USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER

CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL

Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Issue No. 807, 11 May 2010

Articles & Other Documents:

Obama Hopes Senate Will Ratify START By November 'US Support For Nuke Policy Eroding'

`How Long A Wait?' Ban Asks About Nuke Test Treaty Seeks Nuclear Talks With EU Foreign Policy Chief

Report: IAEA To Discuss Israel's Nuclear Activities For Israel To Keep Nuclear 'Ambiguity' First Time North Korea's Kim Committed To Disarmament Talks: Iran Welcomes Turkish, Brazilian Nuclear Fuel Ideas KCNA

Lula, Erdogan To Discuss Nuclear Fuel Swap Proposal Israel Says NKorea Shipping WMDs To In Iran Syria Asks To Help Rid Middle East Of Nuclear Israel Will Not Change Nuclear Policy, Official Says Weapons

Iran Over Decade Away From Anti - U.S. Missile - Pakistan Tests 2 Missiles, Wants Nuke Recognition Study Outdated, Unwanted, US Nukes Hang On In Europe Seeks ‗Concrete Assurances‘ For Nuclear Fuel Swap Israel‘s Nuclear Deception Is No Longer Off Limits Fixing The Treaty

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 chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats and countermeasures. 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 http://cpc.au.af.mil/ for in-depth information and specific points of contact. 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.

Buenos Aires Herald – Sunday, May 9, 2010 Obama Hopes Senate Will Ratify START By November () President said he hoped the Senate would ratify a major arms reduction treaty with Russia by November, after the Senate majority leader expressed doubt that it could happen before 2011. "I'd like to see it happen before the election," the Democratic president said, referring to U.S. congressional elections due on November 2. He was speaking in an interview with Russia's state-run Rossiya television channel broadcast on Saturday. But, the Senate faces a large workload between now and the election, including tougher regulation of the financial industry and confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, cautioned in April that ratification of the new treaty, a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), may not happen until early 2011. Senate consent is required for the treaty -- which would reduce deployed nuclear warheads of the United States and Russia by about 30 percent -- to go into force. Obama said his administration planned to put the text of the treaty and its annexes before the Senate in "short order" in the hope that the chamber would act quickly. The treaty is expected to be submitted to the Senate this month. Russia's parliament, the Duma, also needs to approve the deal. The treaty represents a major foreign policy success for both Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, whom the U.S. president described as a "strong leader, a good man." "I find it very easy to do business with him, and I think we've established a relationship, a real trust that can be hopefully bearing fruit in the negotiations and conversations that we have in years to come." Obama said he had invited Medvedev to visit the United States late next month. (Reporting by Ross Colvin; editing by Mohammad Zargham) http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/32845 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Boston Globe `How Long A Wait?' Ban Asks About Nuke Test Treaty By Charles J. Hanley, AP Special Correspondent May 8, 2010 --An impatient U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is pushing to set a deadline for activating the treaty banning all nuclear tests, stepping up pressure in a campaign to win over holdouts, including the U.S. Senate. "The bottom line is this: It has been 15 years since the treaty was opened for signature. How long must we wait?" Ban asked delegates at the opening of a pivotal, monthlong conference on nuclear nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate in 1999 rejected the "CTBT," the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, but President Barack Obama plans to resubmit the pact for ratification. Some Republicans are again mustering opposition, but Democrats are hopeful of approval next year. Ban also said it's time to consider creative ways to get around what may prove to be final die-hard obstacles to the treaty -- possibly a resistant North Korea, or India and Pakistan. Negotiated in the 1990s, the treaty specified 44 nuclear-capable states -- from to Vietnam -- that must give full approval before it can take effect. Nine of those have not yet ratified, although one, , announced at the start of the nonproliferation conference on Monday that it would soon approve the treaty. Like China, the Jakarta government had long indicated it would wait for the U.S. to act, but new Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said it would no longer be steered by U.S. decisions. The other holdouts among the 44, besides the U.S., China and Indonesia, have been Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan. A total of 151 nations have ratified the pact. Although earlier treaties outlawed all but underground nuclear blasts under 150 kilotons -- equivalent to 150,000 tons of TNT -- this one would impose a blanket ban on any test anywhere, putting the power of international law and U.N. Security Council enforcement behind the ban. Major nuclear powers, including the U.S., have observed moratoriums on testing since the 1990s, but India, Pakistan and North Korea all have tested bombs since the CTBT was negotiated. Tests help weapon designers build ever more compact, durable and finely tuned bombs. Ending testing would put a cap on developing new weapons, halting proliferation to more states and giving nuclear-armed states more confidence to negotiate deep reductions, treaty proponents say. Senate opponents in 1999 objected that the U.S. might need to test to maintain a reliable nuclear stockpile, and the monitoring system of the treaty secretariat, the CTBT Organization, wouldn't detect all clandestine tests by cheaters. Today's treaty supporters counter that the U.S. weapons stockpile has been certified reliable annually since the 1990s, and the $1 billion monitoring system of seismic and other detectors built up since 1999 has proven it can spot even small explosions. Secretary-General Ban has a personal stake in the treaty, as chairman in the 1990s of its preparatory commission. "The time has come to think very seriously about setting a time frame for ratification," Ban told conference delegates last Monday. Some have suggested setting a target date of 2015. Such a deadline would have only political, not legal force. It would be "a way of making the parties think harder about the need for entry into force of the treaty," said Sergio Duarte, U.N. disarmament affairs chief. Tibor Toth, head of the Vienna-based CTBT Organization, said he was optimistic about U.S. ratification if senators make a "realistic assessment" of where the world is headed in the coming decades without a treaty -- that is, toward proliferation of nuclear weapons to more and more states. It takes two-thirds of the 100 senators to ratify a treaty. "U.S. ratification is the defining ratification," Toth said, pointing out that China and others would then come along. As for Ban's idea of finding an "alternative mechanism" for dealing with a final holdout or two, Toth said, "Certain countries are ready to think about provisional application." Provisional application is a principle of international law whereby treaty members can agree to put their pact into effect though it lacks the required ratifications. Treaty supporters say any North Korean nuclear test, for example, could then be detected by the monitoring system, without the onsite inspections provided for under the treaty, and the U.N. Security Council could take punitive action. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/08/how_long_a_wait_ban_asks_about_nuke_test_treaty/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Ha‘aretz Daily – Israel May 8, 2010 Report: IAEA To Discuss Israel's Nuclear Activities For First Time Israeli nuclear capabilities are on the provisional agenda for the International Atomic Energy Agency's June 7 meeting. By The Israel's secretive nuclear activities may undergo unprecedented scrutiny next month, with a key meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency tentatively set to focus on the topic for the first time, according to documents shared Friday with The Associated Press. A copy of the restricted provisional agenda of the IAEA's June 7 board meeting lists Israeli nuclear capabilities as the eighth item - the first time that that the agency's decision-making body is being asked to deal with the issue in its 52 years of existence. The agenda can still undergo changes in the month before the start of the meeting and a senior diplomat from a board member nation said the item, included on Arab request, could be struck if the U.S. and other Israeli allies mount strong opposition. He asked for anonymity for discussing a confidential matter. Even if dropped from the final agenda, however, its inclusion in the May 7 draft made available to The AP is significant, reflecting the success of Islamic nations in giving concerns about Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal increased prominence. The 35-nation IAEA board is the agency's decision making body and can refer proliferation concerns to the UN Security Council - as it did with Iran in 2006 after Tehran resumed enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear weapons. A decision to keep the item would be a slap in the face not only for Israel but also for Washington and its Western allies, which support the Jewish state and view Iran as the greatest nuclear threat to the Middle East. Iran - and more recently Syria - have been the focus of past board meetings; Tehran for its refusal to freeze enrichment and for stonewalling IAEA efforts to probe alleged nuclear weapons experiments, and Damascus for blocking agency experts from revisiting a site struck by Israeli jets on suspicion it was a nearly finished producing reactor. Iran and Syria are regular agenda items at board meetings. Elevating Israel to that status would detract from Western attempts to keep the heat on Tehran and Damascus and split the board even further - developing nations at board meetings are generally supportive of Iran and Syria and hostile to Israel. That in turn could stifle recent resolve by the world's five recognized nuclear-weapons powers - the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China - to take a more active role in reaching the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East. Inclusion of the item appeared to be the result of a push by the 18-nation Arab group of IAEA member nations, which last year successfully lobbied another agency meeting - its annual conference - to pass a resolution directly criticizing Israel and its atomic program. Unlike the board, the conference cannot make policy. Still, the result was a setback not only for Israel but also for Washington and other backers of the Jewish state, which had lobbied for 18 years of past practice - debate on the issue without a vote. A letter to IAEA chief by the Arab group that was also shared with the AP urged Amano to report to the board what was known about Israel's nuclear program by including a list of the information available to the Agency and the information which it can gather from open sources. The April 23 Arab letter urged Amano to enforce the conference resolution calling on Israel to allow IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities. Israel has never said it has nuclear weapons but is universally believed to possess them. The latest pressure is putting the Jewish state in an uncomfortable position. It wants the international community to take stern action to prevent Iran from getting atomic weapons but at the same time brushes off calls to come clean about its own nuclear capabilities. Additionally, Amano, in a letter obtained Wednesday by the AP, has asked foreign ministers of the agency's 151 member states for proposals on how to persuade Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Egypt has proposed that a Nonproliferation Treaty conference now meeting at UN headquarters in New York back a plan calling for the start of negotiations next year on a Mideast free of nuclear arms. The U.S. has cautiously supported the idea while saying that implementing it must wait for progress in the Middle East peace process. Israel also says a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement must come first. Still, Washington and the four other nuclear weapons countries recognized as such under the Nonproliferation Treaty appear to be ready to move from passive support to a more active role. In her speech to the UN nuclear conference on Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Washington would support practical measures for moving toward that objective. Washington also has been discussing it with the Israelis, said a Western diplomatic source, who asked for anonymity since he was discussing other countries' contacts. Russian arms negotiator Anatoly I. Antonov, speaking on behalf of the five Nonproliferation Treaty nuclear powers, said these nations were committed to full implementation of a Middle East nuclear free zone. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-iaea-to-discuss-israel-s-nuclear-activities-for-first-time- 1.288981 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

The Star – Malaysia Saturday, May 8, 2010 Iran Welcomes Turkish, Brazilian Nuclear Fuel Ideas By Hashem Kalantari TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran gave an upbeat assessment of Turkish and Brazilian mediation efforts in its nuclear dispute with the West, welcoming "in principle" ideas aimed at reviving a stalled U.N.-backed atom fuel swap deal with major powers. "New formulas have been raised about the exchange of fuel ... I think we can arrive at practical agreements on these formulas," Foreign Ministry spokesman said in remarks published by the Iran daily on Saturday. "That is why we welcomed the proposals in principle ... and left the details for more examination." He did not elaborate on the content of the proposals. His comments appeared part of an Iranian attempt to avert a possible new round of U.N. sanctions on the Islamic state over a nuclear programme the West fears is designed to develop bombs. Turkey and Brazil are currently non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Analysts say Iran may be trying to buy time and to split the six world powers -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China -- which are discussing additional punitive measures against the Islamic Republic. Iran, the world's fifth-largest crude exporter, says it only seeks to generate electricity and has repeatedly refused to bow to international demands to halt sensitive atomic activity. President earlier this week agreed "in principle" to Brazilian mediation on the proposed fuel swap exchange, Iranian media reported. The powers see the plan as a way to remove much of Iran's low- stockpile to minimise the risk of this being used for atomic bombs, while Iran would get specially processed fuel to keep its nuclear medicine programme running. But the proposal broke down over Iran's insistence on doing the swap only on its territory, rather than shipping its LEU abroad in advance, and in smaller, phased amounts, meaning no meaningful cut in a stockpile which grows day by day. "ULTIMATELY POSITIVE" Turkey and Brazil have been trying to revive the fuel deal in a bid to stave off further sanctions. Iran has also put forward a counterproposal, dismissed by Western officials. The United States is lobbying U.N. Security Council members to back sanctions including proposed measures targeting Iranian banks, shipping and the country's all-important energy sector. But Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told Reuters on Friday his country saw a window of opportunity and a willingness by Iran to reach a negotiated solution over its nuclear programme. He met Ahmadinejad in Tehran last week. Russia and China, veto-wielding members of the Security Council which have significant commercial links with Iran, have said they are willing to give Turkey and Brazil more time to resuscitate the fuel proposal. Brazil favours a mooted compromise in which Iran could export its uranium to another country in return for higher- enriched fuel for a Tehran . Iran has so far insisted the exchange must take place on its territory. "The framework set out by the countries (Turkey and Brazil), alongside our own country's recent proposal, has the potential from the perspective of Iran for arriving at a final common point and becoming operational," Mehmanparast said. "At any rate, we believe the efforts being undertaken by friendly countries, such as Turkey and Brazil, can ultimately be positive," he added. (Writing by Fredrik Dahl; editing by Matthew Jones) http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/5/8/worldupdates/2010-05- 08T155602Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-483312-2&sec=Worldupdates (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Tehran Times – Iran May 9, 2010 Lula, Erdogan To Discuss Nuclear Fuel Swap Proposal In Iran Tehran Times Political Desk TEHRAN - Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan are scheduled to visit Tehran next week to discuss ways to facilitate negotiations on a nuclear fuel swap deal. According to diplomatic sources, Brazil and Turkey have drawn up a joint proposal for a nuclear fuel swap and this proposal will be the cornerstone of talks between Da Silva, Erdogan, and Iranian officials, the Mehr News Agency reported. Other diplomatic sources have said that based on the proposal, the Iran-Turkey border will be the location for the nuclear fuel exchange, which will be conducted under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Brazil-Turkey fuel swap proposal is feasible: Iran Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said the joint Brazil-Turkey nuclear fuel swap proposal is feasible, but the swap should be carried out on Iranian territory. ―Some countries, like Brazil and Turkey, have made proposals for a nuclear fuel swap which are practicable, and this shows that we can reach an agreement,‖ Mehmanparast told the Mehr News Agency on Saturday. However, the Foreign Ministry spokesman did not provide any details about the Brazil-Turkey joint proposal. He explained that the time and location for the fuel swap and the amount of fuel are yet to be determined, adding that the three countries‘ viewpoints about the time and the amount of nuclear fuel are close. On the location for conducting the fuel swap, he said it should be done on Iranian territory. Mehmanparast also stated, ―We have decided to have meetings with the parties to discuss the technical details of the fuel swap, and if confidence is built, the swap will be conducted.‖ ―We are optimistic that we can reach an agreement,‖ he added. Iran has repeatedly said it is ready to swap its low-enriched uranium for high-grade uranium on its territory to supply the Tehran research reactor, which produces radioisotopes for cancer patients. Iran, 5+1 will likely meet in Turkey for nuclear talks Foreign Minister said Iran has embraced a Turkish proposal for resuming nuclear talks with the West, which would be hosted by Turkey. ―This idea has been accepted by Iran. If we agree on a date, this meeting may be held in a short time,‖ Mottaki said during a joint press conference with his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu in Istanbul on Friday evening. ―The location of the meeting will probably be Turkey. This proposal is a good proposal for us,‖ Mottaki stated. Davutoglu said that during his visit to Tehran last month, he proposed that a meeting between Iran and the 5+1 group (five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) be held in Turkey. A proposal has been made for a meeting between Iran and the 5+1 group in Turkey, and Iran has a positive view of this proposal, Mottaki said, adding that Tehran is awaiting a reply from foreign policy chief . ―The resumption of talks between the 5+1 group and Iran is a must. The path for diplomacy should be opened,‖ Mottaki said. The Turkish foreign minister suggested that talks be held between , the secretary of Iran‘s Supreme Council, and Ashton, as the representative of the 5+1 group. Turkey and Brazil, which are opposed to new , have recently stepped up efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran‘s nuclear program. The major powers and Iran have been at loggerheads for months over a proposed deal to supply nuclear fuel for the Tehran research reactor in exchange for low-enriched uranium from Iran. The deal stalled after the major powers rejected Iran‘s condition that the exchange be conducted on Iranian territory. http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=219075 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Global Security Newswire Israel Will Not Change Nuclear Policy, Official Says Monday, May 10, 2010 Israel does not intend to reconsider its nuclear stance despite heightened calls from the United States and others for establishment of a -free zone in the Middle East, an Israeli government official said Friday (see GSN, May 6). In an attempt to gain support from Arab nations for new sanctions targeting Iran, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States -- released a joint statement last week that urges forward movement on a 1995 proposal to see the Middle East rid of nuclear weapons. Israel is the only nation in the region that is believed to possess a nuclear deterrent, though it does not formally acknowledge its arsenal. "There is nothing new here, and no reason for a change of direction on our part," the high-ranking official told Reuters. Jerusalem has said it would not consider taking part in nuclear weapon-free zone discussions or joining the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty until a lasting peace is achieved with neighboring nations. Egypt is hoping at this month's NPT review conference in New York to build support for scheduling a 2011 conference in which all Middle Eastern nations would discuss established the nuclear zone. Moscow and Washington, with the backing of the world's other three acknowledged nuclear powers, have been trying to broker an agreeable middle ground with Cairo, Western diplomats said. The Obama administration's senior arms control official, Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, said last Wednesday that it was difficult to contemplate discussions on setting up "any kind of free zone in the absence of a comprehensive peace plan that is running on a parallel track." In light of President Barack Obama's efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's controversial nuclear activities, some experts have speculated that Washington would reconsider its decades-old stance of not pressing Jerusalem to declare its presumed nuclear weapons stockpile, which is thought to contain about 200 bombs. The Israeli official, however, said the Obama administration's position on Jerusalem's calculated nuclear ambiguity has been "identical" to the approach followed by its predecessors. Some Israeli officials have been unhappy with their nation's profile at the NPT conference, Reuters reported. "We don't really like this matter, but is there anything to fear, really? I don't think so," Israeli Atomic Energy Commission official Israel Michaeli said during a May 3 radio interview. "Our complaint is that people make this comparison between Iran and Israel, when there is absolutely nothing to connect the two," he said (Dan Williams, Reuters, May 7). Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency has taken the step of placing consideration of "Israeli nuclear capabilities" on the agenda for its June 7 Board of Governors meeting. The agenda is not yet finalized and a high- ranking envoy from an IAEA board country said the Arab state-sought item might be removed should Washington or other countries vigorously protest its inclusion, the Associated Press reported. The U.N. nuclear watchdog has never before examined Israel's widely assumed nuclear arsenal. That the matter has even been tentatively put on the agenda shows the impact that Arab nations are having in their calls for the international community to give more attention to Jerusalem's nuclear capabilities. Agency board meetings normally include consideration of disputed nuclear programs in Syria and Iran. Including Israel could hurt Western efforts to maintain pressure on Damascus and Tehran over their nuclear ambitions and create further divisions within the board, according to AP (George Jahn, Associated Press/Washington Post, May 7). http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100510_5990.php (Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times May 10, 2010 Iran Over Decade Away From Anti - U.S. Missile - Study By REUTERS LONDON (Reuters) - Iran is unlikely to be able to make a missile capable of hitting the U.S. east coast for more than a decade, according to a study by a London-based thinktank released on Monday. The timing of advances in Iran's long-range missile technology is being closely watched in Washington, which accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons and is pushing for a new round of sanctions. Iran denies the charges and says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. The report by International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said Iran's missile development programme appeared connected to its push to expand its nuclear capabilities, "with the aim of giving Iran the capability to deliver nuclear warheads beyond its borders." But IISS said it expected Iran would seek to master intermediate range missiles -- between 3,500 and 5,500 km (2,187 to 3,437 miles) -- before it attempted to build intercontinental (ICBM) missiles, which have a range above 5,500 km. "Logic and the 's revolutionary missile and space launcher development efforts suggest Tehran would develop and field an intermediate range missile before embarking on a programme to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the American East coast, 9,000 km away," it said. "It is thus reasonable to conclude that a notional Iranian ICBM, based on No-Dong and Scud technologies, is more than a decade away from development," it added, referring to missiles developed by the former Soviet Union and later North Korea. The IISS report appeared in line with a May 2009 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that deemed Tehran unlikely to have a long-range missile until between 2015 and 2020, according to U.S. officials who saw the report at the time. The 2009 estimate was revised from an earlier range of 2012 to 2015. However on April 19 this year, an unclassified Defence Department report on Iran's military said that with sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015. Turning to a potential Iranian missile threat to Europe, the IISS report, "Iran's Ballistic Missile Capabilities," said that Iran was not likely to field a liquid-fuelled missile capable of targeting Western Europe before 2014 or 2015. And a version of its solid-fuelled Sejil missile capable of delivering a one tonne warhead at a range of 3,700 km was at least four or five years away from deployment, it said. Experts say solid-fuelled missiles are of particular concern because they take a much shorter time to prepare for launch than liquid-fuelled weapons and so are harder to pre-empt. The report said the Sejil represented the most significant advance in Iranian missile capacities to date. But it said the Sejil-2, successfully flight-tested for the first time in November 2008, was still two to three years of flight testing away from becoming an operational system. The military utility of Iran's existing ballistic missiles was severely limited because of their very poor accuracy, although it said the missiles could be used as a political weapon against adversary cities. (Reporting by William Maclean, Editing by Angus MacSwan) http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/05/10/world/international-uk-nuclear-iran-missiles.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Tehran Times – Iran Monday, May 10, 2010 Tehran Seeks ‘Concrete Assurances’ For Nuclear Fuel Swap Tehran Times Political Desk TEHRAN – , head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said Iran should be provided with tangible assurances as a condition for nuclear fuel swap. Iran has repeatedly said it is ready to swap its low-enriched uranium for high-grade uranium on its territory to supply the Tehran research reactor, which produces radioisotopes for cancer patients. ―Some countries have been seeking to impose a series of conditions on Iran, but our condition is receiving concrete assurances,‖ he told reporters on the sidelines of a cabinet meeting on Sunday. The nuclear chief said several countries have made proposals for nuclear fuel swap and Iran is examining them, adding Iran will negotiate with these countries in the upcoming meetings to reach an agreement on the details of the deal. According to reports, Brazil and Turkey have drawn up a joint proposal for a nuclear fuel swap. Iran says Brazil-Turkey fuel swap proposal is feasible. Earlier, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agreed in principle to the Brazil‘s proposal. ―Our stance toward the nuclear fuel swap has not changed. We will give 3.5% enriched uranium and receive 20%- enriched fuel (instead),‖ Salehi asserted. ―Our purpose (of continuing negotiations with the West) is to give the Western countries an opportunity to save face and find a way out of the current situation,‖ he added. http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=219154 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Jerusalem Post – Israel 10 May 2010 'US Support For Nuke Policy Eroding' J'lem increasingly jittery as IAEA seeks to turn spotlight on Israel. By HERB KEINON Jerusalem is increasingly jittery that cracks are appearing in the nearly half-century-old US policy of upholding Israel‘s right to maintain its ―nuclear ambiguity,‖ following reports that Israeli nuclear capabilities are, for the first time, scheduled to be on the agenda of the International Atomic Energy Agency‘s (IAEA) board meeting next month. One diplomatic official said that the US has relayed messages to Israel that it will not let its nuclear position be harmed, but added that these assurances are being received with some skepticism amid the realization that while in the past the US has killed such discussions in international forums, this time it failed to do so. If the US is slowly changing its policy, it would, one observer pointed out, run against commitments former US President George Bush gave former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in his famous 2004 letter that paved the way for Sharon‘s decision to disengage from Gaza. In that letter, which dealt primarily with the Palestinian issue, and which Israel interpreted as a US acceptance of settlement blocs and a rejection of the Palestinian claim to a right of refugee return, Bush also wrote, ―The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel‘s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel‘s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.‖ In private conversations, Sharon on numerous occasions said this represented a US obligation to prevent the international community, once it had de-fanged Iran‘s nuclear ambitions, from then turning on Israelis‘ reported nuclear capabilities. Another observer, Emily Landau, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University and director of its arms control and regional security program, said the US was not assuming its role as the shield of Israel‘s nuclear capabilities to the degree it had in the past. Her comments, however, were in reference to the current Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference at the UN, where Israel has been made an issue, and not to the IAEA draft which placed Israel as an item on the agenda. Obama, according to Landau, has embraced the agenda of nuclear disarmament, as well as the norm of ―equality‖ that is embedded in the NPT, meaning that all countries should be treated equally on the nuclear issue. Having embraced that principle, Landau said, Obama has opened himself up for pressure from the Arab states and others who will say, ―If you put pressure on Iran to stop nuclear development, why not Israel?‖ ―If you accept that all states are equal in the nuclear norm, you can‘t give good arguments that could be used to counter this,‖ she said. But such powerful arguments do exist, she said, such as that context matters: that the existential threat Israel lives under, as well as its very hostile neighborhood and the nuclear responsibility the country has shown over the years, must be taken into account when discussing the issue. Landau said that if Israel altered its long-standing policy of nuclear ambiguity it would place itself on a slippery slope that would lead to intense pressure for it to disarm itself of its reported nuclear capabilities. Landau said Israel should be less ―gun-shy‖ in explaining its nuclear policy, and that it should clarify that what it supported in the Middle East was a weapons of mass destruction-free zone, not a nuclear weapons-free zone as advocated by Egypt. One diplomatic official said the reason the Egyptians loudly push for a nuclear weapons-free zone, and not a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction, was simply because many Arab states have not signed onto treaties preventing chemical and biological weapons, even though they have signed the NPT. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175129 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Ha‘aretz Daily – Israel May 11, 2010 Iran Seeks Nuclear Talks With EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton said she is ready to give talks with Iran a chance but warned sanctions over its nuclear program could be adopted 'very rapidly.' By News Agencies Iran is willing to hold talks with the European Union's foreign policy chief over its disputed nuclear activities, a senior official said on Tuesday, after the bloc's top diplomat spoke of new sanctions against Tehran. Catherine Ashton said Monday that she was ready to give direct talks with Iran another chance while warning that United Nations sanctions over its nuclear program could be adopted "very rapidly." Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Iran was ready for talks with Ashton, adding that "a time and venue for such a meeting had not been set yet." "[Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed] Jalili and Ashton could meet in Turkey," Mehmanparast told a weekly news conference. "We do not see a problem with that." Western diplomats have said mid-June is a target deadline for getting a fourth round of UN sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program, which it says is to generate electricity and not build bombs as the West fears. Iran has welcomed Turkish and Brazilian mediation efforts to resolve the nuclear dispute, aimed at reviving a stalled fuel deal with major powers. The deal is seen as a way to remove much of Iran's low-enriched uranium (LEU) stockpile to minimize the risk of this being used for atomic bombs, providing Iran with specially processed fuel to keep its research reactor running. The deal broke down over Iran's insistence on doing the swap only on its territory, rather than shipping its LEU abroad in advance, and in smaller, phased amounts, meaning no significant cut in a stockpile which grows day by day. Turkey and Brazil, both non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, are opposed to further sanctions against Iran. But Mehmanparast said Iran had no intention to change its view over the venue for a fuel swap. "We are ready to resolve the (nuclear) issue through talks ... New formulas have been raised about the exchange of fuel in our talks with Turkey and Brazil," Mehmanparast said. "The new formula does not cover the venue of fuel exchange. We have always said the swap should take place inside Iran." Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva will travel to Iran on May 16, Mehmanparast said. "They will discuss the nuclear issue and the nuclear fuel deal with Iranian authorities." http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/iran-seeks-nuclear-talks-with-eu-foreign-policy-chief-1.289627 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

YahooNews.com Israel To Keep Nuclear 'Ambiguity' By Agence France-Presse (AFP) Tuesday, May 11, 2010 JERUSALEM (AFP) – Israel will keep up its longstanding policy of deliberate ambiguity over its nuclear programme, Defence Minister said on Tuesday, adding that US support for the position remains unchanged. "This is a good policy and there is no reason to change it. There is complete agreement with the United States on this question," Barak told army radio. He also said "there is no risk" that inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would get authorisation to inspect Israel's Dimona . "There is no threat over the traditional agreements between Israel and the United States on this issue," said Barak. "I met President Barack Obama and other US officials two weeks ago. All of them told me denuclearisation efforts target Iran and North Korea." Israel has maintained its so-called policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear programme since the Jewish state inaugurated the Dimona reactor in the southern Negev desert in 1965. Media reports have said the United States agreed in 1969 that as long as Israel did not test a nuclear weapon or publicly confirm that it had one, Washington would not press it on the issue. Foreign military experts believe Israel has an arsenal of several hundred nuclear weapons. Like nuclear-armed countries India, Pakistan and North Korea, Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in order to avoid inspections by the Vienna-based IAEA. But an Israeli scientist on Monday said Israel should end its decades-long silence over its reported nuclear weapons capability and open its nuclear reactor to inspection. Uzi Even, a Tel Aviv University chemistry professor and former worker at the Dimona reactor, said Obama's campaign for global nuclear arms reduction is a sign of changing times and Israel must get in step. Also on Monday, however, Strategic Affairs Minister Dan Meridor dismissed as unimportant reports that Egypt had tabled a motion on Israel's nuclear weapons status for a June meeting of the IAEA. "From time to time this issue is raised at the IAEA and other places," he said. It's not the first time it's mentioned and it's not the first time we'll find a way, with the rest of the world, to deal with it." http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100511/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelnuclearuspolitics (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Sydney Morning Herald – Australia North Korea's Kim Committed To Disarmament Talks: KCNA By PARK CHAN-KYONG, Agence France-Presse (AFP) May 8, 2010 North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il said the isolated state remains committed to nuclear disarmament, Pyongyang's official media reported Saturday, a year after quitting talks on its atomic arsenal. During a visit this week to Beijing, he also said ties with China will be unchanged by the "replacement of one generation by a new one," amid reports he is paving the way for his son to take control of the isolated communist state. North Korea, which has tested two nuclear bombs, last year bolted from six-nation talks but in remarks reported Saturday, Kim "expressed the DPRK's (North Korea's) willingness to provide favourable conditions for the resumption of the six-party (disarmament) talks." He said the North "remains unchanged in its basic stand to preserve the aim of denuclearising the Korean peninsula, implement the joint statement adopted at the six-party talks and pursue a peaceful solution through dialogue." The comments, carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), came with the first North Korean confirmation of a secretive five-day trip to China and echoed statements reported by official Beijing media on Friday. "Both sides decided to make joint efforts to attain the objective of denuclearising the peninsula in accordance with the stand clarified in the September 19 joint statement," KCNA said, referring to a 2005 agreement under which North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear programme in return for badly needed aid and security guarantees. Professor Koh Yu-Hwan of Dongguk University said Pyongyang was unable to promise to return to the talks in more explicit terms due to the unexplained sinking of a South Korean warship near the border with the North in March. South Korea and the United States indicated that the resumption of talks with North Korea, also grouping China, Russia and Japan, should wait for the outcome of an investigation into the sinking, which claimed the lives of 46 sailors. "This is a step forward for the North which in the past said it would not come to the dialogue table unless its demands for a peace treaty with the United States and lifting of UN sanctions are met," Koh said. Referring to close ties with Beijing, Kim, who himself inherited control of from his father Kim Il-Sung, made comments likely to stoke speculation that he is grooming his third son, Jong-Un, for succession. The bilateral friendship will remain unchanged "despite the passage of time and the replacement of one generation by a new one," Kim said. Hu, speaking at a state dinner hosted in Kim's honour, said the two countries should maintain and improve the traditional friendship "along with the passage of time and convey it down through generations," KCNA reported. Professor Kim Yong-Hyun, also of Dongguk University, said expressions of bilateral friendship lasting for generations were commonly used at summits between the two countries. "However, it is noteworthy that this rhetoric was repeated at a time when the North is believed to be raising Jong-Un as an heir," he told AFP. "I wouldn't be surprised if the North Koreans, during the visit, briefed the Chinese side on their plan for a possible succession by the son and Chinese people listened to them carefully." Succession speculation has intensified since Kim senior, 67, reportedly suffered a stroke in August 2008. He is widely thought to have chosen Jong-Un to inherit power. Information is scant about Jong-Un, the second son of Kim Jong-Il's third wife Ko Yong-Hee. Some reports say Jong-Un, born in 1983, attended an international school in the Swiss city of Berne under a pseudonym. Kenji Fujimoto, a former personal chef to Kim Jong-Il, has described the son as "a chip off the old block" who closely resembles his father physically and in terms of personality. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/north-koreas-kim-committed-to-disarmament-talks-kcna-20100508- ukmz.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Hindustan Times – India Israel Says NKorea Shipping WMDs To Syria By Agence France-Presse (AFP) May 11, 2010 Jerusalem -- Israeli Foreign Minister on Tuesday accused North Korea of supplying Syria with weapons of mass destruction. Lieberman's office quoted him as telling Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama at a meeting in Tokyo that such activity threatened to destabilise east Asia as well as the Middle East. "The cooperation between Syria and North Korea is not focused on economic development and growth but rather on weapons of mass destruction" Lieberman said. In evidence he cited the December 2009 seizure at Bangkok airport of an illicit North Korean arms shipment which US intelligence said was bound for an unnamed Middle East country. Lieberman said Syria intended to pass the weapons on to the Lebanese militia and to the Islamic Hamas movement, which rules Gaza and has its political headquarters in Damascus. "This cooperation endangers stability in both southeast Asia and also in the Middle East and is against all the accepted norms in the international arena," Lieberman was quoted as telling Hatoyama. Thai officials at the time said that acting on a tipoff from Washington they confiscated about 30 tonnes of missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons when the North Korean plane landed for refuelling in Bangkok. Israel has accused North Korea in the past of transferring nuclear technology to Syria, which is technically in a state of war with the neighbouring Jewish state, although the two last fought openly in 1973. Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported in 2007 that Israel seized North Korean nuclear material in a commando raid on a secret military site in Syria and then destroyed the site in an air attack. Syria denied the report. The communist regime in North Korea has denied collaborating on nuclear activity with Syria, while Israel has maintained an official silence on the reported September 2007 raid and strike. http://www.hindustantimes.com/Israel-says-NKorea-shipping-WMDs-to-Syria/Article1-542253.aspx (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Business Week Syria Asks Russia To Help Rid Middle East Of Nuclear Weapons Tuesday, May 11, 2010 By Nayla Razzouk May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Syria‘s President Bashar al-Assad asked visiting Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to help remove nuclear weapons from the Middle East, state news agency SANA said. Assad called on Medvedev, the first Russian president to visit Syria, ―to contribute in making the Middle East an area free from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons,‖ the agency said. Syria along with many other countries, accuses Israel of having nuclear weapons. The Jewish state refuses to confirm or deny that it‘s armed with atomic warheads. Assad called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis over the nuclear program of Iran, his regional ally, which rejects Western accusations that it‘s developing atomic weapons. Assad urged Russia to ―play an effective role‖ in attempts to revive the Middle East peace process. He said continued ―incentives‖ granted by ―superpowers‖ to Israel are encouraging it to evade the requirements of peace, in an apparent reference to the annual $3 billion of U.S. aid to the Jewish state. Medvedev said he‘s ―confident‖ that close cooperation between Russia and Syria could help to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The two leaders discussed bilateral cooperation in various fields, SANA said. Energy cooperation and arms supplies will be raised during Medvedev‘s visit, though no weapons transactions will be signed, a senior Kremlin official said May 7 in Moscow. Medvedev‘s visit to Damascus comes after U.S. President Barack Obama renewed U.S. sanctions against Syria on May 3, citing its alleged support for terrorist groups and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Russia‘s readiness to sell arms to Syria is an obstacle in the way of U.S. efforts to improve relations with the government in Moscow. Obama and Medvedev signed an agreement last month to cut their countries‘ nuclear weapons arsenals. --Editors: Alan Purkiss, Chris Peterson http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-11/syria-asks-russia-to-help-rid-middle-east-of-nuclear-weapons.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

London Guardian – U.K. Pakistan Tests 2 Missiles, Wants Nuke Recognition AP foreign, Saturday, May 8, 2010 By MUNIR AHMED, Associated Press Writer ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan successfully test-fired two ballistic missiles Saturday capable of carrying nuclear warheads, the military said, as the Islamic nation's leader urged the world to recognize it as a legitimate nuclear power. The Shaheen-1 missile has a range of about 400 miles (650 kilometers), while the second Ghaznavi missile could hit targets at a distance of 180 miles (290 kilometers), an army statement said. Both can carry conventional and nuclear warheads. Pakistan's missiles are mostly intended for any confrontation with archrival India, and the range of the Shaheen-1 would include the Indian capital of New Delhi. Saturday's tests — which featured the rare launch of two missiles — are unlikely to aggravate tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors, since they both routinely conduct missile tests. The latest Pakistani missile test came more than a week after the leaders of two sides met in Bhutan on the sidelines of a regional conference, hoping to improve relations that have been strained since the deadly 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and other senior army and civil officials witnessed the launches at an undisclosed location, and the missiles "successfully hit the target areas," the statement said. Gilani also urged world powers "to recognize Pakistan as a dejure nuclear power with equal rights and responsibilities," the army statement said. The prime minister called for cooperation on civilian nuclear power, which would help relieve Pakistan's chronic energy shortages. Pakistan has refused to sign nonproliferation accords and faces a nuclear trade ban. "Energy is a vital economic security need of Pakistan and nuclear energy is a clean way forward," the statement said. Pakistan became a declared nuclear power in 1998 by conducting nuclear tests in response to those carried out by India. Islamabad test-fired its first missile that same year. The safety of its nuclear arsenals has been a matter of concern since 2004 when the architect of Pakistan's nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, confessed to spreading sensitive technology to Iran, North Korea and . Pakistan has since set up strict controls to prevent any such repeat and the retired Khan is living under virtual house arrest. But a recent report, commissioned by the Nuclear Threat Initiative and released by Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, found that Pakistan faces formidable risks in safeguarding its nuclear warheads. Danger persists from "nuclear insiders with extremist sympathies, al-Qaida or Taliban outsider attacks, and a weak state." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9067820 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post Outdated, Unwanted, US Nukes Hang On In Europe By CHARLES J. HANLEY The Associated Press Sunday, May 9, 2010 KLEINE BROGEL AIR BASE, Belgium -- Unseen beyond the grazing Holsteins and rolling pastures of eastern Belgium, the 12-foot-long tapered metal cylinders sit in their underground vaults, waiting for the doomsday call that never came. Each packs the power of many Hiroshimas. America's oldest nuclear weapons, unwanted, outdated, a legacy of the 20th century, are now the focus of a political struggle that could shake the NATO alliance in the 21st. The questions hanging over the B-61 bombs, an estimated 200 of them on six air bases across Europe, relate not just to why they're still here, but to how safe and secure they are. For one thing, al-Qaida terrorists have already targeted this Belgian air base 84 kilometers (52 miles) northeast of Brussels. For another, U.S. Air Force inspectors found inadequate security at most of the six sites. And three months ago a "bombspotter" team, anti-nuclear activists, penetrated nearly one kilometer (a half-mile) inside Kleine Brogel, reaching its innermost bunkers. "It was a shock," Theo Kelchtermans, mayor of the neighboring town of Peer, said of the protesters' infiltration, which went unchallenged for an hour. His bottom line: "I hope these bombs will disappear." It's a hope shared by the governments of Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, three of the five NATO countries, with Italy and Turkey, that host the Cold War leftovers. Two decades after the Soviet Union's collapse, even a former NATO secretary-general says the bombs' time is past. "The presence of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, from a military point of view, no longer makes any sense," Belgium's Willy Claes told The Associated Press. For others, however, the old bombs have an almost talismanic quality. Lt. Col. Roger Lams calls the short-range U.S. battlefield weapons, to be dropped by the jets of allies if the Cold War had ever turned hot, a "glue" holding trans-Atlantic comrades together. "The bombs will not go," he told a reporter visiting the air museum that the retired Belgian fighter pilot helped establish here at Kleine Brogel. "It shares the burden," Lams, 73, said of the joint nuclear mission he once trained for in his F-104 Starfighter. "They should not be withdrawn, and I don't think they will be." The first official exchanges in this debate occurred last month at a NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Tallinn, Estonia, and the debate will go on at least until a NATO summit in Lisbon in November, when the 61-year-old alliance issues its first "Strategic Concept" document since 1999. In Tallinn, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton extolled NATO as a "nuclear alliance, sharing nuclear risks and responsibilities widely," and said any reductions in the U.S. bombs in Europe must be linked to reciprocal cuts by the Russians in their tactical nuclear arms. All told, at home and in Europe, the U.S. has an estimated 1,100 tactical nuclear weapons, and the Russians have at least 2,000, possibly many more. Although the U.S. and Russia signed a treaty April 8 to reduce their intercontinental nuclear arms, Moscow sounds unready to deal on these shorter-range weapons. In Brussels, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's blunt-spoken ambassador to NATO, laid out its position: While the U.S. still has nuclear weapons abroad, "we have already withdrawn all the tactical nuclear weapons of Russia back home," from the territories of former East European allies and ex-Soviet republics. "We are now expecting some steps on the U.S. side," Rogozin told the AP - namely the voluntary pullback of the B- 61s to U.S. soil. Today's American "hot potatoes," as Rogozin dubbed them, date back to the 1950s and a U.S. effort to demonstrate a nuclear commitment to Western European defense by embedding such weapons near the potential battlefield. Some credit these binational "dual-key" missions with dissuading more Europeans from developing their own atomic arms in the old standoff with the Soviet bloc. By 1971, the number of U.S. tactical "nukes" peaked at an estimated 7,300, on more than 100 bases around Europe - not just gravity bombs like the B-61, but also nuclear land mines, naval depth charges, artillery shells and short- range missiles. Even before the fall of the Berlin Wall, this arsenal was being whittled down. By the turn of the century only the B- 61s were left, bombs whose destructive yields can be fixed at various levels in a range from the equivalent of 300 tons of TNT up to 170,000 tons of TNT - 11 times the yield of the U.S. bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945. In recent years some of those weapons, too, were withdrawn from seven NATO air bases, leaving only today's six sites: Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, Buechel in Germany, Ghedi Torre and Aviano in Italy, and Incirlik in Turkey, along with Kleine Brogel. Here among the beet fields, poppies and tidy towns of eastern Flanders, the 136 members of the U.S. Air Force's 701st Munitions Support Squadron tend to Kleine Brogel's estimated 10 to 20 bombs, assigned to the F-16 fighters of the Belgians' 31st Squadron, the "Tigers" whose nuclear mission dates to 1959. Although NATO governments keep silent about some specifics, "nuclear sharing," as it's called, is an open secret, even discussed in a display at Lams' air museum. Much has changed, however, from the days when this old pilot stood on 30 minutes' readiness alert with an ultimate weapon fixed to his Starfighter's belly. Today, a NATO brochure even wants it known that readiness is measured "in weeks and months, not minutes," indicating that training updates, equipment upgrades or other classified factors would slow deployment. Lams' old targets are also gone: Poland, East Germany and other potential Red Army "invasion routes" are now within NATO themselves. "Relics of the Cold War" is how Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle labeled the bombs as Germany's new government took office last October. In his Free Democrats' coalition deal to govern with Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, he stipulated that Germany push for the B-61s' removal. "Germany must be free of nuclear weapons," he said. By early this year, he was joined by the foreign ministers of Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Luxembourg in calling for the nuclear discussion at Tallinn. Ex-NATO chief Claes and other former Belgian leaders published a statement favoring the weapons' withdrawal. Most recently, some 200 members of five national parliaments wrote to U.S. President Barack Obama saying it is "the sincere wish of the majority of people in Europe" that the bombs be removed. The German-led campaign has also generated a backlash. Britain's George Robertson, a former NATO secretary-general, said it was "irresponsible" for Germany to expect to remain under the nuclear umbrella of U.S.-based strategic weapons while refusing to have its Luftwaffe - the Tornados of Buechel Air Base's 33rd Fighter-Bomber Wing - share the burden. Meanwhile, the three former Soviet Baltic republics, all NATO members now, are said to have expressed concern in alliance councils about an unpredictable Russia next door without U.S. atomic weapons nearby. But even NATO's policy chief for weapons of mass destruction, American Guy Roberts, acknowledged he would be "hard put" to find a European mission for the leftover bombs. He referred to them as "a hedge, an insurance policy," and as a "to-whom-it-may-concern deterrent," with no specific military mission at the moment. "They are political, not military," the ex-Marine officer said in an interview at NATO headquarters, referring to the aura of "alliance resolve" the bombs represent. As for Baltic nervousness, Ambassador Rogozin said "deterring" the new Russia in the vastly changed post-Cold War world is "senseless, idiotic." To Rogozin, the American bombs are a "toy," of use not to Europe or the U.S., but only to NATO's bureaucracy. In the end, whatever the strategic argument, an economic one may prevail. The U.S. allies must all replace their aging warplanes in the coming years, and making the new jets nuclear-capable would incur huge additional costs. Germany, whose Tornados must be replaced earliest, will have to decide soon whether to spend an estimated 300 million euros (US $400 million) to extend this questionable nuclear operation. Berlin's Bundestag is unlikely to vote those funds, NATO insiders said. Other factors also weigh against long-term "nuclear sharing." For one, the U.S. military has been openly skeptical, seeing no clear future mission for nuclear sharing, but heavy costs, chiefly the hundreds of Air Force personnel assigned to munitions support squadrons. And at a time of growing global concern over "loose nukes" and catastrophic terrorism, security officials may look more closely at NATO's nuclear bases. Terrorists already have. At his 2003 Belgian trial, Tunisian al-Qaida operative Nizar Trabelsi confessed to planning to bomb Kleine Brogel Air Base. Although his target was the American airmen, not the nuclear bomb vaults, the plot showed that extremists have these bases in their sights. In 2008, Air Force inspectors visiting the six nuclear bases found that "most sites require significant additional resources to meet (Defense Department) security requirements." They cited problems with security systems, lighting and fencing, among other things. Kleine Brogel's security systems and 20 kilometers (12 miles) of perimeter fence, much of it barely a meter (a yard) high, were no obstacle to the half-dozen "bombspotters" who hiked in to the base's sensitive core on Jan. 31. Shiny new razor wire now tops one stretch of fence, but in a further action on April 1, anti-bomb protesters simply found easier crossing points. Almost 300 trespassers were arrested. "It's not just a question of why they should be removed, but of why they should even exist," one of those arrested, Toon van Opterdijk, 22, of nearby Hechtel, said of the bombs. "What we need is a big debate," ex-NATO head Claes concluded. From Europe's foreign ministries to the gates of NATO installations, the debate is well under way. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/09/AR2010050900018.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

The National – Abu Dhabi (U.A.E.) EDITORIAL Israel’s Nuclear Deception Is No Longer Off Limits May 08, 2010 The United States has backed an Egyptian resolution calling for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. It is doubtful that there is actually the political will in the US to challenge its ally Israel over its not-so-secret nuclear arsenal, but the momentum is definitely shifting against the exceptionalism that Israel has enjoyed, allowing it to flaunt the rules that other countries are forced to follow. For the first time in its 52 years of existence, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has put Israel on its agenda and, tentatively, its nuclear weapons programme will be discussed at the next meeting in June. The open secret of Israel‘s nuclear arsenal has been much discussed lately, but the move has assuredly surprised and worried many. Rarely has Israel come under such intense scrutiny and found itself being criticised by some of its closest allies. The US still regularly refers to Israel‘s security, the justification for the country‘s policy of nuclear ambiguity and occupation of Palestinian territories, as a paramount concern. The tone, however, has changed. Security used to mean something different. It meant ensuring that Jews had a homeland after the Second World War. Increasingly, the issue of security is more important as a negotiating tool to manipulate a skittish, sometimes paranoid, Israeli public. What, then, has changed that even the US seems prepared to play politics with the issue? Hawkish pro-Israel pundits and politicians attribute the shift to an increasingly influential Arab lobby in Washington. What else could explain it? Israel does not behave today markedly different than it has in previous decades. But instead of being viewed as the bastion of democracy in the Middle East, now it is widely seen as the more troublesome party in peace negotiations and its nuclear weapons an active threat to peace. Pundits claim that the change is the result of the money being spent on lobbying by Arab and Islamic nations in Washington, and the new US president who is determined to mend fences with the Islamic world. They are, of course, wrong. True, Israel has often negotiated in the peace process just as disingenuously as it does today. True, Israel‘s nuclear stance has not changed since it first obtained a nuclear weapon. True, Arab and Muslim nations are increasingly focused on having their voices heard in Washington. But the world‘s perception of Israel is changing, because the world, and most importantly America, is paying more attention to the region. Transnational terrorism and two wars have given the US and its allies intimate knowledge of how the Israeli- Palestinian conflict drives regional instability. And the dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the casualties inflicted by terrorists across the world, have shown that instability in the Middle East means insecurity in America. Israel has not changed its policies in more than 60 years, and the world has finally realised that this is the problem. http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100509/OPINION/705089950/1033 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times OPINION May 9, 2010 EDITORIAL Fixing The Treaty The world has a chance this month to send a powerful message about its determination to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. To do that, 189 nations, whose diplomats have gathered in New York, must strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At a frightening time — when Iran and North Korea are defying the Security Council and pressing ahead with their nuclear programs, and terrorists are actively trying to buy or steal their own weapon — there has to be a law to make clear that proliferation will not be tolerated. The treaty is that law. But it is badly fraying. Iran, which is a ―non-weapons‖ state, managed for years to hide its nuclear activities. North Korea secretly diverted fuel and built weapons, then suddenly withdrew from the treaty and tested a weapon. Ideally, the treaty would be strengthened with legally binding amendments. But that requires a consensus, and even then could take years of votes. A strong political document from the conference could make the world safer. That should include: ¶An insistence that all treaty members accept tougher nuclear monitoring, giving the International Atomic Energy Agency greatly expanded access to suspected nuclear sites and related data. ¶An agreement to penalize any state that violates its treaty commitments and then withdraws from the pact, as North Korea did. ¶A requirement that states that do not already make their own nuclear fuel stay out of the fuel business — it is too easy to divert to make a nuclear weapon. States with fuel programs must commit to guarantee supplies for peaceful energy programs. ¶A strong call for the United States and Russia to quickly begin negotiations on deeper weapons reductions, and a commitment to quickly draw other nuclear powers into arms reduction talks. ¶A firm agreement that there will be no more India-like exemptions from nuclear trade rules, and that any state that tests a weapon would be denied nuclear trade. Four decades ago, a bargain was struck. Countries without nuclear weapons signed the treaty and forswore them in return for access to peaceful nuclear energy. The five weapons states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China — promised to eventually disarm and provide nuclear energy technology to non-weapons states. The bargain was always tenuous, and countries that gave up nuclear arms have some right to feel aggrieved. For too long the United States and Russia did little to shrink their huge arsenals. China‘s arsenal is still expanding. Washington‘s agreement to sell nuclear energy technology to India (which like Pakistan boycotted the nonproliferation treaty so it could develop weapons) enshrined unequal treatment. President Obama has shown that he is willing to lead by example. He has downgraded the importance of nuclear arms, pledged to build no new weapons, and signed a new arms reduction treaty with Moscow. All five weapons states issued a useful joint statement pledging not to test a weapon and promising to cooperate with countries seeking peaceful nuclear energy programs. A successful conference — with robust commitments — would give real momentum as the Security Council tries to negotiate a fourth round of sanctions for Iran. That is why Iran is working so hard to dilute or block a strong consensus document. Egypt, which leads the Nonaligned Movement, is also playing games by pressing for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that seeks to force Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal. That is not going to happen any time soon. All states need to ante up and reverse the treaty‘s slide. The world‘s security depends on it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/opinion/09sun1.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)