Getting to Zero Update
24 July 2008
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.
Momentum for Getting to Zero has been growing. Presidential
candidate Senator Barack Obama gave his first major speech
devoted to the subject on July 15. Former officials and major
newspapers are calling for a world free of nuclear weapons
and advocating steps to reach the goal. Prominent UK statesmen
echoed the Hoover Group and called for a world without nuclear
weapons in the Times (London), while the newspaper
itself (owned by Murdoch) endorsed the vision, and so too
did The New York Times on the same day. There is a
parliamentary motion backing up this vision currently attracting
support from prominent MPs across the political spectrum.
The Washington Times ran an op-ed by BASIC Board member Ambassador
James Goodby on initial steps for the next U.S. administration
on moving toward zero. See the first section below for more
details.
BASIC launched its Getting to Zero Papers on July
15 with four new publications. BASIC has also posted a summary
of a meeting with European parliamentarians, which includes
a briefing by BASIC Board member Ambassador James Leonard
on the main phases necessary for Getting to Zero. Paul Ingram,
BASIC's Executive Director, participated in a day-seminar
with Foreign Secretary David Miliband at his country residence
discussing issues related to disarmament on July 18. Go to
the bottom of this Update for more information.
In this issue:
COMMITMENTS TO DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL
Four British Statesmen call for a world without nuclear
weapons
Former U.K. Foreign and Defence Secretaries endorsed the
vision
of a world without nuclear weapons in The Times (London)
on June 30. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Lord Douglas Hurd, Lord David
Owen and Lord George Robertson (also a former NATO secretary-general)
called for a dramatic reduction in nuclear stockpiles around
the world through a multilateral effort, with the eventual
goal of getting to zero. The statesmen said that the United
States and Russia should extend the provisions of the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty, that world leaders should reform the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic
Energy Agency, and bring the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty
into force. The Times also ran its own editorial the same
day, calling for a nuclear summit in early 2009 between Russian
President Dimitry Medvedev and the next U.S. President. The
fact that the paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch and known for
taking a conservative perspective is particularly interesting.
An Early
Day Motion (Parliamentary petition) has now been put down
for signature, sponsored by recent Foreign Secretary Margaret
Beckett, recent Conservative Party Leader Michael Howard,
recent Defence Secretary John Reid, serving and former Chairs
of the Commons Defence Committee James Arbuthnot and Michael
Ancram and recent Liberal Democrat Leader and foreign affairs
luminary Menzies Campbell.
Further Reading
Britain's
new nuclear abolitionists, Rebecca Johnson, Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, July 15, 2008.
Former
rivals join forces in nuclear plea, Michael Evans, The
Times (London), June 30, 2008.
Thinking
the Unthinkable: A World Without Nuclear Weapons, Carla
Anne Robbins, The New York Times, June 30,, 2008.
Ambassador James Goodby gives advice to next U.S. president
on Getting to Zero
In an op-ed
to the Washington Times on July 9, former Ambassador James
Goodby (BASIC Board member) called upon the next U.S. president
to pledge to work toward a nuclear free world. He suggested
that given the nature of terrorist threats, and the high number
of nuclear weapons possessed by the United States and Russia,
both leaders need to establish a new treaty lowering their
current number. The eventual goal would be to get to zero
strategically deployed warheads by the time the U.S. and Russian
leaders may leave office in eight years. He also argued that
reducing the Russian and U.S. nuclear weapons arsenals would
show other countries that the major nuclear powers are serious
about disarmament, and would therefore help to dissuade other
countries from pursuing nuclear programs.
Senator Lugar calls for a new START
In commentary published in the Washington Times on
July 18, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Senator
Richard Lugar (Republican-Indiana) praised the Russian
passage of the continuation of the Nunn-Lugar Agreement and
called for a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).
The Senator highlighted the accomplishments of the Nunn-Lugar
Agreement, including dismantling more than 2,000 former Soviet
intercontinental missiles and the deactivation of more than
7,200 nuclear warheads. However, he stressed that President
Bush and the next U.S. president need to focus on extending
and expanding START, which expires in 2009. The Senator also
noted that the Moscow Treaty (Strategic Offensive Reductions
Treaty, or SORT), signed in 2002, is inadequate as it lacks
any formal verification mechanisms. It is essential, he continued,
for the U.S.-Russian strategic relationship to continue the
START verification regime. Finally, the Senator concluded
by pointing out that President Dmitry Medvedev and former
President, now Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin favor extending
START, and that President Bush should do the same.
U.S. Senators Kerry and Kyl debate over Getting to Zero
\Senator
John Kerry (Democrat-Massachusetts), in an op-ed to the
Financial Times on June 24, has called for the next
U.S. president to follow four key policy actions. First, within
the first 100 days of the administration, the president should
deliver a major policy address, calling for a world free of
nuclear weapons. Second, the next president should establish
a new position, a deputy national security advisor, whose
responsibility would be to prevent nuclear terrorism. Third,
the deputy national security advisor would take the lead in
a major effort to secure the world's nuclear material. Fourth,
world leaders, from the United States and Russia in particular,
should drastically reduce their nuclear arsenals and take
their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Senator Kerry
also noted that a nuclear-free world will not be attained
quickly. The president must work with Congress and the international
community to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. Senator
Jon Kyl (Republican-Arizona) responded stating that the
next president should modernize the current nuclear arsenal,
not reduce it. He cited that more than 31 countries are under
the nuclear umbrella of the United States, and that as long
as countries like Syria, North Korea, and Iran seek nuclear
weapons, the United States must modernize to meet these threats.
Senator Kyl concluded saying that Britain and France are also
modernizing their forces and the United States cannot afford
to fall behind.
40th Anniversary of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT)
July 1 marked the 40th Anniversary of the opening of the
NPT for signature and to mark the occasion President Bush,
and other leaders, commented on the historic treaty. President
Bush stressed the United States' continuing commitment
and obligations to the NPT and called all Parties to work
toward ensuring that the treaty stays intact. Absent
from President Bush's speech was any acknowledgement of Australian
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's proposal, introduced last month,
on a new nuclear commission to view and fix some of the problems
with the current treaty before the 2010 NPT Review Conference.
During his speech marking the 40th Anniversary, U.N.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praised the NPT's success,
but noted that the treaty's work is far from over and called
for more efforts to curb nuclear proliferation.
Further Reading
ANALYSIS:
More `near-nuclear' states may loom, Charles J. Hanley,
AP, June 28, 2008.
Nuclear
Waste? New Republic: Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Is More
Vulnerable-and More Vital-Than Ever, J. Peter Scoblic,
The New Republic, July 1, 2008.
The
Race between Cooperation and Catastrophe, The American
Academy in Berlin, June 27, 2008.
A Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)-Free Zone
Led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, 43 nations from
Africa, Europe and the Middle East pledged to form a Union
for the Mediterranean, and the parties agreed to work
toward a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. The Union overlaps
in the EU into Africa and the Middle East, and hopes to work
toward finding solutions to the challenges in the areas. In
a statement released by Israel, Syria and the Palestinians
along with countries across Europe, the Middle East and North
Africa agreed to "pursue a mutually and effectively verifiable
Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction".
COUNTRY REPORTS
UNITED STATES
United States removes tactical nuclear weapons from Britain;
Questions persist in Germany
After 50-plus years of American nuclear weapons on British
soil, the United States removed
the last of its tactical nuclear weapons from Britain, according
to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists.
The weapons were B-61 gravity bombs. Kristensen explained
the reduction, saying "the northern front is not very relevant
any more for these deployments. The U.S. nuclear posture is
almost entirely focused on the southern region, in Incirlik
[in Turkey] and Aviano [in Italy]." He also noted the perplexing
nature of NATO secrecy in removing the weapons. Mainly, the
reductions occurred when Russian officials were scolding the
United States for maintaining their tactical nuclear weapons
in Europe. Kristensen points out that U.S. and NATO officials
should have made the removal public and engaged Russia on
paring down its own arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. The
reductions leave between 150-240 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons
in Europe. The United Kingdom has its own strategic nuclear
forces deployed on Trident submarines.
Meanwhile, members
of the German Parliament from several major parties are
asking why about 20 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons are still
in their country. Little support remains in the Parliament
for maintaining the weapons on German soil as they are seen
as Cold War relics, but officials from Germany's Defense Ministry
currently say the bombs should stay. Existing NATO doctrine
includes these tactical free-fall bombs, but NATO's Strategic
Concept is slated for review next year, and this could change.
Domestic resistance against these particular warheads appears
to be growing, and several European countries are facing expensive
investment decisions as the aircraft assigned to nuclear roles
are reaching the end of their lives.
U.S.-Russian 123 Agreement in trouble
The nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States
and Russia is being threatened
by congressional delays. Lawmakers are holding out for more
guarantees that Russia will cease trading with Iran. The agreement
comes upon the heels of other plans for nuclear trade with
India, the UAE and other Middle Eastern states. The actual
agreement would allow American firms to sell certain nuclear
technologies to Russian companies, and would ease the sale
of nuclear fuel from Russia to the United States. President
Bush submitted the agreement to Congress on May 13, meaning
it would pass into law if lawmakers do not move to block or
amend the legislation in 90 consecutive working days.
Further Reading
U.S.
General Wants to Retain Nuclear Test Option, Elaine Grossman,
Global Security Newswire, July 22, 2008.
Huessy:
Keep U.S. Nukes, Peter Huessy, Washington Times,
July 21, 2008.
U.S.
Plans to Shrink Nuclear Weapons Complex, William Matthews,
Defense News, July 17, 2008.
With
nuclear weapons, a lot can go wrong, Steve Andreasen,
Star Tribune, June 26, 2008.
U.S. Presidential Race
Obama wants a nuclear free world
Senator Barack Obama (Illinois), the presumptive Democratic
nominee, was on the campaign trail in Indiana on July 16.
Addressing an audience at Purdue
University, Obama declared, "It's time to send a clear
message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear
weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a
strong deterrent. But we'll make the goal of eliminating all
nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy."
The day before, Obama highlighted the dangers of nuclear weapons
in a major foreign policy speech on July 15 in Washington,
DC, stating,
"We need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian
ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically
reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material;
to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material
for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range
missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we'll be in a
better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran
to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility
and leverage in dealing with Iran."
In his Indiana speech, Obama called for securing loose nuclear
material from Russia and was joined by former Senator Sam
Nunn of Georgia, father of the Nunn-Lugar agreement, which
first started to secure the loose material after the Cold
War.
Just a few days earlier, Barrack Obama stated he would support
the U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation deal in its current form,
if he becomes President. He argued that the United States
needs to maintain a strong relationship with India in the
21st century, and that India is a very successful democracy
in the region.
Candidates react to Iranian missile tests
Both U.S. presidential candidates reacted
to the firing of short and medium range ballistic missiles
by Iran earlier in July. Candidate and Senator Barrack Obama
(Democrat-Illinois) called Iran a "great threat" that must
be contained through a new wave of effective diplomacy and
sanctions. Republican John McCain stated that the missile
test proved that the United States needs a national missile
defense system in Europe. McCain also criticized Obama's stance
on meeting with foreign leaders, saying, "Working with our
European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat
posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral
diplomacy."
Further Reading
A
New Nuclear Threat, Louis Rene Beres, Thomas McInerney
and Paul E. Vallely, The Washington Times. July 18,
2008.
Obama
vs. McCain: Seven Areas of Agreement, and Six of Disagreement,
on Nuclear Weapons, John Isaacs, Center for Arms Control
and Non-Proliferation, July 14, 2008.
INDIA
U.S.-India deal gains life
The beleaguered U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement,
thought
to be dead, was given a new lease
of life during the first weekend in July. Indian Prime
Minister Singh went ahead and pushed for the deal, at the
risk of the collapse
of his government. The agreement was being held up in the
Parliament by the Communist Party, whose members felt the
agreement placed too much power in the hands of the United
States. However, the Prime Minister changed his strategy and
courted the Samajwadi Party, to gain enough support to pass
it through against Communist opposition. The withdrawal of
support by left-wing parties forced a confidence
vote on July 22. The government survived the vote, which
means the process for solidifying the deal can move forward.
The agreement, passed and signed by U.S. Congress and President
Bush in 2006, allows the United States to trade nuclear technology
and material to India in exchange for some of India's nuclear
facilities to be open for safeguards. The agreement is particularly
controversial as it allows the United States to supply sensitive
nuclear technologies to a state unconstrained by the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and will undoubtedly put greater
pressure on the regime as others will now see less benefit
to remaining members.
The next step is for the IAEA to approve safeguards for Indian
civilian facilities. The agreement would then go to the 45-member
Nuclear Suppliers Group for approval, and finally, it would
have to be reapproved by the U.S. Congress. Assuming it passes
the prior stages, approval by Congress before the end of the
year is doubtful
given the coming election season and an already full agenda.
Although closely idenitified with President Bush, both principal
Presidential candidates have expressed support for the Agreement.
Further Reading
A
Nonproliferation Disaster, Jayantha Dhanapala and Daryl
Kimball, Proliferation Analysis, July 10, 2008.
Negotiating
India's Next Nuclear Explosion, Henry Sokolski, The
Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2008.
India's
PM Set to Push Ahead With Nuclear Deal, Anjana Pasricha,
VOA News, July 7, 2008.
IRAN
Bellicose rhetoric and aggressive military posturing overshadowed
many of July's diplomatic developments over the Iranian nuclear
program. In an apparent response to Israeli air exercises
over the Mediterranean and harsh rhetoric from U.S. politicians,
Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of Iran's Revolutionary
Guards, threatened
that Iran would block access to the Strait of Hormuz if
attacked by the United States or Israel. Around 40% of the
world's traded oil-and 90% of that which is extracted from
the Persian Gulf-travels
through the Strait. Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander
of the U.S. 5th Fleet, warned
that the United States and the international community would
not tolerate such an action.
In its July 7 issue, The New Yorker published an article
by journalist Seymour Hersh entitled "Preparing
the Battlefield". The piece alleges that the Bush administration
has authorized $400 million for covert operations in Iran
aimed at destabilizing the country's religious leadership.
Hersh claims that these operations may include targeted killings
of key leaders and intelligence-gathering missions involving
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Joint Special
Operations Command (JSOC). He also asserts that U.S. Special
Operations Forces have been using southern Iraq as a base
for cross-border missions into Iran since last year. The U.S.
Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, rejected
Hersh's findings, stating that "I can tell you flatly
that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border
into Iran, in the south or anywhere else."
On July 9, Iran
claimed to have tested 9 missiles. Included among these
was what Iran claimed was an enhanced version of the Shahab-3
Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM). If the missile
truly has a range of 2,000 km (1,250 miles) as Iranian officials
claimed, then that would place much of the Middle East, including
Israel, in the range of a possible ballistic missile strike.
However, there was widespread skepticism
over the authenticity of the Iranian claims, with weapons
experts pointing to the Shehab-3 missile as appearing to be
identical to the original version, and indications that the
official Iranian photos of the tests may
have been digitally altered to conceal the failed launch
of one of the missiles. U.S.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the test-firings
did not push the countries closer to the brink of war, but
argued that they demonstrated the need for U.S. ballistic
missile defenses (BMD) in Europe.
Furthermore, there has been much debate over House
Resolution 362 in the U.S. Congress. The bill seeks to
punish Iran for its continued enrichment of uranium and calls
for the United States to prevent the entrance of refined petroleum
products into Iran. The legislation would also set "stringent
inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes,
trains and cargo entering or departing Iran." Enforcement
of this clause would likely require a U.S. naval blockade
of the country, which could be seen as an act of war.
Bush administration shows signs of change in Iran strategy
Despite the aforementioned developments, in recent days the
Bush administration has shown signs of receptivity toward
a potential thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations. There has been
talk
of opening an American interests section in Tehran from
top State Department officials in the last few weeks. Iran's
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki spoke
out in support of the idea and also said that direct flights
between the two countries may be possible in the future. Iran
maintains an interests section at the Pakistani Embassy in
Washington, but the United States has not had a diplomatic
presence in Tehran for nearly thirty years. U.S. interests
in Iran are currently handled by the Swiss Embassy.
Additionally, William Burns, the U.S. Undersecretary of State
for Political Affairs and America's third-ranking diplomat,
traveled
to Geneva for July 19th's P5+1-Iran discussions over Tehran's
nuclear program. Burns, Javier Solana (EU CFSP High Representative),
and Russian and Chinese representatives met with Saeed Jalili,
Iran's top nuclear negotiator. The Undersecretary acted as
an observer and reemphasized the U.S. demand for Iran to cease
its enrichment of uranium, but did not participate in the
negotiations themselves. The event marked the first meeting
of senior U.S. and Iranian officials in the context of nuclear
negotiations since Iran's 1979 revolution.
Despite the presence of Burns, there were no
significant developments in the Geneva talks. Jalili showed
no signs of agreeing to a freeze in the expansion let alone
cessation of Iran's uranium enrichment and the parties did
not come to an agreement. Iran now has two weeks to consider
the offer. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
referred to the talks as "a step forward", while U.S.
and U.K. leaders seemed markedly less enthusiastic. In a July
21 visit to the United Arab Emirates, U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice
warned Tehran that Iran would face consequences if no
"serious" response is received within two weeks. On the same
day, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown
addressed the Knesset (Israel's parliament) in Tel Aviv.
Brown reiterated the United Kingdom's strong support of Israel
and promised to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,
noting that Britain would play a leading role in levying additional
sanctions on Tehran if necessary. There was also talk of Turkey
acting in a mediatory role in future negotiations.
Further Reading
A
return to sanity? Tehran Times, July 21, 2008.
Analyze
This: Why Washington's new playbook on Iran is no laughing
matter, Calev Ben-David, Jerusalem Post, July 21,
2008.
Iran's
Air Force to test new armaments in large-scale war games,
RIA Novosti, July 20, 2008.
A
reality check on Iran, David Isenberg, Asia Times,
July 19, 2008.
Using
Bombs to Stave Off War, Benny Morris. The New York
Times. July, 18, 2008.
Iran
and U.S. Signaling Chance of Deal, Glenn Kessler, Washington
Post, July 17, 2008.
The
war with Iran, Frank Gaffney, Washington Times,
July 15, 2008.
Tehran
leaves no room for doubt, Julian Borger, Guardian,
July 9, 2008.
Expert:
'US won't allow Israel to attack Iran', Jerusalem Post,
July 8, 2008.
Escalation,
audio interview with Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker,
July 7, 2008.
Talk
to Iran, Cyrus Bina and Sam Gardiner, Washington Times,
July 5, 2008.
Netherlands
bans Iranian students from nuclear studies, AFP, July
4, 2008.
Iran
looks East as Europe looks the other way, by Luke Manzarpour,
Press TV, July 2, 2008.
US
businessmen accused of military sales to Iran, by Brian
Wagner, VOA News, June 26, 2008.
NORTH KOREA
North Korea details nuclear program
On June 26, North Korean officials issued a declaration detailing
their plutonium program to the five other states of the Six
Party Talks. President
Bush welcomed the declaration, and announced that he is
lifting the provisions of the "Trading with the Enemy Act",
and would ask Congress for approval for the removal of North
Korea from the State Department's list of State
Sponsors of Terrorism. The next day, in a symbolic gesture,
North Koreans destroyed the cooling
tower at Yongbyon, indicating their willingness to move
forward in the discussions. While discrepancies exist over
how much plutonium North Korea declared and possessed, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice affirmed that the United States
has the required
tools to verify the North Korean declaration. U.S. officials
say that they are also still concerned about North Korea's
past possible involvement with a highly-enriched
uranium program and long-term aspirations for nuclear
weapons.
A new
round of Six Party Talks concluded on July 13 with a basic
outline on verifying North Korea's nuclear disarmament. The
agreement,
announced by China, allows international inspectors along
with the IAEA, back into North Korea to verify disarmament.
Kyodo News Agency in Japan reported on July 17 that North
Korea has removed half
of the 8,000 nuclear fuel rods from the Yongbyon reactor.
Kyodo cited unnamed officials who have been involved with
the Six Party Talks.
U.S. Secretary of State to meet with North Korean Foreign
Minister
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will
meet with North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui-chun in
Singapore on July 23 to discuss ending the North Korean program.
The two will meet with the other countries of the Six Party
Talks to try and work toward a verification agreement with
North Korea. The informal meeting will be at the highest level
for the two countries since Secretary of State Colin Powell
met with North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun in 2004.
Further Reading
DPRK
verification ventures, Andreas Persbo, Verification,
Implementation and Compliance Blog, July 14, 2008.
The
Tragic End Of Bush's North Korea Policy, John Bolton,
The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 2008.
Diplomacy
Is Working on North Korea, Condoleezza Rice, The Wall
Street Journal, June 26, 2008.
SYRIA
IAEA inspectors visit Syria
IAEA inspectors visited Syria at the end of June to investigate
the alleged nuclear facility that was destroyed by Israel
last September at al-Kibar. The inspections got off to a "good
start," with no real complaints by IAEA officials at the
test site. According to a senior U.N. official, the results
of the inspections were inconclusive.
Syria has been accused of building a nuclear reactor at the
site allegedly for a secret weapons program. According to
the Guardian,
Israeli intelligence officials claim to believe that Syria
was going to sell the weapons grade fuel to Iran, though it
is still unclear where the uranium fuel would have come from
for the reactor. More importantly, the strike and investigation
of the strike raise questions about the international
nonproliferation regime, including whether the current
regime is credible enough to deter states from seeking nuclear
weapons, and whether the Israeli strike, and silence, serve
as a nod of acceptance by the international community for
preventive military action in similar situations that would
be deemed by most international lawyers as clearly illegal.
Further Reading
Pentagon's
Prompt Global Strike Program: A Trigger for Nuclear Conflict?
Vince Manzo, Center for Defense Information, July 16, 2008.
MISSILE DEFENSE
On July 8 in Prague, the Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg
and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed an agreement
for the basing of a radar
station in the Czech Republic as part of a proposed U.S.
ground-based midcourse defense system (GMD) in Europe. The
Czech Parliament still needs to approve the agreement, and
the agreement would then be subject to U.S. congressional
approval. A majority of the Czech Parliament and public have
so far opposed the deal.
During the G8 Summit in Japan, Russian President Dimitry
Medvedev said in reference to the missile defense agreement
moving forward, "We will not be hysterical about this, but
we will think of retaliatory steps." In the days following,
the flow of crude oil in a pipeline that runs from Russia
to the Czech Republic slowed and Czech officials were suspecting
that it was a form of retribution
for the deal. Russian officials were denying any link,
and company executives said that oil has been re-routed
to Turkey for commercial reasons. The Czech Republic has
access to other oil pipelines.
Polish and U.S. officials met on July 21 to discuss Poland's
possible participation in the GMD project in Europe, but
details were not forthcoming. As of July 18, the Polish government
was waiting
for a verdict from the Bush Administration on whether
it will provide Poland with a "Patriot-type" air defense system
as part of a package deal in exchange for Poland agreeing
to host 10 missile interceptors. The two governments have
been in negotiations since May 2007. Poland has been requesting
military aid, partly to cover for what it sees as the additional
risk it will inherit if the country becomes the host for part
of the U.S. missile defense system. The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita
was reporting on July 15 that local governments may file complaints
against the construction of a missile defense base in Poland,
which could add to other delays for the site.
At a Defense Department press
conference on July 15, the head of the U.S. Missile Defense
Agency (MDA), Lt. Gen. Henry "Trey" Obering, confirmed that
the test of a GMD system on July 18 would not
entail the full test that had originally been planned
and would forego attempting an intercept. The full test was
cancelled because of faulty telemetry cards that are supposed
to gather data during these trials. The test
that MDA did conduct on July 18 covered only the sensors
and integration of radar for tracking a would-be enemy missile.
The next GMD interceptor test is now scheduled for December.
During the press conference on July 15, Lt. Gen. Obering
pointed to the recent Iranian missile tests as justification
for U.S. efforts behind national missile defense in general
and the European GMD site in particular. Critics and Russian
officials, meanwhile noted that the Iranian missile tests
failed to show any new capabilities. The overstatement of
Iranian capabilities to justify the hastening of GMD deployment
has similarities to the strategies used by U.S. officials
in exaggerating Soviet capabilities in the Cold War to justify
levels of U.S. defense spending. Several weeks earlier, when
Lt. Gen. Obering was on Capitol Hill, he mentioned that MDA
would like to have a missile defense test
bed located in Europe.
Further Reading
Two
Aegis Ships to Defend NATO? Andy Grotto, Arms Control
Wonk, July 21, 2008.
News
Analysis: Missile Defense Role Questioned, Wade Boese,
Arms Control Today, July/August 2008.
Rethink
European Missile Defense, Daryl Kimball, Arms Control
Today, July/August 2008.
4
Aegis Ships to Defend NATO, Jeffrey Lewis, Arms Control
Wonk, July 16, 2008.
DoD
News Briefing with Lt. Gen. Obering from the Pentagon,
U.S. Defense Department transcript, July 15, 2008.
Controlled
Unclassified Info May Be Classified, U.S.-Czech Doc Says,
Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists, Secrecy
News Blog, July 14, 2008.
Agreement
Between the Czech Republic and the United States of America
on Establishing a United States Ballistic Missile Defense
Radar Site in the Czech Republic, available via the website
of the Federation of American Scientists, July 8, 2008.
Spiraling
Out of Control: How Missile Defense Acquisition Strategy is
Setting a Dangerous Precedent, Victoria Samson and Nick
Schwellenbach, Defense & Security Analysis, June 1,
2008 - (Available for public access July 9, 2008), Vol. 24,
Issue 2.
Last-Minute
Missiles, Washington Post editorial, July 1, 2008.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Engaging
Russia, Matt Martin, Courier, Summer 2008.
Minimum
deterrence, Jeffrey Lewis, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
July/August 2008.
New
Presidents, New Agreements? Advancing U.S.-Russian Strategic
Arms Control, Alexei Arbatov and Rose Gottemoeller, Arms
Control Today, July/August 2008.
Norwegian
Government: Emerging opportunities for nuclear disarmament,
M2 Presswire, July 17, 2008.
Nuclear
Breakout, James Kitfield, National Journal, July
12, 2008.
The
end of Japan's nuclear taboo, Elizabeth D. Bakanic, Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, July 9, 2008.
A Chance
at Zero, Q&A with Bruce Blair for Washington ProFile,
July 8, 2008.
The
Hard Cases: Eliminating Civilian HEU in Ukraine and Belarus,
William C. Potter and Robert Nurick, The Nonproliferation
Review, July 2008.
Revving
up the Cooperative Nonproliferation Engine, Senator Richard
Lugar, The Nonproliferation Review, July 2008.
BASIC AND GETTING TO ZERO (GTZ)
-
Taking Responsibility what
can NPT states realistically do to build on today's momentum
behind nuclear disarmament? Paul Ingram, Executive
Director, BASIC, Getting to Zero Paper, No. 2, 15 July
2008. Also available as a pdf
file.
-
Sarkozy and the French nuclear
deterrence, Jean-Marie Collin, Getting to Zero Paper,
No. 2, 15 July 2008.Also available as a pdf
file.
-
Analysis of the French White
Paper on Defence and Security, Stephen Herzog, BASIC,
Getting to Zero Paper, No. 3, 15 July 2008. Also available
as a pdf file.
-
Iran 's Missile Program,
Bharath Gopalaswamy, Cornell University, Getting to Zero
Paper, No. 4, 15 July 2008. Also available as a pdf
file.
Nuclear
Weapons and Transatlantic Security: Meeting with a delegation
from the Defence Committee of the WEU Assembly - The European
Security and Defence Assembly, June 17, 2008, Washington-based
experts discuss Getting to Zero, U.S. nuclear policy and the
presidential race, Iran's nuclear program, and transatlantic
security, posted July 15, 2008.
Another milestone to Zero:
UK Statesmen call for a World without Nuclear Weapons,
Special Getting to Zero Update, June 30, 2008.
Paul Ingram, BASIC's Executive Director, participated
in a small big-picture day-seminar with Foreign Secretary
David Miliband at his country residence discussing issues
related to disarmament on July 18. BASIC also co-sponsored
two roundtables discussing issues related to Britain's strategic
posture on July 7 and 11. The first, at the Royal United Services
Institute and involving officials, analysts and advisers,
discussed Britain's national security strategy and appropriate
responses to global threats, whilst the second, at the National
Liberal Club (in conjunction with WMD
Awareness) looked at strategic defence procurement issues.
Visit BASIC's GTZ Blog and post
a comment.
BASIC's work is made possible by the generous support of
our donors: the Ploughshares
Fund, the Ford Foundation,
the Joseph Rowntree Charitable
Trust, Polden
Puckham Charitable Foundation, and Rockefeller Family
& Associates.
|
