North Korea:  White House Orders North Korean Nuclear Investigation

The White House has ordered intelligence agencies to investigate whether North Korea could have reprocessed 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and escaped the notice of U.S. intelligence-gathering services, as Pyongyang claims to have done, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, April 30).

Last week North Korea claimed to have reprocessed the fuel rods and to have developed nuclear weapons.

“We can’t establish that as a matter of fact with our intelligence community, but they said they did it,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday.

U.S. officials were skeptical of the North Korean claims.

“We think they are bluffing,” said a senior Bush administration official.  “But we felt the necessity to go back and review every possibility, in the off chance that we missed something,” the official said.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun dismissed North Korea’s claims as “game tactics in North Korea-U.S. negotiations” (Sanger/French, New York Times, May 1).

Seoul is hoping to be included in future discussions on the Korean Peninsula’s nuclear crisis and Pyongyang is not entirely against the idea, according to a top South Korean official.

“We will naturally sit on the table to some degree until the talks progress.  The North Koreans didn’t strongly oppose our demand that South Korea take part in the multilateral talks,” said South Korean Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun (Hwang Jang-jin, Korea Herald, May 1).

North Korea, meanwhile, said if Washington played its “usual tricks” the door could be opened to “extraordinary measures,” according to Western diplomats who were briefed on the talks by a Chinese Foreign Ministry official (MSNBC.com, May 1).

Pyongyang also warned that sanctions against the isolated communist nation could be a “green light for war,” the Financial Times reported.

During talks in London yesterday, British Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell warned his North Korean counterpart Choe Su Hon that Pyongyang could face economic sanctions if it continues with its nuclear weapons development (Ward/Adams, Financial Times, April 30).

Choe would not discuss North Korea’s earlier nuclear weapons claims, but Rammell said he was encouraged by the talks.

“The fact that they have engaged (with Washington) in the talks last week in Beijing and in discussions today is positive, and there have been some positive statements,” Rammell said.  “But I do believe, and I told Mr. Choe, that the North Koreans need to go much further.  There are still far too many questions left unanswered and far too much ambiguity in their position,” he added.

Pyongyang opened its first embassy in London yesterday.  The United Kingdom established a diplomatic presence in North Korea in July 2001 (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, May 1).

Back to top

NPT:  Nongovernmental Organizations Criticize U.S. Nuclear Policy at Forum

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — Nongovernmental organizations attending the 2003 meeting of the parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty have been saying directly what most governments have been hinting — that the nuclear weapons policies of the United States threaten the NPT (see GSN, April 30).

Addressing a meeting of the committee yesterday, and in numerous news conferences and side events, the NGOs said changes in U.S. strategies have the effect of integrating nuclear weapons more tightly into military doctrine and developing new weapons to implement those strategies, thus making nuclear weapons more useable.

Victor Sidel of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War said yesterday that U.S. policies “are designed to make the use of nuclear weapons more credible, by designing more ‘useable’ nuclear weapons and by integrating nuclear weapons into a broad spectrum of military capabilities.  This shift represents a repudiation of disarmament obligations under … the NPT and places new pressures on non-nuclear weapon states to acquire nuclear weapons.”

While all the nuclear weapons states were criticized for retaining these weapons and NATO was criticized for accepting the U.S. nuclear doctrine, nearly all of the ire was directed at the United States.  According to Rhianna Tyson of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, “The world’s first nuclear weapons state, the United States, is leading the backwards charge away from the unequivocal undertaking to eliminate nuclear weapons.”

Charges made by the NGOs included shortening the time the United States could resume nuclear testing, abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to develop missile defenses and space-based weaponry, threatening the first use of nuclear weapons even in response to a non-nuclear attack and developing new weapons and new ballistic missiles for delivering the weapons.

“It is all too obvious that the nuclear weapons states have failed to implement the practical, attainable 13-step nuclear disarmament plan, agreed to unanimously at the conclusion of the 2000 Review Conference, in some cases blatantly casting aside or repudiating its central elements,” Tyson said.

The 13 steps were part of the consensus agreement at the treaty’s 2000 review conference.  The steps include “an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals,” bringing the comprehensive test ban treaty into force, negotiating a ban on the production of weapons grade fissile materials, and a “diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies.”

U.S. Ambassador John Wolf said Monday that the NPT “is dangerously out of balance.  Disarmament continues,” while nonproliferation is weakened.

Jacqueline Cabasso of the U.S.-based Western States Legal Foundation responded, “They’ve got it exactly backwards. … They are working on the whole suite” of new nuclear weapons and “the use doctrine is there” in the Nuclear Posture Review and policy documents.

One type of weapon on which the NGOs focused is the earth-penetrating weapon, including the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.  Such weapons are designed so that the missile burrows into the earth before the warhead explodes.  The goal is to destroy underground command centers and weapons sites while minimizing above ground damage.  Sidel said the development of penetrators and low-yield (10-kiloton range) weapons “would place additional — perhaps fatal — stress on the nonproliferation regime. … Furthermore, the use of low-yield nuclear weapons may lead to weakening the restraints against the use of nuclear weapons of greater yield.”  The fallout from such weapons would still be extensive, he said.

Kathy Wan Povi Sanchez said indigenous peoples around the world have already suffered “devastation” from nuclear weapons in the form of uranium mining, nuclear testing and waste disposal.  “We, indigenous peoples of the world, reiterate the call for measurable and verifiable cessation of scientific, technological, political and corporate activities that result in a threat to the Earth and her inhabitants,” said Sanchez, from the U.S. state of New Mexico.  “We need to redefine homeland security as healthy boundaries and sacred spaces.”

Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba also attended the forum.  “Given U.S. intransigence, other nuclear weapon states cling to their weapons, and several non-nuclear weapon states appear to be reevaluating the need for such weapons,” Akiba said.  “Therefore, it is incumbent upon the rest of the world … to stand up now and tell all of our military leaders that we refuse to be threatened or protected by nuclear weapons.  We refuse to live in a world of continually recycled fear and hatred.”

The NGOs are promoting the idea first raised by Secretary General Kofi Annan at the U.N. Millennium Summit in 2000 for an “international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers of all kinds.”  Akiba offered Hiroshima as the site for such a conference in 2005 – the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  He said this would be a central campaign by the World Conference of Mayors for Peace, which he said represents 539 cities and over 250 million people worldwide.

Other issues on the NGO agenda include prohibiting the use of depleted uranium weapons, a ban on testing ballistic missiles and missile defenses, a nuclear weapon-free zone on the Korean Peninsula and neighboring Northeast Asian countries and a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

Greenpeace Distributes Deck Of Cards With Nuclear Powers, Facts

Besides seminars, prayer vigils and poetry readings, a more novel approach in making a point is a deck of cards being distributed by Greenpeace, modeled on the deck of cards being distributed by the United States in Iraq identifying the most-wanted members of the Saddam Hussein government.  Greenpeace’s cards instead show the photos of the heads of state of the nuclear powers — the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel.  Other cards in the deck include facts such as “more than 200,000 people died in the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki” and “the latest U.S.-Russian nuclear disarmament treaty signed in 2002 will not involve the destruction of any nuclear weapons.”

Back to top

United States:  Energy Will Open Los Alamos Leadership to Competition

Troubled by revelations of internal fraud and theft, the U.S. Energy Department will open management of Los Alamos National Laboratory to bid when the current contract with the University of California concludes in 2005, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 4).

“The university bears responsibility for the systemic management failures that came to light in 2002.  Given that responsibility and the widespread nature of the problems uncovered at Los Alamos, I intend to open the management of Los Alamos to full competition when the current contract expires,” Abraham said.

The University of California will, however, be eligible to compete for the contract and Abraham rejected the idea that the decision was a “repudiation of an incumbent contractor.”

“The University of California will, of course, be eligible to take part in that competition and I strongly agree that it should be urged to do so,” he added (National Nuclear Security Administration release, April 30).

The university has run the laboratory for 60 years, since it was founded in World War II to build atomic bombs.

University officials have previously said that they would not compete for a contract, but university President Richard Atkinson said yesterday he would consider vying for the laboratory’s leadership.

“My instinct continues to be to compete — and to compete hard — in order to continue the university’s stewardship of excellence in science and innovation,” he said.

Some Los Alamos employees said the link to the university was an intrinsic part of the laboratory’s identity.

The connection is vital “to how we see ourselves, see ourselves as different from some of the production parts of the nuclear weapons complex,” said Geoff Reeves, a Los Alamos space scientist (Kenneth Chang, New York Times, May 1).

Back to top

International Response:  Former Nuclear Weapons Designer Wins Award for Nonproliferation Efforts

By Jim Wurst

Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — The annual Linus Pauling Centennial Award for Science, Peace or Health was awarded today at the United Nations to 1995 Nobel Peace Prize winner Joseph Rotblat, a nuclear physicist who worked on atomic bomb development during World War II before devoting himself to campaigning against nuclear weapons.

In accepting the award, Rotblat sharply criticized the United States, saying that while everyone can rejoice in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, “the price we paid for this is far too high.”  The launching of a pre-emptive war is “a severe setback for those ... who believe morality and adherence to rules of law should be our guiding principles,” he added.  “The danger of this policy can hardly be over-emphasized.”

“Somehow I do not see the American people accepting the role assigned to them by the clich‚ that has hijacked the administration,” he continued.  “Public opinion is bound to turn when the dangers associated with the current policies become apparent ... above all, in the nuclear doctrines pursued by the Bush administration.”

“The Bush administration [strategic doctrines] make nuclear weapons a tool with which to keep peace in the world,” as opposed to holding them as a last resort, Rotblat said.  “The new Nuclear Posture Review spells out a strategy which incorporates nuclear capability in conventional war strategy,” he said.  “Nuclear weapons have now become a standard part of military strategy to be used in a conflict just like any other high explosive.  This is a dangerous shift in the whole rationale for nuclear weapons.”

The people of the world “should call on the United States to abandon its unilateralist policies and for the Security Council of the United Nations to be recognized as the sole authority in initiating military operations for the resolution of conflicts,” he said.  “The main goal [is] the creation of [a] nuclear weapon-free world,” he added.

Rotblat, a Pole, is an emeritus physics professor at the University of London and the emeritus president of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which he helped found and which shared his Nobel Prize.  During World War II, he worked on atomic bomb development at the University of Liverpool and at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the United States, but when it became clear that Germany was not working on an atom bomb, he became the only scientist to resign from the project before the bomb was tested.

The award is named after double Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling.  The presentation took place at a seminar of the Geneva Forum, a joint initiative of the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research, the Quaker U.N. office in Geneva and the Graduate Institute of International Studies’ Program for Strategic and International Security Studies.

Back to top

NPT:  Numbers, Uses of Nuclear Weapons Debated at U.N.  Meeting

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — The role of nuclear weapons in international relations — both in their numbers and in the strategies in which they are employed — was the focus of much of the debate during the first two days of the annual meeting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (see GSN, April 28).

Many of the nuclear weapons states on Monday and Tuesday claimed progress in nuclear disarmament, citing the reduction in the total number of these weapons, while non-nuclear states argued that strategies, including the willingness to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively, show that the nuclear powers do not intend to rid themselves of these weapons.

Ambassador John Wolf of the United States said Monday that while “the path for nuclear proliferation is spiraling upward, ... disarmament continues. … We are leading that process and will continue to do so.”  He said that under the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty, the United States “will cut the number of strategic weapons … by two-thirds to 1,700 to 2,200 by 2012.”

“Nuclear arms reduction[s] are a priority,” said Alexander Mostovets, deputy director in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department of Security and Disarmament Affairs.  “By its practical actions our country confirms its commitment to strict fulfillment of its obligations in the sphere of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.”  He called the Moscow Treaty part of the NPT commitment to disarmament.

New Zealand’s minister of disarmament, Marian Hobbs, said Monday that the Moscow Treaty is “a positive step,” but that the reductions called for “are not a substitute for irreversible cuts” in nuclear weapons.  The treaty calls for removing nuclear warheads from strategic delivery vehicles, but not for destroying the warheads.  She added, “Evolving security policies [that] continue to be based on the possession of nuclear weapons ... can only further destabilize the global security environment and the NPT regime.”

Jayantha Dhanapala, the U.N. undersecretary general for disarmament, called the Moscow Treaty “a welcomed development indeed, even considering that the treaty did not require the physical destruction of a single warhead.”  Speaking at a separate event yesterday, however, he said there is “virtually no transparency in these reductions, and certainly no independent verification.”

“Neither the endless pursuit of unilateral defensive measures nor the perpetual drive for military superiority can produce a world free of nuclear weapons; such steps are more likely to produce a world full of nuclear weapons,” Dhanapala said.  “The more horrible flaws in such strategies are critically examined, the more attractive nuclear disarmament becomes as a practical and effective alternative,” he said.

France and the United Kingdom said they were reducing their nuclear arsenals to the minimum.

French Ambassador Hubert de la Fortelle said the stockpiles of the five nuclear powers have been “drastically reduced since the end of the Cold War  — and I wish to emphasize the fact that France has borne its full share of that effort — and while the prospect of global reduction remains assured for the years to come, we are obliged to note that the commitment to nonproliferation is not being scrupulously observed by some states.”

“The U.K. has already reduced its nuclear weapons to a single system at the minimum level necessary for the U.K.’s national security,” said British Ambassador David Broucher.  “When we are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made that would allow us to include British nuclear weapons in multilateral negotiations without endangering our security interests, we will do so,” he added.

Chinese Ambassador Hu Xiaodi criticized the other nuclear powers, especially “countries possessing the largest nuclear arsenals,” for not committing to reductions “in an irreversible, effectively verifiable and legally binding manner” and for maintaining security policies “based on the first use of nuclear weapons.”

Iran Mentioned as Proliferation Threat

Like the United States on Monday, the United Kingdom and France yesterday focused on Iran as a proliferation threat, but in language less harsh than was used by the United States.  De la Fortelle of France said Iran’s nuclear program, “due to its scale, its diversity and its technical sophistication, is a source of concern as to its actual purpose. … It is the responsibility of Tehran to commit itself resolutely and unambiguously to a policy of openness and transparency,” he said.  Broucher of the United Kingdom said, “We welcome Iran’s recent cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency], but also express our concern regarding the recent disclosures made about the scope and scale of its nuclear program.”

In response, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Khoshroo said his government “has been in constant cooperation with the IAEA and has fully complied with its obligations under its safeguards agreements. … We are providing substantiated information in great detail and with complete transparency to address the questions in order to reassure those states, who have raised them in good faith, of our full compliance.”

Syria and other Arab countries countered saying Israel, with a nuclear program outside the NPT, is the real proliferation threat in the region.

The divisions among the five permanent members of the Security Council over Iraq continued into the NPT meeting.  While the United States barely mentioned Iraq’s nuclear weapons potential — one of the original justifications for invading the country — France and Russia repeated their objections against the U.S. invasion. 

De la Fortelle said the resumed inspections “confirmed that the Iraqi [nuclear] program had not been restarted. … It will be the responsibility of the inspectors to recommence their work and to submit their conclusions as soon as they are able.”

Mostovets of Russia said his government was “convinced that the process of the post-war settlement in the Middle East and Iraq in particular should be brought back into [the] international legal framework based on already available mechanisms accountable to the U.N. Security Council.”

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Asserts Nuclear Claim Made 10 Years Ago, Powell Says

In last week’s trilateral talks in Beijing, North Korea said its negotiators told U.S. officials a decade ago it had nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday (see GSN, April 29).

Powell said, however, that U.S. officials who negotiated the 1994 Agreed Framework dispute the contention.

Last week, North Korean officials “indicated in an aside that they did have nuclear weapons, and they said they told it to the United States 10 years ago during the period when the Agreed Framework was being negotiated.  We have checked with every single one of the negotiators on our side from that period and none of them say that the North Koreans actually told us that, although they came close,” Powell said during testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Powell also discussed the North Korean proposal, brought forward last week, which would discontinue Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile capability in return for U.S. economic, energy and diplomatic concessions.

“It is a proposal that is not going to take us in the direction we need to go.  But nevertheless, we will study it.  I think that’s appropriate,” he said (Federal News Service Transcript, April 29).

U.S. President George W. Bush rejected the North Korean plan, the Financial Times reported.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reiterated the U.S. policy not to grant concessions for what it views as belligerent behavior.

“We will not reward North Korea for bad behavior.  What we seek is North Korea’s irrevocable and verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear weapons program.  We will not provide them with inducement,” Fleischer said (Andrew Ward, Financial Times, April 30).

North-South Talks

Meanwhile North and South Korea completed three days of meetings in Pyongyang today, but reached no agreement to resolve the nuclear crisis.

The Cabinet-level talks produced a joint declaration to continue to address the issue.

“The two Koreas will discuss each other’s position earnestly over the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and continue to cooperate in resolving the nuclear standoff peacefully through dialogue,” the statement said (Lim Chang-won, Agence France-Presse, April 30).

Back to top

South Asia:  Indian Prime Minister Reject Pakistan’s Invitation to Visit

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee yesterday rejected a recent Pakistani offer to travel to Islamabad for talks, a spokesman for Vajpayee’s political party said (see GSN, April 29).

“The prime minister can go to Pakistan if terrorism stops totally,” said Vijay Kumar Malhotra, a spokesman for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.  “The prime minister said he has not accepted [Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah] Jamali’s invitation to visit Pakistan,” Malhotra said (China Daily, April 30).

Earlier this week, Jamali called Vajpayee and invited Indian officials to visit Pakistan to help resolve outstanding issues between the two nuclear-armed countries, such as the disputed Kashmir region.  Jamali also said Pakistani officials were ready to travel to India.

Although Vajpayee has rejected Pakistan’s invitation, pressure remains on both countries from the United States to resume a dialogue, according to former Indian Foreign Secretary Mani Dixit.

“The general pressure on India and Pakistan to resume dialogue to avoid nuclear confrontation is the main policy plank of the Americans,” Dixit said.  “Pressure is on.  India is responding; so is Pakistan.  But Prime Minister Vajpayee has said that cross-border terrorism must end,” he added (Kathy Gannon, Associated Press/Boston Globe, April 30).

Back to top

Pakistan:  U.S. Company Pleads Guilty to Illegal Export

The U.S. company OMEGA Engineering Inc. and its Chief Financial Officer Ralph Michel pleaded guilty yesterday to illegally exporting equipment to Pakistan that could have been used to develop nuclear weapons, according to the Associated Press.

Both the company and Michel pleaded guilty to violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Export Administration Act, AP reported.  Under the plea, OMEGA Engineering will pay a $313,000 fine.  Michel faces up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine when he is sentenced in mid-July.

“Our export control laws, particularly where there is a risk that exported materials may be used in the development of nuclear explosives, will be vigorously enforced and violations of these laws will not be tolerated,” Connecticut-based U.S. Attorney Kevin O’Connor said.

In 1997, the U.S. Commerce Department rejected OMEGA Engineering’s request for an export license to ship equipment to Pakistan, prosecutors said.  At the time, the department was concerned that the equipment would be used in nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel activities, they said.  After the department twice rejected the company’s export license request, however, Michel arranged for the equipment to still be shipped to a Pakistani state company, AP reported (Dave Collins, Associated Press/Newsday.com, April 30).

Back to top

United States:  Plutonium Conversion Plan to Proceed

The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration announced last week that it will proceed with plans to convert 6.5 metric tons of plutonium into mixed oxide fuel at the Savannah River Site in Georgia (see GSN, April 24).

The NNSA released an Amended Record of Decision April 24 saying that the plutonium, originally intended for immobilization, would be converted to fuel instead.

“Today’s decision moves us one step closer to disposing of weapon-grade plutonium both here in the United States and in Russia,” said NNSA Acting Administrator Linton Brooks.  “It also strengthens our effort to provide a pathway out of South Carolina for plutonium brought there for disposition,” he added (see GSN, Dec. 3, 2002).

Under a September 2000 agreement, Washington and Moscow agreed to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium each.  Both countries plan to convert the plutonium into mixed oxide fuel, which is not easily used in nuclear weapons.  In 2004, the plutonium disposal effort is scheduled to receive a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the mixed oxide fuel facility.  Construction will begin soon after, in conjunction with the building of a similar facility in Russia (NNSA release, April 24).

Back to top

CTBT:  Albania Ratifies Treaty

Albania deposited its instrument of ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with the United Nations April 23 (see GSN, March 18).  To date, 99 nations have ratified the treaty, including 31 of the 44 nations whose ratifications are necessary for the treaty to enter into force (CTBTO release, April 28).

Back to top

North Korea:  Details Emerge of North Korean Proposal

In last week’s talks in Beijing, North Korea offered to suspend missile tests and exports and to dismantle its nuclear development program, but only after the United States meets a long list of demands, according to a briefing given by Chinese officials to Western diplomats in Beijing yesterday (see GSN, April 28).

“The Chinese seemed to think this was a significant offer,” said one diplomat who agreed with Beijing.  “The briefing certainly gave us the impression that North Korea came to the table with a pretty significant proposal,” the diplomat added.

Pyongyang’s list of demands included the completion of light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea and full diplomatic relations with Washington and Tokyo.  After the United States completed its end of the deal, North Korea would announce its willingness to abandon its nuclear programs.

“It basically listed everything they have ever asked for,” said a senior U.S. State Department official.

China may have provided yesterday’s briefing to counter U.S. reports that last week’s meetings with U.S, North Korean and Chinese officials had been a failure, the Washington Post reported (Pomfret/Kessler, Washington Post, April 29).

North Korea also demand economic aid, in part through the United States permitting Pyongyang to participate in international financial institutions and to receive foreign investment, the Baltimore Sun reported (Mark Matthews, Baltimore Sun, April 29).

In what might be a significant concession, Pyongyang announced that it would consider multilateral talks with its regional neighbors, according to a European diplomat.  North Korea has previously insisted on face-to-face talks with the United States.  As part of the overall deal, North Korean officials reportedly offered to allow nuclear inspectors into the country, the Guardian reported (Borger/Watts, London Guardian, April 29).

U.S. officials said that North Korea’s request had also included oil shipments, food aid, security guarantees, energy assistance and economic concessions.

While administration officials also said that North Korea offered to dismantle its nuclear systems only after its demands are met, it was not clear if that included both its established plutonium weapons effort and the recently revealed uranium project.

U.S. Considers Proposal a “Nonstarter”

Both moderate and hawkish U.S. officials have rejected the North Korean proposal, the New York Times reported, but the two factions also favor continuing talks with Pyongyang, according to one hard-line official.  According to hard-line view, more talks would demonstrate North Korea’s impossible negotiating position, thereby reinforcing the idea that aggressive U.S. policies are necessary, the official said.

“There are some people in this administration who argue that there’s little point in talking to the North Koreans because they are always going to cheat,” another official said.  North Korea’s current proposal, however, is such a “nonstarter” that it behooves hard-liners to pursue negotiations and demonstrate Pyongyang’s intransigence, the official added  (Steven Weisman, New York Times, April 29).

While the overall package was considered unworkable, some officials said it could be a start and it was significant that North Korea put its nuclear program on the bargaining table, albeit at an exorbitant price.

“It’s not an airplane that’s going to fly, but it may have interesting parts,” said a State Department official (Matthews, Baltimore Sun).

Some analysts agreed that the steep price of nuclear dismantlement might be overshadowing the fact that an offer was made at all.

“The initial reports from the talks focused on the negative,” said Eric Heginbotham, the director of the Korea task force at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.  “This news at least indicates the North may still be interested in an agreement.  Of course it’s hard to tell if they are serious or not,” he added (Borger/Watts, London Guardian).

Denial

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday denied reports that North Korea had told the State Department March 31 that it was reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods but that State had withheld the information from the rest of the Bush administration.

“What we were told on the 31st was shared within the administration.  I’m not sure if everybody in the administration got it, but it isn’t relevant because it didn’t seem to be anything that was terribly new or different from what we had been told on a regular basis over the last several months.  It was not, in our judgment, anything that was particularly new or newsworthy,” Powell said (Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, April 29).

Back to top

South Asia:  Telephone Call May Break Ice Between India, Pakistan

Nuclear rivals India and Pakistan appear to be making diplomatic headway after a conversation yesterday between their two prime ministers, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 25).

Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali telephoned Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee “to resolve outstanding issues through dialogue,” according to Pakistan Television.

Jamali said that Pakistani officials are willing to visit India and he asked Indian officials to visit Pakistan “in the cause of peace,” according to the television report.

Vajpayee last week proposed talks between the rivals (see GSN, April 21).

Jamali “welcomed Prime Minister Vajpayee’s offer of talks with Pakistan and reiterated Pakistan’s readiness for a dialogue with India at any level,” according to a statement from Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, April 28).

The two men spoke for 10 minutes in their first ever conversation, according to an Indian official.

“The prime minister of Pakistan called our prime minister.  The talks lasted for 10 minutes during which the Pakistani prime minister thanked and conveyed his appreciation for the statements made by our prime minister in Srinagar and later in both houses of parliament,” an Indian spokesman said.

The leaders discussed resuming economic and cultural ties, as well as aviation links and sporting matches, according to another Indian official.

The move to resume dialogue is taking shortly before the planned visit of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Agence France-Presse reported (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, April 29).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  United States, Russia Exchange Submarine Inspections

The United States and Russia recently inspected some of each other’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles, according to ITAR-Tass.  The inspections were conducted to check compliance with START, the 1991 strategic arms treaty that restricts each side to deploying no more than 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads (see GSN, Jan. 29)

In Russia, U.S. experts inspected Typhoon submarines at Nerpichya Bay, northeast of the Kola Peninsula on April 24-27.  The found no violations, according to ITAR-Tass (Vladislav Kuznetsov, ITAR-Tass, April 28).

In the United States, Russian specialists recently visited the U.S. submarine base at Kings Bay, Ga.  In a four-day visit, they found no treaty violations, ITAR-Tass reported (Vladislav Kuznetsov, ITAR-Tass, April 29).

Both the United States and Russia reduced their strategic weapons to below treaty limits by the treaty deadline in 2001, and Russia has slowly continued to make reductions (see GSN, Dec. 7, 2001). 

Strategic Holdings

In a treaty-mandated information exchange made public this month, Russia declared that in January it was deploying missiles and bombers capable of carrying 5,436 nuclear warheads, as counted under somewhat complicated treaty rules.  That figure is less than the 5,483 warheads Russia declared in July 2002 and the 5,518 it declared in January 2002, reflecting attrition to Russian missile forces.  Treaty rules require the parties to exchange information on their strategic holdings every six months and the United States releases the information about three months later.

As for its forces, the United States declared it had 5,974 treaty-accountable nuclear warheads as of January.  In July 2002, the United States declared 5, 927 and in January 2002 it declared 5,948 warheads.

The recent increase of 47 warheads reflects the completion of another submarine conversion in a program to replace Trident 1 missiles, on which the United States loads as many as six warheads, with Trident 2 missiles, which are armed with as many as eight warheads.  Each U.S. ballistic missile submarine can carry 24 missiles, so each conversion allows the upgraded boats to carry 48 more warheads, or a total of 192.

The recent U.S. data also reflects the loss of B-1 bomber to a crash in the Indian Ocean (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2001).  The B-1 bomber no longer has a nuclear role in the U.S. Air Force, but it remains accountable under the treaty (Greg Webb, GSN, April 29).

Back to top

NPT:  Nuclear Nonproliferation Meeting Opens With Gloomy Assessment

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — The 2003 meeting of the parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) opened today with numerous gloomy assessments by delegations about the state of disarmament and nonproliferation, but with disagreements over responsibility for the situation (see GSN, April 23, 2002).

New Zealand’s minister of disarmament, Marian Hobbs, said today, “The past year has been an inauspicious one for the NPT in general and for the issue of nuclear disarmament in particular.”

Hobbs was speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden, an ad hoc group working to persuade the nuclear powers to embark on a series of steps leading to nuclear disarmament.

“Trends have been dismal,” she added.  “Deeply unsettling events in the Middle East and in Asia surely must serve as a spur to our efforts to fully implement the NPT regime and to underscore emphatically the significance for global stability of compliance with international obligations as well as the universality of the treaty.”

Two of those trends are the withdrawal of North Korea from the NPT, which became final this month (see GSN, April 10), and the invasion of Iraq, an NPT state, which was undertaken in part because of charges that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons (see related GSN story, today).

The chairman of the meeting, Hungarian Ambassador Laszlo Molnar, opened the proceedings saying that, with the unanimous support of the parties, the nameplate of North Korea “would be held in custody” by him for the duration of the meeting — in other words, the issue would be taken off the table.

He said a debate over the country’s status would “serve as a detriment” to the work of the NPT.  Molnar later told Global Security Newswire that the meeting was “heading for a procedural quagmire” over how to deal with North Korea’s withdrawal and that he took the “unprecedented step” of taking the nameplate in custody “so as not to prejudice the outcome of the ongoing negotiations” over North Korea’s nuclear program. 

Most countries called on North Korea to reverse its decision and submit its nuclear facilities to international inspections.  Speaking for the New Agenda, Hobbs said the group “supports dialogue over confrontation.  We hope for an early, peaceful resolution of the situation, leading to [North Korea’s] return to full compliance with the treaty’s terms.” 

Argentina took a harder line, calling on the committee to condemn North Korea’s action. 

U.S. Ambassador John Wolf said the dangers to the NPT come from “irresponsible” parties to the treaty, meaning, for the most part, North Korea and Iran (see GSN, April 11).

“Iran provides perhaps the most fundamental challenge ever faced by the NPT,” he said.  Under the guise of a civilian nuclear program, Wolf said, “Iran has been conducting an alarming, clandestine program to acquire sensitive nuclear capabilities that we believe make sense only as part of a nuclear weapons program.” 

Wolf said the NPT “is dangerously out of balance.  Disarmament continues,” while nonproliferation is weakened.  “It is not credible to argue that we are not on a steady downward path towards the goals of [nuclear disarmament]. Yet, the path for nuclear proliferation is spiraling upward,” said Wolf.  “The NPT’s core purpose is preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. While the treaty has been largely successful in this respect, irresponsible NPT parties are taking action that pose fundamental challenges to the treaty,” Wolf added.

“The time for business as usual is over.  The time for resolute action is here,” he said.  “We must choose to strengthen our political commitment to the NPT and build stronger barriers against those who try to violate the treaty’s fundamental obligations.” 

Wolf made only a passing reference to Iraq, grouping it with North Korea and Iran as countries developing nuclear weapons under the cover of peaceful nuclear programs.  Iraq was represented by diplomats accredited to the United Nations under the government of Saddam Hussein.  Nawfal Basri, a second secretary from the mission attending today’s meeting, told GSN that there have been no challenges to the credentials of any members of the delegation.

Hobbs referred to Security Council debates over Iraq in her comments, saying that “the recent international debate” over weapons of mass destruction “underlined international concerns about the legitimacy, possession and possible use of such weapons.  These statements should provide further impetus to international efforts to de-legitimize all nuclear weapons and to hasten international efforts towards nuclear disarmament.” 

“The real guarantee against the use of any weapons of mass destruction anywhere, including nuclear weapons, is their complete elimination and the assurance that they will never be used or produced again,” Hobbs said.

South Africa also sought to broaden the nuclear debate beyond Iraq.  Pretoria’s representative, Peter Goosen, said during the council debate that “strong statements … were repeatedly made about the threat that is posed by weapons of mass destruction, about the need to eliminate this threat, about the need to destroy these weapons by many of the members of the international community and about the legitimacy of their possession.”  He added, “It is our belief that given this now universal condemnation of the possession, proliferation and possible use of weapons of mass destruction, we should move even more decisively to implement” nuclear disarmament by all states.

This is the annual preparatory committee meeting leading up to the treaty’s 2005 review conference.  Molnar told participants, “Only if we avoid the temptation of complacency or pessimism, and focus our efforts on what united and now what divides us, can we expect to continue to build on the progress achieved by our predecessors.  Our work must ensure that the NPT and the larger nonproliferation regime remain vital and robust as a pillar of international security.”

This preparatory meeting concludes May 9.

Back to top

North Korea I:  China Opposes Security Council Action

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — China does not intend to support any U.N. Security Council action against North Korea over its alleged nuclear weapons development, a Chinese military adviser said here Friday (see GSN, April 25).

“There is no need for the Security Council to take action on this,” said Dingli Shen, a consultant to China’s Defense Ministry and a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai.

Shen spoke here at an international security conference, hosted by the U.S. Energy Department’s Sandia National Laboratories.

The United States held talks last week with diplomats from China and Pyongyang over the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula.  At the start of those talks, a North Korean official reportedly told U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly that Pyongyang has nuclear weapons and is prepared to test or export them.

Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker said last week that if Pyongyang foiled the talks, the North Korean issue should be forwarded to the U.N. Security Council.  He also suggested that Beijing might support Security Council action (see GSN, April 24).

Shen said that within the council there could be “a certain amount of discussion [but] no action is needed.”

Throughout the six-month crisis, Washington has pushed for multilateral talks but has also refused to rule out using military force against North Korea.  Shen dismissed the possibility of military action.

“It will not come to a military conflict,” he said.

Talks Not a Failure

The North Korean nuclear weapons claim may have caused the first round of talks to end on a sour note, but the negotiations were not a failure, according to Shen.

“That depends on the definition.  Nobody would expect a breakthrough in the first meeting so it was not a failure,” he told Global Security Newswire.

Shen was asked what comes next for Washington and Pyongyang.

“We hope they continue to talk, [we want] continued talks between the D.P.R.K. and the U.S.,” he said.

Clay Moltz, director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies, cautiously agreed.

“It’s not a failure, but it certainly wasn’t a success,” Moltz said.  He suggested that neither North Korea nor the United States put their best foot forward in the talks.  Kelly was the top U.S. official in Pyongyang last October when the United States leveled the nuclear accusations against Pyongyang.  The two sides have not had an official diplomatic meeting since (see GSN, Oct. 17, 2002).

“North Korea obviously sent a less than high-level official.  The U.S. sent a guy who had some baggage in North Korea’s eyes,” Moltz said, suggesting that Washington send Secretary of State Colin Powell to the next meeting.  Powell has often adopted a more moderate position than other Bush administration officials.

Officials need to “rethink the team that attends, on both sides,” Moltz said, but he cautioned that “any negotiation with North Korea is bound to be prolonged.”

Nuclear Claim Doubted

Several officials, including Moltz, doubted that North Korea would make the world aware of its nuclear weapons stockpile in such an understated manner.

Moltz suggested that Pyongyang was trying to intimidate the United States to begin talks but he said the North Korean rhetoric could moderate if talks continue.

“They might have been trying to look as big and bad as possible … some of this may have been trash talk,” he said.

Back to top

North Korea II:  New Proposal From Pyongyang on Table

News coverage of North Korea’s nuclear weapon claim last week left unreported a new North Korean proposal to the United States, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, April 25).

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly told Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda that Pyongyang had put forward a “bold, new proposal” to resolve the nuclear standoff on the Korean Peninsula.

Kelly was more optimistic after the most recent talks than he was after contentious negotiations in October, which featured U.S. allegations of nuclear weapons development and marked the beginning of a freeze on diplomatic contact between the two countries.

The proposal is believed to be a modification of previous demands that Washington guarantee North Korea’s safety in return for a freeze in nuclear development.

“North Korea is desperate to have talks.  They are not asking for economic assistance at the moment — it is security assurances,” according to Moon Chung-in, a North Korea expert at Yonsei University in Seoul (Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times, April 27).

A North Korean spokesman alluded to the proposal in a statement Saturday.

“As the DPRK set out a new proposal for the settlement of the nuclear issue, proceeding from its stand to avert a war on the Korean Peninsula and achieve lasting peace and stability, it will follow the U.S. future attitude toward it,” the spokesman said (Korean Central News Agency, April 26).

The United States is considering future talks, according to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

Last week, China was pushing for further talks but the United States planned to “analyze everything that happened and was said, and then we would decide back here on whether there should be further talks,” he said.  “One or more of the parties may be interested in further talks.  At this point, we have not decided yet,” he added (State Department release, April 25).

China was reportedly embarrassed by North Korea’s nuclear announcement and U.S. officials are hoping that will translate into more help in pressuring Pyongyang to dismantle nuclear facilities.

Not Sharing Information?

During a March 31 meeting at the United Nations, North Korea reportedly told State Department officials that it was reprocessing spent fuel rods.  That information did not become public until last week, and State Department officials apparently did not share it with other U.S. officials in an effort to keep the proposed talks on track, the Washington Post reported yesterday.

“I think heads will roll over this,” a Bush administration official said.  “North Korea for the first time ever officially communicated to the U.S. government that they were reprocessing.  That that information was not shared is very disturbing,” he added.

The dispute over information sharing underscores a deeper rift in the administration over U.S. policy on North Korea, the Post reported (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, April 27).

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Beijing meetings “have not moved the ball forward.”

The State Department, however, was less quick to judge.

“We have made it clear again and again that the intention of going to Beijing was, first of all, not to negotiate, not to try to move the ball forward in that sense, but to say what we had to say, hear what we expected to hear and see the Chinese participate,” Boucher said (Michael Lev, Chicago Tribune, April 27).

Partial Blockade Considered

The United States is also considering blockading some North Korean sea traffic  to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, materials or technologies, the London Telegraph reported.

The approach has been nicknamed “Cuban Lite,” for its similarities to the 1963 Cuban missile crisis.

U.S. forces would perform routine interdiction of ships suspected of carrying nuclear materials.

“It wouldn’t be a total blockade.  International shipping would not necessarily be blocked from going in to North Korea, but the passage of North Korean shipping would be contingent on what we knew was being carried.  We have the ability to track anything in or out of North Korean waters,” said a senior Pentagon adviser.  “The virtue in an interdiction strategy is that it would not be formally imposed … there would not be a big set-piece confrontation with the North Koreans.  Instead the U.S. would use its intelligence net and only movie in when it needs to,” he added.

A U.S. official suggested that the domestic U.S. policy divide is not as sharp as is commonly thought.  More militant U.S. factions do not want a war now and more pacifist factions understand that North Korea is sending confusing signals (Julian Coman, London Telegraph, April 27).

Back to top

North Korea III:  Seoul Urges End to Nuclear Confrontation

During Cabinet-level meetings in Pyongyang today, South Korean diplomats urged North Korea to drop its nuclear weapons ambitions, a South Korean spokesman said (see GSN, April 25).

“We again urged the D.P.R.K. to honor the South-North joint declaration on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula signed in 1992,” said Shin Eon-sang, the South Korean spokesman.  “At the 45-minute session, we called on the D.P.R.K. to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue in a prompt manner, as Pyongyang has started a multilateral dialogue with related countries,” he added (Xinhua News Service, April 28).

North Korea, however, has told Seoul to keep out of its disagreement with the United States, CNN.com reported.

“The Northern side reiterated that the nuclear issue is a matter between the North and the United States,” said a South Korean statement.  “But they said they wanted to resolve the matter peacefully,” the statement added (CNN.com, April 28).

North Korean officials also refused to clarify reports that Pyongyang has claimed possession of nuclear weapons (News24.com, April 28).

North Korean, British Officials to Meet

British officials are scheduled to meet with North Korean diplomats in London this week, according to CNN.com.

“In our view it’s important to remain engaged with North Korea.  We want to use every opportunity to put our concerns across and urge them to comply with their international obligations,” a British spokeswoman said.

British Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammel is expected to meet with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon.  Diplomatic relations between the two countries are “under review,” according to the spokeswoman (CNN.com, April 26).

German Shipment Seized

German authorities have detained the director of a German company suspected of supplying aluminum tubes to North Korea for its nuclear development program, Singapore’s Straits Times reported today.

German authorities said the shipment — containing 22 tons of aluminum tubes — was sent to China’s Shenyang Aircraft Corporation but was actually headed to North Korea.

The shipment left Hamburg, Germany, on a French container ship April 3 and was seized nine days later as it was about to enter the Suez Canal.

The shipment was unloaded in Egypt (Singapore Straits Times, April 28).

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Threatens to Export Nuclear Weapons; Claims Fuel Rod Reprocessing Nearly Complete

In a direct conversation in Beijing on Wednesday, North Korea threatened to export nuclear weapons if the United States does not restore its former commitment to provide energy to the isolated communist nation, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, April 24).

North Korea issued its threat Wednesday, the opening day of a series of talks between U.S., North Korean and Chinese officials, U.S. officials said.  North Korean envoy Li Gun pulled aside his U.S. counterpart, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, and told him North Korea possessed nuclear weapons.

“We can’t dismantle them,” Li told Kelly.  “It’s up to you whether we do a physical demonstration or transfer them,” Li said.

U.S. officials are still assessing precisely what Li meant by his remarks, including whether they were a threat to conduct an actual test, according to the Washington Post.  Whatever Li’s statement might have meant, “it was very fast, very categorical and obviously very scripted,” a senior official said.

During a formal session of the talks, Li also said that North Korea was close to completing the reprocessing of 8,000 spent fuel rods that were being stored at the Yongbyon nuclear complex.  U.S. intelligence analysts, however, have not been able to confirm the claim, the Post reported.  During the talks, Kelly tried to press Li to confirm that he truly meant to say that North Korea had finished reprocessing the spent fuel rods, because North Korean officials have previously made contradictory statements on the issue.

Negotiating Positions

North Korea presented what was described as an extensive proposal for ending the nuclear crisis, the Post reported.  In the proposal, North Korea wanted to re-establish the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which it agreed to end its nuclear program in exchange for energy aid, but it would only end its nuclear program once the United States has fulfilled its side of the agreement.  The U.S. delegation, however, said North Korea must verifiably dismantle its nuclear program before other U.S.-North Korean issues could be addressed, the Post reported.

Yesterday, the second day in the planned three-day talks, the parties never met in a three-way discussion.  Instead, Chinese officials held separate meetings with the U.S. and North Korean delegations, according to the Post.  Today, the United States and North Korea again held separate meetings with the Chinese delegation and then a “brief informal trilateral meeting” was held before Kelly left for Seoul and Tokyo.

Chinese Reaction

Privately, Chinese officials were “in disbelief over Li Gun’s categorical statements,” a U.S. official said (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, April 25).

Publicly, however, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said the meeting “signifies a good beginning.”

All three countries have “agreed to maintain contacts through diplomatic channels regarding continuing the process of talks,” a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, April 25).

Bush Reacts

U.S. President George W. Bush dismissed North Korea’s claims yesterday, saying Pyongyang was “back to the old blackmail game” and that the United States would not be intimidated.

“This will give us an opportunity to say to the North Koreans and the world we’re not going to be threatened,” Bush said.

It is unknown if Li’s claims that North Korea possessed nuclear weapons referred to the one or two bombs U.S. intelligence agencies have believed North Korea has possessed for 10 years, or if Li’s claim was an overstatement of North Korea’s nuclear capability in an attempt to deter the United States from attacking its nuclear sites, according to the New York Times.

The CIA believes that North Korea probably reprocessed enough material before the Agreed Framework to build up to two nuclear weapons, the Times reported.  There has only been unclear evidence to back such a belief, however, such as an assessment of North Korea’s technical capability and what one former senior intelligence official described as “a good deal of supposition.”

“The only surprise here was that they admitted it,” a senior Bush administration official said.  “That fact itself is hardly new,” the official added (David Sanger, New York Times, April 25).

Some Question North Korea’s Claims

South Korean and Japanese experts today said they doubted North Korea’s weapon possession and reprocessing claims.

South Korean nuclear analyst Kang Jungmin said he doubted that North Korea was close to completing the reprocessing of its spent fuel rod supply, noting that the heat generated by reprocessing would be easily detected by U.S. satellites.

