TL: GREENPEACE NEWSLETTER ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION ISSUES NUMBER 3, MARCH 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS EDITORIAL NPT INDEFINITE EXTENSION UNLIKELY PROTEST OVER PLUTONIUM WASTE SHIP GAGGED TARGETTING OF THIRD WORLD REVEALED FRENCH NUCLEAR MISSILE TEST NEW ROLES FOR NEW NUKES US TEST BAN SHRUGGED OFF NEWS BRIEFS **************************** EDITORIAL The nuclear weapon states and their friends have talked much of the risks of any other option but indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ambassadors of the US nuclear alliance have roamed the world urging non-nuclear countries to support this option with a persistence and energy that is in marked contrast to their efforts toward nuclear disarmament. France, on behalf of the European Union, has said that any formula except indefinite extension of the NPT is "tantamount" to envisaging its disappearance. Such hyperbole is irresponsible. Firstly, because promoting indefinite extension could result in making permament a Treaty which in its current form, threatens to increase proliferation, not inhibit it. Secondly, because pushing through indefinite extension at any cost is likely to be divisive and undermine, not strengthen, confidence in a universal and non-discriminatory non- proliferation regime. Without admitting their own failures to live up to their Treaty obligations, the nuclear weapon states risk putting a burden of hypocrisy on the Treaty which can only weaken such confidence further. Support for indefinite extension at any cost is now damaging the credibility of many non-nuclear nations with previously impeccable non-proliferation records. Perhaps the most bizarre manifestion of this is when France, as president of the European Union, speaks for countries such as Ireland, Austria and Sweden. At NPT talks in January, for example, France claimed the EU was 'pleased' with the 'significant progress' France and Britain have made on nuclear disarmament. This is a kind of nuclear 'doublespeak' from two countries which have actively obstructed timely conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, have never entered into nuclear reduction talks, who have new nuclear submarines with greatly enhanced capabilities currently entering into service and continue to proliferate tonnes of weapons-usable plutonium in their commercial reprocessing industry. When even the US is critical of the UK's failure to disarm (see page 4), it does nothing to enhance the integrity of other European Union countries to remain silent. The European Union common position on indefinite extension in fact provides camouflage for France and Britain's intransigent refusal to disarm, while emasculating criticism of their performance from their EU colleagues. Instead of strong-arming the non-nuclear nations into accepting an inadequate Treaty, the nuclear weapon states should acknowledge the desire for a more effective non-proliferation regime based on real steps towards eliminating nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon states and their allies must wake up to the fact that the rest of the planet is tired of the nuclear arms race. It is time for the nuclear weapon states to rejoin the real world on an equal level and move rapidly toward zero. *********************************** NPT INDEFINITE EXTENSION UNLIKELY US forced to reveal fall-back position of 25 years Cracks in Western support for indefinite and unconditional extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty began to appear during January's fourth preparatory talks as the US admitted it did not have the numbers to win a vote and was considering other options. The US was forced to reveal a fall-back position -- 25 year rolling extension of the Treaty -- in the face of strong demands by several non-nuclear nations for limited extensions of the Treaty linked to further progress on nuclear disarmament. Leading non-aligned nations including Indonesia, Nigeria, Uganda, Colombia and Venezuela reiterated their call for the Treaty to be extended for limited periods linked to a programme of action on nuclear disarmament. South Africa provided a legal analysis supporting rolling extensions of the Treaty, arguing for a 'positive vote' rather than an automatic rollover at the end of each period. The strength of opposition to indefinite extension of the Treaty -- the option sought by the US and other nuclear weapon states - - has left the nuclear weapon states and their allies in an uncomfortable position. Since the September preparatory committee meeting in Geneva, the US and its allies have not succeeded in increasing the number of votes in favour of indefinite extension from around 65-70 countries, but neither do they appear prepared to make significant commitments on nuclear disarmament or seek consensus around limited extension. Finalising a decision on the voting mechanisms for the April Conference was postponed until a two-day meeting on April 13- 14th, as the Western Group remained uncertain about the details of a proposal by the Non-Aligned Movement to put forward all extension proposals for vote simultaneously. **************************************** PROTEST OVER PLUTONIUM WASTE SHIP GAGGED PLUTONIUM WASTE SHIPMENT TRACKED Nuclear industry seeks to gag protest at shipment Greenpeace is this month tracking the first shipment of highly radioactive plutonium waste from France to Japan in order to provide information to nations en route. The Greenpeace ship MV Solo followed the Pacific Pintail from the French port of Cherbourg on February 23rd, in spite of legal action taken by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), the company contracted to make the shipment, to try and gag protest at the shipment. The shipment of plutonium waste is derived from Japanese spent nuclear fuel which is reprocessed into plutonium at France's La Hague facility. France, the UK and Japan are key to a growing commercial industry which aims to produce tens of tonnes of plutonium -- the critical material for nuclear bombs -- in the next decade. Meanwhile, a confidential document leaked to Greenpeace on February 17th showed the French Government lied about the transport of plutonium waste. While the Government was claiming to the press, public and en route states that final dates for the transport had not been set, the leaked memo showed that a full schedule for the nuclear waste shipment's departure from France had been agreed at the end of January. The Japanese and British authorities likewise refused to provide information about the timing, route, and emergency arrangements for the shipment. 'While pretending that decisions had not been made, French, Japanese and British authorities withheld crucial safety and security information from the governments and peoples put at risk along the transport route,' said Jean-Luc Thierry of Greenpeace France. 'The environmental and proliferation risk posed by the plutonium industry will continue unchecked unless a complete ban on its production and use is agreed. It is essential that the NPT talks in April address this issue urgently." ******************************************* FRENCH NUCLEAR MISSILE TEST FRANCE TESTS NEW NUCLEAR MISSILE 'One test too many, one missile too much' The first test-firing of France's new nuclear missile, the M45, took place on February 14th, just two months before the Review and Extension Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The missile was fired from the new Triomphant nuclear submarine off the west coast of France and landed 23 minutes later, 4500 kilometres away near the Antilles. The Triomphant carries 16 M45 missiles each with six 150 kilotonne nuclear warheads. The Triomphant programme, which has already cost $20 billion dollars, will increase the range and number of nuclear warheads deployed by France at sea. The M45 has a range of 6000 kilometres; the next generation missile, the M5, which is planned to enter into service around the year 2005 will have a range of 7000 km and carry up to 12 nuclear warheads. French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur had earlier visited the Triomphant the Ile Longue nuclear submarine base near Brest on January 16, just a week before the last NPT preparatory talks. The favourite in the French Presidential race, Balladur reiterated France's continued commitment to a nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. Saying France also had a commitment to non-proliferation, he said that that commitment 'should by no means affect ... the determination of France to maintain the credibility and the performance of our own nuclear forces. Those forces are now and will in the future be... the ultimate guarantee of our sovereignty and of our national independence'. Greenpeace France's Ben Cramer said the test was a provocation. 'France is defying the international community. Just two months away from Presidential elections and the NPT conference, the Navy has been given a free hand to modernise its nuclear arsenal. France cannot pretend to give other countries lessons on non- proliferation when it refuses to commit to any disarmament process itself. This is one test too many, one missile too much.' **************************************** NEW ROLES FOR NEW NUKES Counterproliferation provides new rationale for nuclear arsenals Third World nations risk being the target of US nuclear weapons under new 'counter proliferation' strategies, according to a Greenpeace report. Rather than seeking nuclear disarmament after the end of the Cold War, the military have sought new justifications for keeping and modernising nuclear weapons. Documents obtained by Greenpeace researchers under the Freedom of Information Act show that a fundamental shift in nuclear weapons strategy is taking place, with the US military steadily developing plans to use nuclear weapons against any country it believes has, or is working to develop, so-called weapons of mass destruction. These plans include a new nuclear doctrine issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff which envisages using nuclear weapons in 'regional contingencies', and plans for new nuclear weapons specifically designed for counterproliferation roles. For example, a key decision on whether to proceed with the development of a new 'exotic' nuclear warhead is expected during March, just one month before delegates meet in New York to discuss the performance and future of the NPT. The report, 'Changing Targets: Nuclear Doctrine from the Cold War to Third World' also examines French and British nuclear doctrine, which is also increasingly focussed on any country suspected of proliferation. It concludes: 'Adding Third World nations to the possible list of nuclear weapons targets clearly demonstrates once again that the United States and other nuclear weapons states have no plans to fufil their Article VI obligations. Linking nuclear weapons strategies to Third World contingencies and counter-proliferation scenarios is an expansion -- not a reduction -- of the role of nuclear weapons. Increased planning for the possibility of using nuclear weapons in regional conflicts increases north-south tensions and also makes security assurances pledged by the nuclear weapons states look meaningless.' Copies of 'Changing Targets' are available from Greenpeace International *************************************** NEWS BRIEFS US TEST BAN SHRUGGED OFF Withdrawal by the US in February of a ten-year 'opt out' clause from comprehensive test ban treaty language was largely viewed as a paper concession, observers say. The US strategy of waiting until the last moment before the NPT conference before offering any significant movement on nuclear disarmament has been under some pressure as a result of continued strong resistance to indefinite extension by non-nuclear countries. The withdrawal of the 'opt out' clause -- which had had no support even from other nuclear weapon states and may have been put forward precisely as a bargaining chip rather than a serious proposal -- nevertheless buoyed the hopes of non-nuclear states for further progress on nuclear disarmament. Other relatively simple moves the nuclear weapon states could well make before the Review and Extension Conference in April include passing an updated Security Council resolution on negative security assurances in March, tightening up of safeguards, and agreement on a mandate for the fissile material talks. However, these are all likely to be viewed as too little, too late by non-nuclear states anxious to see extension of the NPT linked to more significant progress toward nuclear disarmament. FRENCH SURE TESTS WILL RE-START French nuclear and defence officials want to conduct a one-off series of 10 to 20 nuclear tests in the South Pacific after Presidential elections in May, according to a US nuclear scientist. Federation of American Scientists vice-president Richard Garwin, who held talks in Paris with officials in February, was quoted as saying that French scientists and military were confident they would be able to resume testing. France traditionally tested at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls between either May and July or October and December until President Mitterrand initiated a testing moratorium in April 1992. South Pacific nations have consistently opposed the testing programme, concerned at both the proliferation and environmental risks of continued nuclear testing in the region. EURO PARLIAMENT DEBATES NPT The European Parliament debates views on the future of the NPT this month, aiming to adopt a report in time to influence the European Union's position at the April Review and Extension Conference. The Parliament's foreign policy subcommittee on security and disarmament has been debating the issue because of concern that the EU appeared to be ignoring the demands of developing countries that the nuclear weapon states meet their nuclear disarmament obligations. The committee's report is likely to be debated in March and agreed by plenary in early April. US PRESSURE UK ON TRIDENT The US is urging Britain to reduce its Trident nuclear weapons system because of concern that Britain's refusal to disarm will undermine support for indefinite extension of the NPT, a report in the British newspaper 'Independent on Sunday' says. US officials were reported as criticising Britain's commitment to maintain nuclear weapons. 'Britain and France have both signalled they have no intenetion of getting rid of their nuclear weapons,' one official said. 'We understand that Douglas Hurd [UK Secretary of Defence] has told a parliamentary committee that he does not foresee a day when Britain will not have nuclear weapons. Indeed, what we see is that while America and Russia re moving to cut the number of warheads each has....Britain has just modernised its system through Trident.' British Foreign Office sources said the US had made no formal request for reductions. Meanwhile, British Labour Party foreign affairs spokesman Robin Cook said the nuclear weapons states had only themselves to blame if they had trouble persuading other countries of the need for indefinite extension. The other major opposition party, the Liberal Democrats, has opposed indefinite extension of the NPT. US PROCEEDS WITH NIF A new US facility to upgrade surrogate nuclear testing capability and maintain weapons design capabilities is proceeding. The National Ignition Facility is a $1 billion laser fusion project which aims to assess nuclear weapons effects and maintain the skills and expertise of nuclear weapons designers. While the Department of Energy argues the NIF will have commercial applications, critics say it is an attempt to continue the development of nuclear weapons once a comprehensive test ban is in place. Around $50 million is to be spent in 1996 to develop the facility. GERMANY PLANS PLUTONIUM FACILITY IN RUSSIA The German nuclear company Siemens is proposing to build a plutonium facility at the Chelyabinsk nuclear complex in Russia, Greenpeace has revealed. The facility -- a pilot-scale mixed oxide (MOX) fuel plant capable of producing 20 tonnes of fuel each year -- would take plutonium from dismantled nuclear warheads and fabricate it into nuclear fuel for use in reactors. Siemens has previously been blocked from building a MOX plant in Germany because of proliferation, environmental, and economic concerns. 'This is not about disarmament. This is about western nuclear industries desperate to make profits at the expense of the people's environment and health,' said Dima Tomalsky of Greenpeace Russia. Greenpeace is opposed to fabricating plutonium fuel from dismantled nuclear warheads because MOX can be used both directly and indirectly to make nuclear bombs and is a dirty and contaminating process. Burning MOX in reactors does not reduce the amount of plutonium -- the uranium in the MOX (as much as 93% of the total) is converted in the reactor to plutonium that can also be used in nuclear weapons. Moreover, using MOX in reactors not designed for plutonium fuel, such as is proposed in Russia, reduces safety margins significantly. US PLANS $10.3 BILLION SPEND ON NUKES IN 1996 The US Defense and Energy Departments plan to spend $10.3 billion in 1996 to procure, research and develop new nuclear weapons systems, and to maintain and improve the current nuclear arsenal, a Greenpeace analysis of February budget requests has found. Major Defense Department items of proliferation concern include the purchase of six new strategic nuclear Trident II D-5 missiles, upgrading land-based ICBMs, maintaining nuclear weapons, and buying new nuclear-powered submarines. Major Energy Department proliferation items include improving existing nuclear warheads, maintaining an ability to resume underground nuclear testing, and developing an infrastructure to maintain weapons design, testing and production skills. 'The Clinton Administration talks big on nonproliferation and the need for indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But continued funding of U.S. nuclear programs undermines efforts to curb nuclear weapons proliferation. You can't say one thing and do another,' said Chris Zimmer, Greenpeace US disarmament campaigner. 'Despite its Article VI disarmament obligations, the US is not moving towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.' IAEA ADMITS FAILURE The International Atomic Energy Agency has admitted it cannot guarantee that states are not developing nuclear weapons programmes. In January, IAEA spokesman David Kyd, responding to US and Israeli allegations that Iran could build a bomb within 7-15 years, said the IAEA had found nothing indicative of any weapons programme, and said Iran was in compliance with the Non Proliferation Treaty. But acknowledging the IAEA's failure to safeguard nuclear programmes in the past, he added that the IAEA "doesn't give Iran a clean bill of health any more than any other country." Iran has denied any plans for a nuclear weapons programme and has affirmed it will remain party to the NPT. There is skepticism about the US and Israeli claims as no evidence about Iran's supposed programme has been forthcoming. One Western official was quoted as saying: 'Claiming that Costa Rica or Honduras can get the bomb is just about as credible - five to 10 to 15 years is a lot of time for any NPT party with little infrastructure.' DIARY DATES Twenty-fifth anniversary of NPT entry into force, March 5 League of Arab States meeting on NPT, Cairo, March 15 OPANAL Council debates NPT, Chile, March 27-31 Deadline for countries wishing to take part in the NPT General Debate, April 13th Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, April 17-May 12 Vital Statistics US 1996 proposed budget for nuclear weapons: $10.3 billion UK Trident programme cost (estimate): œ30 billion French Triomphant programme costs to date: $20 billion IAEA safeguards budget (annual): $72 million NUCLEAR WEAPONS Total production Current stockpile US 70,000 14,900 Russia 55,000 29,000 US strategic forces are currently equivalent to their 1972 force level, while Russia's forces are now at the same size as the 1982 level. Both countries maintain higher force levels than in 1968 when the NPT was signed.