WASHINGTON NUCLEAR UPDATE

October 13, 2004

In this issue:

• Iran continues with its enrichment program
• Ongoing crisis surrounding North Korea's nuclear programs
• Iraq Survey Group report published
• United States - New nuclear weapons?
• A verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty unlikely
• Enrichment activities in South Korea
• Brazil plans a domestic nuclear fuel cycle

Previous editions of Missile Defence Update are available on BASIC's website at http://www.basicint.org/update/

Iran continues with its uranium enrichment program

While Iran assures the international community that its nuclear programs are only for civilian use - and so legal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty - much of the international community, via the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed serious doubts regarding Iran's intentions. The U.S. administration has been particularly outspoken. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether all countries have a right to a domestic complete nuclear fuel cycle, or whether the NPT's assurance of access to civilian nuclear energy can be fulfilled by the oversight of the fuel cycle by a foreign country. A delegation of European countries - the United Kingdom, France, and Germany - has been meeting with Iranian officials in an effort to keep open a dialogue on these issues, but has yet to produce satisfactory results. As well, the IAEA has officially criticized Iran's activities and will meet again for further discussion this November. The United States is pressing to have the issue brought before the United Nations Security Council (when it will be in the chair).

(See BASIC Note by Andreas Persbo, "The IAEA and Iran - Iran's check-mate prematurely called," September 10, 2004, http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN040910.htm.)

On September 21, it was reported that the United States has sold 5,000 conventional bombs to Israel, raising the possibility that Israel may move preemptively to militarily halt Iran's programs. In response, questions have been raised about the likelihood and even the possibility that such a move could be contemplated.

(See "Tension Grows Over Iran's Nuclear Aims," Boston Globe, September 26, 2004; "Still Time for Diplomacy?" BBC News, September 30, 2004; " Nuclear Challenge," PBS Online NewsHour, September 27, 2004.)

Ongoing crisis surrounding North Korea's nuclear programs

The ongoing crisis surrounding North Korea's nuclear programs continues, seemingly with little hope of progress until at least after the U.S. presidential elections. While the Bush administration continues to insist on six-party talks (to include North Korea, South Korea, the United States, Russia, China, and Japan), North Korea appears to be playing a waiting game until the next U.S. administration is known. Presidential candidate Senator Kerry has called for bilateral talks between the United States and North Korea as recently as last week in the first campaign debate. But what exactly is the status of North Korea's nuclear program? North Korea has declared that it has reprocessed 8,000 spent fuel rods, which would result in enough plutonium for approximately six to eight weapons. However, South Korea stated last week that it considered it unlikely that the reprocessing is complete, given the amount of time passed and the level of North Korea's technology. Either way, North Korea asserts that it needs to develop its nuclear weapon to deter aggression in the region, and has cited U.S. statements on North Korea, the U.S. missile defense system, and recent South Korean statements on its own nuclear program as proof. North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in January 2003, although the validity of this withdrawal remains in question.

(See "N Korea warns on nuclear rods," BBC News, September 28, 2004; " N. Korea sees snowballing war danger, slams U.S.," Reuters, September 27, 2004.)

Iraq Survey Group report published

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), formed in 2003 after the initial overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, has been searching Iraq for signs of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological, and nuclear, since the initial invasion of Iraq by the U.S.-led coalition, with little success. While the U.S. administration has been forced to backpedal on its pre-war assertions of Iraq's WMD threat many times, this Wednesday, October 6, Mr. Charles A. Duelfer, Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence, testified before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on its findings. The report is stunning, going well beyond even the claims of the most ardent skeptics of the U.S. administration's stance. According to the report, not only did Iraq not have significant stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction programs whatsoever since the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Duelfer also concluded that, due to sanctions, Saddam Hussein's ability to develop weapons had decreased dramatically and were lessening, not increasing, in the months and years prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and overthrow.

Highlights of the report can be read from the CIA web site. The full report is also available at http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html.

(See "U.S. inspector: No proof of weapons," Portsmith Herald, October 7, 2004; "Rice Defends Going to War Despite Dispute About Iraqi Weapons," New York Times, October 4, 2004.)

United States: New nuclear weapons?

While the U.S. administration has pushed hard for funding to continue research into new nuclear weapons designs, mainly to develop nuclear weapons capable of destroying deeply buried targets, the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress has become an unexpected stumbling block in its way. The provisions that fund research on a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) are contained within the Department of Energy and Water appropriations bill (where most of the U.S. nuclear weapons funding is contained). The U.S. House bill, as championed by Rep. Hobson (R-Ohio), chair of the energy subcommittee of the appropriations committee (who opposes the current work on development of new nuclear weapons) cut all funding for new nuclear weapons. Passage of the Senate bill has been delayed for months, and with the U.S. Congress going into recess on Friday, October 8, consideration is likely to be delayed until at least "a lame-duck session," now thought to occur sometime in mid-November. In the Senate, the energy subcommittee vote is likely to hinge on Senator Bennett (R-UT). As of October 1, 2004, funding for these programs continues for the moment at previous levels, based on a continuing resolution passed by Congress to fund federal spending until resolution of the appropriations bills.

(See "Debate Rages On Plan To Develop New Nukes," Chicago Tribune, September 11, 2004; "Bennett lobbied on nuke test vote," Salt Lake Tribune, September 28, 2004; "Crunch Time: Troubled FY 2005 Funding Bills," SpaceRef.com, September 14, 2004.)

A verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty unlikely

Many in the international community see a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) as a necessary step toward progress on larger overall nonproliferation goals. As one facet of nonproliferation efforts, an FMCT would ban the production of nuclear weapons-grade fissile material-highly enriched uranium and plutonium-by all countries. While this would not substantially affect the United States, Russia, the U.K. or France, which have vast existing stockpiles of fissile material, proponents of the FMCT cite it as an important tool in stopping the production and spread of nuclear weapons materials around the globe. As well, the FMCT is one of the "Thirteen Steps" seen as a way to move forward with implementation of the NPT, past the historical impasse pitting nonproliferation enforcement vs. nuclear disarmament, agreed upon in 2000. Little or no progress had occurred on negotiations and passage of an FMCT since 2000, but last month, U.S. Ambassador Jackie Sanders announced to the Conference on Disarmament that the United States would support an FMCT without enforcement provisions, citing a lack of credible verification measures. This announcement evoked strong reactions from many nations and commentators who see this approach as a clear indication of double standards by the U.S. administration.

(See "U.S. sees support for proposal on fissile ban," Reuters, September 7, 2004; "Don't Trust, Don't Verify," The Economist, September 2, 2004; "US accused over plutonium pit," The Guardian, July 30, 2004.)

Enrichment activities in South Korea

South Korea recently announced that several of its scientists at a number of academic institutions over many years had been conducting nuclear research, which is banned or at least questionable under international agreements. While South Korea has now publicly admitted and shown remorse for its activities (which appear to have stopped by 2000) and has admitted inspections and verification teams from the IAEA to investigate, the ramifications for the situation with North Korea and the larger nonproliferation regime remain unresolved. North Korea has already cited South Korea's research as proof of its own need for nuclear program development, and the accusation of inequitable responses to questionable activities by the international community hangs in the air. While the IAEA has criticized South Korea for its activities, the United States has been largely mute. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, visited South Korea to discuss the situation.

(See " IAEA chief arrives in Seoul for nuclear discussion," deepikaglobal.com, October 4, 2004; "Roh Rebuffs Claim on Nuclear Experiment for Military Purpose," Korea Times, October 4, 2004.)

Brazil plans a domestic nuclear fuel cycle

Brazil's nuclear activities range back decades in history, largely paralleling actual or perceived activities by its regional rival Argentina. Through the 1980s and 1990s however, the two countries signed a series of agreements and understandings intended to diffuse the nuclear rivalry and lower nuclear tensions between the two South American countries. However, following the ascendancy of a new ruling party in Brazil-one which has criticized the NPT as being fundamentally unfair to non-nuclear weapons states-Brazil has recently come forward and announced its intentions to create and maintain a complete domestic nuclear fuel cycle. While stating that its intentions are only for civilian nuclear power, this move may further strain the international community's nonproliferation strategies. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has indicated that while in Brazil he will press for unfettered access to IAEA inspectors.

(See " Brazil to Limit Uranium Plant Access as Powell Visits," Bloomberg.com, October 4, 2004; " Iran as Bushs nuclear bogeyman," San Francisco Chronicle, September 30, 2004.)

Click here for a Printer-Friendly Version.