The Sunflower is a monthly e-newsletter providing educational information on nuclear weapons abolition and other issues relating to global security.

Download the complete PDF Version

To receive our free monthly e-newsletter subscribe at http://www.wagingpeace.org/subscribe/

• Perspectives
  • Confronting Proliferation at the 2004 NPT Review Conference

• Take Action
  • Tell Congress to Oppose New Nuclear Weapons
  • Contact the Department of Energy to Stop the Development of New Nuclear Weapons
  • “Abolish Nuclear Weapons Now!” Support the World Conference Against A & H Bombs
  • Join the Movement to Oppose the New Nuclear Arms Race

• Nuclear Whistleblower
  • Israel’s Nuclear Whistleblower Released from Prison

• Proliferation
  • US Report: “Mini-Nukes” have “No Practical Impact” on Non-Proliferation Efforts
  • US Nuclear Weapons Budget Doubles in a Decade
  • Iran and Middle Eastern Nuclear Concerns
  • North Korean Nuclear Concerns
  • Brazil Uranium Enrichment Plant Under Question
  • US Warns of New Concern over Myanmar
  • Uncovering Abdul Qadeer Khan’s Nuclear Underworld

• Foundation News
  • Foundation Research and Advocacy Coordinator Attends Alliance for Nuclear Accountability DC Days
  • Youth Participation: See for Yourself
  • NAPF at the NPT

• Resources
  • Disarmament: The Missing Link to an Effective Non-Proliferation Regime
  • The Weaponization of Space: An International Student/Young Pugwash Perspective
  • Debate Transcript: Should the UC Run the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories?
  • The Ambushed Grand Jury by Wes McKinley and Caron Balkany, Esq.

• Quotable
  • Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi
  • Freed Israeli Whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu
  • Daniel Ellsberg, member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Advisory Council
  • Robert Fisk, author of The Man Who Knew Too Much
  • John F. Kennedy

• Editorial Team
  • Luke Brothers
  • David Krieger
  • Carah Ong
  • Justine Wang

Confronting Proliferation at the 2004 NPT Review Conference | Top
By David Krieger and Carah Ong

When the Cold War ended a decade and a half ago, few observers would have predicted that nuclear proliferation would become an increasingly pressing problem for the world. This watershed moment presented an unprecedented opportunity to fulfill the promises of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to end the nuclear arms race and to engage in good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Now, nearly 15 years later, the bright possibilities at the end of the Cold War have faded and nuclear proliferation looms as an imminent threat. The NPT continues to be undermined by state and non-state actors seeking to obtain nuclear weapons or the nuclear materials necessary to make such weapons and by existing nuclear weapons states pursuing policies that would make the use of nuclear weapons more likely.

[…] The promises made by the nuclear weapons states at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference have not been kept. Most notably, the security assurances made by the nuclear weapons states to the non-nuclear weapons states have been set aside. In the December 2001 US Nuclear Posture Review, seven countries were identified, four or possibly five of which are non-nuclear weapons states, for which the US was developing contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons. Such policies provide incentive for other countries to develop their own nuclear arsenals for purposes of deterrence against a possible nuclear attack.

Further commitments to fulfill the nuclear disarmament obligations of Article VI of the NPT were made at the year 2000 NPT Review Conference. These commitments have also been treated cavalierly by the nuclear weapons states. On virtually all of the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to in the year 2000, the nuclear weapons states have not complied. The US abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty after promising to maintain and strengthen it. The US and China have also failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the US has made preparations to lessen the time necessary to resume nuclear testing. In addition, the US with Russia, created the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which fails to abide by the commitment to make nuclear disarmament irreversible. In sum, the actions of the US and other nuclear weapons states have negated the solemn commitments made under the NPT and demonstrated to the world a clear double standard and sense of exceptionalism related to their own nuclear behavior. The “unequivocal undertaking” for complete nuclear disarmament made at the 2000 NPT Review Conference has not been evident either in any of the nuclear weapons states nuclear policies or actions.

In the current series of crises throughout the world, conditions have become too volatile and hostile for a continuation of the nuclear status quo that is based on double standards and exceptionalism. Nuclear weapons cannot deter nuclear-armed extremists, and the more nuclear weapons that exist in the world the more likely it becomes that extremist groups will obtain nuclear weapons. It is a fool’s game to continue to promote nuclear double standards. The only protection against nuclear weapons is the dramatic reduction of nuclear arsenals on the way to zero, and the placement of all nuclear weapons, weapon-grade materials and the equipment to make nuclear weapons under strict and effective international controls. This requires the fulfillment of the NPT bargain for nuclear disarmament that is set forth in Article VI of the treaty. So long as this bargain remains unfulfilled, the likelihood of nuclear proliferation to both additional states and extremist groups will continue to increase.

The full report is available as a pdf download from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation website at: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/04/28_npt-book.pdf

Tell Congress to Oppose New Nuclear Weapons | Top

Congress is voting on key nuclear weapons programs in the Defense Authorization and Energy & Water Appropriations bills during the first weeks of May. The Bush administration has requested the highest budget for nuclear weapons since the all-time record set under the Reagan administration during the Cold War. Tell Congress to oppose new nuclear weapons. Contact your Senators and Representatives at the Congressional Switchboard: 202-224-3121. For more information visit: http://www.ananuclear.org/action.html#nukesalert

Contact the Department of Energy to Stop the Development of New Nuclear Weapons | Top

The US Department of Energy (DoE) has issued a draft site-wide Environmental Impact Statement addressing the future ten years of operation at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The ten-year plan includes:

• Doubling the amount of plutonium available for research, from 1,540 pounds to 3,300 pounds, enough plutonium to create at least 300 nuclear weapons;
• Reviving the plutonium atomic vapor laser isotope separation project, a necessity if the Department of Energy hopes to develop a modernized plutonium facility;
• Producing new plutonium pits for nuclear weapons. A plutonium pit is a sphere of plutonium that rests inside a nuclear warhead and triggers the nuclear chain reaction;
• Increasing the amounts of plutonium, uranium and lithium hydride available for experiments in the National Ignition Facility, a facility that promises to delve into the inner workings of nuclear weapons;
• Manufacturing tritium for use in thermonuclear experiments at the National Ignition Facility;
• Enhancing the readiness for full-scale underground nuclear testing; and
• Constructing a Bio-Safety Level 3 facility at Livermore to experiment with bio-toxins and biological agents including anthrax, bubonic plague, botulism, and even genetically modified lethal bio-warfare agents.

Take action by sending a letter voicing your concerns to the DoE. Written comments must be sent by 27 May 2004 to:

Mr. Tom Grim
US DoE, National Nuclear Security Administration
L-293, 7000 East Avenue
Livermore, California 94550

tom.grim@oak.doe.gov

In the run-up to the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki next year, the World Conference Against A & H Bombs is circulating a petition, Abolish Nuclear Weapons Now! Let there be no more Hiroshimas and No more Nagasakis.

The petition urges the governments of nuclear weapons states to neither use, threaten to use nor develop nuclear weapons. The petition calls upon the nuclear weapons states to take immediate steps towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. The petition further calls for every country – nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states – to work cooperatively towards the global abolition of nuclear weapons.

Take action by supporting the movement to abolish nuclear weapons: http://www10.plala.or.jp/antiatom/html/e/abolition/e-abolish.html

The Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI) and Veterans for Common Sense need 50,000 signatures to combat the US’s strengthened reliance on nuclear weapons.

Take action by signing the Commitment to Oppose the New Nuclear Arms Race http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/SignPledge.cfm

If you are a Veteran, take action by adding your name to the Veteran’s Letter to Congress calling for nuclear disarmament. http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/vetsletter/vetsletter.cfm

US Report Claims “Mini-Nukes” have “No Practical Impact” on Non-Proliferation Efforts | Top

The US State Department, Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Energy (DoE) recently reported to Congress that the development of low-yield nuclear weapons (or mini-nukes) would have “no practical impact’ on the administration’s non-proliferation efforts.

In a cover letter to Representative Duncan Hunter (D-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Committee Services, DoE Administrator Linton Brooks wrote, “There is no reason to believe that [the] repeal [on a ban prohibiting new nuclear weapons research] has had or will have any practical impact on the pursuit of nuclear weapons by proliferating states, on the comprehensive diplomatic efforts ongoing to address these threats, or on the possible modernization of nuclear weapons by China or Russia.”

Many analysts believe that current US nuclear policy, as dictated in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, conveys a message contrary to the statement from Linton Brooks. According to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammed ElBaradei, “Double standards are being used here. The US government insists that other countries do not possess nuclear weapons. On the other hand they are perfecting their own arsenal. I do not think that corresponds with the treaty [NPT] they signed.”

In addition, during an interview in September 2003, ElBaradei stated, “The discussion about a new generation of nuclear weapons is extremely dangerous. Developments must take a different direction: banning of the bomb, progressive destruction of arsenals. Otherwise there will always be nuclear have-nots saying: Why should the big countries have rights which are denied us?"

Russia has repeatedly responded to US policy to research low-yield nuclear weapons.
As recently as 6 April, Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff Yuriy Baluyevskiy stated, "If the nuclear weapons which were formerly seen only as a political instrument of deterrence become battlefield weapons, that will be not simply scary but super-scary. We will be compelled to modify the development of our own strategic nuclear forces depending on Washington's plans for the use of these weapons."

The full text of the Report on the Effects of the Repeal of Mini-Nuke Ban (Departments of Energy, State, and Defense) is available in pdf format: http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/nnsareport.pdf

Source: Friends Committee on National Legislation Press Release, 14 April 2004.

A report issued by the National Resources Defense Council on 13 April 2004 revealed that the Bush administration is spending 12 times more on developing nuclear weapons than it is on efforts to secure and reduce existing nuclear weapons materials.

The Department of Energy (DoE) has requested $6.8 billion for nuclear weapons projects for 2005, double that of 10 years ago. The report, entitled “Weaponeers of Waste,” focuses on six DoE projects including the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility, the Advanced Simulation and Computing Initiative Campaign, the National Ignition Facility and the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign.

“Weaponeers of Waste” makes several recommendations, including:
• Ending funding for preparations to resume nuclear testing and for new nuclear weapons designs;
• Renewing efforts with other nations to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials; and
• Consolidating the size of the US nuclear weapons complex.

The full report is available as a pdf download from the Natural Resource Defense Council website:
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/weaponeers/weaponeers.pdf

Source: Global Security Newswire, 15 April 2004.

Iran and Middle Eastern Nuclear Concerns | Top

On 10 March 2004, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors found traces of extremely highly enriched uranium (HEU) for nuclear weapons use in Iran. Iranian officials claimed that nuclear equipment was contaminated by HEU while in transit, before arriving in the country. Although Iran insists that it cannot identify the origin of its equipment, the IAEA suspect the contamination may have originated in Pakistan. Iran’s Defense Minister, Ali Shamkhani, also acknowledged for the first time that the Iranian military had produced centrifuges to enrich uranium, but insisted they were unsophisticated models for civilian purposes. While it is unclear how many centrifuges Iran has produced, IAEA inspectors previously reported finding ``hundreds'' of centrifuges, but well below the number needed to build nuclear warheads.

The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on 13 March 2004 criticizing Iran for withholding information on its nuclear program. While welcoming Iran’s agreement to open its facilities to pervasive inspection, the resolution said it “deplored” recent discoveries of uranium enrichment equipment and other suspicious activities that Iran had failed to reveal. The Board of Governors has deferred their decision on how to respond to Iran’s omissions until their next meeting in June.

In an effort to win the world's trust over its nuclear program, Iran announced on 29 March 2004 that it has now stopped building centrifuges, which can be used for uranium enrichment. The comments by Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization came as inspectors from the IAEA checked on its nuclear facilities. Aghazadeh said the suspension of the construction of centrifuges was ordered by the country's Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top decision-making body. Iran State television quoted Aghazadeh on its web site as saying, “The Islamic Republic of Iran has voluntarily expanded (the enrichment) suspension to include the production of components and assembly.” Even though Iran has announced that it will stop producing centrifuges, it is not expected to dispose of those it already possesses.

IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei says Iran has much to do before the UN agency can give its nuclear program a clean bill of health. ElBaradei, who plans to visit Iran early next month, hopes to present an assessment of Iran's nuclear activities to the IAEA board of governors in June.

Meanwhile, Russia is continuing its nuclear cooperation with Iran. The $800 million Russian contract promises the delivery of fuel to Iran’s nuclear reactor in Bushehr by mid 2005, enabling the reactor to commence operations by 2006. Both countries have maintained that the cooperation complies with international legislation. Iran’s Ambassador to Russia, Gholam-Reza Shafei, said a Russian-Iran protocol on the return of spent fuel from Bushehr to Russia will be signed in the near future.

Sources: Associated Press, 29 March, 2004; Mehr News Agency, 26 March 2004; Payvand, 24 March 2004; Middle East Online, 23 March 2004; Persian Journal, 17 March 2004, 940 News, 17 march 2004; Global Security Newswire, 15 March 2004, IAEA Staff Report, 15 March 2004, The New International, 14 March 2004; Middle East Information Center, 11 March 2004; Financial Times, 7 March 2004.

On 21 April 2004, China announced that it had reached a “broad and common understanding” with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Il after three days of talks over its nuclear program. Although China did not describe what had been agreed to in the discussions, the China News Agency reported that North Korea “will continue to adopt a patient and flexible manner and actively participate in the six-party talk process and make its own contributions to the progress of the [next round of six-party] talks,” anticipated to be held in June.

The announcement comes after US Vice President Dick Cheney’s week-long tour of the region, where he urged China to put more pressure on North Korea and speed up an agreement for disarmament. During his visit to South Korea, Cheney also announced that failure to contain North Korea’s nuclear weapons program could trigger a new arms race across Asia.

In early April 2004, Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan provided confirmation that North Korea possesses up to three nuclear devices. Khan also revealed that he dealt with North Korea on the sale of equipment for a second method of producing nuclear weapons - through the enrichment of uranium (as opposed to plutonium). Khan also admitted to shipping the designs for uranium-enrichment centrifuges and a small number of complete centrifuges to North Korea.

On 5 April 2004, Charles Karman, the Executive of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), reported that North Korea can probably make unlimited quantities of nuclear weapons from its plutonium stocks. Although Karman indicated that scientists in North Korea likely possess the expertise to convert the plutonium into weapons-grade material, he was unsure about the advancements in their uranium enrichment program. KEDO was building light water reactors in North Korea, but the project was suspended in December 2003 in efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

Sources: Washington Post, 22 April 2004; Reuters, 5, 15, 19 and 20 April 2004; New York Times, 13 and 15 April 2004; Associated Press, 15 April 2004.

Following earlier decisions to block International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors from accessing its uranium enrichment plant, it was reported on 20 April 2004 that Brazil is close to agreeing on terms for UN inspections of its new nuclear facilities.

