Monthly Archives: October 2007

P5 +2 Statement on Iran

It’s a little old, but I thought I’d post the recent “statement”:http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12614 from the P5+2 about Iran.

Nothing all that remarkable, but here it is:

1. The proliferation risks of the Iranian nuclear program remain a source of serious concern to the International Community, as expressed very clearly in UNSC Resolutions 1696, 1737 and 1747.

2. We are committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and underline the need for all States Party to that Treaty to comply fully with all their obligations. We seek a negotiated solution that would address the international community’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. We reiterate our commitment to see the proliferation implication of Iran’s nuclear program resolved, and have therefore met today to reaffirm our commitment to our dual track approach.

3. We remain ready to engage with Iran in negotiations on a comprehensive long-term agreement to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. Creating the conditions for such negotiations requires that Iran fully and verifiably suspend its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as required by UNSC Resolutions 1737 and 1747. The Security Council has offered Iran the possibility of “suspension for suspension” – suspension of the implementation of measures if and for so long as Iran suspends all of its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as verified by the IAEA. We call upon Iran to accept that offer and allow for negotiations in good faith.

4. We urge Iran to engage in a dialogue to create the conditions for negotiations based on our June 2006 proposals for a long-term comprehensive agreement, based on mutual respect, that would reestablish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program and open the way to wider cooperation between Iran and all our countries. *We have asked Dr. Javier Solana, the European Union’s High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, to meet with Dr. Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, to lay the foundation for future negotiations.*

5. We welcome the agreement between Iran and the IAEA to resolve all questions concerning Iran’s past nuclear activities. *We call upon Iran, however, to produce tangible results rapidly and effectively by clarifying all outstanding issues and concerns on Iran’s nuclear program, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension,* as set out by the relevant IAEA Resolutions and UNSC Resolutions 1737 and 1747 and by providing all access required by its Safeguards Agreement and Subsidiary Arrangement and by implementing the Additional Protocol.

6. Full transparency and cooperation by Iran with the IAEA is essential in order to address outstanding concerns. We reiterate our full support for the IAEA and its staff in the execution of its verification role and for the role of the UN Security Council. We look forward to DG El Baradei’s November report to the IAEA Board of Governors on the level, scope, and extent of Iran’s cooperation and transparency.

7. In view of the fact that Iran has not fulfilled the requirements of UN Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747, including the suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing activities, *we agree to finalize a text for a third UN Security Council Sanctions Resolution under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations with the intention of bringing it to a vote in the UN Security Council unless the November reports of Dr. Solana and Dr. El Baradei show a positive outcome of their efforts.*

I do wonder what a “positive outcome” would be.

Israeli NSG Proposal

ACA has posted an interesting “Israeli proposal”:http://armscontrol.org/pdf/20070927_Israeli_NSG_Proposal.pdf submitted to the NSG last March. It details a criteria-based approach for future NSG-states cooperation with countries that never bothered to sign the NPT.

Both the proposal and the “accompanying media advisory”:http://armscontrol.org/pressroom/2007/20070927_IsraelNSG.asp make for interesting reading. For geeks, anyway.

Department of Searches

Normally, I think it’s lame to post this sort of thing. But this time I cannot resist.

Someone found this blog by Googling

bq. how+much+money+those+a+per​son+that+works+with+a+centri​fuge+machine+make+a+years+

I’ve never blogged about that particular aspect of uranium enrichment, but wish the individual the best in his/her endeavors.

Unless they involve things that can blow a lot of shit up.

The Dan Poneman Experience

!/images/32.jpg!

Or The Dan Ponemantown Massacre , Big Poneman, MC 900 Ft. Poneman…

Former NSC proliferation guru Dan Poneman is “in a band”:http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/10903/ called Coalition of the Willing. The photo is from their gig at the Knitting Factory. Seriously.

The band includes other luminaries, such as Hungarian ambassador Andras Simonyi and former Doobie Brothers guitarist Jeff “Skunk” Baxter (about whom _ACW_ has “previously blogged”:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/612/showing-skunk-baxter-some-love).

A documentary about them is below. That still is of Tommy Ramone.

[Thanks to FoKerr _MAP_ for the tip. ]

Latest Six Party Statement

China’s “MFA has the text.”:http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t369084.htm of the “Second-Phase Actions for the Implementation of the [September 2005] Joint Statement.”

Here are the highlights of what the six parties agreed to after four days in late September.

*The disablement of the 5 megawatt Experimental Reactor at Yongbyon, the Reprocessing Plant (Radiochemical Laboratory) at Yongbyon and the Nuclear Fuel Rod Fabrication Facility at Yongbyon will be completed by 31 December 2007.* Specific measures recommended by the expert group will be adopted by heads of delegation in line with the principles of being acceptable to all Parties, scientific, safe, verifiable, and consistent with international standards. At the request of the other Parties, *the United States will lead disablement activities and provide the initial funding for those activities. As a first step, the US side will lead the expert group to the DPRK within the next two weeks to prepare for disablement.*

*The DPRK agreed to provide a complete and correct declaration of all its nuclear programs in accordance with the February 13 agreement by 31 December 2007.*

*Recalling the commitments to begin the process of removing the designation of the DPRK as a state sponsor of terrorism and advance the process of terminating the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to the DPRK, the United States will fulfill its commitments to the DPRK in parallel with the DPRK’s actions based on consensus* reached at the meetings of the Working Group on Normalization of DPRK-U.S. Relations.

The DPRK and Japan will make sincere efforts to normalize their relations expeditiously in accordance with the Pyongyang Declaration, on the basis of the settlement of the unfortunate past and the outstanding issues of concern. *The DPRK and Japan committed themselves to taking specific actions* toward this end through intensive consultations between them.

In accordance with the February 13 agreement, *economic, energy and humanitarian assistance up to the equivalent of one million tons of HFO (inclusive of the 100,000 tons of HFO already delivered) will be provided to the DPRK.* Specific modalities will be finalized through discussion by the Working Group on Economy and Energy Cooperation.

Given that North Korea tested a nuclear weapon less than year ago, not bad.

Animated Fuel Cycle

p{float: left; margin-right: 10px}. !/images/31.jpg!

This is sweet.

Areva has an “animated
tutorial”:http://www.areva.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=arevagroup_en%2FFolderGameQuiz%2FFolderGameQuizFullTemplate&cid=1033576020007 on the nuclear fuel cycle.

Just click the part that says “Follow the guide!”.

[ Thanks to FoKerr _MBN_ for this. ]

JASON on RRW

Steve Aftergood has the “unclassed exec.summary”:http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/10/jason_on_the_reliable_replacem.html of the JASON RRW study. As far as I know, the _Post’s_ Walter Pincus was the first to “report”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/29/AR2007092901569_pf.html on it. Jon Fox from GSN also has a “good article”:http://204.71.60.35/d_newswire/issues/2007_10_1.html#8216110E on the report.

Bottom line seems to be that the idea of “certifying a new warhead w/o testing” is still in the “not gonna happen” category, at least for now.

It is worth noting that former NNSA head Linton Brooks “said”:http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=1019&&prog=zgp&proj=znpp at the CEIP conference a few months back that the RRW

bq. *will put the final nail in the coffin of nuclear testing* because in the next term when we take a serious look at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the technical argument against ratification will be taken away by a concept that drives any question of the need to test for future problems out.

Just saying.

Ahmadinejad = Bon Jovi ?

p{float: right; margin-left: 10px}. !/images/29.jpg!

I’m not sure this cultural reference means what “this blogger”:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359814775&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull for the _J Post_ thinks it means.

According to this post, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger missed a chance to embarrass Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the latter’s recent visit to the campus. I’ll spare you the details, but the post argues that

bq. At a time when US objectives should be making every effort to sway Muslim public opinion over to its side, American stupidity has morphed the Iranian president into the *Persian Bon Jovi.*

Wow. Even I feel young now.

Turning Ahmadinejad into Bon Jovi would, in my mind, be a US PR victory. The “Persian Steve Albini” would, I think, be a much better metaphor for the _JP_ blogger. But what do I know?

Speaking of Mr. Albini, here’s some live Big Black: