Brazil, Argentina and non-proleferation efforts around the word.

Brazil, Argentina, and the Politics of Global Nonproliferation and Nuclear Safeguards
Togzhan Kassenova
Proeferation News, December 1, 2016

Brazil and Argentina influence and are influenced by the global trends in nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear safeguards. This article describes the evolving trends in the global nonproliferation regime, reflects on international nuclear safeguards, and explains how these trends relate to unique challenges and opportunities facing Brazil, Argentina, and ABACC.



As possessors of advanced nuclear technology, Brazil and Argentina bear special responsibility for helping the international community and neighbors in their region feel confident that their nuclear programs are peaceful, secure, and safe.

See the report, in this link.

Nuclear Policy Conference, Washington, March 2017

2017 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference

Monday, March 20, 2017 - Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Ronald Reagan International Trade Center
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, District of Columbia
United States

Event Details

P + 1 202 459 0858  Email Us

2054) Iran e seguranca nuclear: ofensiva diplomatica contra as sancoes

O Irã está despachando missões diplomáticas para países que estima importantes no bloqueio de novas sanções. Não pretende fazê-lo em relação ao Brasil, talvez por julgar que não é necessário, talvez porque o Brasil se antecipou ao gesto e está enviando uma missão diplomática a Teerã, aliás, do mais alto nível, como se sabe...

Iran seeks to persuade Security Council not to back tough nuclear sanctions
By Thomas Erdbrink
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 21, 2010

TEHRAN -- Facing increasing momentum behind a U.S.-backed bid for new sanctions against it, Iran is launching a broad diplomatic offensive aimed at persuading as many U.N. Security Council members as possible to oppose tougher punishment for its nuclear program.

Iran wants to focus on reviving stalled talks about a nuclear fuel swap to build trust on all sides, according to politicians and diplomats in Tehran. But leaders of Western nations say that unless Iran alters its conditions for the deal, they will refuse to discuss it again. Under the arrangement, aimed at breaking an impasse over Iran's uranium-enrichment efforts, Tehran would exchange the bulk of its low-enriched uranium for more highly enriched fuel for a research reactor that produces medical isotopes.

As Iranian diplomats fly around the world to discuss the swap, they are lobbying some of the Security Council's rotating members to vote against a fourth round of sanctions proposed by the United States, officials said.

The Obama administration is seeking unanimous support for further Security Council sanctions against Iran. Three previous rounds of sanctions were accepted by all members, except in 2008, when Indonesia abstained. This time, Iran is actively working to get more Security Council members to oppose the U.S. initiative.

"In the coming 10 days, the Islamic republic's delegations will travel to the capitals of Russia, China, Lebanon and Uganda to pursue talks," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said. "Other countries will be visited in the near future." He said that "nuclear issues" will be on the agenda.
ad_icon

Iran also plans to try to rally support during an international conference to review the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In Tehran's view, the gathering, scheduled for May in New York, is shaping up as a confrontation between nuclear powers and developing nations.

Iran's official stance is that the U.N. sanctions are not effective. But unofficially, any vote against a new sanctions resolution would be welcomed as a great diplomatic victory.

"The groups we are sending out will be focusing on the correct implementation of the NPT, the disarmament trend and fuel-swap issues," said Kazem Jalali, a member of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy committee. "Naturally, our explanations during the trips will have a positive effect against the efforts by the United States in trying to impose new sanctions."

To start its diplomatic offensive, Iran held a nuclear disarmament conference last weekend that several Security Council members attended. The meeting, with its motto of "nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none," focused on what Iran and other developing nations call "double standards" and "discriminatory elements" in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Participants in the Tehran conference shared complaints that world powers are using proliferation fears as a reason to prevent developing nations from establishing independent nuclear energy programs.

Iran's diplomatic effort seems especially aimed at developing nations such as Brazil, Nigeria and Turkey, which hold rotating seats on the 15-member Security Council. Iran is also betting that council members Lebanon -- which has a government that includes members of Iran-backed Hezbollah -- and Uganda might vote against new sanctions or abstain.

As a part of the campaign, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will begin a two-day state visit Friday to Uganda, where he is expected to promise help in building an oil refinery.

Brazil and Turkey already have said they are wary of imposing additional punishment on Tehran. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, visiting Iran on Tuesday, announced that his country is ready to mediate on the uranium swap proposal and other nuclear issues.

The U.N.-backed arrangement, proposed in October, was the subject of promising initial negotiations. But it was soon shelved after Iran repeatedly changed its conditions, saying the exchange should take place on Iranian soil and demanding more Western security guarantees.

With Western nations insisting that the swap occur outside Iran, Turkey offered last year to act as a neutral location for the exchange, but Tehran was not interested, diplomats said.

Asked Tuesday about the proposal, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters, "The venue of any fuel swap will be in Iran."

Special correspondent Kay Armin Serjoie contributed to this report.

2076) Cupula de Washington sobre material nuclear

De certa forma se trata da materialização, por Obama, de antiga proposta feita por George Bush, tão desprezado, sobre controle total de todo o material nuclear (combustível, equipamentos, etc), que tinha sido formulada em 2004 de maneira unilateral.
O que Obama propõe é basicamente o mesmo, apenas com esse envelope de conferência plurilateral para melhor implementar seus objetivos.

La cumbre de Washington pretende eliminar los riesgos de ataque nuclear
Líderes de 47 países se reúnen hoy para poner bajo control el material atómico
ANTONIO CAÑO - Washington -
El Pais, 12/04/2010

La ciudad de Washington acoge hoy la mayor cumbre de su historia y Barack Obama emprende uno de los objetivos más ambiciosos de su presidencia: eliminar el riesgo de un ataque nuclear. Líderes o altos representantes de 47 países se reúnen durante dos días para detener el tráfico de material atómico y poner bajo control todo el uranio enriquecido y plutonio que existe en el mundo.

Los expertos afirman que sólo se requieren 25 kilos de uranio enriquecido para fabricar un artefacto nuclear. Hay actualmente alrededor de 1.600.000 kilos de ese producto diseminados en más de 40 países. Algunos cálculos más alarmantes apuntan a que, considerando el uranio del que no se tiene oficialmente noticia, se dispone de suficiente material nuclear sobre el planeta como para fabricar más de 100.000 bombas atómicas.
Gran parte de ese material está guardado en instalaciones militares en algunas de las cinco mayores potencias nucleares -Rusia, Estados Unidos, Francia, China y el Reino Unido, por este orden, según el número de cabezas nucleares con el que cuentan-. Pero otra parte está repartida en países inmersos en conflictos regionales -Israel, Pakistán e India- o en otros que enriquecen uranio únicamente para su uso como energía. Incluso en los países en los que no existe ninguna sospecha sobre el uso de ese material por parte de sus gobiernos, siempre queda el riesgo de un robo en sus instalaciones civiles, a veces no suficientemente protegidas.
"El peligro de una guerra nuclear ha decrecido, pero el peligro de un ataque nuclear ha aumentado considerablemente", dijo Obama hace un año en Praga, punto de salida de su odisea por un mundo sin armas nucleares.
Esa meta está lejana aún, pero mientras tanto hay que dar los pasos para al menos atenuar el riesgo al que se enfrenta la humanidad. La firma reciente de un nuevo tratado entre Rusia y EE UU para destruir una tercera parte de sus arsenales nucleares es uno de esos pasos. La conferencia que hoy se inaugura aquí, oficialmente denominada Cumbre sobre Seguridad Nuclear, es otro no menos importante.
Los participantes se comprometerán con un plan de trabajo para poner en condiciones seguras y bajo control internacional todo el material nuclear existente en un plazo de cuatro años. Algunos países harán concesiones unilaterales para reducir el volumen total de ese material. Chile anunciará que sus últimos 28 kilos de uranio enriquecido han sido ya trasladados a depósitos seguros en EE UU. Canadá y Ucrania se comprometerán a cambiar sus plantas con reactores de uranio altamente enriquecido (el que se requiere para las bombas atómicas) a otras de uranio de bajo enriquecimiento. Rusia y EE UU, probablemente, detallarán planes sobre qué hacer con el plutonio sobrante de las armas eliminadas.
Todo eso no garantiza que dentro de cuatro años el peligro de un ataque nuclear por parte de un grupo terrorista o un gobierno haya desaparecido. En primer lugar, están ausentes de la cumbre algunos de los países de los que se sospecha que están desarrollando programas nucleares, como Irán, Corea del Norte y Siria. El primer ministro de Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, canceló su participación en esta conferencia, dejando en el aire la duda sobre si se siente personalmente involucrado en sus objetivos.
Uno de los ausentes, Corea del Norte, ya ha hecho ensayos de misiles que han provocado una gran inquietud entre sus vecinos asiáticos. El resto de los países que no participan están implicados en la explosiva crisis de Oriente Próximo, donde parece evidente el desarrollo de una carrera nuclear.
La amenaza no se reduce a los Estados. Organizaciones terroristas como Al Qaeda han dejado clara su intención de utilizar todos los medios a su alcance para destruir a sus enemigos. A su alcance podría estar parte del material nuclear que existe en el mundo. Las antiguas repúblicas soviéticas, por ejemplo, conservaron tras su independencia las reservas nucleares instaladas en su territorio. Un acuerdo con EE UU en 1991 consiguió eliminar o poner bajo control gran parte de ese material. Pero aún queda una porción, quizá más de 10%, en condiciones que los expertos consideran incontroladas.
También en los países occidentales es necesario reforzar las medidas de seguridad, muy abandonadas en los últimos años. El Reino Unido ha pedido al Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica una inspección de sus instalaciones por si fuera necesaria alguna mejora. Obama ha solicitado al Congreso 3.100 millones de dólares para ayudar a los países que necesiten recursos para mejorar su seguridad nuclear.
"La parte más difícil de construir una bomba atómica es obtener el material necesario", ha advertido el secretario norteamericano de Energía, el premio Nobel de física Steven Chu, "por eso es esencial mantenerlo bajo estricta custodia".
Seguridad nuclear
- La Cumbre sobre Seguridad Nuclear reúne a representantes de 47 países. Entre ellos no figuran Irán, Corea del Norte y Siria.
- Los expertos calculan que hay 1.600.000 kilos de uranio enriquecido diseminados en instalaciones de más de 40 países, en muchos casos desprovistas de los sistemas de seguridad deseables.
- Barack Obama ha pedido 3.100 millones de dólares al Congreso de EE UU para mejorar la seguridad en países con escasos recursos.

2055) Nuclear Posture Review of the US - CSIS

The Nuclear Posture Review
Sharon Squassoni
Center For Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)
April 8, 2010

Q1: Why a Nuclear Posture Review now?
A1: Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. presidents have been grappling with the implications of a drastically changed security environment. Congress mandated that the Defense Department complete a review of the roles and missions of nuclear forces, and the first one appeared in 1994 under the Clinton administration. The Bush administration's review was completed in 2001. This latest Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was mandated by Congress in 2008. It acknowledges that nuclear weapons play a narrower role in U.S. national security strategy than in the past and seeks to widen the role of conventional elements of deterrence. It concludes that thousands of nuclear weapons have little relevance in meeting the most pressing security challenges facing the United States today-nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Q2: Is this review a radical departure from previous reviews?
A2: No. The review does not call for a no-first-use policy, nor for deep, quick reductions of strategic nuclear weapons, either unilaterally or in tandem with Russia. The strategic nuclear triad (warheads delivered by submarines, missiles, and bombers) is intact and will probably remain so for decades unless much deeper cuts are made. Allies will continue to rely on U.S. extended deterrence, including the U.S. nuclear "umbrella." The safety, security, and reliability of the existing arsenal will be maintained. Lastly, the review does not close off the possibility that U.S. nuclear weapons might be used to respond to nonnuclear attacks, although it limits those circumstances.
A few changes are significant, however. Among other things, the United States will not develop new warheads, and life-extension programs will not support new military missions or capabilities. Stockpile stewardship investments will allow major reductions in warheads held in reserve. The review explicitly strengthens assurances to nonnuclear weapon states that comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them.

Q3: What is the domestic and international impact of this NPR at this time?
A3: This review was necessary to determine force levels under the new START agreement, which will be signed on April 8 in Prague. It would be hard to convince the Senate to ratify that treaty without a clear framework for nuclear policy for the next decade. Likewise, this NPR will be crucial to administration efforts to get a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ratified by the Senate at some point in the future. Stockpile stewardship measures will be critical to that debate. Internationally, this NPR will be closely scrutinized as an indication of U.S. commitment to its disarmament obligations under the NPT, as state parties meet in May in New York to review that treaty's implementation. Disarmament progress is considered crucial by many to gain support for stronger nonproliferation measures.

Sharon Squassoni is a senior fellow and director of the Proliferation Prevention Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

1750) Obama Nuclear Policy

Obama's Nuclear Posture Review will set tone for U.S. weapons policy
By Mary Beth Sheridan and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 5, 2010; 1:30 PM

President Obama's top national security advisers within days will present him with an agonizing choice on how to guide U.S. nuclear weapons policy for the rest of his presidency.

Does he substantially advance his bold pledge to seek a world free of nuclear weapons by declaring that the "sole purpose" of the U.S. arsenal is to deter other nations from using them? Or does he embrace a more modest option, supported by some senior military officials, that deterrence is the "primary purpose"?

The difference may seem semantic, but such words, which will be contained in a document known as the Nuclear Posture Review, have deep meanings and could dramatically shift nuclear policy in the United States and around the world. The first option would scale back the arsenal's war-fighting role, potentially leading to a smaller U.S. stockpile and taking weapons off alert. The second option would be less of a change, holding out the nuclear threat but still permitting a reduction in weapons. The president was briefed on the document this week and requested additional intermediate options, officials say.

Senior administration officials have already indicated the review is likely to roll back some Bush policies, such as threatening the use of nuclear weapons to preempt or respond to chemical or biological attacks. The review will also point to new ways to cut the Pentagon's stockpile of roughly 5,000 active nuclear warheads, they say.

But, officials say, after lengthy debate, Obama's aides have rejected some of the boldest ideas on the table, such as forswearing the option to use nuclear arms first in a conflict, or dropping one leg of the "triad" of bombers, submarines and land-based missiles that carry the deadly weapons.

Obama's decision on the sensitive issue of U.S. "declaratory policy," U.S. officials and outside experts say, will help determine whether the document is regarded as a far-reaching shift from the Bush administration's version released in 2001. Lower-level officials trying to craft the language engaged in fierce discussions about how far and fast the administration could alter course without alarming allies.

The Nuclear Posture Review is done at the start of each administration, and influences budgets, treaties and weapons deployments and retirements for five to 10 years. Expectations for this one have been raised because of Obama's pledge last year to "put an end to Cold War thinking" and move toward global disarmament -- a vision that helped win him a Nobel Peace Prize.

The review, more than a month overdue, reflects the tension in seeking to advance the president's sweeping agenda without unnerving allies who depend on the U.S. nuclear "umbrella." The Pentagon is also wary of losing options in a world with emerging nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran, officials say.

Until recently, Obama generally has not intervened in the Pentagon-led process, which also involves officials from the State Department, the Energy Department and other agencies. That has raised concerns among arms-control advocates that the final product will be a cautious bureaucratic compromise.

"This NPR will be sort of the bell toll," said Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It will signal the direction. Will the president try to push that agenda?"

U.S. diplomats hope the final document will establish the Obama administration's credibility before a nuclear security summit in April and a crucial meeting in May on the fraying global nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That treaty is at the heart of Obama's strategy to combat the most urgent threat today: the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable states and to terrorists. The last such session in 2005 ended in failure, with many countries accusing the Bush administration of trying to scotch their nuclear programs while maintaining one of the world's most massive stockpiles.

"The United States can't go around and ask others to give up their nuclear weapons while we maintain a list of official purposes for our nuclear weapons" that necessitates a large arsenal, said Jan Lodal, a senior Defense Department official in the Clinton administration.

The review comes as the U.S. military's precision-guided, conventional weapons have gained such accuracy that they can handle many threats assigned to nuclear weapons in the past.

But U.S. allies are divided about Obama's vision. New governments in Germany and Japan have embraced it, but some nations are more skeptical. "A country like ours, with a very special experience with its own history, we are maybe more cautious than some other countries," said Petr Kolar, the Czech ambassador, referring to past Soviet domination.

Kolar said big policy changes -- like promising not to use nuclear weapons first in a crisis -- could embolden other nuclear-armed powers. "My personal perspective is . . . we shouldn't actually lose the instruments we so far have," he said. "What's the change that would be gained by that?"

Another European ambassador said the nuclear review broke ground in even contemplating such a pledge. But he said it was unlikely while NATO was engaged in a major study of its strategy, due out this fall.

Pentagon officials worry that allies like Japan or Turkey could decide to develop their own nuclear weapons if they believed U.S. protection wasn't assured. Skeptics -- both Democrats and Republicans -- also question whether pledges to limit the U.S. nuclear role would have the impact claimed by proponents , since foes probably wouldn't believe such assertions. "We're better off when we communicate that all options are on the table," said Thomas Mahnken, a senior Defense Department official in the Bush administration. "As a practical matter, they are."

More than two dozen Democrats, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, have pressed Obama to adopt language saying the "sole" or "only" purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is deterrence. It would not prevent the U.S. government from using a weapon first but would de-emphasize that option in planning.

The Bush administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review pledged to reduce the Cold War role of nuclear weapons. But it discussed planning to build new types of "bunker-buster" warheads. It also proposed developing the U.S. nuclear stockpile based not on potential enemies' actual threat but their future capability to carry out nuclear, chemical or biological attacks.

As part of his "declaratory policy," Obama will have to consider whether to break with the Bush and Clinton administrations' studied ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear weapons to respond to chemical or biological attacks planned by non-nuclear countries.

The president is expected to adopt that change, but with an important caveat, officials said. The new policy would drop that threat only for countries in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and thus not working on their own bomb.

The immediate effect of such a policy would be limited, since the potential aggressors that most concern the United States are nuclear powers or accused treaty violators like Iran. But the move could encourage other countries to stick to the rules of that pact, officials said.

"It would be a significant pulling back of the reach of the nuclear sword," said Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists.

One senior official said the review will "point to dramatic reductions in the stockpile" in coming years.

In particular, the review will push for beefing up America's deteriorating weapons complex and nuclear labs so that the Pentagon can be more certain of its weapons' effectiveness, officials said. That shift will allow the Defense Department to get rid of some of the roughly 2,000 nuclear warheads it keeps as backups, in addition to its nearly 3,000 deployed weapons, officials said. There are also more than 4,000 older, inactive warheads in the queue for dismantlement.

It is not yet clear whether such reductions would be part of a formal treaty with Russia, one official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.