According to Brazil’s Science and Technology Minister Eduardo Campos, “We’re going to have a good accord, we just need to make some technical adjustments to accommodate the interests of the agency and protect interests in relation to technology.”

IAEA inspectors were denied access to centrifuges of the uranium enrichment facility in February and March as the Brazilian government was concerned about protecting technology developed by its scientists. Brazil insisted that intrusive IAEA inspections were unnecessary since the Brazilian government foreswore nuclear weapons 14 years ago. The Brazilian government maintains that the facility falls within rules allowing countries to develop the nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful uses, and that the plant will produce low-enriched uranium and not highly-enriched material for nuclear weapons.

Although the obstruction frustrated IAEA inspectors, most officials doubt Brazil is hiding a clandestine weapons program. The US government has also expressed confidence, stating, “We believe they [Brazil] are committed to meeting their international obligations and this is a matter that is best handled by the IAEA in a multilateral way. We do not want to make this a bilateral issue, because quite frankly the US has confidence that Brazil is a responsible actor.”

The US stance with Brazil provides a conundrum for the US administration, which, in February 2004, called for tighter controls on uranium enrichment as part of a new strategy to prevent nuclear proliferation. According to former US nuclear negotiator James Goodby, ”If we don’t want these kinds of facilities in Iran or North Korea, we shouldn’t want them in Brazil. You have to apply the same rules to adversaries as you do with friends. I do not see that happening in Brazil.”

Brazil has the world’s sixth largest uranium reserves and has maintained the capacity to enrich uranium since 1980. It signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1997. In October 2003, Brazil announced plans to start production of industrially enriched uranium to supply its two nuclear plants.

Sources: BBC News, 20 April 2004; Associated Press, 20 April 2004; Agence France-Press, 14 April 2004; Washington Post, 4 April 2004.

During a House International Relations Committee hearing on 25 March 2004, Assistant Secretary of State, Matthew Daley, testified that the US has “reason to believe” North Korea has offered surface-to-surface missiles to Myanmar. Daley also said that Myanmar “remains interested in acquiring nuclear research reactors, [but] we believe that news reports of construction activities are not well founded.” In September 2003, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) described Myanmar’s attempts to acquire a nuclear reactor as “troubling.”

Similarly, on 9 April 2004, Keith Luse, senior aide to Lugar on the Foreign Relations Committee, warned, “Special attention must be provided on the growing relationship between Burma [Myanmar] and North Korea.”

A statement issued from Myanmar Information Committee on 13 February announced that the country “has no desire” to develop nuclear weapons, but that it “has the right to develop nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes.”

Source: Arms Control Today, April 2004.

It was reported on 19 April that Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan had made repeated trips to uranium-rich African countries with his nuclear chiefs and suppliers, dating back to at least 1998. Khan reportedly visited, among other nations, Sudan, Mali, Nigeria and Niger, where he may have covertly encouraged poverty-stricken and unstable regimes to become interested in nuclear weapons or profit from illicit nuclear deals. Sudan is on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism as it harbored al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden until 1996.

According to Michael Levi, Science and Technology Fellow at the Brookings Institute in Washington DC, “The chances that someone in Africa at least started a nuclear program are fairly high.” As yet, there has been no evidence of nuclear trade involving Khan beyond Libya.

While confirming Pakistan’s resolve to “further strengthen” its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf called for the dismantlement of Khan’s proliferation network and affirmed his decision to investigate the allegations made against Pakistani scientists. In a statement to scientists and officials at Khan Research Laboratories on 21 April 2004, Musharraf asserted, “Those individuals who had indulged in proliferation for personal gains had been taken to task and no effort is being spared to uproot the network."

This statement is contrary to the fact that Musharraf pardoned Abdul Qadeer Khan in February 2004 and refused to conduct an international inquiry into the scandal, despite Khan’s role in fuelling the nuclear black market.

Sources: Agence France-Presse, 21 April 2004; Associated Press, 9 April, 2004.

Pakistan and India to hold Confidence-Building Talks | Top

India and Pakistan are scheduled to hold confidence-building talks on nuclear issues from 25-26 May 2004. The talks are part of the two states’ “roadmap” for discussing all issues dividing the nations, including the issue of Kashmir. Established in February 2004, the talks will be the first such dialogue in three years, and both counties have expressed their desire for a peaceful settlement of all bilateral issues.

India has requested a briefing from Pakistan on measures it has taken to safeguard nuclear security following the discovery of scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan’s black market network in transferring nuclear secrets to Libya, North Korea, and Iran. The confidence-building talks will also include the exchange of information on the location of each other’s nuclear installations and facilities.

Source: BBC News, 21 April 2004.

Costly Missile Defense System Deployed without Confidence | Top

On 21 April 2004, the Director General of the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that he expects to meet President Bush’s goal of having a midcourse missile defense system in place by the end of 2005. This includes fielding some 20 operational interceptors in Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California by October 2004.

In his testimony, Kadish acknowledged that the missile defense system will not guarantee a total defense against enemy missiles but will provide a “capability to defeat near-term threats of gravest concern.”

Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Dorgan (D-ND) suggested that the most imminent threats from terrorists would most likely be weapons such as suitcase bombs, unmanned aerial vehicles, and inexpensive cruise missiles, which the midcourse missile defense system will not be able to protect against. When Senator Feinstein (D-CA), a critic of the nearly $10 billion-per-year program, asked if Kadish could guarantee a 50 percent success rate for the system, the Lieutenant General said he was unable to answer publicly and would brief her in private. The Missile Defense Agency budget is expected to cost approximately $53 billion over the next six years.

Source: Associated Press, 21 April 2004.

Israel has announced plans to equip its El Al passenger airline fleet with anti-missile systems. Officials say the nation’s first plane equipped with defense countermeasures will be ready by June 2004. A Transport Ministry spokesman said the passenger planes will be fitted with the Israeli-made “flight guard,” which will automatically release diversionary flares if a heat-seeking missile is detected. Each unit is estimated to cost around $1 million. El Al is the first airline to have an anti-missile system installed, and other airlines are predicted to follow suit. In 2002, an Israeli charter plane flying from Kenya narrowly missed an attack from shoulder-held missiles by members of al Qaeda.

Source: Reuters, 22 April 2004; Global Security Newswire, 29 April 2004.

More than 4,000 Marshall Islands landowners have refused to accept a new agreement that would extend the American presence at the Kwajalein missile range until 2066 and, under the new Compact of Free Association, provide $15 million dollars for the site over the previous $11.3 million. The landowners have written to the government expressing their concerns and asking for discussions to begin creating an "exit" strategy in anticipation of the existing 2016 Kwajalein Land Use expiration. Kwajalein’s leader, Christopher Loeak, said the agreement is inadequate to resolve problems such as squalor on Ebeye, social and infrastructure concerns, and to secure a viable future for the people.

Kwajalein Atoll is home to the US Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site.

Source: Radio New Zealand, 8 April 2004.

Taiwan has announced that it will buy advanced anti-missile systems to counter the missile threat from China. China currently has 500 missiles aimed at Taiwan and is reportedly adding a new missile to its arsenal every six days.

On 13 April 2004, Taiwan’s defense ministry announced plans to buy anti-missile weapons system from the US, including six patriot PAC-3 missiles worth $3 billion. This is part of a deal offered by the Bush Administration to Taiwan in 2001.

In March 2004, the Pentagon said it planned to approve the sale of long-range early warning radar equipment worth as much as $1.78 billion - a deal that angered China.

Source: Aljazeera, 13 April 2004.

Russia Reaffirms Demilitarization of Space in Response to US Escalation | Top

In cooperation with Spectrum Astro, the US Missile Defense Agency claims it is developing the first-ever space-based satellite interceptor capable of using a kill vehicle to neutralize ballistic missiles and orbiting satellites. The Bush administration’s Fiscal Year 2005 budget request earmarks $68 million for the project. Critics agree the development sets an unwanted precedent and paves the way for other nations to weaponize space.

On 12 April 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated his support for the demilitarization of space. However, Putin also added that despite his calls for peaceful uses of space, it is, and will likely remain, an arena for an arms race and, consequently, Russia must be ready to counter such threats.

Following Russian missile tests in February 2004 capable of eluding US missile defenses, Putin stated, “We will be striving to prevent space from being an arena of military-political confrontation, but we all understand very well that this situation still exists now and will continue to exist for quite a long time.” He added “We are taking it into account and will continue to take that into consideration in the future.”

During a speech to senior space officials on Cosmonauts Day, Putin hailed the country’s achievements in space. He maintained that space research remains a top priority for the government and emphasized the importance of space for Russia’s national security. Putin stated, “Space activities are so important for the country not only because they solve environmental or agriculture tasks, but because they are essential for the very existence of our nation.”

Sources: Associated Press, 12 April 2004. Global Security Newswire, 29 April 2004.

United Nations Security Council Unanimously Passes WMD Resolution | Top

On 28 April 2004, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1540. The resolution, originally drafted by the US, calls upon all 191 member states of the UN to “combat by all means” the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The resolution will require all UN members to “adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws” to prevent “any non-state actor” from being able to “manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery.” The resolution not only targets terrorist threats but also requires states, including alleged proliferators such as Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, to adopt laws or regulations to enforce the ban on the transfer of prohibited weapons.
The resolution was adopted under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, a provision that permits the Security Council to use sanctions or military force to compel states to abide by its demands. In seeking to have the Security Council act as a global legislature, imposing law on all states, the nuclear-armed permanent five Security Council members are going beyond the bounds of the UN Charter, raising concerns about the resolution’s legitimacy.

Despite the unanimous vote, many nations expressed concerns. Pakistan, in particular, said the resolution’s language is ambiguous enough to permit a “powerful state” to take it upon itself to interpret and enforce the resolution. Pakistan’s UN Ambassador, Munir Akram, voiced concern that the resolution could be used in the future as pretext for imposing sanctions or military force against governments because of actions by groups beyond those nations’ control.

The resolution calls for the creation of a Security Council Committee to be established within six months to monitor how countries are implementing the provisions.

However, the resolution is flawed it fails to acknowledge the disarmament obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to identify measures to reduce and eliminate nuclear arsenals. It also reflects the one-sided emphasis on containing horizontal proliferation while ignoring vertical proliferation of nuclear, as well as biological and chemical weapons. Furthermore, the initial negotiations on the resolution were restricted to the Permanent Security Council Members (China, France, Russia, UK and US), perpetuating concerns regarding the longstanding monopoly of power in the Security Council and on nuclear weapons by those five nations.

Sources: Washington Post, 20 April 2004; Global Security Newswire, 9 April 2004; Associated Press, 9 April 2004. Reuters, 27 April 2004; UN Wire, 27 April 2004.

US Polls Support Multilateral Non-Proliferation Efforts | Top

A nationwide poll released in April 2004 revealed that Americans believe that the Bush Administration should work closely with allies to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Respondents to the survey said that international cooperation and arms control agreements are more likely to deter proliferation than US military threats against countries that try and develop nuclear weapons.

Conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, the poll found 86 percent of respondents want the US to work with other nuclear powers toward eliminating nuclear weapons. A similar percentage said the US should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Two-thirds of the poll’s respondents said the production of low-yield nuclear weapons (mini-nukes) and robust nuclear earth penetrators (bunker-busters) would set a bad example to the rest of the world, and 74 percent of respondents said a treaty banning all weapons in space was considered a good idea. Only 21 percent of respondents favored building the missile defense system right away, and 68 percent said research on missile defense should be done prior to considering its deployment.

The full report is available as a pdf download from http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/WMD/WMDreport_04_15_04.pdf

Source: Washington Post, 17 April 2004.

Cheney Supports US Nuclear Reactor Construction in China | Top

During US Vice President Dick Cheney’s three-day diplomatic tour of China, the country’s nuclear energy ambitions were a central issue. The Chinese Government plans to build as many as 32 large 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactors over the next 16 years. At $1.5 billion per reactor, the deal would narrow the trade deficit, rescue the US nuclear energy industry, and earn up to 5,000 jobs for the US-based Westinghouse Electric Company. Gilbert Vaughn, a Westinghouse spokesman, stated, “These jobs would help to lead Westinghouse design-and-manufacturing facilities as well as those of US based suppliers.” No one has ordered a new nuclear reactor in the US in over 30 years.

China currently operates nine nuclear reactors, which generate 1.4 percent of the country’s total energy capacity. Should China construct 32 more nuclear reactors, total energy derived from nuclear power will rise to 8 percent.

While it would be wise for the US and China to work cooperatively on projects so as to mitigate adversarial relations, a massive nuclear reactor construction project is not the answer. Such a project would only be beneficial to the nuclear industry and generate thousands of tons of radioactive waste, which China is ill-prepared to effectively store and manage.

Sources: Reuters, 10 April 2004. New York Times, 10 April 2004

UC and the Nuclear Weapons Lab Contracts | Top

For the first time in over 60 years, the University of California is being forced to compete for US Department of Energy (DoE) contracts to manage the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Laboratories. The DoE has opened the contract to bids from more than a dozen defense contractors, engineering firms and universities.

In an effort to maintain its dominion over the labs, University of California scientists claim that awarding the contract of one or both of the labs to private, corporate contractors could risk subordinating US nuclear policy to financial interests. The scientists also argue that opening the lab contracts to competing contractors could plunge the labs into a fight-to-the-finish race for weapons and national security work.

In early April, UC scientists told a panel of the National Academy of Sciences that only a single contractor can make the two labs work together. The university insists that only the UC or a contractor free of the desire for profits and markets can be trusted to advise the US government on the status of its nuclear weapons and whether to restart explosive nuclear testing after a 12-year moratorium.

According to Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio, “The potential is there for the contractor to be influenced by the (financial) interests of the contractor in extension of the contract or other business.” The Director of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory, Admiral Pete Nanos, agrees.

However, Chief Technology Officer at John Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory John Sommerer stated “There’s a lot of comfort in leaving it the way it is. But frankly, I think the probability of that is low from a game standpoint and from the track record on lab-contract competitions.”

Should the University of California Run the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories? Read the Transcript of Debate held on 5 April 2004 at the University of California, Berkeley at: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/04/15_lab-debate-transcript.htm

Source: Tri-Valley Herald, 11 April 2004.

US Ambassador Argues for “Incremental Approaches” to Nuclear Disarmament | Top

On 25 March 2004, US Ambassador Jackie Sanders, senior US representative to the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, said a newly emerged “nexus” of terrorism and illicit weapons of mass destruction development argues for “incremental approaches that take account of states' threat perceptions.”

According to Sanders, destabilizing proliferation events of the past few years “illustrates the obvious point that disarmament of any type does not take place in an international security vacuum and reinforces the conclusion that sweeping unfocused approaches to disarmament such as a nuclear weapons convention or setting timetables are illusory and will not work.”

Sander’s comments came after representatives of friendly nations (including Sweden, Canada and Ireland) appeared to criticize the US indirectly in the CD for pursuing polices that are perceived to counter its commitment to nuclear disarmament. Criticisms from other nations included US plans to research and develop weapons capabilities; US refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review that identifies seven non-nuclear countries as potential nuclear weapons targets.

In response, Sanders listed a number of US policy developments that demonstrate a “strong US record” on nuclear arms reduction – such as withdrawing “large numbers” of strategic weapons in the 1990s, dismantling 13,000 nuclear weapons, and together with Russia, removing large quantities of fissile material from military stockpiles. She also mentioned the 2002 Moscow Treaty with Russia to withdraw from operational deployment all but 2,200 strategic warheads by end of 2012. However, Sanders failed to mention that the treaty does not require permanent and verifiable dismantlement of nuclear weapons taken off deployed status. Nuclear weapons under this treaty need only be “off-loaded” and can be restored to service after the treaty expires in 2012.

Sanders maintained that US plans to develop low yield nuclear weapons “represents a historic break from the past” and the US is thereby “reducing dependence on nuclear weapons.” Critics have expressed otherwise, as the concept of low-yield nuclear weapons could blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons, lowering the threshold against use of nuclear weapons.

Sanders also declared that non-nuclear states share a responsibility for enabling nuclear weapon states to reduce their stockpile: “While the nuclear weapon states have the primary responsibility to pursue measures related to nuclear disarmament, all parties can contribute meaningfully toward that goal by helping to fashion an international environment that is conducive to a reduced reliance on nuclear weapons and to their eventual elimination.”

For the full text of Jackie Sander’s statement on US commitment to the NPT, go to:
http://www.us-mission.ch/press2004/0325JackieSanders.htm

Source: Global Security Newswire, 30 March 2004.

UK Considers “Madcap Schemes” to Tackle Nuclear Waste Legacy | Top

The UK government estimates that it will soon have some 500,000 tons of nuclear waste that will remain dangerous for the next 250,000 years and for which it has no home. In 2003, the UK government assigned a committee on radioactive waste management to re-examine all possibilities to find acceptable solutions to dispose of the country’s nuclear waste.

The committee advisers have so far considered 14 options, all of which are technically possible but potentially highly hazardous to present and future generations. Examples include:

• Firing nuclear waste into the sun. While this may rid the earth of nuclear waste, the possibility of rocket failure makes this option a huge risk.
• Placing nuclear waste on Antarctic ice sheets so that its own heat will cause it to sink to the bedrock. However, the Antarctic Treaty currently bans all nuclear activity on the continent.
• Burying the nuclear waste under the seabed. However, dumping nuclear waste into the sea is illegal.
• Exporting nuclear waste. This is against government policy, is likely to draw international protests and does not solve the overall problem of what to do with nuclear waste.
• Putting nuclear waste in the earth’s crust so it is sucked to the molten core. The UK does not have the geological capacity to do this. In addition, the US and USSR previously tried this method to no avail.

Martin Forwood of Cumbrians Opposed to Radioactive Environment said, “We thought all these madcap schemes had been junked donkey’s years ago. The only sensible solution is to store it where it rightfully belongs – in above-ground custom built concrete stores at the site of the origin.” The concrete bunkers need upgrading every 100 years, which means the bunkers would require 2,500 upgrades before the waste becomes safe.

The Committee was originally charged to find solutions by end of 2005, but it has asked for an extension to mid-2006 before it can produce a final report.

Source: Guardian, 14 April 2004

Foundation Research and Advocacy Coordinator Attends Alliance for Nuclear Accountability DC Days | Top

From 28-31 March 2004, Research and Advocacy Coordinator Justine Wang attended the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s DC days in Washington DC. Justine and former intern Jui Shah attended a lobbying training session that was followed by practical experience visiting congressional offices where they engaged in constructive dialogue and set a precedent for future working relationships. Members of Congress visited included: Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Hilary Clinton (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), and John McCain (R-AZ), and Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA). Justine dedicated her time with Congressional members to discuss nuclear weapons policy including disarmament obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty; ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and the 2005 US budget proposal on bunker-busters, mini-nukes, modernizing plutonium pit facilities and preparation for resumption of nuclear weapons testing.

On 16 April 2004, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Youth Programs Director Michael Coffey organized a trip for a group of students to the University of California, Irvine to hear a special message from the Dalai Lama. A member of the Foundation’s Advisory Council, the Dalai Lama addressed approximately 5,000 young people and entertained many questions from the audience. The trip to UC Irvine was a collaborative effort with Santa Barbara City Teen Programs to nurture continued leadership development among local youth.

A senior at Santa Ynez High School, Liz Weinstein says, “The Dalai Lama's message could be summed up in a single word, compassion. After hearing the Dalai Lama speak, I purchased a few of his books and am now trying to bring as much compassion and happiness into my life.”

The Foundation’s Director of Youth Programs, Michael Coffey plans to continue these “See for Yourself” field trips on a monthly basis with the goal of building community and better illustrating the connections between nuclear weapons and other social justice issues. He encourages Foundation members to participate in these trips or to organize similar trips where they live. A list of possible sites is available online:
http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/youth-outreach/getting-started/see-for-yourself.htm

NAPF at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee Meeting | Top

The 2004 Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting to the 2005 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty opened on May 26th at the United Nations in New York. In addition to the official meetings, the NPT PrepCom provided a setting for representatives of civil society from throughout the world to come together to network and plan strategies for achieving common goals. The activities outside the formal governmental meetings were as important, if not more so, than the official meetings. NAPF distributed to both delegates and NGO representatives copies of a Briefing Book that the Foundation prepared for the occasion, “Disarmament: The Missing Link to an Effective Non-Proliferation Regime,” as well as copies of our latest Foundation biannual report and information on the Turn the Tide Campaign.

On 28 April, the Foundation organized and hosted a panel discussion on “Nuclear Weapons, Non-Proliferation and the Quest for Security.” The panel, which was moderated by NAPF President David Krieger, was comprised of Canadian Senator Douglas Roche (chair of the Middle Powers Initiative), Kate Hudson (chair of the UK-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), Jackie Cabasso (Western States Legal Foundation) and NAPF staff member Justine Wang. At the panel discussion, there was a standing-room-only crowd that included the former Swedish Ambassador for Disarmament and a delegation from the Kenyan Embassy.

On 29 April, NAPF co-hosted a panel with the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) on “A Fresh Look at Vertical Proliferation: Discussion Forum on Missiles, Missile Defenses, and Space Weaponization.” In the afternoon, David Krieger was a panelist on a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) panel on “Opposing Vertical Proliferation: the Danger of the Development of New Nuclear Weapons.”

John Bolton, the US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, focused attention during his remarks on the activities of Iran and North Korea. He downplayed nuclear disarmament obligations under Article VI of the Treaty, stating, “We cannot divert attention from the violations we face by focusing on Article VI violations that do not exist.” His approach flew in the face of the general discontent among parties to the Treaty with the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament obligations being made by the US and other nuclear weapons states. There was a strong feeling at the meetings that unless the nuclear weapons states start to take more seriously their disarmament obligations, beginning with ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the NPT could be subject to serious deterioration. The NPT PrepCom concludes on 7 May, and we will see what, if any, progress has been made in preparation for the 2005 NPT Review Conference.

Disarmament: The Missing Link to an Effective Non-Proliferation Regime Briefing for the 2004 Preparatory Committee Meeting to the 2005 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty | Top

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has prepared this briefing report to provide background on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to offer analyses of current nuclear proliferation issues. The briefing contains a series of substantive recommendations to make non-proliferation efforts in general, and the NPT in particular, more effective in ending threats of proliferation and use of nuclear weapons.The full report is available as a pdf download from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s website at: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/04/28_npt-book.pdf

One of the five working groups of the International Student/Young Pugwash (ISYP) has issued a perspective on the weaponization of space, focused on the span of time since the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. ISYP organizes groups of concerned students and young professionals to seek alternative solutions to public policy issues. The full report is available as a Word document from the Space Generation Advisory Council at: http://www.unsgac.org/projects/peace/ISYP.doc

Debate: Should the UC Run the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories? | Top

On 5 April 2004, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation President Dr. David Krieger debated with Dr. Per Peterson, Professor and Chair of the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley on the subject, “Should the UC Run the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories?” The complete transcript and video of the debate is available on the Foundation’s website at: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/04/15_lab-debate-transcript.htm

Published 1 March 2004, The Ambushed Grand Jury is the true story of civil society exposing the wrongdoing of the US Department of Justice. McKinley and Balkany present evidence showing how the US government and defense contractors covered up contamination and environmental crimes at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. For more information or to purchase the book, please visit: http://www.ambushedgrandjury.com/index.htm

“Libya is determined and committed to play a leading role in achieving world peace… (Libya) has now decided to lead the peace movement in the world…Libya calls all other countries from America to China to discard and get rid of all weapons of mass destruction, programs of mass destruction.”

-Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi
27 April 2004.

“I will continue to speak against all kinds of nuclear weapons, against all the world’s nuclear weapons.”

-Mordechai Vanunu
21 April 2004

“Mordechai Vanunu is the pre-eminent hero and whistleblower of the nuclear era…He is the one who consciously risked all he had in life to warn his own country and the world of an existing, ongoing addition to the nuclear dangers of the era.”

-Daniel Ellsberg, member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Advisory Council
23 April 2004

“But the real problem that Vanunu represents is that he will remind the world at a critically important moment in the history of the Middle East that Israel is a nuclear power and that its warheads stand ready to be fired from the Negev desert. He will also remind the world that the Americans, despite battering their way into Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, continue to give their political, moral and economic support to a country that has secretly amassed a treasure trove of weapons of mass destruction.”

-Robert Fisk, from The Man Who Knew Too Much
23 March 2004

“I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. … Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again.”

-John F. Kennedy
12 September 1962