endorsing any of them.  The summary does not represent a consensus view of all the parties, but rather, as Molnar said at a news conference, it “can be seen and adopted as a representative sample of the whole debate without going into any extremities.”  For example, he said, some nuclear powers criticized him for not emphasizing more the progress in nuclear disarmament while some non-nuclear states said he “was not as forthcoming as I could have been on pressing for nuclear disarmament.”

Andrew Semmel of the United States said at the committee’s final session, “While disarmament continues its downward trend, proliferation challenges are mounting.  The relative attention paid by too many delegations to disarmament versus proliferation ignores the reality of our international security situation.”  He added, “We cannot accept these assertions” concerning “the alleged failure” of nuclear disarmament.

Molnar’s summary made an oblique reference to concerns about U.S. nuclear policies by saying, “Concern and uncertainty about existing nuclear arsenals, new approaches to the future role of nuclear weapons, as well as the possible development of new generations of nuclear weapons were expressed.”

The United States was particularly vocal during the session in charging that Iran is developing nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty.  Semmel said he was pleased that Iran was specifically named, but “the summary has not gone far enough.”  He said, “Iran poses as fundamental a challenge as the NPT has ever faced.”  While under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, Iran is developing technology “intended to support a nuclear weapons program,” he added (see related GSN story, today).

Amir Zamaninia of Iran said the U.S. allegation “clearly illustrates the U.S. policy of double standards” of accusing Iran while the United States is not complying with its disarmament obligations and ignoring the issue of nuclear weapons in Israel, which Zamaninia called “a proven and established proliferator.”  Israel is the only Middle East country not party to the treaty

“We are determined, because we do not have anything to hide, to work closely with the IAEA in a cooperative and transparent manner to make the truth about the peaceful nature of our nuclear program known to all,” said Zamaninia at the closing session.  “The NPT will be strong only when it is fully complied with by both the nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states alike, when we … avoid the temptation of picking what suits us at a particular juncture,” he added.

The paragraph on Iran in Molnar’s summary noted that Iran has been asked to sign a new protocol with the IAEA that would give the agency greater access to the country’s nuclear facilities to better judge if Iran is in full compliance with the NPT (see GSN, Feb. 24).  Such a protocol would “enhance the confidence of states parties and help eliminate concerns regarding [Iran’s] nuclear program,” the summary said.  But the summary did not repeat any of the charges the United States made.  The agency is to present a comprehensive report on Iran to its board of governors in June.  Semmel said the treaty parties “must be ready to act firmly if Iran does not comply.”

Semmel also expressed “concerns” about other treaty parties in the Middle East, including Libya (see GSN, April 7).

A related issue is the commitment parties made at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences to work for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.  The summary said the goal “remained valid” and “called upon Israel to accede to the treaty as soon as possible and to place its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.”

Last year’s meeting was consumed over charges of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 23, 2002). But this year’s summary was limited to pointing out that there “remained unresolved questions regarding Iraq’s programs of weapons of mass destruction” and that “some states parties took note of the IAEA’s readiness to resume its verification activities in Iraq.”

North Korea’s withdrawal from the treaty and its threats to resume its nuclear program presented “one important challenge from the very beginning,” said Molnar.  The committee had to decide how to deal with North Korea’s withdrawal — the only country ever to pull out of the treaty — “without interfering with the ongoing political efforts” to resolve the issue.  The summary’s wording, he said, “will not have a great significance at this point, but it is not going to cause any harm either.”  North Korea should see incentives in the wording “and see the message that is very clear from the international community,” he added.

The summary said states “deplored” North Korea’s decision and called the withdrawal “a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime.”  It called on North Korea to dismantle its program “in a prompt, verifiable and irreversible way” while recognizing its “legitimate security concerns.”

Semmel said this language was too weak and that North Korea’s “cynical and dangerous actions in its nuclear weapons program pose a grave threat to regional and international stability and deserves the strongest condemnation.”

This was the second of three preparatory meetings leading up to the 2005 review conference for the treaty. The 2004 preparatory meeting is expected to make recommendations to the 2005 review conference.  Therefore, this preparatory meeting was not expected to produce any concrete recommendations.  Molnar’s summary will be the starting point for the work next year.

The summary also called on India and Pakistan to renounce their nuclear weapons and join the treaty as non-nuclear states.

Only India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are not parties to the NPT.  East Timor ratified earlier this week, bringing the total of states parties to 188.

Back to top

United States:  Senate Committee Approves Bush Nuclear Weapons Objectives

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — In passing a $400 billion defense budget for fiscal 2004 yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved new measures for developing and testing nuclear weapons that were sought by the Bush administration.

