|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
China: U.S. Arsenal Will Continue to Dominate Beijing’s, Council on Foreign Relations SaysBy Mike Nartker The CFR report, Chinese Military Power, examines Beijing’s military modernization efforts and finds that the Chinese military is still at least 20 years behind that of the United States, and is likely to remain behind during the next two decades in terms of military technology and capability. The United States is also expected to maintain its strong advantage over China’s strategic forces, the report says. “The United States will continue to possess overwhelming dominance over China’s nuclear forces for the foreseeable future,” the report says. Beijing’s nuclear arsenal will expand in both size and sophistication over the next 10 to 20 years, the report says. A major factor driving China’s efforts to improve its small nuclear arsenal is the U.S. intention to develop a national ballistic missile defense system, according to the report. “China will do whatever it can to ensure that a U.S. missile defense system cannot negate its ability to launch and deliver a retaliatory second strike,” the report says. In a report released in February, the Henry L. Stimson Center came to similar conclusions as to how U.S. missile defense plans could affect China’s efforts to improve its strategic forces (see GSN, Feb. 13, 2003). The center warned that, in response to a U.S. missile defense system, Beijing could choose to develop a leaner and more advanced strategic force that could include mobile tactical systems. The Chinese could also choose to develop more mobile ICBMs and sea-launched ballistic missiles, as well as multiple warhead systems, to develop an “assured minimum deterrence” capability. Stimson Center senior associate Kathleen Walsh said the CFR report failed to adequately address whether China’s efforts to modernize its strategic forces could also include changes in strategic thinking and policy. She told Global Security Newswire yesterday that China could be re-examining its policy promising never to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict. There are already indications that Beijing is considering revising that policy, if only for symbolic reasons, she said. How Fast? What Direction? There are several factors that could affect the pace and path of China’s military modernization efforts, according to the report. For example, demands for funding for domestic concerns could help slow the pace of military modernization. In addition, the North Korean nuclear crisis could also play a role, according to the report (see related GSN story, today). A nuclear-armed North Korea could prompt Japan to re-examine its security strategies, which could lead Tokyo to pursue nuclear weapons of its own, it says. In turn, this would have a “major effect” on China’s own military modernization efforts. The report also notes the continuing influence of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, who has maintained chairmanship of the Central Military Commission. Chinese President Hu Jintao, as well as other new senior Chinese officials, is unlikely to alter the general direction of Chinese strategic policy, at least in the short term, the report says. Walsh said, however, that there already signs that Hu has begun to move out of the shadow of Jiang, who has seen his influence wane in light of the recent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis in China and the role of Jiang’s faction in covering up the extent of the epidemic. In its report, the CFR task force outlined a number of indicators the United States should monitor to gauge the direction and extent of China’s military modernization efforts. These include “dramatic” increases in the construction and deployment of ballistic missile submarines; major increases in the number of Chinese ICBMs and the development of multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles beyond what is needed for a second-strike capability; and training in the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction at the tactical level. The report recommends that the United States begin military-to-military exchanges with China with the goal of increasing Chinese defense transparency. In addition, the United States should also seek to reassure China that it is not the intended focus of a U.S. missile defense system and that the United States is not seeking to negate a minimal Chinese nuclear deterrence, it says, adding that separate U.S.-Chinese talks should be held on nuclear strategic security issues.
From May 23, 2003 issue.North Korea: Contentious Talks Continue in PyongyangDiplomats from North and South Korea extended their weeklong talks into Friday to hash out disputes over Pyongyang’s nuclear development and economic cooperation, Reuters reported today (see GSN, May 20). The talks lasted through the night and officials have met for almost two hours today, according to a South Korean pool report from the discussions in Pyongyang. North Korea is angry at South Korea because of Seoul’s stand with Washington for a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. North Korea’s official media sharply criticized South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun’s recent trip to Washington. North Korea described the trip as “pro-U.S. and flunkyist.” South Korean spokesman Cho Myoung-gyon said that an economic agreement was near, but the two delegations are involved in a “battle of the tongues” over Roh’s Washington visit. Pyongyang is also upset about comments by Roh’s national defense adviser Kim Hee-sang, who said that aid to North Korea should be differentiated between the people and the regime. North Korean officials said the comments are a “string of balderdash” and Pyongyang called for Kim’s dismissal (Paul Eckert, Reuters, May 23). Koizumi Meets With Bush Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is scheduled to hold talks with U.S. President George W. Bush today at the president’s Texas ranch. The two leaders are expected to discuss ways to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons (Mark Magnier, Los Angeles Times, May 23). Meanwhile, a concerted effort to cut off North Korea’s alleged trade in illegal goods is gaining momentum in Washington, the Financial Times reported. A blockade, however, will not apply crippling pressure to Pyongyang without Chinese cooperation, according to Scott Snyder, an analyst at the Asia Foundation. “China quietly increasing customs inspections of North Korean vessels would be more effective than high-profile interdictions by the U.S. and its allies,” he said (Ward/Pilling, Financial Times, May 23).
From May 23, 2003 issue.South Asia: No Peace Talks Soon, India SaysIndia has no plans to hold peace talks with its nuclear-armed rival Pakistan in the near future, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes was quoted today as saying (see GSN, May 16). “When we reach the time for talks (they) will be held, but it is not very close,” Fernandes said, according to the Press Trust of India. Instead of formal talks, India and Pakistan have focused on confidence-building measures, Fernandes said. Such measures implemented so far include landing rights for each other’s civilian aircraft and a restoration of ambassadors (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 23). Meanwhile, Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokar yesterday said his country was willing to discuss formally banning all nuclear tests. The two countries are already observing a voluntary testing moratorium, Khokar said during a session of the U.N. Disarmament Conference in Geneva. “This could be formalized,” he said. Pakistan is also prepared to discuss several other measures, including the nondeployment of nuclear weapons and a formal agreement on advance notification of ballistic missile tests, Khokar said. “It is … important for both India and Pakistan to engage in serious discussions for nuclear and strategic stability in our region,” he said (Reuters/Financial Times, May 23).
From May 23, 2003 issue.Iran: Nuclear Fears Spark U.S. Discussion on Pressuring TehranSpurred by fears of a developing Iranian nuclear weapons capability, U.S. President George W. Bush is considering destabilizing the Islamic government in Tehran, Knight Ridder reported today (see GSN, May 22). Deputies to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are pushing for clandestine and explicit efforts to pressure the Iranian government, according to Knight Ridder. Rumsfeld’s office is also citing alleged Iranian support for al-Qaeda terrorist leaders as a reason to put pressure on Tehran, the officials said. Officials said that there is no consideration of a U.S. invasion of Iran, but one senior official said “the military option is never off the table” (Warren Strobel, Knight Ridder/San Jose Mercury News, May 23).
From May 23, 2003 issue.International Response: Nuclear Suppliers Group Calls for Increased Vigilance Over North KoreaAn organization that establishes export control guidelines for nuclear trade called on the international community today to increase its efforts to prevent North Korea from obtaining controlled items for its nuclear efforts (see GSN, May 19). Members of the 40-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group agree to follow common export control rules for equipment, material and technology that could be used for the development of nuclear weapons. “The group again called on all states to exercise vigilance to ensure that none of their exports of goods and technologies contribute to North Korea’s nuclear weapons effort,” the group said in a statement following the conclusion of a weeklong meeting held in South Korea (Agence France-Presse, May 23).
From May 22, 2003 issue.U.S.-Russia I: RAND Report Says Accidental Launch Threat GrowingBy David Ruppe The report describes three possible scenarios for such a launch, including a rogue commander or terrorist who intentionally fires a missile, a training accident or system malfunction that accidentally launches a missile, or an erroneous perception by one nation that it is under attack, leading it to order a counterattack. Neglecting these risks “could produce possibly the greatest disaster in modern history, and possibly in world history,” said former Senator Sam Nunn, co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which funded the report, Beyond the Nuclear Shadow: A Phased Approach for Improving Nuclear Safety and U.S.-Russian Relations. The study offers a range of recommendations for reducing the danger, including the deployment of a “small” 250-interceptor U.S. national missile defense system that could address an accidental or unauthorized Russian launch. The Bush administration is developing a missile defense system to defend against prospective threats from smaller countries, and so far has announced plans to deploy 20 interceptors. Cold War Postures Remain The danger of an unauthorized or accidental launch has persisted in part because the two countries have maintained elements of their Cold War nuclear weapons postures — in particular, thousands of nuclear warheads on high alert, the study says. “Although both countries have significantly reduced their nuclear forces, they still retain nuclear postures and deterrence doctrines formulated when tension between them was much higher than it is today,” it says. The danger of a launch has increased largely because many key Russian capabilities have deteriorated, including its missile-launch detection system, conventional weapons, nuclear weapons and the reliability of its military personnel, according to the report. Increased U.S. nuclear capabilities may also have led Russia to perceive that its strategic forces are less able to survive a U.S. first strike, thereby prompting Russia to maintain a heightened alert status, according to the report. It cited a growing U.S. strategic superiority, enabled in part by the advent of the Trident submarine. The vessel, with its “accurate missiles and powerful warheads, has allowed the United States to make a significant portion of those Russian [silo-based] forces vulnerable,” the report says. Only 20 to 200 Russian nuclear weapons might survive a surprise U.S. nuclear attack, it says. U.S. success with using precision-guided munitions, its continued attack submarine patrols near Russian home bases and submarine operating areas, and any plan for a large national missile defense system might also contribute to Russian insecurity, the report says. Perceiving its forces as vulnerable, Russia may be implementing a “launch-on-warning” approach to warfare requiring rapid reaction, “probably within 10 or 15 minutes,” for launching some 3,000 warheads, it says. “This means there is very little time to verify that early warning information from satellites and land-based radars is correct,” the report says, noting that U.S. nuclear weapons also could be launched in minutes. Recommendations The potential threat is so serious that it should be made a top priority later this month at the summit between President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Nunn said. “Today, Presidents Bush and Putin must each ask the question: Are our weapons driving our policy? Have the machines taken over?” he said at report’s release yesterday. Nunn urged each leader to order his defense leadership, through joint collaboration, to lower the alert status of each side’s nuclear forces. “That would reduce toward zero the risk of accidental launch or miscalculation and provide increased launch decision time for each president,” he said. Nunn dismissed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty signed by Bush and Putin in May 2002 as a “faith-based” agreement, criticizing its requirement that each party implement the treaty restrictions for only one day in 2012. The RAND report recommends a number of steps intended to build trust and reduce the risk over time, including: * an immediate, unilateral stand-down of all U.S. nuclear forces to levels set out in the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty; * the movement of U.S. ballistic missile and attack submarines away from Russia; * a reduction in the launch readiness of some U.S. silo-based missiles, and eventually all nuclear forces; * the installation of early warning sensors outside U.S. and Russian missile silos, as well as U.S. assistance for Russian early warning radar and satellites; * the removal of W-88 nuclear warheads from Trident submarines; * the installation of destruct-after-launch mechanisms on ballistic missiles; and * the deployment of a “limited” U.S. national missile defense system — if proven to work — of 250 ground-based interceptors and as many as nine additional X-band radars to guard against an accidental or unauthorized Russian launch. Missile Defense Option The report describes such a missile defense system as “small” and says it could be effective if Russia did not perceive it as threatening Russian deterrence. “The missile defense system presented in this option might be an effective tool for meeting nonproliferation and counterterrorism goals,” it says. The report says the proposed system would be able to intercept only a small number of Russian warheads and could “be rendered useless if Russia deploys countermeasures on its missiles that can penetrate the defense.” Russia might nevertheless regard a large U.S. missile defense system “as a threat to their strategic deterrent and thus feel compelled to take steps more apt to lead to an accidental or unauthorized launch.” The report also says the system could negate China’s current nuclear deterrent, possibly provoking it to “substantially increase the size and readiness of its nuclear arsenal,” producing a Cold War-type U.S.-Chinese nuclear relationship and a “serious degradation of global nuclear safety.” [EDITOR'S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group, Inc.]
From May 22, 2003 issue.U.S.-Russia II: Analysts Call for Less Reliance on Mutually Assured DestructionBy Mike Nartker Despite recent tensions in the U.S-Russian relationship resulting from the recent war in Iraq, the two countries are still capable of developing a strategic partnership and of moving away from the Cold War-era doctrine of mutually assured destruction, says the paper, prepared by analysts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington and the Institute for Applied International Research in Moscow (see GSN, April 10). To do this, however, a “new and positive agenda” — including joint missile defense development and a reduction in the readiness of the two countries’ nuclear arsenals — needs to be developed based on transparency, confidence-building and cooperation, the paper says. At a discussion yesterday at the Carnegie Endowment, IAIR Deputy Director Yury Fedorov said current U.S.-Russian tensions were causing a “quite serious” crisis, but hopefully “a short one.” The planned summit between U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin to be held in St. Petersburg June 1 will hopefully mark the beginning of the end of the crisis, he said. U.S. and Russian analysts have determined two key areas where U.S.-Russian interests coincide and where better cooperation could be achieved — missile defense and early warning of missile strikes, according to the paper (see GSN, May 21). In the area of missile defense, while initial stages of U.S.-Russian cooperation has begun, Russian scientific and technical capabilities in the field could be further exploited, the paper says, highlighting Moscow’s active missile defense system. Russia also possesses well-developed technical capabilities to detect missile activities that could be better be exploited through improved U.S.-Russian cooperation, the paper says. It notes the wide geographical area Russia can monitor for missile activity through radar stations positioned in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Siberia (see GSN, Nov. 1, 2002). “Despite the weakened capabilities of the space arm of the Russian warning system, the satellites and ground centers in the system can be an important addition to the American space network, which does not possess equally strong capabilities across all regions for global monitoring,” the paper says. In addition to joint missile defense and early warning of missile activity, the United States and Russia could engage in more advanced, longer-term cooperative projects, the paper says. One such project could be the joint development of new strategic systems, it says, noting that both the United States and Russia will have to replace older sea- and land-based strategic missiles. Transparency and Confidence-Building For the United States and Russia to improve cooperation and thereby develop a better strategic partnership, they must first improve transparency with regard to their strategic doctrines, the paper says. “Without this, it is hard to eliminate mistaken interpretations — and therefore, suspicion,” it says. The Carnegie-IAIR paper outlines several possible measures to improve transparency between Moscow and Washington, including joint discussions of nuclear policies; mutual notification of approaches to nuclear targeting, nuclear weapons development and deployment of reserve nuclear command structures; information exchanges of the nuclear potential of other nations; and full exchange of information on detected missile activity by other nations (see GSN, April 17, 2002). One important confidence-building measure could be a decision by both Washington and Moscow to reject ICBM launches based solely on information received from early warning systems, the paper says. The rejection of launch-on-warning plans could be confirmed by several technical measures undertaken by both countries, including the dismantlement of devices that ensure a rapid opening of missile launch silos and the removal of on-board electrical batteries from missiles, it says. “The continuing existence of such plans … once more emphasizes the obvious discrepancy between surviving aspects of nuclear deterrence and the new relations between the U.S. and Russia,” the paper says. The United States and Russia also need to share more information about their ballistic missile submarines, which can approach targets undetected and attack quickly, according to the paper. Such information-sharing could vary in levels of detail — from information on where a submarine is located at a particular time to information noting that at specific times certain submarines will not be in the vicinity of their home bases, the paper says. Highlighting the importance of information-sharing related to ballistic missile submarines is a concern that rogue states or terrorist groups may acquire one to use in an attack on either the United States or Russia, the paper says. Improved information sharing could help prevent “regrettable U.S. or Russian reactions to provocation by third parties,” it says.
From May 22, 2003 issue.Iran: Washington Cancels Nuclear Talks Over Terrorism AllegationsQuietly held U.S.-Iranian talks — that included discussion of Iran’s nuclear activities — have broken down after the terrorist bombings of several housing complexes in Saudi Arabia last week, USA Today reported today (see GSN, May 21). In a break from long-term hostility, U.S. and Iranian diplomats have met three times in Geneva this year and discussed a range of topics, including Iran’s nuclear development (see GSN, May 12). The last meeting was held May 3, but both sides have recently accused the other of supporting terrorism, and Washington canceled a scheduled meeting in Geneva yesterday, the USA Today reported. The United States has alleged that Iran is sheltering al-Qaeda terrorists involved in last week’s attacks in Saudi Arabia. Iranian officials say the United States has failed to take appropriate action against the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, an anti-Iranian group based in Iraq that Washington calls a terrorist organization. “Our information is that you have not disarmed the Mujahedin, and it is the height of hypocrisy for the United States to be criticizing Iran, which has captured more al-Qaeda than any other country,” said a senior Iranian diplomat (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, May 22). The latest barbs traded between the two countries come a day after Iranian U.N. Ambassador Mohammed Javad Zarif said Tehran had arrested several al-Qaeda members. “We have carried out several important operations against several cells, and we have captured them and put them in prison,” Zarif said. “We now have a large security net in the eastern provinces to find suspicious elements. We have done this at a cost of several operations against us by people connected with al-Qaeda,” he added. U.S. officials, however, claim that high-ranking al-Qaeda members are currently in Iran. “There’s no question but that there have been and are today senior al-Qaeda leaders in Iran, and they are busy,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said (Robin Wright, Los Angeles Times, May 22).
From May 22, 2003 issue.Russia: Submarine Dismantlement Agreement Signed in StockholmRussia and representatives from several European nations and insitutions signed an agreement yesterday to clear the way for Russia to receive assistance dismantling its nuclear submarines and disposing of the subsequent nuclear waste. Signed in Stockholm, the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Program for the Russian Federation resolves long-standing tax and liability issues that have hindered European assistance efforts. “Concluding this agreement is an important step. It will allow us to make available 40 million euro for projects tackling the pressing issue of nuclear waste cleanup in Northwestern Russia,” said European Union spokesman Chris Patten (European Union release, May 21). There are 100 decommissioned Russian submarines, carrying 8,000 nuclear fuel assemblies, rusting in the waters off the Kola Peninsula in Northwest Russia, Interfax reported. Negotiations on the agreement lasted for more than three years, with a major issue being the taxation of foreign participants involved in projects under the agreement. Last month, Russia decided to exempt these entities from taxation, leading to the completion of the agreement (Interfax/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, May 21). Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh said the agreement would help prevent terrorists from obtaining the spent nuclear fuel in the decommissioned submarines (BBC News, May 21). In addition to reducing environmental and security concerns, Russia also believes the agreement can serve as a basis for the establishment of bilateral agreements within the Group of Eight Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, which was signed last year (Interfax).
From May 22, 2003 issue.United States: Uranium Experiment Explodes at Oak Ridge PlantAn independent review team is investigating an explosion last month at a nuclear weapons plant in Tennessee, Energy Daily reported today (see GSN, April 16). Three workers at the U.S. Energy Department’s Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., caused an explosion and a fire April 15 while attempting to demonstrate a new uranium processing technique. The Energy Department and plant operator BWXT have sent the review team to the plant to look into the incident, which lightly contaminated the workers and forced personnel to evacuate the building, Energy Daily reported. The contaminated workers are healthy and the contamination did not spread outside of the building, according to Energy Daily. The new processing method had previously succeeded, and officials were attempting to repeat those results on a larger scale. The researchers were using depleted uranium instead of the enriched uranium used for nuclear weapons, according to Pam Horning, manager of engineering and technology at the plant. The explosion occurred because a chemical reaction inside a uranium canister lasted longer than workers expected, creating pressure in the canister and blowing open the glovebox that housed the experiment. A fire broke out when the uranium powder was exposed to oxygen and caught fire. “We knew the hazards that were present from the materials (used in the test),” Horning said. “Our investigation is going to look at … what were the processing conditions. We have not come to a root cause. We want to make sure we strengthen our (planning) process,” she added (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, May 22).
From May 21, 2003 issue.United States: Senate Allows New Nuclear Weapons ResearchU.S. Senate Republicans yesterday turned back a Democratic-led effort to stop the Bush administration from research and developing low-yield nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, May 20). The effort to maintain Congress’ 10-year ban on research into low-yield nuclear weapons was voted down, 51-43, but the Washington Post reported that Democrats today would seek a compromise to allow research but no development or production (Helen Dewar, Washington Post, May 21). Defense researchers are already investigating the “bunker-busting” nuclear weapons, but Democrats sought to cut the $15.5 million the Pentagon wants to further the work (Vicki Allen, Reuters, May 21). Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the new research was necessary to send a message. “The idea that we should not be allowed to study such a weapon is not a good idea,” he said, while touting the potential benefit in destroying deeply buried targets that may house chemical and biological weapons. Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed with this assessment. “The threat, in many cases, is going deep underground … the threat is also going to chemical, biological weapons, and we know that. There’s a greater and greater proliferation. And so we’ve got to study the effects of how you might deal with these weapons,” he said. Myers maintained that the effort was only a study and said the Pentagon did not intend to develop the weapons. “It’s a study. It seems like a very prudent thing to do. It has nothing to do with the development or the fielding or even the employment of these types of weapons,” he said (Defense Department transcript, May 20). Democrats, however, did not believe the Defense Department assertions that the research would not lead to weapons development. “Baloney,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “Does anyone really believe that?” she asked (Dewar, Washington Post).
From May 20, 2003 issue.U.S.-Russia I: Moscow Treaty Might Enter Into Force in Two WeeksRussia would like to see the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty take effect soon, possibly at a U.S.-Russian summit in St. Petersburg scheduled for the end of this month or at a Group of Eight summit two days later, according to Russian Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov (see GSN, May 14). Russia’s domestic treaty approval process remains incomplete, however, Mamedov said last week. Before Russia can exchange the instruments of ratification with the United States, Russia’s Federation Council — the upper house of Parliament — must approve it, Mamedov said. While the Moscow Treaty itself lacks verification measures, the United States and Russia have agreed to use the verification system established under START. That treaty, however, expires in 2009, leaving a three-year gap until the Moscow Treaty itself expires. Russia is interested in developing new verification measures to go beyond the START system and has already begun discussions on the issue with U.S. officials, Mamedov said. Mamedov praised the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament, for voting 294-134 in favor of the treaty’s ratification last week. The debate within the Duma over the treaty’s ratification had become a type of “referendum” on the larger issue of overall U.S.-Russian relations, according to Mamedov. “We consider that as a result of a very frank discussion … the Russian parliamentarians have passed a convincing vote of confidence in the policy being pursued by President Vladimir Putin towards an equal partnership with the U.S.,” Mamedov said. Mamedov also praised a recent visit by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell for helping to improve U.S.-Russian cooperation. Powell met with Putin last week in St. Petersburg. The talks “were successful and have once again borne out that Russian-American relations, despite serious contradictions and difficulties, as in the assessment of the military actions in Iraq, are irrevocably developing along the road of cooperation on key issues,” Mamedov said (see GSN, April 10; Russian Foreign Ministry release, May 19).
From May 20, 2003 issue.North Korea: Pyongyang Angry Over U.S.-South Korea TalksNorth Korea reacted angrily today to a recent summit between U.S. President George W. Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun (see GSN, May 19). “The South side will sustain an unspeakable disaster if it turns to confrontation, talking about ‘nuclear issue’ and ‘additional measures,’” said Pak Chang Ryon, the top North Korean official at inter-Korean economic talks in Pyongyang Tuesday. Pak said “inter-Korean relations will be put at the lowest ebb” because of the recent talks (Associated Press/Canada.com, May 20). South Korea, meanwhile, warned Pyongyang not to endanger the economic benefit it receives from cross-border interaction. “It is our precondition that North Korea’s nuclear problem should not worsen for smooth progress in inter-Korean economic cooperation,” said Vice Finance and Economy Minister Kim Gwang-lim, the top South Korean delegate at the talks (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 20). Swiss May Hold Talks Switzerland announced today that it is willing to host talks to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis, according to ITAR-Tass. Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey made the announcement after talks with the North Korean leadership on the Korean border site of Panmunjom. Geneva hosted the 1994 talks that produced the agreement freezing Pyongyang’s nuclear development in exchange for energy assistance (ITAR-Tass, May 20).
From May 20, 2003 issue.United States: Democrats Fight Bush Nuclear Weapon ResearchU.S. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) will attempt to thwart a White House-led move toward researching and developing new nuclear weapons, DefenseNews.com reported yesterday (see GSN, May 19). U.S. President George W. Bush “is quietly laying the groundwork for a dangerous U-turn” on nuclear policy, Kennedy said during a Senate debate of the fiscal 2004 defense authorization bill. The Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month approved changes in nuclear policy to allow for the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons and to permit work on “bunker-busting” nuclear weapons. Kennedy said he will try to eliminate the new rules in the full Senate, DefenseNews.com reported. Kennedy said the smaller weapons and the bunker-busting weapons would allow easier use of nuclear weapons. “Nuclear weapons are not just another item in our arsenal, and it is wrong to treat them as if they were,” he added. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said that developing new nuclear weapons would discredit U.S. nonproliferation efforts worldwide. “The United States should not follow policy we do not tolerate in others,” he said. The defense bill is expected to pass this week, DefenseNews.com reported (William Matthews, DefenseNews.com, May 19).
From May 20, 2003 issue.U.S.-Russia II: U.S. Experts Complete Inspection of Russian Missile BaseU.S. experts have completed a three-day inspection of a Russian strategic missile base in the Orenburg region near the city of Dombarovka, ITAR-Tass reported Saturday (see GSN, May 19). The inspection, conducted under the auspices of START, examined SS-18 ICBMs and Russia’s compliance with the treaty (ITAR-Tass, May 17 in FBIS-SOV, May 19). The base houses 52 SS-18 missiles, according to a START memorandum of understanding that the United States and Russia exchange twice a year (Mike Nartker, GSN, May 20).
From May 19, 2003 issue.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).
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top