USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER

CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL

Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Issue No. 525, 14 September 2006

Articles & Other Documents:

Nakasone Proposes Japan Consider Nuclear Weapons Nuclear Déjà Vu: Now It’s Iran That Does Or Doesn’t Intend To Make Nuclear Weapons U.S. Trying To Restart North Korea Nuclear Talks Pyongyang Not Keen On Nuke Talks, U.S. Says Khatami Defends Ahmadinejad, Iran's Nuke Plans Tehran's Two Worlds European Union In Last-Ditch Talks With Iran On North Korea 'Determined To Carry Out Underground Nuclear Plans Test' Plant Destroying Chemical Weapons Central Asia Pact Frees The Region Of Nuclear Arms Europe Union And Iran Report Progress In Nuclear Brief Nuclear Halt May Lead To Talks With Iran Talks Biosecurity A Comprehensive Action Plan NNSA Working To Prevent Nuclear Terrorism Iran Offers Talks On Nuclear Issue U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel Iranian President Willing To Negotiate Seoul Backs Censure Of North

Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal to Jo Ann Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953-7538 or DSN 493-7538. To subscribe, change e-mail address, or unsubscribe to this journal or to request inclusion on the mailing list for CPC publications, please contact Mrs. Eddy. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved

Japan Times September 6, 2006 Nakasone Proposes Japan Consider Nuclear Weapons Former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone said Tuesday that Japan needs to consider developing nuclear weapons, taking into account the presence of nearby nuclear states and the uncertain future of the alliance with the United States. "There is a need to also study the issue of nuclear weapons," Nakasone said during a news conference to release a report by the Institute for International Policy Studies, an independent research institute he chairs, that proposes considering the nuclear option. "There are countries with nuclear weapons in Japan's vicinity," he said. "We are currently dependent on U.S. nuclear weapons (as a deterrent), but it is not necessarily known whether the U.S. attitude will continue." Nakasone conceded that the nuclear option should come after the country makes efforts to reinforce the global nonproliferation regime, saying, "The first priority is to keep being a nuclear-free state, and the second is to reinforce the system under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty." Prime minister from 1982 to 1987, Nakasone retired from the Diet in 2003. He has continued making political proposals from the institute, including one in January on revising the Constitution, which stirred up debate in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. The institute's report, titled "An Image of Japan in the 21st Century," says the country should consider the nuclear option while at the same time maintaining its nonnuclear status and endeavoring to strengthen the nonproliferation regime. The paper says if Japan decides to get nuclear weapons, the pacifist Constitution must be amended. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060906a4.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times September 6, 2006 Pg. 6 News Analysis Nuclear Déjà Vu: Now It’s Iran That Does Or Doesn’t Intend To Make Nuclear Weapons By David E. Sanger and William J. Broad WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 — As the Bush administration presses the world’s other major powers to speed ahead with sanctions against Iran, a fascinating puzzle of conflicting evidence, contained in the latest findings by international inspectors, is fueling the debate on whether to confront Tehran over its nuclear activities. Ever since the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report last Thursday, American officials have insisted that it sealed their case. Iran, they argue, has refused the United Nations Security Council’s demand that it cease enriching uranium. “In the end, that’s all that matters,” R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said last week. “They have defied the Council.” The report surprised experts with its revelation of tantalizing new evidence. The inspectors said they had found traces of highly enriched uranium, which can fuel atomic bombs. So far, the Iranians have not explained how it got there, adding to suspicions in the United States and Europe that the inspectors are being shown only part of Iran’s program and that some covert facilities have been hidden. But the same report also noted that Tehran had made little progress in setting up new equipment at its main nuclear site, at Natanz, to enrich uranium. In the last few days diplomats from the European Union and Russia have cited that finding to bolster the case that there is no urgency and no crisis — and that the Bush administration should back off. Taken together, those two views put the Bush administration and the United Nations into a situation parallel to where they were on Iraq four years ago this month, in the period leading up to the war there. In September 2002, Mr. Bush addressed the United Nations, demanding that Saddam Hussein allow international inspectors into Iraq. European and Russian officials have cited that example repeatedly in recent weeks to make the case that imposing sanctions would inevitably lead to Iranian defiance, and from defiance to confrontation. Over the weekend, Secretary General Kofi Annan appeared to endorse that view. “I do not believe sanctions are the solution to everything,” Mr. Annan told the French newspaper Le Monde on his way to Iran. “There are times when a little patience is more effective. I think that is a quality we should exercise more often.” Iran, he said, could prove that its program was benign “by giving the U.N. inspectors access to all its facilities.” Mr. Bush himself once acknowledged, at a news conference last December, that intelligence failures surrounding the issue of whether Iraq possessed unconventional weapons made it difficult for him to press a credible public case against Iran. Now, outside experts say, he is beginning to pay the price. Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, has argued that the seemingly contradictory evidence reported by the atomic energy agency may simply indicate that Iran’s overt nuclear program is less advanced than its covert efforts to master the fundamentals of nuclear weaponry. “That’s not only plausible, but likely,” he said in an interview on Monday. “A prudent American approach should include the possibility that the negotiations about the overt track are essentially a conjurer’s distraction to keep us focused on the hand that’s moving while the other one is putting the rabbit into the hat.” Uranium enriched to low levels can fuel nuclear reactors, which Iran claims as its goal. But skilled engineers can fashion highly enriched uranium into nuclear weapons, which the United States asserts is Tehran’s real objective. The race to understand Iran’s true intentions intensified in January, when Iran cut the locks and seals that had been placed on its uranium enrichment plants after inspections and restarted its effort to make atomic fuel. By April it announced that it had used a string of 164 centrifuges at its sprawling Natanz plant to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, boasting that the achievement meant that it had joined “the nuclear club.” At the time, Western atomic experts predicted that Tehran would soon succeed in setting up and operating two more cascades, or strings of centrifuges, each consisting of 164 machines. They expected Iran to do so in May and June, respectively, bringing it much closer to mastering the fundamental technologies of making bomb fuel. Instead, progress slowed significantly this summer. According to atomic inspectors, Iran completed neither of the two additional cascades and simply did more enrichment tests with the first one. David Albright and Jacqueline Shire of the Institute for Science and International Security, a research group in Washington that tracks the Iranian program, concluded in a recent report that “Iran may be either delaying deliberately the pace of its work while diplomatic efforts are under way, or is experiencing technical problems.” While some European diplomats hail the delays as a reason for a lack of urgency, others say Tehran is intentionally stalling to lessen the odds of international condemnation and to further divide allies seeking atomic curbs and sanctions. In contrast to the image of Iran’s nuclear backwardness, the atomic energy agency’s report presented stark evidence of strides toward enrichment. It said the inspectors had found new traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian facility — the third such episode in three years. In the earlier cases the agency concluded that at least some of the traces had come from contaminated equipment that Iran had obtained from Pakistan. But in this instance the nuclear “fingerprints” of the particles did not match those of the other samples, an official familiar with the inspections said, raising questions about the particles’ origin. In three years of inspections, the agency has discovered more than a dozen circumstantial clues suggesting that Iran harbors hidden nuclear ambitions. Among the most important was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s boast that the country was researching a new generation of advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Inspectors have never seen those centrifuges. David E. Sanger reported from Washington for this article, and William J. Broad from New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/world/middleeast/06nuke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

International Herald Tribune September 6, 2006 U.S. Trying To Restart North Korea Nuclear Talks By Associated Press BEIJING--The top U.S. nuclear envoy was visiting Beijing on Tuesday, amid reports that North Korean's reclusive leader may be prepared to enter China on a special train. The U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asia, Christopher Hill, was arriving after meeting with his Japanese counterpart, Kenichiro Sasae, on Monday in Tokyo. The two agreed to cooperate with China, Russia and South Korea to bring the North back to stalled six- nation talks aimed at persuading the North to give up its nuclear ambitions. Hill stressed that the United States would be open to meeting with North Korea as long as other countries were involved. "We can look at other formats," Hill said in Tokyo on Tuesday. "The time for organized, multilateral diplomacy in Asia is now." A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, said Hill would meet with his Chinese counterpart, Wu Dawei, the lead Chinese negotiator in the six-nation talks, as well as the Chinese deputy foreign minister, Cui Tiankai, the chief Chinese envoy in charge of nonproliferation issues. "They will exchange views on six- party talks and other issues of common interest," Qin said at a regular briefing Tuesday. He did not give any details. The North has stayed away from six- nation talks on its nuclear program since November in anger over a widening U.S. campaign to sever the regime's connections to outside banks due to its alleged involvement in counterfeiting and money laundering, involving proceeds from sales of weapons of mass destruction. Also Tuesday, a South Korean newspaper said the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, was likely to begin a visit to China within the next few days. A special train used by Kim arrived in a North Korean town on the border with China, the newspaper JoongAng Ilbo said. The Yonhap news agency also reported that North Korea had blocked off roads leading to the border town, Shinuiju, in another possible sign of security measures indicating that Kim could be in the area. The report cited an unnamed source in the Chinese border city of Dandong, across from Shinuiju. Relations between the Communist allies were strained after North Korea launched missiles in July and China joined in a UN Security Council resolution condemning the tests. Speculation of a possible trip by Kim has been rife since the main South Korean spy agency warned last week that Pyongyang could test a nuclear device at any time, following reports of suspicious activity at a suspected North Korean underground nuclear testing site. The North claims to have nuclear weapons, but has not performed any known test. Qin, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, rejected Tuesday the reports of a possible visit by Kim. "As far as I know, there is no such arrangement now" for a visit by Kim, he said. Hill said he had no information about such a visit. "As you know, I take planes and he takes trains," Hill said. "So I'm not really sure what he's doing." http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/05/news/korea.php

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times September 7, 2006 Pg. 14 Pyongyang Not Keen On Nuke Talks, U.S. Says BEIJING -- North Korea has no interest in returning to six-nation talks on ending its nuclear weapons program, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill said. "We're at a difficult juncture," Mr. Hill said today in Beijing. "It seems the DPRK isn't interested in coming back to talks." The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is North Korea's official name. Mr. Hill is in China for a weeklong visit as part of a new round of diplomacy aimed at restarting the talks. President Bush on Aug. 21 asked Chinese President Hu Jintao to pressure North Korea to return to the negotiations. North Korea has refused to attend until the U.S. lifts economic sanctions. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060907-120748-8466r_page2.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Los Angeles Times September 7, 2006 U.S. Urges World To Put Pressure On North Korea By Times Wire Reports The United States said a North Korean nuclear test would be a "deeply provocative act" and urged the world to let Pyongyang know such a test would further isolate the reclusive nation. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called for "all the members of the international community, including China, to state very clearly to North Korea that this would be a very provocative act and it would only add to and deepen their isolation." South Korea's main spy agency warned last week that the Pyongyang government was ready to test a nuclear device. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs7.5sep07,1,6020369.story

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times September 8, 2006 Pg. 1 Khatami Defends Ahmadinejad, Iran's Nuke Plans By David R. Sands, The Washington Times Former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami yesterday defended his country's nuclear program and rejected suggestions that freedom and human rights in Iran had deteriorated under his hard-line successor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Khatami, who is considered a moderate in Iran's political spectrum, told reporters at the Washington National Cathedral shortly before delivering a speech on "dialogue of civilizations" that Iran's nuclear effort is peaceful and that the world should focus on the atomic arsenals of Israel and other states before criticizing Iran. At the press conference, Mr. Khatami said Iran could discuss suspending its nuclear program once talks with the West had begun. After meeting with reporters he addressed an audience of about 1,200 people at the cathedral. That also was a paraphrase of the official Iranian position that there should be talks without preconditions. Mr. Khatami appeared to be warning the United States against using force against Iran, saying this would never resolve the standoff over Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran would not give up its nuclear program in the face of outside pressure, he said. "We must eliminate the language for the dialogue to be successful." Dressed in a full-length black robe and black turban, Mr. Khatami said Iran's political system should not be judged by the standards of established Western democracies because the United States' own human rights record is not perfect. "Iran has its problems, but they are not greater than the violations of human rights we saw at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo," he said. As Mr. Khatami spoke, a crowd of about 50 demonstrators gathered across the street from the cathedral, waving U.S. and Iranian flags and demanding freedom for the Iranian people. In Berlin, meanwhile, the United States and five other countries remained deadlocked in negotiations over whether to punish Iran for continuing its nuclear program in defiance of the U.N. Security Council. Mr. Khatami acknowledged that his two-week American tour had been criticized by religious hard-liners in Iran, but he said he did not think that Iran had regressed under Mr. Ahmadinejad. "I don't think things have reversed," he said. "Of course their interpretation may be different than mine, but on women and youth, the new president has said things that are very hopeful." Mr. Ahmadinejad has enforced dress codes requiring that women be dressed in black or dark blue Islamic garb from head to toe and has begun a campaign to purge liberal and secular professors from the nation's universities. Mr. Khatami's successor has also called for Israel's destruction. Mr. Khatami spoke in Farsi, the official language of Iran, and his remarks were translated by an interpreter. He began with a short statement, in which he praised Jesus and Muhammad as great prophets. He then took questions from reporters who packed the southeast section of the cathedral nave. He spoke against the backdrop of a banner proclaiming "My house shall be called the house of prayer for all people." (Isaiah 56:7) The State Department has said Mr. Khatami's visit is a private one, and that no U.S. officials will meet him while he is here. Department spokesman Sean McCormack said U.S. officials hope Mr. Khatami will benefit from contacts with private U.S. groups, but said there was no change in the Bush administration's stance opposing Iran's Islamic regime. But Iranian exiles and dissidents who had been jailed and tortured held a press briefing to condemn Mr. Khatami's visit and the administration's decision to issue the former president a visa and provide at no cost State Department security protection during his two-week U.S. stay. Reza Pahlavi, son of the late shah who was ousted in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, said that despite Mr. Khatami's image as a "moderate," he has been a critical part of the "clerical dictatorship that holds our country hostage." Religious minorities in Iran were harshly persecuted under Mr. Khatami, Mr. Pahlavi said. "Regardless of his smiling rhetoric, the true nature of the regime is far different from what Khatami wants us to believe." Rep. Brad Sherman, California Democrat, said the State Department listed Iran as the world's top state sponsor of terrorism for all eight years of Mr. Khatami's administration, which ended last year. With the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks looming, "it is an insult to those who died that day that American taxpayer money is being used to fund a terrorism promotion tour," Mr. Sherman said. Mr. Khatami spoke earlier in the day at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, and will speak Sunday at Harvard University, where critics have also attacked the decision to allow him to speak. In earlier stops in Chicago and New York, the ex-president had sharply criticized what he called "aggressive" U.S. policies in the Mideast, but also appealed for better understanding between the Muslim world and the West. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060908-123058-3813r.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post September 8, 2006 Pg. 17 Tehran's Two Worlds Veering Between Conciliation and Confrontation By David Ignatius TEHRAN -- At the end of a 10-day visit here, I am struggling with a question: Is the Iranian revolution of 27 years ago following the normal arc of history and moving toward a rational and stable society? Or is this country still exploding with radical energy and a desire to export its revolution to other Muslim nations? The answer, I'm afraid, is that while Iran is maturing as a nation, the heat of the Islamic revolution is still intense -- and dangerous. This should be Iran's moment, in which this big, dynamic country claims its place as the region's dominant power, with commensurate responsibilities. But its leaders seem unable to make the compromises that would lock in Iran's gains. They have an "up" staircase toward confrontation but not a "down" staircase toward agreement. The standoff over Iran's nuclear program is dangerous in part because the Iranians are counting on the West's prudence to save them from their own actions. You hear over and over again versions of a comment made at a conference here by Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Reza Sheikh-Attar: "Why won't America attack us? Because we consider that America is not naive enough to do that." Iran is one of the most surprising and confounding countries I've visited. It's more modern than one expects, more open, more diverse. You hear conflicting opinions on almost every topic -- from different factions within the government, the clergy, the media, the business community. This isn't North Korea or even China, where a ruling party enforces consensus. At the center of the Iranian government is a black hole, a group of senior clerics whose decisions are wrapped in mystery. That's the essence of the problem -- there are so many competing factions, and so many checks built into the system, that sometimes nobody seems to be steering the ship of state. Which is the real voice of the country -- the fulminating rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the measured tones of Iranian parliament member Kazem Jalali, who insists in an interview that Iran is ready for negotiation with the West? Is it the gravelly sermon of Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who leads the crowd of worshippers in chants of "death to America" at Friday prayers at Tehran University? Or is it the learned discourse of Grand Ayatollah Yusuf Saanei, who tells me in his seminary at Qom that he favors dialogue with the West and that in today's Iran, "there is talk of human rights everywhere you go." You sense this split personality in the two worlds of Tehran, north and south. In the apartments of the Iranian elite in North Tehran, the headscarves and matronly manteaux of the women disappear and the conversations are as animated as anything you might hear in Paris or London. This is post-revolutionary Iran. An example of this progressive Iran is Rajab Ali Mazrooei, who heads the association of Iranian journalists. His own son was arrested for running one of the thousands of Internet blogs here, yet he insists that despite Ahmadinejad's zeal, "the whole society is moving toward freedom and democracy." But in the sprawling slums of South Tehran, where Ahmadinejad draws his power, the revolution seems very much alive. I visited the famous martyrs' cemetery south of the city and encountered Mohammed Rashidi, 73, standing over the grave of his son Jaafar, who died 20 years ago in the Iraq-Iran war. "We have no problem with another war starting," he says. "Iran is powerful. Martyrdom is its slogan." From the cemetery, the wealthy suburbs of North Tehran are barely visible in the afternoon haze -- distant, another world. Iran's business leaders know that in a globalized economy, Iran needs foreign investment. "Growth is closely related to cooperation with the international economy," says Ali Naghi Khamoushi, the president of the Iranian chamber of commerce, at a conference for foreign investors here. But after 27 years, Iran is used to going it alone, and business leaders don't seem especially worried about sanctions. Indeed, Iranians see a perverse economic benefit in defying the international community. "If we cooperate, oil is $7 a barrel. If we don't, it is $70," former defense minister Ali Shamkhani observes at the investment conference. Upon leaving this puzzling country, I ask myself what policy would make sense for America and its allies. The best answer may be the same one George Kennan proposed in 1947 for countering a rising Soviet Union: a policy of containment -- backed by the threat to use military force -- that seeks to limit the damage Iran can do while its revolution runs its course. Kennan's version of containment worked because the Soviets believed America's military threat was real. The Iranians I met seem to doubt it. Oddly, that calm attitude is what worries me most. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701615.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times September 10, 2006 Pg. 11 European Union In Last-Ditch Talks With Iran On Nuclear Plans By Judy Dempsey BERLIN, Sept. 9 — Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief and Ali Larijani, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, said Saturday that they would continue last-ditch negotiations on Sunday in Vienna to see how far Iran would go to meet United Nations Security Council demand that it freeze its uranium-enrichment program or risk sanctions. Christina Gallach, Mr. Solana’s spokeswoman, told reporters that the three hours of talks on Saturday had been “positive and constructive.’’ Mr. Larijani said, “We had some good and constructive talks, we made some progress in some areas, and we shall continue tomorrow.” Diplomatic pressure on Iran to halt its enrichment of uranium has increased in recent weeks. Iran says its nuclear program is designed to generate electricity, but the United States and Europe suspect the program is meant to develop nuclear weapons. R. Nicholas Burns, the American under secretary of state for political affairs, said Friday in Berlin that the United States hoped to begin talks next week to fashion a resolution that would seek sanctions against Iran if it did not halt its enrichment of uranium. Mr. Burns was speaking after extensive talks with the other four permanent members of the Security Council — Russia, France, China, Britain — as well as with Germany. Talks were held separately with Canada, Italy and Japan. He said the talks with the Europeans, Russia and China would continue Monday and would focus on the possibility of drawing up a draft on sanctions before the General Assembly convened the following week. But Russia and China have made it clear that they will oppose sanctions, and on Saturday, the Chinese prime minister, Wen Jaibao, warned against stepping up pressure on Iran. “To mount pressure or to take sanctions will not necessarily bring about a peaceful solution,” he told a news conference in Helsinki, Finland, after a meeting with European Union officials. He added that resolving the nuclear dispute peacefully would take time. Mr. Wen will start a two-day official visit to Germany on Wednesday, and is expected to discuss Iran with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. Before arriving in Vienna, Mr. Solana said he did not want United Nations sanctions to be imposed on Iran “as long as meetings with Mr. Larijani continue.” Britain, France and Germany circulated a letter to other European capitals on Thursday warning that Iran was intent on “splitting the international community” and playing for time by declining to answer in detail a package of economic and political incentives that American, European, Russian and Chinese negotiators presented it in July. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/world/middleeast/10iran.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

London Sunday Telegraph September 10, 2006 North Korea 'Determined To Carry Out Underground Test' By Sergey Soukhorukov, in Pyongyang Russian diplomats believe it is now "highly probable" that North Korea will officially join the nuclear club by carrying out its first underground test of an atomic device. Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, is said to have made clear his intention to explode a device during recent talks with Russian and Chinese officials in Pyongyang. Although he was pressed to resume six-party talks over his nuclear programme, the Russians concluded that he was serious in his desire to demonstrate that his scientists have successfully built a nuclear weapon. Their fears appear to bolster American suspicions that a test is being prepared, after intelligence reports last month of unusual vehicle movements in the area believed to be the test site. Any such test would be an escalation of tension in the region and would raise the stakes in the stand-off with the United States. During talks at the Russian and Chinese embassies, Kim was warned that such a move would alienate even Moscow and Beijing – regarded as North Korea's closest friends – who were infuriated by the country's long-range missile tests earlier this summer. "If North Korea conducts an underground nuclear test, it will face severe punishment," said one Russian diplomat. "It would pose a very serious threat to world peace." He said Kim Jong Il was "irritated" by financial sanctions imposed last year by the US, including the blocking of bank accounts abroad believed to have been used for money laundering and other illegal deals, including arms and drugs trading. Kim is said to have threatened "to use all necessary means" – including further development of the nuclear deterrent – to make Washington change its position. Six-party talks with China, America, South Korea, Japan and Russia, aimed at persuading Kim to abandon his nuclear ambitions were suspended last November. In Washington, the State Department's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said last week that a North Korean nuclear test would be "a deeply provocative act". Kim disappeared from the public eye the day before large scale missile tests on July 5, prompting speculation that he had gone into hiding in case there was a military response to the tests. A book by the North Korean leader's former sushi chef, Kenji Fujimoto, says that Kim has had a bunker built near Pyongyang to shelter from a nuclear attack. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/10/wkorea10.xml

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Fort Worth Star-Telegram September 9, 2006 Plant Destroying Chemical Weapons The facility holds more than 17 percent of the nerve agents contained in Russian bombs and missiles. By Judith Ingram, Associated Press MARADYKOVSKY, Russia — Engineers covered in head-to-toe protective gear inserted a neutralizing solution Friday into Russian bombs filled with a nerve agent, officially starting the work of the country’s first plant for destroying the deadly chemicals. The opening of the Maradykovsky plant accelerates Russia’s campaign to eliminate the world’s largest arsenal of the toxins. The plant, 450 miles northeast of Moscow, holds 6,900 tons of nerve agents stored in aerial bombs and missile warheads, more than 17 percent of Russia’s stockpile. Dignitaries, townspeople and journalists gathered Friday for the opening ceremony on a makeshift stage outside the plant, which is ringed by three barbed-wire fences. Several miles away, a sign proclaimed the road to the plant a closed zone. “Today’s event demonstrates Russia’s efforts to strictly fulfill its international commitments and shows that Russia has the political will to see through to the end the process of chemical disarmament,” said Viktor Kholstov, deputy head of the Federal Industry Agency, which is in charge of the effort. The facility, on the site of one of Russia’s seven former chemical weapons plants, will become a focal point of the push to meet an April 2007 target for Russia to destroy 20 percent of its stockpile. To date, Russia has eliminated 3 percent, as opposed to 39 percent destroyed by the United States, which has the second-largest stockpile. Besides the Maradykovsky plant, Russia has two other chemical weapon destruction facilities, both built with generous foreign funding. The Maradykovsky plant, funded solely by Russia, is the only one for destroying nerve agents; the others are for destroying blister agents. Disarmament officials gave credit to Switzerland, which recently announced that it is spending some $2 million on an electricity grid for the plant. The bombs at Maradykovsky hold VX, soman and sarin, as well as a less deadly mixture of lewisite and mustard gas. Technicians will open each bomb, drain some of the agent if necessary, insert a neutralizing reagent, close the bomb and let it sit for 80-110 days to let the chemical processes take place, said Gennady Bezrukov, chief engineer of the Federal Chemical Weapons Storage and Destruction Administration. When it is running at full strength, the plant can neutralize 96 weapons a day, Bezrukov said. The closest town to the plant — Mirny, where 3,500 people live — and the surrounding region of 50,000 residents have been promised a new apartment building, a central heating system and electricity and sewage systems as part of a legal requirement that 10 percent of the cost of the weapons destruction process be invested in the local community. New apartment houses have been built for plant medics and other workers in nearby Orichi, and the town has a new school, allowing the existing one to stop teaching children in two shifts a day. The state has also funded an ecological monitoring laboratory. http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/world/15479531.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times September 10, 2006 Pg. 18 Central Asia Pact Frees The Region Of Nuclear Arms By Ilan Greenberg SEMIPALATINSK, Kazakhstan, Sept. 9 — Five nations in Central Asia signed a nuclear-free-zone treaty on Friday that commits the region’s rich uranium deposits to peaceful uses but leaves open loopholes that could allow Russia to transport nuclear weapons into Central Asia. It is the first mutual security pact among all five Central Asian nations, a group that has often quarreled about security issues. By adopting the legally binding nuclear-free pact the signatories — the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan — agreed that they would neither acquire nuclear weapons nor allow them within their borders. But the treaty does not cancel an agreement that the Central Asian nations signed in 1992 that allows Russia to transport and deploy nuclear weapons in Central Asia under certain circumstances. The United States, Britain and France boycotted the signing ceremony because they objected to that aspect of the treaty, said embassy officials and participants in the treaty negotiations. Only Russia and China sent representatives to Kazakhstan to observe the treaty signing. Central Asia currently contains no nuclear weapons, but Kazakhstan was home to the world’s fourth-largest nuclear missile arsenal in the wake of the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Kazakhstan voluntarily decommissioned its nuclear weaponry in the mid-1990’s. Nuclear-free zones often are opposed by the large nuclear powers because they can limit the movement of military assets and expose military bases to intrusive inspections. The United States has an air base in Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan allows NATO fighter planes with missions in Afghanistan to use its territory. But zones can be crucial confidence-building measures among suspicious neighbors in a troubled region, said John Endicott, a professor of international affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology, in a telephone interview. “The United States’ lack of support for this nuclear-free zone is a colossal mistake,” said Mr. Endicott, who participated in the initial round of talks over the treaty nine years ago in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/world/asia/10asia.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times September 11, 2006 Pg. 9 Europe Union And Iran Report Progress In Nuclear Talks By Judy Dempsey BERLIN, Sept. 10 — Representatives of Iran and the European Union said Sunday that they had made progress in the search for a compromise to avert possible United Nations sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, and they said they would meet again soon. “The meeting, the hours of work, have been productive,” said Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, after two rounds of talks in Vienna with Ali Larijani, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator. “We have clarified some of the misunderstandings that existed before.” He added that he wanted to continue the negotiations. “We have made progress,” he said. “We want to continue that line, and we are going to meet next week.” Mr. Larijani, who spent most of last week touring European capitals in an effort to stave off the threat of sanctions, said “many misunderstandings had been removed.” The cautious-but-positive tone of the statements from Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani contrasted sharply with the United States’ position outlined last week here by R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs. It could open up a rift between the Europeans and the United States, though Iran has been one of the few foreign policy issues in which they have worked together. Mr. Burns had said Washington wanted to start drafting language on sanctions on Monday, when he planned to hold a conference call with Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia. He said he hoped that a draft could be ready by the time the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York next week. Mr. Burns had said that Iran had been given ample time to respond to a package of incentives to halt its uranium- enrichment program that was presented three months ago by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — plus Germany. The six countries had given Iran until Aug. 31 to accept the offer or risk sanctions. But Mr. Burns added that Iran had responded with no concrete proposals or answers. A European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with reporters, said Iran had replied with a “convoluted” 21-page letter that “failed to address our real concerns and indeed the content of the incentives.” The diplomat said that was why Mr. Solana wanted to meet with Mr. Larijani — to understand Iran’s reaction toward the package, which included economic, political and technological assistance. “Solana wanted substantial clarifications before conditions could be created for the start of negotiations,” the diplomat added. According to diplomats familiar with the talks in Vienna, Mr. Solana also wanted to clarify whether Iran would introduce curbs to its enrichment program, as Iran vaguely hinted in its reply, if negotiations started. Reuters reported Sunday that Mr. Larijani had said Iran would be willing to consider a two-month moratorium on its uranium-enrichment program, but other Iranian officials denied that, and another European diplomat, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “We have to be very prudent about this statement.” Although both sides were unwilling to give many details about the Vienna talks that started Saturday afternoon and resumed Sunday, there were suggestions that Iran might be willing to suspend its uranium-enrichment program if negotiations on the package were to start. The United States, however, might not accept the idea since it, along with several European countries, contends that Iran is stalling for time to develop what American officials say is a nuclear capacity. Iran says its nuclear program is only to produce energy for civilian use. In Berlin on Friday, Mr. Burns said Iran would first have to suspend its enrichment program before negotiations could start, and that the international community was united over Iran. But it is far from certain that the United States could win support for sanctions from the other four permanent members of the Security Council. China and Russia said last week that they wanted to pursue diplomacy and questioned whether sanctions would be effective. Germany has not explicitly stated whether it would support sanctions. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/world/middleeast/11iran.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post September 12, 2006 Pg. 20 Brief Nuclear Halt May Lead To Talks With Iran Rice Suggests Temporary Move Could Be Enough By Glenn Kessler and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writers Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled yesterday that a temporary suspension of Iran's nuclear programs might be enough to pave the way for the first direct negotiations involving the United States and Iran in more than a quarter-century. Speaking to reporters as she flew to Halifax, Nova Scotia, Rice said Iran needs to suspend uranium-enrichment activities before talks can begin, but she did not rule out something less than a permanent suspension. In talks over the weekend between Iranian and European officials, the chief Iranian negotiator offered a two-month freeze at the start of the talks. "The point is, there would have to be a suspension," Rice said when asked about Iran's proposal. "If there is a suspension, we can have discussions, but there has to be a suspension. As far as I know, the Iranians have not yet said that they would suspend prior to negotiations." Rice said she has not "heard any Iranian offer, so I don't know what to make of that," adding: "But the question is: Are they prepared to suspend, verifiably, so that negotiations can begin? That's the issue." Rice's comments followed a round of private calls she had in the past day with European counterparts and came after positive meetings between European and Iranian officials. Two days of talks in Vienna between Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, and Javier Solana of the European Union went well, and both sides said they will meet again Thursday, according to diplomats from both sides who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. "First of all, it's suspension, verified suspension -- that's the condition," Rice said. "Secondly, it's suspension for suspension," she said, meaning that if Iran freezes its program, then the United States and its allies would halt a push for U.N. sanctions. France, Britain and Germany have committed to push for sanctions against Iran if it does not halt its uranium- enrichment program, but the Europeans are also eager to find a route to negotiations. Other members of the European Union have strongly supported talks, rather than punitive measures, noting that Iran's technical progress on its nuclear program has been marginal while its position as a major oil exporter leaves it with significant leverage to batter European economies. Japan, which has billions of dollars' worth of investments in Iran's oil and gas industry, has been reluctant to back sanctions. But all parties, including Russia and China -- two of Iran's closest economic partners -- have publicly said that Tehran must suspend its nuclear program for talks to begin. Iran quit negotiations with the Europeans a year ago and restarted its nuclear program. In an effort to coax Iran back to the negotiating table, Rice announced in May that the United States would join the talks if Iran suspended its program again. The United States and its partners offered Iran the prospect of economic incentives if negotiations are successful -- or an escalating series of sanctions if the talks fail. The Institute for Science and International Security, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, yesterday posted a copy of Iran's confidential 21-page response to the offer of incentives that was officially conveyed in June. David Albright, president of ISIS, said the document is tough to grasp and sometimes contradictory, but that there are positive elements, including a willingness to discuss suspension of uranium enrichment, even as Iran rejected the right of the U.N. Security Council to order a halt to enrichment activities. "This is not a hollow offer by the Iranians," he said -- adding, however, that "you just get mad reading this thing." Iran, in its response, indicated willingness to comply with a Security Council obligation to freeze the program as long as it is not a precondition for talks. The Vienna meetings are aimed at finding face-saving ways out of the staunch positions all sides have taken while facilitating a path toward negotiations, officials said. Rice spoke by telephone with Solana and with Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency overseeing a probe of Iran's nuclear program. Agency inspectors, in their fourth year of investigation, have not found proof of a weapons program but have also been unable to verify Iran's assertion that the enrichment program is strictly for energy production. Rice reiterated yesterday that if the talks do not materialize, the United States will push for sanctions. "Our clock would be running, too," she said. "Nobody is going to become accustomed to a nuclear-armed Iran. That's why we're on this course." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091100766.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Center for American Progress Biosecurity A Comprehensive Action Plan Andrew J. Grotto and Jonathan B. Tucker June 2006 Executive Summary Biological weapons and infectious diseases share several fundamental characteristics that the United States can leverage to counter both of these threats more effectively. Both a bioweapons attack and a natural pandemic, such as avian flu, can be detected in similar ways, and the effectiveness of any response to an outbreak of infectious disease, whether natural or caused deliberately by terrorists, hinges on the strength of the U.S. public health and medical systems — the network of federal, state, local, and private-sector entities responsible for the health of the nation’s population. Natural pandemic outbreaks and bioterrorist attacks would place different stresses on these systems at the outset, yet the basic response and containment mechanisms would be essentially the same. The Biological Incident Annex — the portion of the U.S. government’s National Response Plan (NRP) that addresses biological threats — recognizes the commonalities between natural and deliberate outbreaks. But having an emergency plan on paper is no guarantee that it will work in practice, as the federal government’s faulty response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrates. The Biological Incident Annex is premised on the assumption that state, local, and tribal entities can, as a practical matter, assume primary responsibility for detecting and responding to major outbreaks of infectious disease. Unfortunately, the reality is that they cannot. Only fifteen states and/or cities currently have the capability to administer stockpiled vaccines and other drugs on a large scale. More than 50% of Americans today live in states that do not have plans to deal with a large number of casualties in the event of a bioterrorist attack, and 0% live in states where hospitals lack medical equipment that would be required in a major emergency. Worse yet, only two states have plans to encourage medical personnel to report for work during an epidemic, and nearly half of the states do not use national standards to report infectious diseases to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). At the local level, too, our biosecurity is weak. A recent survey found that practicing physicians would misdiagnose anthrax, botulism, plague, and smallpox — all potential bioterrorist threats — an average of 47% of the time. Another recent report predicts that the United States will face a 0% shortfall of nurses by 0 0 to support our national health system — and that’s without factoring in the possibility of a pandemic. This woeful lack of preparedness is not for lack of trying, or for lack of funding. Since 9/11, the United States has spent more than $30 billion to counter the twin threats of biological weapons and natural emerging infections, such as pandemic influenza. The bulk of this money has been devoted to developing and stockpiling vaccines against known diseases, such as smallpox and anthrax, with the remainder going to improve disease surveillance systems and other public health infrastructure. Overseas, too, the CDC has employees working in 46 countries and is expanding its network of Global Disease Detection and Response Centers. The U.S. is also cooperating with the World Health Organization, the United Nations agency that performed so well in tracking and responding to recent outbreaks of SARS and other emerging infections. By June 007, WHO will implement a major revision of the International Health Regulations requiring member nations to notify the agency within 4 hours of any public health threat that could affect more than one country. Yet all of these worthy efforts do not add up to an effective biosecurity system for all Americans. The primary reason is a failure to connect the dots between plans on paper and the capabilities needed to implement them. Correcting the gaps in the nation’s preparedness for pandemic diseases and bioterrorism will require the United States to exercise bold leadership across a range of public policy arenas. We must improve our early warning systems for the detection of disease outbreaks and support advanced biomedical research to encourage the development of safe, cost-effective drugs capable of treating a broad spectrum of infectious diseases. At the same time, we must revitalize global efforts to prevent the spread of biological weapons and promote strong international standards to ensure that legitimate scientific research is not misused to create novel pathogens for biological warfare or terrorism. The United States must also strengthen the capacities of international public health agencies, such as WHO, to identify and contain diseases before they evolve into global threats. At home, the United States must address critical deficiencies in the nation’s public health infrastructure. Preventive measures must extend to all Americans, not only for reasons of fairness but to safeguard public health and national security. An emergency vaccination campaign to contain an outbreak of a contagious disease, for example, will succeed only if it covers a large majority of the affected population, creating sufficient “herd immunity” to prevent rapid person-to-person contagion. The millions of Americans who are uninsured or underserved by the health care system are particularly vulnerable to infection, creating a potential reservoir of contagious disease that could spread to the rest of the population. To implement an integrated biosecurity strategy, the U.S. government should:

Strengthen global A layered, comprehensive strategy is critical to countering efforts to prevent the spectrum of biological threats. The United States should terrorists and actively promote “harmonized” international guidelines for extremist regimes from securing dangerous pathogens in research laboratories and acquiring the materials, culture collections and for the oversight of sensitive research equipment, and knowhow in the life sciences that could threaten public health or national needed to produce security. The United States should also work to strengthen the biological weapons. international treaty banning biological arms and to strengthen export controls on “dual-use” technologies that have legitimate peaceful applications but could be diverted for biowarfare purposes. (See Preventing Bio-Catastrophes: The Need for a Global Approach.)

Remedy critical Stockpiles of drugs and vaccines will not save lives unless deficiencies in the the public health system can rapidly detect and identify a nation’s public health disease agent and respond in a timely manner with medical infrastructure using and other interventions. The United States must strengthen an “all-hazards” disease surveillance and response systems at both the approach. national and international levels. A so called “all-hazards” response strategy would give priority to combating natural infectious disease threats, which are inevitable and likely to increase in the coming years, while enhancing preparedness for deliberate biological attacks, whose probability remains uncertain. (See Containing Outbreaks of Infectious Disease: An Integrated Public Health Strategy.)

Implement a new research and The United States must create new incentives for privatesector development strategy and university investment in the development of broadspectrum for anti-infective drugs antimicrobial drugs. It is also critical to develop and vaccines. new systems that shorten the time lag between identifying a new biological threat agent and creating safe and effective medical countermeasures. (See Defending Against Biological Threats: An Integrated Research Strategy.)

1Trust for America’s Health, “Ready or Not?” (2005), available at http://healthyamericans. org/reports/bioterror05/bioterror05Report.pdf. 2 Sara E. Cosgrove, Trish M. Perl, Xiaoyan Song, and Stephen D. Sisson, “Ability of Physicians to Diagnose and Manage Illness Due to Category A Bioterrorism,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 65, no. 7 (Sept. 26, 2005), pp. 2002-2006. Peter I. Buerhaus, Douglas O. Staiger, and David I. Auerbach, “Implications of an Aging Registered Nurse Workforce,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 28 , no. 2 (June 4, 2000), pp. 2948-2954. . . (To view the complete “Biosecurity: A Comprehensive Action Plan,” click link below and scroll down to “Read the Full Report” link on page.) www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1807025

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

September 2006 U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration www.nnsa.doe.gov NNSA Working To Prevent Nuclear Terrorism “The greatest threat before humanity today is the possibility of a secret and sudden attack with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons.” – President George W. Bush, February 11, 2004 The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which has unique expertise in nuclear weapons and nuclear material, plays a key role in the U.S. government’s comprehensive effort to combat terrorism. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, NNSA has doubled spending on nuclear nonproliferation programs. In its fight against nuclear terrorism, NNSA has successfully completed the following: Secured Nuclear Material and Warheads • Returned 228 kilograms (over 500 lbs) of Soviet-origin nuclear material from vulnerable sites around the world. • Returned 3,300 kilograms (7,260 lbs) of U.S.-origin nuclear material. • Converted 43 research reactors worldwide from operating on highly enriched uranium to run on low enriched uranium. • Trained over 500 foreign officials every year since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on how to physically protect nuclear material and facilities. • Monitored the conversion of 11,038 nuclear weapons worth of Russian highly enriched uranium. • Disposed of approximately 90 metric tons (almost 200,000 lbs) of surplus U.S. highly enriched uranium. • Secured over 80 percent of the Russian nuclear weapons material storage sites of concern, including over 170 buildings. • Improved security at all 39 Russian Navy and 14 Russian Strategic Rocket Forces sites containing hundreds of warheads. Secured “Dirty Bomb” Material • Recovered over 13,000 radioactive sources in the United States. • Recovered about three million curies worth of radiological sources from 112 sites in Russia. • Upgraded the physical security at 486 facilities around the world that contained vulnerable, high-risk radioactive material, and currently upgrading an additional 209 locations in 38 countries. Prevented Nuclear Smuggling and Transfer of Nuclear Expertise • Refocused long-term research efforts to develop improved technologies to detect weapons of mass destruction and proliferation around the world. • Trained over 4,500 U.S. customs and border officials and held over 180 workshops for foreign customs and border officials on weapons of mass destruction commodity recognition and nonproliferation principles since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. • Installed radiation detection equipment at international seaports in six countries with an additional 14 countries at various stages of implementation. • Equipped a total of 88 sites with radiation detection equipment at Russian borders, airports and ports. • Created nearly 4,400 jobs and engaged at least 12,000 former weapons of mass destruction scientists and engineers at 180 institutes across the former Soviet Union. Emergency Response • NNSA has robust emergency capabilities with some of the world’s top professional scientists, engineers, pilots, medical personnel, technicians and other leading nuclear experts. • Using extremely sophisticated laboratories and equipment, NNSA’s response personnel are ready to respond to and resolve nuclear and radiological terrorist incidents, including supporting other government agencies, and deploying search, analysis and medical teams. • In order to maintain its elite response standards, NNSA participated in approximately 45 emergency planning operations in 2005. • NNSA supported local law enforcement by mobilizing resources for approximately 40 high profile special events around the country in 2005. Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear science. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; works to reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad. Visit www.nnsa.doe.gov for more information. http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/factsheets/2006/NA-06-FS07.pdf

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post September 13, 2006 Pg. 12 Iran Offers Talks On Nuclear Issue But Proceedings at U.N. Must Stop, Newly Disclosed Proposal Warns By John Ward Anderson, Washington Post Foreign Service PARIS, Sept. 12 -- Iran's confidential response three weeks ago to an international proposal over its nuclear program offered extensive negotiations to resolve the standoff, but only if proceedings against Iran in the U.N. Security Council were stopped. In a detailed and sometimes rambling document given to foreign governments, Iran stopped short of rejecting demands to halt its nuclear enrichment program, saying the issue could be resolved in talks. The response, closely held for weeks, was made public on a Web site Monday. "The Islamic Republic of Iran does not intend to reject the whole issue unilaterally, and is ready to provide an opportunity for both sides to share their viewpoints on this issue and try to convince each other and reach a mutual understanding," the document says. But ending enrichment should not be a prerequisite to negotiations, as demanded by the United States and other countries, the proposal suggests. And if Security Council deliberations aimed at imposing sanctions on Iran continue, the document warns, "the positions expressed in this response would be void and the Islamic Republic would choose a different course of action." Iran was responding formally to a package of political and economic incentives offered to it in June by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The countries hope to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium, which some foreign governments feel is intended for nuclear weapons. Iran contends that the program is peaceful, aimed at making fuel for electrical power plants. The incentives included the possibility of direct talks with the United States for the first time since relations between the two countries were severed in 1979. Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, have been in preliminary talks in recent days over Iran's proposals. On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested that a temporary suspension might be enough to clear the way for formal negotiations. In the document, posted on the Web site of the Institute for Science and International Security on Monday, the Iranian government repeatedly refers to its rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop a peaceful nuclear program, saying it "cannot accept deprivation from its legal rights." As for allegations that it is pursuing weapons, the document demands that Iran be granted a presumption of innocence, in the absence of any proof that it is has a nuclear weapons program. Iran "is against production, stockpiling, development and proliferation of nuclear weapons," the document says. It calls for "simultaneous mutual confidence-building" that would include a commitment by the foreign governments "to seriously follow up the fulfillment of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, particularly the commitment to disarm [Israel] from weapons of mass destruction and in particular nuclear arms." Israel is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal, but it has never acknowledged having such weapons. The document also seeks assurances that if Iran engages in nuclear negotiations, it will not be attacked or subjected to economic sanctions. In the document, Iran portrays the current standoff as the beginning of a negotiating process, saying the foreign governments' proposal "has elements which may be useful for a constructive approach." But the document complains that the package "lacks any reference to irreversible and irrevocable guarantees" for any ultimate agreement. "Such guarantees are particularly essential on access to advanced nuclear technology and equipment, erection and commissioning of nuclear power reactors, nuclear fuel supply, and transfer of know-how and technology," it says. The document also seeks a clear statement by the foreign governments of Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The document suggests that the secretiveness of Iran's nuclear program was forced upon it by the hostility of other countries, which it said tried to constrain its legitimate and legal rights to develop nuclear technologies under the treaty. "We have no interest in limiting or suspending inspections of our nuclear facilities and activities," the document says. But "a quarter century of denial and deprivation" forced Iran to develop a nuclear program "on the basis of independence and self-reliance." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091200470.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post September 14, 2006 Pg. 17 U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel Paper on Nuclear Aims Called Dishonest By Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writer U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims. Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna. The IAEA openly clashed with the Bush administration on pre-war assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents. After no such weapons were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to building nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year. Yesterday's letter, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, was the first time the IAEA has publicly disputed U.S. allegations about its Iran investigation. The agency noted five major errors in the committee's 29-page report, which said Iran's nuclear capabilities are more advanced than either the IAEA or U.S. intelligence has shown. Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring. When the congressional report was released last month, Hoekstra said his intent was "to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat." Spokesman Jamal Ware said yesterday that Hoekstra will respond to the IAEA letter. Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a committee member, said the report was "clearly not prepared in a manner that we can rely on." He agreed to send it to the full committee for review, but the Republicans decided to make it public before then, he said in an interview. The report was never voted on or discussed by the full committee. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the vice chairman, told Democratic colleagues in a private e-mail that the report "took a number of analytical shortcuts that present the Iran threat as more dire -- and the Intelligence Community's assessments as more certain -- than they are." Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. Negroponte's spokesman, John Callahan, said in a statement that his office "reviewed the report and provided its response to the committee on July 24, '06." He did not say whether it had approved or challenged any of the claims about Iran's capabilities. "This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors." The committee report, written by a single Republican staffer with a hard-line position on Iran, chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons. It concluded that the lack of intelligence made it impossible to support talks with Tehran. Democrats on the committee saw it as an attempt from within conservative Republican circles to undermine Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has agreed to talk with the Iranians under certain conditions. The report's author, Fredrick Fleitz, is a onetime CIA officer and special assistant to John R. Bolton, the administration's former point man on Iran at the State Department. Bolton, who is now ambassador to the United Nations, had been highly influential during President Bush's first term in drawing up a tough policy that rejected talks with Tehran. Among the allegations in Fleitz's Iran report is that ElBaradei removed a senior inspector from the Iran investigation because he raised "concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program." The agency said the inspector has not been removed. A suggestion that ElBaradei had an "unstated" policy that prevented inspectors from telling the truth about Iran's program was particularly "outrageous and dishonest," according to the IAEA letter, which was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, the IAEA's director for external affairs and a former Hungarian ambassador. Hoekstra's committee is working on a separate report about North Korea that is also being written principally by Fleitz. A draft of the report, provided to The Post, includes several assertions about North Korea's weapons program that the intelligence officials said they cannot substantiate, including one that Pyongyang is already enriching uranium. The intelligence community believes North Korea is trying to acquire an enrichment capability but has no proof that an enrichment facility has been built, the officials said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302052.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Los Angeles Times September 14, 2006 Iranian President Willing To Negotiate Ahmadinejad says he's open to 'new conditions' concerning his nation's nuclear program. He plays down a U.S. call for sanctions. By Reuters DAKAR, Senegal — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said early today that he thought his dispute with the West over his country's nuclear program could be resolved through negotiations, and that he was open to "new conditions." "We are partial to dialogue and negotiation, and we believe that we can resolve the problems in a context of dialogue and of justice together," Ahmadinejad said at a midnight news conference during a brief visit to Senegal's capital. He was asked about a U.S. statement Wednesday that Iran was "aggressively" pursuing nuclear weapons through its controversial uranium enrichment program, and that the country should face economic sanctions because of it. "I don't believe there will be sanctions because there is no reason to have sanctions. It would be preferable for the U.S. officials not to speak in anger," he said, flashing a smile. "I am announcing that we are available, we are ready for new conditions," he added, without elaborating, before leaving for the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Havana. Western leaders have criticized Iran's disregard of an Aug. 31 United Nations Security Council deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Tehran insists that the program is intended solely to produce electricity. Washington made clear to the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's defiance should trigger steps toward sanctions, but Britain, France and Germany avoided any mention of punitive action and called for last- ditch talks despite Tehran's violation of the deadline. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran14sep14,0,4561373.story?coll=la-home-world

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times September 14, 2006 Pg. 1 Seoul Backs Censure Of North Foreign minister hits missile tests By David R. Sands, The Washington Times South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon yesterday said Seoul strongly supports the United Nations' condemnation of North Korea for its recent missile tests, and denied that South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun was trying to play down the missile tests when he described them recently as tests carried out by the communist North for political, not military effect. "I do not know if the United States and others have fully made up their positions, but the South Korea government will faithfully implement the U.N. Security Council resolution [1695]. We fully supported it," Mr. Ban said. Mr. Ban spoke with reporters from The Washington Times on the eve of an Oval Office summit today between President Bush and Mr. Roh. Mr. Ban acknowledged there was a "perception gap" between the two allies on North Korea and other issues, a gap often exaggerated by South Korea's domestic press. He said the alliance remained fundamentally healthy and that public opinion in South Korea toward the United States had improved in recent years. On other issues, the South Korean offered the following thoughts: *The South Korean government is "firmly committed" to a new bilateral free-trade agreement with the United States. He said Seoul hoped to have a deal by spring, despite strong opposition in South Korea from farmers and other groups. *He said Mr. Bush and Mr. Roh would not nail down at today's meeting an accord to transfer operational control of South Korean forces in wartime. Details of such an accord would be left to military officials meeting next month. But he said South Korea should assume responsibility as a sovereign country. "When you are making fundamental changes, it's better that they be done as soon as possible and not to leave a long period of uncertainty," he said. Mr. Roh, who last met Mr. Bush 10 months ago on the sidelines of a summit of Asia-Pacific leaders, will hold a one-hour Oval Office meeting and have an hourlong working lunch with Mr. Bush today. He met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday and will also visit San Francisco before returning home. The short, low-key summit is in sharp contrast to the warm welcome Mr. Bush recently extended to Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, one of the U.S. administration's closest allies in the region. That visit included a trip by the two leaders to Memphis, Tenn., to tour Graceland, home of Mr. Junichiro's musical idol, Elvis Presley. U.S. and South Korean officials have dismissed the idea of fundamental problems with the alliance, despite clear tactical differences in recent months over how to deal with North Korea. But Mr. Roh, in a speech yesterday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged there was considerable talk in both capitals about strains in the alliance forged in the early days of the Cold War. "I am quite aware that in Korea and the United States, we have many people who are quite concerned" about the state of bilateral ties, Mr. Roh said, speaking through an interpreter. But "in all areas where the United States has been fighting to establish order and freedom, Korea has always been at the United States' side," he added. Among the delicate issues on the bilateral agenda: how tough a line to take with North Korea; a proposed U.S.- South Korea free-trade agreement; and Seoul's efforts to reclaim operational control of its military forces in wartime from U.S. command. Mr. Ban, in an interview with South Korean journalists last month, conceded there were "a number of perception gaps" between Seoul and Washington. "The upcoming summit is important," he said then. "Once a perception is formed, it is difficult to remove it." Mr. Roh's government, beset by scandals and worries over North Korea policy, has hit historic lows in recent South Korean polls. The South Korean president's five-year term ends in December 2007, but Mr. Ban, minister of foreign affairs and trade since January 2004, may be in line to move to a bigger stage. The 62-year-old career diplomat and government minister announced in February his candidacy to succeed U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, whose term ends Dec. 31. Mr. Ban topped an unofficial Security Council straw poll held in July. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060913-115540-6308r.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)