Pentagon May Have Doubts on Preemptive Nuclear Moves
(Walter Pincus, Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1801156_pf.html

Monday, September 19
The Pentagon may be having second thoughts about proposed revisions to its nuclear weapons doctrine that would allow commanders to seek presidential approval for using atomic arms against nations or terrorists who intend to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against the United States, its troops or allies.

The draft document, disclosure of which has caused a stir among some members of Congress and arms control advocates, would update rules and procedures for using nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy announced by the Bush administration in 2002. Previous versions of the unclassified doctrine have not included scenarios for using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against WMD threats. But last week, after an article about the draft appeared in The Washington Post, a senior Pentagon official said the doctrine "is a long way from being done. It has a lot of reviews to go through and several changes have already taken place."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8DB...7DEEB86E5C1.htm

Iran threatens to quit NPT

Tuesday 20 September 2005, 19:04 Makka Time, 16:04 GMT

Ali Larijani says the EU-3 is trying to 'humiliate' Iran
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani has warned that Tehran could quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if it is subjected to the language of force.


He said Iran would link its oil trade and other economic business with individual countries based on their support for Tehran in the international standoff over its nuclear activities.

"We don't want the path to become more difficult. But if you want to use the language of force, Iran will be left with no choice, in order to preserve its technical achievements, to get out of the framework of the NPT and out of the framework of the additional protocol, and resume enrichment," Larijani said on Tuesday.

He was speaking at a news conference in Tehran that coincided with efforts by Britain, France and Germany to bring Iran before the UN Security Council over "breaches" of international atomic safeguards.

Language of humiliation

"If, in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), they want to talk to us in the language of humiliation, threat or introduce the so-called trigger mechanism or take it to the UN Security Council, we will revise our stance on the additional protocol (to the NPT) and enrichment," Larijani said.


Iran says its nuclear programme
is for peaceful purposes

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only and says civilian nuclear fuel work is a right enshrined in the NPT.

"If you want to pressure beyond the NPT and take it to the Security Council, you will not gain anything and only make trouble for yourselves," he warned.

The additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty allows unfettered inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities if it is referred to the UN Security Council.

Western diplomats in Vienna said that a US-backed European Union resolution calling for referral could be introduced at the current session of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board meeting, but any vote could be postponed to a later meeting of the 35-nation IAEA board.

Draft resolution

Britain, Germany and France, negotiating on behalf of the 25-nation European Union, have begun drafting the language of a resolution demanding Iran be referred to the Security Council.

But Europeans face opposition from other members of the IAEA board of governors, which opened a meeting on Monday to discuss Iran's nuclear programme.

"The Europeans have been trying to humiliate the Iranians. Do not doubt that enrichment is a national desire"

Ali Larijani,
Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council

Larijani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said the EU-3 was trying to "humiliate" Iran by demanding it abandon nuclear fuel technology.

"The Europeans have been trying to humiliate the Iranians. Do not doubt that enrichment is a national desire," Larijani said, referring to demands by the EU-3 that Iran give up nuclear fuel as the best "objective guarantee" the clerical government will not seek nuclear weapons.

Country’s pride

"We will not accept excessive pressure. They cannot play with a country's pride," Larijani said, comparing the nuclear crisis to Iran's struggle to nationalise its oil industry from British control in the 1950s.

"This government will do its utmost to defend Iran's right," Iran's top nuclear negotiator said. "The Europeans keep telling us of this big giant - the UN Security Council. But this will not mean the end of the Iranian people."

"I remind them of the North Korean case: after two years they accept North Korea's right to enrichment. They should do the same with us."


Agencies

Iran Gets Reprieve in Nuclear Standoff
(George Jahn, Associated Press)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5293694,00.html

Wednesday, September 21
Iran gained a reprieve in the standoff over its nuclear program Wednesday, with diplomats saying the European Union had decided to postpone its push to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

The decision to delay a vote until a later board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency instead of demanding one this week appeared driven by concerns about strong opposition. More than a dozen of the 35 IAEA board member nations meeting in Vienna - including Security Council members Russia and China - are against the idea.

U.S. Says North Korean Demand for Reactor Won't Derail Accord
(Steven R. Weisman, New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/internat...ia/21diplo.html

Wednesday, September 21
The Bush administration on Tuesday brushed off a demand from North Korea for a light-water nuclear reactor, saying that the accord announced Monday in Beijing left it clear that the North must abandon its nuclear weapons program before such a matter can be discussed.

The Beijing agreement laid out a set of principles to guide discussions, which are scheduled to resume in November. The United States hailed the part of the accord in which North Korea agreed to abandon "all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs" and submit to international inspections.

In return, the United States agreed to join its four partners - Russia, Japan, South Korea and China - in providing security guarantees and economic incentives over time, according to the principle of "commitment for commitment, action for action."

N. Korea Should End Its Nuclear Program Before Getting Reactor-Russia
(RIA Novosti)
http://en.rian.ru/world/20050921/41459858.html

Wednesday, September 21
Supplies of light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea can only be considered after it dismantles its nuclear program, the Russian foreign minister said Wednesday.

Sergei Lavrov said he discussed the issue with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice He said they agreed that the sequence of steps laid down in the Beijing agreements should be observed - supplies of light-water nuclear reactors can only be considered after the nuclear program was dropped.

North Korean Draft Pact Suggests Big Shift By U.S.
(Choe Sang-Hun, International Herald Tribune)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/21/news/talks.php

Wednesday, September 21
If the statement Monday on the North Korean nuclear crisis failed to clarify whether the communist state truly intends to abandon its nuclear weapons, it did reinforce a perception that the Bush administration had markedly shifted its approach toward a nation the U.S. president once famously called a member of an "axis of evil," analysts and officials said Wednesday.

The perceived shift - compelled both by the Bush administration's own domestic and overseas policy handicaps and by persistent pressure from China and South Korea - made possible the Monday statement, which was the first tangible outcome of two years of stop-and-start negotiations and was expected to forestall, at least for now, discussions of punitive action against North Korea.

Annan Urges Nations To Ratify Nuke Treaty
(Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1148265

Thursday, September 22
Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the United States and 10 other key countries to ratify the nuclear test-ban treaty so it can finally take effect, but like Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea, the U.S. administration refuses to do so.

Opening a conference Wednesday to spur the treaty's entry into force, Annan said all countries should be gravely concerned that nine years after the treaty was opened for signatures, it still hasn't entered into force.

Senators Urge Pentagon To Keep Nuclear Missiles
(Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press)
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/n...te/12706097.htm

Wednesday, September 21
A bipartisan group of senators from five states sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday asking him to maintain the nation's current level of 500 nuclear missiles.

The senators sent the letter on the same day they held a Capitol Hill meeting with Air Force and Pentagon officials to discuss the future of the intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, located at bases in North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

Nuclear Agency Votes to Report Iran to U.N.
(Mark Landler, The New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/internat...t/25vienna.html

Sunday, September 25
Iran's showdown with the West over its nuclear ambitions entered a new, more volatile phase on Saturday, as the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency voted to report the country to the United Nations Security Council for violating its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The decision, by a vote of 22 to 1, with 12 countries abstaining, was expected. But it reflected continuing, often bitter, divisions within the agency's governing board about how firmly to handle Iran.

Only a flurry of last-minute diplomacy at the agency's headquarters here persuaded Russia and China to abstain rather than oppose the measure. Venezuela cast the sole no vote.

Iran Threatens Economic Backlash Over IAEA Vote
(Financial Times)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6bc036e0-2f39-11d...000e2511c8.html

Tuesday, September 27
Iran said on Tuesday it would reconsider economic ties with countries that voted against it at last week's board meeting of the UN atomic watchdog.

Hamid Reza Asefi, foreign ministry spokesman, said Tehran was particularly surprised by the vote against it from India, which has recently agreed to to import 5m metric tons of liquefied natural gas annually from Iran via a gas pipeline project linking the two countries.

Mr Asefi said India's vote at the International Atomic Energy Agency "came as a great surprise to us", adding: "We will reconsider our economic co-operation with those countries that voted against us."

In Russia, Securing Its Nuclear Arsenal Is An Uphill Battle
(Carla Anne Robbins and Alan Cullison, The Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1127700...N=wsjie/archive

Monday, September 26
Twenty-one months after the U.S. turned over the keys to the Russian government, the Mayak nuclear warehouse near here sits empty. Built with more than $400 million in U.S. funds, the fortress-like building was supposed to be a centerpiece of American efforts to lock up Russia's vast nuclear arsenal.

A senior Russian official suggests that it might not be filled until there's an agreement on how the U.S. will monitor what goes inside. People living around this once-secret city, the site of some of the world's worst nuclear pollution, say they'd like to keep it empty forever.

The warehouse shows how the effort to secure Russia's vast arsenal remains an uphill battle even as concerns about nuclear terrorism have risen in the post-9/11 world. So far, the U.S. has provided state-of-the-art security for 48 of the 85 nuclear warhead storage and handling sites slated for upgrades, but there could be dozens more sites that the two sides may never agree to work on. With Russian nationalism and oil revenues on the rise, the relationship is increasingly uneasy.

North Korea Appears to Back Away on Reactor Demand
(Jon Herskovitz, Reuters)
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....&archived=False

Tuesday, September 27
North Korea appeared to back away on Tuesday from its demand for atomic energy facilities up front before it scraps its nuclear weapons programs, saying it wanted the United States to supply reactors "as early as possible".

In a report carried on its official KCNA news service on Tuesday, North Korea cited comments made last week by one of its delegates at a disarmament conference in Geneva on the issue of the relatively proliferation-resistant light-water reactors. The comments were less strident than previous rhetoric.

"What is most essential is, therefore, for the U.S. to provide light-water reactors to the DPRK as early as possible as evidence proving the former's substantial recognition of the latter's nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose," the report cited the unnamed delegate as saying.

What That Accord Really Says
(Glenn Kessler, Washington Post - opinion)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5092400009.html

Sunday, September 25
The six-nation talks on ending North Korea's nuclear programs yielded their first accomplishment last week after two years of discussions -- a joint statement of "principles" to guide future talks. The document is a classic example of diplomacy, where words are used to hide disagreements or defer outstanding problems. Within a day, North Korea and the United States were arguing over what it meant. Here is a guide to the verbiage.

For the cause of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia at large, the Six Parties held, in the spirit of mutual respect and equality , serious and practical talks concerning the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula on the basis of the common understanding of the previous three rounds of talks, and agreed, in this context, to the following:

Translation: North Korea, formally known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, insists that it is the equal of the United States, so here the United States acknowledges its respect for a country headed by a man whom President Bush has said he loathes.

The Unravelling of India's Persian Puzzle
(Siddharth Varadarajan, The Hindu - opinion)
http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/27/stories/2005092703011000.htm

Tuesday, September 27
For all its pretensions to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, India on Saturday flunked its first real test as a rising world power.

Where no less than 11 countries smaller and less powerful than us — Venezuela, Algeria, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Vietnam, and Yemen — had the courage and good sense to join Russia and China in refusing to endorse the U.S.-backed agenda of confrontation with Iran, India threw in its lot with Washington and the European troika.

Sign of Maturity
(The Indian Express - opinion)
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=78894

Tuesday, September 27
In deciding to vote in favour of the European resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday and demanding that Iran comply with its nuclear obligations, the government has signaled a new maturity in India’s foreign policy.

In one stroke, India has told the world that it will follow its own interests in deciding on global issues. India is saying it is not a mere protestor in the international debates on non-proliferation; that it means what it says when claiming to be a responsible nuclear weapon power. On the multilateral front, India’s vote will now have to be earned. It cannot be expected to come automatically as part of third world “groupthink”. All to the good.

Prague Ships Its Nuclear-Bomb Fuel to Russian Storage
(C.J. Chivers, New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/internat.../28uranium.html

Wednesday, September 28
The special police unit arrived in the darkness, carrying submachine guns and taking positions around an unmarked cargo truck parked beside a nuclear reactor. The doors to the reactor swung open and a forklift hurried three large steel casks onto the truck. Each container held several fuel rods of highly enriched uranium, potent enough for use in a nuclear bomb.

This secret nuclear retrieval mission in Prague, underwritten with $2 million from the United States and completed on Monday and Tuesday, was one element of a newly reinvigorated effort to secure nuclear material marooned by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Iran's Uranium Gas Unusable for Fuel-Diplomats
(Francois Murphy and Louis Charbonneau, Reuters)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27139754.htm

Tuesday, September 27
A threat by Iran to resume uranium enrichment may have little substance behind it since Tehran has not yet mastered the technology to produce the high-quality gas required, Western diplomats say.

The processing at Iran's Isfahan plant converts raw uranium "yellowcake" into uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6), which can then be enriched into fuel for power stations or nuclear bombs. Diplomats said however that the quality of UF6 produced at Isfahan was so poor that it could not be used at Iran's massive enrichment site at Natanz.

Iran to Play Cards Carefully in Nuclear Dispute
(Alistair Lyon, Reuters)
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....R-IRAN-GAME.xml

Thursday, September 29
For all its hardline posturing, Iran is likely to play a cautious hand in its drawn-out nuclear game with the West to avoid isolation and to ride out the next attempt to haul it before the U.N. Security Council.

Tough talk from Tehran about hitting back for last week's IAEA resolution to recommend sending its case to the council for possible sanctions may remain just that in the short term.

Why Iran Isn't a Global Threat
(Ray Takeyh, Christian Science Monitor - Opinion)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0929/p09s02-coop.html

Thursday, September 29
Last week's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency branding Iran in breach of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitments has given impetus to the United States to call for the deferral of Iran to the UN Security Council. Tehran is adamant that it wants nuclear power for generating electricity. Yet, Washington policymakers and their European counterparts subtly argue that Iran's previous treaty violations indicate a more sinister motive to subvert its neighbors and export its Islamic revolution.

.

China, Other Nations Split at North Korean Nuclear Talks
(Associated Press)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-09...oreachina_x.htm

Thursday, September 29
A split between China and the four other countries that negotiated with North Korea on scrapping its nuclear arms could doom efforts to come up with a resolution welcoming the North's decision at a meeting of the U.N. nuclear agency, diplomats said Thursday.

The diplomats, who requested anonymity in exchange for discussing the confidential details of the dispute over a North Korean resolution, said China wanted it to mention a light-water nuclear reactor and other commitments made to the North in exchange for its decision — something the four other nations opposed.

North Korea: This Deal Isn't Done
(Moon Ihlwan, BusinessWeek)
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas..._5329_db087.htm

Wednesday, September 28
To many North Korea watchers in Seoul, it was a U-turn made by the U.S. -- not by the unpredictable regime in Pyongyang -- that enabled a surprising deal on Sept. 19 aimed at eliminating North Korea's nuclear arsenal. And the accord reached in Beijing among six nations -- including China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea -- wasn't the breakthrough many depicted.

Indeed, the euphoria over détente was short-lived as Pyongyang resorted to its customary hard line within 24 hours, declaring that it would not give up its weapons until it received a light-water reactor. But the pact wasn't a disaster, either. The reason: The deal covered only principles and goals, with all major differences over details left for future wrangling.

Russia Test-Launches Ballistic Missile
(Associated Press)
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wo...world-headlines

Tuesday, September 2005
Russia successfully test-launched a newly-developed intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday, the navy said. The Bulava, a solid fuel missile, blasted off from the nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy in the White Sea and hit its designated target in the far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, chief naval spokesman Capt. Igor Dygalo said in a statement.

Russia's navy is to get two newly equipped nuclear submarines in 2006, armed with the new Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles, the navy commander said in April. The missiles have a range of 5,000 miles and are in the midst of a three-year testing program.

MISSILE NEWS

- South Korea To Develop New Missile
http://www.spacewar.com/news/missiles-05zzzzf.html

Seoul (AFP) Sep 30, 2005 - South Korea is developing a new surface-to-air missile to replace its outdated, US-made Hawk missiles, a state-run defense research institute said Friday.

-----------------
NON PROLIFERATION

- Russia Converts Half Its Weapons-Grade Uranium As Part Of Accord With US
http://www.spacewar.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-05zzl.html

Washington (AFP) Oct 01, 2005 - Russia has converted half of its weapons-grade uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants in the United States, a development hailed on Friday by both governments as an importmant "milestone" under a non-proliferation agreement.

- Nobel Peace Prize Tipped To Go To Anti-Nuclear Weapons Efforts
http://www.spacewar.com/news/nuclear-blackmarket-05zv.html

US Completes Deactivation Of Peacekeeper ICBMs
http://www.spacewar.com/news/icbm-05d.html

United Nations (AFP) Oct 03, 2005 - The United States announced Monday that it had completed the deactivation of its entire force of 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), each capable of carrying 10 nuclear warheads.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7502


October 4, 2005
Pleading Incompetence

by Gordon Prather
No one – including the Iranians at their (nonexistent) equivalent of our Los Alamos Laboratory – can make a nuclear weapon until they have managed to acquire multi-kilogram quantities of almost pure uranium-235, uranium-233, or plutonium-239.

For that reason, the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons required all signatories not already having nuclear weapons to conclude a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, with a view to preventing diversion of "source or special fissionable material" to the production of nuclear weapons.

"Source" material is natural uranium in any form. "Special fissionable" material includes plutonium-239 and "enriched" uranium, in any form.

Pursuant to a Safeguards Agreement, IAEA inspectors perform periodic on-site inspections and continuous on-site monitoring to verify that "declared" source and/or special fissionable materials are not diverted to a military purpose.

After the Gulf War, the IAEA Action Team – reporting directly to the UN Security Council – discovered that Iraq had had a multi-billion dollar "undeclared" (and unsuccessful) program to enrich uranium for military purposes.

(This Iraqi nuke program of the late 1980s had gone completely undetected by U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies. However, the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies did detect the nonexistent Iraqi nuke program of the late1990s.)

Hence the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement [.pdf], which provided IAEA inspectors much more authority, resulting in much greater transparency to nuclear programs and nuclear-related activities.

Iran signed an Additional Protocol in December 2003 and voluntarily agreed to abide by it, pending ratification by the Iranian parliament.

Iran's original Safeguards Agreement merely required the disclosure of information on new Iranian facilities which would be processing safeguarded nuclear materials a few months before the materials were actually introduced. The Additional Protocol requires disclosure of that design information as soon as Iranian authorities decide to construct, authorize construction, or modify such a facility.

Iran's Additional Protocol also provided for "voluntary reporting on imports and exports of nuclear material and exports of specified equipment and non-nuclear material."

As a result of their voluntary compliance with the reporting requirements of the Additional Protocol, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei was then able to report [.pdf] to the IAEA Board of Governors a year later that Iran had "failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, its processing, and its use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material had been processed and stored."

It should be noted that most of these failures were formally disputed by the Iranians as being subject to interpretation.

However resolved, ElBaradei was also able to report that within that year Iran had taken "corrective actions" with respect to most of those failures.

Finally, a few weeks ago ElBaradei reported that "since October 2003, good progress has been made in Iran's correction of the breaches" that had been discovered in its basic Safeguards Agreement "and in the Agency's ability to confirm certain aspects of Iran's current declarations" made under the Additional Protocol.

In fact, ElBaradei reported that the remaining issues under the Iranian Safeguards Agreement and its not-yet-ratified Additional Protocol "will be followed up as a routine safeguards implementation matter."

So there you have it. As of a few weeks ago, not only had Iran corrected the "breaches" that occurred before they signed the Additional Protocol in 2003, but those issues that had arisen since as a consequence of their voluntary adherence to the Additional Protocol were being routinely followed-up.

After more than two years of intrusive go-anywhere see-anything ask-anybody inspections under the Additional Protocol, the IAEA has yet to find any indications that there are, now, in Iran, any undeclared materials or activities that should have been declared, nor any indications that any declared materials have been diverted for a military purpose.

Wonderful!

The Additional Protocol concept was a success in its first serious application. The IAEA was now not only able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material, but also to provide some assurances of the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities.

So why did the IAEA Board then plead incompetence [.pdf], finding that ElBaradei's positive reports on Iran's Safeguarded programs had, nevertheless, resulted in an "absence of confidence" on the Board's part "that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes" and ought to be referred to a more competent authority "as a threat to international peace and security"?

Well, one thing seems certain: the Iranian parliament will never ratify those incompetents' Additional Protocol.

Proliferation News: 4 October 2005
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Iran Wants Unconditional Nuclear Talks With EU
(Reuters)
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1182219

Tuesday, October 4
Iran said on Tuesday it was willing to resume unconditional talks with the European Union over its nuclear program, which Washington says is a cover to make atomic bombs.

Talks between the European Union and Iran collapsed in August after Tehran restarted uranium conversion, suspended under a November 2004 deal with France, Britain and Germany.



Iran Attempts to Backtrack from Oil Supply Threat
(Gareth Smith, Financial Times - UK)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4bb2e3dc-33aa-11d...000e2511c8.html

Monday, October 3
Iran's presidential office yesterday tried to backtrack from an interview with president Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad in the Khaleej Times newspaper, which on Saturday quoted him as saying that Iran would withhold oil supplies if its nuclear programme was referred to the UN Security Council.

The interview added to the uncertainty surrounding Iran's strategy in the face of the International Atomic Energy Agency voting for referral to the UN at its next meeting in November.



U.S. Presses Russia to Halt Trade In Nuclear Technology With Iran
(Colum Lynch, Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5100301466.html

Tuesday, October 4
The Bush administration Monday tried to increase pressure on Russia to halt the supply of nuclear energy technology to Iran, citing a recent finding by a U.N. board that Tehran is in violation of its commitment to disclose its nuclear activities.

Stephen G. Rademaker, the acting U.S. assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, said governments needed to rethink their nuclear trade policies in light of the Sept. 24 decision by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The 35-member board declared Tehran in "noncompliance" with its obligations to report advances in its nuclear programs.



Pakistan, India Sign Agreement on Missile Test Alerts
(PakTribune)
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=121179

Monday, October 3
Pakistan and India Monday signed two agreements, including one on alerting each other in advance about surface-to-surface ballistic missile tests.

Foreign secretaries Riaz Mohammed Khan and Shyam Saran signed the pact on ballistic missiles as the two countries began comprehensive talks here aimed at further improving bilateral relations.



Venezuela to Start Nuclear Energy Projects
(Associated Press)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1128219510343

Monday, October 3
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Sunday his government is starting research into peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Chavez did not give details, but he has previously said he is interested in developing nuclear power like countries such as Iran and Brazil.

"Brazil has advanced in its nuclear research, nuclear power, and that's valid. Argentina too, and we also are starting to do research and projects in the area of nuclear energy, with peaceful aims of course," Chavez said during his weekly radio and TV program "Hello President."



New Start Needed on N.Korea Reactors, South Says
(Martin Nesirsky, Reuters)
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticl...KOREA-NORTH.xml

Sunday, October 2
A frozen project to give North Korea nuclear reactors should be scrapped to draw a line between that and any new deal to give such plants to Pyongyang if it gives up its atomic weapons, South Korea's foreign minister said.

In a weekend interview with Reuters, Ban Ki-moon said it was possible the project site -- where work has been suspended since late 2002 -- could be used if the North fulfils its part of a joint statement agreed at six-country arms talks last month.

An international consortium was founded a decade ago to implement a 1994 nuclear deal under which the North agreed to halt its nuclear programme in return for two light-water nuclear power plants at Sinpo in North Korea and other fuel supplies.



State Department Cuts Arms Control Bureau
(David Ruppe, Global Security Newswire)
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_9_30.html#37888BB9

Monday, October 3
The U.S. State Department this month quietly began implementing a major reorganization plan to eliminate its arms control and nonproliferation bureaus, despite a U.S. Senate hold on the plan.

An order eliminating the two bureaus and transferring their elements into a single bureau of international security and nonproliferation became “effective Sept. 13,” a department official said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links of Interest:
Midpoint Of The Successful Implementation Of The Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement Between The United States And Russia, Joint Statement from the US Departments of State and Energy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Federal Atomic Energy Agency of the Russian Federation, 30 September 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carnegie News:
Joseph Cirincione: On Wednesday, October 5 at 6:30pm, Director for Non-Proliferation Joseph Cirincione will deliver the keynote address at the Annual Banquet of the Harrisburg-Hershey Chapter of the Physicians for Social Responsibility in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/deadlymaps.cfm

Deadly Maps
The complete collection of maps from Carnegie's "Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Threats"

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_10/OCT-AgencyIran.asp

Agency Report Offers Mixed View on Iran

Paul Kerr

Pressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors to assess Iran’s cooperation with a three-year-old agency investigation, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei delivered a mixed assessment.

ElBaradei noted in a Sept. 2 report to the board that Tehran has cooperated by, for example, granting agency inspectors required access to Iranian nuclear-related facilities. But the report also pointed out that Iran has persistently lagged in providing the agency with information regarding the country’s nuclear activities.

ElBaradei had drafted the report at the board’s request after Iran in August ended its suspension of uranium-conversion activities at a facility near Isfahan. (See ACT, September 2005.) By doing so, Tehran violated a political agreement with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom to suspend its uranium-enrichment program while the two sides engaged in negotiations.

ElBaradei said that the IAEA’s ability to “verify the correctness and completeness” of Iran’s statements regarding its nuclear program “will be restricted” if Tehran does not take certain measures, such as providing the agency with documents and access to certain suspect facilities, beyond those legally required by the agency.

Indeed, the report provided few indications that the agency is significantly closer to resolving key outstanding issues regarding Tehran’s nuclear activities, particularly its gas centrifuge-based uranium-enrichment program. Although the report did not contain any evidence of previously unknown Iranian nuclear activities or of Iranian use of nuclear material for military purposes, it nevertheless stated that the IAEA is “still not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.”

Uranium-conversion facilities convert lightly processed uranium ore known as yellowcake into several uranium compounds, including uranium hexafluoride. Centrifuges enrich uranium by spinning uranium hexafluoride gas at very high speeds in order to increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope. This process can produce either low-enriched uranium (LEU) for civilian nuclear reactor fuel or highly enriched uranium (HEU), which can be used as fissile material in nuclear weapons.

According to the report, Iran has not yet produced any uranium tetrafluoride—the precursor compound for uranium hexafluoride—from the batch of yellowcake that it began to feed into the facility Aug. 8. However, Iran did produce 6,800 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride from 8,500 kilograms of uranium tetrafluoride that it had previously produced and placed under IAEA seal. A diplomatic source in Vienna close to the IAEA, however, told Arms Control Today that Iran continues to have trouble producing uranium hexafluoride suitable for enrichment.

The nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) permits states-parties to operate uranium-conversion facilities as long as they are monitored by the agency to ensure that they are not diverted to military use. The agency continues to monitor the Isfahan facility under such safeguards.

A Key Confirmation

The report noted that the IAEA has largely been able to resolve one outstanding issue concerning Tehran’s centrifuge program. The agency has determined that “most” HEU particles found in Iran by agency inspectors came from centrifuge components imported secretly from Pakistan via a proliferation network run by former Pakistani nuclear official Abdul Qadeer Khan.

The result did not come as a surprise. About a year ago, ElBaradei reported that the agency had come to similar preliminary conclusions. Moreover, the report cautioned that “it is not possible at this time…to establish a definite conclusion” regarding the origin of other HEU and LEU particles found in Iran. The report did not elaborate but said that more information about Iran’s centrifuge programs “could greatly contribute to the resolution” of these questions. The origin of the enriched uranium particles has long been a matter of interest because their presence suggests that Iran had either imported or produced undeclared enriched uranium. Iran has only admitted to enriching uranium to very low levels. However, the Vienna diplomat and a Department of State source said that, for all practical purposes, only the LEU issue remains unresolved. The U.S. official said that undeclared Iranian-produced LEU would likely only reveal previously concealed experiments on Tehran’s P-1 centrifuges, rather than more-advanced P-2 models.

The IAEA’s investigation of Iran’s efforts to obtain P-1 technology seems to be making less progress. Despite the agency’s requests, Iran has provided little additional information about its dealings with foreign intermediaries who provided Iran with centrifuge designs and related components in 1987 and again “around 1994.” Iran also has failed to provide the agency with adequate documentation of shipments of enrichment-related equipment that the country received during the mid-1990s.

Iran has explained its lack of relevant documentation by asserting that the country kept few records of such transactions at the time they were conducted. The report, however, seemed to contest this claim, stating that the IAEA’s investigation into the Khan network “indicates that Iran should have additional supporting documentation that could be useful.”

Both U.S. and IAEA officials have said that Iran’s failure to account fully for its centrifuge procurement activities may indicate that the government has pursued undisclosed centrifuge programs. U.S. officials have repeatedly suggested that the Iranian military is involved in the enrichment program.

Tehran also has not provided any further information about its more-advanced P-2 centrifuge program, the report said. The agency has long been concerned that Iran has conducted undisclosed work on such a centrifuge.

Interestingly, the IAEA also has asked Tehran for the first time “to provide additional details” about the government’s decision to begin its enrichment program in 1985, as well as the program’s progress through 1987. The report did not elaborate, but former IAEA Deputy Director General Pierre Goldschmidt seemed to indicate in a Sept.14 New York Times op-ed that the timing of Iran’s decision to begin the program suggests that Tehran planned to produce nuclear weapons.

“Iran has not provided the requested evidence on why its leadership decided in 1985, in the middle of the war against Iraq, to pursue a uranium-enrichment program when there was no short- or medium-term need to fuel any electrical nuclear power plant,” Goldschmidt wrote.

Other Issues

ElBaradei’s report also provided additional details about Iran’s operation of its Gchine uranium mine. The IAEA is continuing to investigate the “complex arrangements governing the past and current administration” of the mine and an associated plant to process uranium ore. Echoing a June oral report from Goldschmidt, the report stated that the agency is investigating why Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization conducted no work at the Gchine mine between 1993 and 2000 but worked instead at a less promising mine. Iranian officials have told the IAEA that the organization was conducting laboratory experiments on ore from the Gchine mine during that time.

Additionally, the report raised questions about an inexperienced Iranian company’s success in constructing a uranium-ore processing plant at the Gchine mine less than two years after Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization resumed operations there, apparently suggesting that another organization might have previously conducted still-undisclosed work on the project.

U.S. and European officials have told Arms Control Today that the lack of clarity surrounding the mine’s operation suggests that Iran’s military or an affiliated organization might have been working at the mine in an effort to obtain an independent uranium source.

On the other hand, ElBaradei’s report appears to have resolved questions over whether Iran has obtained beryllium, saying its efforts to do so had failed. U.S. officials have expressed concern that, if Tehran acquired beryllium, it could combine it with polonium, a radioisotope with limited civilian applications that Iran has attempted to produce to trigger a nuclear chain reaction in certain types of nuclear weapons. U.S. officials had indicated that the IAEA might have information that Iran had already obtained the material.

U.S. Ambassador Jackie Sanders said before the IAEA board last November that, although Iranian officials have claimed in the past that Iran never procured or worked with beryllium, “[w]e wonder whether the IAEA has found evidence suggesting otherwise.”

Additionally, the IAEA is still asking Iran to allow further inspections at two sites where Iran is suspected of having either worked with nuclear material or performing nuclear weapons-related work. Although agency inspectors have previously visited those sites, Iran has not allowed them to do so recently. Absent evidence that Tehran is conducting nuclear activities at these sites, the IAEA has limited authority to visit them because the sites are not subject to agency safeguards.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GJ06Df01.html

India woos West for nuclear energy
By Indrajit Basu

KOLKATA - The US Congress may still be undecided on whether to ratify the recent India-US agreement between President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for enabling transfer of nuclear technology and fuel to India, but Delhi seems to be already moving ahead to entice foreign investors to invest in the country's ambitious nuclear-power plans.

The Indian government is working on a policy to allow foreign direct investment (FDI) in the country's nuclear-power sector, which if finalized, would be a new area for FDI. As with the much-debated retail sector, nuclear power too is currently out of bounds for foreign investors.

In a controversial policy shift, the US president entered into an agreement on July 18 with the Indian prime minister, which,



subject to congressional approval, promised to change US laws so that nuclear-armed India gets from US - and willing other countries - help and cooperation for developing its civilian nuclear-power program. Beside the fact this sweeping new agreement is considered a diplomatic coup for India, it is also "a big step ahead" for the country's nuclear energy plans, and could open up the country's nuclear-power sector to foreign investments.

But there is still a big hurdle in the way. "It is contingent on whether Mr Bush can push it through the US Congress because even if the US president supports it, this is an issue of high-powered politics and there are other countries' views that could influence it," said Shebonti Ray Dadwal of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), a New Delhi-based strategic and security studies think tank. Indeed this agreement is not going to be easy for the US Congress to push through. Even as the agreement is under "a hard look", a Congressional Research Service - the public policy research arm of the United States Congress - report published in August said that if implemented, the agreement will contravene the control guidelines laid down by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). It fears that such a move would open the floodgates to nuclear proliferation and allow rogue counties outside the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and achieve complete nuclear disarmament) to build nuclear weapons with imported civilian nuclear technology. "And then there still is the problem of the NSG -The Nuclear Suppliers Group," Dadwal said. "Until now just a few of the 44-country NSG supports the thought, whereas many others are undecided."

Nevertheless, the agreement is also crucial for energy-starved India's nuclear-power plan, which it has been pursuing for the past 50 years but with little success. And this is why perhaps the country is even willing to dilute, at least for the time being, the importance of oil and gas in favor of nuclear technology and fuel for energy security. For instance on September 24 in Vienna, India voted on a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that requires Iran to subject its nuclear program to the scrutiny of the UN Security Council. Although Iran has officially announced that India's vote does not jeopardize the mutual diplomatic relationship, and more importantly the $21 billion Iran-India liquefied natural gas deal, critics say India's stance has "wrinkled" Indo-Iranian relations and could hamper India's access to Iran's oil and gas in future.

India of course is refuting that its Iran volte-face was a "sellout" to the US, which has allegedly been requesting India to vote against Iran with the carrot of the Bush-Singh nuclear agreement. But according to Walter Andersen, a former State Department official, the decision will certainly help in pushing the Bush-Singh agreement in the US Congress. And Ronen Sen, Indian ambassador to the US and a former Atomic Energy Commission member, feels that geopolitics aside: "Oil and gas are finite resources. Nuclear energy is not. Cutting-edge research in nuclear sciences and non-conventional energy like fuel cell and bio-fuels is not taking place in Iran or Saudi Arabia." Sen added that "Every major hydrocarbon resource is some distance from India and poses great challenges and difficulties in bringing it home." In other words, Sen suggests that between oil and gas and nuclear energy, the later should be the country's priority.

Admittedly, given the current state of its nuclear-power capabilities, Western help in terms of technology and fuel has become imperative for India. Despite attaining nuclear capabilities since the mid-1950s, when India built its first nuclear reactor to develop nuclear energy for peaceful activities, the country has not been able to achieve much in terms of nuclear-power generation. For instance, of the total 116,000 megawatts (MW) of installed thermal, hydro and a bit of unconventional power generation capacity, nuclear power accounts for only about 3,300 MW (2.8%). One of the main reasons for the slow growth of nuclear power is that between 1974 and 1998 India changed tracks several times to utilize its nuclear capabilities to develop nuclear arms and emerge as one of the world's six nuclear powers, which attracted world ire resulting in a ban in transfer of technology and help. Critics say that although India did manage to develop indigenous nuclear-power generation capability, much of that generation capacity is "technologically weak" and thus, "commercially unviable".

"But more than the technological problems, India's indigenous nuclear-power program faces a bigger problem of limited availability of nuclear fuel," IDSA's Dadwal said. "Therefore, assuming that it passes the US Congress, the Bush-Singh agreement would enable India the crucial access to cutting-edge technology and fuel. In fact prior to this agreement India's plan of generating 20,000 MW of nuclear power in 20 years looked like a dream. But suddenly this agreement not only makes that target achievable, India can also look forward to be more ambitious."

According to experts, such as the World Nuclear Association, China and India offer the largest potential for nuclear power globally. China currently has a combined capacity of 6,500 MW, and like India, China's nuclear-power generation is just a fraction (about 2%) of its total power generation. But China has reportedly already invited international tenders for 4,000 MW this year that could cost US$1.5 billion and plans to pump in more than $50 billion investment in its nuclear-power sector over the next 30 years. India's prime minister has suggested that following the Bush agreement, India could add 30,000 to 40,000 MW of nuclear capacity over the next 20 to 30 years, and that would still be a fraction of its projected requirements 30 years hence.

Small wonder then that global nuclear-power companies are already setting their sights on India. Reports say that nuclear power giants such as Westinghouse of the US, French companies Areva and EdF, Russia's AtomStroyExpor and US-based Exelon Corp and GE Energy (a part of General Electric) have started pitching for Indian power projects.

Moreover some of the NSG countries, such as Germany and Canada, that were unable to make their presence felt in India - mainly because the US insisted that nuclear cooperation with non-NPT countries should be discouraged - have now started looking at India too. The Canadian government announced last week that it has "agreed to allow the supply of nuclear-related, dual-use items to Indian civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, with appropriate assurances consistent with the requirements of the Nuclear Suppliers Group Dual Use Guidelines".

Indrajit Basu is a Kolkata-based equity-analyst-turned-journalist with more than 12 years of experience in business/finance and technology journalism. Besides writing for Asia Times Online, he also writes for US-based publications, as well as IT companies.

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing .)

China Aims To Operate 'Super-Efficient' Nuclear Reactor In 2010
http://www.spacewar.com/news/nuclear-civil-05zzz.html

Beijing (AFP) Oct 05, 2005 - Chinese scientists aim to have a "super-efficient" nuclear reactor in 2010 that will relieve China's uranium supply problems, as part of a national plan to boost power generation, state media said Wednesday.

Iran Will Resume Nuclear Talks, But Questions Persist: IAEA Chief
http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zzzzd.html

Moscow (AFP) Oct 05, 2005 - Iran is likely to resume talks on its nuclear program with three EU countries soon but must still answer questions to allay fears it wants to build nuclear weapons, the UN nuclear watchdog said Wednesday.


Iran's tough nuclear stance causes domestic jitters
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051005120417.0msmcorx.html

------------

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20051...21400-6491r.htm


Army takes control of Iran nukes
By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 5, 2005


Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has placed the military firmly in control of his nation's nuclear program, undercutting his government's claim that the program is intended for civilian use, according to a leading opposition group.
Leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the force created specifically to defend the 1979 Islamic revolution, now dominate Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the country's top foreign policy-making body under the constitution.
Mr. Ahmadinejad, a little-known former mayor of Tehran before his surprise election in July, is a former IRGC commander, as is new council Secretary-General Ali Larijani, who has taken the lead in negotiations about Iran's nuclear programs.
Revolutionary Guard commanders also have taken charge of the council's internal security, strategy and political posts, according to a report issued by the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran. A Revolutionary Guard veteran even serves as the council's press spokesman.
"The military under the new president is firmly in control of the nuclear program and the nuclear negotiations with the United Nations and the West," said Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the NCRI's foreign affairs committee, in a telephone interview yesterday.
The personnel changes "make it less and less credible that Iran is pursuing nuclear programs for peaceful uses," he said.
The report, which also tracks Iran's extensive nuclear infrastructure and technical programs, charges that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei has turned to IRGC personnel in order to "eliminate all bureaucratic and political obstacles to obtaining nuclear weapons."
Iran, which claims the right to pursue a civilian nuclear program to meet its domestic energy needs, is in intense negotiations with European Union powers France, Britain and Germany over the fate of its nuclear programs.
The Bush administration is deeply skeptical of Tehran's ambitions. The board of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency last month threatened to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions if it does not allow tight international oversight of its programs.
The NCRI is the political arm of the People's Mujahadeen, a secular Iranian bloc that broke violently with the Islamic leaders of the revolution shortly after the ouster of the U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The opposition group has had a checkered and at times contradictory role. Branded a terrorist group by U.S. and European governments, it also has proven to be the single best intelligence source on Iran's clandestine nuclear programs, exposing in recent years massive research and testing sites inside Iran unknown to U.N. and Western monitors.
But other analysts also have reported a wave of senior appointments for Iran's military, especially from within the more ideological forces under the direct control of the ruling Islamic clerics.
Houchang Hassan-Yari, a political scientist at the Royal Military College of Canada, noted in a recent analysis that current and former members of the IRGC now can be found throughout Iran's political and administrative bureaucracy, from lawmakers in parliament to mayors, university officials and even managers of some of Iran's biggest business concerns.
The corps is "on the verge of being transformed from a junior player in the country's military defense to a key factor in the country's military and security doctrine -- a rise that could come at the [traditional] army's expense," he noted.
Bill Samii, an Iranian analyst for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, said a key factor in Mr. Ahmadinejad's surprise presidential election was the support of the Basij Resistance Force, a paramilitary force with extensive links to the Revolutionary Guards Corps.
The new president, with virtually no experience in foreign affairs when he was elected, named a senior Basij leader as a top adviser just after assuming office in August.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3151006,00.html



Iran warns Israel: Don't attack us

Speaker of the Iranian parliament tells London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat, ‘Our goal is to establish trust with world and express our true intentions to utilize our nuclear energy to achieve peace; we in Iran will never yield to the arrogance of our enemies’
Roee Nahmias

Iranian parliament speaker Ghulam Ali Haddad-Adel warned Israel against "folly that would lead it to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities," London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat reported.


"If Israel realizes its threats and strikes our nuclear facilities, as happened in Iraq in 1981, we'll teach her a lesson she will never forget," the official warned following his recent meeting with Syrian president Bashar Assad in Damascus.

Nuclear Power

President: Iran willing to share nukes / Associated Press

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran willing to provide other Islamic nations with nuclear technology. Iran has said it is determined to pursue its nuclear program to process uranium and produce energy, despite European attempts to limit it

Haddad-Adel added, “Our goal is to establish trust with the world and express our true intentions to utilize our nuclear energy to achieve peace. In the past two years more than 1,200 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have visited Iran, but they did not find any proof indicating that we are planning to direct our nuclear plan toward producing military weapons.”

'Atomic energy for peaceful purposes'

According to Haddad-Adel, should the Iranian nuclear program be referred to the U.N. Security Council, in accordance with the recent IAEA decision, “we will regard this as certain pressure that is being applied on us. We in Iran will never yield to the arrogance of our enemies.”

Meanwhile, Iranian sources told al-Hayat that during his recent meeting with the Iranian parliament speaker Assad said the U.S.’s “plot” to isolate Syria and Iran has failed as “no one will be able to come between Tehran and Damascus.”

As to Iran’s nuclear program, an Iranian source said, “Assad supported Iran’s right to use atomic energy for peaceful purposes and denounced the U.S.’s attempt to prevent Iran from upholding this right when it permits Israel to posses weapons of mass destruction.”


(10.04.05, 17:02)

U.S. to Push Koreans On Nuclear Program
(Peter Baker and Glenn Kessler, Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5100401527.html

Wednesday, October 5
With the fragile framework of a nuclear agreement in hand, President Bush's envoys now plan to push North Korea to begin disclosing the extent and locations of its secret development programs right away to test the sincerity of Pyongyang's commitment to give up its pursuit of atomic weapons.

As they plot their next step after the surprise deal reached during the six-nation talks in Beijing last month, Bush and his advisers want to translate the pact's ambiguous language into a more concrete set of obligations, senior officials said. By pressing for tangible actions by Pyongyang, though, the officials acknowledge that they could aggravate the often-prickly North Koreans and jeopardize the precarious accord.

U.S. Policy Makers Weigh Options For Handling Iran
(Carla Anne Robbins, Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1128563479...N=wsjie/archive

Thursday, October 6
With President Bush's top advisers set to discuss U.S. policy toward Iran today, the State Department has circulated a briefing paper that proposes significantly expanding U.S. diplomatic contacts with Tehran's new hard-line government.

The idea is part of a list of incentives and punishments that U.S. officials are outlining as they consider ways to block Tehran's nuclear ambitions and encourage internal political change there, U.S. officials said.

Nuclear Chief Offers a Nonproliferation Plan: Promise Them Fuel
(David Holley, Los Angeles Times)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...headlines-world

Thursday, October 6
The most effective way to stop the spread of nuclear weapons is for the international community to guarantee the supply of nuclear fuel to countries that agree not to produce it themselves, the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency said Wednesday.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, said that approach would undercut the argument of countries such as Iran that acquiring the ability to produce their own nuclear fuel is the only way to shield a civilian energy industry from disruptions in supply.

U.K., France, U.S.: No Central Asia Nukes
(Nick Wadhams, Associated Press)
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireSt...TC-RSSFeeds0312

Tuesday, October 4
The U.N. ambassadors of Britain, France and the United States have sent a letter emphasizing their continued opposition to a proposal to create a nuclear-weapons free zone in Central Asia, according to a copy obtained Tuesday. The letter, dated Monday and sent to the U.N. ambassadors of the five Central Asian nations, says that a draft treaty to create the zone still does not address their biggest concerns and that further discussions are needed. It calls for consultations "very soon."

The United States previously expressed concern that the treaty could ban transit by "nuclear powered or nuclear-capable ships and aircraft." The apparent fear is that the United States does not want to limit military movement through the region, which lies along key routes to Afghanistan and Iran, which the United States claims is developing nuclear weapons. The United States also has forces stationed in Kyrgyzstan.

Preventing a Nuclear Katrina
(Daryl G. Kimball, Arms Control Association - Opinion)
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_10/focus.asp

October 2005
Surveying the devastation the day after Hurricane Katrina struck Gulf Coast towns and cities, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour ® likened the storm force to a nuclear attack. “I can only imagine this is what Hiroshima looked like 60 years ago,” he told reporters. Not quite, Governor.

The blast, fire, and radiation effects of the 15-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945 and injured still more. A similar weapon used today against a major city would wreak similar or even more extensive death and damage. The nation must and will help the greater New Orleans region recover from the worst U.S. natural disaster in decades, but there is no evacuation or post-disaster triage plan sufficient to deal with a terrorist attack with even a “small” nuclear weapon, let alone a conflict between states involving nuclear weapons.

Iran Must Heed the Call
(Japan Times - Editorial)
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted....d20051006a1.htm

Thursday, October 6
The 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) late last month adopted a resolution that criticized Iran's response over its nuclear development problem and, although postponing referral to the United Nations Security Council, warned that the issue might be referred in the future. The situation gives cause for concern because Iran's immediate rejection of the resolution underlines the possibility that it might start full-scale uranium-enrichment activities any time.

The resolution recognized that Iran has violated the safeguards agreement and called into question the Iranian position that its nuclear development program is purely for peaceful purposes. Iran should seriously pay heed to this resolution and again search for a way to a diplomatic solution so that a decision to refer the issue to the Security Council can be avoided at the next IAEA board of governors meeting in November. Iran should refrain from raising tensions in the international community by spreading suspicions that its ultimate aim is to develop nuclear weapons.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/8o/IAEA%20Wins%...l%20Hoffman.htm


IAEA Wins Nobel Peace Prize: Only giving it to the DOE, the NRC, or the nuclear industry itself would be more ridiculous!

By Russell Hoffman

Al-Jazeerah, October 8, 2005



The International Atomic Energy Agency, promoters of nuclear power (which are nothing more than slow nuclear weapons) has actually won the Nobel Peace Prize this year (2005).

The only more inappropriate winners would be the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) or the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), or perhaps the nuclear industry itself.

This award amounts to a wholehearted endorsement of nuclear power by the Nobel Prize Committee. It amounts to a wholehearted endorsement of the lie that at most a few thousand people have died because of Chernobyl, when in fact the deaths are surely 10 or 100 times higher than the IAEA ever would admit. And the lie that nobody died because of Three Mile Island. And the lie that nobody died because of EVERY nuclear power plant around the world -- which together are creating about 50 NEW tons of nuclear waste every day, which the IAEA endorses and supports and supposedly regulates. Their idea of regulation is to allow as much nuclear material to be released into the environment as is necessary to continue the PROFITABLE operation of nuclear power plants! (This policy even has a technical term: ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable).)

This award by the Nobel Committee amounts to an endorsement of the continued creation of ever-increasing piles of dangerous, terrorist-targeted nuclear waste from nuclear power plants, whose byproduct is the very same bomb material the IAEA claims to be opposing, and has hoodwinked the world into thinking it is stopping the proliferation of.

This is an endorsement of genocide. This is an endorsement of dishonesty. This is an endorsement of the routine radioactive pollution of our environment by the nuclear industry. This is an endorsement of the destruction of the human genome. This is an endorsement of self-serving, secretive committees of insiders making vital decisions which affect us all.

This is a shame.

Russell Hoffman is a Concerned Citizen, Carlsbad, CA, USA.

The author, an independent researcher and educational software developer, has studied nuclear weapons and nuclear power for more thirty years. His essays are currently distributed via email and on the web, and have also been published by the North County Times, CounterPunch, Nuclear Monitor, TruthOut, and elsewhere. His essays have also been published in Australia, Brazil, India, Pakistan, Spain, etc.. A partial collection of essays and related programs written by this author is shown below:

Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/n...nw/nuke_war.htm

POISON FIRE USA: An animated history of major nuclear activities in the continental United States: www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf

How does a nuclear power plant work? Animations of PWRs and BWRs: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/n...actor_parts.swf

Internet Glossary of Nuclear Terminology / "The Demon Hot Atom": http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/index.htm

SHUT SAN ONOFRE!: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm

STOP CASSINI web site: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/index.htm

NO NUKES IN SPACE: (FLASH animation): http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.swf

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?Stor...07-025548-7517r

Walker's World: The Nobel Curse
By Martin Walker
UPI Editor
Published October 7, 2005


WASHINGTON -- One must hope for the best, but it is hard not to fear the worst for the cause of controlling nuclear weapons now that the International Atomic Energy Agency has fallen under the curse that seems to attend so many winners of the Nobel Peace Prize since it was first awarded to commemorate the man who got rich by inventing dynamite back in 1901.

This year's award to Mohamed El-Baradei and the IAEA recognizes the work they have out into monitoring Iran's nuclear ambitions. It may also be a little tweak of President George Bush's tail feathers, since Baradei stoutly refused to give the Bush administration the verdict against Iraq that was sought before the war. That, after all, seems to have been the motive behind the 2002 award to former President Jimmy Carter.


It is all very well to use the Peace Prize to make a political point, or to recognize the Iran human rights activist Shirin Ebadi as they did in 2003, or to hail last year the founder of Africa's Green Belt movement, Wangari Maathai. But it is getting repetitive to continue awarding the Peace Prize to the United Nations and its various agencies -- like this year's prize.

No fewer than 15 of the Peace Prizes since 1945 have gone to the U.N. or its agencies or its staff, often with unhappy consequences. Kofi Annan won the prize in 2001, a time when the Oil for Food scandal was festering in secret bank accounts in the world's choicer tax havens. The U.N. Peacekeeping Forces, the Blue Helmets, won the prize in 1988, on the eve of the decade in which they were fail so wretchedly in the Balkans. The International Labor Organization won the prize in 1969, about the last time when the advanced industrial nations of Europe and North American could claim to be enjoying full employment.

In addition to those cited already, the U.N.'s laureates are:

-- The Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 1981 and in 1954,

-- France's Rene Cassim, father of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, in 1968;

-- The U.N. International Children's Fund (UNICEF) in 1965;

-- Dag Hammarskjold of Sweden, U.N. secretary-general (awarded posthumously) in 1961;

-- Britain's Philip Noel-Baker, who helped found the League of Nations and the U.N., in 1959;

-- Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson, for helping resolve the Suez conflict, in 1957;

-- France's Leon Jouhaux, a labor leader who helped found the ILO in 1919 and was a French delegate to the U.N. General Assembly, in 1953;

-- American, Ralph Bunche, U.N. mediator in Palestine, in 1950;

-- Britain's Lord Boyd-Orr, founding director general of the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, in 1949;

-- American Cordell Hull, former U.S. secretary of state who helped found the U.N., in 1945.

These awards to the U.N. are all very well, if one approves of international civil servants getting very large sums of money for doing what they are paid for professionally. And the Nobel Peace Prize committee did just the same for the old League of Nations, whose luminaries or institutions were awarded five of the prizes between 1919 and 1939 (and there were five years when no award was made). They got nine, if one includes the Nansen passport system for stateless people and the parallel 'Society of Nations.'

And between 1901 and 1914, the worthies of the International Peace Bureau based in Switzerland won six peace prizes. And in 1974, having survived two world wars, the League of Nations, a Cold War, and the coming of the UN, the International Peace Bureau was still in there fighting, and shared a Peace Prize in 1974 for its President, Sean MacBride, better known in his youth to the forces of law and order in Dublin and London as a senior officer of the Irish Republican Army

Perhaps, as with Israel's Menachem Begin or Dr. Henry Kissinger, MacBride's prize was awarded for conversion to more peaceful paths. More likely, it was the longevity of the Peace Bureau that did it. They do love their institutions, the Norwegians who sit in the committee that decides the prizes. They also like international law, and it seems a safe bet that the new International Criminal Court will be getting the fat check from Oslo in the foreseeable future -- and probably all the faster because the Bush administration refuses to join it.

There is something rather sad about the blasted hopes that all these Peace Prizes represent, the disappointments and the disillusion and the deep frustration of well-meaning people at the stubborn refusal of poor, flawed humanity to be reasonable and sit down and resolve their differences through compromise and the rule of international law. It goes against all logic that people and nations should resort so often to war when we all know how uncontrollable the violence almost inevitably becomes -- witness the bloody aftermath of the Iraq war. And yet war is such a constant in human affairs that we might almost call it endemic, coded into our genes.

The British economist and humanist Norman Angell, another Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, made a global reputation (after working as a ditch-digger in the American West and then as a reporter in St Louis) for arguing that war had become quite obsolete in the modern world, that the great industrial powers were far too inter-dependent ever to resort to violence, and if the politicians dared and generals dared to try, then the bankers and industrialists and the workers would prevent them. His book, "The Great Illusion," was published just four years before the outbreak of World War I.

It is in this rather unfortunate sense that there seems to be some kind of curse on the Peace Prize, or at least on many of its recipients. Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin won it, along with Shimon Peres, in 1994. Rabin was assassinated, Arafat is dead and not greatly mourned, and while Peres is happily still with us, that is more than can be said for the abortive Oslo peace process their Nobel prize rewarded.

MIkhail Gorbachev got his prize in 1990, just before the collapse of the country he was trying to reform. In 1976, the Belfast Women for Peace got the prize, without much impact on the long terrorist campaign of the IRA, and while John Hume and David Trimble were recognized for the work in finally bringing about the Northern Ireland cease fire, it was but a prelude to Trimble's political eclipse. It is not as though the Peace Prize conveys much protection; Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi was the laureate in 1991, and has barely been out of house arrest since.

We had better pass over without comment the most infamous award of all, the 1973 Peace Prize to Dr. Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, supposedly for their efforts in trying to resolve the Vietnam War. Saigon fell 18 months later; the curse of Nobel strikes again.

Let's hope it spares this year's winners, for if the curse is to make yet again a mockery of the peace laureate system and the IAEA falls into disrepute or fails to do its job of keeping the nuclear age under some kind of organized supervision, then the price of failure could be very high indeed. And right now, caught between Iran's proven record of nuclear deception on the one hand, and Israel's fear for its existence and America's mistrust on Tehran on the other, the IAEA is in one of the hottest seats on the planet, trying to control a explosive that make Alfred Nobel's dynamite look like kitchen match.

- British Intelligence Report Shows Scale Of 'Nuclear Supermarket'
http://www.spacewar.com/news/nuclear-blackmarket-05zw.html

London (AFP) Oct 08 - British intelligence has identified more than 350 companies, university departments and government organisations in eight countries seeking to acquire technology or materials for weapons of mass destruction, a report said Saturday.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7574

October 11, 2005
Doing Bush's Bidding

by Gordon Prather
The Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) begins by affirming "that all parties to the treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for – and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other states to – the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes."

But the NPT requires all signatories not already having nuclear weapons to conclude a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with a view to preventing diversion of "source or special fissionable material" to the production of nuclear weapons.

Article 28 of the agreement between Iran and the IAEA "for the application of safeguards in connection with the treaty" says,

"The objective of the safeguards procedures set forth in this part of the agreement is the timely detection of diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities to the manufacture of nuclear weapons or of other nuclear explosive devices or for purposes unknown, and deterrence of such diversion by the risk of early detection."

Accordingly, the director-general and his designated inspectors "shall have access at all times to all places" as necessary "to account for [safeguarded] source and special fissionable materials" and "to determine whether there is compliance with the undertaking against use in furtherance of any military purpose."

When IAEA inspectors do determine that safeguarded materials have been used "in furtherance of any military purpose," they shall report such noncompliance to the director-general, who shall thereupon transmit the report to the Board of Governors.

Then, according to the IAEA Statute,

"If the Board, upon examination of relevant information reported to it by the director-general, finds that the Agency is not able to verify that there has been no diversion of nuclear material required to be safeguarded under this agreement, to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, it may make the reports provided for in paragraph C of Article XII of the Statute of the Agency."

But more than a year ago, ElBaradei reported to the Board that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

How then to explain the resolution [.pdf] adopted by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Sept. 24 with respect to implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran?

After recalling that "nothing in the treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights of all the parties to the treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination," the Board then proceeds to discriminate.

It calls on Iran "to observe fully its commitments," voluntarily made to the Brits, the French, and the Germans, for the duration of the Paris Agreement negotiations – to which the IAEA is not a party – "and to return to the negotiating process that has made good progress in the last two years."

Good progress?

Who says?

The aforesaid Paris Agreement also begins with the Brits-French-Germans recognizing "Iran's rights under the NPT exercised in conformity with its obligations under the treaty, without discrimination."

At a meeting in March 2005, whereupon both parties were to make preliminary proposals as to how each side was to provide "objective guarantees" to the other, the Iranians made their proposal [.pdf], but the Brits-French-Germans didn't.

So the Iranians offered to give them until June, perhaps July.

But Iran made it clear that any attempt to turn their voluntary suspension of uranium-enrichment activities into a cessation or long-term suspension would be "incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement and therefore unacceptable to Iran."

When a Brit-French-German proposal had still not been received by late July, the Iranians informed the IAEA that they would be resuming uranium conversion at Isfahan as soon as the IAEA was prepared to monitor their activities.

Thereupon the Brits-French-Germans finally did make a proposal [.pdf], in which they required Iran – among other things – "not to pursue fuel-cycle activities other than the construction and operation of light-water power and research reactors."

So what did the IAEA Board do? Basically, they urged Iran to accept the Brits-French-Germans on their offer – or else!

Even though the IAEA Board would thereby essentially be requiring Iran to forfeit its "inalienable" rights, guaranteed under the NPT, "to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials, and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy"?

Well, that's what Bush and the Israelis have been demanding.

Gold Medal Inspector
(Carnegie Analysis, Joseph Cirincione)
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/publi...a=view&id=17566

Tuesday, October 11
Newly-minted Nobel Laureate Mohamed ElBaradei has been a resolute non-proliferation proponent. The Nobel Peace Prize is a vote of confidence in his independent voice and the vital role inspections play in verifying compliance with non-proliferation commitments. During his tenure the IAEA has toughened its inspection regime and he has advanced thoughtful proposals for reforming the nuclear fuel cycle to prevent nations from creeping up to the edge of nuclear weapon status.

The award may also reflect the critical efforts he and the IAEA undertook during the build-up to the war in Iraq. Though belittled at the time by some officials, UN intelligence proved more accurate than U.S. intelligence. The IAEA was just weeks away from certifying that Iraq had not reconstituted a nuclear weapons program--the chief justification for the invasion. We present below excerpts from the Carnegie study, WMD in Iraq, detailing the IAEA findings presented to the UN Security Council before the war.

We are delighted that the Director-General will deliver his first major address after receiving the Nobel Prize to the Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference on November 7.

Nuclear Watchdog and Its Chief Receive 2005 Nobel Peace Prize
(Carla Anne Robbins, Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1128675875...N=wsjie/archive

Saturday, October 8
The United Nations nuclear watchdog and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, were awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize for their often-Sisyphean efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

The Nobel committee said the prize was being given at a time "when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread both to states and terrorist groups" and as a way to "underline that this threat must be met through the broadest international cooperation."

The Nobel Goes Nuclear
(Henry Sokolski, Wall Street Journal - Opinion)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1128900233...N=wsjie/archive

Monday, October 10
In the usual Washington way, it took journalists less than an hour once Mohamed ElBaradei's and the International Atomic Energy Agency's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize was announced to ferret out just who should feel most diminished or insulted. Their favorite answer -- judging from the news inquiries asking me to slam the award -- was the Bush administration, particularly the officials who tried to block Mr. ElBaradei's re-election this spring.

If the award is no more than the latest stage of a political grudge match between Vienna and Washington, though, it is hardly worth much. The Nobel Committee, after all, gave the award not just to Mr. ElBaradei, but for the "incalculable importance" of the IAEA's "efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes." Should we be so cynical to believe that there is nothing to this?

The short answer is "no" -- on two counts. First, the Nobel to the IAEA and Mr. ElBaradei clearly reflects a growing thirst for leadership in restricting the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities in a country-neutral fashion. Properly interpreted and enforced, international nuclear rules such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the IAEA nuclear safeguards system can go a long way in accomplishing this.

Under Rice, Powell's Policies Are Reborn
(Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...l=la-home-world

Tuesday, October 11
For four years, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his team faced off against administration hawks on one foreign policy issue after another, and usually went down in defeat.

These days, his successor, Condoleezza Rice, is pushing nearly identical positions, and almost always winning. An administration that was criticized in the first term for an assertive, go-it-alone approach has reversed ground again and again, joining multinational efforts to keep nuclear arms from North Korea and Iran, mending ties with Europe, and softening a hard line on the United Nations and International Criminal Court.

Iran Must Obey Rules on Nuclear Program: Blair
(Reuters)
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....&archived=False

Tuesday, October 11
Iran must obey international rules over its nuclear program and should not doubt the will of the international community to ensure it does so, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Tuesday.

Blair, due to hold talks on Iran soon with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Britain and the United States would continue to put pressure on Iran over its nuclear activities, which Washington says -- and Iran denies -- are a cover for making atomic bombs.

"The position of Europe and America has been the same on this. We will continue the pressure," Blair told a news conference.

Argentina: Venezuela Sought Nuclear Info
(Oscar Serrat, Associated Press)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5101001759.html

Monday, October 10
Venezuela's government has asked Argentina about the possibility of providing technical expertise to help develop nuclear energy in Venezuela for peaceful purposes, officials said Monday. Cabinet Chief Alberto Fernandez said a delegation from the Venezuelan state oil firm Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. had inquired about the possibility.

Argentina is one of the leading Latin American nations in nuclear power generation for peaceful purposes, and the two countries have signed a series of energy accords that mark close ties between two left-leaning leaders, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Argentine President Nestor Kirchner.

Japan's Plutonium Reprocessing Dilemma
(Shinichi Ogawa and Michael Schiffer, Arms Control Today)
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_10/Oct-Japan.asp

October 2005
Ever since it was attacked with nuclear weapons six decades ago, Japan has been at the forefront of international nonproliferation efforts. Yet, as the world has focused recently on the dangers posed by some elements of the civilian nuclear power industry, Japan has found itself in the crosshairs of proliferation concerns.

The international community has focused particularly on Japan’s planned plutonium reprocessing facility in Rokkasho-mura, which is scheduled to begin operating as early as July 2006. It would be the first active, civilian reprocessing facility in a non-nuclear-weapon state. It would also be one of the first and largest of such facilities to come online since President George W. Bush and Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), called for limits on the construction of new plutonium reprocessing or uranium-enrichment facilities. It would be the first active, civilian reprocessing facility in a non-nuclear-weapon state. These facilities can be used to develop nuclear fuel for civilian nuclear plants but also can provide the essential fissile material for nuclear weapons.