- DPRK Nuclear Program
- US-Russian Early Warning Center
- Russian Nuclear Submarines
- Japan-US Nuclear Cooperation
1. DPRK Nuclear Program
David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) and editor of “Solving the North Korean Nuclear Puzzle,” presented the new report at the Carnegie Endowment. Albright gave a historical overview of events leading up to the Agreed Framework, and emphasized the continued importance of transparency and accountability in regards to North Korea’s nuclear programs. Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project Associate Jon Wolfsthal discussed the spent fuel storage process and the construction of light water reactors under the stipulations of the Agreed Framework. He detailed a number of obstacles that have delayed this process, and stated that a nuclear cooperation agreement must be negotiated between the US and the DPRK prior to the construction of light water reactors. He said that the DPRK currently lacks the expertise to operate and maintain these reactors.
“The North Korean Nuclear Puzzle”
2. US-Russian Early Warning Center
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright signed a pact expanding a joint warning center that is aimed at preventing accidental missile launches by either country. Ivanov stated that other nuclear powers would be invited to join the agreement.
“Nuclear pact to prevent ‘accidents'”
3. Russian Nuclear Submarines
Russian Nuclear Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov reported that the Russian Navy decommissioned 18 nuclear submarines this year, compared to between two and four submarines each year previously. The Russian defense ministry said that 150 decommissioned nuclear submarines waiting to be dismantled should be made safe by 2007. The sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine in August highlighted the poor state of Russia’s military.
“Russian Army Takes out of Service 18 Nuclear Submarines This Year”
4. Japan-US Nuclear Cooperation
The Asahi Shimbun said that newly declassified papers showed that former prime minister Yasuhiro Nakasone gave the go-ahead in 1970 for the US to bring nuclear arms into Japan. The documents report a meeting between Nakasone, then the cabinet-level chief of the Japanese Defense Agency under Prime Minister Eisaku Sato, and US Defense Secretary Melvin Laird. The newspaper wrote, “The Japanese records show that Nakasone told Laird that Japan would not need to develop its own nuclear weapons as long as the US nuclear deterrence was in place. The US side said it would deploy all types of weapons to help defend Japan in accordance with the Japan-US Security Treaty.
“JAPAN HAD SECRET DEAL WITH US TO HOST NUCLEAR BOMBS: REPORT”
1. First Committee on Disarmament
Jenni Rissanen and Rebecca Johnson write in Disarmament Diplomacy on the recent session of the Disarmament and International Security Committee (First Committee). They argue that this First Committee session was overshadowed by the NPT Review Conference. They state that the lack of major arguments this year should not be interpreted as a sign of general agreement because major challenges lie ahead, including the 2001 conference on small arms, the stagnation in the CD, the conclusion of the BWC Protocol negotiations in Geneva before the Review Conference in 2001, and the uncertainties that the likely US deployment of NMD may bring for international relations, particularly nuclear arms control.
“Low-Key First Committee Seeks to Maximise Common Ground”
2. US Policy toward South Asia
Robert Hathaway, in the most recent issue of Disarmament Diplomacy, argues that under President-elect George W. Bush and his appointed officials, US policy in South Asia will not focus on non-proliferation and the CTBT. Instead, Hathaway argues, Bush has promised to remove sanctions for nuclear tests against India and his missile defense policy will harm arms control efforts in the region. Hathaway argues that the Bush administration will likely find some utility in current arms control regimes for preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to countries such as the DPRK, Iran and Iraq.
“Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in South Asia: What Next?”
3. Russian-Indian Nuclear Cooperation
Russian Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov stated that he could not rule out that Russia would leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) to expand nuclear cooperation with India. Adamov cited a PRC reactor built in Pakistan despite the NPT regime being in force. Russia, because of its membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, is under restrictions for supplying nuclear-related equipment and technologies when the recipient country has refused to place its nuclear programs under the oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
“NPT can wait, Russia wants piece of India’s N-pie”
1. Bush Administration’s NMD Policy
A Carnegie Endowment Non-Proliferation Analysis of recent remarks by US Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell states that Powell will argue that the US move slowly on missile defenses, negotiate any deployments, and devalue nuclear weapons. The analysis also states that Powell is unlikely to abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Powell designed and implemented the last fundamental revision in US nuclear posture in 1991, withdrawing and de-alerting thousands of nuclear weapons, while the Clinton administration’s 1994 Nuclear Posture Review made only minor policy adjustments.
“Colin Powell’s Missile Defense Message”
Brian Murphy writes in the Los Angeles Times that during his campaign, US President-elect George W. Bush said that his policy would bring a stronger US military, a tougher line on Russia and China, a scaled-down peacekeeping role for US troops, and a missile defense system, whether the rest of the globe likes it or not. Jonathan Stevenson, a research fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, states that because Bush is facing a divided Congress, he will be unable to implement any radical changes. British Foreign Office Minister Peter Hain said that the UK recognizes US concerns over possible threats by rogue states, but hopes the US will be attentive to other nations’ concerns about the missile defense system. Murphy argues that the missile defense system will be the first major international controversy that Bush will face.
“Missile Defense High on Bush Agenda”
An editorial in the New York Times argued that if the incoming administration of President-elect George W. Bush rushes into the missile defense program, it risks losing future possible international support. Instead, the editorial argues, the administration should focus on research and testing of NMD, and use the time to convince other states that the system will not be destabilizing. The editorials states that the two biggest hurdles will be Russia’s reluctance to amend the 1972 ABM Treaty and the temptation the PRC faces to expand its missile arsenal if NMD appears to be headed for deployment.
“Prelude to a Missile Defense”
2. Russian Reaction to US NMD
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien hosted a state visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin and later will host the European Union-Canada summit, seeking to position Canada as a facilitator between his guests and the US over the proposed US national missile defense system that US President-elect George W. Bush suports. A statement signed by Chretien and Putin called for the US to clarify its plans for an anti-missile defense system. The joint statement also reaffirmed the 1972 ABM treaty as a “cornerstone of strategic stability and an important foundation for international efforts on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.” Putin said, “without any doubt [National Missile Defense] will cause serious damage to the existing system of international security and undermine work undertaken for decades.” The statement urged implementation of the 1993 START-2 treaty and efforts to negotiate a START-3 pact.
“Putin asks Canada to oppose proposed U.S. missile system”
“Russia, Canada Seek Clarity on Missile Plan”
Pavel Podvig, at the Center for Arms Control at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, argues in a Program on New Approaches to Russian Security Policy Memo that when Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia would not object to a US missile defense system as long as it were a joint effort, his proposal was later explained to mean an offer to build a European missile defense. Russia and the US signed protocals in September, 1997 that clarified the differences under the 1972 AMB Treaty between theater and strategic missile defenses (because Russian domestic opinion sees benefits to a theater missile defense system), but which are also vague enough to create a loophole in the ABM Treaty. Podvig argues that there never was a serious Russian proposal to build a joint US-Russian missile defense and that Russian policy has been inconsistent on this issue, but the Russian political leadership does not seem to be ready to sever its relationship with the US over the missile defense issue.
“Putin’s Boost-Phase Defense: The Offer That Wasn’t”
3. History of NMD Debate
The National Security Archive at George Washington University published 20 previously secret US government documents detailing the policy debate over anti-ballistic missile defenses in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. Thirty years ago, the Johnson and Nixon administrations had plans for national missile defense systems to counter accidental missile launches or attacks by small nuclear powers as well as to protect U.S. Minuteman silos from attack until the signing of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.
“Missile Defense Thirty Years Ago: Deja Vu All Over Again?”
1. US Strategic Assessment
The 15-member National Intelligence Council, based at the headquarters of the US Central Intelligence Agency, focuses on broad strategic assessments in “Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue about the Future with Nongovernmental Experts.” The report finds that terrorist attacks against the US will become more complex and the risk of a missile attack involving chemical, biological or nuclear warheads is greater today than during most of the Cold War and will continue to grow. NIC Chairman John Gannon said, “The major challenge is how you manage the downside of globalization – how do we deal with the countries that feel they’re being left behind, particularly in regions of the world like the Middle East.” The report said that the US will remain the world’s dominant military power over the next 15 years, while the PRC is likely to expand its influence, and Russia is headed for further decline. It said that the PRC’s People’s Liberation Army will remain the world’s largest but that most of the force will not be fully modernized by 2015, and that the PRC will seek to avoid conflict in Asia to promote stable economic growth and to ensure internal stability.
“Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts”
“Global Threats Against U.S. Will Rise, Report Predicts”
2. Foreign Policy of Bush Administration
Robert Reid writes in the Los Angeles Times that Europe and Asia are applauding the foreign policy selections of US President-elect George W. Bush, but are cautiously awaiting details about missile defense, the Balkans, Taiwan and European defense. Reid notes that the Sydney Morning Herald warned that a missile defense system could lead to a crisis with China, while others feared that NMD was a sign that the US was placing its own interests ahead of the concerns of a world it aspires to lead. The British daily The Guardian, Reid reports, wrote, “Like his boss, [Secretary of State-designate] Gen. Powell seems to be determined to delimit the U.S. world role, to view international obligations through the prism of narrow national interests.”
“Asia Wary of Bush Missile Proposal”
The NPP Weekly FLASH Update aims to serve as a forum for dialogue and exchange among nuclear weapons policy and security specialists.
We invite you to reply to this report, and we welcome commentary or papers for distribution to the network.
Robert Brown: email@example.com
Berkeley, California, United States
Hans Kristensen: firstname.lastname@example.org
Berkeley, California, United States
Timothy Savage: email@example.com
Berkeley, California, United States
Send comments to the Nuclear Policy Project at firstname.lastname@example.org