“It’s a sheer lie.  There is no sign whatsoever that North Korea has restarted its reprocessing facility,” Kang said.  “Even if it has restarted its facility, it would take them four or five months to complete the reprocessing,” Kang added.

Toshimitsu Shigemura, professor of international relations at Takushoku University in Japan, said he did not believe North Korea possessed nuclear weapons.

“North Korea believes the U.S. was able to invade Iraq because Iraq didn’t have nuclear weapons, so it is saying it has nuclear weapons,” Shigemura said (Sang-hun Choe, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, April 25).

Back to top

South Asia:  Pre-Emption Comments Indicate Escalating Tensions, Experts Say

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha’s comments earlier this month suggesting that Pakistan would be an appropriate target for pre-emptive military action indicate an escalation of hostilities between the two nuclear-armed South Asian rivals, experts told Global Security Newswire this week (see GSN, April 7).

Early this month, Sinha said Pakistan was a “fit case” for a pre-emptive strike, — much like Iraq — because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, provides sanctuary for terrorists and lacks democracy.  Soon after, Pakistani officials responded in kind to Sinha’s remarks, saying India was itself ripe for pre-emptive action for also possessing weapons of mass destruction.

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

While India and Pakistan have often exchanged heated rhetoric, Sinha’s pre-emption comments cannot be taken lightly, said Hussain Haqqani of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  “When do we know when it is no longer posturing?” he said. 

A number of previous conflicts between India and Pakistan ended in such a way as to leave both countries with “scores to settle,” said Michael Krepon, founding president of the Henry L. Stimson Center.  For example, an attack by Kashmiri separatists on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 led to India mobilizing its armed forces on the border with Pakistan for almost 10 months.  All-out war was averted, however, after the United States pressured Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to crack down on militant Kashmiri separatist groups based on the Pakistani side of the “line of control” that divides the disputed Kashmir province.

The question facing India now is what to do if another such attack were to occur, Krepon said, adding that some Indian military officials were “frustrated” when the military was mobilized without going to war.  He warned that some experts are predicting a new wave of violence to begin in Kashmir during the spring and summer because of improving weather conditions.

“People are worried,” Krepon said.

Teresita Schaffer, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ South Asia program, said India believes Musharaff has not followed through on his pledge to combat cross-border terrorism (see GSN, April 18).  There is increasing belief among Indian officials that the current situation requires a larger response than last year’s mobilization, she said.    

Sinha’s use of the term “pre-emption” might have been part of a strategy to create a foundation for future action, according to some experts.  During the debate over the U.S. National Security Strategy, which includes the use of pre-emptive attacks, some officials and experts feared that other countries would use the new U.S. strategy to justify their own actions (see GSN, Sept. 23, 2002).

“It sets in motion a series of uncontrollable actions that could be taken by China, by Russia, by Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea,” U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said in a speech late last year, referring to the U.S. strategy (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002).

The idea of pre-emption, if not that exact term, has been in Indian minds before the U.S. adoption of the strategy, which was manifested in the recent war with Iraq, Krepon said.  Indian officials have thought since at least 1999 that India cannot always be in a “receive mode” of terrorist attacks and that Pakistan needed to be taught a lesson, he said.

India is using pre-emption comments to employ a similar theme as those of the United States in order to maintain freedom of action if New Delhi chooses to go to war, Krepon said, calling Sinha’s comments “opportunistic.”

Haqqani agreed, saying the U.S.-led war against Iraq provided India with a “legal stool to stand on” if it conducted similar action against Pakistan.  “Legalization is important in South Asia,” Haqqani said.

U.S. Role

The current tensions between India and Pakistan appear to have become a significant concern for the United States, according to experts.  Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is expected to travel to the region next month in an attempt to help reduce tensions (see GSN, April 17). 

Schaffer said she believed Armitage hoped to set the momentum of India-Pakistan relations “on a different course” by his visit.  She does not think Armitage expects to see immediate results, but his visit could begin a period of quiet backchannel diplomacy in preparation for a summit.

Indian Prime Minster Atal Bihari Vajpayee hinted at such a summit during a speech last week in the Kashmiri city of Srinagar.  In his remarks, Vajpayee proposed that India and Pakistan hold talks to resolve their dispute over Kashmir (see GSN, April 21).

“Problems can be resolved by talks,” Vajpayee was quoted as saying by the Washington Post.  “We are ready,” he said.

Pakistani officials early this week said they welcomed the idea of talks.

Haqqani, however, noted that Armitage’s visit would be the third time in the last two years that the United States has had to step in to ease tensions in South Asia.

“Does the United States want to play babysitter in that region for the foreseeable future?” Haqqani said.  “You can’t keep babysitting two nuclear-armed neighbors forever,” he said.

Back to top

United States:  U.S. “Bunker Buster” Development Worries Russia

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Russia is concerned about U.S. efforts to develop low-yield nuclear weapons for destroying deeply buried targets, a top Russian nuclear official said yesterday (see GSN, March 7).

In 1994 the U.S. Congress banned research and development on nuclear weapons with yields below five kilotons, but the U.S. Defense Department has asked lawmakers to lift the ban.

“Where did this talk come from to do away with the five-kiloton threshold?” asked Nikolai Voloshin, the head of the Department of Nuclear Ammunition Development and Testing at the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry.

“The idea is being circulated to do lower yield charges, I question the thoughts of using such low-yield weapons, which means that nuclear weapons cease to be a deterrent and become combat weapons,” he told Global Security Newswire at an international security conference here organized by the Energy Department’s Sandia National Laboratories.

Earlier this year, in a draft of the fiscal 2004 Defense Department budget request, Pentagon officials told Congress the ban must be repealed to “train the next generation of nuclear weapons scientists and engineers.”

The Pentagon needs a “revitalized nuclear weapons advanced concepts effort,” but the ban has had a “chilling effect” on any such initiative “by impeding the ability of our scientists and engineers to explore the full range of technical options,” according to the draft request.

Developing the new weapons would not be exceptionally difficult, according to Voloshin.  He questioned U.S. motives in publicizing the debate on potential new nuclear weapons.

“No one denies it can be easily done, why bring all the hype about it?” he asked.

He also criticized the U.S. approach to international arms control agreements, specifically the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Bush administration does not support.

“We are very concerned about why the U.S. has not yet ratified the CTBT,” Voloshin said.

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP