U.S.-Russia I:  Russian Parliament Approves Moscow Treaty; Entry Into Force Imminent

The upper house of the Russian parliament today approved the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, May 20; Associated Press, May 28).

“The Federation Council was the last of the steps that the legislative branch needed to take to formalize the Moscow Treaty’s adoption and ratification,” said Arms Control Association research analyst Christine Kucia.  She expected U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin to exchange the instruments of ratification and bring the treaty into force this weekend when the two leaders are scheduled to meet in Russia before traveling to the Group of Eight summit in Evian, France.

The Federation Council approved the treaty by a vote of 140-5 with two abstentions, according to Interfax.  The treaty calls for the United States and Russia to deploy no more than 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads by the end of 2012.

Earlier this year, the Russian Duma, or lower house, delayed passage of the treaty to protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but it eventually approved the pact earlier this month (see GSN, May 14; Associated Press).

Back to top

Iran:  Russia Links Bushehr Fuel to IAEA Additional Protocol

Western officials have said that Russia will not provide fuel for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant unless Tehran agrees to accept additional International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, the Financial Times reported yesterday (see GSN, May 27).

By signing the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, Iran would give the agency the authority to access any Iranian nuclear facility, according to the Times.  Currently, Iran is only obligated to allow the IAEA to inspect sites Iran has declared (Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, May 27).

A top Russian Atomic Energy Ministry official was quoted today by Interfax as reiterating Moscow’s call for Iran to sign the Additional Protocol, saying such a move would “dispel doubts concerning the existence of a military nuclear program in Iran” (Interfax/BBC Monitoring, May 28).

Moscow is concerned about “serious unresolved questions in connection with Iran’s nuclear research,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov said after a meeting this week with Iran’s Ambassador to Russia, Gholamreza Shafei.

Russia’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear efforts began several months ago, when an Iranian opposition group revealed that Tehran was allegedly working to construct a secret uranium enrichment facility.

Russian officials were “embarrassed and concerned” that Iran had apparently carried out a secret program while they had been saying Tehran was doing no such thing, said Rose Gottemoeller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran, a leading Iranian opposition group, yesterday revealed that Iran has allegedly begun building two smaller uranium enrichment sites designed to both complement larger sites and to replace them if necessary.  A U.S. official said, however, that Washington could not verify the group’s claim and that it “should be taken with some skepticism.”

“They’ve been right before, but they’ve been way off base before too,” the official said (Richter/Miller, Los Angeles Times, May 28).

Iran No Longer Needs Foreign Aid, Pentagon Says

Meanwhile, a draft U.S. National Security Decision Directive currently being examined by top Bush administration officials says Iran’s nuclear program is so far advanced it no longer needs foreign aid, according to Newsday.

The directive is primarily based on U.S. Defense Department intelligence analyses, according to a source that received a classified briefing on the directive.  The directive indicates that Iran’s nuclear efforts can no longer be halted by applying pressure on countries that have aided Iran’s nuclear program in the past, such as Russia, the source said.

“The assessment (being reviewed) at the National Security Council is that they (Iran) have passed the point of no return in terms of getting outside assistance to enable them to have a nuclear weapons program,” the source said.  “In other words, they have everything in hand to do it on their own if the Russians stopped tomorrow,” the source added.

The CIA, however, has not come to the same conclusion as the Pentagon, the source said, adding that senior CIA, Pentagon and State Department officials would work out their differences before presenting the directive for adoption.  Such a meeting had been scheduled today but was postponed, according to Newsday (Knut Royce, Newsday, May 28).

Tehran and Washington Trade Barbs

Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is only for civilian use — a claim the United States has rejected.

“The United States rejects that argument as a cover story,” White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said yesterday.  “Our strong position is that Iran is preparing, instead, to produce fissile materials for nuclear weapons,” he said (Bob Deans, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 28).

Iran today criticized the United States for its allegations.

“Any concern over countries’ noncompliance with weapons of mass destruction instruments needs to be dealt with through international cooperation,” Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said before a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference in Tehran.  “The resort to force, or directing unverified accusations … will only undermine the current international arrangements,” Kharazi said, adding that the IAEA was the “only competent authority” on the issue (Stefan Smith, Agence France-Presse, May 28).

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Repeats Nuclear Reprocessing Claim

North Korea yesterday repeated an earlier claim that it had begun reprocessing more than 8,000 spent fuel rods, a key first step in producing nuclear weapons (see GSN, May 27).

“As far as the issue of reprocessing spent fuel rods is concerned, the D.P.R.K. made it clear on April 18 that it was successfully carrying out the work of reprocessing over 8,000 spent rods at the final stage,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency said.

Pyongyang also rejected reports that North Korean nuclear scientists had defected to the West or that China had cut off oil to North Korea to force multilateral talks in Beijing (Korean Central News Agency, May 26 in FBIS-CHI, May 26).

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has rejected a North Korean offer to hold bilateral talks with the United States.

“I’ve been reading those statements and we always examine closely whatever they say, but we are still committed to multilateral talks, expanded multilateral talks, if there are going to be future talks the way we want to do it,” Powell said (Yonhap News Agency/BBC Monitoring, May 28).

Diplomats from Japan, the United States and South Korea will meet in Seoul next month to discuss North Korean nuclear development and present Pyongyang with a unified front (Daily Yomiuri, May 28).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia II:  Washington Awards Contracts to Replace Russian Plutonium Production Reactors

The U.S. Energy Department has selected two U.S. companies to help shut down three Russian plutonium production reactors, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, March 6).

Washington Group International and Raytheon Technical Services have been directed to build two coal-fired power plants near three nuclear reactors at Seversk and Zheleznogorsk in Siberia.

The reactors were built primarily to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, but they also produce energy for neighboring towns and cities, according to U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.  That energy production needs to be replaced before the nuclear reactors can be shut down, a move Abraham described as “critical.”

The coal-fired energy plants will take five years to build, after which the nuclear plants will be shuttered, the Journal reported.

The $466 million dollar award is intended to close down plants that are “considered to be among the highest risk reactors in the world,” according to the Energy Department (John Fialka, Wall Street Journal, May 28).

Russia will be responsible for dismantling the reactors, according to agreements signed in March (see GSN, March 12).  The plants produce enough plutonium to make two nuclear warheads every three days, Energy Daily reported today.

Russian officials have hesitated to close the reactors and lose jobs, while the U.S. Congress has been reluctant to pay for the replacement plants, according to Energy Daily.  Abraham has pushed the deal and Russia is ready to embrace the project, Energy Department officials said.

“The Russians want to shut these down as much as we do,” said Kenneth Baker, acting deputy administrator for nonproliferation in the National Nuclear Security Administration.  “They are just as scared as we are of terrorist attacks,” he added (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, May 28).

Abraham told Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Alexander Rumyantsev that the contracts should be in place by the end of June.

“The selection of the contractors is another significant step in advancing the Bush administration’s nonproliferation programs,” Abraham said.  “Russia and the United States have enjoyed a good relationship on this program and we look forward to continued progress,” he added (Energy Department release, May 27).

Russia will also build a plant at Seversk to transform weapon-grade plutonium to mixed oxide fuel, Interfax reported Monday.

Construction on the $1 billion plant will begin in early 2005, according to Siberian Chemical Plant Director General Vladimir Shidlovsky (Interfax, May 26 in FBIS-SOV, May 26).

Back to top

International Response:  Nuclear Suppliers Group Agrees to Amend Guidelines

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — An organization that establishes export control regulations for nuclear trade has agreed to update a section of its guidelines concerning components that could be used to produce a nuclear reactor, a U.S. State Department official told Global Security Newswire yesterday (see GSN, May 23).

During an annual plenary meeting held last week in South Korea, the 40-member Nuclear Suppliers Group agreed to update the primary coolant pump entry on the group’s trigger list, the State official said.  Under group guidelines, members agree to only export items listed on the trigger list if they first receive assurances that the item will not be used to develop a nuclear weapon. 

The group also proposed several new entries for the trigger list, which should be finalized by the end of the year, the State official said, noting that the group agreed to work to improve the clarity and understanding of its guidelines.

During the meeting, group members also discussed the threats posed by Iran and North Korea, according to the State official.  The group expressed concern about Iran’s nuclear program, calling on Tehran to address unanswered questions about its nuclear activities.  They also discussed the crisis surrounding North Korea’s relaunched nuclear efforts and called on group members to increase their efforts to prevent Pyongyang from acquiring materials and technologies that could be used in its nuclear program.

Back to top

United States:  Planned Attack on Nuclear Facility Described in Court

Al-Qaeda supporters planned a 2001 attack on U.S. soldiers at a Belgian military base that houses nuclear weapons, a trial in Brussels was told Monday (see GSN, Nov. 18, 2002).

During a November broadcast interview, former Tunisian professional soccer player Nizar Trabelsi said he had planned to attack the base.  Trabelsi is one of 23 defendants in the case, Agence France-Presse reported.

The trial began last Thursday and the defendants could face up to 10 years in prison if found guilty of a range of charges, including planning to attack U.S.-related targets.

“The attack was due to happen between midday and 1 o’clock and target the canteen of the base,” Judge Claire De Gryse said, citing testimony in the case.

A Belgian Army spokesman said the base houses U.S. military personnel who are trained to equip “planes with nuclear means in the event of an attack” (Agence France-Presse, May 26 in FBIS-WEU, May 26).

Back to top

Iran I:  Opposition Group Alleges Iran Has Backup Uranium Enrichment Sites

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A leading Iranian opposition group today claimed that Iran has built two previously unknown uranium enrichment facilities — components in Iran’s alleged efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability by 2005 (see GSN, May 23).

At a press conference today, representatives of the National Council of Resistance of Iran provided detailed information about the two Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, located near the villages of Lashkar-Abad and Ramandeh about 40 kilometers west of Tehran.  Construction of both sites began in 2000 and they are close to completion, said council spokesman Alireza Jafarzadeh.  The sites, each containing several centrifuges, are heavily guarded, said council representative Soona Samsami. 

“The revelation of these two key sites and their function in the mullahs’ nuclear setup [has] exposed new dimensions of just how far they have advanced along the perilous path to the acquisition of the nuclear bomb,” Samsami said.

The council is the political arm of the People’s Mujahedin, also known as Mujahedin-e Khalq, which the U.S. State Department has formally identified as a terrorist organization.  Mujahedin-e Khalq is a Marxist-influenced group that conducted terrorist attacks in the 1970s that killed U.S. military and civilian personnel in Iran, has a long history of attacks against the Iranian clerical regime and advocates a secular government, according to a Federation of American Scientists fact sheet.

The Lashkar-Abad and Ramandeh sites are designed to complement a larger uranium enrichment facility near the city of Natanz, the existence of which the council disclosed last year, Samsami said (see GSN, May 9).  These sites are also intended to replace the Natanz facility in case it is attacked pre-emptively in an action similar to the 1981 Israeli air force operation, which destroyed Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear reactor.  The new facilities were also intended to operate clandestinely if Iran were forced to close Natanz because of increased international intervention, she said. 

The development of smaller nuclear-related sites, such as those in Lashkar-Abad and Ramandeh, is part of a two-fold strategy to help ensure the survivability of Iran’s nuclear program by adding a redundancy aspect, according to Samsami.  This strategy also includes the “showcasing” of the Bushehr nuclear reactor, currently being constructed for Iran by Russia, and using the public attention the Bushehr project receives to help provide cover for the development of other sites, Samsami said.

The information concerning the two new uranium enrichment sites was obtained through “highly placed” People’s Mujahedin of Iran sources within Iran, Samsami said, adding that similar sources have previously provided information on Iran’s biological weapons and ballistic missile programs (see GSN, May 16).

A senior U.N. official was quoted today by the New York Times as praising the information the council has previously released.

“This organization has been extremely on the mark in the past,” the U.N. official said.  “They are a group that seems to be privy to very solid and insider information,” the official added.

Both the Lashkar-Abad site and the Ramandeh site are operated by the Noor-Afza-Gostar Company, one of several alleged front companies employed by the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Samsami said.  The company’s board of directors includes Reza Aghazadeh, AEO director general; Jamshid Sabbaghzadeh, the company’s chief executive officer and an adviser to Aghazadeh; and Mohammad Saeedi, deputy CEO and head of the AEO’s international affairs department, according to Samsami.  The fact that several senior AEO officials sit on the board of the Noor-Afza-Gostar Company indicates the importance of the company to Iran’s nuclear efforts, Samsami said.

The council has made its information on the Ramandeh and Lashkar-Abad nuclear sites — which includes the exact addresses of both — available to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Bush administration, Jafarzadeh said,  urging the IAEA to move quickly to immediately inspect the two sites before they could be modified.

Back to top

Iran II:  Russia Plans to Continue Nuclear Assistance

Russia will continue to build an Iranian nuclear power plant in Bushehr, CNN.com reported today (see GSN, May 23).

“Russia does not see any reason now to review its stance and its role regarding construction of the first nuclear reactor,” said Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev.  “We will continue to fulfill our duties despite the fact that our position on this question is different to Washington’s official view,” he added (Reuters/CNN.com, May 27).

Iran has said it has the right to a nuclear energy program and maintained that it will continue its nuclear development.  Iranian President Mohammed Khatami said restrictions on its international trade must be dropped before Iran would agree to additional inspections by the the International Atomic Energy Agency (Mark Forbes, Sydney Morning Herald, May 27).

The European Union is also increasing pressure on Iran to drop its alleged nuclear weapons program, an effort that Iran denies.  Union officials said they could use trade negotiations to pressure Tehran, the Financial Times reported.

“We have to combine our approaches and work more sympathetically to get a clear message to Iran that it is in their interests to change,” said Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou (Judy Dempsey, Financial Times, May 27).

U.S. lawmakers said Sunday that Washington must exert pressure to depose Iran’s government, but not by force.

“Isolating the bad guys and taking the levers of power away from them is what’s got to happen,” said Representative Peter Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, during an interview on CBS’ Face the Nation (William Mann, Associated Press/Chicago Tribune, May 26).

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Might Be Softening, South Korean Official Says

North Korea might be ready to negotiate a deal to resolve the nuclear standoff on Korean Peninsula, South Korea’s top foreign policy adviser said recently (see GSN, May 23).

Ban Ki-moon said there are signs that North Korea is taking a softer stance on nuclear talks.  North Korea’s failing economy also leaves Pyongyang with little choice but to negotiate, according to Ban.

“The only way or option available to them is to negotiate with the international community with whatever they might have,” he said (Channel NewsAsia, May 27).

South Korean Vice Minister for Finance and Economy Kim Gwang-lim said Seoul would slow food deliveries to the North if Pyongyang escalated the current standoff.  During inter-Korean talks on economic cooperation last week, South Korea agreed to provide its neighbor with 400,000 tons of rice this year to help ease chronic food shortages in the impoverished North.

Asked by lawmakers if rice shipments would continue if cross-border relations deteriorated, Kim said “the government would then have to adjust the speed of delivering the rice” (Sang-hun Choe, Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle, May 27).

Seoul’s ambassador to Washington, meanwhile, said there is no chance of one-on-one talks between North Korea and the United States.  Last Saturday, North Korea indicated it was willing to accept multilateral talks after direct talks with the United States.

“There is no possibility of Washington accepting bilateral talks (with Pyongyang),” said Han Sung-joo.  “The United States finds it difficult to deal with Pyongyang in a bilateral setting because the nuclear concern affects Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing,” he added (Seo Hyun-jin, Korea Herald, May 27).

Bush, Koizumi Show United Front

A nuclear North Korea is unacceptable to U.S. President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, the pair said during last week’s Texas summit.

“We will not at all tolerate the possession, the development or the transfer of nuclear weapons by North Korea.  North Korea must promptly and completely dismantle all nuclear weapons development programs in a verifiable manner,” Koizumi said (White House transcript, May 27).

North Korea warned, however, that Japan will “meet a fatal fiasco” if it continues to walk in lockstep with Washington, Channel NewsAsia reported.

“The Japanese authorities are well advised to bear in mind that if they continue acting blindly to the tune of the U.S. out of their senses, they will only meet a fatal fiasco,” according to the Korean Central News Agency (Channel NewsAsia II, May 27).

Back to top

Russia:  Moscow to Launch Converted SS-19 ICBM June 30

Russia is scheduled to conduct a group satellite launch June 30 using a converted SS-19 ballistic missile, a spokesman for the Khrunichev space center said last week (see GSN, May 19).  The launch of the Rokot space launch vehicle, set to take place at the Plesetsk cosmodrome, will deliver eight satellites into orbit (ITAR-Tass, May 22 in FBIS-SOV, May 23).

Back to top

China:  U.S. Arsenal Will Continue to Dominate Beijing’s, Council on Foreign Relations Says

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — While China is working to modernize its armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, the United States will nevertheless possess “overwhelming dominance” over China’s nuclear forces in the long term, the Council on Foreign Relations said in a report released yesterday (see GSN, March 5).

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.

Back to top

North Korea:  Contentious Talks Continue in Pyongyang

Diplomats 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).

Back to top

South Asia:  No Peace Talks Soon, India Says

India 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).

Back to top

Iran:  Nuclear Fears Spark U.S. Discussion on Pressuring Tehran

Spurred 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).

Back to top

International Response:  Nuclear Suppliers Group Calls for Increased Vigilance Over North Korea

An 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).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia I:  RAND Report Says Accidental Launch Threat Growing

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The potential for an accidental or unauthorized nuclear missile launch in Russia or the United States has grown over the past decade despite warmer U.S.-Russian relations, according to a RAND report released yesterday.

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.]

Back to top

U.S.-Russia II:  Analysts Call for Less Reliance on Mutually Assured Destruction

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States and Russia should consider implementing a number of long-term confidence-building measures to help develop a better strategic partnership, according to a draft working paper prepared by U.S. and Russian nonproliferation think tanks released yesterday.

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.

Back to top

Iran:  Washington Cancels Nuclear Talks Over Terrorism Allegations

Quietly 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).

Back to top

Russia:  Submarine Dismantlement Agreement Signed in Stockholm

Russia 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).

Back to top

United States:  Uranium Experiment Explodes at Oak Ridge Plant

An 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).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP