USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER

CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL

Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Issue No. 897, 12 April 2011

Articles & Other Documents:

Iran Confirms Making Nuclear Centrifuge Parts US Senators Urge N.Korea-Myanmar Probe

Iran Unveils Third Generation of Nuclear Centrifuges Myanmar could Develop Nukes with N. Korea's Help: Expert Iran to Build New Nuclear Research Reactors-Report Pakistan Tells US to Cut CIA, Special Forces Numbers: ‗Bushehr is World‘s Safest Nuclear Power Plant‘ Report

Ex-U.N. Panel Head Worries about another North Defense Industry Troubles Slow Russian Missile Effort, Korean Nuke Test Lawmaker Says

China Eyes Step-by-Step Plan to Resume Nuclear Talks: Retired General: U.S. Vulnerable to Cyber Attack Wu Al-Qaeda Sees Opportunity in Peace Japan Needs to Build Sarcophagus over Fukushima Reactor – Experts China‘s Defence White Paper – 2010 A Preliminary Analysis Disaster at Fukushima Now as Bad as Chernobyl Why India should retain Its No-First-Use Policy?

Are Indian Nuclear Weapons Facilities Safe?

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 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.

Khaleej Times – U.A.E. Iran Confirms Making Nuclear Centrifuge Parts Agence France-Presse (AFP) 9 April 2011 TEHRAN - Iran on Saturday confirmed it was producing components to make centrifuges — the device which enriches uranium — at a factory which it said was not secret as claimed by an opposition group. ―The factory mentioned by Monafeghin (hypocrites) is not a new discovery,‖ state news agency IRNA quoted Foreign Minister as saying, and referring to the People‘s Mujahedeen of Iran, the main armed opposition group fighting the Iranian regime. ―We manufacture components (in the factory), but it is in no way a secret,‖ Salehi said when asked about PMOI‘s claim that Iran produces components for centrifuges used to enrich uranium. On Thursday, PMOI spokesman in Washington Alireza Jafarzadeh claimed the Taba company site, west of Tehran, has been operating for four and a half years, citing information gathered by the group. Taba, which in Persian stands for Iranian Cutting Tools Factory, produces ―aluminium casing, magnets, molecular pumps, composite tubes, centrifuge bases,‖ the spokesman said. Jafarzadeh said Iran‘s capacity to build centrifuges, and the number operating in the country, was a critical question in determining the true intentions and goals of the Iranian nuclear programme. But Salehi said there were ―plenty of factories in the country that manufacture equipment needed by the Bushehr power plant and the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI).‖ The major world powers accuse Iran of seeking to acquire a nuclear military capacity under the cover of its civilian atomic programme, a charge Tehran strongly denies. Their main objection is to Iran‘s uranium enrichment programme, which can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the fissile material for an atomic warhead. Tehran‘s nuclear programme has been condemned in six UN Security Council resolutions which include four sets of economic and political sanctions, despite the fact that its enrichment activities are supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle08.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2011/April/middleeast_April182.xml&se ction=middleeast (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Tehran Times – Iran Sunday, April 10, 2011 Iran Unveils Third Generation of Nuclear Centrifuges Tehran Times Political Desk TEHRAN -- Iranian President has unveiled the country‘s latest nuclear products. The unveiling ceremony took place on Saturday, which was Iran‘s National Nuclear Technology Day. Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Director Fereydoun Abbasi also attended the ceremony. Ahmadinejad unveiled the second and the third generation of the country‘s nuclear centrifuges. According to Abbasi, Iran is currently using the first generation of its centrifuges to produce uranium enriched to the purity level of just below 5 percent. Ahmadinejad also announced that a production line for uranium dioxide has been inaugurated. Speaking on the sidelines of the ceremony, he said efforts should be made to make Iran the hub of nuclear technology. He stated, ―Trust in God and unprecedented unity among the Iranian people are the key to our achievements,‖ and the enemies cannot deprive Iran of its dignity, independence, and self-reliance. The Islamic Republic of Iran should utilize all of its nuclear potential, he added. Elsewhere in his remarks, the Iranian president pointed to the powerful earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in March and the nuclear problems that ensued. A nuclear power plant damaged by the March 11 earthquake is leaking radiation, which is posing a serious threat to Japan. Ahmadinejad said the International Atomic Energy Agency has not provided the public with accurate information about the scope of the threat and added that the problem is much more serious than it appears. If such an incident with a much lower severity had taken place in a country that is opposed to the United States, a brouhaha would have been created about it, he stated. He criticized certain Western countries for adopting double-standard policies, saying the West is causing a commotion at a time when the Bushehr nuclear power plant has not even completely come on stream. http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=238281 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Los Angeles Times Iran to Build New Nuclear Research Reactors-Report By April 11, 2011 TEHRAN, April 11 (Reuters) - Iran plans to build "four to five" nuclear research reactors and will continue to enrich uranium to provide their fuel, a nuclear official said on Monday despite Western pressure on Tehran to curb atomic work. The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Fereydoon Abbasi, said Tehran would build the reactors "in the next few years" to produce medical radioisotopes, according to the students news agency ISNA. "To provide the fuel for these (new) reactors, we need to continue with the 20 percent enrichment of uranium," ISNA quoted him as saying. Abbasi's remarks are likely to deepen Western fears that Iran's atomic work is aimed at building nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and has dismissed international sanctions that were tightened last year as illegal. Talks with major powers aimed at resolving the nuclear impasse stalled in January, with Tehran insisting it would not accept any attempt to curtail its nuclear enrichment activities. Experts have previously said Tehran has stockpiled low-enriched uranium (LEU) and has enough for at least two atomic bombs if it was refined to a much higher level. Abbasi also said the country would increase the amount of its uranium enriched up to 20 percent whenever needed. "We will also raise the amount of the enriched uranium up to 20 percent based on our country's need and for doing so, we will not seek anybody's permission," he said. Iran, a major oil producer, says it wants only LEU for the running of nuclear power plants to boost its electricity supply. The U.N. Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Iran, reiterating its demand that it suspend enrichment. The Islamic Republic has also been hit by more far-reaching sanctions imposed by the United States and the EU. On Saturday, Abbasi said "second and third generation" centrifuges -- the machines which enrich uranium to a purity needed in nuclear reactors, or, if to a high enough level, nuclear weapons -- had been produced and tested. Writing by Zahra Hosseinian, editing by Alison Williams http://www.latimes.com/sns-rt-iran-nuclearreactohos173461-20110411,0,4988764,full.story (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Tehran Times – Iran Monday, April 11, 2011 „Bushehr is World‟s Safest Nuclear Power Plant‟ Tehran Times Political Desk TEHRAN - Iran‘s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, has said the Bushehr nuclear power plant has the highest level of safety compared to the world‘s other nuclear facilities. Speaking during a televised program on Saturday night, Soltanieh stated that no incident like the one that occurred at Japan‘s Fukushima nuclear power plant will ever happen at the Bushehr plant. Several explosions hit different units of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, causing a radiation leak after a massive earthquake struck Japan in March. Soltanieh said the Fukushima incident was a ―hydrogen explosion‖, which happened due to the geographical conditions of the plant and before it turned into a nuclear explosion, it was brought under control. There are over 300 reactors and 444 nuclear plants in 30 countries, he said, adding that only three of them have experienced serious incidents, with the Fukushima incident being the latest. He said Iran possesses nuclear expertise, part of which has been attained through research carried out at the Tehran nuclear research reactor over the past forty years. Elsewhere in his remarks, he pointed to Iran‘s nuclear talks with the West, saying that negotiation is different than confrontation and Tehran is always ready to hold talks based on interaction and mutual respect. The general atmosphere at the IAEA is in Iran‘s favor, and there are close interactions between Iran and the majority of members, especially those from developing countries, he added. http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=238374 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Global Security Newswire Ex-U.N. Panel Head Worries about another North Korean Nuke Test Monday, April 11, 2011 By Lee Michael Katz, Special to Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON -- The international community is faced with the threat of "dangerous" instability in North Korea and the potential for the unpredictable regime to carry out new provocations, according to a former U.N. panel chief (see GSN, April 8). Masahiko Asada of Japan is the former chairman of the U.N. Panel of Experts on North Korea. The legal expert, who headed the panel from 2009 to 2010, said he is concerned by the "many rumors" that North Korea might conduct its third nuclear test at some point. However, he added it would be difficult to predict when any such event could occur (see GSN, Feb. 22). Asada also said he is also concerned about a potential non-nuclear "dramatic incident" as North Korea transitions to a new young leader. Kim Jong Un is believed to be being groomed to take over for his father, dictator Kim Jong Il (see GSN, April 8). In an interview with Global Security Newswire, Asada also explored issues that include North Korea's potential nuclear weapons capability, the possibility of new U.N. sanctions against Pyongyang and the regime's efforts to evade sanctions. Asada also explained in edited excerpts below why countries might turn a blind eye to enforcing U.N. sanctions, North Korean arms smuggling techniques and future threats from the insular state. Q: The experts panel that you used to chair recently said that North Korea might be conducting undeclared or secret uranium enrichment activities. What does that mean for their potential nuclear weapons arsenal? Asada: When we count the number of nuclear bombs that North Korea has, plutonium is what we have to focus on. They have the potential, but I don't believe they have already produced one bomb based on highly enriched uranium. My concern is that [North Korea] will have another nuclear test. I don't believe that they have already made the bomb small [enough] so that a nuclear-tipped missile is possible for them to launch. So, I think another nuclear test is needed. There are many rumors they are thinking about having another test, but I really think it is difficult to say when or what occasion. If you have only a nuclear bomb, the threat is relatively small compared to if you have a nuclear-headed missile. Q: How do you view the ability to introduce new U.N. sanctions against North Korea. Will China block them? Asada: There is a perceived reluctance that some [Security Council] members are not really interested in sanctions on North Korea. The sanctions committee operates on a consensus rule. If anyone casts a negative vote, there is no decision. So it is really difficult to [introduce] new sanctions. Q: What did you learn about North Korea during your time on the experts panel? Asada: I was surprised to know how sophisticated they are in evading sanctions. They use front companies and a very complicated process was followed in hiding the original exporters. They sell conventional arms to other countries. They get money and they use that money to continue development of WMD [programs] including nuclear. The arms embargo is one very important element for nations to ensure that North Korea will not [continue] their nuclear development. Q: Where are these North Korean arms going? Can they end up in the hands of terrorists? Asada: They have a route to sell arms to some of the Middle Eastern countries and they can resell some of these arms to dissidents. Africa is also another region. Q: Are U.N. sanctions against these arms sales being enforced? Asada: It depends on whether and how member states will cooperate with these activities. ... Member states are not really obligated to conduct inspections. So if they are not interested in getting involved in the rather difficult issue of seizure or disposal, they may not conduct the inspection, even if they receive information regarding potential noncompliance. If you seize arms, then you have to store them somewhere and you have to pay for the guards and their disposal may cost you. And the inspection is not obligatory, so if you are clever enough, you may just close your eyes. Q: What does the transition from North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il to his son Kim Jong Un mean? Asada: In November, the North shelled [South Korea's] Yeonpyeong Island. This shows the transitional period is very dangerous. Kim Jong Un is very young. We should think about the possibility that some dramatic incident will occur anytime in the near future. I don't think a nuclear-related incident, but conventional arms or activities will be used to show how strong the new young leader is. I don't think North Korea is [going] to use a nuclear missile very easily. But by having such weapons, North Korea will be more aggressive in saying and doing anything. http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110411_2296.php (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Kyodo News – Japan China Eyes Step-by-Step Plan to Resume Nuclear Talks: Wu BEIJING, April 11, 2011 (Kyodo)—China is considering a step-by-step plan to resume the stalled six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, Beijing's chief nuclear envoy Wu Dawei said Monday after talks with North Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan. Wu, special representative for Korean Peninsula affairs, told reporters that the first step will be a meeting of chief delegates of North and South Korea, and the second step will involve talks between the North and the United States before the denuclearization talks can be resumed. Kim, who has been in Beijing since Thursday, reiterated the North's position that Pyongyang's uranium enrichment program can be discussed at the six-way talks, dismissing calls by the United States, South Korea and Japan to bring the case to the U.N. Security Council. There is "no ground" to discuss the issue at the Security Council, Kim told journalists. Kim said he "regrets" an accident at a Japanese nuclear power plant hit by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, saying it "caused huge material and human damage." The denuclearization talks involving North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States have been stalled since December 2008. http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84687.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

RIA Novosti – Russian Information Agency Japan Needs to Build Sarcophagus over Fukushima Reactor - Experts 12 April 2011 Cooling nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools, radioactive dust suppression and building protective encasements are the top priorities for Japan's crippled Fukushima plant, experts said on Tuesday. "I don't think the construction of protective reactor shells can be avoided but the question is what they will be like," Leonid Bolshakov, director of the Nuclear Energy Safety Institute, said in an interview with RIA Novosti. Yet it is too soon to put the Fukushima accident in the same league with Chernobyl, he added. "A total of 100 kilocuries of radioactive material has been released in Japan. I'd like to remind you that in the Chernobyl accident 50 megacuries were released," he said. Other experts agree that the sarcophagus might be the best option to contain the accident. "That's probably right," said Hugh Price, a retired Compliance Officer with EDF Energy. "The fuel has partly melted, and escaped through the breach in the donut under the reactor, and the containment area. That has led to the high level of contamination outside the reactor," he said. "What to do about it depends on the costs among other factors. It might be cheaper to flood the place with boronated water to soak up all the loose neutrons, as in a refueling operation, and then use remote vehicles to pick up all the fuel, but that won't be easy if it has all melted. So a sarcophagus is a likely option but probably not the only one." The Fukushima Daiichi operator said earlier on Tuesday the consequences of the Fukushima accident could ultimately exceed the level of Chernobyl. Officials from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) announced that the crisis level had been raised on the international nuclear and radiological event (INES) scale, putting the emergency on a par with Chernobyl. "The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that the amount of leakage [of radiation] could eventually reach that of Chernobyl or exceed it," Kyodo news agency quoted the official from TEPCO as saying. NISA said that Japan raised the severity level of the accident on Tuesday from the current 5 at the plant to the maximum 7 on an international scale, which the Chernobyl disaster was given in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine in 1986. The Chernobyl plant was previously the only nuclear disaster that had ever been rated at level 7. A powerful quake and tsunami hit northeastern Japan on March 11 leaving more than 27,000 people dead or missing and disabling the cooling systems at Fukushima reactors. Radioactive elements were later found in the water, air and food products in some parts of Japan. MOSCOW, April 12 (RIA Novosti, Alexander Stelliferovsky) http://en.rian.ru/natural/20110412/163489999.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Sydney Morning Herald – Australia Disaster at Fukushima Now as Bad as Chernobyl By Hiroko Tabuchi, Keith Bradsher April 13, 2011 JAPAN has raised its assessment of the accident at the Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant from 5 to the worst rating of 7 on an international scale, putting the disaster on par with the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown. The Japanese nuclear regulatory agency's decision, announced yesterday, to raise the alert level amounts to an admission that the accident, brought on by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, is likely to have long-lasting consequences for health and the environment. Some in the nuclear industry have been saying for weeks that the accident released large amounts of radiation. But Japanese officials had played down this possibility. According to the International Nuclear Event Scale, a level 7 accident involves ''widespread health and environmental effects'' and the ''external release of a significant fraction of the reactor core inventory''. Japan's previous assessment put the accident at level 5 on the scale, the same level as the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979. Level 7 has been previously applied only to Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union. The scale, developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and countries that use nuclear energy, requires the nuclear agency of the country where the accident occurs to calculate a rating based on complicated criteria. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said at a news conference yesterday that the rating resulted from new estimates by the country's Nuclear Safety Commission that suggest some 10,000 terabecquerels (a terabecquerel is a trillion becquerels) of radiation per hour was released for several hours in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami. The measurement refers to the amount of radioactive material emitted, not the dose absorbed by living things. The new estimates suggest that the radioactive material released so far is equal to about 10 per cent of that released in the Chernobyl accident, said Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director-general of Japan's nuclear regulator, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. He stressed that unlike at Chernobyl, where the reactor itself exploded and fire fanned the release of radioactive material, the containments at the four troubled reactors at Fukushima remained intact overall. But at a separate news conference, an official from the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric and Power, said, ''The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl.'' ''This is an admission by the Japanese government that the amount of radiation released into the environment has reached a new order of magnitude,'' said Tetsuo Iguchi, a professor in quantum engineering at Nagoya University. ''The fact that we have now confirmed the world's second-ever level 7 accident will have huge consequences for the global nuclear industry. It shows that current safety standards are woefully inadequate.'' The scale of the radiation leak has since dropped to less than 1 terabecquerel per hour, the Kyodo news agency said, citing government officials. The announcement came as Japan is urging more residents around the crippled nuclear power plant to evacuate, because of concerns over long-term exposure to radiation. The country's mourning for the one-month anniversary of the disaster was punctuated by another strong aftershock near Japan's Pacific coast. This knocked out cooling at the Fukushima plant for almost an hour, underscoring the vulnerability of the plant's reactors to continuing seismic activity. There is a 20-kilometre exclusion zone around the Fukushima plant and people living in a second ring 20 to 30 kilometres away were urged to evacuate or remain indoors. Authorities now will ban people from entering the no-go district to salvage possessions. Yesterday morning, another strong aftershock shook Tokyo. NEW YORK TIMES http://www.smh.com.au/world/disaster-at-fukushima-now-as-bad-as-chernobyl-20110412-1dcln.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Straits Times – Singapore April 9, 2011 US Senators Urge N.Korea-Myanmar Probe Agence France-Presse WASHINGTON - US SENATORS on Friday called for an unclassified report on Myanmar's cooperation with North Korea after shady accounts of military and nuclear cooperation between the isolated nations. Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, introduced a bill that would ask President Barack Obama to present Congress with a probe on the two nations' ties. 'Greater attention should be focused on the details and scope of military equipment and technology transferred from North Korea to Burma,' Mr Lugar said, using Myanmar's earlier name. 'Events in other parts of the world should not detract from obtaining a reality check regarding the elevated military and strategic collaboration between North Korea and Burma,' he said in a statement. The resolution asks Mr Obama to 'provide leadership' for an international investigation into alleged crimes against humanity in Myanmar, where rights groups say troops regularly kill, rape and enslave ethnic minorities. The Obama administration has voiced support for a UN-backed probe but has done little to turn it into reality, with Myanmar's neighbour China and other Asian countries believed to be opposed to such an effort. http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_654780.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Yonhap News – South Korea April 12, 2011 Myanmar could Develop Nukes with N. Korea's Help: Expert By Hwang Doo-hyong WASHINGTON, April 11 (Yonhap) -- Myanmar has not yet developed the technology for nuclear weapons, but has a chance of succeeding with help from North Korea, a scholar said Monday. Speaking to a seminar at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Robert Kelly, a nuclear engineer, said Myanmar has several factories capable of enriching uranium that were built with German technology. "When the Germans are inspecting, the factories appear to be civilian," said Kelly, a fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). "But when they are gone, the same machine tools are being used by military personnel to make equipment for missiles and the nuclear fuel cycle." Citing testimony from several defectors from Myanmar (Burma), some of whom have worked at the factories, and satellite photos, Kelly said that the Southeast Asian nation has made "efforts to develop gas centrifuges." He dismissed as "poor, especially for high-tech activities such as missile and nuclear facilities" the quality of workmanship at the Myanmar factories, but did not preclude the chance of Myanmar succeeding. "All experts judge that many of these efforts will be unsuccessful and beyond Burma's reach," he said. "So the program is not an immediate military threat, unless there are big changes. These would include support from another country such as DPRK and a shift to more useful technologies such as gas centrifuges. And Burma has a chance of eventually succeeding, still probably only with outside help." DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea's official name. U.S. officials have repeatedly warned of possible nuclear proliferation to Myanmar from North Korea. In June last year, a North Korean cargo ship, possibly on its way to Myanmar, returned home after being closely tracked by U.S. Navy vessels. North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui-chun visited Yangon, Myanmar, in July, prompting the U.S. to issue a statement calling on Myanmar to abide by an arms embargo and other U.N. sanctions imposed on North Korea for its nuclear and missile tests in 2009. Secretary of State also expressed concerns in July about North Korea's alleged proliferation of nuclear technology to Myanmar. "I've also shared with the minister our concerns about the exporting by North Korea of military materiel and equipment to Burma," Clinton said at the time. "We know that a ship from North Korea recently delivered military equipment to Burma and we continue to be concerned by the reports that Burma may be seeking assistance from North Korea with regard to a nuclear program." http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/04/12/78/0301000000AEN20110412000600315F.HTML (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Space War.com Pakistan Tells US to Cut CIA, Special Forces Numbers: Report By Staff Writers Washington, Agence France-Presse (AFP) April 11, 2011 Pakistan has told the United States to sharply cut the number of CIA agents and special forces operating there, and to rein in drone strikes against militants, a US newspaper said Monday. The New York Times said the order highlighted the near collapse of US-Pakistani cooperation, the result of a row that erupted when CIA officer Raymond Davis shot and killed two men who tried to rob him in January. The authorities in Islamabad were asking a total of about 335 CIA officers, contractors and special operations forces to leave the country, according to a Pakistani official involved in the decision who was quoted by the daily. Pakistan's army chief General Ashfaq Kayani personally ordered the reductions, it added, citing unnamed US and Pakistani officials. The news came as Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the chief of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's powerful military spy agency, met in Washington with Leon Panetta, director of the Central Intelligence Agency. George Little, a CIA spokesman, told AFP the talks were productive and that relations between the agency and the ISI remained on a "solid footing." The Pakistani official involved in the decision to cut back the US presence told the newspaper that Pakistan suspects that what Washington really wants to do is to neutralize the Muslim country's nuclear arsenal. The daily said Kayani has asked for a 25-40 percent reduction in the number of US Special Operations troops, most of whom train the paramilitary Frontier Corps in the northwest tribal region which is home to the Taliban and Al- Qaeda. It also said Pakistan had set a quota of 120 Special Forces soldiers operating in Pakistan, a figure it says has been reached. Pakistan is also demanding Washington remove all US contractors used by the CIA as well as CIA agents who were involved in all missions that the ISI had been unaware of, the Pakistani official was cited as saying. Davis was reportedly involved in a covert CIA assignment to penetrate the Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group. A Pakistani official who met with the army chief said "Kayani would like the drones stopped," after complaining that the Obama administration's expanded drone attacks had run out of control. If they cannot be stopped, Kayani demanded, then the campaign should return to the more limited score they were used for originally and target areas within North Waziristan, the paper said. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Pakistan_tells_US_to_cut_CIA_special_forces_numbers_report_999.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Global Security Newswire Defense Industry Troubles Slow Russian Missile Effort, Lawmaker Says Tuesday, April 12, 2011 Russia's effort to field a new submarine-launched ballistic missile is being slowed by human resources and technology issues within the nation's defense industrial complex, a senior lawmaker said in an Interfax report on Monday (see GSN, Feb. 28). The Bulava missile is designed to carry multiple nuclear warheads as far as 5,000 miles. It has a mixed record in testing to date, and the next trial launch is expected by early summer. Previous reports have indicated the system could be delivered to the Russian military this year. "The infamous Bulava was supposed to be put into service, but it was not. The works drag on because the industry has lost technologies and personnel, and not because it was designed badly," according to Svetlana Savitskaya, deputy chairwoman of the State Duma's defense panel. The defense industry "is trying hard to reconstruct production standards, technologies and acceptance procedures," she added. "We must realize that modern security of this country is based exclusively on nuclear weapons and their means of delivery," Savitskaya said (Interfax, April 11). http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110412_8142.php (Return to Articles and Documents List)

The Gazette – Colorado Springs Retired General: U.S. Vulnerable to Cyber Attack April 11, 2011 2:20 PM By WAYNE HEILMAN, THE GAZETTE While the U.S. military has plenty of capability to launch a cyber attack, it lacks the ability to defend against those types of attack, Peter Pace, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a conference on cyberspace Monday in Colorado Springs. The ability to wage war in cyberspace will ―change the relationship between have and have-not states just as the advent of nuclear weapons did,‖ said Pace, who retired as a Marine Corps general in 2007 and is now president and CEO of SM&A Strategic Advisors, a California-basedconsulting firm. He made the comments at Cyber 1.1, a one- day conference at The Broadmoor hotel sponsored by the Space Foundation. The conference is a companion event to this week‘s 27th National Space Symposium at The Broadmoor. Pace said he recommended against launching a cyber attack while he was Joint Chiefs chairman because he didn‘t want the nation to disclose it had the capability to wage such an attack, because the military could achieve the same effect another way and because launching such an attack would compromise the U.S. government‘s ability to object to such an attack being waged against it. The U.S. did later launch cyber attacks, Pace said, but he did not provide any details during his 30-minute speech. Not only do many military weapon systems depend on computers and computer networks to operate them, the nation‘s economy, communications systems and many other critical systems are controlled and operated through computers and computer networks, Pace said. The nation has little understanding of the nature of the threats against it in cyberspace and has little capability to know whether systems have been compromised, let alone who may have compromised them, he said. ―We are way late in being ready to defend ourselves against a cyber attack and we are highly vulnerable as a nation. We have the most capability on the planet to attack (in cyberspace). But like every other nation, we are vulnerable‖ to such an attack, Pace said. The first step in reducing that vulnerability is to develop technology that would continually check to determine if databases have been changed and whether those who made the changes were authorized to do so, he said. Data manipulation is perhaps the greatest threat the nation faces in cyberspace because the nation‘s ability to defend itself would grind to a halt if sensitive data is compromised during a time of crisis, said Roger Cressey, another speaker at the conference; Cressey is a senior vice president of military contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and previously served in White House cyber security and counterterrorism posts. While some progress has been made in defending against such attacks, the nation still must do a better job, he said. Improving the nation‘s defenses against cyber attacks likely begins with adding layers to defenses in databases, communications networks and computer and communications hardware, said Jerry Edgerton, president of the Government Group of Blue Ridge Networks, a Virginia-based cyber security provider. He was part of a panel of corporate executives at the conference who discussed advances in cyber security, including building more security features into computer and network hardware. http://www.gazette.com/articles/attack-116042-cyber-cyberspace.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Asia Times Online – Hong Kong, China April 13, 2011 Al-Qaeda Sees Opportunity in Peace By Syed Saleem Shahzad ISLAMABAD - With the great 2011 Arab revolt still simmering, Western leaders are scrambling to bring to an end the 10-year war in Afghanistan, where the Taliban-led insurgency remains unbeaten. A step in the direction of an endgame through a political reconciliation process is likely to be taken at a preparatory conclave on the security and reconstruction of Afghanistan to be held in Turkey's capital Ankara next month. The Taliban have obtained permission from the Turkish government to open an office in Turkey, former Taliban administration minister Arsala Rahmani told the media in the United States. Last week, a senior Afghan official, Mohammad Massoom Stanekzai, secretary of the Afghan High Peace Council and an adviser to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, announced a US$50 million donation from the United States government to the council - the body responsible for seeking peace talks with the Taliban - in support of reconciliation efforts. This is the beginning of official, up-front peace negotiations with the Taliban, which to date have taken place in backrooms. However, in stark contrast to US hopes, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that al-Qaeda was gradually returning to the eastern Afghan provinces of Nuristan and Kunar, setting up bases for the first time in years in the wake of the withdrawal of US troops from the area to more populated centers. Asia Times Online earlier broke the story that after a pause of many years, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has been active in the Hindu Kush mountain region of Kunar and Nuristan in Afghanistan and Pakistan's Bajaur regions (see Bin Laden sets alarm bells ringing March 25, 2011) and that al-Qaeda was expanding its territorial influence in the vacuum left behind by US troops. This raises a question: What does al-Qaeda, the real mastermind of the South Asian war theater, plan by entering into eastern Afghanistan where it already has a powerful local commander, Qari Ziaur Rahman, at a time when a peace negotiation process is about to begin? (See A fighter and a financier Asia Times Online, May 23, 2008 and the video, The Taliban's new breed of leader.) Asia Times Online spoke to an al-Qaeda-affiliated strategist on the condition of anonymity as his current situation does not allow his name to be used. "There are two important things to understand. First, the Western coalition is heavily engaged in the and North Africa. The situation is so complex that it does not allow the West to disengage from there. Revolts within army ranks have begun in Yemen, which is geographically the second-most important region for al-Qaeda," the strategist said. "This is a multi-layered problem in the Arab world which will become further aggravated. In the meantime, the West has the hallucination that it can keep the Taliban busy through peace negotiations while it resolves the crisis in the Arab world. That idea will never be realized. "The Taliban will certainly use this breathing space to strategize the war theater and I have a strong hunch that this time the Taliban will make a major breakthrough in Afghanistan. To me, this is no more a case of years, it looks like an issue of months now." This was somewhat surprising, as the politics of peace and war have always been al-Qaeda‘s dialectic. In the past 10 years of its war against foreign forces and Pakistan, al-Qaeda has always used peace agreements for the enlargement of its war strategies. Only recently, with peace activities echoing in the air, a battle front was opened in the Pakistani tribal areas of Mohmand and Bajaur situated near the Hindu Kush. Al-Qaeda has previously scuttled dialogue processes, such as the Grand Peace Jirga (council) that was announced in Kabul in August 2007. Al-Qaeda has always used Pakistan as a part of its grand designs for the region. The al-Qaeda-linked strategist explained: "Pakistan is desperately looking for a reconciliation process with the militants on its side of the border because if, hypothetically, the Americans strike a peace deal with the Taliban and supposedly leave the war theater, Pakistan would be left alone and without any resources. "Its resource pool to fight a war has already been squeezed. However, I don't see any formula through which Pakistan could settle its issues with militants. I think militancy will continue to haunt Pakistan. "I don‘t think that the situation in the Arab world will evaporate into the air in the next several months, therefore any breakthrough in Afghanistan will pave the way for al-Qaeda to reorganize its cadre and march to its ultimate war theater - the Middle East," the strategist said. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of upcoming book Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban, beyond 9/11 published by Pluto Press, UK. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MD13Df03.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

South Asia Analysis Group – India OPINION/Analysis April 8, 2011 China‟s Defence White Paper – 2010 A Preliminary Analysis By Bhaskar Roy The contents of the defence White Paper titled ―China‘s National Defence in 2010‖ released by China‘s State Council on March 31 should not have surprised military analysts. It was as anodyne and opaque as ever. In fact, the Chinese official media appears to have revealed more in many areas than this official paper does. A senior Chinese official visiting New Delhi with a joint Communist Party and Discipline Inspection Commission delegation had remarked during a discussion session that one should not only see what China says but also what China does. That was a good hint on how to analyse China‘s national papers, at least. Discounting the self-praise as the most benign, friendly, constructive and positive country in the world that runs throughout the paper, and the typical repetition that are the hallmark of Chinese reports, there are indications of policy and thinking as well as concerns. Digressing from some earlier editions, this paper recognized from the very outset that the international situation had become more complex, international strategic competition had intensified, regional conflicts and flashpoints were a recurrent theme, and stated that ―world peace remains elusive‖. It must be noted that China has moved away from its earlier theme of peace as the dominant trend, to politely state that some conflicts may be inevitable. Certainly, conflicts have increased around the world so has China‘s vital interests and position. In spite of an effort to reemphasize Deng Xiaoping‘s doctrine of keeping a low profile and building strength late last year in the face of international concerns, China has gone ahead to demonstrate its strength as the world‘s second largest economy with a fast growing military machinery that is fearsome to all neighbours. Beijing has begun to show increasing confidence its becoming a player to intervene militarily in the global arena despite it stated policy to the contrary. As a Permanent-5 member of the UNSC, China has political power which it has exercised effectively for its own interest. But for military intervention in its own interest, China will require western partners. Therefore, on over all consideration, China has always opposed military interventions, especially of foreign troops on the ground in a sovereign country. And like the USA, dictatorships in small third world and developing countries have been its preference. China‘s economic strength at the moment, analysed by experts within and outside the country, is the driving force in garnering support among countries generally ignored by the developed world. When China gives aid to these countries, human rights violations, factional or tribal wars and internal ruinations are not tied. What are of importance are primarily natural resources especially oil and gas exploitation, voting for China in international organizations on human rights and religious intolerance, and allowing China‘s overflowing workers population to work on China aided projects in those countries depriving indigenous workers of jobs. The paper brings out the following challenges, imperatives and natural rights for China: i) Concerns about the developments in its immediate active neighbourhood i.e. North East Asia (Korean Peninsula and Japan), South East Asia (ASEAN), and significantly, Afghanistan. ii) Sovereignty and territorial issues where Taiwan lists at the top of Beijing‘s core interests, and territorial claims with Japan and in South China Sea (and border/territorial issue with India). iii) Securing maritime interests – securing sea lanes for natural resources imports (more than 70% of its energy imports traverse the Indian Ocean), security of its overseas assets and security of its citizens abroad (and evacuating them in times of crisis). iv) The crux – ensure leadership of the Communist Party, demolish any liberation opposition, maintain stability at any cost and, most importantly, counter and defeat the Uighur separatists of China‘s western Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region (XAUR), and the Tibetan movement. All these combine to pose the greatest challenge of Beijing. The goals and tasks of China‘s national defence in the new era was defined as follows: Safeguarding national sovereignty, security and interests of national development. China‘s national defence is tasked to guard against and resist aggression, defend the security of China‘s lands, inland waters, territorial waters, and air space, safeguard its maritime rights and interests, and maintain its security interests in space, electromagnetic space, and cyber space. It is also tasked to oppose and contain the separatist forces for “Taiwan independence”, crackdown on separatist forces for “East Turkistan independence” and “Tibet independence”, and defend national security and territorial integrity. In order to implement these tasks including economic tasks, the paper gives a theoretical account in detail without going into any specifics of armament, cyber and information warfare capabilities or asymmetric warfare philosophy. It makes an omnibus statement of defence development which corroborates what is already known about the PLA Navy (PLAN), PLA Air Force (PLAAF), PLA Army (PLAA) and Second Artillery (Missile) Force (SAF). The emphasis was on full mechanization of the PLA and integration of all arms for joint force projection by 2020, attaining major progress in informization as a driving force. It was stated that new weapons platforms are being developed, but no indications were given on types and capabilities. The maximum emphasis was on the air force and the navy. The Chinese military planners have realized that advanced aircrafts are required not only for defence of China‘s air space but to try and establish relative supremacy in the outer fringes of its air space. They are particularly concerned over US spy planes on intelligence collection flights around China‘s airspace, and the lessons of 2001 when a Chinese air force aircraft collided with a US spy plane. The newly unveiled JF-20 Stealth fighter aircraft was expected to be an attack aircraft, but some Chinese officials have opined that it will perform roles in protecting the sovereignty of China‘s airspace. This is a possibility, but the JF-20 could play a key role in area denial. The real problem will start when China begins transferring the JF-20 to front line allies like Pakistan. There is a clear indication that the spine of the PLAAF in the immediate future will comprise of surface-to-air, air- to-air, and air-to-ground missiles along with enhanced radar and electronic counter measures (ECM) capabilities. A close look at the paragraphs on PLAN leaves no doubt that the Chinese naval force is on the path to a major expansion, and the force is shifting quickly to aircraft carriers. The carriers are not only required for its coastal defence and recovery of its claimed maritime territories starting with Taiwan as the core, but also for overseas projections. China has taken seriously the prophesy of famous naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan on the critical importance of the Indian Ocean. The paper emphasized that overseas role of the PLAN was for Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW). It exemplified the PLAN‘s anti-piracy role in the Gulf of Aden and evacuation of Chinese workers from Libya. But with one aircraft carrier scheduled to go into service sometime this year, and a total of five to be in service by 2020, the objectives are clearly different than those stated. To maintain China‘s sustainable development the critical inputs are energy and raw material, and consolidate overseas employment for its growing jobless workers. The $100 billion African fund instituted by China in 2008 was specifically for this purpose. As the world‘s ―factory‖, China‘s huge economy is export dependent. It has hardly any substantial deposit of oil and natural gas as well as minerals like iron ore and copper among other things. Seventy percent of its oil imports come from the Gulf, West Asia and Africa. It makes a double benefit when mostly Chinese workers are employed in mines in the undeveloped countries the produce of which also comes to China. Therefore, if these centres of import are threatened, the very foundations of China‘s economy will be shaken. This could make for the most dangerous recipe for global stability and China knows it, and wants to avoid it as far as possible. It is, therefore, intensifying its civil and military diplomacy which the paper discussed quite extensively. Very little was discussed about the second Artillery force except that it possessed both nuclear and conventional missiles. Separately, there have been several reports about new 4000 plus km missile under development. It may be the long awaited DF-41 or a variant. This missile could have both nuclear or conventional warheads. Another long range missile deployed along the Fujian coast according to the Taiwanese intelligence, is the DF-16. The development of DF-16 was widely known, but not the specifics of its deployment. Conventional warhead long range missiles serves the particular purpose of an attack on a non-nuclear country and/or avoiding a nuclear war. But ―no first use‖ policy of nuclear weapons though stated in the paper as a routine exercise have been examined and interpreted even by Chinese experts in different ways. It does not mean China will wait for a nuclear strike to retaliate. It will examine the intention of its nuclear adversary and can logically launch a preemptive strike. For example, reports by the Indian media reducing any nuclear missile test by the DRDO as aimed at China could be reason enough for Beijing to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against India in case of a major India-China conflict. Returning to discuss China‘s challenges, imperatives and natural rights mentioned earlier in this assessment, an examination of China‘s core interest in terms of territorial sovereignty is important. After China‘s unofficial approach to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last year to recognize the South China Sea as its core interest, serious concerns arose in the region. Clinton declined to accept the Chinese proposal and the Chinese denied having made any such proposal. The Chinese denial, however, does not make any material difference to the truth. The most recent clarification of China‘s core interests came in an explanation in an article by Da Wei, research professor at the China Institute of Contemporary (CICIR), a Chinese official think tank. Da Wei made it clear that the Chinese Communist Party‘s and the government‟s policies had not changed, and made it abundantly clear that all territorial issues comprise China‟s core interests. Prof. Da Wei should know, as he is a high ranking member of the CICIR which, in turn, is attached to the State Council and the Ministry of State Security. PLA, People and Party Although the PLA was always called upon to meet domestic crises like the 1989 Tienanmen Square students uprising, the March 2008 Tibetan uprising or the July 2009 Uighur anti-Hans riot in Xinjing, this paper and developments around it speak of a much bigger role for the armed forces in safeguarding the Communist Party‘s supreme command over the nation. It is highly arguable if the Chinese people are ready for a revolution. There are two basic reasons for it. One, Tienanmen spirit appears to have dissipated and making money has become a driving force. As the father of China‘s reform and opening up policy, Deng Xiaoping said in 1992 during his famous Shenzen tour, one of the three criteria to test the success of socialism was whether the people‘s living standards had improved. Notwithstanding the growing income disparity in the country, those who can lead a revolution are busy in profitable economic activities. Two, according to some Chinese intellectuals the spirit of the Chinese people has been so bludgeoned by the party, that living has become the only issue. But with more than 100,000 anti-government protests every year for the last several years, the debate on political reform and democracy initiated by outgoing Premier Wen Jiabao, and demand for democracy spreading in West Asia and North Africa along with some similar views within the country, the party just cannot take any chance. In addition, the Xinjiang separatist issue and the Tibetan movement for genuine autonomy which the Chinese still see as a pro-independence movement in spite of the Dalai Lama‘s assurance to the contrary, the Chinese leaders remain highly concerned. The leadership launched the ―strike hard‖ campaign in the late 1990s which is still continuing, but the results are not commensurate with the efforts. It has only caused bitterness. In an unprecedented move in the history of the People‘s Republic of China, the Chinese leadership under President, Party General Secretary, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) Hu Jintao, , an all encompassing internal security initiative called ―Wei-Wen‖ was launched at the March NPC annual meeting. The Wei-Wen initiative was given a budget of $ 95 billion, over $ 3 billion more than the defence budget which itself increased by 12.7 % over the previous year, amounting to $ 91.5 billion. The mammothness of this initiative is mindboggling. The PLA has a major role. The public security apparatus expanded hugely since the 2008 Tibetan uprising. A huge number of civilians, more than one hundred thousand in Beijing and other important cities have been recruited to report on friends, acquaintances and neighbours. It appears like an Orwellian nightmare. It is difficult to forecast how the Wei-Wen initiative will ultimately work out. But one fear is that it can create a nation of programmed nationalism and another section waiting for the infamous knock at the door in midnight. The paper underscored the importance of political work of the PLA. It made clear that the PLA must guarantee politically, ideologically and organisationally-the nature of the People‟s army under the absolute leadership of the party. On the one hand, the emphasis was to reign in the adventurism that sections of the PLA had exhibited in 2010 to act as a player independent from the party. Now the army is being brought back to serve the Party which includes the Wei-Wen initiative. The Chinese military‘s mouthpiece, the PLA Daily (March 29) made it emphatically clear that there was no question of bringing the armed forces under the government, but must remain under the party. This is a retraction from the Deng Xiaoping‘s policy to make the armed forces apolitical and professional. Ideology re-emphasized on loyalty to the party, love the people, and serve the country. But the new ideological return does not mean that military development will be relegated to second place. The aim is to integrate a powerful armed force with the political, ideological and social imperatives of the country. Taiwan Reunification of Taiwan with the mainland remains the top priority in Beijing‘s core interest, yet it is the most difficult one. In fact the Chinese leaders feel if Taiwan was to declare independence Xinjiang, Tibet and even Hong Kong would be difficult to control. And if Taiwan decided to do so, Beijing would not hesitate to switch to the military option. That would open the proverbial Pandora‘s Box with a global impact not seen post-world war-II. China is also cognizant of this. The above of course, is an unlikely scenario. Taipei‖s main protector, the United States, has kept it on a tight leash. The US military assistance is very cautious, just enough to keep some kind of military balance across the Taiwan strait. The $ 18.6 billion US military assistance to Taiwan in 2009, did not include submarines which this island entity requires badly. Yet, China suspended military exchanges with US for almost a year. While deploying more than one thousand nuclear and conventional missiles (range 280 to 300 Kms) covering Taiwan, supplementing this with the new DF-16 long range missiles, and the aircraft carrier killer DF-21D missile to be deployed soon, Beijing adopted a more friendly approach after President Ma Ying-jeo‘s KMT came to power two years ago. Economic relations across the strait forged ahead, tourism increased and contacts have become more frequent. Encouraged, the paper suggested a potential military exchange at an appropriate time. This is something the KMT can even think of at this moment. While the Taiwanese people are divided between full independence and retaining the status quo, reunification has no takers. The Taiwanese defence and security sectors are emphatically opposed to such contacts as they sense danger. China‘s worry is that the de-facto status of Taiwan may in time become dejure. There is the factor that indigenous Taiwanese are taking over governance and the influence of the old KMT mainlanders is waning. Beijing will have to live with this uncertainty. Foreign Relations With an eye to the rising ―China threat‖ syndrome in the international community, especially after China‘s threatening behaviour in 2010, the paper devoted considerable space to military confidence building. It tried to hide the real purpose of border roads building and erecting permanent, sophisticated military structures as just defensive, and mentioned establishment of friendly contacts with the military of the other side as China‘s efforts to be friendly. The paper described military confidence building as an effective way to maintain national security and development, and safeguard regional peace and security. It listed establishment of mechanism of defence and security consultation and dialogue with 22 countries, initiatives with ASEAN countries, Japan, Mongolia, India, and Pakistan to ensure Asia-Pacific security and diffusing flash points. It also listed confidence building measures with several countries including India and Bhutan,. China‘s contribution to the UN peace keeping force, anti-piracy activities and MOOTW were also highlighted. The paper, however, failed to address questions on its skirmishes with Japan and countries like Vietnam and the Philippines over the Spratly Islands' sovereignty, trying to control the sea lanes of the South China Sea, and reluctance to discipline North Korea for its military offensive against South Korea which threatened to spin dangerously out of control last year. India The paper reserved one paragraph to detail the several confidence building agreements China had signed with India from 1993 to 1996. Separately, it also mentioned China working to ―advance Sino-Indian military relations‖. The remarks are significant. With so many contentious issues in the open across its Asian Pacific seaboard, stability with a large neighbour with which it has serious differences on boundary and territorial issues, this is good publicity. On the other hand, India must assess very carefully the Chinese desire to resume military-to-military relations. India suspended military relation when China refused to give Lt. Gen B.S. Jaswal, GOC-in-C of the Northern Command a normal visa as he was in command of Kashmir. Beijing‘s position was that it was their considered policy. If India agrees to resume military relations with China, it would have accepted China‘s position. The negative impact on India will be massive, and weaken India‘s sovereign position. China has given no indication to suggest that it was considering reversing its position on the visa issue. Very recently, the Chinese ambassador to Pakistan strongly reiterated China‘s position. During his visit to India this January, Premier Wen Jiabao said he understood India‘s concern, and suggested Beijing would revisit the issue. He was less than honest. China‘s activities in India‘s neighbourhood must be included in India‘s policy calculations. North-East Asia The paper was very circumspect about Japan and the two Koreas. The reason is not difficult to understand. The threatening stand-off between China and Japan over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands last year, and more recent spooking of Japanese ships by Chinese aircraft and ships along Japanese waters are indicative of China‘s hard-line position. Following the recent earthquake and tsunami devastation of Japan, the Chinese official media (and of course officials) are trying to ease relations, saying Japan‘s future lay with China, and the US be expelled from the region. Most importantly, the official Global Times wrote in the Japanese context that it was already decided that China was the number one country in Asia. Sadly, the Chinese authorities see opportunity when disaster and bad luck strikes another country. China remains committed to North Korea, and its leadership and the Workers‘ Party of Korea (WKP) and believes that on the one hand, it sees the collapse of the North Korean regime and the WKP may have a domino effect on the Chinese communist party. North Korea also remains Beijing‘s strongest card against Japan and the USA. But there is a growing voice inside China, even among intellectuals facilitated to the government, that North Korea was becoming a liability for China. The paper was silent on these issues. Conclusion The Defence White Paper circumvented serious issues across the board. There was hardly any celebration of China‘s strategic relations with Pakistan, showed some concerns over Afghanistan, and played down strategic contentious issues with the US. Just nothing was revealed in specific terms of its weapons and systems development or apportioning of its defense budget. To foreign observers it was an exercise in public relations. China‘s propaganda that its military development is purely defensive must be seen in terms of what it wants to defend. Securing its core interests, defending its economic interests overseas, and its political interests in the international fora by military means, requires a huge offensive military capability including no-contact and asymmetric warfare. China is well on the way to achieve these including protecting its self-assumed status as Asia‘s only pole. It will be a major error of judgement if Indian strategists measure China‘s growing military power in terms of American and NATO assessments. China is now trying to dominate the BRICS, having already penetrated the SAARC and kept India outside the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) unless Pakistan was included. China‘s use of the Pakistan card against India has been elevated to a higher level with Beijing‘s new policy on Kashmir. Its latest political and military diplomacy in Sri Lanka and Nepal have found powerful centres in these countries to counter India. The BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh remain dedicated to Chinese partners to counter India. The Chinese ―string of pearls‖ theory to encircle India is a no longer a figment of imagination of some Americans. It is real. At the same time, China is quickly acquiring the reputation of being the most untrustworthy big power. Hawks in China‘s political and military establishments are bursting at the seams to demonstrate their power action. Concurrently, sane voices are rising to restrain the combative power centres. Indian policy makers must remember that to conduct relations with China (which is a must) with dignity requires to openly hold sovereign positions and convey in no uncertain terms that India can stand alone. Power ensures peace and respect. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers45/paper4417.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Institute for Defence Studies & Analysis – India OPINION/Analysis Why India should retain Its No-First-Use Policy? By Reshmi Kazi April 11, 2011 Senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader and former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has called on the government to re-examine its doctrine of no-first-use (NFU). The rationale behind his suggestion is the increasing multi-pronged security concerns facing India. The no-first-use policy was formulated by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government in 1998. According to Jaswant Singh, the NFU policy, as it stands today, is antiquated and, hence, the Government cannot ‗sit in yesterday‘s policy‘. In advocating the need to readdress the NFU doctrine, Singh has emphasised on the security concerns emanating from Pakistan‘s growing nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is reportedly in possession of 100 to 110 nuclear warheads, which makes it double India‘s nuclear stockpile of approximately 50 to 60 warheads. Pakistan has good delivery systems, which were reportedly transferred to it by China and North Korea. And it is rapidly adding to its nuclear inventory, despite being a failing state run by a powerless government, largely controlled by its military establishment, and with very little control over the terrorist groups operating within its territory. There is no foolproof assurance of how safe and secure Pakistan‘s nuclear weapons are, as questioned by Mr. Singh. Even the United States, which has provided million dollars for the safety of Pakistan‘s crown jewels, is unaware of their location. The other security concern cited by the veteran politician is of an expansionist China. He has pointed to China‘s rising influence in the internal affairs of Nepal to substantiate his claim that Beijing poses a long-term threat to India. Playing down these apprehensions, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna has asserted that there will be no revision of the NFU policy by the government. However, merely allaying the concerns expressed by Mr. Singh is not enough, and the issue deserves an analysis. Sceptics question the efficacy of the NFU policy, on the ground that it has little relevance as a strategic tool against Pakistan. It is considered to be a merely declaratory policy. Hence, it has no binding legitimacy. Pakistan‘s military establishment views India‘s NFU doctrine as a paper policy that cannot be depended upon in a situation where the stakes are high. Since India‘s nuclear doctrine is a unilateral decision, it can be revoked anytime if the situation so demands. The Pakistanis believe that there is no way of making the NFU policy incapable of first use. This disparagement is difficult to ignore, but it can be argued that militarily India need not depend upon nuclear weapons against Pakistan and China. India‘s strategic culture clearly demonstrates that it is a status quo power devoid of any aggressive intention. Besides, India‘s conventional strength is adequate for defence against Pakistan. This conventional advantage is further reinforced by India‘s offensive policy of ‗Cold Start‘, which seeks to circumvent a nuclear response from Pakistan. The Cold Start doctrine is independent of the NFU pledge and, hence, India can use it to neutralise any conventional aggression by Pakistan. China‘s expansionist policies cannot be deterred by revising the NFU. Besides, it would not be prudent to abandon the NFU and send a deliberate signal of provocation to China. This can offset India‘s declared stand on a minimum credible nuclear policy and project it as an aggressive power. Further, abrogating the NFU policy would signal a first use posture by India, thus reducing the space for conventional warfare below the nuclear threshold. This could also severely corrode India‘s ability to limit Pakistan‘s offensive tactics and policies at the conventional level. Instead, India must gradually revise its posture of ‗active deterrence‘ to ‗dissuasive deterrence‘ by building up its infrastructure along the border and improving the surveillance and warning capabilities, the mobility of land-based missiles, survivability of the airborne retaliatory force, and increased force levels. Concerns over Pakistan‘s increasing nuclear stockpile have been cited as a reason to revise and revisit India‘s no- first-use policy. According to the estimates of Professor R. Rajaraman and his colleagues of the International Panel on Fissile Material, by 2010 Pakistan was presumably in possession of 1.5 to 3 tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) – fissile material enough for 60 to 120 weapons, and approximately 100 kg of plutonium – enough for 20 bombs. The Penal has also estimated that by 2020 these figures are likely to rise to 450 kg of plutonium – enough for 90 bombs, and 2500 to 6000 kg of 90 per cent HEU – sufficient for approximately 100 to 420 simple fission weapons. It is also projected that a significant proportion of Pakistan‘s annual production of natural uranium, approximately 40 tons, will be consumed by the three Khushab reactors, and not much will thereafter be left for the centrifuge plant at Kahuta. The recent estimates of 80 to 140 weapons in Pakistan‘s stockpile come from the figures of 1.5 to 3 tons of HEU and 100 kg weapons grade plutonium. But there is a lot of ambiguity involved in these projections. Moreover, simultaneously, India‘s own nuclear stockpile is likely to increase especially given the advances being made in breeder technology, which will yield reactor grade plutonium. Hence, it is not necessary to revise the NFU policy on the basis of figures which are hypothetical. Withdrawing the NFU policy and making a declaration to that effect makes little strategic sense, since it will damage India‘s status as a responsible nuclear power. Such a step will abrogate India‘s commitment to the universal goal of nuclear disarmament and upset the regional balance in the sub-continent. The NFU policy is a sound pillar of India‘s nuclear doctrine. It facilitates a restrained nuclear weapons programme without tactical weapons and a complicated command and control system. It forswears brinkmanship by avoiding the deployment of weapons on hair-trigger alert and keeping an arms-race in check. In conclusion, the no-first-use policy is premised upon an assured second strike capability, that is survive a first strike and retain sufficient warheads to launch massive retaliation upon the adversary. As long as this second strike capability is not degraded there is no reason to abandon the NFU posture. At present, there is no evidence to suggest that the reported expansion of Pakistan‘s nuclear stockpile has degraded India‘s nuclear retaliatory capability. India should therefore retain its no-first-use doctrine. Reshmi Kazi is Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. Her doctoral thesis was on Evolution of India's Nuclear Doctrine: A Study of Political, Economic and Technological Dimensions. She worked as a Research Fellow in the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, from December 2003 till September 2007. During this period she worked on a project titled Weapons of Mass Destruction in South Asia, which was funded by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/WhyIndiashouldretainitsNoFirstUsepolicy_rkazi_110411 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Rediff News – India OPINION/Column Are Indian Nuclear Weapons Facilities Safe? By Dr A Gopalakrishnan April 12, 2011 Parliament must insist that the government should direct its Department of Atomic Energy to immediately examine and make recommendations to the government on the structure of an independent surveillance and regulatory authority for the defence nuclear facilities, says Dr A Gopalakrishnan. India has a declared nuclear weapons program and several associated nuclear installations like plutonium production reactors, spent-fuel reprocessing units, uranium enrichment and tritium separation plants, radioactive waste management plants, submarine test reactor facility, etc. All these facilities have been kept outside the purview of International Atomic Energy Agency's Safeguards Agreement and their Additional Protocol. From the inception of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board in 1983, all these facilities were under its safety surveillance & regulation, even though the AERB is very much a captive organisation of the Department of Atomic Energy, reporting to the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy. But, on April 25, 2000, the then secretary, DAE had ordered that the regulatory and safety surveillance functions at BARC and its facilities, which were exercised till then by the AERB, will thereafter be carried out through an 'Internal Safety Committee Structure' to be constituted by the director of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. The structure, membership or functioning of this committee is not known. This status of safety administration of the defence nuclear facilities is totally unsatisfactory because the safety evaluation and regulation is done by the same management which is responsible for operation and maintenance of these facilities, and there is no independence of regulation or any transparency of their actions. Besides, the entire process of operation, maintenance and safety management of these weapons facilities is kept secret under the Official Secrets Act. Under the circumstances, it is easy for the government to cut corners in safety implementation, when faced with the exigencies of weapons production. No one outside the facility will know about such by-passing of safety principles and procedures, and none from within the DAE system will dare to openly question these serious lapses for fear of being accused of violating the stringent Official Secrets Act. As a consequence, for the last 11 years, AERB has no knowledge of or control over the hazardous nuclear facilities and their activities in the extensive BARC Complex in Trombay, on the outskirts of Mumbai, or BARC's extensive and potentially dangerous operations at Kalpakkam near Chennai, or at Mysore, or elsewhere. This is a serious lacuna, especially in today's context where the prime minister has ordered a safety audit of only the nuclear power plants, but not of the country's weapons establishments, many of which are next door to some of India's most populous cities. There are several highly hazardous nuclear installations which come within the ambit of 'weapons facilities', any one of which could cause a major accident with extraordinary impact on the lives of large populations around these facilities, besides damage to the environment. Examples of such facilities include: the BARC complex, containing the 40 megawatt-thermal (MWt) CIRUS reactor (under shutdown?) and the 100 MWt Dhruva reactor as well as large amounts of high-grade liquid radioactive waste material stocks; an old spent-fuel reprocessing plant, an enrichment plant and a fuel fabrication unit, as well as a tritium separation unit at Trombay, the uranium enrichment plant near Mysore, the submarine test reactor facility and the KARP plutonium extraction plant in Kalpakkam; the plutonium plant, the radioactive waste immobilisation plant, and an Away From Reactor Spent-Fuel Storage Facility holding enormous quantities of spent-fuel from the entire life of the GE boiling-water reactors (BWRs), all at Tarapur. Besides these, there are several pressurized heavy-water reactors (PHWRs) which India has kept outside the IAEA safeguards, perhaps because we need the plutonium from their spent-fuel for the strategic programs. Whether DAE has yet designated such reactors as weapons-related facilities and taken them away from AERB purview is unclear. In this context, it is worth examining how the advanced western countries like the US have handled the safety surveillance and regulation of their defence nuclear facilities. Since the inception of the US nuclear weapons complexes during World War II and their expansion during the Cold War era, these had been managed separately from the power reactor stations, under strict secrecy. The US Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies, were managing these weapon facilities, without independent external oversight, within the executive branch. This past US situation is a parallel to the one prevailing today in India, with the DAE carrying on with a weapons program without any independent overview. The nuclear arms race and the sense of urgency about maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent legitimised secretive operations in the US weapons complex in the past, and gave rise to a higher priority for weapons production needs over concerns for the safety of workers and the general public. In India too, I am afraid a similar lop-sided priority is existing today, with public and worker safety relegated to a much lower level of importance than nuclear weaponisation. The Three-Mile Island accident of 1979 in the US and the more devastating accident at the Chernobyl plant in 1986 drastically changed the perception of the general public and the US Congress towards the rather relaxed approach of the DoE regarding the safety overview of military nuclear activities. This eventually led to the creation of the Defence Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an independent executive-branch organisation, by the US Congress in 1988 to provide technical oversight of the DoE's defence nuclear facilities, in order to protect the health and safety of the public and workers. The board was charged with identifying potential safety threats posed by the facilities, elevating such issues to the highest levels of authority, and informing the public. In creating the DNFSB, or the 'Board' as it is often referred to, one aim of the US Congress was to provide an expert body to act as an adviser to DoE on establishing, and operating in accordance with standards comparable to those that prevailed in the US commercial nuclear power industry. Congress also provided the DNFSB with a variety of powers to carry out its oversight mission, chief among them being the power to issue formal recommendations to the secretary, DOE. Interestingly, the secretary is not required to accept these recommendations, but he is required to answer them. It is interesting to note the qualification for membership of the DNFSB, as given in the US Atomic Energy Act 1954 (Chapter-21, Section-311). To quote, "The Board shall be composed of five members appointed from civilian life by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among United States citizens who are respected experts in the field of nuclear safety with a demonstrated competence and knowledge relevant to the independent investigative and oversight functions of the Board. If political affiliations are involved, not more than three members of the Board shall belong to the same political party." Among the functions of the Board, the following task is included: "The Board shall investigate any event or practice at a DoE defence nuclear facility which the Board determines has adversely affected, or may adversely affect, public health and safety." The Board is also authorised to establish reporting requirements for the secretary of energy which shall be binding upon the secretary. The information which the Board may require the secretary of energy to report under this subsection may include any information designated as classified information, or any information designated as safeguards information and protected from disclosure under the US Atomic Energy Act. After the receipt of any recommendations by the secretary of energy from the Board, the Board promptly shall make such recommendations available to the public in the Department of Energy's regional public reading rooms and shall publish in the federal register such recommendations and a request for the submission to the Board of public comments on such recommendations. Interested persons shall have 30 days after the date of the publication of such notice in which to submit comments, data, views, or arguments to the Board concerning the recommendations. The secretary of energy shall transmit to the Board, in writing, a statement on whether the secretary accepts or rejects, in whole or in part, the recommendations submitted to him by the Board, a description of the actions to be taken in response to the recommendations, and his views on such recommendations. The secretary of energy shall transmit his response to the Board within 45 days after the date of the publication, under subsection (a), of the notice with respect to such recommendations or within such additional period, not to exceed 45 days, as the Board may grant. At the same time as the secretary of energy transmits his response to the Board's recommendations, the secretary shall publish such response, together with a request for public comment on his response, in the federal register. Interested persons shall have 30 days after the date of the publication of the secretary of energy's response in which to submit comments, data, views, or arguments to the Board concerning the secretary's response. The Board may subsequently hold hearings for the purpose of obtaining public comments on DNFSB's recommendations and the secretary of energy's response. From the above details, it is evident that the United States, a much more well-informed State when it comes to nuclear power and weapon technologies compared to India, has not only felt the strong need to institute a mechanism for independent safety overview and regulation of their military nuclear facilities, but also felt it is only proper to keep the public informed of the progress of that oversight function. Compare that with the shameful secrecy with which the UPA government and its DAE are hiding behind the Official Secrets Act, and most likely endangering the lives of workers and the public associated with and living near the civilian and defence nuclear installations in India. Parliament must insist that the government should direct its DAE to immediately examine and make recommendations to the government on the structure of an independent surveillance and regulatory authority for the defence nuclear facilities, outside the administrative control of the DAE, so that transparency and public confidence in safety can be brought about. The DAE alone may not be competent enough to make an unbiased and comprehensive recommendation in this regard. They must, therefore, be asked to have wider consultations and seek and use expert help from within the country, but from outside the DAE. The final recommendations of the DAE in this matter should be subjected to scrutiny by a team of senior national experts, before a new regulatory structure is put in place for the defence installations, under an appropriate Act of Parliament. Dr A Gopalakrishnan is former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. http://www.rediff.com/news/column/are-indian-nuclear-weapons-facilities-safe/20110412.htm (Return to Articles and Documents List)