The marked-up bill, the largest ever, will now go before the full Senate for consideration.  The House Armed Services Committee is expected to complete its companion bill next week and approve similar, if not the same, measures (see GSN, May 8).

Last year, Democrats, who then controlled the Senate, blocked a number of similar measures proposed by the Bush administration.  Now Republicans control both houses, and the recent committee actions suggest that most, if not all, of the Bush administration’s nuclear weapons-related requests will prevail.

“The president got most of what he wanted,” said Steve LaMontagne, a research analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, noting that two measures approved by the Senate committee related to U.S. aid for nuclear and chemical weapons elimination abroad could conflict with language in the House bill.

Repeal of Low-Yield Nuke Ban

In perhaps the most controversial of the nuclear weapons-related measures, the Senate committee authorized a repeal to a 1994 ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration has sought the repeal so it can explore designing new weapons to use against facilities containing chemical and biological agents, as well as deeply buried, hardened targets.

Critics have charged such activity would undermine international nuclear nonproliferation efforts and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (see related GSN story, today).

A House Armed Services subcommittee also approved the repeal this week, but the full committee may agree to some limitations under a compromise now under negotiation with the ban’s original co-author, Representative John Spratt (R-S.C.).

The Senate committee also authorized $15 million to continue a feasibility study on a system called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (see GSN, March 7) and $6 million for the Advanced Concepts Initiative, which aims at improving earth-penetrating weapons.

Testing Readiness

The Senate committee also approved an Energy Department request to reduce the time it would take to prepare for a nuclear weapon test from 32 months to 18 months.

Analysts say the move suggests the administration might be contemplating testing new nuclear weapons.  Bush administration officials, however, have said there are no plans to resume testing and that shortening the test readiness time is only a contingency measure.  The United States has observed a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992.

Critics say the move could undermine international efforts to discourage nuclear testing that is banned by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — a measure that has not yet entered into force, and one that President George W. Bush has indicated he will not ratify.

Cooperative Threat Reduction

The Senate committee also approved two measures related to threat reduction aid outside of the United States — items that apparently do not appear in the House bill.

A waiver authorizing funding for chemical weapons destruction in the former Soviet Union garnered a one-year extension.  The waiver, which was approved last year, would allow fiscal 2004 funding to be spent on the Russian chemical weapons demilitarization program at Shchuchye in the event that Russia does not meet six conditions required in another U.S. law (see GSN, Jan. 15).

Experts say the president is unlikely to certify that Russia has met all of the conditions — which include facilitating U.S. verification of destruction activities there and complying with all relevant arms control agreements — and so, without the waiver, chemical weapons destruction activities at Shchuchye would end when fiscal 2003 money runs out.

Last year’s extension was fought and defeated by Representative Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who now chairs the House Armed Services Committee.  The waiver was not included in the 2004 bill introduced by Hunter.

The Senate committee also approved an administration request to allow allocating a portion of the $450 million Defense Department Cooperative Threat Reduction programs to be spent outside the former Soviet Union.

Similar legislation also was opposed by Hunter last year and does not appear in the House bill, although a separate bill introduced this year in the House would give the Energy Department such authority.

Back to top

Iran:  IAEA Not Ready to Rule on Tehran’s Nuclear Program

The International Atomic Energy Agency is not yet ready to render a decision as to whether Iran’s nuclear program violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, diplomats said yesterday (see GSN, May 7).

The agency is still reviewing the results of a February visit to Iranian facilities, Western diplomats said.  While some observers expect the agency to report conclusively on Iran’s program at June 16 meeting of its board of governors, the diplomats doubted such a report would be ready.

“It is still at the technical level,” a diplomat from a Western Security Council member said.  “It has not reached the political level yet,” the diplomat added.

U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday took a cautious attitude toward the June meeting.

“We’ll wait and see what it says,” Bush said.  “I’ve always expressed my concerns that the Iranians may be developing a nuclear program,” he added (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters/Environmental News Network, May 9).

Technology Source

Meanwhile, there are indications that the centrifuges Iran is using at a uranium-enrichment facility in the southern city of Natanz are of Pakistani origin, according to IAEA inspectors and senior U.S. officials (see GSN, March 11).

During their February visit to Iranian nuclear facilities, IAEA inspectors were “shocked” to see that the design of the centrifuges being used at the Natanz plant were obviously of Pakistani origin, an agency official said.

“The question is, where is the factory that supplied the Iranian facility at Natanz?” a senior IAEA official said.  “Is it in Pakistan, or is it in North Korea?” the official added (NBC News/MSNBC.com, May 9).

State Department Keeps Up Pressure

Meanwhile, U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher yesterday said Iran was conducting “an active pursuit of nuclear weapons” and questioned the need for Iran to seek nuclear energy facilities.

“There is no economic justification for a state that’s rich in oil and gas like Iran to build hugely expensive nuclear fuel cycle facilities.  Iran flares off more gas annually than the equivalent energy its desired nuclear reactors would produce.  States with peaceful nuclear energy programs have nothing to hide, and Iran did its best to hide all of these nuclear fuel cycle activities,” Boucher said (State Department release, May 8).

Back to top

South Asia:  Armitage Expresses “Cautious Optimism” on India-Pakistan Peace Process

After meeting yesterday with top Pakistani officials, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he felt a “cautious optimism” that a peace process had begun between India and Pakistan (see GSN, May 8).

“I think what you’re seeing, I hope, is the beginning of a process, and I’m cautiously optimistic,” Armitage said, referring to recent moves by both countries to improve relations prior to a possible meeting.  “There is a nascent beginning of a dialogue,” he said.

Armitage also said the United States could act as an “interlocutor” in helping the two countries meet to resolve long-standing tensions, such as the disputed region of Kashmir.

“Our own endeavors here, the United States, is to faithfully discuss these issues with both sides of the equation and try [to] act just like an interlocutor,” Armitage said.  “If we can be helpful in bringing about a dialogue, that’s a good thing,” he said.

Armitage denied, however, that the United States had pressured the two countries to resume a dialogue.

“That is not the case.  It is not the position of the U.S. government to pressure Pakistan or to pressure India,” Armitage said.

Armitage is now expected to meet with Indian officials in New Delhi tomorrow (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 9).

Back to top

Russia:  Missile Submarine Completes Overhaul

A Russian Delta-IV ballistic missile submarine, the Novomoskovsk, has completed an overhaul and will return to service following a systems check, ITAR-Tass reported Wednesday (ITAR-Tass, May 7 in FBIS-SOV, May 8).

Russia has six Delta-IV submarines, each capable of carrying 16 ballistic missiles which in turn can be armed with as many as four nuclear warheads each (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August, 2002).

The Novomoskovsk is notable for launching the first commercial satellite from a submarine in 1998, using an SS-N-23 ballistic missile as the booster (Space Today Online).

Back to top

North Korea:  U.S. Satellites See Signs of Plutonium Reprocessing

The United States has detected smoke coming from a North Korean nuclear facility, which could be a sign that Pyongyang has begun reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods, a South Korean official said today (see GSN, May 7).

U.S. officials have provided South Korea with a satellite photograph of the smoke plume, the Associated Press reported.

Intelligence officials have not detected other signs of reprocessing, such as chemical traces or heat releases, according to the official (Daniel Cooney, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 8).

“We don’t have confirmation that they are reprocessing on a large scale,” but small scale reprocessing is possible, a senior U.S. intelligence official said (David Sanger, New York Times, May 8).

“It is true that signs have been detected in late April, but no additional activities or unusual movement had been confirmed since,” the South Korean official said (Cooney, Associated Press/Yahoo!News).

Top White House foreign policy advisers met yesterday to discuss the next U.S. move in the Korean nuclear crisis, and officials said the United States would probably meet with North Korean officials for another round of talks despite the reprocessing activity, the New York Times reported.

Officials previously did not believe North Korean reprocessing had begun, but the reassessment came after national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ordered an intelligence review, which was delivered to the White House in mid-April, according to the Times.

The new information will probably change U.S. President George W. Bush’s approach to the crisis, the Times reported.

“It means we don’t have forever to solve this problem,” a senior U.S. official said (Sanger, New York Times).

Japan Contemplated Pre-Emptive Attack

Ten years ago, Japanese officials examined the possibility of a pre-emptive air attack on a North Korean military facility to prevent a missile attack, Agence France-Presse reported today.

The study was conducted after Pyongyang launched a missile into the Sea of Japan, but was scuttled after Japanese officials agreed that they did not have the proper aircraft at their disposal to achieve success in the mission (Agence France-Presse/Hindustan Times, May 8).

Back to top

United States I:  Nuclear Weapon Research Survives First Round of Budget Negotiations

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives failed yesterday in initial attempts to defeat or amend controversial legislation that would increase U.S. nuclear test readiness and permit research and development of new nuclear weapons (see GSN, April 9).

The attempts were made at a subcommittee markup session of the fiscal 2004 defense authorization bill introduced by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.).  The full committee is scheduled to consider the language next week.

The Strategic Forces Subcommittee, consisting of eight Republicans and six Democrats, rejected an amendment offered by Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) to prohibit fiscal 2004 funds from being used for research and development of new nuclear weapons.  The language would have restricted how $6 million requested by the administration for an “Advanced Concepts Initiative” would have been spent.

The committee also rejected a proposal by Tauscher and Representative John Spratt (D-S.C.) to require the president to provide at least 18 months advance notice to Congress before conducting a test.

The amendment also would have required the administration to explain why a test was necessary, including why other means of evaluation were insufficient, and an assessment of the geopolitical and strategic consequences of resuming the test.

Language contained in the bill, but defeated last year, would shorten the projected test preparation time from the current 32 months to 18 months.

Spratt also unsuccessfully attempted to modify controversial language in the bill to repeal a 1994 law he co-authored prohibiting research and development on nuclear weapons with yields below five kilotons.

The Bush administration has argued that the repeal is needed to explore the possibility of developing low-yield nuclear weapons to destroy chemical and biological facilities and for striking deeply buried, hardened bunkers.

Spratt offered a proposal would have barred development but not research.  He withdrew the amendment after receiving an assurance to work with committee members to find other compromise language.

The committee did pass, though, an amendment offered by Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) that would withhold 60 percent of money authorized for enhancing nuclear testing readiness until the Pentagon provides a report required by the defense authorization bill last year.

Kathryn Crandall, an arms control analyst with the nongovernmental organization British American Security Information Council, says the outcome of the markup could signal an uphill battle for Democrats interested in blocking the legislation.

“The outcome and debate of the subcommittee’s markup is certainly indicative of formidable challenges that the Democrats will face in the House and in the Senate,” she said.

Back to top

South Asia I:  India Declines Pakistani Offer to Denuclearize

Rejecting a Pakistani proposal for a nuclear weapon-free South Asia, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee today said India would keep its nuclear stockpile, but hoped to avoid a regional arms race (see GSN, May 6).

Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Aziz Ahmed Khan said Monday that Pakistan would eliminate its nuclear weapons if India reciprocated.

Speaking to the Indian Parliament today, Vajpayee said, “We don’t accept Pakistan’s proposal … as Pakistan’s nuclear program is India-specific. … But we are concerned about other states as well.”

“We can change friends, but we can’t change neighbors,” he said, adding, “We have to defend ourselves in case of a threat” (Beth Duff-Brown, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 8).

Back to top

United States II:  House Subcommittee Boosts Bomber Funding

A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee yesterday added $20 million to the defense authorization bill to keep active 23 B-1 bombers that are currently slated for retirement, CongressDaily reported today (see GSN, Aug. 12, 2002).

The U.S. Air Force had planned to reduce its fleet of the strategic bombers from 92 to 60 by Oct. 1, but the new funding from the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee would keep a total of 83 B-1 bombers in service.

The subcommittee also authorized $100 million for research and development on a “next generation, follow-on stealth, deep-strike bomber,” according to subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.).  Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) has been pushing for such an aircraft this year (see GSN, Feb. 7; Molly Peterson, CongressDaily, May 8).

Air Force and Boeing officials said the B-1’s strong performance in Iraq and Afghanistan justifies reducing the number of planes to be retired and improving those that remain.

“I’ll be optimistic and say that (the B-1B’s war record) is going to basically improve the B-1’s long-term upgrade plan,” Parke said (Stephen Trimble, Aerospace Daily, May 7).

Back to top

South Asia II:  U.S. Delegation Meets With Pakistani Officials

A U.S. delegation headed by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met today with Pakistani officials in Islamabad in an attempt to help reduce tensions between Pakistan and India (see GSN, May 7).

Armitage met with several senior Pakistani officials today, including Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali and Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kashuri, according Agence France-Presse.  He is expected to meet later today with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

During his visit, Armitage is expected to pressure Pakistan to end its support of cross-border terrorism in the disputed region of Kashmir, a key source of tension between Pakistan and India, according to a Pakistani official.  “The Americans would like to raise the issue of sealing the Line of Control to block movement into Indian-controlled Kashmir,” a Pakistani Foreign Ministry official said (Rana Jawad, Agence France-Presse, May 8).

Meanwhile, the Pakistani military today declared that Pakistan will maintain its nuclear policy of “minimum deterrence” and will not engage in an arms race in India.

The declaration was made after a meeting yesterday of the National Command Authority, which oversees Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.  The meeting, chaired by Musharraf, was called “to review progress of the country’s strategic program,” a statement said.

The command “reiterated that while retention of minimum deterrence was the cornerstone of Pakistan’s national security policy, Pakistan did not believe in an arms race,” the statement said (Agence France-Presse, May 8).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP