Iran Backpedals, Promises Continuing IAEA Cooperation

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — Under fire over allegations of clandestine nuclear weapon development, Iran appeared this morning to soften its line on cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, while the United States sought to place the Iranian question in the context of concerns over North Korea’s nuclear programs.

As the International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference opened a weeklong meeting here today, Iranian Vice President for Atomic Energy Gholamreza Aghazadeh told the assembled delegates that Iran’s “cooperation with the agency within the framework of comprehensive safeguards shall continue as before” and that talks will continue on Iran’s signature of the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement.

Three days ago, Iran walked out of an IAEA Board of Governors meeting as the board assigned it an Oct. 31 deadline for increasing cooperation (see GSN, Sep. 12).

Minutes before the walkout, Iranian envoy Ali Akbar Salehi vowed Tehran would conduct a “deep review” of its cooperation with the agency — a relationship that includes regular IAEA activity in Iran and talks on the Additional Protocol, which would allow for more intrusive IAEA monitoring.

Despite Iran’s more moderate statement today, there are indications that Tehran has not finalized its policy on how to handle IAEA demands for greater transparency of its nuclear ambitions.  News agencies have reported that hard-line Iranian press commentators have called for Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 

Salehi himself raised this possibility Wednesday in an interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel, in which he discussed possible Iranian responses to the then-proposed IAEA deadline.

“We could at first limit our cooperation with the IAEA to a minimum, to that which we have committed ourselves. … We could also put a stop to cooperation.  And as a last measure, I cannot rule out we could withdraw from the NPT,” he said.

Yesterday, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tehran was still studying its options.

“The nature of our cooperation with the IAEA is under consideration.  The relevant authorities are discussing that and our decision will be made public in the future,” Hamid Reza Asefi said, as reported by Agence France-Presse.

Top U.S. Official Weighs In

The United States has led the way in voicing concerns that Iran could be seeking to develop a nuclear weapon under the cover of technical cooperation with the IAEA.  Leading the U.S. delegation to this week’s general conference, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham today expressed caution about Iran’s latest vow to cooperate, as he expressed concern that Iran is seeking “capabilities that, obviously, can be used for evil purposes … nuclear weapons.”

“This is pretty simple.  I mean, either you’re pursuing a program that is a peaceful-use program, and you’ve got nothing to hide, or you’re not,” Abraham told reporters this afternoon.  In the latter case, he said, contradictions between IAEA findings and Iranian claims about its nuclear program become “understandable.”

“Time will tell, obviously,” Abraham said of Iran’s statement this morning, nevertheless calling the statement “a more hopeful comment.”

The energy secretary said in a plenary speech earlier today that countries “must deal immediately and effectively with any state seeking to exploit the treaty to its own advantage.”

Abraham said the case of North Korea, which ejected IAEA inspectors from its facilities in December, “send[s] a worrisome message to other would-be proliferants.”

“That message,” he said, “asserts that a state can be a member of the NPT, enjoy its benefits and still put in place the assets it needs to break out of the treaty and pronounce itself a nuclear weapon state.  This is the wrong message, and we must learn from this chain of events and not allow it to happen again.”

The board’s resolution Friday, said Abraham, “makes clear that the D.P.R.K. precedent is unacceptable and that the nonproliferation regime can withstand serious challenges when member states are prepared to take firm and necessary action.”

Aghazadeh said today that Iran supports strengthening the global IAEA nuclear safeguards regime for “strategic” reasons, mentioning Israeli nuclear weapons repeatedly as a prime Iranian concern.  Keeping Iran’s nuclear energy program under IAEA safeguards, the vice president said, is in part intended to spur movement toward a Middle East nuclear weapon-free zone.

Despite indicating that Iran will not turn its back on the safeguards regime over last week’s action, Aghazadeh took up this morning where Salehi left off Friday, sharply criticizing the United States in particular and the Board of Governors in general for the process that led to the U.S.-backed resolution to set the Oct. 31 deadline.

In characterizing last week’s proceedings, Aghazadeh spoke of “false attribution [of positions] to the Secretariat,” “arm-twisting in many capitals” and “stonewalling” of Nonaligned Movement attempts to soften the board’s resolution and achieve consensus.

“This is unilateralism at its worst — that is to say, extreme unilateralism posed under a multilateralist cloak.  We believe there is more to this resolution than meets the eye at the first glance.  There is an agenda behind it that is conceived in escalating tension and chaos to divert attention from serious issues that deal with partisan politics in the United States,” he said.

Nevertheless, said Aghazadeh, “We will study the resolution carefully and will respond to it officially in a few days.”

Asked about the charge of unilateralism, Abraham said, “The actions that were taken last week were not unilateral.  They were consensus actions taken by this organization.”  Technically, the board’s resolution Friday was not passed by consensus but simply approved without a vote.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei called it “essential and urgent that all outstanding issues [with Iran] — particularly those involving high-enriched uranium — be brought to closure as soon as possible,” adding that “this is in the interests of both Iran and the international community.”

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a message delivered today by Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs Nobuyasu Abe, praised the IAEA’s “continuing efforts to strengthen international safeguards — in particular, to promote conclusion of Additional Protocols by Iran and other states and to encourage other countries to conclude safeguards activities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”

Back to top

U.S. Senators Seek to Stop Nuclear Weapons Research Funding

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) are set to offer an amendment today to the fiscal 2004 energy and water appropriations bill that would eliminate the Bush administration’s request for funding for the research and development of new nuclear weapons.

The amendment would cut the entire $21 million requested by the Bush administration for the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons and the Robust Earth Nuclear Penetrator, Feinstein spokesman Scott Gerber told Global Security Newswire today (see GSN, Aug. 14).  The amendment would also prohibit spending for reducing the time needed to prepare the Nevada Test Site for resumed nuclear testing (see GSN, Sept. 3), and for developing a new plutonium “pit” production facility, which would produce new triggers for nuclear weapons, Gerber said (see GSN, June 3).

In July, the House of Representatives approved its version of the energy appropriations bill, which contained similar funding reductions as Feinstein and Kennedy’s amendment (see GSN, July 16).  The House version of the bill cut all $6 million requested by the Bush administration for the development of low-yield weapons and reduced the White House’s $15 million request for the Robust Earth Nuclear Penetrator to $5 million.  In addition, the House also eliminated the Bush administration’s $24 million request to shorten the time needed to prepare the Nevada Test Site for new testing and reduced the Bush administration’s request for a new pit production facility from $22.8 million to $10 million.

Feinstein is “hopeful” that the amendment, which is expected to be cosponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (R-Ore.), will pass, Gerber said.  Feinstein believes that it is “important to not open the nuclear door” through the development of new nuclear weapons systems, he said.

Back to top

Pentagon Considering Minuteman 3 ICBM Successor

The U.S. Defense Department is considering the development of a new land-based ICBM to replace the current Minuteman 3, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported this week (see GSN, Sept. 10).

Last month, the Pentagon issued a “request for information” for concepts for a planned replacement of the Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile, according to Jane’s.  The Pentagon has begun examining replacements for the Minuteman starting in 2018 because many of the current missiles are aging, according to Col. Rick Patenaude, chief of Deterrence and Strike in the requirements division of the U.S. Air Force Space Command.  The service has determined that another service-life extension of the Minuteman 3 would be difficult and not cost-effective, Patenaude said. 

The study also includes an examination as to whether a single missile or family of missiles could be used to conduct both nuclear and conventional strikes, according to Jane’s (see GSN, Feb. 24).

In addition, the Navy has released a request for information on a new submarine-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile, Jane’s reported.  The request specifically discusses the possibility that a single missile could be used to perform both nuclear and conventional strikes (Andrew Koch, Jane’s Defense Weekly, Sept. 17).

Back to top

North Korea Willing to Resume Six-Nation Talks

North Korea has agreed to participate in another round of six-nation talks in November to discuss the Korean peninsula’s nuclear crisis, Japan’s Kyodo News agency reported Friday (see GSN, Sept. 12).

Citing diplomatic sources in Moscow, the news service said North Korean officials had notified Russia and other parties to the multilateral talks that first met last month (see GSN, Sept. 2).  Officials were still working to set the exact date of the next round which would likely included North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States (Korea Times, Sept. 14).

Meanwhile, China has deployed 150,000 troops along its border with North Korea in the wake of the August talks, where North Korea reportedly professed to have nuclear weapons and threatened to demonstrate one, the South China Morning Post reported yesterday.

Large troop movements, new military barracks, and air force activity have all been seen along the 1,400-kilometer border, sources said.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry source said the buildup was intended to deter North Korean nuclear ambitions and to encourage Pyongyang to continue negotiations, the Sing Tao Daily reported (BBC Monitoring, Sept. 15).

Back to top

Iran Receives IAEA Deadline, Walks Out in Protest

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors today passed a resolution setting a deadline for increased Iranian cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, but only after the Iranian delegation stormed out of the meeting, expressing fears of a U.S. invasion of Iran and threatening to suspend cooperation with international nuclear inspectors.

Amid widespread concerns about possible covert nuclear weapons development in Iran, the U.S.-backed resolution sets a deadline of Oct. 31 for Iran to provide the board with extensive new information on its nuclear activities and “unrestricted access to locations the agency deems necessary” in Iran.

The resolution calls on Iran to “remedy all failures identified by the agency and cooperate fully with the agency to ensure verification of compliance with Iran’s safeguards agreement” and specifically demands detailed information on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities.

U.S. envoy Kenneth Brill told reporters the measure “gives full backing to the agency’s efforts to get to the bottom of the Iran nuclear issue.”

The board is scheduled to meet next in November, but could meet earlier if needed, to hear a new report on Iran from IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.  The body could send the matter to the U.N. Security Council if it finds Iran in noncompliance with its nuclear safeguards commitments.  Brill called the board’s obligation to do so “quite clear.”

In a statement read to the closed meeting just before the walkout and provided to reporters without further comment, Iranian envoy Ali Akbar Salehi said the resolution’s passage would “kill an otherwise constructive process” and that Iran would find itself with “no choice but to have a deep review of our existing level and extent of engagement with the agency vis-a-vis this resolution.”

Asked about the threat, ElBaradei said, “They will get over that.  They will see that it is in their interest to cooperate with us in the next few weeks.”

He added that Iran’s intention to “review” its relationship with the agency is understandable, given the events of the day.

“I hope … they will come to the right conclusion, in my view, which is to enhance cooperation with the agency,” he said.

One nonproliferation expert said the Iranian delegation was angry right now, but that Iranian plans would be better judged in the days and weeks ahead.

“Salehi and others in the more moderate faction in Iran have been sending signals for long time saying if you make this [resolution] too sharp against Iran, it inflames the [Iranian] hardliners who didn’t want to cooperate in the first place,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

If Iran reduces its level of cooperation with the IAEA, then “that indicates that they have something they wish to hide,” said U.S. delegate Brill.

According to a U.S. statement presented at the end of today’s meeting, the resolution “conveys an unequivocal message that when legitimate questions are raised, the international community will not be satisfied or deflected by policies of delay, denial and deception.”

Another expert, Jon Wolfsthal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, praised the U.S. approach in Vienna.

“The U.S. is doing this about right.  It’s using the diplomatic tools at its disposal.  It’s using its allies to pressure Iran.  Iran is trying to push back, but it’s unclear whether it will get support,” he said.

Iran Voices Fear of U.S. Invasion Plan

Salehi accused the United States of using the resolution to pursue a “fast pass to the Security Council.”  The IAEA, Salehi said, is making progress in Iran and wishes to continue along the path it is now on, but the United States is bent on sending the matter to the Security Council and, ultimately, confronting Iran militarily.

“Every state can draw up and perceive threats, real or imaginary, as they wish.  They may also build up hoopla around such perceptions and elevate them to the level of highest international priority, as they can.  They can spin the facts, deceive and lie, as they want.  They are even able to wield massive power to crush the conceived culprit, as they do,” Salehi said.

“It is no secret,” he continued, “that the current U.S. administration, or at least its influential circle, entertains the idea of invasion of yet another territory, as they aim to reshape and re-engineer the entire Middle East region.”

ElBaradei appeared to contradict Salehi’s claim that the resolution puts the board at odds with the agency, saying instead that the resolution sends a “very powerful message of support for the agency’s work” and a “very powerful message to Iran that they need to cooperate.”

“We are in fact providing a service right now in Iran,” ElBaradei added, by helping the country to demonstrate that it is acting transparently and that its nuclear programs are for peaceful purposes.

Salehi also accused the United States of seeking to deny Iran its right to nuclear power.  He said Washington seeks a perpetual series of new obligations for Iran, so that the country can never “enjoy its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear activity without hindrance and impediment.”

The United States, Salehi said, seeks to impose “full and complete deprivation of Iran from pursuing its peaceful program. … The U.S. intention behind this saga is nothing but to make this deprivation final and eternal.”

The United States said in its statement this evening, however, “there is no right to nuclear energy for ‘putatively peaceful’ or ‘presumably peaceful’ purposes.  The whole NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] framework makes clear the right involves the use of nuclear material only for verifiably peaceful purposes and thus in conjunction with effective safeguards.”

Consensus Passage Sought in Vain

Today’s measure was adopted without a vote, but technically did not enjoy consensus.  Asked what such passage signifies, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said, “No country stood up and said, ‘We want this to be a vote.’ … It doesn’t necessarily mean that all countries agree with it.”

Debate on the resolution boiled down to a single word earlier today, with a large majority on the board supporting the measure in principle but cautious about language some said could amount to an ultimatum.

According to Western diplomats, the last debate that delayed passage of the text today hinged on the presence of the word “definitive” in the final words of the resolution.  Through the language in question, which remains in the text passed today, the board asked ElBaradei to report in November or earlier on Iran’s implementation of the resolution, “enabling the board to draw definitive conclusions.”

Two diplomats said the United States alone was opposing the removal of the word “definitive” from the sentence, with nearly all other countries on the 35-member board willing to delete the word in the interest of near-consensus — total consensus being impossible owing to Iran’s unconditional rejection of the measure.

