NPT:  Geneva Meeting Ends Admitting Problems

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

United States:  Senate Committee Approves Bush Nuclear Weapons Objectives

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

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

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

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

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

Repeal of Low-Yield Nuke Ban

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

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

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

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

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

Testing Readiness

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

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

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

Cooperative Threat Reduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technology Source

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

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

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

State Department Keeps Up Pressure

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

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

Back to top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Russia:  Missile Submarine Completes Overhaul

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

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

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

Back to top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan Contemplated Pre-Emptive Attack

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

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

Back to top

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

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

South Asia I:  India Declines Pakistani Offer to Denuclearize

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

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

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

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

Back to top

United States II:  House Subcommittee Boosts Bomber Funding

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Iran:  IAEA Hears Iranian Defense of Nuclear Program

Reza Aghazadeh, president of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, briefed a closed meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna yesterday in an effort to deflect allegations of a secret Iranian nuclear weapon program (see GSN, May 6).

The United States has repeatedly accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons and U.S. officials are expected to press the IAEA to find Tehran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

“We are reaching a point where it is going to be difficult for Iran to prove that it is meeting its obligations under the” treaty, said a high-ranking U.S. official.  “We are hoping that a vote in June … will find them in violation,” the official added.

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton has pointed to gas centrifuges as evidence of Iran’s advanced nuclear capability (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002).

“We think … the overall clandestine way Iran has carried out this activity demonstrates why Iran is in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its safeguards agreement with the IAEA,” Bolton said.

A Western diplomat who heard Aghazadeh’s speech said the situation was concerning.

“It was a skillful performance,” said the diplomat.  “They tried to give the image of transparency without providing substance about their nuclear program.  We think they are hiding things,” the diplomat added.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov said, however, that the United States needs strong evidence to bring its allegations to the IAEA.

“For someone to be accused, one needs very hard proof.  So far there is no such proof either in the U.S.A. or in other countries,” he said (Geneive Abdo, Boston Globe, May 7).

During his presentation, Aghazadeh said that Tehran’s program was “only for peaceful purposes,” according to another diplomat present at the meeting (Associated Press/Raleigh News and Observer, May 6).

Back to top

North Korea I:  Washington Considers New Approach

The White House is considering adopting a policy toward North Korea that would combine new talks to resolve the conflict over Pyongyang’s relaunched nuclear program with increasing pressure by targeting North Korea’s illicit trade and ballistic missile sales, U.S. and Asian officials said yesterday (see GSN, May 6).

The new approach, which is expected to be further developed today during a meeting of U.S. President George W. Bush’s top foreign policy advisers, helps create a compromise between those who supported further talks with North Korea and those calling for a stronger approach, according to the Washington Post. 

“We signed up for the hard side in order to get the soft side,” said an official who favored further discussions.  “Some people only want the hard side,” the official said.

As part of the new approach, the Bush administration plans to insist that any new talks with North Korea include Japan and South Korea, in addition to China, officials said.  Such talks will also include the prospect of a policy that would “tighten the screws” on North Korea’s illicit trade activities, two officials said.

There is still debate within the White House as to how much the United States and its allies should begin to pressure North Korea, including whether to threaten new actions or to slowly begin them, officials said.  The Bush administration could also outline a progression of measures, such as first targeting illicit trade that finances Pyongyang and then moving against North Korea’s legal ballistic missile trade, the Post reported.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence analysts within the past 48 hours have detected increasing signs that North Korea has begun reprocessing its stockpile of 8,000 spent fuel rods to obtain plutonium, U.S. sources said yesterday.  During a series of talks with the United States and China in Beijing last month, North Korea claimed it had already begun reprocessing its spent fuel rods, but no signs of such activity had been detected until now (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, May 7).

Back to top

North Korea II:  Gallucci Says Nuclear Export Should Trigger U.S. Force

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — If North Korea attempts to sell nuclear weapons the United States should take military action, former U.S. diplomatic envoy Robert Gallucci said today (see GSN, May 6).

The United States should attempt to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the current nuclear crisis with North Korea, but nuclear proliferation is a line that Pyongyang should not be allowed to cross, according to Gallucci, the chief U.S. negotiator of the 1994 Agreed Framework that froze North Korea’s nuclear development program (see GSN, Feb. 27).

“Transfer [of nuclear materials] is the redline” for military force, Gallucci said.

During negotiations in Beijing two weeks ago, North Korea reportedly demanded steep economic and diplomatic concessions in exchange for dismantling its nuclear and missile development programs.  North Korean negotiators also told Assistant U.S. Secretary of State James Kelly that they had nuclear weapons and might test them or export them, depending on U.S. actions, according to reports.

Negotiations “start with extreme positions,” said Gallucci, now the dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.  Washington should pursue a diplomatic resolution to the standoff, but it would be “unacceptable” for nuclear weapons to be transferred to terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, he said.

U.S. officials, including U.S. President George W. Bush, have said they support a diplomatic resolution and a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula but Washington has not eliminated the possibility of a military strike.

In support of a diplomatic solution, Gallucci also said it would be hard to detect the export of a baseball-sized piece of plutonium.

“I don’t know how we can see that coming,” he said, adding that Washington should “deal with the problem long before it gets to that.”

Back to top

South Asia:  Pakistan Offers to Restore Ties With India

Following a similar move by India, Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said yesterday that his country would reopen air, road and rail links with India (see GSN, May 6).

Jamali announced plans for several new measures yesterday designed to help improve relations with India, including the release of Indian fishermen who had been detained after entering Pakistani waters, the return of both countries’ embassies to full staff and the resumption of cricket and field hockey matches between the two countries.  Both India and Pakistan have said their gestures could help lead to talks later this year to help resolve the status of the disputed Kashmir region.

“It is my hope that India will seize the moment, put aside the acrimony of the past and purposefully move forward with Pakistan to peacefully resolve all issues, including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir,” Jamali said (John Lancaster, Washington Post, May 7).

Jamali said he favored a tiered approach to negotiations with India, concluding with a bilateral summit between the countries’ leaders (Associated Press/USA Today, May 7).

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan praised the moves, a spokesman said yesterday.

“The secretary general warmly welcomes the series of reciprocal steps India and Pakistan have recently taken to ease tensions and improve bilateral relations,” the spokesman said in a press statement.  “He hopes that these steps … will lead to the strengthening of peace and stability in the entire South Asian region,” the spokesman added (U.N. release, May 6).

India, however, has rejected Pakistan’s offer, calling it “completely inadequate” because it does not address the issue of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, according to wire services.

Pakistan is attempting through its offer to return to a situation that existed between the two countries before a Dec. 13, 2001, attack on the Indian Parliament that India has claimed was supported by Pakistan, an official Indian source said. 

“Pakistan has tried to go back to the pre-Dec. 13 position without doing something tangible on cross-border terrorism,” the source said.  “This is an indication of a mindset which is not very positive,” the source added (Straits Times, May 7).

Senior Indian and Pakistani officials have warned that the chance of war between the two nuclear-armed rivals could dramatically increase if negotiations fail.

“The most dangerous moment is always when high expectations are dashed,” an Indian politician said (Edward Luce, Financial Times, May 6).

The United States yesterday called on India and Pakistan to exercise caution as they worked to improve relations.

“Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.  “Certainly there’s a lot of good things going on and we welcome that, we’ve encouraged that, we’re working with them on that.  But there’s certainly more things to do and more things that we’ll be talking to them about,” he said. 

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is expected to arrive in the region today for talks with both Pakistani and Indian officials.  During the talks, the U.S. delegation plans to focus on the issue of Kashmir, diplomatic sources said.  The United States plans to call on Pakistan to improve relations with India before attempting to seek a solution on the Kashmir issue, according to the sources.  The United States also plans to tell India that while it will call on Pakistan to end its support for cross-border terrorism, it also will not allow India to conduct a pre-emptive attack on Pakistan (Anwar Iqbal, United Press International, May 7).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Senior Russian Lawmaker Predicts Strong Support for Moscow Treaty

A senior Russian lawmaker said yesterday that he expected the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty to receive strong support when the lower house of the Russian Parliament debates its ratification next week (see GSN, May 5).

Konstantin Kosachyov, deputy chairman of the State Duma International Affairs Committee, said he expected the treaty to receive at least 260 votes.  At least 226 votes are needed for the treaty to be approved (RosBusinessConsulting Database, May 7).

Back to top

United States:  Air Force Considering Modifying Some Minuteman 3 ICBMs

The U.S. Air Force Space Command is considering enhancing the capabilities of a small number of Minuteman 3 ICBMs, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported this week (see GSN, June 11, 2002).

The Minuteman 3 Elite program would modify a small number of the 500 Minuteman 3 ICBMs in the U.S. arsenal, said an Air Force official.  Such modifications could include adding GPS navigation technology to the missile’s guidance system, extending the missile’s range or modifying the ability to adjust warhead effects, according to Aviation Week.  Such enhancements would be available in less than five years from the start of the program, which supporters say could be in 2006 (Robert Wall, Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 5).

Back to top

North Korea:  White House Denies Change in North Korea Approach

After reports that U.S. President George W. Bush had accepted the prospect of a nuclear North Korea and was looking chiefly to prevent nuclear proliferation, the White House yesterday denied its position had changed (see GSN, May 5).

“Our position remains the same, that the United States, as well as the international community, is concerned about North Korea possessing nuclear weapons and transferring nuclear material to others,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Washington and North Korea’s neighbors are in agreement on the issue.

“We do not want to see North Korea have a nuclear capability,” Powell said.  “We will continue to work with friends in the region — Japan, South Korea, China, Russia, Australia and others — to have a solid front in making it clear to North Korea that it would be in their best interests to remove and eliminate all programs and facilities that they have that would lead to the development of nuclear weapons,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, May 5).

South Korean officials said President Roh Moo Hyun intends to confirm a united opposition to a nuclear Korean Peninsula when he meets with Bush in Washington May 14.

“The major premise is that Seoul and Washington will not tolerate the North going nuclear, and the two leaders will cement a common position during the summit,” according to a senor officials in Seoul.

Seoul also disputed media reports that the White House had changed its approach to North Korea.

“I don’t think the report represents the position of the U.S. government, and I have never received any notion from Washington to that effect,” said Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan (Seo Hyun-jin, Korea Herald, May 6).

South Korea is also developing its own response to the proposal put forward by Pyongyang during talks with the United States in Beijing.  The proposal would dismantle North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities in return for steep economic and diplomatic concessions, according to U.S. officials.

“We are drawing up our final stance on the proposal presented by the North and will come up with a unified plan with the U.S. after close consultations,” Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuk said (Korea Times, May 5).

Back to top

South Asia:  Pakistan Proposes a Nuclear-Free South Asia

Pakistan yesterday offered to give up its arsenal of nuclear weapons if rival India did the same (see GSN, May 5).

“If India is ready to denuclearize, we would be very happy to denuclearize,” Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Aziz Ahmed Khan said.  “We can talk about that, but it will have to be mutual,” he said (CNN.com, May 5).

A Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman said his country’s nuclear weapons program has always been linked to India’s (see GSN, Jan. 30).  “Our position has been that we were forced into the situation because of Indian nuclear ambitions,” he said.

Pakistan also announced yesterday that it had received a “positive response” from India after inviting Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Islamabad (Rory McCarthy, London Guardian, May 6).

While India and Pakistan have made some progress in improving relations, more should be done to reduce tensions between them, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said today, one day before a scheduled trip to the region.

“I think we have got a lot of work to do to continue to lower the temperatures for two great countries, India and Pakistan, to be able to live in peace and stability with each other,” Armitage said in an interview with the BBC.

Armitage praised Pakistan’s offer yesterday to give up its nuclear weapons if India were to do the same, calling it a “good gesture.” 

“That would be a great sign of enormous progress ... but I think we have to keep our appetites under control,” he said.

Armitage and Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca are expected to arrive in Islamabad tomorrow, according to Agence France-Presse.  They are then scheduled to meet with senior Pakistani officials Thursday, U.S. and Pakistani officials said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 6).

Back to top

Iran:  Bolton Seeks Russian Support for U.S. Position at IAEA Meeting

The United States wants Russia to acknowledge that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons and to support the U.S. position during a meeting at the International Atomic Energy Agency next month, a senior U.S. State Department official said yesterday (see GSN, May 5).

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said he told top Russian officials during a recent meeting in Moscow about U.S. concerns with Iran’s nuclear efforts.  He said he hoped the IAEA would find that Iran had violated its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and that Russia’s support for the U.S. position would help sway the agency into making such a determination.  Recent statements by Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov appear to indicate that Russia is slowly coming around to the U.S. position, Bolton said (Judith Ingram, Associated Press/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 5).

