Russia, Iran Vow to Continue Nuclear Activities; Spent Fuel Pact Nears

Russia yesterday reaffirmed its intention to continue providing nuclear assistance to Iran despite uncertainty over whether Tehran will cooperate with international efforts to learn more about its nuclear activities (see GSN, Sept. 15).

“Russia does not see any reason for stopping its cooperation with Iran in the nuclear sphere, because Iran does not violate any provisions of international law,” said Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, speaking to reporters yesterday in Vienna at an annual meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The agency’s Board of Governors last week set an Oct. 31 deadline for Iran to clarify several features of its nuclear program that have raised questions about its compliance with international nuclear nonproliferation rules (see GSN, Sept. 12).

Despite the agency’s concerns and U.S. pressure, Russia would proceed with its project to build and fuel a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power reactor in Iran, Rumyantsev said.

“While the IAEA resolution on the nuclear program of Iran was drafted, U.S. representatives hinted to us that it would be better for Russia to withdraw from Iran,” he said.  “We asked them to explain to us why we should do that, but we got no clear answer,” he added (Channel NewsAsia, Sept. 17).

Iranian officials have said Tehran would not cease cooperation with the IAEA, as was once considered, but they have not indicated if Iran would provide all the information requested in Friday’s resolution.

Opinion appears to be divided within Iran over how much cooperation to offer, but officials there agree that Iranian nuclear activities will continue, according to reports (Agence France-Presse/IranMania.com, Sept. 17).

“Our slogan for the atomic bomb and weapons of mass destruction is ‘No, no, no,’ but for advanced technology, including peaceful nuclear technology is ‘Yes, yes, yes,’” Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Monday.

“No one can stop us from our path,” he said, adding, “We do not want atomic and nuclear technology for destroying others” (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Sept. 15).

Spent Fuel Agreement

Rumyantsev also said yesterday that Moscow and Tehran were close to signing an agreement for Iran to return the spent fuel from its reactor to Russia. 

“We will agree,” he said.  “We don’t have any contradictions,” he added.

The largest remaining obstacle was deciding who should sign the agreement and where, he said.  Iranian officials were scheduled to visit Moscow in the next few days to discuss the issue, Rumyantsev said.

Another issue, deciding which nation would be responsible for paying for the spent fuel transport and storage, could be resolved after the agreement was signed, he said (see GSN, Sept. 10).

If Tehran insisted on charging Russia for the spent fuel transport and storage, then Russia would probably increase “the price for the fresh fuel,” Rumyantsev said (George Jahn, Associated Press/Moscow Times, Sept. 17).

Back to top

Senate Funds Nuclear Weapon Research in Approving Energy Bill

The U.S. Senate yesterday approved the Bush administration’s full request for research into new types of nuclear weapons, rejecting a Democratic effort to eliminate funding for those and other nuclear weapon activities (see GSN, Sept. 16).

The Senate voted 53-41 to reject an amendment offered by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would have eliminated $21 million requested by the Bush administration to explore earth-penetrating and low-yield nuclear weapons.  Their amendment would also have delayed site selection for a new plutonium “pit” production facility and ended an effort to reduce the time needed to prepare for resuming nuclear testing.

The Senate did approve, however, a measure offered by Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to limit the funding to research activities only, thereby requiring the administration to request additional approval if it wishes to enter a development phase.

After killing the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment and approving the Reed measure, the Senate voted 92-0 to pass the $27.3 billion fiscal 2004 energy and water appropriations bill, setting up a House-Senate negotiation to resolve differences between their versions of the bill (Dewar/Pincus, Washington Post, Sept. 17).

Feinstein and Kennedy said they would continue their effort to cut the funding during the House-Senate conference (Carl Hulse, New York Times, Sept. 17).

While the Senate approved the full administration request — specifically $15 million for the earth-penetrating weapon, $6 million for the low-yield weapon, $22.8 million for the plutonium facility and $24 million for nuclear test readiness — the U.S. House of Representatives slashed those numbers earlier this year.  It reduced funding for the earth-penetrator and the plutonium plant to $5 million and $10 million, respectively, and eliminated funds for the low-yield weapon and the test site (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, Sept. 17).

The differing positions suggest that the administration will receive at least some the funding it is seeking, according to the Washington Post.

Senate debate prior to yesterday’s vote focused on whether the administration plans were a step toward building and deploying new nuclear weapons, a move that Democrats argued would promote nuclear proliferation. 

“The last thing the world needs is to have the United States start playing Lone Range with nuclear weapons,” Kennedy said in a news conference yesterday.  “How can we demand that North Korea and Iran abandon their nuclear weapons programs while we develop a new generation of those weapons ourselves?” he added (Dewar/Pincus, Washington Post).

Republicans countered that the bill would only fund research to prepare the United States for future contingencies.

“There’s nothing in this bill that produces a single new nuclear weapon,” said Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.).

Feinstein, however, said the money would move the United States in that direction.

“This is the beginning,” she said.  “This money will go to field a new generation of nuclear weapons.  We should not do this,” she added (Nick Anderson, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 17).

Back to top

Chinese Delegation Set to Visit North Korea This Week

A Chinese delegation led by parliamentary chairman Wu Bangguo is set to visit North Korea later this week, a diplomatic source said today (see GSN, Sept. 16).

The source said the delegation is expected to travel to Pyongyang Sept. 20 on a North Korean airline flight.  The trip is unofficial and details of its itinerary are being kept secret, the source said.

“It is highly likely that this visit will serve as a turning point in North Korea-China relations,” the source said (Yonhap news agency/BBC Monitoring, Sept. 17).

Meanwhile, South Korean opposition leader Choe Byung-yul called for the end of food and energy assistance to North Korea if six-nation talks fail to resolve the crisis surrounding Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.

“It would be great if we could find a solution just through dialogue, but the nuclear issue is not one we can just drag on,” said Choe, chairman of the Grand National Party.

Tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled into China because of a lack of food, but there have been fewer deaths from starvation within North Korea because of international food aid, according to Choe.

“That’s why some people point out that perhaps the easiest pressure point or the most fatal pressure that anyone could impose on North Korea to resolve the nuclear issue is to cut off food aid,” he said.

Sanctions against North Korea would be ineffective, however, without Chinese participation, Choe said.  “If China cuts off food aid and energy supply, that could seriously jeopardize North Korea,” he said (Sharon Behn, Washington Times, Sept. 17).

Back to top

U.S. Senators Disagree on Need for Nuclear Weapon Research

U.S. senators yesterday debated the merits of U.S. nuclear weapons research as two Democrats introduced a measure to cut funding from several Energy Department efforts (see GSN, Sept. 15).

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced a measure to eliminate requested funds for several planned Energy Department activities, including research into earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, research into low-yield nuclear weapons, efforts to reduce the time needed to prepare for a nuclear test, and the selection of a site to build a plutonium “pit” production facility.  A vote on the amendment to the fiscal 2004 energy and water appropriations bill was expected today.

The Republican-led U.S. House limited the same programs in its version of the energy bill earlier this year (see GSN, July 17).  In its report at the time, the House Appropriations Committee wrote, “It appears to the committee the Department (of Energy) is proposing to rebuild, restart and redo and otherwise exercise every capability that was used over the past 40 years of the Cold War and at the same time prepare for a future with an expanded mission for nuclear weapons” (Nick Anderson, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 16)

As documented in the Congressional Record, Feinstein and Kennedy argued that improving the U.S. ability to design, test and build new types of nuclear weapons would set back U.S. and international nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

“I deeply believe the combined impact of studies or development of new nuclear weapons, enhancing the posture of our test sites and developing a new plutonium pit facility could well have the result of leading these other nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants to resume or start testing and to seek to enlarge their own nuclear forces — action that would fundamentally alter future nonproliferation efforts and undermine our own security.  Instead of increasing it, it will undermine it,” Feinstein said.

Increased nuclear proliferation, in turn, would threaten the tremendous conventional military advantage the United States now enjoys, Kennedy said.

“There is one modern military force in the world, and it happens to be the United States.  We have to keep it that way.  Why put at risk that advantage with the proliferation by other countries of small, useful nukes?” Kennedy said.

On that point, Feinstein said, “Next year we will spend more on our military than all of the other 191 nations on the planet combined.  If we can’t protect ourselves without thinking about nuclear weapons, who can?”

Senators Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) opposed the proposed amendment and disagreed that U.S. research would spur international nuclear proliferation.

“The idea that any country is going to react by saying, ‘We are going to go do something now and build more bombs because they are getting [the] Nevada [Test Site] ready,’ is an absurdity.  It has no logic to it,” Domenici said.

Stressing that “there is no money in this bill to build new weapons,” Domenici argued that U.S. nuclear weapon scientists must be free to study existing weapons and possible future designs.

“We should not have to have them worrying all the time whether thinking about certain aspects of a nuclear weapon of the future is a violation of the law,” Domenici said.

He added that uncertainties about the effects of aging on existing weapons mean that the United States cannot permanently rule out explosive testing.

“We should make [the] Nevada [Test Site] modern so if we need it, we use it, not three years after we decide we need a test because we have some idea there is something amiss in some of our weapons which are 35, 40, and 45 years old,” Domenici said.

Kyl argued that Cold War-era U.S. nuclear weapons do not provide a “credible deterrent” because no enemy would believe the United States would be willing to kill million of civilians with a large nuclear weapon.

“If smaller, more precise weapons could the job just as well, wouldn’t people of good will, who are concerned about unnecessary death, be interested in at least thinking about weapons that would pose a deterrent to an attack but would not kill as many people, would not kill so indiscriminately?” Kyl said (Congressional Record, p.S11435, Sept. 15).

Back to top

China, U.S. Sign Nonproliferation Deal for Technology Transfer

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Chinese Atomic Energy Authority Chairman Zhang Hua-zhu this morning signed a statement of intent committing their countries to a new process for exchanging nonproliferation assurances in the context of nuclear technology transfers.

“These understandings open the way for greater participation by U.S. nuclear industry in China’s growing nuclear power program,” Abraham said in an Energy Department release.

The deal sets up new procedures for determining when technology transfers require government-to-government promises not to proliferate and for communicating such promises.  The deal had previously been formally adopted via an exchange of diplomatic notes.

The U.S. Energy Department said U.S. companies could now use its authorizations to provide technology and services to China’s nuclear energy program, something that some U.S. firms were previously prevented from doing because of a lack of nonproliferation assurances.

The department said the agreement means “that when nuclear technology proposed for transfer is determined to require nonproliferation assurances, the government of the recipient country will pledge that the technology will be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and will not be retransferred to another country without the prior consent of the government of the supplier country.”

The agreement also provides for extending term limits on Energy Department authorizations upon Chinese request and for exchanging nonproliferation assurances for joint U.S.-Chinese projects.  The first such project involves collaboration on a modular high-temperature gas pebble bed reactor by scientists at Tsinghua University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

After the signing, Abraham told reporters the statement of intent is part of generally stepped-up U.S.-Chinese cooperation on energy matters.  “We look forward to expanding our energy relationship on a number of fronts,” he said.

Back to top

U.S. Pays for KEDO This Year, But Has Not Requested Future Funds

U.S. President George W. Bush formally agreed yesterday to fund the U.S. share of this fiscal year’s administrative costs of the organization responsible for implementing the 1994 U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework.

According to the White House, Bush “determined that it is in the vital U.S. national security interest to provide up to $3.72 million in assistance to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) for administrative expenses for fiscal year 2003.”

The money will not be used to support the ongoing construction of nuclear reactors in North Korea or to finance any shipments of fuel oil, both of which North Korea was to receive in exchange for freezing its nuclear activities.  The fuel shipments were halted last year after North Korea reportedly acknowledged continuing its nuclear program (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002; White House release, Sept. 15).

Bush has not asked the U.S. Congress for any KEDO funds for fiscal 2004, according to administration officials.

Meanwhile, the United States is examining whether to continue to provide food aid to North Korea.  The United States has delivered 44,000 tons of food this year, but concerns over the food actually reaching needy North Koreans have U.S. officials reviewing whether to supply the 66,000 tons scheduled to be provided by the end of the year, according to U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli (see GSN, Feb. 25).

He said North Korea has restricted the U.N. World Food Program’s ability to monitor food deliveries (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Sept. 15).

Another State Department official warned yesterday that North Korea is a significant participant in international illicit drug trade.  The accusation was made in an annual presidential report submitted yesterday to Congress on drug trafficking (see GSN, May 21).

“The president expresses his deep concern about the drug trafficking situation with respect to North Korea, and the continued allegations of involvement by state agents and enterprise in the narcotics trade, chiefly the methamphetamine trade,” said Paul Simons, acting assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs (Federal News Service transcript, Sept. 15).

Back to top

Washington, Seoul Sign Joint Nuclear Research Agreement

The United States and South Korea yesterday signed a five-year agreement to conduct joint research on proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycle technologies.

The agreement is the sixth in a series to implement a U.S.-South Korean memorandum of understanding that promotes laboratory exchanges on advanced nuclear energy technologies, according to a U.S. Energy Department release.  Yesterday’s agreement will help implement U.S.-South Korean cooperation in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced earlier this year.

“Under this agreement, both countries will cooperate on development of these advanced technologies that enhance our energy security and are safer, less waste intensive, and more proliferation resistant,” Abraham said (U.S. Energy Department release, Sept. 15).

Back to top

IAEA General Conference Continues, Discusses Civilian Nuclear Issues

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s General Conference met for a second day today in Vienna and discussed several issues relating to civilian nuclear issues (see GSN, Sept. 15).

At today’s meeting, international experts met to discuss new advances in nuclear science and technology, including advances in nuclear power, nuclear medicine, safety standards and safeguards technology, according to an IAEA release.  Nuclear officials from IAEA members also met this morning to discuss safety issues. 

In addition, senior IAEA staff yesterday briefed conference delegates on the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles, which includes studies of “next generation” nuclear power plants.  (International Atomic Energy Agency release, Sept. 16).

Yesterday, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, head of the U.S. delegation to the conference, said the United States would contribute an additional $3 million to the IAEA’s nuclear security fund.  The additional money is set to go toward helping to improve the safeguarding and protection of nuclear materials, preventing the trafficking of radiological materials and improving the security of research reactors, Abraham said.  He called on other IAEA members to make similar contributions to the fund.

“Together, we must build on the successes of the past and overcome the challenges of the present, so that our ability to enjoy the benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation can be expanded and sustained into the future,” Abraham said (U.S. State Department release, Sept. 15).

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday called for the further strengthening of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime through the conclusion of IAEA safeguards agreements.

“I support the agency’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 agreements with the agency,” Annan said in a message to the conference (U.N. release, Sept. 15).

Back to top

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

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP