CHRONOLOGY 2005

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

JANUARY 2005


FEBRUARY 2005


MARCH 2005
2005.03.28    Monday
Jimmy Carter published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post of 28 March 2005, widely disseminated. He wrote that “The United States is the major culprit in the erosion of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

•  Washington Post, 2005.03.28. Carter Op-Ed.



APRIL 2005

2005.04.18    Monday
The Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the US National Academy of Sciences issues a major study on monitoring nuclear weapons and fissile material.

•  National Academy of Sciences. Committee on International Security and Arms Control. Monitoring Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear-Explosive Materials. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 18 April 2005). [pdf]

2005.04.28    Thursday
UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith gave PM Tony Blair advice papers on the Iraq War on 7 March 2003 and 17 March 2003. The 7 March 2003 advice was released today. Comparison of the two documents will fuel charges that Goldsmith’s advice changed, and that Blair misled the House of Commons.

•  United Kingdom. Office of the Prime Minister. Lord Goldsmith’s advice of 7 March 2003, titled “Resolution 1441”. Goldsmith 7 March Advice. [pdf] [Scanned copy of original 'SECRET' document.]
•  Guardian [London], 2005.04.28. The text of the 7 March 2003 document, in two parts: Goldsmith 7 March Advice [Part 1] and Goldsmith 7 March Advice [Part 2].
•  Guardian, 2003.03.17. Lord Goldsmith’s advice of 17 March 2003: Goldsmith 17 March Advice.
•  United Kingdom. Hansard. House of Commons Debate on Iraq, 2003.03.18. UK House of Commons Debate 18 March.
•  Colin Brown, Independent [London], “Blair accused of ‘gross deception’ as Goldsmith’s advice is published.” 2005.04.28. Text of article.
•  A chronology of the Countdown to War, 8 November 2002 to 20 March 2003; and hot links to key documents: Guardian, 2005.04.28. Countdown to War.
•  Simon Jeffery and Tom Happold, “Full Iraq Legal Advice Released”:Guardian, 2005.04.28. Text of Article.



MAY 2005

2005.05.01    Sunday
The Sunday Times published minutes of a 23 July 2002 meeting of PM Tony Blair and senior British government officials, at which Iraq and the war question formed the agenda. References to ‘regime change’ as an aim invite the reading that it was that objective, rather than concern about WMD, which motivated Blair’s readiness for war.

•  Sunday Times, Minute of 23 July 2002 Meeting. 1 May 2005.
•  Richard Norton-Taylor and Patrick Wintour, The Guardian [London],“Papers reveal commitment to war”. 2 May 2005.
•  Nigel Morris, The Independent [London],“Iraq war ‘will haunt Blair’s legacy like Suez’”. 2 May 2005.
•  Alan Cowell, The New York Times “For Blair, Iraq Issue Just Won’t Go Away”. 2 May 2005.

2005.05.02-27    Monday
The 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference [2-27 May 2005] opened at the United Nations in New York.

•  United Nations. 2005 NPT Review Conference, 2-27 May 2005, United Nations, NY. Links to statements made in the general debate are at this page. Selected remarks follow:
•  Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Address, 2 May 2005.
•  Address, 2 May 2005.
•  Ms. Marian Hobbs, Minister for Disarmament & Arms Control, New Zealand. Statement on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, 2 May 2005.
•  Stephen G. Rademaker, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Department of State, United States. Remarks, 2 May 2005.
•  Dermot Ahern, Miinister of Foreign Affairs. Iteland. Remarks, 2 May 2005.

2005.05.03    Tuesday
The 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference [selected general debate statements continued].

•  Kamal Kharrazi, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Iran. Remarks, 3 May 2005.
•  Zhang Yan, Director General for the Arms Control Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China. Remarks [url pending], 3 May 2005.

2005.05.13    Friday
A senior Chinese diplomat on Thursday accused the Bush administration of undermining efforts to revive negotiations with the North Korean government and said there was “no solid evidence” that North Korea was preparing to test a nuclear weapon.

•  Joseph Kahn, The New York Times, “China Says US Impeded North Korea Arms Talks.”. 13 May 2005.

2005.05.29    Sunday
The film LastBestChance, produced by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, dramatizes a fictional scenario of the theft of nuclear weapons and the means to fabricate them. [The DVD was and may still be available from the NTI website: www.nti.org].

•  LastBestChance.



JUNE 2005

>

JULY 2005

2005.07.25    Monday
A fourth session of six-nation talks on North Korea began today in Beijing, thirteen months after the last session. Participants are North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia, China, and the United States. [The talks continued for 13 days, and then recessed, with the declared intention to resume in three weeks.] According to news reports, one prime sticking-point was North Korea’s insistence that it not be barred from operating a light-water reactor, and a US demand that no nuclear power program be permitted.

>

AUGUST 2005

>

2005.08.08    Monday
The Irish Times concluded it’s lead editorial as follows:

“All of this should reinforce the political determination to prevent nuclear proliferation and re-emphasise that, without nuclear disarmament, this is a formula incapable of delivering strategic stability. In recent years India and Pakistan have crossed the nuclear threshold, while Libya is the only state to have gone the other way. The objective should be to get rid of nuclear weapons, however utopian this may seem. That means holding existing nuclear states to such a commitment and maintaining international pressure for linking non-proliferation to nuclear disarmament—despite last May’s setback on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ireland has a role to play in this endeavour, given our record on initiating and sustaining the threat.”

•  Editorial: “Getting rid of nuclear weapons”. The Irish Times, 8 August 2005..

SEPTEMBER 2005

>

2005.09.19    Monday
The resumed fourth session of six-nation talks on North Korea (13-19 September) concluded today in Beijing. A joint statement said, in part, “The DPRK committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards.” Analysts observed that many details remain to be negotiated. [In that vein, cf. entry for 2007.02.13]

•  Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks. Beijing,19 September 2005..

OCTOBER 2005

>

2005.10.07    Friday
The 2005 Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its Director-General, Mohamed ElBaradei. The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award as follows:

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2005

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2005 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.

At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation. This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work of the IAEA and its Director General. In the nuclear non-proliferation regime, it is the IAEA which controls that nuclear energy is not misused for military purposes, and the Director General has stood out as an unafraid advocate of new measures to strengthen that regime. At a time when disarmament efforts appear deadlocked, when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread both to states and to terrorist groups, and when nuclear power again appears to be playing an increasingly significant role, IAEA's work is of incalculable importance.

In his will, Alfred Nobel wrote that the Peace Prize should, among other criteria, be awarded to whoever had done most for the "abolition or reduction of standing armies". In its application of this criterion in recent decades, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has concentrated on the struggle to diminish the significance of nuclear arms in international politics, with a view to their abolition. That the world has achieved little in this respect makes active opposition to nuclear arms all the more important today.

Oslo, 7 October 2005

•  Announcement: Nobel Peace Prize for 2005. 7 October 2005..

NOVEMBER 2005



DECEMBER 2005

2005.12.10    Saturday
IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2005, delivered his Nobel Lecture. He said, in part, that “we must ensure—absolutely—that no more countries acquire these deadly weapons. We must see to it that nuclear-weapon States take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament. And we must put in place a security system that does not rely on nuclear deterrence. Are these goals realistic and within reach? I do believe they are.”

• Mohamed ElBaradei’s Nobel Lecture. Oslo, Norway. 2005.12.10..

CHRONOLOGY 2006

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

JANUARY 2006


FEBRUARY 2006


MARCH 2006


APRIL 2006


2006.04.17    Monday
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, reporting on US intentions vis-á-vis Iran, writes that “one of the military’s initial option plans ... calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.” Citing an unnamed former intelligence official, Hersh writes further that:

“Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. ‘The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ’ ”

•  Seymour Hersh, “The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?”,The New Yorker, 2006.04.17.
http://www.newyorker.com/ fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

2006.04.24    Monday
Max M. Kampelman has published an op-ed piece urging the US government “to embrace the goal of eliminating all weapons of mass destruction.” Kampelman was from 1980 to 1983 Ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and from 1985 to 1989 Ambassador and Head of the United States Delegation to the Negotiations with the Soviet Union on Nuclear and Space Arms in Geneva. His op-ed article continues:

“To this end, President Bush should consult with our allies, appear before the United Nations General Assembly and call for a resolution embracing the objective of eliminating all weapons of mass destruction.

“He should make clear that we are prepared to eliminate our nuclear weapons if the Security Council develops an effective regime to guarantee total conformity with a universal commitment to eliminate all nuclear arms and reaffirm the existing conventions covering chemical and biological weapons.”

•  Max M. Kampelman, “Bombs Away”, The New York Times, 2006.04.24.



MAY 2006


JUNE 2006

2006.06.01    Thursday
Hans Blix presented The WMDC Report: Weapons of Terror. Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms, the report of the WMD Commission which Dr. Blix chaired, to UN Secretary-Generral Kofi Annan and to the President of the UN General Assembly, Swedish Foreign Minister Jan Eliasson. The report canvasses its subject and highlights sixty recommendations for action. It calls for agreement on general principles of action, including

“There is an urgent need to revive meaningful negotations, through all available intergovernmental mechamisms, on the three main objectives of reducing the danger of present arsenals, preventing proliferation, and outlawing all weapons of mass destruction once and for all.”

•  WMD Commission The WMDC Report: Weapons of Terror. Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms. 2006.06.01.

    JULY 2006


    AUGUST 2006



SEPTEMBER 2006



OCTOBER 2006

2006.10.09    Monday
North Korea announced that it had conducted its first test of a nuclear device.

2006.10.31    Tuesday
After meetings in Beijing among China, the United States, and North Korea, China announced that North Korea would return to the Six-Party Talks after an absence of a year.





NOVEMBER 2006

2006.11.29    Wednesday
The US National Nuclear Security Administration announced ‘recent studies’, by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory, which bear on policy arguments concerning the nuclear stockpile, proposals to design new weapons, and strategies for nuclear abolition. The reports themselves are secret. The NNSA press release [excerpt]:

“ ‘These studies show that the degradation of plutonium in our nuclear weapons will not affect warhead reliability for decades,’ [NNSA Administrator Linton F.] Brooks said. ‘It is now clear that although plutonium aging contributes, other factors control the overall life expectancy of nuclear weapons systems.’

“The classified studies looked at pits in each nuclear weapon type and gave specific information on plutonium properties, aging and other information. Overall, the weapons laboratories studies assessed that the majority of plutonium pits for most nuclear weapons have minimum lifetimes of at least 85 years.”

•  US National Nuclear Security Administration. “Studies Show Plutonium Degradation in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Will Not Affect Reliability Soon”. 2006.11.29.
•  NPR. David Kestenbaum, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons More Stable than Expected”. 2006.11.30.
•  JASON. “Pit Lifetime”. Unclassified executive summary of report by the JASON group reviewing the studies by LLNL and LANL. JSR-06-335. 2006.11.20. Transmitted by NNSA to the US Senate, Committee on Armed Services, 2006.11.28.



DECEMBER 2006

2006.12.04    Monday
British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that his government would propose a new class of nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and continued capabilities to practice nuclear deterrence, extending into the 2050s. The argument is developed in a White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent. Blair termed Trident “the ultimate insurance.”

•  United Kingdom. Ministry of Defence. defence news. “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent: Defence White Paper 2006 (Cm 6994).” 4 December 2006.
•  United Kingdom. Ministry of Defence. defence news. “Government announced intention to maintain the UK’s Nuclear Deterrent.” 4 December 2006.
•  United Kingdom. Ministry of Defence. defence news. “Safer Britain, Safer World: The Decision Not to Replace Trident.” Alternative White Paper. Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. 4 December 2006.
•  Matthew Tempest, “Blair promises ‘proper debate’ on Trident.” Guardian, 22 June 2006.
•  Matthew Tempest and agencies, “Blair: we must renew Trident.” Guardian, 4 December 2006.

CHRONOLOGY 2007

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

JANUARY 2007



2007.01.04    Thursday
Four prominent US public figures [former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn] issued a statement calling for US leadership in bringing an end to nuclear weapons. They wrote, in part:

“Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible.

“We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal ... ”

•  George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, The Wall Street Journal, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons”. 2007.01.04.
•  Michael Crowley, “The Stuff Sam Nunn’s Nightmares Are Made Of.” The New York Times Magazine, 2007.02.25.

FEBRUARY 2007


2007.02.13    Tuesday
North Korea and the other countries in the Six Party Talks agreed to a package which would lead to staged, reciprocal measures—largely subject to further negotiations—including closure of North Korea’s nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. [But cf. entry for 2005.09.19]

•  David Sanger, “Outside Pressures Broke Korean Deadlock,” The New York Times. 2007.02.14.
• Joint statement following Six-Party Talks on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, as released by the People’s Republic of China. Washington Post, 2007.02.13.



MARCH 2007


APRIL 2007

2007.04.30    Monday
The 2007 NPT Preparatory Committee meeting opened in Vienna. [For conclusion see entry for 2007.05.11]

•  Rebecca Johnson, “Will They? Won’t They?” . Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. 2007.05.01.



MAY 2007

2007.05.11    Friday
The 2007 NPT Prep Com, meeting 30 April - 11 May, concluded. A summary of positions, in the form of Chair Yukiyo Amano’s ‘Chair’s Paper’, was attached as a working paper to the Procedural Report, a device which accommodated reservations of some parties. [Detailed accounts of disagreements within the Prep Com are reported by Rebecca Johnson and available at the Acronym NPT site.]

•  Rebecca Johnson, “NPT PrepCom Finally Adopts It’s Report.” Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. 2007.05.11.
•  2007 NPT Prep Com ‘Chair’s Paper’. [Unofficial text via the Acronym Insitute.] 2007.05.11.



JUNE 2007
2007 Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference

2007.06.25-26    Monday-Tuesday
The 2007 Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference met in Washington, DC. The first plenary session was titled “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,”, and the luncheon keynote by then British Foreign Secretary Margaret Becket, addressing that theme, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons?” Becket said:

“What we need is both vision – a scenario for a world free of nuclear weapons – and action – progressive steps to reduce warhead numbers and to limit the role of nuclear weapons in security policy. These two strands are separate, but they are mutually reinforcing. Both are necessary. Both at the moment are too weak.

“Let me start with the vision because perhaps that’s the harder case to make. After all, we all signed up to the goal of the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons back in 1968. So what does simply restating that goal achieve today? More I think than you might imagine because -- and I’ll be blunt -- there are – I was going to say some, I think many – who are in danger of losing faith in the possibility of ever reaching that goal. That would, I think, be a grave mistake.

“The judgment we made 40 years ago that the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons was in all of our interests is just as true today as it was then. For more than 60 years, good management and good fortune have meant that nuclear arsenals have not been used, but we cannot rely just on history to repeat itself.

“It would be a grave mistake for another reason, too. It underestimates the power that commitment and vision can have in driving action.”

•  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 2007 Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference. Sessions, many by video, audio, and transcript. 2007.06.25-26.
•  Margaret Becket, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons?” 2007.06.25.



JULY 2007



AUGUST 2007


2007.08.03    Friday
The United States and India released the text of a proposed nuclear cooperation agreement. Critics charge that the agreement, which must obtain further approvals to enter into effect, rewards India despite India’s choice to remain outside the NPT framework. The agreement’s effect could be, they say, to free domestic Indian supply of fissile material from its civil sector to its nuclear weapon program. The Arms Control Association released an assessment titled “A Bad Deal Gets Worse,” which outlines the steps ahead:

“Several more difficult hurdles must be cleared before Congress formally considers the agreement. First, India and the IAEA must negotiate and the IAEA Board of Governors must approve an Indian-IAEA safeguards agreement. Then, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must approve by consensus changes to its guidelines that currently restrict trade with non-nuclear-weapon states, such as India, that do not accept safeguards on all their nuclear activities. The rotating chair of the NSG is currently held by South Africa. The NSG is due to hold a "consultative group" meeting in Vienna this autumn. Germany will take over the chair when the NSG meets for its full Plenary session in the spring of 2008.”

•  Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (123 Agreement). Full text [pdf]. Full text [.html]. 2007.08.03.
•  Daryl Kimball and Fred McGoldrick, “U.S. Indian Nuclear Agreement: A Bad Deal Gets Worse.” Arms Control Association. 2007.08.03.



SEPTEMBER 2007



OCTOBER 2007



NOVEMBER 2007


DECEMBER 2007