Getting to Zero Update
21 November 2007
|
BASIC is embarking on an ambitious new program to help
leaders take the necessary steps to eventually rid the
world of nuclear weapons. To mark this occasion, BASIC
will be replacing its Washington Nuclear Update with
a new Getting to Zero update. The Getting to Zero Update
will continue to follow developments that are relevant
to nuclear nonproliferation and the reduction of existing
nuclear stockpiles, as well as reporting on proposals
and political initiatives.
|
Please note, BASIC and Crisis Action have a bi-weekly update
devoted solely to diplomatic developments related to Iran's
nuclear program, which may be found at the following Web address:
http://www.basicint.org/update/iran.htm.
Previous editions of the Washington Nuclear Update are available
at: http://www.basicint.org/update/wnu.htm.
In this issue:
Arms Control
On October 15 top US disarmament officials briefed a UN General
Assembly panel on Washington's efforts to sharply reduce its
nuclear stockpile in line with its obligations under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"By the time we are done in 2012, we will have reduced the
US stockpile, the operationally deployed warheads by 80 percent
and the total stockpile will be reduced to one quarter of
what it was at the end of the Cold War," said Thomas D'Agostino,
the administrator of the US National Nuclear Security Administration
at the Department of Energy (DOE). He said the United States
would be left with between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed
warheads plus additional warheads that will be kept in reserve
but whose number is classified.
On October 28 Russia and the United States urged all countries
to destroy medium range nuclear-capable missiles, in a joint
declaration published by the Russian foreign ministry.
Concerned that an increasing number of states, including Iran
and North Korea, have the technology to make missiles that
can travel 5,500 km (3,400 miles), they are calling for their
20-year-old bilateral Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty to
become global in character.
On November 1 the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee
approved a resolution
calling for all nuclear weapons to be taken off high alert,
despite objections from the United States, Britain and France.
Further Reading:
Kanwar, Vik, "The
Legislator of Last Resort: Security Council's Emerging Role
in WMD Proliferation Crises" (March 28, 2007).
LOOKING
BACK: The Additional Protocol, Trevor Findlay, Arms
Control Today, November 2007.
White
House Guidance Led to New Nuclear Strike Plans Against Proliferators,
Document Shows, Strategic Security Blog, November 5, 2007.
Pakistan
International concern over Pakistan's state of emergency
includes a focus on the status of the nuclear weapons. Reassurances
from Pakistan have been thick and fast. Gen. Pervez Musharraf
has justified the state of emergency by claiming that the
nuclear arsenal is safe as long as forces hostile to modernity
were kept out of government - his biggest fear therefore was
unchecked democracy. His had not concluded that this was a
good reason for disarmament (a strong motive for South African
disarmament).
Musharraf's reassurance is taken with some skepticism
elsewhere. The experience with A Q Khan shows that controls
have not been as tight as necessary in the past, and US knowledge
of the whereabouts of all the warheads is patchy, despite
its $100m cooperation
with the Pakistani government to secure the infrastructure.
India
The Indian Prime Minister appears
hopeful now of achieving majority support for the nuclear
deal, just when it had appeared doomed
from opposition within the ruling coalition. Opposition from
Left-based Parliamentary groups (particularly the Indian Communist
Party) appears to be weakening,
possibly because of domestic
considerations - they are allowing government negotiations
to start with the IAEA. Meanwhile, the agreement may yet receive
a rocky ride within the US Congress because of India's insistence
on continued economic ties with Tehran.
Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) talks about the Indo-US nuclear deal in this
CNN-IBN interview.
Iran
The IAEA Secretary General issued his report
to Board members on 15 November. This confirmed that Iran
had been more cooperative in submitting sensitive documents
and providing access to staff, that there was no evidence
that any declared materials had been diverted, but also that
there remained some outstanding questions the IAEA hoped to
clarify over the coming weeks. It also confirmed that Iran
had not ceased enrichment as demanded by the Security Council,
and continued construction of the Arak IR-40 heavy-water reactor.
Knowledge about current activities was degrading
because Iran was not abiding by the voluntary Additional Protocol.
US media
generally emphasized the latter failures, even suggesting
the report raised new
doubts (not true), and reporting that the US government was
calling for new sanctions. Britain and other European governments
reserved
judgment - Javier Solana is to consult
EU members on the push for new sanctions. Iranian and EU negotiators
are due
to meet on 21 November. The IAEA Board is to meet 22-23
November. It will be particularly difficult to persuade China
to engage in a new round of sanctions, not only because the
IAEA Report was ambiguous on Iran's cooperation, but also
because diplomatic and economics
ties are deepening (Iran is already China's largest supplier
of oil).
Daniel Levy, previously an adviser in the Israeli Prime Minister's
Office, wrote in the October
21 Haaretz that a deterrence and containment strategy
for dealing with a nuclear Iran are preferable to the military
option, even for Israel. Efraim Halevy, recent head of Mossad
(until 2003), is reported in November
11 Washington Post that he believes the US and Israel
are being too bellicose with Iran, that Iran is not an existential
threat to Israel and that Israel needs to negotiate seriously
with Iran. "They are deterrable", he said. Meanwhile, Israel
and the US set
up two joint working committees to try to establish
a united response to Iran's nuclear programme - one to discuss
the intelligence evidence and the other sanctions and other
coercive tools.
Ellen Tausche, chairman of the House of Representatives subcommittee
on strategic forces, questioned
the quality of US intelligence on Iran, saying that British
and French intelligence had greater reach and efficacy within
Iran. A split in the US intelligence community over the level
of threat posed by Iran has held up the publication of the
National Intelligence Estimate for over a year.
On October 20 Iran announced the resignation of its chief
nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, a move that signals deepening
internal divisions on the eve of critical international talks
about its nuclear program. See here,
here,
here
and here
for detail.
In October President
Bush informed the American people that "if you're interested
in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested
in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to
make a nuclear weapon." Former UN weapons inspector Scott
Ritter explores the implications of that statement here.
The New York Times has a compilation
of Presidential candidate statements on Iran.
Admiral William Fallon, head of US military operations in
the Middle East, claimed
that there were no plans to attack Iran, and implied that
talk of an attack in the near future were irresponsible. Nevertheless,
a former commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said
mounting US rhetoric against the Iran over its nuclear programme
should be taken seriously.
This October 25 segment
on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer examines the latest set of
economic sanctions against Iran targeted to impact the country's
military and halt Tehran's disputed nuclear program. U.S.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and Senator Jim Webb,
Democrat of Virginia, offer perspectives on the U.S. policy
course on Iran. See also this October 29 segment
with Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz and Newsweek
International editor Fareed Zakaria.
Further Reading:
Hemmer, Christopher, Responding
to a Nuclear Iran, Parameters, Autumn 2007.
Can
Sanctions Be Effective in Halting Iran's Nuclear Program?,
Council on Foreign Relations, October 19, 2007.
Fact
Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for
Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism, U.S.
Treasury Department, October 25, 2007.
Iran
Sanctions and Regional Security, Testimony by Philip H.
Gordon, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution,
to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on
the Middle East and South Asia, October 23, 2007.
The
Iran Counter-Proliferation Act: Potential Implications for
Russian-Iranian Relations and U.S.-Russian Nuclear Cooperation,
October 26, 2007.
O'Connell, Mary Ellen and Alevras-Chen, Maria, "The
Ban on the Bomb - and Bombing: Iran, the U.S., and the International
Law of Self-Defense". Syracuse Law Review, Vol. 57, 2007.
The
Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White
House Doesn't Want You to Know, Esquire Magazine.
In
the delicate geometry of Iran lies the big test of Brown's
political agility. Tehran represents the prime minister's
great diplomatic challenge. He would do well to study the
lessons of Iraq . Jonathan Freedland writing in the Guardian
North Korea
US assistant secretary of state Christopher Hill said
October 16 that that North Korea would have to hand over the
50 kilograms (110 pounds) of plutonium it created with its
atomic weapons program to make further progress on an aid-for-disarmament
deal.
North Korea is to grant
access for US inspectors to equipment and documents to
demonstrate that it never had a nuclear weapons programme
involving Highly Enriched Uranium. It was accusations of this
programme by the Clinton Administration that led to the North
Koreans refiring their nuclear reactor, enabling them to go
down the plutonium route. The evidence has up to now been
inconclusive.
The October 23 New Scientist reported
on a study
that found that unusually high levels of a radioactive noble
gas detected in northern Canada are final confirmation that
North Korea detonated a nuclear device underground in October
2006, say UN researchers. The result demonstrates that a UN
system to monitor nuclear explosions worldwide is up and running,
and able to "sniff" such events from a great distance. Atmospheric
levels of an isotope of the noble gas xenon suggest the test
was relatively small and carried out underground.
Rest of Middle East
Despite announcements last year from several countries that
they would start a new renaissance of nuclear power, progress
has been slow or non-existent - the barriers are substantial.
Iran has picked up on and seeks to develop
proposals from the Gulf States for a joint enrichment facility
in a neutral country.
