Edition

European States Trigger Dispute Mechanism in Iran Nuclear Deal

IN THIS ISSUE: European States Trigger Dispute Mechanism in Iran Nuclear Deal, North Korea Says Won't Trade Nuclear Weapon for Sanctions Lift, US Reaches Out to North Korea ‘Through Various Channels’: Trump's National Security Adviser, Russia Orders Military to Watch for US Missile Deployments

Published on January 14, 2020

European States Trigger Dispute Mechanism in Iran Nuclear Deal

Patrick Wintour | Guardian

Britain, France and Germany have triggered the dispute resolution mechanism in the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, a step that over months could result in the collapse of the agreement entirely and the return of European sanctions on Tehran. Officials described the move as one taken more in sorrow than anger and said it was in part prompted by fears that Iran may now be less than a year away from possessing the capacity to develop a nuclear bomb. The decision was taken in principle before Christmas by the three European powers, and not prompted by the recent Iranian attack on US bases in Iraq, or the Iranians’ accidental downing of the Ukrainian airliner. The six signatories to the deal, Iran, Russia, China and the EU states – France, Germany and the UK – will now meet at political director level in Vienna to hear formally that Iran’s steps away from the deal have required the EU to trigger the deal’s elaborate dispute resolution mechanism. Very soon after that process, the EU states could inform the UN that Iran is in breach of the agreement, leading to a reimposition of European sanctions. Donald Trump has been pressing Europe to leave the nuclear deal ever since he unilaterally took the US out of deal in May 2018, and the White House will be delighted that its sustained pressure has paid off. There is little expectation that the Iranians will respond to the EU’s move by reversing the steps it has already taken especially on nuclear research and development, but Europe felt it had no choice but to respond. 

North Korea Says Won't Trade Nuclear Weapon for Sanctions Lift

Kanga Kong | Bloomberg

North Korea won’t rely on the personal relationship between its leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump as it doesn’t intend to trade its nuclear weapons for a lift of sanctions, its state-run media said, citing a Foreign Ministry adviser. “There will never be such negotiations as that in Vietnam, in which we proposed exchanging a core nuclear facility of the country for the lift of some United Nations sanctions,” Kim Kye Gwan was quoted as saying by the Korean Central News Agency. “There is no need for us to be present in such talks, in which there is only unilateral pressure, and we have no desire to barter something for other thing at the talks like traders.” The dialogue will reopen only under the condition of Washington’s “absolute agreement” on North Korea’s demands, which the U.S. is neither ready for nor able to do, he said. “We know well about the way we should go and will go on our way.”

US Reaches Out to North Korea ‘Through Various Channels’: Trump's National Security Adviser

Yonhap News Agency

The United States has reached out to North Korea “through various channels” in order to resume stalled denuclearization talks, U.S. National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien has been quoted as saying. O'Brien also indicated in an interview with online news outlet Axios published Sunday that he was cautiously optimistic about the way forward, as the North has not yet carried out its threat to undertake provocations as a “Christmas gift” to the U.S. “We've reached out to the North Koreans and let them know that we would like to continue the negotiations in Stockholm that were last undertaken in early October,” O'Brien was quoted as saying in the interview, held Friday. The interview was published a day after former North Korean nuclear negotiator Kim Kye-gwan said in a statement that U.S. President Donald Trump sent the North's leader a happy birthday letter, but Pyongyang will not return to the negotiating table just because of the personal ties between the two leaders.

Russia Orders Military to Watch for US Missile Deployments

Tom O'Connor | Newsweek

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu held a conference call Friday with military leaders, whom he told that “it is necessary to conduct a deep analysis of potential military threats and outline measures to improve the Armed Forces.” Shoigu called on his personnel to keep an eye on the United States' burgeoning short-to-mid-range missile program. The move comes as the world's top two military powers appear to be teetering on the brink of an arms race. President Donald Trump has walked away from key, historic arms control deals and the Pentagon is shoring up its offensive and defensive systems around the world. At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin has accelerated efforts to revamp his own weaponry. At Friday's meeting, Shoigu instructed his top brass to “progressively rearm the Strategic Missile Forces on the Avangard and Yars complexes and the naval nuclear forces on the latest strategic submarines of the Borey-A class.” This improvement drive also included the development of the Novator 9M729 cruise missile, a weapon that Washington has long argued violates the 1987 bilateral Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that bans land-launched weapons ranging from 310 to 3,420 miles. Russia denies any violation and accuses the U.S. of violating their pact by deploying anti-missile systems that Moscow argues could also be used to attack as well. 

US Plutonium Production Plan Likely to Spur Legal Challenge

Susan Montoya Bryan | AP

The agency that oversees the United States’ nuclear arsenal says it doesn’t need to do any broad environmental reviews of a proposal that calls for ramping up production of plutonium triggers at federal installations in New Mexico and South Carolina. The National Nuclear Security Administration on Wednesday released a supplemental analysis related to the project, saying the determination was made after reviewing extensive documentation and public comments that were received last year. Nuclear watchdogs, government accountability advocates and other critics argue that the decision skirts requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and a decades-old court order that included a mandate for an environmental review when the federal government embarked on plans to boost production to more than 80 of the nuclear cores a year. Federal officials have set a deadline of 2030 for ramped-up core production, with work being split between Los Alamos National Laboratory in northern New Mexico and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Lawyers for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Savannah River Site Watch and Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment first threatened legal action last fall. They reiterated Thursday that a legal challenge is possible since the nuclear agency has declined to prepare a broader review. 

UK Nuclear Weapons Programme £1.3bn Over Budget

Jonathan Beale | BBC

The Ministry Of Defence's “poor management” of Britain's nuclear weapons programme has led to rising costs and lengthy delays, according to the government spending watchdog. The National Audit Office looked at three security sites in England, known as the Defence Nuclear Estate. It found the infrastructure projects face delays of between one and six years, with costs increasing by £1.3bn. The MoD said it would carefully look at the report's findings. The projects, initially valued at £2.5bn, are being built to enhance or replace existing facilities at Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, where four new submarines are being built by BAE Systems to carry Trident missiles. The other sites are Raynesway near Derby, where Rolls Royce is developing nuclear reactors to power the submarines, and at Burghfield in Berkshire, where the Atomic Weapons Establishment are assembling nuclear warheads. In a statement the Ministry of Defence said it was carefully examining the conclusions of the report but was committed to strengthening the management of its nuclear programme.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.