จับตามอง สงคราม"นิวเคลียร์" โรงงานพลังงาน "นิวเคลียร์" การรั่วไหลของกัมมันตรังสี

<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top" width="100%">2010-08-12 03:17:27 - Nuclear Event - USA

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" width="100%">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="25%">EDIS Code:</td> <td>NC-20100812-27383-USA</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Date&Time:</td> <td>2010-08-12 03:17:27 [UTC]</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Continent:</td> <td>North-America</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Country:</td> <td>USA</td> </tr> <tr> <td>State/Prov.:</td> <td>State of South Carolina, </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Location:</td> <td>Oconee Nuclear Station, </td> </tr> <tr> <td>City:</td> <td>Seneca</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"> Damage level: Low (Level 1)

Not confirmed information!
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td align="right" width="440"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" valign="top"> Description: </td> </tr><tr> <td colspan="2" valign="top"> A blown fuse triggered a low-level emergency event at Duke Energy's Oconee Nuclear Station today. According to Duke spokesperson Addie Bradshaw, at 12:07pm workers were doing planned maintenance on an instrument panel when a fuse went out. The blown fuse took out several indicators in the control room for reactor 3. The indicators, according to Bradshaw, are visual and audible alarms that assist employees in monitoring operations at the plant but do not directly affect operations themselves. "To use an analogy, it's like the 'low fuel' light in your car. Even if it fails to come on, you still have the needle on the fuel gauge to tell you it's low," says Bradshaw. She says repairs are still in progress to fix the fuse and test all alarm systems affected by the outage. The incident prompted Duke to issue what is called a "notice of unusual event" to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is the lowest of four categories of emergency classification. Bradshaw says she does not know if the NRC will take any action in response to this notice, but she says the agency was fully aware the moment it happened because NRC inspectors work on site at the plant. She emphasizes this incident never directly impacted operations and at no time did the plant lose power.
</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

Yoshiaki Kamagata, 86, a veteran of the Imperial Japanese army, wipes away sweat from his face, at Yasukuni Shrine during a ceremony marking the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II, in Tokyo, on Aug. 15. (Photo: AP)

 

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Vietnam Warming to US[/FONT]

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By SIMON ROUGHNEEN</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> Monday, August 16, 2010 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot"> <table cellpadding="1.8"> <tbody><tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]COMMENTS (1)[/SIZE]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]RECOMMEND (17)[/SIZE]</td> </tr> <tr> </tr><tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]FACEBOOK[/SIZE] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]TWITTER[/SIZE] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Buzz <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.google.com/buzz/api/button.js"></script> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]MORE[/SIZE] </td> </tr> <script type="text/javascript"> var shared_object = SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: document.title, url: document.location.href }); shared_object.attachButton(document.getElementById("ck_sharethis")); shared_object.attachChicklet("facebook", document.getElementById("ck_facebook")); shared_object.attachChicklet("twitter", document.getElementById("ck_twitter")); </script> <tr><td> [SIZE=-2]E-MAIL[/SIZE]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]PRINT[/SIZE]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]TEXT SIZE[/SIZE]
</td> </tr> <tr><td> <hr size="1"> <script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-3365966073378334"; /* 120x240, created 9/12/08 */ google_ad_slot = "8900286241"; google_ad_width = 120; google_ad_height = 240; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><script>google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);</script><ins style="display: inline-table; border: medium none; height: 240px; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 120px;"><ins id="google_ads_frame2_anchor" style="display: block; border: medium none; height: 240px; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 120px;"><iframe allowtransparency="true" hspace="0" id="google_ads_frame2" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="google_ads_frame" src="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-3365966073378334&output=html&h=240&slotname=8900286241&w=120&lmt=1282294725&flash=10.1.82&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irrawaddy.org%2Farticle.php%3Fart_id%3D19222&dt=1282294788521&shv=r20100812&prev_slotnames=2795118155&correlator=1282294775553&frm=0&adk=4211682210&ga_vid=1217600844.1275710934&ga_sid=1282294787&ga_hid=1639222612&ga_fc=1&u_tz=420&u_his=1&u_java=1&u_h=800&u_w=1280&u_ah=770&u_aw=1280&u_cd=24&u_nplug=20&u_nmime=69&biw=961&bih=483&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irrawaddy.org%2Fsearch.php%3Fsearch_key%3Dnuclear%26btn_search%3DSEARCH&fu=0&ifi=2&dtd=14&xpc=FHHzgaU2sQ&p=http%3A//www.irrawaddy.org" style="left: 0pt; position: absolute; top: 0pt;" vspace="0" width="120" frameborder="0" height="240" scrolling="no"></iframe></ins></ins> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
BANGKOK — Just over 15 years after the United States and Vietnam normalized relations marred by war, the naval destroyer USS John S. McCain docked in the central Vietnamese port of Danang last week to mark the anniversary. The ship is named after the grandfather of 2008 US presidential candidate John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam. Commanding officer Jeffrey Kim said that “over the last 15 years, we've established trust, a mutual respect, and I know that, in the coming years, our friendship and relationship will continue to become better."
A Vietnamese scholar who requested anonymity said that the tighter relations are seen as a good thing inside the country. “Vietnamese view the US rather positive as the war is becoming history in the memory of a new generation,” he said in an e-mail.
US-Vietnam relations have grown during the decade-and-a-half since normalization, with both presidents Clinton and George W Bush visiting Vietnam while in office. Human rights activists have criticized what seems to be a bipartisan concern in Washington to develop ties with the one-party state. In 2006, on the eve of President Bush’s visit to Vietnam for an economic summit, the US State Department removed Vietnam from its short list of the world’s worst religious persecutors.
After Vietnam joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in January 2007, its government arrested nearly 40 dissidents, sentencing more than 20 to lengthy prison terms. National Assembly elections were held in May of that year, but only 50 of the 500 deputies chosen did not belong to the Communist Party. Internet and media censorship remains tight, with a 2008 decree specifying the information that private bloggers may legally post on their blogs. Several political bloggers were harassed, temporarily detained or jailed during 2009. A 2003 law bans the receipt and distribution of anti-government e-mail messages, and, reminiscent of Thailand nowadays, websites considered “reactionary” are blocked.
Still, as Walter Lohman, Asia Studies director at the Heritage Foundation put it: “Since the 2001 conclusion of the US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Act really, economic relations with the US have taken off.” The US is Vietnam's top export market and Americans are Vietnam's top foreign investor, with bilateral trade reaching US $15.4 billion in 2009.
The McCain visit came after the Aug. 8 arrival in Danang of the USS George Washington, a massive Pacific-based aircraft carrier also utilized in recent US-South Korea naval exercises in the Yellow Sea, which irked both North Korea and China.
The US is developing new links with Southeast Asian countries as a counter to China's growing influence—with statistics published on Monday Aug. 16 suggesting that China may have overtaken Japan as the world's second largest economy, albeit an assessment based only on quarterly data.
China is claiming ownership of the South China Sea, where it has territorial disputes with some Southeast Asian countries, Vietnam included. At the July meeting of the Asean Regional Forum in Hanoi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton angered China by offering US support for “a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi acknowledged that “there are territorial and maritime rights disputes” between China and some of its neighbors but, he said, “those disputes should not be viewed as ones between China and Asean as a whole just because the countries involved are Asean members.”
Dr. Jian Junbo, the assistant professor at the Institute of International Studies, Fudan University, said, “The tactic of internationalizing the South China Sea issue will be a bad thing for this region. China will never agree to internationalize this issue.”
The US and Vietnam are discussing a nuclear energy deal, which will build on a March agreement between the countries to expand cooperation on peaceful nuclear energy. Vietnam said in June it plans to build as many as 13 nuclear power plants with a capacity of 16,000 MW over the next 20 years.
Critics say the deal is contrary to the US counter-proliferation agenda—with China alleging double standards. Other say that the the deal could lower the bar for nuclear technology transfer compared with US agreements with other countries, such as a recent demand that the United Arab Emirates agree not to make nuclear fuel—a step on the road to developing nuclear weapons. Some say it is highly unlikely that Vietnam would go rogue on nuclear technology, and that it lacks the technology to enrich uranium, for example.



Carlyle Thayer, a Vietnam expert at the Australian Defense Force Academy in Canberra, said that “Vietnam is a signatory to all the relevant conventions, and would be open for intensive inspections to ensure that it was not diverting weapons grade material.”
Despite the US-Vietnam ties, Hanoi is not about to jettison China—the apparent model for its own doi moi governance system—economic liberalization shackled down with continued one-party rule. It has also moved to develop defense contacts with China. Vietnamese naval ships made their first port visit to China in 2010 after the two countries conducted their first joint search and rescue exercise. There is extensive cooperation over a swathe of areas—political, economic, social, cultural, defense—and through a variety of bilateral party-to-party, state-to-state, province-to-province and military-to-military channels, with hundreds of bilateral meetings each year.
However contentious issues such as the disputes over islands in the South China Sea, the massive bilateral trade balance and hundreds of thousands of illegal Chinese workers in Vietnam all perhaps stoke a feeling that China's assertiveness needs countering. The two countries are thought to be discussing a more formalized military relationship. According to Thayer: “Vietnam is signaling it wants the US to remain engaged in the region as a hedge against Chinese military dominance.”
It is unlikely, however, that Vietnam will go too far to offend China in the process. To illustrate, in April 2009 the Vietnamese government temporarily suspended news magazine Du Lich for running articles about the country’s territorial dispute with China on the 30th anniversary of the Vietnamese-Chinese war.
“Vietnam should keep friendly relations with China, even though they have territorial disputes,” said Jian. “Relying on the US is not a good way to keep regional stability in Southeast Asia in the long run.”

 

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Burma Upgrades Military with NKorean Advice[/FONT]

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By WAI MOE</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> Friday, July 23, 2010 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot">
With the input of North Korean advisers, the Burmese military junta has modernized its Tatmadaw (armed forces) by upgrading its strategic motor vehicle forces, forming a Missile Force and improving the operation of the people's militias operating under its People's War Strategy, according to information leaked by military sources to The Irrawaddy.
The junta's objective is better mobilization of light infantry troops and other lines of strategic defense such as artillery forces, air defense forces and missile forces, a source said.
“Like the the North Korean army, the junta wants the ability to deploy its forces, including multiple launch rocket systems, canons and air defense units, quickly to the front line. Then all would be re-deployed to bases in tunnels and caves,” said the source. “That's why the junta is upgrading its vehicle depot forces.”
Sources said the junta upgraded its Motor Vehicle Depot Battalions in October 2009 to achieve the ability to rapidly deploy troops. The upgraded vehicle battalions are reportedly based in Shwe Taung in Pegu Division, Shwe Nyaung in southern Shan State, Taung Dwin Gyi in Magwe Division, Amarpura in Mandalay Division and Mingaladon in Rangoon Division.
The recent information from military sources provides more evidence of ties between Naypyidaw and Pyongyang, adding to that already available after a report was leaked in 2009 about a 2008 memorandum of understanding between the Tatmadaw and the Korean People’s Army covering joint military exercises and North Korean assistance in military training, air defense and constructing underground facilities and arms shelters.
The Burmese junta is tapping the North Koreans for more than just advice. They are also allegedly importing nuclear technology and strategic weapons such as anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and multiple launch rocket systems for the Tatmadaw's Air Defense and Missile forces.
According to a security Web site, GlobalSecurity.org, North Korean 107 mm, 122 mm and 240 mm rocket launchers can fire a first strike of many thousands of missiles and return in a few minutes to protected caves or to alternate firing positions, using “exit and return” methods.
Protecting Burma’s coastline is a key element of the junta's defense strategy, and artillery bases, missile bases and air defense bases are reportedly deployed on major islands such as Kyaukpyu, Hainngyi, Kalagote, Lampi and Katangyi.
Sources said Burma’s Air Defense Force is armed with four types of weapons: 14.5 mm anti- aircraft heavy machine guns, 40 mm auto canons, man-pad heat seeking guided missiles such as the Chinese-made SAM-7 and the UK-made Blowpipe, and other SAM missiles from China, Russia and the Ukraine.
In addition, its Air Defense Signals Battalion is equipped with Australian and Russian equipment, its Air Defense Warning Battalion is equipped with Russian and Ukrainian radars and its Air Defense Electronic Warfare battalion is equipped with Russian equipment.
Military sources said Burma’s Air Defense Force and Missile Force have adopted three main tactics for the defense of the country's interior.
The first tactic is “early recon and warning” supported by a Russian radar system with a 200-mile range.
The second tactic is “defense and interception” to protect air bases, artillery operation command headquarters, regional military command headquarters and light infantry division headquarters.

The third tactic is “defense and assault” to control areas where the enemy’s airborne troops could land, including heavy and ordinary defense industry compounds, military headquarters and major cities.
With respect to the “assault” element of this tactic, the Burmese military plans to repel potential threats by deploying its artillery forces, tank/armored forces and missile forces to strategic areas where enemy troops could land by air, including the Pegu-Intakaw plains, the Magwe-Taungdwingyi plains, the Meikhtila- Pyawbwe plains, the Mandalay plains, the Myitkyina-Bhamo plains, the Monywa plains and the Pakokku plains.
The Tatamadaw is also using North Korean advice to upgrade its people’s militias in accordance with the regime's “People's War Strategy.” Since September 2006, all regional military commands have a general staff officer-1(G-1) shaping the People War Strategy for their region, sources said.



The People's War Strategy includes counter-insurgency forces, the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA)—a junta-backed mass organization which claims about 24 million member that is reportedly being transformed into the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), the National Force Corps of the Swann Arr Shin, the Myanmar Red Cross Society, the Myanmar Fire Brigade and other government civic organizations such as the Myanmar Women's Affairs Federation.
“Particularly following the September 2007 demonstrations, even members of the Women’s Affairs Federation, as well as women family members of police and soldiers, have been given basic military training,” said a military source who leaked information to The Irrawaddy. “The People's War Strategy was adopted by the Tatmadaw in 1970, but they have upgraded the strategy since 2006 with North Korean advice—now members of the people's militias serve as reserve military units.”
According to security analysts, in North Korea there are about 7 million men and women serving in similar people’s militias that make up reserve military units divided into three categories: the Reserve Military Training unit, with 1.7 million persons comprised of men between the ages of 17 and 45 and unmarried women between 17 and 30; the Worker-Peasant Militia unit, with 4.1 million persons comprised of older men between the ages of 45 and 60, young men between 17 and 45 and unmarried women between 17 and 30; and the Young Red Guards, with 1.2 million high school students between the ages of 14 and 16.
In his book Building the Tatmadaw, Burmese military expert Maung Aung Myoe said the mission of the people's militias in Burma is to prepare a total people’s defense, and the goal of fulfilling this mission assures the political role of the Tatmadaw in the future state structure. The people’s militias training includes operating anti-aircraft guns and artillery, he said.
In addition, Maung Aung Myoe pointed out that the Burmese military’s tunnel warfare strategy is also part of the People's War Strategy. “While learning about the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) and its impact, the Tatmadaw is taking the necessary measures to prepare for the people’s war,” he wrote.
Many have estimated that the Tatamdaw currently has about 490,000 troops, but military sources told The Irrawaddy that its current military strength is about 368,500 troops, with an estimated 310,000 serving in the army.

 

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]NKorean FM Begins Burma Visit[/FONT]

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By WAI MOE</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> Thursday, July 29, 2010 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot">
North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun kicked off a four-day visit to military-ruled Burma on Thursday, on the third leg of a four-nation tour of Southeast Asia, according to sources in Rangoon.
Journalists and diplomatic sources said the North Korean delegation arrived at Rangoon International Airport this morning after completing a trip to Laos.
The state-run media in both Burma and North Korea have been silent on the visit by the North Korean foreign minister, who last week attended the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) in Hanoi, Vietnam, after failing to attend the annual gathering for the past two years.
<table style="width: 152px; height: 628px;" align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-right: 15px;"></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; line-height: 12px; padding-right: 15px;">North Korea's Foreign Minister Pak Ui-chun at Rangoon's landmark Shwedagon Pagoda. (Photo: The Irrawaddy)</td></tr></tbody></table>However, the state-run Korean Central News Agency briefly mentioned on July 20 that a delegation headed by Pak would visit Vietnam, Laos, Burma and Indonesia upon completion of the ARF meeting, which brings together foreign ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) and their strategic partners.According to reports, Pak began his diplomatic career in 1972 and went on to serve as ambassador to Algeria, Syria and Lebanon. Before being named to head the Foreign Ministry in May 2007, just a month after Burma and North Korea officially reestablished relations, he had served as ambassador to Russia for 18 years.
This is Pak’s first trip to Burma and the highest-level visit by a North Korean official since the two countries restored ties in April 2007. Relations had been officially suspended since 1983, when North Korean agents carried out a deadly attack in Rangoon targeting South Korean President Chun Doo Hwan. However, observers say the two pariah nations have secretly engaged in talks since the early 1990s.
North Korea’s last official visit to Burma was in November 2008, when Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Young Il and his Burmese hosts signed a free visa agreement for diplomats and official passport holders.
Pak was scheduled to tour the famous Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon before traveling on Friday to the ruling junta's capital of Naypyitaw, where he will meet his Burma counterpart, Nyan Win, and other senior government officials, reported The Associated Press.
After Burma, Pak will fly to Indonesia for the Special Ministerial Meeting for the Millennium Development Goals, to be held on August 3-4 in Jakarta.
North Korea is one of Burma’s main military partners, supplying the Burmese regime with strategic weapons technology, such as missiles, rocket launchers and underground facilities. Recent revelations about a nascent nuclear weapons program in Burma have also raised concerns about possible involvement by Pyongyang.
In April, a North Korean vessel, the Chong Gen, docked at Thilawa Port near Rangoon, reportedly carrying rocket launchers and other weapons. The Burmese junta said that the ship was loaded with cement from North Korea and would be returning with a shipment of rice.
In June 2009, another North Korean vessel, the Kang Nam I, was forced to return to its home port after a US navy destroyer trailed it for several days on suspicions that it was carrying arms destined for Burma.
The growing relationship between the two countries has heightened worries of an emerging security threat in Southeast Asia.
“We continue to be concerned by the reports that Burma may be seeking assistance from North Korea with regard to a nuclear program,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at the ARF last week.

 

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Burma Security Threat to Region: Panel[/FONT]

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By WAI MOE</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> Sunday, August 8, 2010 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot">
BANGKOK—The Burmese military junta’s nuclear ambitions were criticized at a seminar held at Thailand's prestigious Chulalongkorn University, saying it is a security threat to the region, particularly to Thailand.
The seminar on Friday on Burma’s nuclear ambitions and its planned election was sponsored by The Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS), a think-tank in Bangkok.
Speakers included Dr. Zarni, a long-time Burmese expert, who is currently an ISIS fellow; Larry Jagan, a British journalist specializing in Burma; Kavi Chongkittavorn, an assistant editor of The Nation media group; and Belgium ambassador to Thailand, Rudi Veestraeten.
During the discussion, Zarni first raised the issue of Burma’s nuclear ambitions with the aid of North Korea, emphasizing that the issue has a “regional implication” for the international community, particularly in terms of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) and the US-led non-proliferation agreement.
In his analysis, he noted that the junta’s desire to have nuclear weapons can be viewed from an international perspective, but also from the viewpoint of its two closest neighbors, Thailand and Bangladesh.
Zarni showed photos of North Korean experts in Burma who were touring the country as well as statistics showing Burmese military officers who have been studying nuclear science in Russia since 2001.
Based on his research, he said that North Korea, Russia, Singapore, Poland, the former Yugoslavia, Pakistan and South Africa are possible sources to obtain nuclear technology. He said that Russia and North Korea are currently preferred sources because of lower costs.

He also criticized oil companies such as Total and Chevron for providing a financial lifeline to the Burmese junta which uses the income for militarization.
On the nuclear ambition of the Burmese junta, Larry Jargan said that during a visit to Burma in 2003, he saw North Korean experts and diplomats in Rangoon and Mandalay, four years before Burma and North Korea officially had reestablished diplomatic relations in April 2007.
“At the time, I saw North Korean and South Korean delegations visiting Burma and staying at the same hotel,” said Jagan.
Jagan said that he believed China is concerned about Burma's nuclear ambitions, saying that China does not want another North Korea on its southwest border. India shares the same concern, he said.
Jagan said that vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye, the deputy commander-in-chief of the Burma armed forces and the commander-in-chief of the Burma army, has overseen the junta’s nuclear program since 2003.
Pyongyang has shipped suspected long-range missiles at least six times in recent years, with the last known shipment in April, Jagan said.
Kavi Chongkittavorn of The Nation said the Thai security services have followed the issue for a long time. “The information about Burma’s nuclear program came from Thai intelligence officials in 2005,” Kavi said.
Belgium Ambassador Rudi Veestraeten said Burma's planned election is now at a crossroads for positive progress or the country could go on as before with a repressive military exercising total power.
“The elections [could be an] opportunity to steer the country to the better future,” he said, particularly if the junta releases pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners and allows them to participate in the election.
On Burma's ethnic issues, he questioned how the elections could be held in ethnic areas if there is no resolution between the regime and the armed ethnic groups over the border guard force plan, which would require them to place their troops under the regime's control.
“I know how difficult these issues are. Nevertheless, the only way to resolve it is genuine national reconciliation and dialogue. However, serious human rights violations against ethnic minorities have to immediately stop,” he said.
He repeated US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement in Hanoi during the Asean Regional Forum in July that Burma’s relationship with North Korea is a concern, and it is being closely watched.
He called on the junta to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to respect UN Security Council resolution 1874.
He said people in Burma are now more open to talk about the situation in the country.
“Even government officials, they are now willing to criticize,” he said. “All people [there] want change.”