In related action, the Nonaligned Movement proposed numerous amendments to the resolution in a search for consensus, but the proposals were turned down by the resolution’s sponsors, according to Malaysian envoy Hussein Haniff, speaking for the Nonaligned Movement.  The movement did succeed in attaching a statement to the final resolution — not part of the resolution itself — expressing its reservations on certain points.

Back to top

North Korea Suspends Plutonium Reprocessing, Offers No Explanation

U.S. officials yesterday confirmed reports that North Korea has stopped activity at its nuclear reprocessing facility, but were at a loss to explain why or for how long the suspension would last (see GSN, Sept. 11).

“There’s not much going on” at North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear site, said one U.S. official.  Others could only speculate that perhaps Pyongyang was making a conciliatory gesture to encourage continuing diplomatic discussions, had run into technical difficulties, or had finished reprocessing the 8,000 spent fuel rods that were removed from international seal late last year (see GSN, Dec. 30, 2002).

“I’m not sure what to make of it.  There’s a lot we don’t know about North Korea,” said a U.S. official.  “Maybe they’ve stopped (reprocessing).  Maybe they’ve finished.  Maybe they never got very far and decided to wait.  Maybe there were technical problems. … Anyone who tells you they know is lying,” the official added.

Another U.S. official disclosed that there have been no recent reports of detecting krypton gas emissions from North Korea (see GSN, July 14).  The gas is a byproduct of reprocessing, a procedure that separates plutonium — which can be used for nuclear weapons — from a nuclear reactor’s spent fuel (Carol Giacomo, Reuters/Planet Ark, Sept. 12).

Experts have estimated that if Yongbyon’s reprocessing facility were running at full capacity, it could produce one bomb’s worth of plutonium per month.  The 8,000 spent fuel rods are estimated to contain enough plutonium for five to six nuclear weapons.

North Korean officials have declared that they have finished reprocessing all the spent fuel rods, but U.S. officials have expressed skepticism (see GSN, July 15; Associated Press/USA Today, Sept. 12).

Back to top

South Asia:  Pakistan Criticizes Increasing India-Israel Ties

Pakistan has criticized the growing ties between India and Israel, which are set to include the sale of Israeli airborne radar systems and possibly missile defense systems to India, Arabic News reported today (see GSN, Sept. 12).

“India and Israel are trying to change the strategic balance in the region by pouring in a wide range of sophisticated weapons and strategic defense system[s],” Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri said (Arabic News, Sept. 12).

Back to top

Formal IAEA Talks on Iran Delayed Again as Negotiators Mull Oct. 31 Deadline

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — Formal meetings at the International Atomic Energy Agency here were pushed back again today while diplomats debated a new draft resolution to address international concerns over Iran’s nuclear activities.  While appearing to receive a majority of support, the new draft continued to contain a deadline for cooperation that Iran has vigorously opposed (see GSN, Sept. 10).

The new Australian-Canadian-Japanese draft resolution, which would set an Oct. 31 deadline for Iran to address concerns about its nuclear programs, today became the basis for backroom discussions by the agency’s 35-member Board of Governors.

A Western diplomat said the draft enjoys the support of at least 20 countries on the board, including the United States, and that as many as 24 could be behind the measure by tomorrow.  Formal talks of the board did not reconvene this morning as expected, and are now scheduled to resume tomorrow morning.

Iran is the object of widespread allegations, voiced most forcefully by the United States, that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of legitimate nuclear activities.  A report issued by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei ahead of this week’s board meeting referred often, if at times elliptically, to contradictions between Iran’s claims about its nuclear programs and the findings of IAEA experts (see GSN, Sept. 4).  The report has provided the basis for much of the discussion here, with the United States and others citing it repeatedly while arguing a hard line against Iran.

As of yesterday, the most probable mechanism for action by the board was a U.S.-supported draft resolution under which the board would give Iran an Oct. 31 deadline to take dramatic action to address the allegations of dissembling.  A rival South African resolution took a softer line, highlighting countries’ right to nuclear energy and setting no deadline for Iranian action.

Today, the two drafts were formally withdrawn in favor of the Australian-Canadian-Japanese draft, which retains the Oct. 31 deadline and enjoys the support of the United States.

The draft, obtained today by Global Security Newswire, is largely similar to the previous U.S.-backed draft.  The new draft retains the Oct. 31 deadline and mostly replicates what Iran is asked to do before the deadline.  Small compromises by both sides are apparent, however, in other parts of the text.

Where the South African draft indicated the IAEA “now has a better understanding of Iran’s nuclear program than at any time before,” the new draft reads, “The agency now has a better, although still incomplete, understanding of Iran’s nuclear program.”

Meanwhile, in an apparent compromise by the U.S. camp, the new text retains the idea that ElBaradei’s report last month was an “interim” report and does not provide the basis for final conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program.

The South African text referred to countries’ “basic and inalienable right” to nuclear energy, a formulation some diplomats said was initially opposed by the United States, while the original U.S.-backed draft stressed Iran’s responsibility to prove its activities are peaceful.  In a compromise, the new measure juxtaposes language on “Iran’s heavy responsibility to the international community regarding the transparency of its extensive nuclear activities” and “the basic and inalienable right of all member states to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes.”

Iranian envoy Ali Akbar Salehi today maintained his blanket rejection of any measure involving a deadline.  The idea of a “date doesn’t fly with us.  It doesn’t mean anything,” Salehi said.  He also opposed various other actions demanded of Iran under the original U.S.-backed draft.

A Western diplomat described relations among various factions as cordial as discussions continue.  The diplomat painted a bleak picture, though, of communications between the United States and Iran, which are the two main players in the unfolding action but are diplomatically estranged and maintain contact only through intermediaries.

“The Iranian position on this is very hard,” the diplomat said.

No indication has yet emerged as to what consequences are envisioned if a draft containing a deadline passes and Iran fails to meet the Oct. 31 deadline.  The diplomat said there will be “full discussion” of Iran at a November board meeting and that the consequences for Iran will depend on what it does before then.  ElBaradei reportedly indicated yesterday in a closed-door board meeting that he could in November find Iran in “noncompliance” with its IAEA safeguards commitments, something the United States has sought and that could send the matter to the U.N. Security Council.

Back to top

North Korea Suspends Activity at Yongbyon

North Korea has reportedly ceased activity at its Yongbyon nuclear complex, which holds thousands of nuclear fuel rods that could be reprocessed to obtain plutonium for nuclear weapons, a U.S. official said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 10).

“Various sensors and imagery and other things we have don’t show activity,” the official said, adding, “There’s not much indication that anything is going on there at the moment.”

The current suspension on activity might not represent a North Korean policy shift.

“I wouldn’t read too much into it,” the official said, adding that “they can start and stop fairly easily.”

Nevertheless, the move might represent Chinese pressure or North Korean willingness to show the United States that talks on the issue can make progress, the Los Angeles Times reported. 

However, a congressional source said that any intelligence released by the Bush administration is questionable.

“If the administration came up and told me now that Yongbyon is shut down, I wouldn’t necessarily believe it,” the source said.  “The administration has a huge ulterior motive to try to say they’re making progress in North Korea” (Richter/Miller, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 11).

Back to top

IAEA Board Debates Deadline for Iranian Nuclear Cooperation

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — International Atomic Energy Agency governing board members unexpectedly adjourned current talks here before noon today and are now holding behind-the-scenes discussions on a U.S.-backed proposal that would give Iran until Oct. 31 to address allegations that it is covertly conducting activities that appear related to nuclear weapon development (see GSN, Sept. 9).

France, Germany and the United Kingdom yesterday submitted the draft resolution, which was obtained today by Global Security Newswire.  The United States and Japan have associated themselves with the measure, as have at least 10 other countries on the 35-member board, according to diplomats.

A competing South African resolution, which has no other official sponsors but is apparently supported by a number of Nonaligned Movement countries, would have the board call on Iran to step up cooperation with the IAEA but, under the version seen today by GSN, would set no deadline.

Speaking on behalf of the NAM, Malaysian Ambassador Hussein Haniff told Reuters today that setting a deadline for Iran would also imply a deadline for the IAEA.

“We want to give [IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei] a free hand to decide,” he said, adding, “If you have a specific deadline, then there is also a sense that you’re telling (ElBaradei) that you must complete your job by that time.”

Iranian envoy Ali Akbar Salehi said Iran has objections to both texts but that the South African draft is “more negotiable.”

“This business of a deadline, this idea of a deadline, is just absurd,” Salehi said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi also criticized the U.S.-European position, according to Agence France-Presse.

“The posture of certain countries is irresponsible and arrogant,” he said, adding, “If the extremists take control of the matter and do not recognize our legitimate rights to have peaceful nuclear activities, we will then be obliged to review the situation and the current level of cooperation with the agency.”

The board has now wrapped up its whole agenda for the meeting except for an item on Iran’s nuclear programs.  It is expected to reconvene tomorrow morning to discuss Iran.

ElBaradei told reporters just after the board adjourned that “intensive consultations” are taking place.

“There’s a broad agreement that the board would like to see a deadline,” he said, adding that he thinks “Iran should come with an immediate, complete declaration.”

The United States has been the leader in pushing for international action to counter Iran’s alleged bid to develop nuclear weapons under cover of legitimate nuclear activities.  The U.S.-backed draft would have the board call on Iran to “provide accelerated cooperation and full transparency,” “ensure there are no further failures” in reporting of nuclear activities, and suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing programs “as a confidence-building measure.”

Under the draft, the board would deem it “‘essential and urgent’ … that Iran remedy all failures identified by the agency and cooperate fully with the agency to ensure verification of compliance with Iran’s safeguards agreement by taking all necessary actions by the end of October 2003.”  A Western diplomat said the deadline would give Iran a “significant enough period of time … to comply.”

The “necessary actions” in question, according to the draft, include “a full declaration of the sources and types of all imported material and components relevant to the enrichment program”; “unrestricted access” for IAEA inspectors to conduct facility visits and environmental sampling; the resolution of a contradiction between IAEA experts’ assessment that Iran must have introduced uranium into centrifuges before June and Iran’s claim that it did not do so; the provision of “complete information regarding the conduct of uranium conversion experiments”; and all other actions deemed necessary by the agency.

The board would also call on Iran to “promptly and unconditionally sign, ratify and fully implement” the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, which would allow more intrusive monitoring by the agency.

The language on the Additional Protocol is one of several key areas where the U.S.-backed draft differs from the South African text.  The former draft would have the board urge Iran to implement the Additional Protocol immediately rather than waiting until it can be signed and ratified, while under South Africa’s draft, the board would ask Iran only to “consider” such interim implementation.

In general, the South African draft implies patience on the board’s part and highlights countries’ right to nuclear energy, while the U.S.-backed text seeks immediate and dramatic action from Iran and stresses the IAEA’s responsibility for helping to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.  South Africa repeatedly refers to further work that is necessary in order for the board to reach any conclusions about Iran, while the Europeans stress Iran’s alleged failures to comply with IAEA requests and cite Iran’s “heavy responsibility to the international community regarding the transparency of its nuclear activities.”

Both resolutions would have ElBaradei report back to the board at a meeting in November on Iran’s compliance.

“I don’t think it [the South African text] really rises to the same level … of gravitas” as the European draft, said the Western diplomat.  Asked whether the matter will come to a vote, rather than being decided by consensus, the diplomat said, “I’m afraid so.”

Salehi scoffed at the idea of a measure not supported by the whole board.

“If there is a resolution adopted that is not in accordance with our … wishes, then that resolution … is just to be kept in the archives,” he said.

Back to top

Payment Dispute Slows Talks on  Bushehr Spent Fuel

Negotiations between Moscow and Tehran on an agreement to return spent fuel from Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor to Russia are stalled over a payment dispute, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Sept. 8).

Russia is helping Iran build the Bushehr plant and is planning to supply the plant with nuclear fuel.  Russian officials are insisting, however, that Iran return the spent fuel so that it cannot be reprocessed and used to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran is demanding compensation for the nuclear fuel it returns to Moscow, according to Russian Deputy Atomic Energy Minister Valery Govorukhin, but  Russian leaders would not accept the deal, he said.

“Iranians believe they must get paid for the nuclear fuel being returned to Russia for storage and reprocessing, considering it their property,” Govoruhkin said.  If Iran will not alter its position, he added, Russia intends to charge a higher original price for the nuclear fuel it ships to Iran (Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press, Sept. 10).

Back to top

Poor Management, Training, Hampers Lawrence Livermore Laboratory’s Security Force

The guard force at the U.S. Energy Department’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is not fully staffed, nor has it been fully tested, to defend against the type of terrorist attack the facility could face, the Tri-Valley Herald reported Sunday (see GSN, Feb. 27).

While the facility’s security force is considered to be the best it has been in five years, it is still recovering from its dismantlement in the early 1990s, according to the Herald.  At that time, budget cuts forced Lawrence Livermore to turn over security responsibilities to local law enforcement, but the Energy Department re-established the facility’s Special Response Team in 1998.

Since 1998, however, the team has faced management problems, low pay and weak oversight, resulting in poor morale and training, the Herald reported.  Some team members have questioned its effectiveness if a band of terrorists were to attempt to attack the facility, which contains large amounts of nuclear material.

“Some guys I know I can count on.  But there are some guys I know who are going to tuck tail and run,” said team member Rodney Harrison.  “They’re headed out Westgate Drive.  They’ll say, ‘I didn’t sign up for this,’” he said.

In May, the Energy Department revised the Design Basis Threat, which is the type of terrorist attack a facility must be able to defend against.  At Lawrence Livermore, the DBT increased by 50 percent, envisioning an attacking terrorist force consisting of about 10 members assumed to be suicidal and heavily armed, conducting an attack with a large truck bomb, chemical weapons, or both, according to the Herald.

U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration acting security chief Toby Johnson said he did not know when the guard forces at Lawrence Livermore and other sites would be able to defend against the revised DBT.

“I can’t make an expression of confidence,” Johnson said.  “I think we would say we felt we were generally in good shape against the old design basis threat.  We don’t have enough information on the new one yet,” he added. 

Former Energy security consultant Ronald Timm said he did not believe Lawrence Livermore’s security force was capable of defending against the new threat.

“I can tell you right now, your SRT (Special Response Team) is not adequate out there to meet the new threat,” said Timm, president of RETA Security Inc..  “Anybody who says it’s business as usual is just lying to themselves,” he said.

An Energy spokesman expressed confidence that Lawrence Livermore’s security force could repel a terrorist attack.  “We feel the nuclear material is adequately protected,” said John Belluardo, spokesman for the department’s Livermore Site Office.

Lawrence Livermore security officers expressed doubts that terrorists would even attempt to attack the facility. 

“History is on our side: It hasn’t happened,” said Kory Porter, deputy leader of the laboratory’s Protective Force Division (Ian Hoffman, Tri-Valley Herald, Sept. 7).

Back to top

Former U.S. Envoy Explains Resignation, Calls for Bilateral Talks

Jack Pritchard, a former U.S. State Department expert on North Korea, wrote today that his recent resignation was not a protest to the Bush Administration’s policy toward Pyongyang but rather a reaction to being shut out of the multilateral talks on the North Korean nuclear crisis (see GSN, Sept. 8).

In a Los Angeles Times commentary, Pritchard said, “I was brought into this administration precisely because of my experience in dealing with North Koreans, but was now perceived as too soft on North Korea.  I had tendered my resignation April 18 when I was not selected to lead the trilateral talks in Beijing.  Secretary of State Colin Powell asked me to stay on for a while and, out of enormous respect for him, I did,” Pritchard wrote.

He repeated earlier criticism of the White House refusal to participate in direct talks with North Korea.

“It is not possible to have serious, sustained discussion in a plenary setting over a few days.  Six delegations, 24 interpreters and many note-takers guarantee that the reading of scripted remarks is about the only thing that will take place in open session,” he wrote.  “The structure of the six-party talks is useful and will ultimately be a significant part of the solution, but we must be able to engage the North Koreans at length,” he added (Jack Pritchard, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 10).

Back to top

U.S. Air Force Conducts Minuteman 3 ICBM Test

The U.S. Air Force today test-launched a Minuteman 3 ICBM, officials said (see GSN, Aug. 8).  The missile was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and traveled 4,800 miles to the Kwajalein Missile Range in the Pacific Ocean, base spokesman Lloyd Conley said (Associated Press/Newsday, Sept. 10).

The test missile was expected to carry three unarmed re-entry vehicles (Air Force release, Aug. 28).

Back to top

IAEA Extends Meeting to Continue Discussion on Iran; U.S. Seeking “Last Chance” Ultimatum

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — The United States today called on the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors to take immediate action to counter Tehran’s alleged efforts to frustrate the agency’s work in Iran, while Iranian envoy Ali Akbar Saleh defended his country’s record and criticized the United States for trying to “politicize” the matter (see GSN, Sept. 8).

Amid widespread concern that Iran is seeking to enrich uranium for use in an eventual nuclear weapon, U.S. diplomats are working on the sidelines of the meeting to develop a resolution on Iran to which board members are generally amenable, U.S. Mission spokesman Michael Garuckis said.  Board meetings typically last two days but this one appears likely to run into a fourth or even fifth day over the Iran question.

Garuckis said the United States hopes to introduce a resolution tomorrow, meaning that action on the text would not take place before Thursday.  In addition, according to a Western diplomat, there appears to be a possibility that another country could introduce a separate resolution on Iran.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said the formal talks are going “very well.”  Speaking to reporters after this morning’s session, ElBaradei said there are “a number of very important issues that need to be resolved.”

Washington has all but dropped a bid to have the board find Iran in noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement and send the matter to the U.N. Security Council.  Garuckis said the decision not to seek a finding of noncompliance was a “pragmatic” one.

Representing the Nonaligned Movement, which earlier this year prevented the matter from being referred to the council, a Malaysian statement today said the Iran question should “be resolved through constructive dialogue within the framework of the agency.”

According to a text provided by the U.S. delegation, U.S. envoy Kenneth Brill said at the closed meeting that the “facts already established would fully justify an immediate finding of noncompliance by Iran” with its IAEA safeguards agreement.

“We have taken note, however, of the desire of other member states to give Iran a last chance to stop its evasions, and have agreed today to join in the call on Iran to take ‘essential and urgent’ actions to demonstrate that it has done so.  Passing a resolution on this issue that firmly backs the IAEA’s efforts is the least the board could credibly do to meet its responsibilities,” Brill said.

The process, Saleh told reporters after this morning’s session, will influence Iran’s decision about whether to sign the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, which would open up the country’s nuclear facilities to more intrusive IAEA monitoring.  ElBaradei said this morning that he “would hope that Iran would be in a position to conclude that protocol as soon as possible.”

“It very well depends upon the outcome of the board,” Saleh said, adding that a “fair and balanced” text on its nuclear programs could speed up the Additional Protocol process.

“If things are totally against ... the statute and the just and the balanced stance of the agency ... we will have to think carefully to our cooperation,” he said.

He added, though, “We have gone beyond our obligations.  It is as though we have already signed the Additional Protocol.”

Brill said ElBaradei’s recent report on Iran (see GSN, Sept. 4) and other IAEA findings show Iran has failed to heed to board’s June call for “open questions” to be resolved and for better cooperation with the IAEA (see GSN, June 19).  The U.S. stance was largely shared by Canada, which said “the nature of Iran’s nuclear program” and the country’s “evasiveness ... only [make] sense in the context of nuclear weapons ambitions,” and the European Union, which said the IAEA report “confirms that reporting obligations under Iran’s comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA were not met.”

Brill said that at an Aug. 29 meeting of countries including Iran, it became clear that “the report is in error in saying Iran agreed to provide the agency information about its foreign suppliers of centrifuge information.”

Saleh, citing Iran’s claim that “intermediaries” were involved and suggesting the transaction took place too long ago to be investigated now, confirmed that the IAEA report erred in indicating Iran would name its suppliers.

Brill also listed other concerns, including a discrepancy over when Iran began developing centrifuges to enrich uranium; contradictory Iranian statements about whether its centrifuge program has benefited from help from other countries, which Iran now says it has; Iran’s claim never to have introduced nuclear material into centrifuges before the IAEA took samples earlier this year, which contradicts IAEA inspectors’ view that Iran’s program could not have reached the level it has without tests using nuclear material; and Iranian design information on a heavy water facility that includes no mention of hot cells, even though they would be necessary to the facility’s stated purpose (see GSN, Sept. 5).

“There are today more open questions about Iran’s nuclear program than there were on June 6.  The more the agency has looked underneath the surface of Iran’s program, the less the explanations offered have hung together in a plausible way,” Brill said (see GSN, June 9).  He added that Iran’s “cooperation with the agency has at best been episodic and reluctant and has frequently featured delay, denial of access and misinformation.”

“We’re looking for a resolution that’s going to give the IAEA a strengthened hand,” said Garuckis.  He said the board should tell Iran, “This is your last chance. ... Please don’t cross this line.”

Back to top

North Korea Pledges to Increase Nuclear Capability

During a parade today celebrating North Korea’s 55th anniversary, the beleaguered country’s army chief said Pyongyang would continue to develop nuclear weapons, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Sept. 8).

“The D.P.R.K. will continue to increase its nuclear deterrent force as a means for just self-defense in order to defend the sovereignty of the country as the United States has not yet shown its will to drop its hostile policy toward the D.P.R.K. despite the D.P.R.K.’s good faith and magnanimity,” said Kim Yong Chun, chief of the general staff of the Korean People’s Army.

The anniversary parade, however, did not feature any new missiles and North Korea did not test a nuclear weapon on its birthday, as some observors had feared (see related GSN story, today).

“There was no military technical hardware in the parade.  Only uniformed military units marching in columns,” said Polish Ambassador to North Korea Wojciech Kaluza (Agence France-Presse, Sept. 9).

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, meanwhile, brought eight new ministers into  to his 31-member cabinet last week, a relatively dramatic change in the usually rigid North Korean leadership.

“They are less ideological and more oriented toward improving the economy,” said a senior South Korean official.  “We are seeing a rapid rise of the technocrats.  These are pragmatic people,” the official added.

The last cabinet shakeup was in 1998, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Among the appointees was a new prime minister, Pak Pong Ju, a 64-year-old former chemical industries minister.  Pak was part of a delegation that visited Seoul last year.  Some observers, however, do not believe that the infusion of technology friendly ministers signals a move forward for North Korea.

“I’m not optimistic that these technocrats will be able to do much,” said Cho Myong Chol, a former economics professor at Kim Il Sung university in Pyongyang who defected to South Korea.  “Kim Jong Il seems to think he can solve the problems of his country through technology and not through real change in the system,” Cho said (Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 9).

Back to top

ICBM Conversion Program Is Down to One Titan 2 Rocket

After a Titan rocket derivative was used to launch a spy satellite in Florida yesterday, only one former Titan 2 ICBM remains in Lockheed Martin’s hands (see GSN, July 23).

The launch, slightly delayed by a fuel leak and bad weather, took place at about 12:30 p.m., according to Florida Today (Chris Kridler, Florida Today, Sept. 9).

In 1986, Lockheed Martin was given a contract to refurbish 14 Titan 2 ICBMs and make them ready for U.S. government space launch use, according to a company release (Lockheed Martin fact sheet).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP