|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
North Korea I: Washington Needs Allies to Ease North Korean Crisis, Task Force SaysBy David McGlinchey Gaining the support of North Korea’s neighbors, however, will require Washington to first show a genuine commitment to diplomatic negotiations, report says. The report, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, recommends testing Pyongyang’s intentions by offering a temporary nonaggression assurance and foreign aid in exchange for a freeze on nuclear activity. “The U.S. must be perceived as trying to resolve this problem [diplomatically],” said task force co-chairman Morton Abramowitz, a former longtime U.S. diplomat. The report criticizes the Bush administration’s current strategy, which it described as “a policy of isolation, punctuated by occasional, mostly fruitless meetings with the North.” Abramowitz said the White House has indicated it is seeking a diplomatic solution, but “they have not defined what that means.” Pyongyang and Washington held contentious talks in Beijing last month, but no further negotiations have been announced. The report says a diplomatic effort would not be successful without support from regional powers. Washington “must utilize a coalition of allies in the region,” said the task force’s other co-chairman, James Laney, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea. Blockade Abramowitz acknowledged that a diplomatic solution “may not be possible,” and “whether the North Koreans would ever accept it is highly uncertain.” If diplomacy does fail, the United States must take firm steps to seal off North Korea — a move that would not be feasible without the strong support of Pyongyang’s regional neighbors, the report said. The report endorsed a blockade or naval containment of North Korea to prevent the spread of nuclear materials and to pressure Pyongyang into dropping its nuclear ambitions. To seal off North Korea would require the cooperation of allies and “a land blockade from China and Russia,” according to Eric Heginbotham, the task force director and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that a blockade “certainly would be highly provocative” and “could not guarantee” that nuclear material was not seeping out of the reclusive communist country. “Plutonium can be very small,” Heginbotham said. High-Level Coordinator Laney said the Bush administration should assign a senior diplomat to develop a unified front with Japan, South Korea, Russia and China. “Full time, I mean at the highest level,” Laney said, adding, “with a coordinator, that strength can be marshaled.” He said North Korea’s neighbors are not happy with Pyongyang’s nuclear development and that discontent should be unified. “This [dissatisfaction] is not something that is going to merge; we have to work at it,” according to Laney.
From May 19, 2003 issue.North Korea II: South Korean President Indicates Harder Stance Toward PyongyangSouth Korean President Roh Moo-hyun last week indicated that his country is willing to take a harder stance toward North Korea to resolve the conflict over Pyongyang’s relaunched nuclear efforts, according to the Wall Street Journal (see GSN, May 16). Following a summit with U.S. President George W. Bush, Roh and his aides have said Seoul will demand greater reciprocity from North Korea on the nuclear issue before it moves forward with economic aid and diplomatic exchanges, the Journal reported (see GSN, May 14). Such a stance contrasts sharply with statements Roh made during South Korea’s presidential election last year, when he stressed the importance of engaging North Korea in an attempt to draw it out of isolation. “We need to have a card to deal with the North that is more flexible than before and prevents us from being swayed by the North,” Roh said last week. “We will not blindly follow the direction that North Korea wants in the future,” he said (Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, May 19). Meanwhile, Seoul has said that a 1992 inter-Korean agreement to keep the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons is “still valid,” according to AFX News (see GSN, May 13). North Korea last week said the agreement was dead and blamed the United States. “The official position of our government is that the denuclearization agreement is still valid,” said Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun. “I don’t think North Korea has officially declared the scrapping of the agreement. If you read North Korea’s statement carefully, you will know that North Korean authorities have not scrapped the agreement,” Jeong said in testimony before the South Korean National Assembly (AFX News, May 19).
From May 19, 2003 issue.United States: Congress to Vote on New White House Weapons Research ProposalsThe U.S. House and Senate are expected this week to vote on the fiscal 2004 defense authorization bill, in which each house’s armed services committee has permitted some previously banned nuclear weapons research (see GSN, May 14). The bill is expected to reach the Senate floor today and the House floor Wednesday, according to the Washington Post. Debate in each chamber is expected to only last two days each, congressional sources said (Pincus/Morgan, Washington Post, May 19). The $400 billion bill includes $15 million to fund research into “bunker-busting” nuclear weapons and includes a provision that would lift a 1993 ban on research into small nuclear weapons, according to the Atlanta-Journal Constitution. New Research Would Be Allowed Bush administration officials have said they are taking a prudent and cautious approach to new nuclear weapons research. Currently, the 1993 ban prevents U.S. scientists from conducting any research on low-yield nuclear weapons, a Defense Department source said. “The first thing they have to do is get the lawyer into the office to see if I can legally think about this or am I going to break the law,” the Pentagon source said. “All we’re basically doing is say, ‘Look, let’s let these guys think about what we need for national security to defend this nation.’ … At the end of the day, it’s just that simple,” the source said. Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a critic of the proposals, said she has seen no evidence of new threats that would require changes to U.S. nuclear policies. “It’s part of a mosaic of this neoconservative positioning that is deeply troubling,” Tauscher said. “I think some of these folks would put nuclear tips on ice cream cones if they could,” she said (George Edmonson, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 18).
From May 19, 2003 issue.Russia: Moscow to Launch Nine Satellites Using Converted SS-19Russia plans to conduct a group satellite launch early next month using a converted SS-19 ballistic missile, a Russian Aerospace Agency spokesman said last week (see GSN, April 16). The launch of the Rokot space launch vehicle, which is set to take place at the Plesetsk cosmodrome, will place nine satellites in orbit (Vladislav Kuznetsov, ITAR-Tass, May 15, in FBIS-SOV, May 15).
From May 19, 2003 issue.U.S.-Russia: U.S. Experts Inspect Russian ICBM BasesU.S. experts have completed a three-day inspection of a Russian strategic missile base in eastern Siberia, a Russian Defense Ministry spokesman said today (see GSN, April 29). The inspection, conducted under the auspices of START, examined rail-based SS-24 ICBMs and Russia’s compliance with the treaty (Vladislav Kuznetsov, ITAR-Tass, May 19). The base houses 12 SS-24 missiles, along with four launch trains, according to a START memorandum of understanding that the United States and Russia exchange twice a year (Mike Nartker, GSN, May 19). Last week, U.S. experts completed an additional three-day inspection of a Russian missile base near Uzhur, according to ITAR-Tass. The inspection, also conducted under START, examined warheads on SS-18 ICBMs (ITAR-Tass, May 15 in FBIS-SOV, May 15). As of January, 46 SS-18s were deployed at the base, according to a START memorandum of understanding (Nartker, GSN).
From May 19, 2003 issue.International Response: Nuclear Suppliers Group Meeting Begins in SeoulThis annual meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of nations that establishes export control guidelines for nuclear trade, began today in Seoul, South Korean Foreign Ministry officials said (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2002). The weeklong meeting is expected to include discussions of new measures to help prevent nuclear proliferation to North Korea and to address revisions to group guidelines to improve information-sharing among members, officials said (Seo Hyun-jin, Korea Herald, May 20).
From May 16, 2003 issue.South Asia: Kashmiris Should Begin Dialogue, Pakistani Foreign Minister SaysBy Mike Nartker “I think Kashmiris can actually become the promoters of peace in the subcontinent, because they have a vested interest in peace,” Kasuri said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation after a meeting earlier in the day with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. “So we should encourage a dialogue between Kashmiris on both the sides and start a dialogue amongst ourselves. And whether we like it or not, at some stage they have to be brought into it,” he said. India and Pakistan have gone to war three times since 1947, and almost fought again last year when an attack by Kashmiri militants on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 led to both sides mobilizing their armed forces for 10 months (see GSN, Oct. 17, 2002). The disputed region remains a potential flashpoint between the two nuclear-armed nations that requires a solution, according to Kasuri. “Supposing Pakistan and India decide to forget about Kashmir, because they feel it’s too hard. … Will Kashmiris let things rest? No, they won’t. Too much has happened,” Kasuri said. “So we have to find some solution … in which aspirations of the people of Kashmir are taken into consideration,” he said. Kasuri yesterday praised the United States for playing a role in helping the two countries move closer to beginning a new dialogue. A U.S. delegation headed by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met with senior officials in both countries last week (see GSN, May 12). “I think the United States played a very positive role,” Kasuri said. “I think they there were doing something that is very noble — trying to prevent two nuclear-armed countries from going for mass slaughter,” he said. Kasuri denied, however, that Washington was attempting to “pressure” the two countries into peace. “Pakistan and India are two large countries, very large countries. There’s no question of anybody imposing their will on India or Pakistan. But we need friends,” Kasuri said. “What happens is when two people stop talking to each other, you sometimes need friends who will make them talk to each other,” he said. Pakistan hopes the United States will continue to be involved in the region, Kasuri said. “We would ask the Americans to remain engaged in South Asia,” Kasuri said. “And hopefully, a time will come when no external input would be needed for the leaders of Pakistan and India to start talking to each other,” he said.
From May 16, 2003 issue.North Korea: Pyongyang Trying to Smuggle Nuclear Gear Through Germany, Officials SayNorth Korea’s embassy in Germany is attempting to smuggle “sensitive goods” out of the country, according to a German report released Tuesday (see GSN, May 15). “One can assume that embassy personnel are still involved in the acquisition of sensitive goods,” the German interior ministry said in an annual report on domestic security. “Because the previous practice to organize the export of such goods via European third countries is hardly possible anymore due to extensive checks, it is being attempted to carry out such exports via China or Singapore. … Not infrequently, North Korean front companies in China are given as the recipient,” the reports says. Last month, Germany’s Der Spiegel reported that an attempt was made to ship 22 tons of aluminum tubes to an alleged North Korean front company in China for possible use in Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program. The shipment was identified and stopped in Egypt, according to Agence France-Presse (see GSN, April 28; Agence France-Presse, May 13 in FBIS-EAS, May 13). South Korea Paying for Reactor Project Meanwhile, South Korea has so far spent $850 million to build light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea. Under the effort, run by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, Japan has spent $323 million on the effort and the European Union has contributed more than $17 million (Yonhap, May 14 in FBIS-EAS, May 14).
From May 16, 2003 issue.Russia: Military Exercise to Involve Simulated Nuclear Attack on U.S., BritainRussia is expected to conduct military exercises this weekend that will involve simulated nuclear attacks on the United States and the United Kingdom using Russian strategic bombers and submarines, according to Nezavisimaya Gazeta (see GSN, May 14). The exercise scenario is based on a regional conflict expanding into a wider war, according to Nezavisimaya Gazeta. The exercise is expected to involve four Tu-160 and nine Tu-95MS strategic bombers, as well as ballistic missile submarines from the Russian Northern and Pacific fleets. One aspect of the exercises is expected to include an attack on U.S. satellites to blind U.S. military forces and to prevent the use of guided munitions against Russian forces (Igor Korotchenko, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, May 14). Paving the way earlier this week, two Tu-95 and four Tu-160 strategic bombers, along with ships from the Russian Pacific and Black Sea fleets, conducted joint exercises with the Indian Navy in the Indian Ocean. During the exercise, the Russian bombers successfully used air-to-surface missiles to attack targets located in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Yemen (see GSN, Oct. 15, 2002; RFE/RL NewsLine, May 15). Quality of Russian Strategic Officers Increases The number of officers in Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces has increased for the first time in five years, force commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said Wednesday. “The proficiency of the RVSN command staff and the general morale of the officers corps allow for successful fulfillment of the main tasks to maintain combat readiness and support troops operation in modern conditions,” he said. In addition, work is still continuing to equip a missile division based in the Saratov region with new Topol-M missile silo systems, Solovtsov said (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2002; Vladislav Kuznetsov, ITAR-Tass, May 14, in FBIS-SOV, May 14).
From May 15, 2003 issue.North Korea I: Roh, Bush Say They Will Not Accept Nuclear North KoreaSouth Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and U.S. President George W. Bush say they will not accept a nuclear North Korea, MSNBC.com reported yesterday (see GSN, May 14). “President Roh and President Bush reaffirmed that they will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea,” said a joint statement issued after White House discussions between the two leaders. “They noted with serious concern North Korea’s statements about reprocessing, possession of nuclear weapons and its threat to demonstrate or transfer those weapons,” it added. The statement said that the two leaders were committed to a peaceful resolution to the North Korean nuclear crisis but it added that “increased threats to peace and stability on the peninsula would require consideration of further steps” (Reuters/MSNBC.com, May 14). Roh and Bush did not detail how they intend to defuse the nuclear standoff, Agence France-Presse reported. However, Bush did give a nod to Roh’s strong push for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. “I assured the president we will continue to work to achieve a peaceful solution,” Bush said. The discussions also focused on the common desire for a multilateral solution to the crisis. “The idea is to get a coalition together, speak with one voice to let the North Koreans know that there is only one door they can go through, and that is to give up their nukes,” said a senior U.S. official after the talks (Stephen Collinson, Agence France-Presse/Philippines Daily News, May 14). During a brief press conference following the talks, the presidents praised each other and said they would work together closely. “When I left Korea, I had both concerns and hopes in my mind. Now, after having talked to President Bush, I have gotten rid of all my concerns, and now I return to Korea only with hopes in my mind,” Roh said (White House transcript, May 14).
From May 15, 2003 issue.North Korea II: Council Can Pressure Pyongyang Without Sanctions, Experts SayBy David McGlinchey By simply convening the Security Council to discuss the situation without threatening to take action, the United States could bring international pressure to bear on North Korea and turn the crisis into a multilateral confrontation, said Lawrence Scheinman, a former U.S. State Department official now with the Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington. North Korea held a contentious round of talks with the U.S. and Chinese diplomats last month in Beijing and U.S. officials have said that if talks fail the issue should be sent to the Security Council (see GSN, April 24). If the crisis reaches the Security Council, it is, “in a sense, sending a message,” said Scheinman. Bringing other nations into the equation — something Washington has pushed for and Pyongyang has resisted — could increase the pressure on North Korea, according to Scheinman. North Korean officials insist that their confrontation is with the United States alone and is strongly opposed to a multilateral solution to the issue. Scheinman said it is unlikely the council would agree to take action on North Korea because of China’s continued resistance, but a council discussion “can have a big effect. It has to be in the back of the minds of the North Koreans.” “Political Advantage” The United States could also gain political advantage by taking the crisis to the United Nations, according to Robert Gallucci, the top negotiator in the 1994 nuclear talks between Washington and Pyongyang who now serves as dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. “I can imagine there being a political advantage at some point in going to the United Nations — taking the North Korea situation to the United Nations — because I believe the administration is correct: This is not a bilateral issue only between the United States and North Korea,” said Gallucci. It would be appropriate to involve other countries in the crisis because North Korea is “a threat to the United States, to Japan, South Korea and the international community … it is appropriate for the administration to wish to multilateralize this,” he added. However, Washington may not be able to wait for broad-based diplomacy to take effect, said Gallucci, who supports direct negotiations. “I don’t know that I would wait for that. I think it’s a desirable objective, but I see a certain urgency to the current situation,” he said.
From May 15, 2003 issue.United States: MOX Plant Design Resolves Some Safety Issues, More Remain, NRC SaysBy Mike Nartker The U.S. company Duke Cogema Stone & Webster has not yet met all of the safety requirements for the construction of the mixed oxide fuel production plant to provide “reasonable assurance” of protection against natural disasters and accidents, the NRC said in a revised safety report prepared last month. The report lists 19 safety issues, such as fire and chemical safety concerns, that the company must still address before the NRC will authorize construction of the MOX plant, which will work to reduce stockpiles of weapon-grade plutonium by converting it for use as fuel in civilian nuclear power plants. The revised NRC report represents a snapshot of the process to date and is based on information received since April 30, 2002, when the commission issued a draft safety report on Duke Cogema’s initial construction request (see GSN, May 9, 2002). Since then, Duke Cogema has resolved 40 out of 59 safety items that had been raised in the 2002 report, the commission said in a press statement. The NRC plans to issue a final revised safety report and to make a decision on Duke Cogema’s construction request by Sept. 30, commission spokesman David McIntyre told Global Security Newswire. NRC and Duke Cogema representatives are scheduled to meet at the commission’s headquarters in Rockville, Md., May 28-30 and June 2-6 to discuss the remaining unresolved safety issues, he said.
From May 15, 2003 issue.Russia: Official Proposes Converting Missile Submarines to Oil TankersA Russian regional governor has proposed that Russian nuclear submarines be converted into oil tankers, Reuters reported today. Anatoly Yefremov, governor of the Archangelsk region, has said that Russian Typhoon-class submarines could carry about 10,000 tons of oil if their missile launch rooms were converted into storage tanks (see GSN, July 16, 2002). A conventional oil tanker can carry about 280,000 tons, according to Reuters. “We see it as very economic and realistic to use atomic submarines for transporting oil and gas,” Yefremov said. Environmentalists, however, have rejected the idea, saying it is too expensive and dangerous. “The consequences of an accident with a nuclear submarine filled with oil would be much more dramatic than a normal oil tanker,” said Nils Boehmer, a nuclear scientist who works for Norwegian environmental group Bellona. “It could be very difficult to go in and clean up any spill because of radiation from the reactors,” he said (Reuters/Environmental News Network, May 15). Russia Completes Scrapping of Ballistic Missile Submarine Meanwhile, Russia has finished scrapping a Delta-1 ballistic missile submarine at the Zvezdochka shipyard, a spokeswoman for the shipyard said Tuesday (see GSN, Jan. 7). The section of the submarine containing its nuclear reactors will now be taken to a base in the Arctic region for temporary storage, the spokeswoman said. The scrapping of the submarine was funded through the U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction program (ITAR-Tass, May 13 in FBIS-SOV, May 13).
From May 15, 2003 issue.Iran: Russian Officials Negotiating Return of Spent Nuclear FuelRussian officials are still negotiating an agreement to guarantee the return of spent nuclear fuel from Iran, Interfax reported Tuesday (see GSN, March 20). Officials from the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry and TVEL, the company that is providing nuclear fuel to Iran, were negotiating the contract, TVEL President Alexander Nyago said Tuesday. The company cannot sign contracts on the return of the spent fuel until Russian lawmakers pass regulations on the issue, Interfax reported. “The talks are expected to produce appropriate agreements,” Nyago said. “The fuel will be stored by federal state enterprises, which may be privatized in the future,” he added (Interfax, May 13 in FBIS-SOV, May 13).
From May 14, 2003 issue.U.S.-Russia: Duma Approves Moscow TreatyThe 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).
From May 14, 2003 issue.United States: House Committee Approves Bush Nuclear PrioritiesBy David Ruppe 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.
From May 14, 2003 issue.Pakistan-North Korea: Former Pakistani General Denies Nuclear CooperationBy David McGlinchey “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.
From May 14, 2003 issue.North Korea: Roh, Bush Meet Today to Discuss North Korean CrisisSouth 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).
From May 14, 2003 issue.Iran: Russia Defends Nuclear Assistance to IranRussia 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).
From May 13, 2003 issue.North Korea: Pyongyang Says Inter-Korean Nuclear Agreement is “DeadNorth 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).
From May 13, 2003 issue.NPT: Commitments Against the Use of Nuclear Weapons Still a Distant GoalBy Jim Wurst 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.
From May 13, 2003 issue.South Asia: India Readies “Road Map” for Bilateral TalksIndia 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).
From May 13, 2003 issue.U.S.-Russia: Duma Schedules Moscow Treaty Discussion TomorrowThe 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).
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top