Guest Post by Volha Charnysh

Yesterday, U.S. ambassador to Russia John Beyrle urged Moscow to join Washington in building a worldwide missile defense system. Last week, prior to his meeting with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, Barack Obama was quoted as saying that “cooperative missile defense with Russia has enormous potential” and that the United States “want[s] to work with Russia to be a key player and beneficiary in this global [missile defense] architecture.”

The idea of U.S.-Russian missile defense cooperation is not new, and the initiatives considered today have been pondered for decades. The two countries agreed to “explore opportunities for intensified practical cooperation on missile defense for Europe” in a joint declaration at the May 2002 U.S.-Russia Summit, but their dialogue reached an impasse when George W. Bush unveiled the plan to build 10 interceptor missile systems in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic.

A window of opportunity for Russia’s participation reopened with Obama's September 2009 decision to deploy a phased adaptive missile defense in Europe. As per the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, U.S. proposals for missile defense cooperation with Russia include integration of U.S. and Russian sensors; joint research and development; joint missile defense testing; joint modeling and simulations; missile defense exercises; and joint analyses of alternative U.S.-Russian missile defense architectures for defending against common, regional threats. After the U.S. change of plans, NATO has also expressed readiness to explore the potential for linking U.S., NATO and Russian missile defense systems and declared missile defense cooperation with Russia its target for the next NATO Summit in Lisbon in November 2010...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense (all tags)

JOB OPENING - Council for a Livable World and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Outreach Coordinator

Council for a Livable World and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation are seeking to hire an Outreach Coordinator, with a specific focus on organizing outreach trips across the United States and engaging online audiences and social networks.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

Thanks to our friends over at the Stimson Center, the office has cheerily been playing disarmament video games this afternoon.  Stimson launched "Cheater's Risk" today, described in their own words below:

As part of Stimson's "Unblocking the Road to Zero" project, which seeks to advance the debate about negotiated nuclear disarmament as a viable and practical policy option, Alex Bollfrass and Barry Blechman have developed Cheater's Risk, an online game that explores the dynamics of a world without nuclear weapons. Players take on the challenge of breaking out of a hypothetical disarmament regime without being detected by national intelligence services and international monitors. Depending on which country is selected, different pathways to the bomb are available. As the player navigates the pathways, the cumulative odds of detection are calculated.  At the end, famed weapons inspector Hans Blix determines if the player has gotten away with it or has been caught.

I'm currently trying to develop nuclear weapons for Afghanistan via uranium enrichment.  We'll see if I get past Hans Blix!  Congratulations to our friends over at Stimson for a job well done with the game.  And to our readers -- definitely check it out!  It's a fun way to explore issues of non-proliferation.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

Well folks, the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference has successfully produced a consensus final document!  This is the third time in the 40-year history of the Treaty that a consensus document has been achieved, so it is a not-unsubstantial achievement, especially given the tense negotiations that sometimes accompanied the month-long negotiations.

The past 24 hours in particular witnessed tense negotiations surrounding one complicated and highly politicized issue in particular: Israel.  Their nuclear weapons program is the big open secret of the international community, and this NPT RevCon witnessed a contentious debate surrounding their being called out on it.

Negotiations between Egypt (representing the Non-Aligned Movement states) and the United States in the final hours of the conference resulted in the United States capitulating in the interest of achieving a consensus document and allowing the following language to remain in the final document:

The Conference recalls the reaffirmation by the 2000 Review Conference of the importance of Israel's accession to the Treaty and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.

Immediately after agreeing to the final document, states were given the opportunity to speak.  Amidst a river of thanks to the Review Conference President, Indonesian Libran Nuevas Cabactulan, there were some pointed remarks.  Among them were words by the United States delegate, State department official Ellen Tauscher, that the United States "deeply regrets" that Israel was called out by name in the final text to join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state and participate in a 2012 conference on the establishment of a Mideast Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.

Meanwhile, other states -- from Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement) to Lebanon and Algeria -- reiterated their position that a reaffirmation of the intention to implement the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East was a vital point to be included in the final document.

Other areas of disagreement that were ultimately sidelined in order to reach consensus were: the encouragement of stronger safeguards, particularly through the adoption of the Additional Protocol; a timeline for complete disarmament (NAM states in particular had been calling for a firm date of 2025 as the goal for complete disarmament by the nuclear weapon states); negative security assurances, i.e. a guarantee on the part of nuclear weapon states that they will not use their nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states; and a moratorium on the production of fissile material, amongst other issues.

Overall, the consensus final document can be viewed as a success. Despite immense tension between some of the states party to this treaty, a substantive consensus document was still achieved through a month of gritty diplomacy. We would wish that the efforts of political rivals working alongside each other in the interest of disarmament and non-proliferation would encourage further diplomacy and frank discussions between countries.  The NPT Review Conference is only every five years, yet the cooperation and frank discussions witnessed at the RevCon should occur with much more frequency.

---

Nukes of Hazard will post the final document text when it becomes available.  Until then, see this draft version.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, NPT RevCon (all tags)

According to Iran, whose representative to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference spoke with press this afternoon while on his way to a plenary session at which the latest draft of the final document was distributed, there are three things holding up consensus on this NPT RevCon.  In particular, he said "there are three issues that have been serious obstacles for the success of the conference so far, and the [nuclear] weapons states have not cooperated:

"One is the Non-Aligned Movement - 116 countries - have demanded setting a definite timeline of 2025 to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapon states have not accepted that.

"Second point is there should be negative security assurances. This means that nuclear weapon states should give us a legally binding, unconditional assurance that they will not use nuclear weapons against other countries which do not have nuclear weapons. They have not accepted yet.

"The third point is to promptly commence negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  We have non-proliferation convention, what about nuclear weapons convention. Again they have not accepted this yet."

He went on to say that nuclear weapon states and the Non-Aligned Movement states  "have been facing a stalemate situation up until now" because of these issues.

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog, NPT RevCon (all tags)

A draft final document penned by the President of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference (Indonesian Libran Nuevas Cabactulan) has been circulating at the United Nations -- and the internet -- in the past 24 hours.

After a quick read through of the draft final document, it is clear that the core sticking points amongst States parties remain the same: disagreement over the voluntary vs. binding nature of the Additional Protocol, which would strengthen IAEA ability to oversee and inspect nuclear programs; the Mideast Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, for which a distinct conference in 2012 has been proposed and which Israel is being lobbied to attend; and the ever-present debate over a timeline for disarmament by the nuclear weapon states.

However, the draft document also makes clear how forcefully the Non-Aligned Movement states are seeking to delink non-proliferation from nuclear energy; the document text quite stridently defends their right to peacefully develop nuclear energy.  Some interesting points are highlighted below:

33: “The Conference reaffirms that nothing in the Treaty should be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all States parties to the Treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with the non-proliferation obligations under the Treaty.”

And 34, which reaffirms the right of States parties to the Treaty to develop “nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.”

35 is also emphatic: “The Conference urges that in all activities designed to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, preferential treatment be given to the non-nuclear-weapons States parties to the Treaty, taking the needs of developing countries, in particular, into account.”

Also notable:

On non-NPT states parties (103): “The Conference urges India and Pakistan to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear weapon States and to place all their nuclear facilities under comprehensive Agency safeguards without conditions and promptly.”
Notably absent is any mention of Israel (although they are called out by name later).

On diplomacy: “The Conference emphasized that responses to concerns over compliance with any obligation under the Treaty by any State Party should be pursued by diplomatic means, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.”

Unsurprisingly, the text of the final document does not mention Iran by name, but does express concern “with cases of non-compliance of the Treaty by States parties, and calls on those States non-compliant to move promptly to full compliance with their obligations.”

On the Additional Protocol: point 25 “notes that the entry into force and implementation of additional protocols in non-nuclear weapons States is of vital importance for IAEA to be able to provide credible assurances about the exclusively peaceful nature of non-nuclear-weapon States’ nuclear programmes.”

---

On an unrelated note, it seems likely that the United Nations Security Council will wait until the Lebanese presidency of the UNSC is over, i.e. until June, to begin discussing the fourth round of sanctions against Iran.  This saves face for Lebanon, and will also allow the NPT RevCon to get the attention it warrants during this last, closing week.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, NPT RevCon (all tags)

Hat tip to the Institute for Science and International Security for obtaining a copy of the Iran sanctions resolution draft presented to the United Nations Security Council yesterday evening. You can download the .PDF here.

Read more

Iran Watch (all tags)

Secretary of State Clinton announced in her remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on New START that the permanent members of the Security Council (the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia) and Germany have agreed to an Iran sanctions draft.  The text will be submitted to the Security Council later today.

Watch this post for updates as more details emerge.

Update, 11:25 a.m.: The NYTimes reports that,

"a senior administration official said that one of the most critical sections of the proposed sanctions were modeled on a resolution passed last year against North Korea, after its second nuclear test. That resolution authorized all nations to search cargo ships heading into or out of the country for suspected weapons, nuclear technology or other cargo prohibited by previous U.N. resolutions."

Sanctions will also target the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a prime mover and shaker in Iran's nuclear program, and those financial institutions that support the Corps.

Update, 11:45 a.m.: Clinton just gave more details on the Iran sanctions draft at the SFRC New START hearing. She suggested that the timing of the Turkey-Brazil-Iran deal announced yesterday was "no accident" as it was right before sanctions talks moved forward. While acknowledging the "sincerity of the undertaking by Brazil and Turkey," Clinton said that the international community deems it insufficient for Iran to make statements about peaceful usage yet failing to cooperate with the IAEA and United Nations calls for disclosure and cooperation.

She outlined three issues the international community has with regards to Iran's nuclear program:

1) Refusal to suspend enrichment of uranium to near 20% levels, which is a violation of NPT safeguard obligations and UN Security Council resolutions;

2) The amorphous timeline for removal of LEU in the Turkey-Brazil deal, which could take months of further negotiation which is, according to Clinton, "unacceptable;"

3) Continued failure of Iran to engage with the P5+1 despite requests to do so since last October.

She reinforced the US commitment to move forward with the UN process and work with UN counterparts to get "as strong as possible a resolution as soon as possible."

Read more

Iran Watch (all tags)

Want to know who and what is causing a stir at the United Nations Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference?  The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has the perfect one-page visual guide for you!  

A quick overview of the non-NPT states and the hot-button topics being discussed -- from Iran and the Additional Protocol to the Mideast Nuclear Weapon Free Zone -- at the UN right now can be viewed and downloaded from our website here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation and the chief negotiator of the New START agreement, spoke to the press at the United Nations on Tuesday after a briefing with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on New START at the NPT RevCon.  While at the stakeout, she had some interesting things to say about the relationship between New START and the UN Security Council Iran sanctions debate currently underway.

While there is no "direct" link between the treaty and the sanctions debate on Iran, Gottemoeller said that the boost in the US-Russian relationship helps other efforts in which the two countries are involved.

When pressed to clarify whether or not she was referring to sanctions against Iran and the increasing willingness of Russia to cooperate with efforts of the US, UK, and France on the Security Council, she elaborated that the new treaty is a sign that the US-Russian relationship is in a new era -- and has been ever since the "reset" at the beginning of the Obama administration came into office -- and:

Therefore there will be beneficial influence on issues of mutual concern. Certainly Iran is one of them.

Indeed, Presidents Medvedev and Obama talked on the phone today about two things: New START and the P5+1 progress on a UN Security Council resolution on Iran.

It is increasingly looking like a sanctions resolution will be introduced at the Security Council in a few weeks.

Gottemoeller also told reporters that both the US and Russian negotiating teams "already have our tasking from our presidents to move on towards further reductions" and that informal discussions about where to go further would include non-strategic (tactical) and non-deployed weapons as items on the agenda.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Iran Watch, New START (all tags)