 

September 2, 2010


Plane Forced to Land Carrying Nuclear Weapons


I heard from a well placed Source today that a plane was forced to land over Qatar. This plane was described as a stealth bomber carrying nuclear warheads... Word is that it was a CIA directed flight and although fire on board is the published reason for the forced landing the real reason is far more sinister. Apparently this is just one of several attempts to start a nuclear war in the Middle East (headed for Iran). The exact day/time of this incident is unclear.


ฉันได้ยินข้อมูลบางอย่างจากแหล่งที่มีสถานที่ตั้งที่รู้จักกันดี วันนี้(2 กย 10) ว่ามีเครื่องบินที่ถูกบังคับให้ลงจอดที่กาต้า เครื่องบินนี้ถูกอธิบายได้ว่าเป็นเครื่องบินบรรทุกหัวรบนิวเคลียร์

I was told that this stealth bomber was shot at and forced to land by an American fleet based in the area. The commander of this Navy vessel is said to be part of a group of commanders who are refusing to allow this war to get started. I was told there have been a total of 3 prevented attempts over the past few months. More when I hear it...


ฮ่าๆ แปลกันเองดีกว่า ........แป่ววววววววววววววววว:boo::boo::boo::boo:

 

เอาข่าวเก่าๆ มาเก็บไว้

Burma Plays Nuclear Card

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By Aung Zaw</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> JULY, 2007 - VOLUME 15 NO.7 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot"> <table cellpadding="1.8"> <tbody><tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]COMMENTS (0)[/SIZE]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]RECOMMEND (138)[/SIZE]</td> </tr> <tr> </tr><tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]FACEBOOK[/SIZE] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]TWITTER[/SIZE] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Buzz </td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]MORE[/SIZE] </td> </tr> <tr><td> [SIZE=-2]E-MAIL[/SIZE]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]PRINT[/SIZE]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-2]TEXT SIZE[/SIZE]
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Assurances of peaceful intentions arouse o­nly skepticism
Burma’s confirmation of plans to build a 10-megawatt nuclear reactor with the help of Russia’s federal atomic energy agency Rosatom has created nervousness and anxiety among Burma observers.

The regime in Naypyidaw, facing international isolation and sanctions, claims that the planned nuclear reactor is to be built for a “peaceful purpose.” Back in January 2002, then-deputy Foreign Minister Khin Maung Win declared that Burma’s “interest in nuclear energy for peaceful purpose is longstanding.”
Such assurances have met with skepticism o­n the part of the international community and Burmese at home and abroad, however.
Skepticism has also greeted Rosatom’s official statement that the 10-megawatt nuclear reactor, fueled by less than 20 percent uranium-235, will contribute to Burma’s “research in nuclear physics, bio-technology, material science as well as…produce a big variety of medicines.” A first round of talks o­n details of the project has begun and further discussions are scheduled for the second half of this year.
Burma’s interest in developing nuclear energy is not new. It dates back as far as the 1950s, with the creation of the Union of Burma Atomic Energy Center headed by Hla Nyunt, a student of renowned Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1949.
The UBAEC recruited young and talented physicists and sent them to the US and Britain for further studies. At least six were trained in 1956 at the Argonne National Laboratory, o­ne of the US Department of Energy’s largest research centers.
Burma was well advanced in those days to develop a nuclear project, compared to neighboring countries. In the early 1960s, a site for a nuclear research reactor was designated near the Hlaing Campus in Rangoon.
<table align="left" background="" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td></td></tr></tbody></table>The UBAEC became inactive after Ne Win staged a military coup in 1962. The general was busy creating his “Burmese Way to Socialism,” placing priority o­n the consolidation of a power base to counter serious threats posed by communist rebels and ethnic insurgents. Above all, the dictator simply did not trust Hla Nyunt. So the nuclear project fell by the wayside, although in 1984 Ne Win admitted to university professors at a dinner party that he had made a blunder by ending it.
The current regime revitalized the nuclear project. Thein Oo Po Saw, an Arakanese professor who was a student of Hla Nyunt in the 1950s, initiated the revival of the Atomic Energy Committee in 1990 and renewed links with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Since then, Burma has been demonstrating its intention to develop nuclear energy for a “peaceful purpose.”
The regime outwardly supports the concept of nuclear free zones and signed the Treaty o­n the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, or Bangkok Treaty, in 1995. A year later, Burma signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Simultaneously, it was planning to build a nuclear reactor. The Ministry of Science and Technology was created in 1997 and headed by extreme nationalist U Thaung, a graduate of Defense Services Academy Intake 1. Two years later, Burma began negotiations with Russia o­n a nuclear reactor project, and in January 2002 the military government confirmed plans to build a nuclear research reactor for peaceful purposes.
As was to be expected, Burma’s dissidents in exile got busy gathering information o­n these developments, but little hard evidence has yet emerged. The location of the planned nuclear reactor is still unknown, although some dissidents used Google “Earth” to pinpoint some possible sites and even buildings in central Burma. Magwe has been mentioned.
The truth must be faced, however, that if the nuclear reactor is to be built with a military use in mind its location will be a state secret. The possibility of Burma becoming a nuclear power is anyway still very many years off.
At the moment, the spotlight falls o­n Russia’s role in fueling Burma’s nuclear ambitions, but exile groups and regime critics allege that Burma has also been seeking nuclear technology from North Korea. Military missions from North Korea have been seen visiting Burma, and North Korean technicians have been spotted unloading construction materials from trains in central Burma.



(Page 2 of 3)


Russian planes have also been sighted landing in central Burma.<table style="width: 385px; height: 321px;" background="" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td>

The North Korean cargo vessel Kang Nam I docks at Thilawa Port, about 30km south of Rangoon, o­n May 21, 2007. In November 2006, the Kang Nam I was detained and inspected in Hong Kong o­n suspicion of safety violations​

</td></tr></tbody></table>Even the US has its suspicions, and as early as 2004 American officials and congressmen were warning of renewed secret relations between Burma and North Korea.
Richard Lugar, then chairman of the US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, warned in 2005 that North Korea’s main export is dangerous weapons technology, a major threat to Asian security and stability. The US State Department has also registered official complaints with the Burmese government over rumored missile transfers from North Korea.
An important factor in these developments was the restoration of diplomatic ties between Burma and North Korea in April. Relations between the two countries were broken in 1983 after a bomb attack in Rangoon by North Korean terrorists o­n a visiting South Korean delegation headed by then-President Chun Doo-hwan.
Clandestine contacts between the two countries had been established several years ago, as Burma stepped up its search for sources of conventional weapons. Burma defense analyst Andrew Selth, author of the recent report “Burma and nuclear proliferation: policies and perceptions,” reported that Burma had bought conventional weapons and ammunition from North Korea, including 16 130mm M-46 field guns, in the late 1990s. Burma has also reportedly sent military missions and officers to Pyongyang. These military ties can o­nly spell more trouble o­n the horizon.
Hard as it is to read the minds of Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his top military leaders, they are known to harbor dreams of a “Fourth Burmese Empire,” supported by military might. Just the uncertainty surrounding their nuclear ambitions is likely to intimidate such neighbors as Thailand and Bangladesh, and the generals might also believe a nuclear capability gives them the upper hand in dealings with Western nations and their sanctions policies.
The regime plans to create a nuclear nation by 2025, according to researchers in Burma. Some Burmese professors who worked with the Ne Win government and who have been advising the current regime disclosed that nuclear reactors of 100-400 megawatts are planned. They say plans also include smaller reactors and further development in the area of nuclear research.
Aside from Thein Oo Po Saw, Burma’s nuclear project has been developed by Minister U Thaung, who signed the reactor agreement in Moscow in June with his Russian counterpart Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia’s atomic agency. U Thaung is known to be close to Than Shwe and his deputy, Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye.
U Thaung has in-depth knowledge of Burma’s mining and uranium sectors and resigned his army post to become director general of Burma’s Department of Geological Survey and Mineral Exploration in the 1980s.
His loyalty to the military is beyond question, and he continues to serve under the current regime. Appointed Burma’s ambassador to the US in 1996, he was recalled to Rangoon to head the Ministry of Science and Technology, with instructions to deal with the Russians and begin the reactor project.
U Thaung visited Moscow several times in the past seven years in pursuit of the deal. Earlier negotiations were interrupted in 2003 because of a dispute over the terms of payment, but perhaps the regime might now feel cash is no longer a problem in view of Burma’s newly-discovered vast natural gas reserves.
Although Burma has science and engineering students, U Thaung realized they need nuclear orientation and training and Burma began sending students and army officers to Moscow. In 2006, Nuclear Physics departments were established in the universities of Rangoon and Mandalay, with enrolment controlled by the government.
Last year, Russia’s ambassador to Burma, Dr Mikhail M. Mgeladze, confirmed that about 2,000 Burmese students had been admitted to 11 academic institutions in Russia, under a bilateral agreement, and about 500 had returned to Burma with bachelor, master’s or doctorate degrees.
Burmese nationals had also been trained by the IAEA in the application of nuclear technology for peaceful purpose, then-deputy Foreign Minister Khin Maung Win announced in January 2002.
Chinese intelligence sources believe that Maung Aye oversees Burma’s nuclear project. Maung Aye paid an official visit to Russia last year.
The reactor project has involved an intensification of the search for uranium in Burma. In the early 2000s, the regime confirmed publicly that uranium deposits had been found in five areas: Magwe, Taungdwingyi, Kyaukphygon and Paongpyin in Mogok, and Kyauksin. Residents of Thabeikkyin township, 60 miles north of Mandalay, said recently that searches were underway in the area.



(Page 3 of 3)


Other activity was reported from southern Tenasserim Division. Recently, a Russian mining company accidentally found large deposits of uranium in upper Burma, according to Chinese sources. The Russian companies Zarubezneft, Itera, Kalmykia and the state-owned enterprise Tyazhpromexport have been involved in oil and gas exploration and the establishment of a plant to produce cast iron in Shan State. Tyazhpromexport’s investment alone is worth about US $150 million.
It’s not so much the Russian nuclear involvement with Burma that creates nervousness and speculation, however, as the generals’ new chumminess with North Korea.
In April, a North Korean freighter, the Kang Nam I, docked at Thilawa port, 30km south of Rangoon. Burmese officials said the ship, the first to visit Burma since the restoration of diplomatic relations, sought shelter from a storm.
The Thilawa port is run by AsiaWorld Company Limited, owned by former drug kingpin Lo Hsing-han. Two local reporters working for a Japanese news agency were briefly detained and turned back when they went to the port to investigate.
It wasn’t the first time a North Korean ship reported running into trouble in Burmese waters—by a strange coincidence, the North Korean cargo vessel M V Bong Hoafan sought shelter from a storm and anchored at a Burmese port last November. The Burmese government reported that an o­n-board inspection had “found no suspicious material or military equipment.” But journalists and embassies in Rangoon remained skeptical.
Early last July, a dissident source told The Irrawaddy that a North Korean ship carrying a senior Korean nuclear technology expert, Maj Hon Kil Dong, arrived in Rangoon with a biological and nuclear package. Western analysts and intelligence sources quickly dismissed this report but conceded it was possible that Burma would seek conventional arms and technology rather than high-tech long-range missiles from Pyongyang.
Indeed, to skeptics, the go-ahead for the nuclear reactor project and the arrival of that North Korean ship are two developments that can hardly be coincidental. The Russian involvement in Burma’s nuclear project and the arrival of North Korean ships also sent alarms bells ringing in Beijing, although Burma’s close and powerful political ally remained tight-lipped o­n the issue. But Beijing can hardly afford to have two nuclear neighbors: North Korea and Burma.
It is admittedly premature to conclude that Burma intends to undertake the complicated and perilous process of reprocessing uranium to get weapons-grade plutonium, as things stand at the moment, although strong suspicions will continue to grow. But as Burma has set a goal of becoming a nuclear power nation by 2025 does it make sense to develop a nuclear weapon? Maybe not.
But o­ne chilling theory is that if the North Korean freighters that arrived last November and this year carried not o­nly conventional weapons but plutonium and processing materials to Burma, it could indeed be suspected that Burma plans to skip the messy process of obtaining plutonium and move straight to the production of weapons.
It is easy to speculate that Burma may be seeking nuclear technology from Pyongyang, although no solid evidence has emerged so far. It is legitimate, however, to raise the issue and to inquire into the regime’s intentions, in the interests of keeping nuclear technology out of the hands of irresponsible governments.
The Burmese government has declared that it has no desire to develop nuclear weapons. Its nuclear program is solely for “peaceful purposes,” runs the government line. All fine and good—if it weren’t for the questionable source of those assurances.

 

Nuclear Fallout

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By SIMON ROUGHNEEN</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> Monday, August 3, 2009 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot"> <ins style="display: inline-table; border: medium none; height: 60px; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 468px;"></ins>Although Burma signed an energy agreement with its Southeast Asian neighbors last week—and despite a stern warning from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—there are clear danger signs that the Burmese military government has embarked on a policy of close nuclear and military cooperation with North Korea.The issue of military cooperation between the two rogue states has been documented for months by The Irrawaddy, including a cover story in the August issue titled “An Open Secret,” which examines the clandestine deals and negotiations between the two regimes.
It was echoed loudly in an article this weekend that quoted two Burmese defectors as claiming that the junta was preparing underground tunnels and trading uranium extracts—known as “yellowcake”—for North Korean military hardware and/ or technical expertise.
The article, based on research conducted by Professor Desmond Ball and journalist Phil Thornton, was published in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Bangkok Post on Saturday. Reporting on interviews with the defectors, the article claims that there are more than five North Koreans working at the Thabeik Kyin uranium processing plant in Burma, and that locally refined uranium from Burma was being traded to North Korea.
The junta has been browsing the nuclear bazaar since at least 2000, when science and technology minister U Thaung visited Moscow. A resulting agreement to build a low-grade research reactor, under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), initially fell through when questions arose about how the Burmese would pay for Russian assistance.
In recent years, several Burmese officials (both civilian and military) have claimed to have direct knowledge, or even first-hand experience, of a secret nuclear weapons program.
According to the defectors in this recent report, Burma’s military government began building a reactor near Maymyo in 2002 with the aim of developing a nuclear device by 2020. The reactor and some related nuclear fuel processing plants were said to be hidden underground. The expertise for this project reportedly came from North Korea, with help from Iran and possibly Pakistan.
The report adds to common fears that Burma is “going nuclear.”
In an article titled “A New Start for Non-Proliferation” published in July, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El-Baradei, said:
“A number of countries with nuclear energy programs have the capability, if they choose, to manufacture nuclear weapons within a matter of months if their security perceptions change, because they have mastered the critical technology—uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing. If more countries take this path, it could prove to be the Achilles’ heel of non-proliferation.”
In other words, even civilian nuclear technology cooperation between well-intentioned states, who are signatories to the non-proliferation treaties (which includes Burma), has the potential to be misused, if countries can access the technology.
“We worry about the transfer of nuclear technology and other dangerous weapons,” Hillary Clinton told the Asean representatives in Phuket last month in reference to North Korea and Burma.
Notwithstanding Burma’s alleged role in nuclear trafficking, the junta followed on the heels of Phuket by chairing the Asean Energy Ministers meeting in Mandalay.
According to the statement released after the meeting on July 29: “Ministers adopted the Asean Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) 2010-2015, which will serve as a guideline for the Asean energy cooperation to support the realization of the Asean Economic Community toward 2010 and beyond.”
The statement went on to outline a seven-point energy plan of action for 2010-15, which consists of “seven program areas,” namely: (i) Asean Power Grid; (ii) Trans-Asean Gas Pipeline; (iii) Coal and Clean Coal Technology; (iv) Renewable Energy; (v) Energy Efficiency and Conservation; (vi) Regional Energy Policy and Planning; and (viii) Civilian Nuclear Energy.”
It would appear Asean does not share the rest of the world’s fears that Burma is a danger to the region. Indeed, Burma’s neighbors—in particular Thailand, China and India—seem prepared to condone the junta’s military expansion while they can still plunder the resource-rich country at bargain-basement prices.
Wong Aung, a representative of an environmental organization, the Shwe Gas Movement, said that electricity consumption rates per capita in Burma are less than 5 percent that of Thailand. Nonetheless, the military junta still aims to export more energy resources to its neighbors.
“These include plans for over 20 large hydroelectric dams to power Thailand, China and Asean power grids, and trans-Burma oil and gas pipelines to China set to begin in September this year,” he said.


(Page 2 of 2)

“The revenue from the energy sector is the main source of income for the Burmese generals.” Despite ample natural resources, ordinary Burmese do not benefit in any way, with some of the lowest health and education spending in the world.
“In a few years time, if you look down on Asia at night, there will be a dark spot where Burma is. The people of Burma sit in the dark while their natural resources are sold off to provide energy for their neighbors, and money for the generals who oppress them,” said Mark Farmaner, executive director of the Burma Campaign UK.
Like his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong-il, Burmese junta head Snr-Gen Than Shwe is probably not losing sleep over whether his citizens are going without basic commodities and electricity while he pursues his self-interests in the military hardware store.
However, the US and the EU may not be prepared to turn a blind eye to the regime’s recent moves.
"If it was just the Russian reactor, under full International Energy supervision, then the likelihood of them being able to do something with it in terms of a bomb would be zero," Professor Ball said. "It's the North Korean element which adds danger to it.”

 

<table background="" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna. (Photo: Getty Images) </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Burma's Nuclear Policy Discussed in Indian Parliament


India External Affair Minister S M Krishna said on Thursday that India has to accept Burma's denial of having a nuclear program, but it continues to monitor the situation because of security concerns.
"Myanmar [Burma] denies having a nuclear program, and the government of India will have to accept that," Krishna said in parliament's upper house, adding, "We will also gather through our own intelligence what is happening. The government always monitors developments closely because it concerns our security."
He said India monitors the existing nuclear weapons programs in neighboring countries such as Pakistan and China for national security.
India's nuclear concerns on Burma came up during discussions of a bill that generated intense debate in the parliament, because it involved US help on a nuclear energy plant to meet energy needs in India.
Burmese pro-democracy activists in India contend that India's policy on Burma is highly influenced by its energy needs and other security factors.
"It seems they are talking in limbo, since they have many agreements involving economics, trade and technology. However, they do worry about their security," said Zin Naing, an India-based Burmese activist.
"Moreover, they worry about the influence of China over Burma too," he added.
The Burmese military government strongly denied having a nuclear program in June, after concerns were raised based on the information provided by Burmese defector, Maj Sai Thein Win, who smuggled documents out of the country which included photographs of secret tunnels and bunkers underneath the capital of Naypyidaw. Other photographs showed crude attempts to build nuclear-related devices or instruments.
According to some activists, North Korea is supplying nuclear and ballistic missile technology to Burma. The US and various international groups have expressed concern, and said they are closely monitoring the relationship. However, the US said recently it has no direct evidence of North Korea exporting nuclear technology to Burma.
However, many in the Burmese opposition are suspicious of the two countries ties.
"If they have a chance, they will do whatever to posses nuclear weapons like North Korea," said Zin Naing.
Burma has been under military rule since 1962. India once supported the pro-democracy movements of Burma, but since 1990, India started to build ties with the military government to improve economic and security ties.
The Burmese military head, Sen-Gen Than Shwe, visited India in July to sign agreements on energy, the economy and cross-border security issues.

 

Loophole Gives Burma Room to Go Nuclear in Secrecy

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By MARWAAN MACAN-MARKAR / IPS WRITER</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> Thursday, July 22, 2010 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot"> BANGKOK — Thanks to a loophole in the international regime to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons, military-ruled Burma could very well carry out its reported intent to go nuclear behind a veil of secrecy, free of scrutiny from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
That is the privilege the Southeast Asian nation enjoys under the Small Quantities Protocol it signed with the Vienna-based IAEA in April 1995, three years after Burma, also known as Myanmar, became party to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
This protocol allows parties to the treaty, which seeks to build a global nuclear non-proliferation regime, to have up to 10 tonnes of natural uranium and 2.2 pounds of plutonium without having to report such possessions to the IAEA.
This means also that countries like Burma do not have to open their doors to IAEA inspection teams and can avoid disclosing details about new nuclear facilities until six months before these start operations.
It is of little wonder, then, why a former IAEA director is urging Burma to clear the air about its reported nuclear plans by becoming a party to the Additional Protocol of the NPT, which gives the IAEA more powers to inspect nuclear activity in a country.
"They have nothing to lose if they have nothing to hide," Robert Kelly, a recently retired director of the IAEA, told IPS in an exclusive interview. "It is a protocol that countries have volunteered to be a party to. Chad just became the 100th member of the Additional Protocol."
Burma’s silence on this front, along with its denials of violating its commitment to the NPT, "is very strange; it is very suspicious," added Kelly, a nuclear engineer, during the telephone interview from Vienna. "They are exploiting a loophole in the Small Quantities Protocol and getting away (with it)."
Kelly, a US national who has participated in IAEA nuclear weapons inspections in Iraq, Libya and South Africa, has been drawn into controversy in the wake of reports that Burma intends to become the first nuclear power in South-east Asia. In June, Kelly gave an independent assessment of the findings made by the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), an Oslo-based station run by Burmese journalists in exile, which exposed Burma’s nuclear ambitions.
"There is clear evidence that there is a place where steps are being taken towards building a nuclear program," Kelly said of the evidence he had reviewed from the DVB report, including that pertaining chemical processing equipment to convert uranium compounds into forms for enrichment. "But there is no sign of a weapons program yet."
The DVB’s revelations of Burma’s nuclear dream have been confirmed within US intelligence circles, Kelly revealed. "It was not something new for them. They had known such facilities existed for at least five years."
The DVB report also confirmed what many Burma watchers had suspected for nearly a decade—that the junta, which rules the country with an iron grip through the use of its 450,000-strong military, had bigger ambitions. Its suspected nuclear trail, in fact, cut across many countries.
In early 2002, for instance, media reports emerged of Suleiman Asad and Muhammed Ali Mukhtar, Pakistani nuclear scientists who had worked in two of their country's secret nuclear installations, spending time in Burma.
In 2007, Russia and Burma signed an agreement to build a nuclear research centre, including facilities for radioisotope production, a silicon doping system and a nuclear-waste treatment and burial facility. This deal with Rosatom, Russia’s atomic energy agency, came on the heels of the nuclear training that close to 1,000 Burmese scientists and technicians have received in Russia since 2001.
Signs of closer cooperation between Burma and North Korea also emerged over the past decade, with the countries re-establishing diplomatic ties in 2007. Such ties—and reports by the exiled Burmese media that a senior Burmese general was taken on a weapons inspection tour to North Korea in late 2008—come even as Pyongyang faces international pressure and UN- backed sanctions for its own nuclear weapons program.
Even Germany and Singapore find themselves named in the Burmese nuclear trail. "A German company sold equipment through its Singapore subsidiary for Burma’s current nuclear program," said Kelly. "They were good machine tools to make chemical compounds."
Yet such details hardly surface when Burma attends the annual sessions of the IAEA’s general conference. Tin Win, the head of Burma’s delegation at last September’s sessions, painted a picture of a country supporting the NPT’s aims for a "nuclear weapon-free world."
"Myanmar currently has no major nuclear facility," Tin Win told the 53rd annual meeting of the IAEA.

(Page 2 of 2)


"For the world to be peaceful and secure, it is important that states do not misuse their peaceful nuclear programs for nuclear weapons purpose."Apart from living up to those words at the next IAEA sessions, Burma’s junta will also have to meet its obligations as a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), which has its own nuclear non- proliferation regime.
Foreign ministers of the 10-nation Asean, which also includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, underscored the importance of the Southeast Asian Nuclear- Weapon Free Zone at their annual meeting in Hanoi this week.
The agreement on the zone came into force in 1997, and Burma is a party to it. At a regional nuclear weapons monitoring commission this week, Asean ministers made a case for strengthening its role toward complete nuclear disarmament, stated the Vietnamese foreign ministry.

 

CONTRIBUTOR
Asean's New Dilemma: Burma's Nuclear Ambition <hr class="hr_dot"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By Kavi Chongkittavorn</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> Sunday, May 30, 2010 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> </tr></tbody></table>
The US action was swift following confirmation of a North Korean ship with suspicious arms cargoes docking in Burma last month in violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1874. A few days later, in the third week of April, the US State Department dispatched an urgent message to the Asean capitals recommending the scheduled Asean-US Economic Ministers' roadshow in Seattle and Washington DC, from May 3-5, proceed without the Burmese representation at "all levels." The drastic move surprised Asean leaders.
The American ultimatum was not a bluff but a genuine show of frustration. This time Washington wanted to send a strong signal to Burma and the rest of Asean that unless something was done about Burma's compliance with the relevant UN resolutions on North Korean sanctions, there would be dire consequences. Political issues aside, Burma's nuclear ambition can further dampen Asean-US relations in the future. Already, there was the first casualty when the US downgraded the high-powered economic roadshow which was meticulously planned months ahead between the Office of US Trade Representatives and Asean economic ministers through the US-Asean Business Council.
Since nearly all Asean countries, except Singapore, decided to dispatch their trade or industry ministers to join the campaign, they agreed the roadshow should continue without the Burmese delegation as requested by the US. After some bargaining, the US softened its position agreeing to accept a representation at the charge d'affaires level from the Burmese Embassy in Washington DC. But Rangoon chose to opt out as it wanted diplomats directly dispatched from Rangoon. Without a consensus in Asean, a new name—absurd as it seemed—was in place, as the Southeast Asia Economic Community Road Show. It would be a one-time only designation.
When Kurt Campbell, assistant state secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs returned to Burma for the second time recently, he was blunt in telling the junta leaders to abide and fully comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 1874. That has been Washington's serious concern due to the growing link between North Korea and Burma and their existing transfer of nuclear-related technology. Last June, a North Korean ship, the Kang Nam, was diverted from going to Burma after being trailed by the US navy.
Since 2000, Western intelligence sources have been gathering evidence of North Korea providing assistance to Burma to build a nuclear reactor that can produce graded plutonium that could be used in assembling future weapons of mass destruction. Last year, reports were released using data collected from two defecting Burmese military officers, intercepted calls and messages as well as human intelligence along Thai-Burmese border, all finger-pointing to Burma's nuclear ambitions.
When they came out last fall, skepticism was high among military experts and strategists on the junta's nuclear intentions. Most said there was insufficient evidence. Some viewed them as attempts to further discredit the regime's international standing. As additional interviews were conducted, especially with a former major in the Burmese Army, Sai Thein Win, who was directly involved with the recent secret nuclear program it has become clearer that Burma is investigating nuclear technology. This week, a special report on a huge new body of information, with expert comment from a former official working for the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be released.
As such, it will have far-reaching implications on Asean and its members, who signed the 1995 Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (SEANWFZ) and Non-proliferation Treaty. Asean is currently working hard to persuade all major nuclear powers to sign the protocol to the SEANWFZ. The grouping has even delayed China's eagerness to accede to the protocol.
Further complicating the issue, Asean has not reached a consensus on how its members would move forward with a common approach on nuclear energy and security. In general, Asean backs nuclear disarmament, which the Philippines has played a leading role as chair of the just concluded Review Conference of State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation on Nuclear Weapons. Asean also backs the ongoing efforts of US and Russia over non-proliferation.
One sticky problem is that Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Burma, and Indonesia have yet to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In the case of Indonesia, it is on the Annex 2 list of the treaty which, to enter into force, must be ratified by all 44 states on this list. At the upcoming Asean summit in Hanoi (October), Asean leaders will study a matrix of common positions that have been or could be taken up by Asean. It remains to be seen how Asean would approach some of the sensitive issues such as the South China Sea, climate change and issues related to nuclear technology.


(Page 2 of 2)


At the recent Nuclear Summit in Washington DC, leaders from Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand were invited by US President Barack Obama to share their views on non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy. They supported the summit's plan of action to prevent nuclear terrorism. All these Asean members have long-term plans to build nuclear power plants for peaceful use as energy sources. Vietnam has long decided on building two, while Thailand is planning one in the next ten years. Indonesia has serious parliamentary support to explore a nuclear option. Even the Singapore Economic Strategies Committee has recommended nuclear energy should be considered as a possible long-term solution to the island's energy security. Obama will certainly raise the issue again when he visits Indonesia in the second week of this month.
What is most intriguing has been the lack of serious attention from the Thai security apparatus regarding the nuclearization of Burma. Apart from the two informal meetings convened by the Defence Council at the end of last year, the topic has been discussed only among a handful of military intelligence officials who have worked closely with their Australian counterparts. The National Security Council still does not believe Burma has that kind of ambition, not to mention the overall nuclear capacity to embark on the controversial program. Concerned officials argued that domestic problems still have precedence.
Kavi Chongkittavorn is senior editor and a columnist at the Bangkok-based English-language daily newspaper, The Nation. This article appeared in The Nation on Monday.

 

Burma’s Nuclear Program: Dream or Nightmare?

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By William Ashton</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> MAY, 2004 - VOLUME 12 NO.5 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot">
Over the past 15 years, Burma’s armed forces have demonstrated a remarkable ability to justify arms acquisitions that, to most observers, seem to be without any credible strategic or economic rationale. The ruling State Peace and Development Council, or SPDC, appears determined to persist with its military modernization and expansion program in the face of such stark realities as Burma’s struggling economy, the collapse of its social infrastructure, the poverty of its people and the concerns of its neighbors. Perhaps the best example of the military junta’s questionable priorities is its determination to build a nuclear reactor. This project has caused considerable unease in the region, and in centers like Vienna and Washington. Over the past few months, this concern has begun to turn to alarm, as reports have emerged suggesting that the reactor may be built with the assistance of North Korea. This has raised the specter of a future nuclear weapons program that could intimidate Burma’s neighbors and be used as a bargaining chip against the US and its allies. Burma’s nuclear ambitions date back at least to December 2000, when the SPDC’s Minister for Science and Technology, U Thaung, visited Moscow and met with the Russian Minister of Atomic Energy. There were reports at the time that Burma had also approached China, and made its interest in a nuclear reactor known to potential vendors there. Pakistan too may have been contacted for assistance. The Department of Atomic Energy was created in U Thaung’s ministry, which was made responsible for pursuing this project, including contacts with the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. In September 2001 Rangoon formally approached the IAEA for assistance in obtaining a nuclear research reactor. The agency initially decided to ignore the request, on the grounds that Burma neither needed a reactor nor had the infrastructure and funding to support such a project. It was also concerned about the collapse of Burma’s education system since 1988 and its low technical skills base. Despite these reservations, an IAEA inspection team was sent to Burma that November. The team’s assessment, however, simply confirmed the agency’s original views. There were rumors in early 2002 that, without the IAEA’s help, the junta could not meet the cost of the nuclear project. But in May it was announced that Russia’s Atomic Energy Ministry, known as Minatom, had agreed to “cooperate in designing and building a nuclear studies center that will include a research nuclear reactor with a thermal capacity of 10 megawatts and two laboratories.” Minatom undertook to design the center, help choose the site, deliver the nuclear fuel, and supply all essential equipment and materials. Russian experts would assemble, install and help operate the center’s “main technical equipment.” The agreement included structures for the disposal of nuclear waste and a waste burial site. Russia would also train Burmese technicians to help build and operate the reactor. The deal was signed in Moscow in July 2002. There was initial speculation that the nuclear facility would be built in Rangoon, followed by some unlikely reports that it was going to be built on an offshore island near Ye. However, it was later revealed that a groundbreaking ceremony for the facility was scheduled to take place at a secret location near Magwe, in central Burma, in January 2003. The reactor and associated equipment were to be delivered later that year. The Rangoon regime said that it expected the reactor to be built “within a few years.” In anticipation of these events, hundreds of Burmese officials were sent to Russia for training. The reasons behind the junta’s interest in a nuclear reactor have never been clear. There were several statements during 2002 that the reactor was to be used for peaceful medical purposes. The Foreign Minister was reported as saying too that the reactor could be used “possibly to generate nuclear power.” Yet the construction of such an expensive and highly specialized facility for electricity generation is irrational. Burma could barely maintain its basic civil infrastructure, and its level of technological development was very low. The production of medical isotopes could be achieved more economically elsewhere. While it suffers from electricity shortages, Burma has ample natural gas and is constructing several new hydroelectric power stations. The main impetus behind the nuclear reactor project appears to be status and prestige. The international reaction to the announcement of the nuclear project was predictable. A number of serious concerns were expressed, relating largely to the safety and security of any reactor built in Burma. With the example of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster clearly in mind, the Thais in particular were worried about Russia’s involvement in the construction project, and the nature of the facility that was to be built.

(Page 2 of 3)

Also, Thailand and other neighboring countries feared that Burma would be unable to operate and maintain the reactor. The IAEA team that visited in 2001, to assess the country’s preparedness to use and maintain a nuclear reactor safely, was highly critical of Rangoon’s standards, which were well below the accepted minimum, even for conventional power plants. Burma’s record of earthquakes was also raised. There were security concerns too. Despite ceasefire agreements with most of Burma’s armed insurgent groups, some were still fighting the junta, and posed a potential risk to any nuclear reactor. While doubtless heavily guarded, the facility would still be an attractive insurgent target. Despite the imposition of tight controls over popular protest since the 1988 democratic uprising, there was also a danger of civil unrest, arising from decades of repression by the military government and its inept handling of the economy. A nuclear reactor would represent a potent symbol of the regime’s penchant for costly high-status projects, pursued at the expense of basic services like health and education. With the international terrorist threat in mind, the US State Department has already demanded assurances from the junta that it could safely secure such sensitive facilities and materials. After the initial announcement of the nuclear project, little additional information has been made available about the reactor, its location, or the safeguards being put in place to ensure that it is built and operated according to international standards. This has led to considerable speculation and a number of additional concerns. In particular, fears have been expressed that Burma might become a rogue state, and try to develop a nuclear weapon. Even if a nuclear weapons option was not available, it was argued, the presence of a nuclear reactor would at least give the Rangoon regime the capability to develop a “dirty bomb,” which could spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion. Few objective observers question the ruthlessness of the military junta in Rangoon or its determination to cling to power. But an attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon would be completely out of character for a government that, ever since its independence in 1948, has had a history of active participation in global disarmament initiatives. There was no sign before 2000 that Burma had ever considered the acquisition of a nuclear reactor, let alone nuclear weapons. Indeed, successive governments in Rangoon have consistently sought to counter nuclear threats and enhance the country’s security by opposing the manufacture, deployment and use of nuclear weapons. Burma has an impressive record of supporting international legal instruments designed to limit nuclear weapons proliferation and use. Since 1988, this policy has been confirmed by the junta. For example, in December 1995 it signed the Bangkok Treaty, which included a reaffirmation by the ten signatory states of the obligations assumed under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and contained a ban on the development, manufacture, possession, control, stationing or transport, testing or use of nuclear weapons. Notwithstanding this record, the possibility of Burma acquiring a nuclear weapons capability is now being accorded greater attention. In late 2003, it was revealed that the nuclear reactor deal with Russia had been shelved, apparently because the junta had been unable to reach final agreement with Moscow regarding payment. While no firm evidence is yet available, there have been suggestions in the international news media that Rangoon may have turned instead to North Korea to help build its nuclear facilities. This, in turn, has raised the specter of a Burmese nuclear weapons program. In November 2003 the Far Eastern Economic Review reported that North Korean technicians had been seen unloading large crates and heavy construction equipment from trains in central Burma, near the reported site of the future nuclear research reactor. In addition, aircraft from North Korea’s national airline have reportedly been seen landing at military airfields nearby. These developments apparently coincided with the arrival in Rangoon of representatives of the Daesong Economic Group, which has a record of secretly proliferating nuclear technologies to Pakistan. The clear implication of the article was that Pyongyang was providing equipment and materials to help build a nuclear reactor. The small research reactor Burma was getting from Russia was said to be unsuited for the manufacture of fissile material, but Pyongyang has the expertise to provide Rangoon with other options. These fears were encouraged by an unconfirmed news report in November 2003 that 80 members of the Burmese armed forces had recently departed for North Korea to study nuclear technology. The junta has denied that it has any plans to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

(Page 3 of 3)

SPDC spokesmen have stated that Burma was putting its energy and resources into the pursuit of a peaceful, stable and smooth transition to a multi-party democracy and an open market economy. The nuclear reactor, which was apparently still on the junta’s list of priority development projects, was said to be for peaceful research purposes only. The junta has further claimed that Burma was “everyone’s friend and nobody’s ally or enemy.” It said that it had no ambition to arm itself with nuclear weapons and firmly rejected the idea that Burma would ever threaten any of its neighbors. There is still considerable confusion about Burma’s plans for a nuclear reactor. A number of key questions remain unanswered. It is likely to be several years before the facility is built and comes on line. A number of major obstacles will need to be overcome. But even if a Burmese nuclear weapon is simply a bad dream, the construction of a nuclear reactor will severely stretch Rangoon’s budget and technical capabilities. It may test Burma’s relations with its neighbors and the wider international community even more. The full version of this article appeared in the February issue of the Asia Pacific Defence Reporter. William Ashton writes regularly about security issues in Asia.

 

Burma has Nuclear Ambitions, Says US Think Tank

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By LALIT K JHA / WASHINGTON</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> Friday, January 29, 2010 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot">
The Burmese regime has nuclear ambitions, according to a leading US “think tank,” which supports its claim with photographs of what it says is construction work on a possible nuclear reactor site near Mandalay.
The junta is cooperating with North Korea on possible procurement of nuclear technology and appears to be misleading overseas suppliers in its efforts to obtain it, say two authors of the report, David Albright and Paul Brannan, well-known experts on the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
<table style="width: 131px; height: 77px;" align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-right: 15px;"></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; line-height: 12px; padding-right: 15px;">The Burmese junta's No 3, Gen Thura Shwe Mann. exchanges a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chief of Staff of the Korean Peoples' Army, Gen Kim Gyok-sik, in Pyongyang in 2008 </td></tr></tbody></table>Their report was published by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
Assistant US Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley said that although he hadn't read the report, “we do have concerns about certain activity and the potential, you know—that risk to the global nonproliferation agenda.”
The report, titled “Burma: A nuclear wannabe; suspicious links to North Korea; high-tech procurements and enigmatic facilities,” says: “Certain equipment, which could be used in a nuclear or missile program, went to isolated Burmese manufacturing compounds of unknown purpose.
“Although evidence does not exist to make a compelling case that Burma is building secret nuclear reactors or fuel cycle facilities, as has been reported, the information does warrant governments and companies taking extreme caution in any dealings with Burma.
“The military regime’s suspicious links to North Korea, and apparent willingness to illegally procure high technology goods, make a priority convincing the military government to accept greater transparency.”
The report says that evidence shows “Burma and North Korea have discussed nuclear cooperation, but is not sufficient to establish that North Korea is building nuclear facilities for Burma’s military junta, despite recent reports to the contrary,” it says. Nonetheless, the possibility of significant North Korean nuclear assistance to this enigmatic, military regime, could not be ignored.
The report says that because Burma is buying a wide variety of suspicious dual-use goods internationally, governments and companies need to be more vigilant in examining Burma’s inquiries or requests for equipment, whether via Burmese governmental entities, Burmese trading companies, or other foreign trading companies.
Companies should treat inquiries from Burma no differently than those from Iran, Pakistan or Syria, it says.
Noting that Burma is seeking abroad a large quantity of top-grade, highly sophisticated goods with potential missile and nuclear uses, the report adds that no pattern has yet emerged in these procurements that lead to a specific missile or nuclear end use. Nonetheless, the procurements are often suspicious or highly enigmatic, according to one senior European intelligence official.
The report suggests the Burmese military regime might use North Korean trading entities to acquire overseas sensitive nuclear and nuclear dual use goods.
“Its military cooperation with North Korea has increased over the last several years, fueling concerns about nuclear cooperation. North Korea could also supplement Burma’s own foreign procurement networks, and it could sell nuclear goods made in North Korea,” it says.
Evidence of North Korean-Burmese cooperation, says the report, includes the reported presence in Burma of officials from Namchongang Trading (NCG), a North Korean trading company that is sanctioned by the UN Security Council.
“The nature of the Burmese/NCG cooperation remains largely unknown, but NCG has reportedly sold equipment to Burma or provided some type of technical assistance,” the report says—adding, however, that there is no concrete evidence that North Korea is supplying Burma a reactor. Any involvement by NCG in Burma is bound to increase suspicions about such a sale, the report adds.
“There remain sound reasons to suspect that the military regime in Burma might be pursuing a long-term strategy to make nuclear weapons. Despite the public reports to the contrary, the military junta does not appear to be close to establishing a significant nuclear capability.



The Burmese regime has nuclear ambitions, according to a leading US “think tank,” which supports its claim with photographs of what it says is construction work on a possible nuclear reactor site near Mandalay.
The junta is cooperating with North Korea on possible procurement of nuclear technology and appears to be misleading overseas suppliers in its efforts to obtain it, say two authors of the report, David Albright and Paul Brannan, well-known experts on the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
<table style="width: 131px; height: 77px;" align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-right: 15px;"></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; line-height: 12px; padding-right: 15px;">The Burmese junta's No 3, Gen Thura Shwe Mann. exchanges a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chief of Staff of the Korean Peoples' Army, Gen Kim Gyok-sik, in Pyongyang in 2008 </td></tr></tbody></table>Their report was published by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
Assistant US Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley said that although he hadn't read the report, “we do have concerns about certain activity and the potential, you know—that risk to the global nonproliferation agenda.”
The report, titled “Burma: A nuclear wannabe; suspicious links to North Korea; high-tech procurements and enigmatic facilities,” says: “Certain equipment, which could be used in a nuclear or missile program, went to isolated Burmese manufacturing compounds of unknown purpose.
“Although evidence does not exist to make a compelling case that Burma is building secret nuclear reactors or fuel cycle facilities, as has been reported, the information does warrant governments and companies taking extreme caution in any dealings with Burma.
“The military regime’s suspicious links to North Korea, and apparent willingness to illegally procure high technology goods, make a priority convincing the military government to accept greater transparency.”
The report says that evidence shows “Burma and North Korea have discussed nuclear cooperation, but is not sufficient to establish that North Korea is building nuclear facilities for Burma’s military junta, despite recent reports to the contrary,” it says. Nonetheless, the possibility of significant North Korean nuclear assistance to this enigmatic, military regime, could not be ignored.
The report says that because Burma is buying a wide variety of suspicious dual-use goods internationally, governments and companies need to be more vigilant in examining Burma’s inquiries or requests for equipment, whether via Burmese governmental entities, Burmese trading companies, or other foreign trading companies.
Companies should treat inquiries from Burma no differently than those from Iran, Pakistan or Syria, it says.
Noting that Burma is seeking abroad a large quantity of top-grade, highly sophisticated goods with potential missile and nuclear uses, the report adds that no pattern has yet emerged in these procurements that lead to a specific missile or nuclear end use. Nonetheless, the procurements are often suspicious or highly enigmatic, according to one senior European intelligence official.
The report suggests the Burmese military regime might use North Korean trading entities to acquire overseas sensitive nuclear and nuclear dual use goods.
“Its military cooperation with North Korea has increased over the last several years, fueling concerns about nuclear cooperation. North Korea could also supplement Burma’s own foreign procurement networks, and it could sell nuclear goods made in North Korea,” it says.
Evidence of North Korean-Burmese cooperation, says the report, includes the reported presence in Burma of officials from Namchongang Trading (NCG), a North Korean trading company that is sanctioned by the UN Security Council.
“The nature of the Burmese/NCG cooperation remains largely unknown, but NCG has reportedly sold equipment to Burma or provided some type of technical assistance,” the report says—adding, however, that there is no concrete evidence that North Korea is supplying Burma a reactor. Any involvement by NCG in Burma is bound to increase suspicions about such a sale, the report adds.
“There remain sound reasons to suspect that the military regime in Burma might be pursuing a long-term strategy to make nuclear weapons. Despite the public reports to the contrary, the military junta does not appear to be close to establishing a significant nuclear capability.

 

Burma's Nuclear Ambitions 'Threaten Regional Security'

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By WAI MOE </td> <td class="style4" align="right"> Friday, June 4, 2010 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot">
The Burmese junta’s ambition to become a nuclear power is a threat to regional security, according to a documentary by the Norway-based Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), which alleges that Naypyidaw is developing nuclear weapons and a missiles system with help from North Korea.
Quoting experts and defectors, the documentary, which was aired by Al Jazeera on Friday, said that if the junta achieves its goal, Burmese missiles could target neighboring countries, as well as threatening US military activities in the Indian Ocean.
Burmese army defector Maj Sai Thein Win, who is a missiles expert, said the junta is constructing nuclear and missiles facilities at at least two sites in Magwe and Mandalay divisions in central Burma.
“They [the junta] really want a [nuclear] bomb. That is their main objective,” said Sai Thein Win in the documentary. “They want to have rockets and nuclear warheads.”
Burma's relationship with North Korea is expected to be a hot topic at the 9th Asian Security Summit, also known as the “Shangri-La Dialogue,” which is being held on June 4-6 in Singapore. The US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is scheduled to attend the annual summit along with representatives from 26 countries, including Maj-Gen Aye Myint, the deputy defense minister of Burma. Gates is expected to raise the issue at the summit.
Following the latest allegations, Gates’ press secretary said the US is closely monitoring the junta’s cooperation with Pyongyang.
“We are concerned with [Burma’s] growing military ties with the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] and are following it closely to ensure that the multiple UNSCRs [UN Security Council Resolutions] are enforced,” Press Secretary Geoff Morrell reportedly told Agence France-Presse by e-mail. The Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874 ban all North Korean arms exports.
However, Burmese Minister of Science and Technology U Thaung told a US delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell that while acknowledging that the Burmese government had publicly announced its agreement to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, it also has “the duty to maintain and protect national sovereignty.”
Sai Thein Win said the secret project sites for the junta’s weapons are in Myaing, a town in Magwe Division, and Pyin Oo Lwin, also known as Maymyo, which is in Mandalay Division. The projects are under the command of the Directorate of Defense Service Science and Technology Research Center, but also involves U Thaung's Ministry of Science and Technology, said Sai Thein Winn.
Bases on statements from the defector, Robert Kelley, a former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the DVB: “Our analysis leads to only one conclusion: this technology is only for nuclear weapons, and not civilian use or nuclear power.”
Sai Thein Win told DVB that two companies in Singapore with German connections sold machinery to Burma’s Department of Technical and Vocational Education, which covers any missiles programs in the country.
Photos which were brought to Thailand by Sai Thein Win show German technicians working at the junta’s sites and even some officials from the Burmese embassy in Germany visiting a machinery-producing factory.
Kelley said in his analysis that although the German machinery was “very expensive and capable, they were sold without all of the accessories to make the ... parts required for many missile and nuclear applications.”
The DVB documentary adds to the growing evidence over the junta’s development of nuclear technology, in particular to a 2009 report by Australian Desmond Ball.
Quoting Burmese defectors, Ball said the Burmese armed forces established a “nuclear battalion” in 2000 whose operational base includes an underground complex in the mountains southwest of Naung Laing, near Pyin Oo Lwin, where the regime is reportedly constructing a nuclear reactor.
With North Korea's aid, the reactor in Naung Laing could be completed around 2012, and Burma could develop its first deliverable nuclear weapons by 2020, he said in the report.

 

Evidence Points to Burma's Nuclear Weapons 'Intent'

<hr class="hr_dot"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="style3"> By SIMON ROUGHNEEN</td> <td class="style4" align="right"> Friday, June 4, 2010 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr class="hr_dot">
BANGKOK—There are regional and international security implications arising out of fresh evidence that Burma is seeking nuclear weapons and is in breach of a UN arms embargo on North Korea.
Referencing the nuclear issue, US Sen. Jim Webb on Thursday canceled his scheduled trip to Burma.
<table style="width: 171px; height: 50px;" align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-right: 15px;"></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; line-height: 12px; padding-right: 15px;">Burmese soldiers carry flags as they march during the Armed Forces Day parade in Naypyidaw in March. (Photo: Reuters)</td></tr></tbody></table>“It would be inappropriate and counter-productive for me to go at this time,” Webb told journalists at a Thursday press conference in Bangkok. While the substance of the nuclear issue and the potential breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1874 remain to be clarified, Webb said, “There is enough for now in these two allegations, which need to be resolved,” before he could reconsider going to Burma.While allegations about a junta nuclear weapons program have emerged in the past, the latest reports are backed by documentation and photographs supplied by Burmese army defector Maj Sai Thein Win. A news documentary about the issue ran on Al-Jazeera today and is based on work carried out by the Democratic Voice of Burma news agency. Sai Thein Win had to flee Burma after superiors suspected that information about missile-building and uranium enrichment programs were being leaked. He says “that they really want to build a bomb, they want rockets and nuclear warheads.”
American nuclear scientist Robert Kelley, a former director in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international nuclear watchdog, said he spent months examining the material supplied by Sai Thein Win and concluded that the projects outlined in the material are “useful only for weapons.”
In an overview published on the DVB website, Kelley said: “The total picture is very compelling. Burma is trying to build pieces of a nuclear program, specifically a nuclear reactor to make plutonium and a uranium enrichment program. Burma has a close partnership with North Korea.”
The seven-member UN panel monitoring the implementation of sanctions against North Korea said in a report last week that Pyongyang is involved in banned nuclear and ballistic activities in Iran, Syria and Burma.
After an early May visit to Burma, US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs Kurt Campbell, said that the junta leadership had agree to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 1874, but that "recent developments" called into question its commitment. He said he sought the junta's agreement to "a transparent process to assure the international community that Burma is abiding by its international commitments."
"Without such a process, the United States maintains the right to take independent action within the relevant frameworks established by the international community," he said.
Whether or not the Burmese regime has the know-how to actually realize its apparent nuclear ambitions is another issue. According to Kelley, “Nothing we have seen suggests Burma will be successful with the materials and component we have seen.”
Speaking to Al-Jazeera, other nuclear experts such as John Isaacs, who is executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said that there is not yet “actual proof” of what the regime is trying to do.
However, the documentation assessed by Kelley suggest intent on the part of the junta. The regime has not signed the IAEA's Additional Protocol, meaning that the agency has not power to set up an inspection of Burma's nuclear facilities under the existing mechanism known as the Small Quantities Protocol.
The hour-long Al-Jazeera/DVB report gave details of a nationwide labyrinth of underground tunnels, believed to be shelters for the military in the event of an attack from outside or demonstrations at home. The total cost of the tunnels, built in collaboration with North Korean military advisers, is estimated in the range of US $3 billion.




(Page 2 of 3)

Reflecting on the documentation and photographs illustrating the extent of the tunneling, long-time Burma watcher and author Bertil Linter said, “I have never seen anything like this come out of Burma before.”<table style="width: 224px; height: 57px;" align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-right: 15px;"></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; line-height: 12px; padding-right: 15px;">Photo released by the Democratic Voice of Burma, defector Sai Thein Win, second from left in front row, is photographed with others in an undisclosed location in Burma. (Photo: AP/DVB)</td></tr></tbody></table>Webb believes that the US should maintain its policy of engagement with the junta, even as the new allegations come across as a slap in the face for the Obama administration, which has also sought to promote global nuclear non-proliferation The UN recently wrapped-up a four-week Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, a process largely driven and led by the US. It was attended by 189 countries including representatives from the junta's UN embassy in New York.Webb's stillborn proposed visit to Burma comes as the junta gets ready for elections scheduled some time this year, which Webb believes will help Burma make a transition toward being “ a more open society.”
However, after his recent visit to Burma, during which he met with Suu Kyi, Campbell said, "What we have seen to date leads us to believe that [upcoming] elections will lack international legitimacy." Asked on Thursday whether or not he would have met with Suu Kyi or the National League for Democracy, if he had gone ahead with the visit, Webb said that there are other opposition parties that he could talk to, adding that “the NLD has ceased to exist.”
Webb arrived in Thailand after visiting South Korea, where tensions are high after the sinking of a South Korean naval ship in March by a North Korean torpedo. Forty-six South Korean sailors were killed in the attack.
Speaking on Friday at the Shangri-La dialogue, a gathering of defense and security officials and experts in Singapore, South Korean President Lee Myung Bak said that because of “the graveness of the North Korean nuclear issue and the Cheonan incident,” the international community needs “to respond firmly to the North's threats to peace and stability of the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia." A North Korean envoy said in Geneva on Thursday that war could erupt at any time on the Korean peninsula, blaming what Pyongyang believes to be belligerence on the part of South Korea.
In Bangkok, Webb urged China to press North Korea to “come clean” about its role in the sinking of the Cheonan. Lee said, "The Cheonan incident in particular requires the North to admit to its wrongdoing and promise that similar incidents will not be repeated."
However China has remained non-committal despite South Korean and US pressure for it to respond by condemning Pyongyang. "We need to dispel the impact of the Cheonan incident, gradually ease tension and especially avoid a clash," Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said last week.
Webb said China should do more to persuade countries such as North Korea and Burma to reform, adding that “it is to China's advantage that these countries remain closed off.” Webb added that China's growing economic clout means that it needs to take on a more responsible role in international affairs. Webb denied that he was advocating a US confrontation with China, whose premier has just concluded a two-day visit to Burma where he discussed trade and investment issues, as well as Burma's forthcoming elections and internal ethnic politics.
<table style="width: 171px; height: 43px;" align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-right: 15px;"></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px; line-height: 12px; padding-right: 15px;">Photo released by the Democratic Voice of Burma, shows Sai Thein Win at the control panel of an industrial machine at an undisclosed location in Burma. (Photo: AP/DVB)</td></tr></tbody></table>During the Al-Jazeera report, defectors from the junta said that gas and oil revenue from the Yadana field has given the junta the financial resources necessary to increase military spending. The income available to the ruling generals is set to increase dramatically in the coming years, as the much larger Shwe Gas field comes on stream. According the Shwe Gas Movement website, “Burma’s military regime would stand to gain $24 billion over the 20-year contract, or $1.2 billion per year,” from the Shwe field, from which gas will be piped to China. A joint Indian-South Korean consortium is involved in the Shwe project.
The Yadana field has generated an estimated $7.5 billion in sales to Thailand, but if the junta is using this money to develop missiles and enrich uranium, it could mark the beginning of a regional arms race, according to author Linter.



(Page 3 of 3)


Other defectors interviewed for the report said that the junta wants to develop missiles with a 3,000 to 4,000 kilometer range, possibly even able to reach the US military base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Countries closer to Burma might have more reason to be worried however. “Thailand and India will have to counter this,” he said, adding that “this will definitely be seen as a threat in Thailand.”

 

ก๊อบๆ เอาไว้ (ตัวเองก็ไม่ได้อ่านหมด)
เผื่อใครเอาไว้เป็นข้อมูล หรือว่า บางทีเวบเค้าลบข่าวแล้วเราจะได้มีเก็บไว้

 

สหรัฐอเมริกาเตรียมจะบุกอิหร่าน

• 
• Administration

สหรัฐได้ส่งอาวุธยุโธปกรณ์จำนวนมากไปยังตะวันออกกลางเพี่อเตรียมตัวบุกอิหร่าน ตามรายงานข่าวข้างล่างนี้
US Begins Massive Military Build Up Around Iran, Sending Up To 4 New Carrier Groups In Region | zero hedge




ซี่งยังไม่ทราบแน่ชัดว่าใครเป็นผู้ก่อการร้าย แต่ก็พอคาดเดาได้ว่าทำกันเป็นขบวนการ จุดชนวนสร้างความขัดแย้ง
Who's blowing up Iran's gas pipelines? – Telegraph Blogs

• 
• timbarrel
• <label>Joined:</label><abbr class="created" title="2010-01-21T17:37:55+0700">01/21/10</abbr>

ผมได้ข่าวไม่กรองมาว่า ที่อเมริกาไม่โจมตีไทยเรื่องภายในประเทศ ก็เพราะไทยมีสิทธิ์โหวตให้บุกอิหร่าน ตอนแรกไม่ค่อยเชื่อ แต่พอเจอข่าวนี้แล้วก็น่าจะจริง




อ้างอิง

 

US Begins Massive Military Build Up Around Iran, Sending Up To 4 New Carrier Groups In Region


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/20/2010 19:30 -0500

• Barack Obama
• Iran
• Israel

As if uncontrollable economic contagion was not enough for the administration, Obama is now willing to add geopolitical risk to the current extremely precarious economic and financial situation. Over at Debkafile we read that the president has decided to "boost US military strength in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf regions in the short term with an extra air and naval strike forces and 6,000 Marine and sea combatants." With just one aircraft carrier in proximity to Iran, the Nobel peace prize winner has decided to send a clear message that peace will no longer be tolerated, and has decided to increase the US aircraft carrier presence in the region by a 400-500% CAGR.
From Debka:

Carrier Strike Group 10, headed by the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier, sails out of the US Navy base at Norfolk, Virginia Friday, May 21. On arrival, it will raise the number of US carriers off Iranian shores to two. Up until now, President Barack Obama kept just one aircraft carrier stationed off the coast of Iran, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Arabian Sea, in pursuit of his policy of diplomatic engagement with Tehran.

For the first time, too, the US force opposite Iran will be joined by a German warship, the frigate FGS Hessen, operating under American command.

It is also the first time that Obama, since taking office 14 months ago, is sending military reinforcements to the Persian Gulf. Our military sources have learned that the USS Truman is just the first element of the new buildup of US resources around Iran. It will take place over the next three months, reaching peak level in late July and early August. By then, the Pentagon plans to have at least 4 or 5 US aircraft carriers visible from Iranian shores.

The USS Truman's accompanying Strike Group includes Carrier Air Wing Three (Battle Axe) - which has 7 squadrons - 4 of F/A-18 Super Hornet and F/A-18 Hornet bomber jets, as well as spy planes and early warning E-2 Hawkeyes that can operate in all weather conditions; the Electronic Attack Squadron 130 for disrupting enemy radar systems; and Squadron 7 of helicopters for anti-submarine combat (In its big naval exercise last week, Iran exhibited the Velayat 89 long-range missile for striking US aircraft carriers and Israel warships from Iranian submarines.)

Another four US warships will be making their way to the region to join the USS Truman and its Strike Group. They are the guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy and guided missile destroyers USS Winston S. Churchill, USS Oscar Austin and USS Ross.
​

We can't wait for Iran to feel completely unthreatened by this escalation and to decide to take no action whatsoever as the Nobelists push it even more into a corner from which the only escape, to a rational player, would be outright aggression... Which begs the question just how an irrational player would react.
h/t Mark
4.714285





Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (14 votes)

 

Israeli request for more arms from US raises fears of regional violence

By Catrina Stewart in Jerusalem

Wednesday, 9 June 2010

• Share Close
  
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Google
  • Stumble Upon
  • Fark
  • Newsvine
  • YahooBuzz
  • Bebo
  • Twitter
  • Independent Minds
  
  
• Print
• Email
• Text Size
  • Normal
  • Large
  • Extra Large

REUTERS
Israel's Defence Minister Ehud Barak made a move for the weapons during a recent visit to Washington

• enlarge

<style>.firstcolumn { font-family: verdana; font-size: 11px; border-bottom: 5px solid rgb(125, 112, 77); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-bottom: 10px; }.firstcolumn div { padding-left: 2px; }.firstcolumn .title { font-size: 13px; margin-top: 2px; margin-bottom: 2px; color: rgb(125, 112, 77); font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; }.firstcolumn .title a { color: rgb(125, 112, 77); }.firstcolumn .description { font-size: 11px; }.firstcolumn .thumbnail { float: left; margin-right: 5px; border: 0px none; }.firstcolumn .commercialpromo { border-top: 5px solid rgb(206, 182, 105); margin-bottom: 10px; }.firstcolumn .clear { clear: both; height: 1px; overflow: hidden; }.firstcolumn .mainheading { border-top: 5px solid rgb(125, 112, 77); margin-bottom: 0px; }.firstcolumn .mainheading .title { margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; }.firstcolumn a { color: rgb(18, 85, 129); text-decoration: none; }.firstcolumn a:hover { color: rgb(18, 85, 129); text-decoration: underline; }.firstcolumn a:visited { color: rgb(18, 85, 129); }.firstcolumn .dotted { background-image: url("http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00027/dots_27496a.gif"); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-position: center bottom; padding-bottom: 4px; }.firstcolumn .yh { font-weight: bold; }.clearbutton { overflow: hidden; width: 100%; }.firstcolumn .yahoo { overflow: hidden; }.firstcolumn .yahoo ul { list-style-type: none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; }.firstcolumn .yahoo ul li { float: left; margin: 0px; width: 180px; list-style-type: none; padding-left: 20px; background-image: url("http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00027/bullet_27264a.gif"); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 5px 50%; font-weight: bold; }</style>


Israel has approached the United States for more bombs and asked Washington to increase an emergency arms cache stowed on Israeli soil by 50 per cent, according to the leading newspaper Ha'aretz.
The approach, made by Defence Minister Ehud Barak during a recent visit to Washington, reflects the heightened tensions in recent months between the Jewish state and its neighbours that have given rise to widespread fears within Israel of an imminent regional conflict.
News of the request emerged as members of the international community stepped up the pressure yesterday for a thorough and impartial probe of last week's Israeli raid of a Turkish vessel bound for Gaza with humanitarian aid that ended in a bloodbath.
Related articles

• New face of power in the Middle East
• Search the news archive for more stories

The Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, who was attending a regional security summit in Turkey, added to the criticism of Israel and said he would raise the question of who would conduct an inquiry with the United Nations.
Israel has agreed to carry out an investigation, which could be overseen by two international observers, but would be limited to a theoretical debate of the merits of the raid and the blockade. The commandos who led the raid would not be questioned.
Israel has defended its land and sea blockade of Gaza, arguing that it prevents the flow of weapons to Hamas, the Islamist group that governs the strip. Critics say it constitutes collective punishment that has led to a humanitarian crisis.
Fearing that its enemies are rearming along its borders, Jerusalem has asked Washington to increase the emergency stores by $400m (£278m) to $1.2bn and is also seeking to buy more Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs from the US, the liberal newspaper Ha'aretz reported, citing unnamed sources.
The JDAM is a sophisticated satellite-guided bomb used extensively by Israel in the Lebanon War in 2006 and in its Gaza offensive at the end of 2008.
The Israeli Ministry of Defence refused to comment on the report and the US State Department did not respond to requests for comment.
Washington agreed in December to double stores to $800m worth of arms, including rockets, bombs and armoured vehicles, allowing the Israeli forces to use the equipment with US approval in the case of an emergency.
Israel has already done so in the past, falling back on the US munitions during the Lebanon War in which at least 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis were killed.
The Israeli move reflects the country's growing sense of embattlement in a region largely hostile to it. Iran
has repeatedly threatened to erase Israel from the map, while Hizbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia group, has amassed thousands of rockets along Israel's northern border. Relations with Turkey, once Israel's closest ally in the region, have plunged to new lows following the flotilla raid.
"Israel does have a sense of the coalescing of an alliance which is committed sooner or later to war with Israel," said Jonathan Spyer, senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Centre in Herzliya. "Everyone is building up frightening amounts of military hardware."
Israel recently accused Syria of providing Hizbollah with Scud missiles, a powerful weapon capable of hitting cities deep inside Israel. Syria vehemently denied the claims, countering that Israel was seeking a pretext for war.
Neither Hizbollah, still smarting from the previous conflict four years ago, nor Israel are likely to want another war, Spyer said. Any conflict with Hizbollah would likely spin out of control beyond Lebanon to include Syria and Iran.
The US, Israel's staunchest ally, provided $2.5bn in military aid to Israel last year, freeing up an equivalent amount for spending in other areas. It recently agreed to help fund the country's Iron Dome project, a controversial anti-missile system.