Israel's air attack on Syria in September, directed against
a site reportedly a partly constructed nuclear reactor, continues
to be a mystery wrapped inside an enigma. Some of the relevant
coverage is here,
here,
here,
here,
and here.
United Kingdom
The October 23 Scotsman reported
that the Scottish Government took the first steps towards
stopping a new nuclear weapons system being stationed in Scotland.
The Ministry of Defence wants the £20 billion replacement
for Trident to be based on the Clyde. Ultimately, the decision
is up to UK MPs because defence is a reserved issue.
However, the SNP-led government has pledged to use every
power available to stop the nuclear warheads being based north
of the Border
Further Reading:
The
environmental impact of nuclear weapons: a talk to the
Scottish Government's summit on Scotland's
Future Without Nuclear Weapons, Glasgow, 22 October 2007.
United States
The October 18 Washington Post reported
that the Air Force has decided to relieve at least five of
its officers of command and is considering filing criminal
charges in connection with the Aug. 29 "Bent Spear" incident
in which nuclear-armed cruise missiles were mistakenly flown
from North Dakota to Louisiana. See this October 19 Department
of Defense press
briefing for detail
The October 22 Global Security Newswire reported
that vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps
Gen. James Cartwright said he believes that virtually no U.S.
president would use a nuclear weapon in conflict, even if
it were a bomb variant with very limited destructive power.
In his first wide-ranging interview since assuming the JCS
position he also said he thinks a new generation of conventionally
armed, long-range weapons could substitute for nuclear arms
in a sizable portion of the U.S. military's global targeting
plan.
The October 28 Houston Chronicle reports
on the possibility that the Pantex Plant in Texas will be
selected for a new "consolidated plutonium center" to process
and build the "pits" - the plutonium cores- for new U.S. nuclear
warheads.
Speaking at the Stanford University Faculty Club October
24 former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said
that he would have struggled to recommend the use of nuclear
weapons against the Soviets, even when all other military
options were exhausted.
See also the text
of the prepared remarks of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
at the "Rekjavik II" conference hosted by the Hoover Institution.
He was forced to cancel due to the wildfires in Southern California.
Former Secretary of State George Shultz read the remarks in
his place.
On October 29 the New York Times reported
that more than a year after Congress told the Energy Department
to harden the nation's nuclear bomb factories and laboratories
against terrorist raids, at least 5 of the 11 sites are certain
to miss their deadlines, some by many years.
Publications
Scientific American, November 2007, "SPECIAL
REPORT: Nuclear Weapons in a New World."
Third
Quarterly Report to Congress on the Status of Significant
Unresolved Issues with the Department of Energy's Design and
Construction Projects, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board
The
Nonproliferation Review, November 2007, Vol. 14, No. 3:
Debating Disarmament: Interpreting Article VI of the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Christopher
A. Ford
U.S.-India
Nuclear Cooperation: Better Later Than Sooner, Leonard
Weiss
The Nexus of Globalization and Next-Generation Proliferation:
Tapping the Power of Market-Based Solutions, Kenneth N.
Luongo and Isabelle Williams.
Arsenals
of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race, Richard
Rhodes, Knopf, October 9, 2007. See also this October 29 Washington
Post article.
WMD Insights, November
2007.
A
Response to Congresswoman Tauscher's Article in Nonproliferation
Review Strategic Security Blog, October 29, 2007
Review
of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program,
National Academies Press, 2007. See also this Strategic Security
Blog entry.
Global
Fissile Material Report 2007: Second report of the International
Panel on Fissile Materials: Developing the technical basis
for policy initiatives to secure and irreversibly reduce stocks
of nuclear weapons and fissile materials.
Nuclear
Weapons in U.S. National Security Policy: Past, Present, and
Prospects, Amy F. Woolf, Congressional Research Service,
October 29, 2007.
To
Build or Not to Build: The Role of the Kansas City Plant in
the Department of Energy's Plans to Modernize the Nuclear
Weapons Complex, William D. Hartung, Arms and Security
Initiative, New America Foundation, October 18, 2007.
Securing
U.S. Nuclear Material: DOE Has Made Little Progress Consolidating
and Disposing of Special Nuclear Material, U.S. Government
Accountability Office, October 4, 2007.
What
Are Nuclear Weapons For? Recommendations for Restructuring
U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces, Sidney E. Drell and James
E. Goodby, Arms Control Association, October 2007.
Managing
the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global
Access to Nuclear Power, Congressional Research Service,
November 1, 2007.
|