U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin “have already agreed that it is neither in Russia’s interest nor in America’s interest to have a nuclear weapons-capable Iran,” Bolton said.  The reasons for Russia’s concern “should be obvious,” in part because Iran is also developing ballistic missiles and “here in Moscow we’re a lot closer to Iran than I am when I go back to Washington,” he said (David Holley, Los Angeles Times, May 6).

Bolton’s trip to Moscow has been seen as preparation for a Bush-Putin summit scheduled for June 1 in St. Petersburg.  U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is expected to travel to Moscow next week to further prepare for the meeting (Jonathan Wright, Reuters/Yahoo!News, May 6).

Back to top

Iran II:  German Businessman Might Have Prevented Nuclear Smuggling

A German businessman’s instinct about an unusual shipment might have prevented an illegal transfer of nuclear weapons-related electronics to Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, May 5).

Frank Behlke, a German electronics manufacturer, called police in the middle of the night last November about a suspicious order his company had shipped out earlier that evening, and his tip led to a police raid that recovered the 44 high-voltage switches and led to an investigation that continues today.

The switches can trigger sound waves that demolish kidney stones or sterilize food, but also could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon, the Journal reported.

German businesswoman Eva-Marie Hack had ordered 44 switches and had insisted on a Friday that Behlke’s firm deliver them overnight to her German address.  The fact that Behlke usually sold no more than two of the switches each year — and that German technicians typically don’t work on weekends — alarmed Behlke, the Journal reported.

“When I saw ‘express courier,’” Behlke said, “I knew the triggers were leaving Germany.”

German intelligence officials said the switches were headed to Iran to be used in a nuclear weapons program.  The same officials estimate that Iran is five years from indigenously developing nuclear weapons.

German customs investigators said that Hack ordered the switches on behalf of Eddie Johansson, a native Iranian with Swedish citizenship.  Johansson probably intended to divert the switches to Iran, according to the Journal.

By ordering the switches for domestic delivery, Hack and Johansson were possibly trying to circumvent export control regulations that require exporters to monitor how their buyers use their dual-use products, the Journal reported.

Zaeim Electronic Industries Co. in Tehran, the alleged recipient of the switches, denied involvement.

“We strongly deny that we have been in the way of acquiring military equipment (or) nuclear,” the company said in a faxed statement.

Hack was held for questioning with an alleged co-conspirator, but she denies any wrongdoing.  Johansson left the country shortly after the raid on Hack’s house, according to the Journal (David Crawford, Wall Street Journal, May 6).

Back to top

CTBT:  Mauritania Ratifies Treaty

Mauritania has ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it was announced yesterday (see GSN, April 30).  Mauritania deposited its instrument of ratification with the United Nations April 30.  One hundred nations have so far ratified the treaty, including 31 of the 44 whose ratification is needed for the treaty to enter into force (CTBT Organization release, May 5).

The CTBT Organization, which oversees the treaty, yesterday noted progress made in the treaty’s ratification and implementation.  In addition to 100 countries ratifying the treaty, almost half of the regime’s 337 planned International Monitoring System facilities have been constructed, with another 80 under construction or in contract negotiations, the organization said (CTBTO release II, May 5).

Back to top

North Korea I:  United Front Needed On North Korea

By Lee Michael Katz

National Journal

Winston Lord has high-level experience in deciphering the mysteries of North Korea and the nuances of Asian diplomacy.  Lord served in the 1980s as U.S. ambassador to China and in the 1990s as assistant secretary of state in charge of China and Korea policy.  He was intimately involved in negotiating the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, which was intended to limit Pyongyang's nuclear program in exchange for U.S. aid.

Veteran diplomatic correspondent Lee Michael Katz interviewed Lord on April 28.  In the following excerpts, Lord puts some context around the recent three-way nuclear talks in Beijing, which included the United States, North Korea, and China.  He also talks about South Korea's fears, China's balancing act, Japan's changing military posture, and the merits of a potential pre-emptive U.S strike on North Korea.

National Journal: Did Kim Jong Il's North Korean regime seek to threaten the United States by saying in the Beijing talks that it possessed nuclear weapons?

Winston Lord: Just because North Korea says it, doesn't mean it's true.  You never can be sure about what is bluster and what is fact.  It's consistent with their traditional policy in negotiations to inject a sense of urgency to extract further concessions.

There is a very good chance they do have one or two nuclear weapons.  That's been our suspicion for several years.  Their motives for declaring they have nukes now could be to deter us from military pressure, figuring we wouldn't want to take on a country with nuclear weapons.  They may have drawn lessons from Saddam Hussein.  Namely, it's better to have nukes before you go up against the United States.

NJ: Does North Korea fear being the next U.S. military target?

Lord: That is clearly their allegation.  It serves useful bargaining purposes to rally their people against an external threat.  There is a good chance they genuinely fear us, given the paranoid nature of their regime.

They cite [U.S.] President [George W.] Bush's listing them as one of the “axis of evil” — and they see that we've gone after one of those three.  Incidentally, they have suggested they now don't want to commit to future inspections of their nuclear capability because they saw this was a prelude to an attack on Iraq.

You've got to always remember that whatever North Koreans say today, they could change tomorrow.  Indeed, they're going to have to change if we're ever to have a deal, because they cheated on the last agreement, under the Clinton administration, and the United States will rightfully insist on even more-intrusive inspections and verification in any further deal.

NJ: Weren't you worried they'd cheat when the deal was made in 1994?

Lord: We never had any illusions about dangers.  We had no good choices.  We couldn't ignore North Korea's being on the threshold of developing nuclear weapons.  A military strike raised the risk of a war that we would win, but only after perhaps a million South Korean and American casualties.

So we chose to negotiate an agreement that froze the North Korean nuclear programs and called for their future dismantlement.  The North Koreans cheated on that agreement well before the Bush administration ever took office.  That deal was the best option at the time, but “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”  We must not go down the same road of the early 1990s.

NJ: Members of the Bush administration say they're in this mess because of the Clinton administration.  Are they right?

Lord: The current members of the Bush administration never offered an alternative in the early 1990s.  They just complained about the agreement.  Without that agreement, North Korea today could have dozens of nuclear weapons instead of the maximum of one or two they do have.

NJ: North Korea says it just offered a "bold new" deal, apparently to scrap not only its nuclear program, but its ballistic missile testing and missile exports, too.

Is that possible?

Lord: They have suggested something like this before.  We would have to cover not only the nuclear dimensions, but also the missile programs.  They've tested a three-stage missile, which we think could reach Hawaii, and they're on their way toward developing something that could reach the West Coast.

Obviously, we should try to end up with this kind of deal, but it will be possible only in a multilateral context, namely the involvement of other key players.  Pressure by the U.S. alone will not suffice, because China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia are needed to make isolation and sanctions effective.  Incentives by the U.S. alone will not tempt North Korea.

Can you imagine the U.S. Congress saying, “OK, we can give some aid to Kim Jong Il”?  The only aid we give is humanitarian aid, and I would question even that unless we're absolutely sure it reaches the people, as opposed to the military.

NJ: As a former ambassador, how do you see the Chinese role in hosting these talks?

Lord: From what I've learned both publicly and privately, the Chinese have been much more helpful in recent weeks.  Having said that, and having stoutly supported the administration on a multilateral approach, I was frankly unhappy with the Beijing trilateral format.

It looked to me like a fig leaf for essentially bilateral talks between the United States and North Korea, with the Chinese acting essentially as conveners.  I would have held out, however difficult it might have been, for the inclusion of the Japanese and South Koreans, if not the Russians.

NJ: In its recent talks with South Korea, North Korea insisted that Seoul has no role to play in the nuclear talks.  What is the effect of that?

Lord: It's demoralizing for the South Koreans to be left out, even though the new regime there is partly to blame.  After 50 years of telling us not to deal with North Koreans directly, the South Koreans in the last couple of years have pushed us to talk to them bilaterally.  So they shouldn't be surprised when the North Koreans continue to treat them like a puppet regime and say they will only deal with us on these security questions.

NJ: What does it mean for the upcoming summit between President Bush and South Korea's president, Roh Moo Hyun?

Lord: It's crucial we show a united front.  And the South Korean president, as he has begun to, must make the case for the American security alliance and troop presence, rather than stirring up anti-Americanism, which he did during his campaign.

NJ: Everyone assumes that China and Russia don't want North Korea to go nuclear, but is that correct?  Might they actually like to see the powerful United States embarrassed over North Korea?

Lord: Not on this issue.  China is concerned about America's overwhelming power as demonstrated in Afghanistan and now in Iraq.  But this issue of the Korean Peninsula is too radioactive for the Chinese.  The Chinese are totally schizophrenic on this.

They clearly don't want renewed conflict perhaps dragging them into a war against us, as in the 1950s.  They don't want a nuclear North Korea because of concerns around their border — they already have problems with India and Pakistan.  They're worried this will induce other countries, particularly Japan, to go after the nuclear option, or missile defense.  China always acts in its self-interest, and it is to prevent a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia.

NJ: Does China want North Korea to reform slowly, instead of collapsing or provoking a U.S. attack?

Lord: China doesn't want a collapse in North Korea, with hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring over its border, or the prospect of a united peninsula under U.S.-South Korean control.

China's preferred outcome continues to be for North Korea to undergo the reforms China has made to open up trade and investment and move toward a more privatized economy — while maintaining tight political control.

NJ: Does Japan also believe in South Korea's “sunshine policy” of gradually warming ties with the North?  Would anything so outrage Japan that it would also take a hard line on North Korea?

Lord: Japan tried its own version of a sunshine policy when Prime Minister [Junichiro] Koizumi went to Pyongyang.  Since then, things have turned sour.  What would outrage Japan would be further testing of missiles that could hit Japan.

When North Korea did this a few years ago, it had a profound impact on Japan.

Most extraordinary, the Japanese defense minister has raised the prospect of pre-emptive Japanese strikes against North Korea if Japan felt threatened.  For good old pacifist Japan to be making those comments shows the impact North Korean actions are having in Tokyo.

NJ: Would Kim Jong Il ever open the repressive society founded by his dictator father?

Lord: There's no question Kim Jong Il was competing with Saddam Hussein to have the worst regime in the world.  It's the most opaque, unpredictable, paranoid regime.  As we look back on the last several decades, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao get the gold medals for ugly regimes, and Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and Kim — father and son — get the silver medals.

Like all dictators, Kim will be nervous about opening up his society and losing control of his people, who have been walled off from the international community and truth.  If he does not, he could lose control anyway because of severe economic dislocation.

NJ: Saddam Hussein was quickly ousted with military action.  Should we do the same thing with Kim Jong Il?

Lord: We should never take the military option off the table, and the administration has not done so.  That is needed for diplomatic and negotiating leverage and might well be required as a final resort.  Leaving aside whether North Korea has nuclear weapons for retaliation, there are huge dangers with the military option.  We can't be sure a surgical strike would eliminate all North Korean nuclear facilities, and it would be violently opposed by the South Koreans.

I believe that current American military estimates of casualties before we could win are in the million-person range, mostly South Koreans, but also American forces.

NJ: What are the prospects for America's seeking U.N. sanctions against North Korea?

Lord: It's a good idea, and I think the prospects are lousy.  I would certainly explore this option, but I'm pessimistic the Chinese or the South Koreans would go along.  The Chinese are generally opposed to sanctions and international pressures.

NJ: What is the best way to get North Korea to change for the long term, not just on this short-term nuclear crisis?

Lord: Iraq took a military invasion, and that is not an option anybody wants to pursue.  International isolation and sanctions squeezing the regime and bringing it down would be my preferred outcome, but it's not feasible at this point, and you cannot have it as a stated goal.  We don't want to be in the habit of proposing regime changes all around the world, no matter how ugly the regimes are.

The other problem is of sequencing.  We cannot agree to simultaneity or we'll be engaged in endless distortion, delay, and bribery while the North Korean nuclear and missile programs go forward.  On the other hand, we can't expect a unilateral North Korean surrender in negotiations.  So the North Koreans would have to go first, but knowing they would get a positive response.  They would also know that if they refused to follow this route, they would face increasing strangulation.

Back to top

South Asia:  India, Pakistan Prepare for Possible Talks

India and Pakistan began over the weekend to prepare for possible talks to resolve their Kashmir dispute — a move Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee proposed last week (see GSN, May 2).

Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said Saturday a formal invitation had been sent to Vajpayee to visit Islamabad for talks (Nirmala George, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 3).  

Vajpayee, however, declined the invitation yesterday, saying “careful groundwork” was still needed.

“The prime minister emphasized the need for careful preparation,” India’s official spokesman said.  “We have repeatedly expressed the need to create a conducive atmosphere, which requires an end to cross-border terrorism and dismantling of its infrastructure,” he said (Edward Luce, Financial Times, May 4).

Jamali has called on his country’s political parties to begin developing a joint strategy for the proposed talks with India, BBC News reported today.

Jamali has invited Pakistani political leaders to Islamabad to decide on Pakistan’s position for the proposed talks.  Jamali has also indicated he is prepared to announce new measures designed to improve relations with India prior to any meeting, according to BBC News (BBC News, May 5).

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the military and the intelligence service all support Pakistan’s new efforts to seek peace with India, Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri said.

“As foreign minister of Pakistan, I am privy to many meetings,” Kasuri said.  “The present process has the complete backing of President Musharraf.  He is very much on board,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 4).

Musharraf himself said yesterday that Pakistan and India could mutually disarm themselves of nuclear weapons if their Kashmir dispute could be resolved.

“We have been saying that if there is no problem to our security, Pakistan and India can move to mutual reduction of forces and have a no-war pact — this has been our stand,” Musharraf said (DAWN, May 5).

The United States has praised India and Pakistan’s decision to hold talks, according to the Associated Press.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha to praise the talks, a Sinha spokesman said Saturday.  Powell also praised the decision to hold talks during a conversation Saturday with Jamali, AP reported.

Powell “assured the prime minister that the United States would continue to make efforts to promote better understanding between India and Pakistan enabling the resumption of dialogue leading to peaceful resolution of problems between the two countries,” the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said in a statement (George, Associated Press).

Kasuri has praised the United States for playing a “very positive role” in the two countries’ decision to hold talks over Kashmir.

“The U.S. is an honest broker.  There is no doubt the U.S. and Europe want this issue settled,” Kasuri said in an interview with the Indian magazine Outlook.  “The U.S. has been very active in the last year.  Suffice it to say that the U.S has played a very positive role,” he said (Agence France-Presse).

Back to top

North Korea II:  Bush Looks to Contain North Korean Nuclear Weapons

As Pyongyang threatens to develop nuclear weapons, U.S. President George W. Bush is shifting his focus toward preventing North Korean proliferation of nuclear material or devices, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, May 2).

James Kelly, the top U.S. negotiator with North Korea, briefed Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard during a Saturday meeting at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.

“The president said that the central worry is not what they’ve got, but where it goes,” said an official familiar with the Crawford talks.  “He’s very pragmatic about it, and the reality is that we probably won’t know the extent of what they are producing.  So the whole focus is to keep the plutonium from going further,” the official added.

Bush’s new focus could signal an acceptance that preventing North Korean nuclear development might be impossible.

Some experts question, however, the feasibility of preventing North Korean proliferation.

“It’s a fantasy to think you can put a hermetic seal around North Korea and keep them from getting a grapefruit-size piece of plutonium out of the country,” said Ashton Carter, a Harvard University professor who was involved in Korean issues during the Clinton administration.  “To allow North Korea to go nuclear is a major defeat for U.S. security,” he added.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, said that the United States is still pushing North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

“Everybody has now made it clear to North Korea that they will not find any assistance coming to them from the region in terms of economic development,” Powell said.  “Unless they abandon their nuclear weapons programs,” he added.

A U.S. official familiar with Bush’s North Korea strategy agreed that economic aid is a key factor in pressuring Pyongyang, the Times reported.  North Korea is attempting to rile Washington with a variety of vague nuclear threats and announcements, the official said.

Bush’s answer is “you’re hungry, and you can’t eat plutonium,” according to the official (David Sanger, New York Times, May 5).

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to rule out military action during a television appearance Sunday.

“The United States government … has never really leapt up and ruled things out.  It’s not a helpful thing,” he said on Fox News Sunday (United Press International, May 4).

North Korea, meanwhile, expressed frustration with the lack of an official U.S. response to its proposal to scrap nuclear and missile programs in exchange for steep economic and diplomatic concessions.

