 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
2/6/12 |
 |
||||||||
|
 |
Home / Projects & Publications / News |
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
RANSAC Nuclear News, May 28, 2003 Compiled By: Lauren Arestie A. Cooperative Threat Reduction
 A. Cooperative Threat Reduction 1. Mayak's Plutonium Storage Facility Expected to Be Completed by Year's End (excerpted) After ever-shifting deadlines, the Mayak Fissile Materials Storage facility - one of the longest-running projects sponsored by the Cooperative Threat Reduction, or CTR - is scheduled to be "completed" by the end of 2003, US government sources and Russian engineers working on the facility said this week in interviews. By "completed" the officials did not mean the facility would be entirely ready to receive all 50,000 tons of weapons-grade plutonium from 12,500 decommissioned warheads it is being constructed to store. But they were optimistic that most of the work would be done, leaving only security systems checks before the site is ready to function, said one of Russia's chief engineers working on the project, who spoke with Bellona Web on the condition of anonymity, in a telephone interview from Ozersk, Mayak's home town. "Everything is fine here, and everything is going according to plan, and we anticipate [the site] will be completed this year," said the engineer, a subcontractor for American construction giant Bechtel, which has been CTR's primary contractor on the facility. "We are following a strict plan," the engineer added. The position of the US official and Russian officials has changed places in recent interviews about the forecasts for the completion of the Mayak facility. Last year, US Government officials were remarkably more optimistic, and one senior CTR official told Bellona Web at that time that the facility would be completed by November 2002. But this year, they are far more cautious in their estimates. The Russian side - as did the anonymous Bechtel engineer - offered brighter projections. According to one US official "the Russians will tell you this project will be completed a year earlier than scheduled." The 10-year-long, $400-million construction of the plutonium facility - which will hold around 40% of Russia's weapons-grade plutonium stockpiles, depending on whose estimates one believes - was, according to another US Government official, "CTR's original effort in Russia to secure nuclear materials" under the decade-old program, also known as the Nunn-Lugar act, for its co-authors Senator Richard Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn. But the Mayak project has also been beset during those ten years with political, bureaucratic and financial setbacks, both from the Russian and American sides, that at times appeared insurmountable. Its completion, therefore, will represent a milestone in US-Russian cooperation in literally burying the remnants of the Cold War. What these problems have been, however, no one on the American side will say - with or without attribution. As some officials put it, "We could tell you about the problems, but that would get us in trouble." However, one American official with a close knowledge of the project, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, was not so enthusiastic about the projected completion dates the Russians are batting about - or even what "completion" in this context would mean. "'By the end of the year' is the goal that the US and Russia have accepted for completion of the facility," said the US official, "but I would not hazard a guess at what 'completion' means - I can't even say what form it will take." One possible delay in the completion of the plutonium storage facility that some senior US government officials point to is what they say are continued access difficulties imposed by Russian officials on US inspectors wishing to visit the Mayak site. The US has repeatedly called for more effective bureaucracy to govern such inspections, and in March, the US Government's chief auditing body, the General Accounting Office, or GAO, issued a report saying Russia continues to bar US officials from many nuclear sites, despite a more liberal access agreement reached with Moscow in September 2001. But Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy, or Minatom, has not been cooperative, and Atomic Minister Alexander Rumyantsev responded to the GAO report with defiance. "As for access by representatives of other countries to our sites where nuclear materials are located, we will not show all sites," Alexander Rumyantsev said recently, according to the Associated Press. Rumyantsev said that the level of access Russia is providing to US officials would have been impossible during the Soviet era. As an example, he pointed to a visit in March by US Ambassador Alexander Vershbow to Snezhinsk, the Mayak nuclear reprocessing center in the Ural Mountains, where the Ambassador reviewed safety upgrades installed with CTR help. Minatom, which has provided more or less stable access to Mayak for the past decade, would not comment Monday on whether its stance on access to plutonium storage facilities had changed. Another possible delay, according to documents obtained from Russia's State Committee for Environmental Protection - which was disbanded under President Vladimir Putin - is an embarrassing work stoppage that occurred in 1998, when construction documentation and methods for the fissile storage facility project were found to be in conflict with Russian environmental legislation. The incident was solved, but it provoked a hail of criticism from Russian environmentalists - mostly aimed at Mayak, but which targeted CTR efforts as well. Yet another sticking point, according to Mayak's Deputy Director Alexander Demidov - who is the plant's point man for the warhead plutonium storage facility - is negotiations over security systems for the facility, about which he has complained to several Russia newspapers. According to media reports, Demidov has said that the Pentagon had not yet approved a monitoring system for radiation around the fissile materials storage facility - a system that Demidov said the Russians had been negotiating for two years without making headway. Clem Gaines of the Pentagon's Defense Threat Management Agency - CTR's on-the-ground operation - confirmed in a recent email interview that the Mayak fissile materials storage facility will be completed by the end of 2003, but would not say when the facility would be fully operational - presumably a reference to the apparently ongoing security systems negations. He refused to respond to further questions about delays in the project. Donald Hughes, Bechtel's vice president in Moscow, who is overseeing the contractor's obligations for the project, was, according to his secretary, not available for comment on the matter. And Bechtel's headquarters office in San Francisco deflected questions back to Moscow. [...] Return to Menu B. Multilateral Threat Reduction 1. Editorial: Dismantling Russia's Submarines WASHINGTON - A year ago, the Group of Eight industrialized countries launched an initiative known as the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. First agreed to at the summit meeting in Kananaskis, Canada, the Global Partnership for the first time brought G-8 members together as a coherent group committed to stopping weapons of mass destruction from leaking out to illicit markets and terrorists. The partnership's first goal is to work with Russia, and then with other countries around the globe. As an incentive to get financial support from all G-8 members, the Bush administration announced a "10 plus 10 over 10" commitment - the U.S. would spend $10 billion over 10 years, and the other G-8 members would match these funds with an additional $10 billion. As the next meeting of the G-8 approaches in Evian it is time to take stock of this initiative. When the G-8 members meet, will they have much progress to report? It seems unlikely. Buffeted by discord over the U.S. war in Iraq, the G-8 partners have had a hard time getting together in the past six months. The Global Partnership is drifting, just at a time when it is most urgent to keep nuclear, chemical and biological weapons out of the wrong hands. Repairing the damage cannot be achieved at the summit meeting alone. But the Global Partnership offers unique opportunities for cooperation that will go a long way to restoring the mutual confidence and good working relationship of the G-8 countries. Take, for example, the dismantling of Russian nuclear submarines, a top priority of President Vladimir Putin and other G-8 leaders, but an effort that has dragged over the past year. Russia has over 150 nuclear submarines that are no longer operational. The U.S., through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, is helping Russia dismantle its strategic ballistic missile submarines that are covered by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. However, most of Russia's outdated submarines are shorter-range attack vessels, more than 60 of which have not yet been dismantled. Destroying these submarines is an important security and environmental matter. Most still have nuclear fuel and nuclear waste on board and many are tied up at docks that are at best lightly guarded. Some are in such bad condition that they have sunk at pier-side, or have damaged reactor fuel that requires special handling. These submarines contain the raw materials of nuclear terrorism-highly enriched uranium to build nuclear warheads, and radiological materials to build "dirty bombs." They urgently need to be dismantled in an environmentally sound manner. Four elements of the dismantlement effort are now coming together. First, Norway and Japan are beginning pilot projects to dismantle Russian general-purpose submarines. Second, the United States has built the infrastructure at Russian shipyards for destroying strategic ballistic missile submarines, which can in turn be used to dismantle the nonstrategic attack submarines. Third, a joint program formed by the United States, Russia and Norway has brought more efficient cooperation on nonproliferation projects. And fourth, there is now an opportunity to use private financing for submarine dismantlement, so that Western governments and taxpayers need not foot the entire bill. This last trend is very much in line with the Bush Administration's greater reliance on the private sector. Russia now reprocesses reactor fuel from its submarines into fuel for nuclear power plants. The same spent fuel also could be processed into fuel for foreign customers, thus generating revenue that could be used to pay for further submarine dismantlement. At Evian, the G-8 should endorse these steps as a way not only to rid the world of aging nuclear submarines, but also as a model for destroying other weapons of mass destruction. Government projects from a number of countries can come together to restore mutual confidence and make good use of mutual resources. Most importantly, the private sector will take its place in project financing. As former Senator Sam Nunn has said: "Today we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe to secure nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." Here are some ways to help cooperation triumph over catastrophe. Return to Menu C. Strategic Arms Reduction 1. Russia Parliament OKs Nuclear Treaty MOSCOW - Russia's upper house of parliament on Wednesday ratified a landmark nuclear deal with the United States that slashes both nation's nuclear arsenals by two-thirds, giving the measure the final nod of approval it needed. Meeting behind closed doors, the Federation Council approved the measure by a 140-5 vote with two abstentions. The vote came days ahead of a U.S.-Russian presidential summit that Moscow is eager to see pass smoothly. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who negotiated the treaty during his last Russian summit with President Bush, lobbied hard for its ratification in both houses of parliament. The U.S. Senate approved the accord, formally called the Moscow Treaty, in March, but Russia's lower house of parliament, the State Duma, postponed its vote amid criticism of the U.S. war in Iraq. The Duma ratified the treaty earlier this month, leaving the Federation Council's approval a mere formality. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, who briefed the lawmakers ahead of the vote, said the agreement has "principle significance for guaranteeing the security of both nations," the Interfax news agency reported. The Moscow Treaty calls on Russia and the United States to cut their strategic nuclear arsenals by about two-thirds, to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads, by 2012. The treaty's supporters say it will allow Russia to retain its Soviet-built missiles equipped with multiple nuclear warheads, which form the core of the nation's nuclear arsenals and which were to be scrapped under the earlier START II arms reduction treaty. Russia never ratified that accord. They also note that Moscow would have had to decommission many of its aging nuclear missiles anyway. Opponents note the treaty allows each country to stockpile the warheads, which are to be taken off-duty, contrary to Russia's initial push for their destruction. The cash-strapped Russian military cannot afford to maintain nuclear arsenals on par with the United States. Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Federation Council, was quoted by Interfax as saying that the treaty fills "a legal vacuum in the sphere of strategic stability" left by Washington's decision to withdrawal last year from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to deploy a national missile defense shield. The treaty "also raises global security around the world," Margelov was quoted as saying. Russia has been trying to mend its rift with the United States over the war in Iraq, particularly ahead of the June 1 summit. With the treaty now ratified by both countries, Ivanov suggested a formal exchange of the ratification documents could be held during the Putin-Bush meeting in St. Petersburg, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. Return to Menu 2. Russian Foreign Minister Welcomes SOR Treaty Ratification MOSCOW - Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has welcomed the ratification of the Russian-US Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, SOR. The Wednesday decision of the Federation Council, the upper chamber of the Russian parliament, to ratify the Treaty, "meets Russian national security interests and opens a possibility for further co-operation on arms control between our country and the USA," he believes. The Treaty "is of a principal significance for ensuring Russia's security," the minister pointed out. The closed-door discussion with representatives of the Defence Ministry and the General Staff focused on issues of ensuring Russia's national security, he said. "I am satisfied to point out that our Senators have come to the conclusion that the SOR Treaty meets our national interests," Ivanov announced. He called the discussion in the chamber "very detailed". Ivanov confirmed that most probably the Russian and US presidents would be able to exchange ratification instruments during their forthcoming meeting in St.Petersburg on June 1st. Return to Menu 3. Editorial: The Treaty That Isn't On Friday, key committees of the Federation Council gave their support to a treaty signed with the United States - the Treaty of Moscow - according to which both American and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals are to be cut by approximately two-thirds by 2012. This would leave both countries with something in the neighborhood of 1,700-2,000 strategic nuclear warheads. The treaty is good from the point of view of improving relations with the United States. However, it is largely a formal gesture with little real impact. The nuclear arsenals of both countries have always been far too large, even in the Cold War era. Even when the Soviet Union and United States were mortal enemies that posed genuine threats to one another, it was clear that mutual deterrence did not require such a breathtakingly large plethora of instruments of mass slaughter, and in such a tremendous variety - after all, a single Russian nuclear-armed submarine has the capacity to destroy the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. Having such massive amounts of weapons lying about, primed and ready to go, was always, in an almost literal sense, overkill. There were several occasions during the Cold War era in which mutual paranoia and suspicion, combined with faulty or misinterpreted early-warning equipment, almost led to an accidental nuclear exchange. However, the current treaty - which is only a few pages long - is remarkably vague, so vague as to hardly be a treaty at all. For one thing, disarmament is to be done almost on a purely voluntary basis: Nothing is said about the rate of disarmament, verification, or just which weapons are to be scrapped and which retained. Moreover, there is nothing keeping either party from backing out at any time; that is, theoretically, one day prior to the deadline, the United States or Russia could simply say it had changed its mind. In other words, it's a treaty that really isn't one. The treaty is unlikely to mean much for other Russia or the United States. The stockpiles of both sides will still be immense, and they will still be targeted at each other. The People's Republic of China has only around 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and North Korea, if it goes (or has already gone) nuclear will have no more than two or three. India and Pakistan's nuclear weapons are pointed at each other, and there are no other nuclear powers that are in a position to threaten either Russia or the United States. Even with only 1,700 strategic nuclear warheads, Russia and the United States will still possess the power to deter not only smaller powers, but also each other; there is not much difference between hitting a country with 1,000 nukes and hitting it with 10,000. Radioactive wasteland is radioactive wasteland. And we should be clear about one thing: The only reason why the United States has such a large number of such weapons is because it considers the Russia may be a threat, if not now, then in the future. The Kremlin's reasoning is reciprocal. There are simply no other countries that could justify such an arsenal. In other words, the treaty doesn't mean very much in a practical sense. However, it is important insofar as it indicates that a formal relationship exists between Russia and the United States, and that dialog is taking place between them (the United States, originally, wanted no document at all!). It is a formal declaration of the status quo under the guise of a radical change in policy; but the fact that the United States is seeking formal declarations at all, given its unilateralist policies with respect to most other countries, show that, for it, relations with Russia still matter. Return to Menu 4. Moscow Treaty May Come Into Force In June MOSCOW - The Russian-American Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty may come into force as soon as at the beginning of June, following a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President George Bush during the celebrations devoted to the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg. A high-ranking Russian official voiced this opinion, talking with reporters about the results of Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov's visit to Washington. The Russian Defense Minister held a short meeting with Bush there. He also held talks with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the US President's national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, the Mayak radio station reported. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said yesterday that the meeting between the Russian and American Presidents will be held in St. Petersburg on June 1. The treaty was signed in Moscow on May 24, 2002. It is valid until December 31, 2012 and can be prolonged with the consent of the two countries. In accordance with the treaty, each of the countries should have not more than 1,700-2,200 strategic nuclear warheads left by December 31, 2012. At the same time each country is entitled to determine the composition and structure of its strategic assault weapons independently within these limits. Return to Menu 5. Russia, USA To Exchange SOR Ratification Instruments On June 1? MOSCOW - If the Federation Council, or the upper house of the Russian parliament, ratifies the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty on May 28, the presidents of Russia and the USA will be able to exchange ratification instruments during the upcoming meeting in St. Petersburg, Igor Neverov, head of the North American Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, told the Federation Council's International Committee on Thursday. The committee in question is currently discussing the SOR, which will be submitted for the Federation Council's official consideration on May 28. "That will be the beginning of the Treaty's realization," Neverov said. According to the diplomat, ratification of the SOR will "give a serious impulse to Russia-US relations and create a favorable background for overcoming the difficult pages of these relations." Return to Menu 6. Russian Joint Staff: Russia To Cut One Third Of Its Strategic Nuclear Forces Over Next 9 Years MOSCOW - In compliance with the Russian-American Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, by 2012 Russia will cut one third of its strategic nuclear forces, said spokesman of the Russian Joint Staff's chief operative department Yuri Borisov at the session of the Federation Council's international committee. The senators are debating the SOR Treaty, which will be submitted to the upper chamber for consideration on May 28th. As a result, the number of Russian strategic nuclear warheads will be reduced to 1700-2200, Borisov said. "This amount will ensure Russia's security," he emphasized. At present Russia has 5,436 of such warheads. During the intermediary stage, till December 31st, 2005, it intends to cut their number down to 3,500. Return to Menu D. Russia-U.S. 1. Editorial: A Russia Resurgent WASHINGTON - Last month Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain traveled to Moscow to discuss postwar Iraq with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Although the war was effectively over, Mr. Putin remained skeptical of its aims. "Where is Saddam?" Mr. Putin asked at a press conference after the meeting. Where, he continued, were the weapons of mass destruction, "if they really existed?" This weekend, President Bush is scheduled to meet with Mr. Putin in St. Petersburg. He might face a similarly rude awakening. On 9/11, President Putin was among the first foreign leaders to phone President Bush. During the war against Afghanistan, he allowed United States military planes to fly over Russian territory, accepted American bases in Central Asia, and shared intelligence in spite of strong opposition from the former Soviet security establishment. The Bush administration responded by accepting that the Chechen resistance was linked to international terrorism - but that was it. President Bush promised to work to persuade Congress to revoke the obsolete Jackson-Vanik legislation, which threatens economic sanctions against Russia because of emigration policies not followed since the Soviet era, but so far he has failed. In the year following the attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration abandoned the ABM treaty with Russia and then supported the enlargement of NATO. Mr. Putin accepted these decisions graciously, but he received nothing in return. In the Russian debate, he was increasingly compared with the hapless Mikhail Gorbachev, who was said always to have given in to the Americans without getting anything. As the war in Iraq approached, Russia initially took a back seat. While not supporting Saddam Hussein, it wanted to secure some commercial interests in Iraq, like oil concessions, financial claims and trade contracts. But Russia enjoyed too little attention from the United States. In the first quarter of this year, no government official more senior than an under secretary of state visited Moscow. Meanwhile, public opinion in Russia, as in Germany and France, evolved against the war. The Russian Communist Party benefited - a fact that Mr. Putin, an avid reader of opinion polls, could not ignore in an election year. With no results to show from his pro-American policy, he joined the French-German position against the war. (Besides, Germany is twice as large an export market for Russia as the United States.) So where does this leave American-Russian relations on the eve of the summit meeting? The scales of influence, if not the balance of power, have shifted. The United States has relatively little to offer Mr. Putin. After years of discussion about American-Russian energy development, the Russian oil sector is doing well on its own. Russia's attempt to enter the World Trade Organization has, unfortunately, encountered domestic resistance and no longer tops the meeting's agenda. And after four years of annual economic growth averaging about 6 percent, the Russian economy requires no financial aid. Russia, in contrast, has gained some leverage. As one of Iraq's main creditors, Russia belongs to the so-called Paris Club, which renegotiates government debt of countries in default. For Iraq to recover quickly, its debt of about $380 billion must be reduced by about three-quarters. But Russia, which never got any debt forgiven itself, is reluctant to grant such relief and could complicate international financing of Iraq's recovery. Russia's export of nuclear technology to Iran could also prove challenging for the United States. The United States has long tried to persuade Russia to stop the practice. Russia has refused, partly because it would hurt its nuclear industry and partly because it sees Iran as the most predictable and reasonable country in the region. Still, President Putin has no interest in a bad relationship. In his speech to the nation on May 16, he emphasized Russia's opposition to terrorism and to weapons of mass destruction as two key principles of Russian foreign policy. Clearly, there are issues on which Russia and the United States can cooperate - North Korea, for example. And both the United States Senate and the Russian Duma have ratified the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which requires both countries to reduce their nuclear weapons. Economically, Russia also has much to offer. A scramble is under way for Russia's large undervalued private oil companies, and American oil companies may want to participate in a major venture. Increasing its imports of Russian oil will also benefit United States foreign policy. For much of the last decade, the United States was able to dictate the terms of its relations with Russia. The war against Iraq showed that Russia can resist America's demands - and that it can be strengthened in the process. It is this strength that Mr. Bush will meet in St. Petersburg. Return to Menu 2. Editorial: How To Reinvigorate Russia-U.S. Relations To most analysts of international affairs, whether based in London, Moscow or Washington, President Vladimir Putin's behavior during the run up to the U.S.-led war in Iraq was very predictable. From a classic realpolitik perspective, Putin behaved rationally. Russia had concrete interests in the preservation of the status quo in Iraq, and U.S. military intervention threatened those interests. More generally, from a realist perspective, Russia - like France and Germany - had nothing to gain from another demonstration of U.S. military might. Even if Putin, at a pragmatic level, understands that he lives in a unipolar world dominated by the United States, he would prefer to see the emergence of a multipolar world in which Russia is one of the poles. His policy on the Iraq war gave him an opportunity to stand with the so-called anti-imperialists - a cheap normative victory for Russia that has won few normative points from the international community in recent years. President George W. Bush, however, did not fully understand Putin's behavior, because the U.S. president does not always view the world through a realist lens. In addition to power and interests, Bush believes that relationships between individual leaders also matter. Rightly or wrongly, Bush believed that he had a "special friend" in the Kremlin. In times of need, people expect support from their friends. In his time of need in the debate before the Iraqi war, Bush was puzzled by Putin's decision to stand together with the French and Germans, and not with his American friend. Bush, it must be remembered, thought that he had established a special relationship with his counterpart in Moscow. At their first meeting, in Slovenia in June 2001, Bush went out of his way to reach out to Putin on a personal level. The U.S. president is not a scholar or strategic thinker - he is a former businessperson. And as a businessperson, he understands the importance of personal relationships in getting things done. Because he had some important business with Putin at the time - first and foremost the abrogation of the ABM Treaty - Bush deliberately tried to foster a personal bond with Putin during their very first encounter. At this meeting, Bush reported, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy... . I was able to get a sense of his soul." Sept. 11, 2001, seemed to move the two presidents even closer. For the first time since World War II, the leaders in the Kremlin and the White House had a common enemy. In words, both Bush and Putin spoke in tough terms about destroying terrorists wherever they may be. In deeds, the two presidents cooperated in bringing down the Taliban in Afghanistan. As a result of these experiences, Bush thought that real chemistry had developed between him and Putin. Putin visited Bush's home in Crawford, Texas, and Bush traveled to Putin's hometown, St. Petersburg. Although we do not know what Putin actually thought about Bush as a person, we do know that Bush was very impressed with Putin as an individual. "Friend" was a word used by him to describe their relationship. Importantly, Bush had not developed any such relationships with his counterparts in Germany or France. On the contrary, well before the war in Iraq, it was widely known that Bush despised both Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac. While Bush tried to speak with Putin frequently, he rarely spoke to Schroeder or Chirac. The Bush administration firmly believes that Putin made a major miscalculation in not supporting the U.S. position on Iraq in the lead-up to war. Paradoxically, however, Putin's decision not to back the war in Iraq will not have long-term negative implications for U.S.-Russian relations because Bush is so eager to repair his friendship with Putin. In coming to St. Petersburg on June 1 (and spending the night, unlike his "stopover" in France at the G-8 summit, after which he plans to sleep in Switzerland), Bush will be signaling his mending-fences priorities as regards the countries of the "coalition of the unwilling" - Russia first, Germany second, France third. Why is Russia at the top of the list? Analysts and diplomats like to talk about the common geostrategic interests that are pushing the two countries back together - controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction and fighting terrorism top the list of U.S. foreign policy priorities. Russia can be useful in dealing with these issues, Germany and France less so. But there is another political and personal reason for Bush. He needs to patch up the relationship with Putin and re-establish the fact (or even illusion) that the two presidents have an intimate bond and have turned around U.S.-Russian relations after the dismal years of the Clinton-Yeltsin era. Bush has never claimed to have a special bond with Schroeder or Chirac, but he did make the claim with Putin. He has a real stake, therefore, in getting things back to the way they were pre-Iraq crisis. Bush also needs a few successes in mending fences with key countries after the war in Iraq, since Democratic Party presidential candidates have already begun to criticize him for doing too much collateral damage to U.S. international interests by the way he conducted the war. A turnaround in U.S.-Russian relations would serve as the perfect rebuttal to these presidential hopefuls. So, ironically, the context is ripe for improved relations. But to do what? What is strikingly absent from U.S.-Russian relations is any new big ideas which might actually signal that the relationship has recovered from Iraq and is special. The current agenda - Jackson-Vanik, chicken and steel imports, visa regimes, WTO membership - seems rather small. Moreover, the Bush administration is totally consumed with Iraq and, more broadly, the Middle East and, therefore, is unlikely to suggest any new big ideas for the foreseeable future. Bush and his team have undertaken a lot of major foreign-policy initiatives in the past two years. They will be content to work on these marginal issues. This creates another window of opportunity for Putin. Instead of waiting to react to what the United States proposes - the conventional Russian approach to U.S.-Russian relations over the last decade - Putin could really seize the moment and put forward his own suggestions for grand new initiatives. A real deal on North Korea? A creative trade halting Russian transfer of nuclear technologies to Iran in exchange for a massive, cooperative R&D program on missile defense? Bush and his team will be receptive to new ideas for improving U.S.-Russian relations. The real question is: Does the Kremlin have any? Return to Menu 3. Russian Senator Approves Of US Senate's Decision To Lift Ban On Low-Power Nuclear Weapons Test MOSCOW - The adopted on Thursday UN Resolution on lifting the sanctions from Iraq "is in line with Russia' national interests," believes chairman of the Federation Council's International committee Mikhail Margelov. Russia "succeeded in protecting its interests participating in the preparation of the resolution," he said. At the same time, the UN resolution "as any suchlike document is a compromise", the chairman admitted. He recalled that its adoption had been preceded by intensive consultations both in the UN and between the foreign and defense ministers of the world's leading powers. As to lifting the sanctions from Iraq, Russia advocated this decision "even before the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime", the Senator recalled. "First of all, we believe that the sanctions against Iraq may hinder organization of peaceful life in the country," he said, adding that it was unacceptable to allow "Iraq's civilian population to suffer from the sanctions". When commenting on the US Senate's decision to lift the ban on tests of low-power nuclear weapons, the chairman of the upper chamber's international committee described it as "absolutely logical". "This decision is in line with the George Bush Administration's policy to modernize nuclear forces and to withdraw from the AMD Treaty," he believes. The US authorities' actions are understandable, as the Administration "wants to make the budget pressure on this issue as low as possible," Margelov explained. Return to Menu 4. US Urged To Retain Freeze On Nuke Arms Tests WASHINGTON - Russia is asking the Bush administration to maintain a U.S. freeze on testing as it considers full-scale development of battlefield nuclear weapons. A senior Russian official told reporters Thursday his government also intends to develop new types of weapons, which he said probably would not be nuclear-armed and certainly would not be aimed at the United States. Russia's aim is to counter new threats and challenges, and the weapons would not be made on a large scale, the official said without elaboration. The briefing at the Russian Embassy followed talks by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, CIA Director George Tenet, and Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush's national security adviser, and a short session with Bush. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Moscow was determined to accelerate the warming of relations with the United States. He said the "crisis" caused by disagreement over war with Iraq was over, and that Russia had proposed ways the countries could cooperate on technology to defend against nuclear attack. Bush is to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, Russia, on June 1. Setting the stage, Putin sent a note to Bush saying Russia was interested in expanding cooperation, according to the Kremlin. There is "much more substance uniting us than issues over where disagreement remains," Putin said in the letter that Ivanov delivered to Bush. But the two sides disagree sharply over Russian technology sales to Iran. The United States is concerned that Iran is using the technology in a nuclear weapons program. But the Russian official said his country was helping Iran to develop a lightwater reactor, similar to the type that the United States helped North Korea with, by providing a half-million tons of fuel for eight years. He said spent fuel rods were being returned to Russia by Iran as a precaution. Bush and Putin are expected to mark approval by the U.S. and Russian parliaments of a treaty to reduce their arsenals of long-range nuclear warheads by two-thirds over 10 years. At the same time, the Bush administration says it wants to conduct research on low-yield nuclear weapons and "bunker busters" that target underground military facilities or arsenals. Congressional Democrats are trying to block the programs, arguing they would undermine U.S. efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and spread a new arms race. Republicans have countered that the administration was interested only in research at this point and that the new weapons could be critical in dismantling chemical and biological weapons. Return to Menu E. Plutonium Production Reactor Shutdown 1. USA Allocates $0.5 Billion To Shut Down Two Russian Nuclear Reactors MOSCOW - The US Energy Dept. has allocated $466 million to fulfill the agreement with the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry on shutting down two Russian nuclear reactors, in Seversk (the Tomsk region, West Siberia) and Zheleznogorsk (the Krasnoyarsk territory, East Siberia). The reactors produce weapons-grade plutonium, RIA Novosti learned on Wednesday from the Russian ministry's press service. Moreover, at present they supply electricity and heating to Seversk and Zheleznogorsk. "The funds will be used to reconstruct the old heat power plant in Seversk and to build a new one in Zheleznogorsk," the ministry pointed out. They will provide the two cities with heating and electricity instead of the plutonium reactors. The construction of the plants is expected to finish by 2006-2007. Return to Menu 2. U.S. to Build Power Plants in Russia WASHINGTON - The Energy Department announced a $466 million deal Tuesday to build two coal-burning power plants for Russia in return for a Russian promise to close three plutonium-producing reactors considered among the most dangerous in the world. Two American companies - Washington Group International and Raytheon Technical Services - will oversee construction of the two fossil fuel plants. Most of the actual work is expected to be done by Russian companies and workers. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham called it a major step in the U.S.-Russia nuclear nonproliferation effort, although it will be five to eight years before the Russian reactors will shut down and stop making plutonium. While the Russians have agreed to halt plutonium production and dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium that is already stockpiled, they have refused to shut down the three reactors until a way is found to replace the electricity and industrial heat the reactors produce for nearby communities. In addition to making enough plutonium for three warheads each week, the reactors in the Russian cities of Seversk and Zheleznogorsk also are viewed as among the most dangerous because of their design, which is similar to the Chernobyl reactor involved in the 1986 nuclear disaster in Ukraine. Unlike U.S. reactors, for example, they do not have concrete containment domes to hold in radiation in case of an accident or major leak. "They're the most dangerous reactors they've got," said Kenneth Baker, the top Energy Department official involved in nuclear nonproliferation issues. And, he adds, "when you have three reactors producing enough plutonium for three bombs a week you want to (deal with them) as fast as you can." Abraham and Russia's nuclear minister, Alexander Rumyantsev, agreed in March to replace the reactors with fossil fuel plants. As part of the agreement, the U.S. government would arrange for the replacement power. "Replacing these reactors with fossil fuel energy is critical to eliminate the production of weapons-grade plutonium in Russia and closing these facilities," said Abraham, who announced the contracts at a news conference with Russian Ambassador Yuri Ushakov. Abraham said the Russians would handle - and pay for - the shutdown of the reactors, while the U.S. companies, working with the Russian contracting firm of Rosatomstroi, will build the new fossil fuel plants. Washington Group International - an engineering, construction and management company headquartered in Boise, Idaho - will oversee work at the Seversk site, where an old coal-fired plant will be refurbished and expanded by 2008. Raytheon, headquartered in Vienna, Va., will oversee construction of a new plant at the Zheleznogorsk site with a completion date of 2011. Abraham said that final contracts are expected to be completed with the two companies by the end of June. Until then, he said, he could not provide specifics such as how $466 million will be divided. The companies were selected from a list of a half dozen companies provided by the Defense Department, said Abraham. Return to Menu F. Russia-Iran 1. Foreign Minister: Russia Will Not Tolerate Criticism For Help To Iran MOSCOW - Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned Wednesday that Russia won't tolerate criticism leveled against it for helping Iran build a nuclear power plant, a remark apparently aimed at the United States. "There are no grounds for complaints directed at Russia," Ivanov was quoted by the Interfax Military News Agency as saying. "There is no point in making unsubstantiated accusations, particularly in the form of an ultimatum" Iran's alleged nuclear program has been one of the major sources of discord between Moscow and Washington, which has urged the Kremlin to curtail its nuclear cooperation with Tehran. The Bush administration has accused Iran of secretly embarking on a program to enrich uranium at Natanz in southern Iran, which American officials fear could be used to make nuclear weapons. Washington wants the International Atomic Energy Agency to declare that Iran has violated the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty when the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency meets next month. Moscow has been trying to mend ties with Washington damaged over the war in Iraq, and has been particularly eager to get the relationship back on track ahead of this weekend's U.S.-Russia presidential summit. On Tuesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov called on Tehran to provide international guarantees that its energy program has only peaceful aims. In a meeting with Iranian Ambassador Gholamreza Shafei, Mamedov expressed concern about the existence of "serious, unresolved questions in connection with Iran's nuclear research." Mamedov said Iran should sign "as soon as possible" an additional agreement with the IAEA to put all of Tehran's nuclear facilities under closer scrutiny. He also said the U.N. agency should thoroughly discuss the matter at its meeting in June. Ivanov repeated that call on Wednesday, saying that if the IAEA had complete oversight "nobody would have any concerns about these programs." Washington has increased its pressure on Iran in recent days, accusing it of harboring al-Qaida terrorists who may be linked to the recent terrorist bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Ivanov warned that confrontation with Iran is in "no one's interests." "Russia is opposed to meddling in the affairs of any nation," Ivanov said, without referring specifically to the United States. Russia signed a deal with Iran to build a nuclear reactor in the southern city of Bushehr in 1995, shrugging off U.S. concerns that it could help Tehran build an atomic bomb. On Monday, Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant wouldn't be affected by the frictions between the United States and Iran. Return to Menu 2. Iran Asked for Nuclear Guarantees Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov on Tuesday called on Iran to provide guarantees that it is not using its atomic energy program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons, in the strongest sign yet that U.S. concerns are being taken seriously in Moscow. Mamedov "expressed anxiety about the existence of serious, unresolved questions in connection with Iran's nuclear research" during a meeting Tuesday with Iranian Ambassador Gholamreza Shafei, the Foreign Ministry said. Mamedov emphasized the importance for Iran to sign "as soon as possible" an additional agreement with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agreement would put all Tehran's nuclear facilities under closer watch to make sure they are not being used to camouflage a nuclear weapons program. Mamedov also said it was important for the program to be comprehensively discussed by the IAEA in June. Return to Menu 3. Moscow Sees No Grounds To Cut Nuclear Energy Ties With Iran MOSCOW - There are no tangible grounds for Russia to terminate international cooperation with Iran in the atomic energy sphere, a top official from the Atomic Energy Ministry told Interfax in commenting on pertinent remarks from representatives of the U.S. Administration. "At present, we have no grounds to stop carrying out our international commitments to build the first unit of the Bushehr nuclear power plant," the official noted. "Strong grounds are needed to break off international relations. So far, we have not received any information to confirm Iran's implementation of military nuclear programs or Iran's breach of the agreement on non-proliferation of nuclear materials," he said. "We know that no claims have been made on the part of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with regard to the Iranian nuclear program," he said. "First, the IAEA must address the issue and then Russia will be prepared to discuss it with the United States on the basis of the IAEA's recommendations," he said. "The assessment of Iran's nuclear program is fully within the IAEA's competence," he said. IAEA experts did not find any violations during their approximately 60 inspections conducted at Iranian nuclear facilities in 2002, including on the first unit of the Bushehr power plant, he said. "To dispel doubts concerning the existence of a military nuclear program in Iran, the country should sign an additional protocol with the IAEA," he said. This protocol would allow the IAEA to inspect nuclear facilities at any moment without prior warning. Russia is building the first unit of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in keeping with an inter-governmental agreement made in August 25, 1992. The contract is valued at over $800 million. Return to Menu 4. Iran Set To Carry On Nuclear Cooperation With Russia TEHERAN - Iran is not going to terminate cooperation with Russia in the nuclear area, Hossein Afaride, chairman of the parliamentary energy commission in the Iranian majlis, has said in an exclusive RIA Novosti interview. "The factory being built near Natanz will produce fuel for nuclear power stations", he said. This does not mean Iran will reject Russian fuel supplies for the first stage of the Bushehr facility, designed to generate 1,000 megawatts, said Hossein Afaride. "We need fuel and will get it from Russia, but we want to produce nuclear fuel on our own", he said. "We hope for help from Russia, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other producers of nuclear fuel. We have ambitious plans, which pursue no military ends whatever", stressed the chairman of the energy commission. The Iranian peaceful nuclear program envisages generation of additional 6,000 megawatts, i.e. construction of other nuclear power stations. The MP disproved the United States' accusations that Iran allegedly plans to build in Natanz a plant for the beneficiation of uranium to be used for military ends and recalled that the IAEA had officially declared that the American claims to Iran were groundless. Return to Menu 5. Iran, Russia Discuss Continuation Of Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation MOSCOW - Russian Energy Ministry here Tuesday stressed continuing cooperation with Iran in peaceful use of nuclear energy. A spokesman for the ministry said that there are no reasons to halt construction of the first phase of the Bushehr Nuclear plant or cease future cooperation between Iran and Russia in nuclear energy. He also referred to talks held between visiting Iranian delegation to Moscow and the Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev. The discussion with members of the delegation comprising of the deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization and head of Bushehr power plant are part of the regular biannual meetings between the two sides, the official stated. The spokesman said the discussions focused on the construction of the first phase of Bushehr nuclear plant and its completion time frame. Russian experts have previously said for Bushehr construction to be back on schedule will depend on a visit by Iranian representatives to Moscow in the second half of 2003. Also, experts at the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry said in the absence of an agreement on the return of spent fuel of the Bushehr plant to Russia, 'so far, no amount of spent fuel has been shipped to the country'. The Russians have declared that they are ready to cooperate with Iran on building another five nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, Itar-Tass quoted Rumyantsev here Tuesday as saying that US-Iran relations will not affect Russia's cooperation with Iran with respect to the completion of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr (southern Iran). After meeting with an Iranian atomic energy delegation on Monday he added that 'the Russian side does not see grounds to revise its obligations with regard to the construction of the first power unit at the nuclear power plant in Bushehr'. "We will continue to fulfill our obligations despite the fact that our positions on this issue differ from those of officials in Washington," the minister said. "We hold and will hold consultations with representatives from the US Department of Energy every month during which we discuss this issue," Rumyantsev said. "We also meet regularly with representatives of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization," he added. The minister added: "Iranian Vice President and Chairman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Gholam Reza Agazadeh is expected to come to Moscow in June. One of the issues to be addressed in consultations during his visit will be the cooperation between Russia and Iran in the field of nuclear technology and the completion of the work to build the first power unit of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr." Return to Menu 6. Moscow Says It Will Not Back Out of Iran Nuclear Plans (excerpted) MOSCOW - Moscow will not drop plans to build Iran's first nuclear plant despite growing U.S. pressure over fears Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear arms, Russia's atomic energy minister was quoted on Tuesday as saying. Russia's technology sales to Iran and the construction of the Bushehr power station have been a major irritant in relations with Washington, adding to unease over Moscow's refusal to back U.S. military action in Iraq. "Russia does not see any reason now to review its stance and its role regarding construction of the first nuclear reactor," Prime Tass news agency quoted Alexander Rumyantsev as saying after talks with visiting Iranian nuclear officials on Monday. Russia says it is providing Iran only with civilian nuclear equipment, adding that the used fuel from the 1,000 megawatt Bushehr plant will be shipped back to Russia for reprocessing. "We will continue to fulfill our duties despite the fact that our position on this question is different to Washington's official view," Rumyantsev was quoted as saying. Iran insists the Bushehr reactor is for civilian power production but U.S. officials question why Iran, the second biggest oil producer in OPEC, would need it. In addition to Bushehr, Iran is developing other nuclear facilities, including a uranium enrichment plant. In a sign that Moscow may have started to heed Washington's concerns Russian officials have urged more nuclear transparency from Iran. [...] Return to Menu 7. Moscow Worried By Uncertainty Surrounding Nuclear Research In Iran MOSCOW - Moscow is worried by uncertainty surrounding nuclear research underway in Iran. Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister and political director in the Group of Eight Georgy Mamedov had a meeting on Tuesday with Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Gholamreza Shafee, the RIA Novosti correspondent learnt from the Press and Information Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry. They focused on the topical problems -- the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the struggle against international terrorism. Shafee assured the Russian side of Iran's firm adherence to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and informed it of the intensive development of inspection cooperation between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. He flatly denied Washington's accusations of whatever contacts with international terrorist organizations. Mamedov voiced concern over the presence of serious yet unclear questions related to nuclear research being done in Iran, pointed to the need of exhaustive discussion of the matter with the IAEA Board of Governors in June and the earliest signing by Iran of an additional protocol to the agreement on guarantees with the IAEA. A hope for stage-by-stage normalization of Iranian-American relations was also expressed. The two confirmed agreement reached on the earliest conduct in Tehran of Russian-Iranian consultations on disarmament, non-proliferation and export control. Return to Menu G. Russia-North Korea 1. Russia Offers Mediation In U.S.-North Korean Conflict Russia is ready to mediate in the U.S.- North Korean conflict over Pyongyang's nuclear program, the Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday. "Russia is ready to play a constructive role in settling American-North Korean disputes, naturally to the extent that such assistance is asked for. We believe that the field for cooperation in this situation is much broader than it was in the case of Iraq," spokesman Alexander Yakovenko told reporters. He said Russia and the United States have similar goals to pursue as regards the North Korean program. "Their essence lies within firm guarantees of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction in that region, a peaceful solution to existing problems, and lowering tension," he said. Yakovenko said Russia's position remains unchanged and that Moscow believes in a package solution. Russia is proposing "a succession of synchronized inter-connected steps for the parties, which would result in [North Korea] dropping its nuclear problem in exchange for international guarantees of its security and development," he said. Return to Menu 2. Russia, China Want North Korea To Stay Non-Nuclear Russia and China, the two big powers closest to maverick North Korea, urged the secretive communist state on Tuesday not to develop nuclear weapons. Interfax news agency said a joint statement issued at the end of talks between the two countries' presidents called for the non-nuclear status of the Korean peninsula to be upheld and for rules banning the spread of weapons of mass destruction to be strictly observed. The statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin and China's Hu Jintao, on his first foreign trip as head of state, spoke of the need to maintain stability on the Korean peninsula in the interests of their two countries. "At the same time, the security of North Korea must be guaranteed and favorable conditions created for its social and economic development," Interfax quoted the statement as saying. North Korea has been locked in a row with the United States over its nuclear ambitions since last October when a 1994 deal to freeze the North's nuclear plans collapsed. Washington then said Pyongyang had admitted having a separate secret scheme. U.S.-backed South Korea believes the North has a nuclear weapons development program. But on Tuesday, a top South Korean foreign policy adviser said Seoul was encouraged by North Korea's softer stance towards negotiating an end to the crisis. Return to Menu H. Announcements 1. On the Plenary Session of the Group of Nuclear Suppliers A Plenary Session of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) took place in Pusan (the Republic of Korea) on May 19-23. The main task of the Group, which comprises 40 countries, including Russia, is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons by controlling the export of nuclear and nuclear-related materials and technologies. An understanding has been reached that the NSG will continue joint efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons taking into account the new challenges and threats, including by developing dialogue with non-member states. The Russian side considers the NSG to be an important component element of the non-proliferation regime. The Russian delegation took an active part in the work of the plenary session. Moscow on the whole takes a positive view of its results. We are open to further constructive cooperation with other states within the NSG for the purpose of solving the tasks facing that export control mechanism. We believe that the activities of the NSG should not of course create obstacles for international cooperation in the field of peaceful use of atomic energy and take into account new realities in this field in an adequate and timely manner. Return to Menu 2. Department of Energy Selects Washington Group, International & Raytheon Technical Services To Begin Work On Shutdown of Russian Plutonium Production Reactors WASHINGTON, D.C. - At a press conference with Russian Ambassador to the United States Yuri Ushakov, U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced today that the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration has awarded Washington Group International and Raytheon Technical Services a total of $466 million to begin work to shutdown the last three remaining weapons-grade plutonium production reactors in Russia. The Department will work to replace those reactors with coal-fired heat and electricity plants. Shutting down the three reactors, two located at Seversk and one at Zheleznogorsk, will end the production of enough weapons-grade plutonium to produce approximately one nuclear weapon every day and a half. "The selection of the contractors is another significant step in advancing the Bush Administration's nonproliferation programs," Secretary Abraham said. "Replacing these reactors with fossil fuel energy is critical to eliminate the production of weapons-grade plutonium in Russian and closing these facilities. Russia and the United States have enjoyed a good relationship on this program and we look forward to continued progress." The awarding of the work orders is the next major step in fulfilling commitments agreed to by the U.S. and Russian governments in Vienna, Austria, implementing the Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Program (EWGPP). At a ceremony in Vienna in March 2003, Secretary Abraham and Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Alexander Rumyantsev signed an agreement that would reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction by stopping plutonium production at the last three Russian plutonium reactors. As part of the agreement, the Department of Energy, working with its partners in Russia, will provide replacement fossil-fuel facilities to produce replacement energy for heat and electricity currently produced by the reactors and serving two cities in Russia. Working with counterparts at the Russian contracting firm Rosatomstroi, both Washington Group International and Raytheon Technical Services will implement the shutdown programs for both sites. Washington Group International will oversee work at the Seversk site. There, the U.S. will provide assistance in refurbishing an existing fossil fuel plan to produce electricity lost from the shutdown of the reactors. The refurbishment work, once contracts are signed with Rosatomstroi, is estimated to take five years, at that time the reactors will close. Major work at the Seversk site will include refurbishing or replacing existing coal-fired boilers, providing one new high pressure coal-fired boiler, replacing turbine generators, completing construction of the fuel supply system, refurbishing the industrial heating unit and ancillary systems. Raytheon Technical Services will oversee work at the Zheleznogorsk site. There, the U.S. will provide assistance in building a new fossil fuel plant. Once contracts are signed with Rosatomstroi, estimated time of completion for the project is eight years and the reactor will shutdown. Major work at the Zheleznogorsk site will include providing a co-generation boiler, an extraction/condensing steam turbine, heating only boilers, a fuel handling system, an ash removal system, environmental controls, and a hot water pipeline to connect the new plant with the district heating system. Abraham said in a letter to Minister Rumyantsev that he expects the Department's National Nuclear Security Administration to have final contracts in place with Washington Group International and Raytheon Technical Services by June 30, 2003. The reactors, although originally designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, also provide heat and electricity required by the surrounding communities in Siberia. The EWGPP program is providing fossil-fueled energy plants to supply such heat and electricity to the surrounding communities, facilitating the shut down of the reactors. The three plutonium production reactors will continue to operate until the fossil-replacement plants are completed. These reactors have deficiencies in the areas of design, equipment, and materials, and are considered to be among the highest risk reactors in the world. To ensure reactor safety, high priority safety upgrades are being expeditiously pursued. The Department's Pacific Northwest National Lab will be responsible for necessary nuclear safety upgrades at both sites. These upgrades will not extend the life of the reactor facilities. Return to Menu 3. U.S. Concerned about Iran's Nuclear Program, Support for Terrorism State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters on May 27 that U.S. "policies towards Iran have not changed." Boucher was speaking at the regular State Department noon briefing May 27. U.S. policy toward Iran, Boucher said is to side with the Iranian people in their call for democratic reform, more openness, and modernization. Boucher said the United States has concerns about Iran's policies and that it has raised these concerns with Iran. "Those, essentially four things -- terrorism, nuclear developments, Middle East, opposition to the peace process; and poor human rights record have been standard issues that we have sought to raise with Iran in a variety of ways," Boucher said. Responding to questions about Al Qaida members in Iran, Boucher said, "We have said that there are Al Qaida members in Iran, and that Iran needs to deal with them in accordance with their international responsibilities that all countries have under Resolution 1373." On nuclear issues, Boucher said, "We all have a mutual interest in ensuring that Iran abide by its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations not to develop nuclear weapons. And we share concerns about grave risk to the region and to our security interests posed by a nuclear weapons-capable Iran." Commenting on Russia's statement that it intends to continue cooperating with Iran on the Bushehr reactor, Boucher said the United States is working together with Russia in regards to Iran's nuclear program. But, he added, "There's no reason for a country like Iran, which flares off more gas in a year than it would ever get from these nuclear programs, no reason for a country like Iran to have these programs. It just doesn't make sense for anything other than nuclear weapons. And therefore, we think it is not appropriate for -- not in anybody's interests to be helping Iran with its nuclear program." Return to Menu I. Links of Interest 1. Radioactive Source Security: Recent Developments Return to Menu 2. The Necessity of Creating an International Environmental and Non-Proliferation Oversight Agency Return to Menu DISCLAIMER: Nuclear News is presented for informational purposes only. Views presented in any given article are those of the individual author or source and not of RANSAC. RANSAC takes no responsibility for the technical accuracy of information contained in any article presented in Nuclear News. RANSAC's Nuclear News is compiled two to three times weekly. To be automatically removed from our mailing list, click on the following link: Remove Me From The List If you have questions/comments/concerns, please reply to news@216.119.87.134 |
|
|
|
© 2007 Partnership for Global Security. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement.