Back after a month off from blogging.

The LRB has some history of the DRC’s nuclear reactor, much of which I did not know:

…the Americans were confident that the Katanga secession would protect the Shinkolobwe uranium mine from nationalisation – and from a Soviet hand in any new arrangements. Congolese uranium had been essential to the Manhattan Project; during the Second World War, the Office of Strategic Services (the precursor to the CIA) had set up a station in the Belgian Congo to protect the ore from both the Soviets and the Nazis. As the Cold War came to a head in the 1950s, the US agreed to fund Belgium’s nuclear energy programme in order to maintain the supply. Two first-generation reactors were built as a consequence, one in Belgium and one in the Belgian Congo. In August 1960, the US Atomic Energy Commission asked [CIA chief of station, Larry Devlin] to disable it in the event of a Soviet takeover by removing the fuel rods from the reactor – a reckless mission he declined.

From NAS:

Few outcomes are as undesirable as nuclear war and nuclear terrorism.

I actually want a list of the other outcomes.

From the June 1 Pakistan MFA briefing:

Question:​ You’ve mentioned that the Minister of State will be heading to Sweden to attend the Annual Meeting of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) as a key note speaker. Will she be holding bilateral meetings because the matter of the closure of Swedish Embassy or a technical closure of their consular section is quite a pain for Pakistani nationals seeking to go to Sweden for study or other purposes? So, will that matter be taken up in her interactions?

Secondly, we had the Belarus Foreign Minister visit Pakistan very recently. Was the matter of Russia deploying its nuclear weapons in Belarus considered or discussed in this meeting? (Anas Mallick, Capital TV)

Answer:​ Your first question was about the Minister of State’s visit to Sweden. Yes, when she visits Sweden, she will also hold the bilateral meetings where all aspects of bilateral cooperation will be discussed including visa related matters.

Regarding your second question, the focus of discussions between the visiting Foreign Minister of Belarus and Pakistani dignitaries including the Foreign Minister was on the bilateral relationship. As such no such issue came up. However, we would like to reiterate Pakistan’s consistent position that all states should abide by their international legal obligations and Non-Proliferation commitments and avoid steps inconsistent with such commitments. The issue of stationing nuclear weapons on territories of NPT non-nuclear weapon states, at present as well as in the past, needs to be carefully examined by all parties to the Treaty as it has serious repercussions for global peace and security.

From about 3 weeks ago:

Pakistan is also deeply concerned over the planned transfer of advanced military technologies to India. They remain unhelpful in achieving the objective of a durable peace in South Asia.

The NIC published one last month.

There’s a chart:

Iran’s MFA posted a video about the 1987 chemical weapons attack. The OPCW also had some commentary. Below is a screen shot. You can play the whole thing here.

One doesn’t always see this kind of candor:

This unveiling was a direct response to some recent rhetoric, and remarks made by the Zionist regime and the US. Tel Aviv and Washington claimed to be ready to take a military action against Iran.

There was an exchange in the British Parliament about protesting:

Sir Julian Lewis: I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think his memory is playing him false. I also remember the Countryside Alliance protest marches, and I believe they were organised in full co-operation with the police. It was similar with most of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament protests on the other side of the political spectrum. We are talking here about people who act unilaterally to obstruct others from going about their lawful business. The Countryside Alliance did not do that, so far as I recall

Mr Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman is actually correct in his recollection but also incomplete, because not all those protests were organised by the Countryside Alliance. I can remember the night when this House debated the Second Reading, and it was impossible for Members of this House to get on to the parliamentary estate because of the violence going on in Parliament Square. So if we are to take a view on the right to protest, that view must apply equally across the board to everybody, of whatever political persuasion, instead of simply, as we seem to be doing today, focusing on one aspect.

John McDonnell: The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) forgets that, when he was a member of the Labour party, he used to blast out very loud music at CND marches down Whitehall—he most probably would have been arrested by now.

The EU issued this statement on June 7:

The EU takes note that the Agency and Brazil have engaged on technical discussions in relation to an arrangement under Special Procedures pursuant to Article 13 of the Quadripartite Safeguards Agreement (QSA) between Argentina, Brazil, the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC) and the Agency. We also note that the Agency, upon Brazil’s invitation, has been able to visit relevant facilities together with ABACC and that it foresees the continuation of technical consultations. We welcome such cooperation and can only encourage further sharing of information, notably under Article 40 of the QSA and Code 3.1.2 of the Subsidiary Arrangements (General Part) thereto.

From this 1998 article:

In 1974, when India exploded its first nuclear device, the primary aim was, as the then AEC chief Homi Sethna put it, “Just to see whether we can do it.”