“If the U.S. does not positively respond to the D.P.R.K.’s bold proposal, it will be held accountable for scuttling all efforts for dialogue and seriously straining the situation,” according to North Korea’s state-run newspaper, Rodong Sinmun (Associated Press/MSNBC.com, May 5).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Senior U.S., Russian Officials to Discuss Moscow Treaty Ratification

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton met today with Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev and Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov in Moscow to discuss arms control and nonproliferation issues (see GSN, April 10). 

During the meeting, the officials were expected to discuss prospects for the ratification of the Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty, according to the Associated Press.  U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin could exchange the treaty’s instruments of ratification during a meeting in St. Petersburg scheduled for later this month, a senior Bush administration official said (Associated Press, May 5).

Meanwhile, the lower house of the Russian Parliament could begin debating the treaty’s ratification next week, a senior Russian lawmaker said today (see GSN, April 9).  Dmitry Rogozin, head of the State Duma’s foreign affairs committee, said he would propose May 16 as the date to begin the debate (Agence France-Presse, May 5).

Back to top

Iran:  Washington Pushes Moscow to End Iranian Nuclear Cooperation

A top U.S. nonproliferation official attempted during Moscow talks today to discourage Russia from further nuclear cooperation with Iran, Reuters reports (see GSN, May 2).

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton met with Russian officials, including Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev.  The United States has consistently accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, and U.S. officials are frustrated with Russian cooperation on an allegedly civilian Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

“Although an Iranian nuclear weapons capability may be years down the road, time moves quickly and they may have a lot of activity going on that we don’t know about,” said a senior U.S. official in Moscow.

Russia has previously said Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, but Rumyantsev said in March that Moscow could not determine if Tehran had nuclear weapons aspirations.

“The Russian view before was that there is no Iranian clandestine nuclear weapons program, but I think that view has changed,” the U.S. official said (Reuters/New York Times, May 5).

Rumyantsev and Bolton said today that there is not yet any reason or evidence to cite Iran for violating its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency.  A Russian atomic ministry official acknowledged, however, that “some issues remain outstanding” (Agarkov/Pshenichnikova, ITAR-Tass, May 5).

Back to top

United States:  Pentagon Officials, Arms Control Experts Advocate Using Conventional Weapons Against Buried Targets

Some U.S. Defense Department officials and arms control advocates have called for using conventional weapons to destroy deeply buried targets, eliminating the need for new “bunker-busting” nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, April 25).

Among those advocating using conventional weapons, instead of nuclear warheads, to destroy deeply buried targets is Adm. James Ellis Jr., head of the U.S. Strategic Command, according to the Post.  Ellis has said he wants to reduce dependence on nuclear weapons by using conventional guided munitions to destroy buried targets.  If such weapons cannot penetrate to where bunkers might be located, then U.S. troops can attack the sites to render their entrances and exits unusable, he said.  Ellis has also said he wants to employ U.S. Special Forces to guide conventional air attacks on bunker sites.

“This innovative approach will enable (Strategic Command) to deliberately and adaptively plan and rapidly deliver limited-duration, non-nuclear combat power anywhere in the world,” Ellis told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee last month.

Some arms control advocates have said that guided conventional weapons would be more effective than nuclear warheads against buried targets because a nuclear weapon could not penetrate the ground far enough without destroying itself or creating huge amounts of fallout.  For example, a nuclear bomb or missile warhead could only penetrate the ground to a depth of 50 feet, according to nuclear physicist Sidney Drell.  To be effective, a more than 100-kiloton weapon would be needed to destroy a target buried 1,000 feet underground.

Drell has said that a new pilot hole weapons system project currently being developed by the Sandia National Laboratories could be a more effective option.  In this program, one detonation creates a hole above a target, and then guided munitions are directed at the same hole, he said.

“You have successive explosions, and you can increase the depth to which you penetrate,” Drell said (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, May 4).

Back to top

Russia:  Tokyo, Moscow to Begin Scrapping Nuclear Submarines

Japan and Russia are expected to begin scrapping and removing nuclear materials from more than 40 decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines off Russia’s eastern coast this summer, officials said Saturday (see GSN, Jan. 22).

The two countries are expected to sign an agreement on the dismantling effort later this month, the officials said.  The project, expected to take about a year, is set to begin in August after radioactive wastes and spent fuels are removed from the 41 submarines, the officials said (Daily Yomiuri, May 5).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP