China-US Begin Delicate Dance

Originally Published January 24, 2009; Last Updated February 21, 2012; Last Republished February 21, 2012:

China and United States begin the delicate domestic dance of figuring out how to synergistically propel each country''s economic growth without alienating one another. On one level this is a "problem" all nations should have—mutual economic interdependence such that neither nation can effectively afford to alienate the other. Each must work with the other or both nations will suffer. Economists for both China and the United States are excellent, but this is not fundamentally an economist''s problem nor can they do little more than crunch the data, develop and run the models, and provide economic forecasts.

This is about the kind of relationship China and the United States expect to develop and maintain over the next century. Get it right and each country will gloriously benefit—get it wrong and the result will be anything but harmonious.

It's not the time for trite and trivial accusations and counter-accusations about currency manipulation. It''s a time for candid, frank, transparent, honest, and broad ranging discussions about what each country requires from the other to ensure and assure our mutually beneficial friendship extends through the next half century and beyond.

Economists will play a role. Skilled leadership, politicians, and negotiators each capable of assuming nothing, exploring everything, and making tough transformational decisions will play an even greater role. Treat it as a short term rhetorical game for gain versus a long term candid, honest, frank, and transparent discussion between mutually respectful friends at your nation''s own risk!  

Res:

UPDATED 06/18/2010 WH, Letter from the President to G-20 Leaders

"...I also want to underscore that market-determined exchange rates are essential to global economic vitality. The signals that flexible exchange rates send are necessary to support a strong and balanced global economy...."--President''s June 2010 G-20 Letter--

Blog:

UPDATED 02/26/2010 CFR, Reality Bites. A short light-hearted assessment of the current China-U.S. relationship that''s maybe too close to the truth.

UPDATED 06/02/2009 WSJ, Full Text of Geithner's Speech at Peking University. Geithner''s former Mandarin teacher has a laugh at his expense. Presenting him with an earlier picture while hinting that more than learning Mandarin was afoot.

UPDATED 05/30/2009 ChinaDigitalTimes, All Eyes on U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner's First Trip to China. Our young (47) Secretary of Treasury, a Mandarin speaker, heads to China for economic talks—be bold—the prescient vision of our first Secretary of Treasury, 34 years-old New Yorker Alexander Hamilton still awes modern minds.  

Web:  

UPDATED 02/21/2012 USCC, Hearing on Chinese State-Owned and State-Controlled Enterprises

It's unclear whether the state owned-controlled-sponsored enterprise(s) can or will predominated global competition?

Most of the hearing witnesses seem to generally focus on a variant of the theme that China is coupling currency controls and state owned-controlled-sponsored enterprises to subsidize domestic and foreign markets.

But how is China's global subsidy of the consumer harmful? Perhaps this is what hearing witness Paul T. Saulski was getting at by stating:

"I will end by pointing out that, although these policies do benefit state-owned enterprises and industries vis-à-vis their foreign competitors, these policies do not come without significant cost to the Chinese economy."

Of course a nation's choice of models (economic, financial, legal and production)  is independent of the requirement that all these models and all actors must operate in a globally transparent and accountable environment.

Discovering your collateral debt obligation is worthless must not await a sovereign default; discovering medical grade silicon substitutes must not await implant rupture; discovering a metal was not heat treated must not await a crash; discovering an active ingredient substitution must not await the harm or death of a patient; etc.

The good news is that on this anniversary of the Nixon-Kissinger trip to China we're still discussing how best to further open our nations.

UPDATED 02/16/2012 NYT, Europe Steps Up Talks With China on Its Market Status

Today's open economics means your dance is significantly influenced, if not determined by the dance(s) of others—the chaos of stopping the music and then competing for chairs is no longer desirable, if it ever was.

Our future economic models must ensure the music does not stop or when it does that there is a seat for every ass.

UPDATED 02/14/2012 Reuters, Obama, China's Xi to tread cautiously in White House talks and Reuters, Obama friendly but firm with China heir apparent

UPDATED 10/02/2010 Reuters, Wen says some in Congress politicize trade gap. China''s Wen is correct on politicizing trade and that we are not going to restart production of the low-value added items imported from China:

"...Many of the Chinese exports to the United States are no longer produced in the U.S., and I don''t believe that the United States will restart the production of those products -- products which are at the low end of the value-added chain....."--Reuters quoting China Premier Wen Jiabao--

Our current leadership is now struggling to create the high-value-added replacement jobs—unfortunately the low-value-added jobs were lost faster than the high-value-added jobs were created. Blaming China will not create the replacement high-value-added jobs.

UPDATED 10/01/2010 Reuters, UPDATE 1-US, China not headed for currency war- Geithner and CFR, Confronting the China-U.S. Economic Imbalance .

Blaming China should not substitute for focusing on America, including support for our citizens and residents negatively impacted by our transition toward increased global cooperative competition. All nations must avoid the politically expedient tendency to characterized other peer nations as engaging in inimical behavior; instead they must cooperate to ensure stable competition in our increasingly global economic and financial systems.

UPDATED 09/24/2010 Reuters, Obama asks Wen for more action on yuan.
UPDATED 09/08/2010 Reuters, China-U.S. ties improving, Hu tells White House team. Encore! UPDATED 07/15/2010 AsiaTimes, All ''AmeriChina'' cards on table.
UPDATED 06/19/2010 Xinhua, China decides to further reform RMB exchange rate regime and Xinhua, Obama says China''s currency move "a constructive step" and NYT, China Signals a Gradual Rise in Value of Its Currency.

"...We welcome China''s decision to increase the flexibility of its exchange rate,...Vigorous implementation would make a positive contribution to strong and balanced global growth. We look forward to continuing our work with China in the G20 and bilaterally to strengthen the recovery,..."--Xinhua quoting U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner--.

UPDATED 04/04/2010 Reuters, China tries to cool yuan dispute with U.S..
UPDATED 03/18/2010 NYT, U.S. to Delay Chinese Currency Report.

China representatives are scheduled to discuss currency manipulation and balance of trade issues with senators ahead of a vote on whether the Yuan is being artificially undervalued against the dollar. Many think the current Yuan:Dollar ratio of 6.83:1 is 25-40 percent undervalued. It seems preferable for China to develop the non-authoritarian institutions required for a stable civil society as opposed to pursuing unsustainable growth policy that distort or destabilize the global economy in pursuit of the same.

UPDATED 03/15/2010 CFR, Confronting the China-U.S. Economic Imbalance.
UPDATED 03/09/2010 CFR, China''s Exchange Rate Policy: The Heat Is On.
UPDATED 02/05/2010 Economist, By fits and starts.

Mostly fits right now. Unfortunately China leaders like our leaders will tend toward stoking the nationalism rhetoric. The rhetoric can be dangerous because it substitutes emotional appeasement for doing the heavy lifting required for long-term sustainable solutions. Many times leaders of a nation cynically use nationalism believing they can control the passions. But such passions are difficult to control once stoked. Citizens in both China and America must condemn any effort by our leaders to substitute nationalism for the hard work of ensuring sustainable global growth. Protectionism or terminating dialogue or inflammatory rhetoric regardless of the differences or disagreements are nationalistic and impede sustainable global growth.

UPDATED 02/04/2010 BBC, China hits back at US over trade

More imbalances left behind by the previous administration. A policy of creating growth using the mantra "markets clear everything" has created titanic imbalances and disasters. Balanced growth is preferred growth because it''s sustainable growth.

 
Caution: How will our current administration determine and communicate that it is: ensuring a level playing field for fair trade; and not protecting inefficient domestic industries lacking innovation? Our president has signaled he will oppose protectionism while ensuring a level playing field for competition, but data and information must accompany the words. Understandably China is left to assert subjective statements like "At the moment...the level of the yuan [sic] is close to reasonable and balanced." The reply is simple and direct...well then let''s float your currency and more objectively test your statement. Many think the Yuan is still 30-40 percent undervalued making our goods relatively more expensive for the Chinese consumer, among other things.

UPDATED 01/15/2010 NYT, Murray: US Senators Urge China Action on Currency. A nation shifting from an export to import model must lawfully or unlawfully build its intellectual property assets—unfortunately most nations, and China is no exception, engage both lawful and unlawful channels (the recent Google-China incident is about this in spades) for increasing their intellectual property assets. Authoritarian regimes will tend toward unlawful channels simply because their governing model is in conflict with the freedoms necessary for lawful generation of cutting-edge intellectual property assets. However our leader are shortsighted not to recognize the untenability (from China''s perspective) of asserting that China floats its currency and abandon its efforts to lawfully increase its intellectual property assets. Our leaders are also shortsighted to place all their focus on the necessity of prying open China''s markets to the exclusion of developing, protecting, and securing our next generation intellectual property assets. We simply do not want to be in the position of competing with an authoritarian China using an export model to exploit an infinite supply of low-cost labor! Hopefully, our forthcoming Google incident demarche will implicitly (if not explicitly) make clear to China and other American companies we have no such intention of doing so.

UPDATED 07/26/2009

UPI, Chinese delegation in Washington for talks. UPDATED 07/27/2009 Reuters, Obama calls for deeper U.S.-Chinese ties. Vice Premier Wang, Secretary of State Clinton, and Treasury Secretary Geithner at U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington July 27, 2009.

"...The relationship between the United States and China will shape the 21st century, which makes it as important as any bilateral relationship in the world,..."--President Obama--

UPDATED 07/21/2009 Time, China''s Plans for Replacing the Dollar.
UPDATED 06/02/2009 Xinhua, U.S. treasury chief embarks on China visit, shaping ties in Obama era UPDATED 06/02/2009 NYT, In China, Geithner Backs Cooperation.
UPDATED 05/22/2009 UPI, China fails to win status from EU. China still striving for "market economy" status from EU

This is a huge issue and one not easily solved by China''s leaders. China''s leaders would like to achieve market status because it eliminates "price imputation" on a host of trade related issues. In a "planned economy" (as opposed to market economy) prices are not objectively and reliably determined (central planning sets prices)—so in some trade related circumstances market economies will calculate an approximate market price and impute it to China''s goods. ...Of course if you are trying to build confidence in your currency it is helpful to subject that currency to market forces ("float"). If over time the currency maintains its value investors gain confidence. If on the other hand you peg your currency at a predetermined value and intervene in the currency markets to maintain that value investors have no simple way of objectively determining if the currency value reflects its true value or a "manipulated value". But if China "floats" its currency its true market value may cause unintended or undesirable (from the perspective of China''s leadership) consequences. For example it may cause an outflow of currency from China''s banks; it may cause export prices to rise making them less competitive internationally; it may increase the cost of vital infrastructure projects; etc. It''s no easy task to float your currency while simultaneously avoiding all undesirable consequences—just ask our secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner! In case you think its simple or black-white consider whether it''s better to have hedge fund managers and currency speculators manipulating your currency or your nation''s central bankers?

UPDATED 05/22/2009 UPI, Pelosi, U.S. delegation to visit China [May 24-31, 2009]. Whether you agree or disagree with China''s leaders many most acknowledge and credit their Herculean efforts to transform China; reduce its crippling poverty; and place it on a path of global participation (sometimes it''s easy to forget China is a developing nation). Our leaders will do well to assume China''s leaders have objectively studied and thoroughly understand most of the critical problems confronting China—demonstrating that same understanding and communicating how America can play a constructive and accommodating role in solving those problems will be most welcomed. ...And who knows what together we can accomplish?

UPDATED 05/17/2009 NYT, The China Puzzle. It is not often we read an article, even in the NYT, that aims at educating the reader—David Leonhard has accomplished this in a infinitesimal incremental way—kudos! It''s not that our trade imbalance with China is per se the problem—it''s what our policymakers for the previous eight years did with China''s loaned foreign exchange surplus that is an enormous problem—they consumed it instead of investing and now have nothing to show for it, except rusting military hardware, scrap metal, and a cheap DVD player with a MTBF of 200 to 400 hours! Competing with China in the low to medium skilled labor market is not something America wants to accomplish—whether and why we need to are different and most unfortunate questions our policymakers are currently asking and debating among themselves and others? Ironically, China, a communist country with socialist and egalitarian aspirations currently has one of the world''s most unequal income distributions. China has annual average urban income of  ¥3,411 and rural income of  ¥1,244² (note the imbalance between rural and urban).

UPDATED 04/25/2009 Reuters, Geithner urges global effort to tamp crisis

"We must set ourselves on a path so that one country, or group of countries, does not consume in excess while another set of countries produces in excess,"--Reuters, quoting Geithner--

UPDATED 04/18/2009 BBC, China looks to its own consumers and VOA, China Announces $10 Billion Asian Infrastructure Investment. Global demand is insufficient to support China''s export model forcing it to look to domestic demand. Switching from an export model, if that''s what China''s fourth and fifth generation leadership plan, will be as challenging as it is potentially beneficial.

"But Mr. Wen stressed the importance of confidence among world leaders, calling it "more valuable than gold" and said that hope was also important, like a "beacon.""--VOA quoting China''s Premier at Boao Forum--

Confidence in world leadership is even more important—leadership capable of credible, continuous interaction for shared sustainable global growth—not princes, oligarchs and cowboys who stand on the sidelines issuing threats, preconditions, and demands—substituting militarization, belligerence, and bullying for credible confident leadership. UPDATED 04/01/2009 Xinhua, China, U.S. to build positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship in 21st century. UPDATED 03/13/2009 Reuters, China expresses worry over its U.S. assets.

"I would like, through you, to once again request America to maintain their creditworthiness, keep their promise and guarantee the safety of Chinese assets,"--China''s Premier Wen Jiabao--

We''re a little concerned too—but, our Secretary of State likely has it about right—thanks for your directness—if there''s anything Paul Volcker has demonstrated a dislike for it''s inflation.

UPDATED 03/05/2009 NYT, China Outlines Ambitious Plan for Stimulus The parallel economic efforts of both nations has been impressive—wonder what could be achieved with transparent cooperative and coordinated economic efforts? China starts parliament session amid global crisis, calls for confidence to combat downturn Reuters, China silent on extra stimulus, stands by growth aim

UPDATED 03/01/2009 Xinhuanet En, Premier: Regression in Sino-U.S. relations not in line with historical tide. China''s Premier Wen Jiabao conducts a two hour intra-China online chat.

"He [Wen] said it has been proved by 30 years of Sino-U.S. relations that both will benefit from cooperation and both will be hurt by bitter fights."--Xinhua, reporting chat--

Hopefully, soon both Chinese and American leaders will be conducting unrestricted, uncensored routine reciprocal cross-culture online chats with the netizens of the others nation.

UPDATED 01/30/2009 AP, Obama addresses global trade imbalances with Hu Xinhuanet En, China''s Hu holds phone talks with Obama over ties

UPDATED 01/28/2009 UK Guardian, China pins blame for financial crisis on America

[America enabled] "...an excessive expansion of financial institutions in blind pursuit of profit, lack of self discipline among financial institutions and ratings agencies..."--China''s Politburo, Wen Jiabao--

Point taken—perhaps the illusion of profits is a better descriptor—the net profits and wealth remain to be studied and determined. Only the speculators (cowboys) benefit from engaging in the harmful practices aimed at creating and profiting from artificial differential swings in the market, most recently from 12,000 to 8,000. The rest of us benefit from sustainable stable linear growth, but then most of us aren''t walking the halls of Congress purchasing the enabling "cowboy policies" from members of Congress (it''s called corruption in China and everywhere else, we call it campaign contributions). In fact if or when we all begin acting like the "cowboys" our system will no longer function and will collapse—in just eight years the "cowboys" have produced a warning disaster! Hopefully, together we''ll study and learn from this warning and avoid triggering another.

UPDATED 01/24/2009 AP, Under Obama, US-China ties may face shaky start WP, Geithner Says China Manipulates Its Currency AP, China dismisses US remark on currency manipulation

-----notes-----

1. China''s Yuan is pegged against a weighted composite of international currencies, but China''s domestic currency is the Renminbi (see Wikipedia, Currency Signs for other country''s currency symbols).

2. Loren Brandt and Thomas Rawski, China''s Great Economic Transformation, 2008 page 729 et seq. (Dwayne Benjamin, Loren Brandt et al. Income Inequality during China''s Economic Transition)—published in Loren Brandt and Thomas Rawski, China''s Economic Transformation, 2008 Figures are for 2001 data. China''s 2008 HDI PPP GDP per capita based on 2006 U.S. dollars is $4,682.

China Provokes US Hosing And Formal Protest

Originally Published March 10, 2009; Last Updated February 20, 2012; Last Republished  February 20, 2012: 

United States maritime surveillance ship USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23)¹ was harassed by a handful of smaller Chinese ships while openly conducting operations in the South China Sea, approximately 75 nautical miles south of Hainan Island, China (aerial map). Operations were well outside China's 12 mile territorial waters as defined by United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The harassment is more indicative of pirates' behavior than what is expect from a professional PLA Navy and its sailors—at one point the Chinese ships blocked passage and pretended to ram (“playing chicken”) the USNS Impeccable.

The Chinese ship came within 75 25 yards feet³ of the USNS Impeccable, which responded by spraying the ships with its fire hoses. This is not the first time² China has wrongfully asserted its territorial 12 mile rights within its 200 mile economic rights zone—within 12 mile the “right of transit” does not include surveillance and mapping rights—outside 12 miles the "right of transit" does include surveillance and mapping rights. In addition to the formal protest, these unnecessary provocations can be put on the agenda of the recently restarted China-American military-military talks and working group.

YouTube:

UPDATED 10/11/2011 TheMarines' Memorial Club, George P. Shultz Lecture Series hosts speaker Admiral Robert F. Willard talking on “Protecting the Commons: Security Opportunities and Challenges in the Asia-Pacific" (view post talk question and answer video).

Admiral Willard has been appearing in a variety of forums talking on the challenges presented by our fast evolving global commons. Challenges that will require nations to jettison their obsolete confrontational models in favor of cooperative models, which by definition will require novel and heterodox thinking.

UPDATED 02/13/2011 The South China Sea: Troubled Waters Much of the dialog in this video has been overcome or altered by subsequent events, most notably President Hu Jintao's recent United States visit.

It seems useful to note that a young United States has also intervened to prevent modern China's dismemberment.

Web:

UPDATED 02/20/2012 UPI, General [Martin Dempsey] tells of 'opportunity' in Pacific

UPDATED 02/20/2012 Commander Seventh Fleet, Vice Admiral Scott Swift, speaks at RAN Sea Power Conference 2012

UPDATED 02/17/2012 CRS, U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress dated February 2012
UPDATED 01/15/2012 CNAS, Cooperation from Strength. The United States, China and the South China Sea (pdf)  Provides a cursory description of the South China Sea boundary and consequent resource disputes and disputants.


Cooperation from Strength is an aphorism for the expenditures on an expansive naval fleet to perpetuate our unilateral global police power.  An aphorism that is more nonsensical and discouraging of cooperation than "mistress marriage maintenance".

Cooperation from Strength  simply complains that China uses economic coercion on the South China Sea disputants and others; opportunistically substitutes its domestic law for international law; increased its expenditures on military development; and free rides on our heretofore unilateral provision of global police power (the first three complaints are tactics not unfamiliar to our nation and the last is exactly what  Cooperation from Strength seeks to perpetuate!).

Not sure how the above complaints justify the expenditures on an expansive naval fleet to perpetuate our unilateral global police power? The complaints seem more supportive of the need to develop a multilateral cooperative framework.

UPDATED 01/13/2012 IHS Janes, Analysis: US' Asia-Pacific strategy provokes mixed response from China Discusses the recently published "Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense (pdf)".  

UPDATED 01/01/2012 Daily Planet, Obama’s Dangerous Asia “Pivot”

UPDATED 12/18/2011 Reuters, U.S. Navy may station ships in Singapore, Philippines


UPDATED 12/09/2011 Reuters, U.S. seeks to reassure China on Australia military ties

China and U.S. are behaving like disillusioned partners trying to figure out whether their efforts are worth it.

It's reminiscent of the recent Mainland rafter who attempted to float across the Taiwan Strait to observe Taiwan's upcoming democratic elections. Only to be intercepted at sea, arrested, and deported back to the Mainland by Taiwan.

The rafter cursing democracy and deportation while a democratic Taiwan wonders how its defenses will next be tested. Both interpreting the rare and foolish event as further reason to distrust the other and question the partnership.

UPDATED 11/19/2011 Reuters, WRAPUP 5-China rebuffs U.S., Asia pressure in sea dispute

President Obama clearly communicated to China that constructive cooperation requires both nations to play by the "big boy" rules of the road.

Premier Wen clearly communicated China's understanding and signaled that coercive pressure may not be the optimal method for ensuring China's constructive cooperation.

All that remains is for China and United States' capable diplomats to convert these "no shit communications" in to constructive cooperation.

UPDATED 11/05/2011 CSM, The rise of an economic superpower: What does China want?

"China's diplomacy is cost-benefit-oriented, not dealing in terms of global public goods, ... It's a very self-interested country, looking after themselves.", --CSM quoting Professor Shambaugh--

UPDATED 10/24/2011 UPI, U.S. seeks development of ASEAN security

UPDATED 10/09/2011 UPI, War in South China Sea?

UPDATED 07/23/2011

StateDept, Hilary Clinton's remarks at the ASEAN Regional Entrepreneurship Summit. and ChinaDaily, China and ASEAN 'can solve disputes' and SFExaminer, Clinton: South China Sea disputes threaten peace and Reuters, China signs S.China Sea guidelines, seeks to turn page on row and Australian, China irate over push on sea claim

China's expansive territorial interpretation appears to be the primary source of its own irritation.

UPDATED 07/12/2011 FP, The South China Sea's Georgia Scenario.

UPDATED 06/18/2011 Reuters, UPDATE 2-China to boost coastal forces amid sea tensions

UPDATED 05/14/2011 Reuters, Factbox: China's military modernization

"The People's Liberation Army Chief of General Staff Chen Bingde arrives in Washington D.C. on Sunday for a week-long trip to the United States, the highest level visit there by a Chinese uniformed military commander since 2009."--Reuters--

UPDATED 02/21/2011 Diplomat, Is China Planning String of Pearls?.

UPDATED 01/11/2011 WP, China tests stealth aircraft before Gates, Hu meet. Secretary Gates demonstrates how to maintain a professional relationship, notwithstanding a possible or perceived slight, snub, or mistiming.

UPDATED 01/10/2011 WP, Chinese defense chief [Liang Guangjie] tepid to Gates. Gates meets with Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping and will take a tour of China's 2nd Artillery (strategic missiles) headquarters.

UPDATED 12/29/2010 Asahi, U.S. commander says China aims to be a 'global military' power (full text of interview). USPACCOM's comment on China's anti-ship ballistic missile system (aka ASBM or "carrier killer") received a lot of play, but that was a very small part of a broad and informative interview.

"...China bears a responsibility, given its growing economic power, growing diplomatic power globally and growing military, to be a greater contributor to the overall security--of not only the Asia-Pacific but elsewhere--brought about by its many elements of national power...."--USPACCOM, Admiral Willard--

U.S.-China on-off military-military-dialogue and cooperation has lagged our robust continuous and contiguous diplomatic-economic-dialogue and cooperation. Parity or near parity must be reached to ensure a strategic stability in South East Asia and adjacent seas.

UPDATED 12/09/2010 Reuters, China, North Korea reach consensus over crisis: report

UPDATED 12/07/2010 Reuters, China hits back at criticism over North Korea (also, WP, U.S. steps up pressure on China to rein in North Korea and SOS, Secretary Clinton's Remarks with Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara and South Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan)

UPDATED 12/06/2010 Reuters, China's Hu tells Obama worried by Korea crisis

"President Barack Obama has urged China to work with the US to send 'a clear message' to North Korea that its provocations against South Korea are 'unacceptable'."--BBC quoting President Obama--

"Unacceptable" is diplomatic speak for "will no longer be tolerated" and is not unlike a red blinking light. It's simultaneously fortunate and unfortunate that nations push their aggressive or assertive behavior just short of the solid red light—the fundamental reasons are simultaneously simple and complex!

UPDATED 12/05/2010 NavyMil, Naval Exercise Wraps Up In South Korea and Al Jazeera, S Korea holds live-fire navy drillsand TaiPei Times, Japan-US exercises begin.

Perhaps next week when China meets with North Korea and the United States separately meets with Japan and South Korea all involved will "discover" ways to better spend their time and resources than reciprocating naval exercises. Wasting time and resources threatening to club each other does not seem like an optimal method for solving complex global issues?

UPDATED 11/04/2010 NYT, China Stages Naval Exercises. ...more ridiculous reciprocating playground provocation from our fearful leaders children6—while Russia engages in East China Sea rock hopping and missile shots from the Barents and Okhotsk Seas. ...can we give our leaders a time-out or send them to their rooms—no spanking, it's part of the problem?

UPDATED 10/05/2010 Newsweek, A Beijing Backlash. A tersely informative article by Issac Stone Fish—hopefully he will pen more articles on the interesting, important, and developing U.S.-China relationship. Fortunately, our Secretary of State and defense leadership show every indication of teaming to deal with China's authoritarian CCP leadership in an "Iran smart" way. Perhaps, China-U.S. can pioneer new and evolving methods of cooperative-competition that do not require usage or threats of weaponry—that nations (collection of individuals) must still seek to develop weaponry speaks volumes! (in case you forgot how much is spent on such foolishness here's a couple of handy charts courtesy of Time Blog Swampland.)

UPDATED 10/06/2010 WP, Defense Secretary Gates to meet Chinese counterpart in Hanoi, officials say

UPDATED 09/28/2010 Asia Times, US stirs South China Sea waters.

White House, Joint Statement of the 2ND U.S.- ASEAN Leaders Meeting

White House, Read-out of President Obama's Working Luncheon with ASEAN Leaders

White House, Remarks by President Obama and Premier Wen Jiabao of China before Bilateral Meeting

UPDATED 09/24/2010 Vancouver Sun, U.S. and Asian allies push back against China's rise. China's South China Sea playground behavior is provoking responses from its regional playmates and counter responses by China. Nice to read our president is emphasizing his role as "the negotiator" and not "the decider".

CSM, China fishing boat captain to be freed by Japan. Will it ease tensions?

CFR, Upping the Ante in China-Japan Clash

UPDATED 09/16/2010 AsiaTimes, China ire at sea chase signals wider reach

UPDATED 08/05/2010 KoreanTimes, China seeking to become world power

UPDATED 07/28/2010 NPR, The New Republic: China's Push to Master the Seas

UPDATED 07/27/2010 NYT, China Warns U.S. to Stay Out of Islands Dispute

It's difficult to understand why if China seeks

“...to have these [South China Sea] disputes solved peacefully through friendly consultations in the interest of peace and stability in the South China Sea and good neighborly relations,”--NYT, quoting China Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi--

it would decry United States' participation? (SOS, National Convention Center Hanoi, Vietnam (ASEAN) Statement and MFA, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi Refutes Fallacies On the South China Sea Issue) Surely China's foreign minister is not suggesting United States’ participation will be other than peaceful and stabilizing?

UPDATED 07/29/2010 For an alt-perspective readObama Maneuvers to Contain China: Is He Using the Pentagon to Assert Declining American Power in Asia?.

The blog post credits the argument that America (not China) is substituting military intimidation and bullying for lack of competitiveness (interestingly and encouragingly China and the US are using different facts to accuse each other of the same behavior). China’s assertion will have more credibility when (if) its currency is free floating, prices are not imputed, and trade-barriers reduced or eliminated. Nevertheless, the point that the U.S. and China should be cooperating and refraining from provoking or antagonize each other is difficult to dispute.

UPDATED 07/24/2010 NYT, Offering to Aid Talks, U.S. Challenges China on Disputed Islands. Kudos to our Secretary of State for offering to help define and stabilize disputed international South China Sea boundaries. China (or other nations) should not substitute bullying for discussions and consensus simply because another nation does not or cannot use force to differentiate commons from national interests and international boundaries. In this regard our leadership must immediately ratify the latest Law of the Sea conventions, clarifying if necessary.

UPDATED 02/05/2010 Economist, By fits and starts. Mostly fits right now. Unfortunately China leaders like our leaders will tend toward stoking the nationalism rhetoric. The rhetoric can be dangerous because it substitutes emotional appeasement for doing the heavy lifting required for long-term sustainable solutions. Many times leaders of a nation cynically use nationalism believing they can control the passions. But such passions are difficult to control once stoked. Citizens in both China and America must condemn any effort by our leaders to substitute nationalism for the hard work of ensuring sustainable global growth. Protectionism or terminating dialogue or inflammatory rhetoric regardless of the differences or disagreements are nationalistic and impede sustainable global growth.

UPDATED 01/30/2010 Reuters, China threatens U.S. with sanctions on Taiwan arms and U.S. Regrets China's Response to Arms Sales. U.S. to fill Taiwan's purchase order (see DID, Taiwan’s (Un?)Stalled Force Modernization) for defensive systems to counter mainland missiles aimed at Taiwan and China's increased South and East China Seas assertiveness (some might say aggressiveness). Beyond routine and proforma expressions of displeasure China and the U.S. are expected to continue cooperation. It seems a little contradictory, if not bemusing that China would plead the ineffectiveness of sanctions on Iran's behalf and then threaten the use of sanctions against others. It's also difficult to see how stopping some China-U.S. military dialogue and cooperation is helpful.

Other South China Sea (below southern tip of Taiwan) and East China Sea (above southern tip of Taiwan) Incidents:

UPDATED 01/23/2010 Economist, China's assertiveness at sea, Choppy waters.

UPDATED 01/14/2010 Time, China and Vietnam: Clashing Over an Island Archipelago. This is part of China's continuing efforts to expand and assert its sovereignty within the South China Sea (each habitable island comes with protected zones). If you use bullying or force to acquire or retain an island others are unlikely to recognize or honor the protected zones associated with that island. China's recent bullying of its smaller regional partner (Vietnam) is troubling—professing harmony while bullying is unseemly, unconvincing, and will only provoke push back.

UPDATED 01/13/2010 ChinaDaily, US arms sale to Taiwan not to harm relations: analysts. China and the U.S may be learning how to continue cooperating in the face of disagreements. Exchanging the state actor's version of the schoolboy phraseology—"I'm gonna kick your ass"—then continue playing Ping-Pong. 

UPDATED 01/16/2010 Here's the diplomatic version:

"Everyone's aware that China is a rising power of the 21st century,....But people want to see the United States fully engaged in Asia, so that as China rises the United States is there as a force for peace....What I'm expecting is that we actually are having a mature relationship,....That means that it doesn't go off the rails when we have differences of opinion."--WP quoting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--

UPDATED 08/27/2009 Reuters, China urges U.S. to halt surveillance near its shores

UPDATED 06/24/2009 China Daily, Disputes at sea float to surface Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy and delegation head to China for two-day routine confidence building military talks (10th Defense Consultative Talks). South China Sea, Korean Peninsula, Proliferation, and Pirates are likely to be among the agenda items.

UPDATED 06/23/2009 BBC, China and US hold military talks.

UPDATED 06/15/2009 Reuters, China sub collides with array towed by U.S. ship: report. U.S. gets ASW practice—China gets ASW counter-measure practice—a U.S. towed hydrophone array is lost in the process⁵.

 USGS Atlas Bathymetry - South China Sea⁴

Wonder if these ASW encounters can be structured as joint exercises and thereby reduce the probability of future accidents5? ChinaDaily, Sub, sonar collision 'inadvertent'

UPDATED 05/07/2009 UPI, Chinese fishing vessels confront US ship. China and U.S. have agreed to disagree on what activity is permitted by convention in a nation's economic zone as opposed to its 12 limit. Each continuing to make their point in non-harmful or non-threatening ways (if somewhat lacking in professional seamanship). Significantly, the USS Victorious (a sibling of the Impeccable) was unaccompanied by any American warships and radioed to Chinese ships for help in warding off its two harassing vessels—both vessels left shortly after the radio call for help.

UPDATED 03/20/2009 UPI, China ready to end standoff with U.S.. China-U.S. decide to focus on more cooperative matters and end the aggressive posturing—Yes!, 是的, shide

China Daily, Sino-US sea standoff appears to have ended

UPDATED 03/14/2009 BBC, Who's right in South China Sea spat?.

UPDATED 03/13/2009 UPI, Chinese criticize dispatch of destroyer.

UPDATED 03/13/2009 StraitsTimes, Destroyers to escort US ships. United States destroyers will escort unarmed surveillance ships to ensure they are not harassed outside China's territorial space—first to ride shotgun is the Burke-class destroyer Crew & Family Website, USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93) and NavSource, USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93).

UPDATED 03/12/2009 Reuters, Obama, China's Yang discuss global economic crisis and recent Impeccable incident.

"The President also stressed the importance of raising the level and frequency of the U.S.- China military-to-military dialogue in order to avoid future incidents."--White House Blog, The President meets with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi--

UPDATED 03/12/2009 TaipeiTimes, Taiwan ‘driving Chinese military goals’. Certainly China is obsessed with Taiwan, but that begs the question, why? China likely feels "contained" and views Taiwan and their Texas size definition of sovereignty (China would like to define everything within the first island chain as sovereign China, not just the South China Sea.) as necessary to mitigate those feelings.

The question keeping Admiral Keating up at night is whether China intends to impose their definition of sovereignty by force or consensus.

The question keeping China up at night is how much it can provoke the United States without generating an all out China containment response—a disaster for both countries, but especially for China. In this context China's military opaqueness will increase distrust and surveillance missions. Transparency and candidness are keys to our mutually beneficial, and respectful partnership.

Without transparency, candidness, and trust a mutually beneficial and respectful partnership is impossible—Keating will continue trying to figure out how many SSNs and SSBNs he has to sink should China miscalculate how much it can provoke the United States.

Cute statements analogies about thiefs outside your bamboo fence are unlikely to be interpreted as transparency, candidness or trust.

UPDATED 03/12/2009 WorldSocialist, Naval incidents highlight tense US-China relations.

UPDATED 03/11/2009 Reuters, Obama to raise ships incident with China.

UPDATED 03/11/2009 Xinhua/ChinaDaily, China lodges representation as U.S. naval ship breaks int'l, Chinese laws. Xinhua/ChinaDaily, Defense Ministry urges U.S. to respect China's security concern.

UPDATED 03/11/2009 BBC, US-China talks as sea row rumbles. Much of this can be attributed to China's inexperience relating to other nations—it's classic China to define sovereignty like Texans—then become offended when others ignore their Texas size definition of sovereignty.

It seems beneficial that China has begun partnering and interacting with other nations, particularly us—its preference and tendency favors withdrawal behind walls where sovereignty and interaction can be strictly regulated, controlled, and limited. It also seems likely that there will be more periodic, inept, abrasiveness events as China figures out the quality and quantity of its global interaction—taking shots at responsible power nations is fun until you're a responsible power nation (then you squirt water with fire hoses instead of conducting oppressive campaigns and massacres). Ironically, a responsible power nation quickly learns just how little sovereignty they have—unless you define sovereignty as mess management and paying for the cost of mismanaged mess clean-up!

UPDATED 03/10/2009 SFGate, Officials: US ship in China spat was hunting subs.

UPDATED 03/10/2009 NPR, China Says U.S. Ship Was Operating Illegally.

UPDATED 03/10/2009 Reuters, U.S.-China spat complicates minister's visit.

National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told the U.S. Congress the Chinese have become more assertive in staking claims to international waters around economic zones and were "more military, aggressive, forward-looking than we saw a couple years before" in Southeast Asia and the South China Sea. Blair said it was unclear whether Beijing would use its growing military power "for good or pushing people around."--Reuters quoting Blair--

UPDATED 03/10/2009 NYT, China Says U.S. Provoked Naval Incident. This is similar to the general allegations and hand waving China made about the September 27, 2002 incident.

UPDATED 03/10/2009 Reuters, China says US navy ship was breaking law-HK website.

China Draws U.S. Protest Over Shadowing of Ships

VOA, Chinese Vessels Harass US Ships in International Waters

Blog:

UPDATED 03/10/2009 FAS Secrecy News, US, China, and Incidents at Sea. Focusing on agreements to prevent such maritime incidents from occurring.

UPDATED 03/10/2009 FAS Strategic Security, US-Chinese Anti-Submarine Cat and Mouse Game in South China Sea.

-----notes-----

1. The USNS Impeccable is one of five non-military surveillance and mapping ships from the United States Military Sealift Command’s 25 ships Special Ships Program.

It’s general characteristics are: displacement: - 5,368 long tons; length - 281.5 feet; beam - 95.8 feet; draft - 26 feet; speed- 12.0 knots; Crew 25 civilian mariners.

The purpose of the surveillance is likely to aid in regional littoral submarine and anti-submarine warfare should war occur between China and the United States or a regional ally. Fortunately, China and United States are currently increasing their dialogue and searching for ways to increase military transparency and engage in confidence building cooperation.

2. On March 24, 2001, in the Yellow Sea near South Korea, a PLA Navy Jianghu III-class frigate passed as close as 100 yards to a U.S. surveillance ship, the USNS Bowditch, and a PLA reconnaissance plane shadowed it. (CRS Report RL32496, FAS Website, U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress, Updated February 2008)

On September 27, 2002 China complained again about the non-military surveillance ship USNS Bowditch (T-AGS 62) mapping the Yellow Sea littorals (NYT, China Complains About U.S. Surveillance Ship The South China Sea is a “sensitive area” primarily because of its potential for natural resources (gas and oil), long running disputes over territorial rights claims to some of the many islands (see Reuters, FACTBOX-South China Sea's disputed maritime borders), Taiwan’s independence, and its submarine base located inside Hainan Island.

The Yellow Sea is a "sensitive area" primarily because of ship building, including submarines, submarine base and the potential for using the Yellow Sea as a submarine bastion for China's ballistic missile submarines (SSBN).

3. Both the NYT and Reuters are now reporting 25 feet not yards.

4. Acoustically this is a very challenging environment requiring a significant amount of surveying, mapping, and modeling to understand.

5. It's likely not an accident that China is interfering with surveying and mapping by destroying the towed acoustical array. China’s efforts to interfere with transparent surveying and mapping of international waters seem counter productive, unnecessarily confrontational, irresponsible, unprofessional, and potentially fatal to both the submarine and submariners.

6. The criticism is not directed at the evolutionary logic leading to the mine-is-bigger-than your-behavior, but at our persistent lack of learning. Stated differently, we are not constrained to behave like alpha goats head butting each other to preserve the grass eating order—in some cases head butting that occurs in the middle of hectares of edible grass!

Proprietary School Education

Originally Published November 06, 2009; Last Updated February 20, 2012; Last Republished  February 20, 2012:

It's probably too early to tell if the proprietary school does anything more than saddle our youngsters with a mountain of debt to enrich a few investors—but an initial look is not encouraging. It's not too early to require transparent disclosures4, oversight, and reporting from our proprietary schools. These data can be used to determine whether these schools, as a whole or individually are responding to market demand or creating market distortions5?

It's difficult to imagine what proprietary schools provide, beyond a mountain of student debt and a near useless education¹ that our community colleges cannot better provide. Our community college system, properly configured to respond to the needs of our population² and nation is a superior substitute for proprietary schools³.

Res: 

GAO Report, Improved Department of Education Oversight Needed to Help Ensure Only Eligible Students Receive Federal Student Aid

GAO Report, Stronger Department of Education Oversight Needed to Help Ensure Only Eligible Students Receive Federal Student Aid

 Blog: 

UPDATED 12/11/2010 ProPublica, For-Profit Colleges Rake in Millions From Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. 

UPDATED 12/02/2010 ProPublica, Ex-Admissions Officer at For-Profit College Testifies About School's Tactics. More evidence that our proprietary schools are exploiting instead of educating.

UPDATED 07/09/2010 ProPublica, Investment Funds Stir Controversy Over Recruiting by For-Profit Colleges. Perhaps government guarantees and payments to proprietary schools can be directly and continually tied to graduates' actual earnings. Preventing the serial subscribers from proliferating proprietary schools (new name, same subscribers, operators, and investors) whose graduates' actual earnings are insufficient to sustain current operations.

Web:

UPDATED 02/20/2012 WT, Obama takes tougher stance on higher education

UPDATED 11/21/2010 NYT, Scrutiny Takes Toll on For-Profit College Company and NYT, For-Profit College and WP, Is The Post falling short on Kaplan coverage.

UPDATED 10/02/2010 Reuters, Opposition to education rules gathers steam.

UPDATED 09/17/2010 ProPublica, For-Profit Schools Donate to Lawmakers Opposing New Financial Aid Rules. Fortunately many are no longer accepting the myth that our representatives are not voting consistent with their dominate campaign contributors'' monies. The impacts of such voting is still a hotly debated topic requiring further research and analysis.

UPDATED 08/15/2010 Reuters, For-profit schools get report on loan repayments.

UPDATED 08/04/2010 NYT, For-Profit Colleges Mislead Students, Report Finds.

UPDATED 05/05/2010 PBS Frontline, College Inc.

 Investigating how Wall Street and a new breed of for-profit universities are transforming the way we think about college in America...

Why do any for profit markets exist for educating human beings? Are for profit markets for education a solution or deficiency? What are the costs to a society of operating private markets for human being education? Is producing a product or service for a market the same as educating a human being? What, if any human activity is not amenable to a market solution? Is education or learning an "efficient" activity? Are there ways to improve public not for profit education that will eliminate for profit education markets? Can private for profit and public not for profit education markets coexist? Should education ever be responsive to any markets (see is education efficient above)? Is private for profit education a substitute or complement to public not for profit education? Do universal national standards for measuring educational outcomes inform the private for profit and public not for profit education debate?

 Most significantly, what are the costs to our historically beneficial capitalist system from misapplication or distortion of markets and market principles or solutions to great harm? Once, twice, three times, or more... 

UPDATED 12/21/2009 ContraCostaTimes, A four-year degree from a two-year school? It could happen. Many California community colleges could make this transition quickly given the additional resources—others would require more time, notwithstanding sufficient resources. Nevertheless, all our community colleges should begin the transition.

UPDATED 12/16/2009 ProPublica, Real Student Default Rates Much Higher Than Previously Known ProPublica, At University of Phoenix, Allegations of Enrollment Abuses Persist

-----notes-----

1. An early flashing warning light is that other colleges, schools and universities are not transferring units from many proprietary schools. A second flashing warning light is that economic analysis indicates many graduating student's earning capacity, as a direct result of the education provided, will be inadequate to retire the incurred debt.

2. Some policymakers and educators still incorrectly think they must conform a population to their demands to disastrous results for our students, schools, and nation. Meeting our population cum students "where they are" while ensuring a meaningful education has always been a challenge for both students and educators—just more acute today.

3. Proprietary school enrollment figures indicate that our community colleges may be deficient in responding to our students' needs. On the other hand many of our community colleges are pursuing very diverse and innovative approaches to meet fast changing demands—near round-the-clock class schedules; adapting to the more mature students; remedial classes; accommodating mental, learning, and physical disabilities; aligning course curricula and degree requirements to meet our changing national objectives, rigorous university academics, and local labor markets (present and future).

4. All disclosures of graduation rates, dropout rates, placement rates, instructor qualifications, course curriculum, teaching and training facilities, overall and individual grade point averages, complaints, lawsuits, underwriters, investors etc. must be certified current, complete, and accurate.

5. The "subprime" mess reminds us of the trillions of dollar difference between creating market distortions and supplying market demand. Some of our "capitalists" have difficulty distinguishing one from the other.

Presidential News Conference - American Jobs Act

Originally Published October 07, 2011; Last Updated February 18, 2012; Last Republished February 18, 2012:

President Obama holds a near perfect news conference urging Congress to enact the American Jobs Act (factsheet), right away.

Congress must not only enact the President's American Jobs Act, right away, it must nearly triple the amount of the President's projected expenditure to $1.2 trillion dollars. This will ensure adequate public infrastructure investment pending the restructure of private investment for sustainable growth.

Web:

UPDATED 02/18/2012 WH, Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event, Nob Hill Masonic Auditorium San Francisco, California

Need-To-Know Is Antithetical And Harmful To The Scientific Process

Originally Published December 21, 2011; Last Updated February 18, 2012; Last Republished February 18, 2012:

United States, National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity has requested researchers and scientific journals to withhold fundamental data1 related to the laboratory gene manipulation and inter-species transmission of the influenza A-H1N5—effectively classifying the scientific data and imposing a government gated "need-to-know" requirement. One need look no further than our current dysfunctional classification system2 to understand how harmful and antithetical a government gated "need-to-know" requirements will be to the scientific process.

Web: 


UPDATED 02/18/2012 NYT, Despite Safety Worries, Work on Deadly Flu to Be Released

Fortunately, the scientific process has trumped the national security process whose metastasis threatens more than the information it purports to obscure or render incomprehensible.

UPDATED 02/15/2012 Reuters, Insight - Containing the world's deadliest microbes
UPDATED 01/02/2012 NYT,  How Hard Would It Be for Avian Flu to Spread?
UPDATED 12/22/2011 CTV, Journals asked to censor controversial bird flu studies

Section III-D-7. Experiments Involving Influenza Viruses (NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules May 2011)

..."Experiments with influenza viruses generated by recombinant methods (e.g., generation by reverse genetics of chimeric viruses with reassorted segments, introduction of specific mutations) shall be conducted at the biosafety level containment corresponding to the risk group of the virus that was the source of the majority of segments in the recombinant virus (e.g., experiments with viruses containing a majority of segments from a RG3 virus shall be conducted at BL3). Experiments with influenza viruses containing genes or segments from 1918-1919 H1N1 (1918 H1N1), human H2N2 (1957-1968) and highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 strains within the Goose/Guangdong/96-like H5 lineage (HPAI H5N1) shall be conducted at BL3 enhanced containment (see Appendix G-II-C-5, Biosafety Level 3 Enhanced for Research Involving Risk Group 3 Influenza Viruses) unless indicated below."...

...Section III-D-7a-d

NYT, Seeing Terror Risk, U.S. Asks Journals to Cut Flu Study Facts


-----notes-----

1. There is of course a "night-day" difference between impeding the free flow of scientific data which is not in the public interest and impeding the free flow of a virus, which is in the public interest. Stated differently the unimpeded flow of scientific data (not just scientists or those deemed to have a need-to-know) is required to impede the free flow of viruses.

Although peer reviewed journals, research centers and universities are amazing channels of innovation it would be foolish to assume they are the only channels of innovation in our era of ubiquitous knowledge.

Additional information links:

Select Agents and Toxins List

U.S. Department of State, Biosecurity Engagement ProgramCDC, Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) 5th Edition
IHR, Biosafety Publications
IHR, Biosafety and laboratory biosecurity
NIH, Experiments Involving Influenza Viruses
WHO, Laboratory Biosafety Manual Third Edition (pdf) Nicely describes the difference between different biosafety levels.

DTRA, IFBA Nunn-Lugar Biological Threat Reduction Program
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) 

2. Those knowledgeable about our classification system know our government is capable of asserting an infinite number of reasons, real and imagined for imposing or perpetuating a "need-to-know" requirement for the purpose of ensuring data remains opaque.

Moreover, our classification system has proven impervious to reform, notwithstanding determined efforts by government transparency advocates and experts. So impervious is our classification system that even when data are known to the world our government pretends a "need-to-know" still applies!

Furthermore, when data are pried loose or leaked from our classification system, experts frequently have difficulty intuiting any reason for the data classification—there is no government accountability for any mysterious or incorrect data classification.

Moments On Global Warming

Originally Published February 13, 2012; Last Updated February 20, 2012; Last Republished February 17, 2012:

Kudos to the European Union for its nascent leadership on efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions—it must hang tough in the face of opposition from China, India and the United States. There are legitimate debates over the most effective schemes for reducing earth's anthropogenic atmospheric carbon load1—there is no legitimate debate over the need for every nation to immediately implement a carbon-reducing scheme.

• UPDATED 02/20/2012 Reuters,Moscow air talks to debate measures against EU: draft and Reuters, Q+A: Will Moscow talks unleash carbon trade war against EU? Perhaps citizens living in the "carbon counter-measure nations" can express their preference for airlines and corporations, which join the EU's nascent efforts to immediately reduce atmospheric carbon loads?
• UPDATED 02/16/2012 Reuters, Nobel winners urge EU leaders to back tar sands law  "Under the draft EU proposal, tar sands are assigned a default greenhouse gas value of 107 grams of carbon per megajoule, showing buyers it has more environmental impact than conventional crude with 87.5 grams."
• Reuters, EU won't drop aviation CO2 scheme: Instead of joining the urgently need efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, specifically global CO₂ (~390+ ppm), some nations are threatening retaliation. Hopefully, their retaliation will take the form of adopting a carbon-reducing scheme that includes airplanes.

-----notes-----

1. Those unfamiliar with earth's carbon cycle (global thermostat) may find the online introductory lectures, generously made available by University of Chicago and computational ocean chemist David Archer, helpful.

Perhaps perusal of A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan (pdf) after the lectures.

IAEA August 2009 Report Islamic Republic of Iran

Originally Published August 28, 2009; Last Updated February 19, 2012; Last Republished February 17, 2012:

"In a mature fast-reactor economy, however, there will be no legitimate reason either to enrich uranium or to use the PUREX-type process that extracts pure, weapons-usable plutonium. Any such effort would be prima facie evidence of an attempt to build nuclear weapons, making it easy to monitor and stop would-be proliferators."--George Stanford--

Res:

UPDATED 12/29/2009 CFR, Iran: Time for a New Approach. A task force report.

UPDATED 12/29/2009 USIP, Iraq Study Group. Section 3. Dealing with Iran and Syria.

UPDATED 12/29/2009 Chatham House, Iran: Breaking the Nuclear Deadlock.

UPDATED 09/02/2009 NTI, An Iran Nuclear Chronology Through June 2009 IAEA. Based on a collection of media reports. Scribd, IAEA August 28, 2009 Report. (see below for HTML version)

Blog:

UPDATED 12/18/2009 FAS, Response to Critiques Against Fordow Analysis.

Web:

UPDATED 02/19/2012 Guardian, US military chief cautions against Israeli attack on Iran

UPDATED 02/17/2012 NYT, Bank Telecommunications Group Moves Closer to Expulsion of Iran

UPDATED 02/17/2012 Reuters, Mission impossible? U.S. wants sanctions to hurt only Iran

Kudos to President Obama for pursuing the diplomatic efforts necessary to economically isolate a high probability nuclear proliferator, specifically Iran's refusal to provide IAEA representatives current, complete and accurate data concerning all its nuclear related activities.

Initially such efforts may only be partially effective as individual nations attempt to avoid participation in orders to protect a perceived self-interest.

Eventually, even mighty nuclear nations such as America, Russia, United States, Britain, France will agree they have a greater self-interest in participating in the international economic system than nuclear proliferation.

Priority can be give to nations that are non-signatories or non-compliant with current non-proliferation regimens such as Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India, and  North Korea. Eventually, applying economic isolation to regimen signatories that refuse to carry out their current obligation to eliminate their nuclear devices.

The bomb now ask questions later logic of the neocon crowd is so yesterday, not to mention ineffective!
 
UPDATED 02/10/2012 Newsweek, Leslie H. Gelb: Israel and Netanyahu, Pipe Down the Threats of War on Iran

UPDATED 02/09/2012 MSNBC, Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News

UPDATED 02/09/2012 Newsweek, Israel and Iran on the Eve of Destruction in a New Six-Day War

Niall Ferguson's terse provocative post on a hypothetical Israeli attack of Iran's nuclear facilities demonstrates little more than that past pedagogy does not predict present perspicuity.

If POTUS were to receive the 11 pm call hypothesized by Ferguson's post POTUS's response should be simple, direct, and unfortunate: "shoot down the Israeli planes" (no doubt loaded with the bunker-buster-bombs quietly transferred to Israel by POTUS).

UPDATED 02/05/2011 Reuters, WRAPUP 3-Obama says risky to attack Iran, wants diplomatic fix and NYT, Israel Is Not Preparing Iran Attack, Obama Says

Notwithstanding Israel's purchase of political influence our nation is not benefiting Israel and may in fact gravely harm it by scripting out some bad version of a Nixonian mad dog tragic-comedy.

Attacking Iran and its nuclear facilities, in addition to being "messy" will ensure that Israel's focus remains on survival for another next half century, plus.

Instead of helping Israel attack its neighbors our nation must insist that Israel pursue immediate peace with its neighbors (yes, we've heard all the arguments against peace, ad nauseam) and focus on building its fragmented nation.

The real tragic-comedy will be an Israel that harms the Jews that it purports to help, with our assistance.

UPDATED 01/18/2012 Reuters, Analysis: Not-so-covert Iran war buys time but raises tension

UPDATED 01/12/2012 Reuters, IAEA confirms Iran started nuclear work in bunker  and CTV, U.S. denies any role in killing of Iranian nuclear scientist and Reuters, EU ministers plan Iran oil embargo, IAEA team to visit

Iran continuing underground enrichment activity; second Iranian scientist murdered in  motorcycle drive-by attachment of explosives to vehicle (condemned by U.S.); IAEA continuing visits to Iranian enrichment facilities, including underground facilities; international community seeking to expand sanctions to encompass Iranian central banking and oil. 

UPDATED 09/26/2011 Daily Beast Newsweek, Inside Obama's Israel Bomb Sale
Newsweek is reporting that a November 2009 State Department Tel Aviv Embassy diplomatic cable leaked by Wikileaks indicates that the Obama Administration has authorized and delivered GBU-28 laser guided bombs  (annimation) to Israel's Netanyahu government.

Unfortunately our "transparency President" appears to be reverting to reliance on opaqueness to secretly wage private wars that have become publicly unsustainable.

Secretly (at least initially) providing Israel's Netanyahu government with weaponry to threaten attack or attack Iran's underground nuclear enrichment facilities is unlikely to be helpful to either Israel, our nation, or the region (regardless of  weather the weaponry is actually used to attack Iran).

UPDATED 07/24/2011 LAT, Man killed in Iran shooting was student, not nuclear scientist Assassination of academics is not a desirable, useful, or successful methodology for controlling proliferation—no more than burning a book is a desirable, useful, or successful methodology for controlling ideas. Assassination is a nefarious methodology that belies confidence for fear, desperation, and deprivation—producing nothing more than reciprocating retaliation and justification for proliferation.

UPDATED 06/18/2011 NYR, Iran and the Bomb: Another View and Wide Asleep, Jeremy Bernstein's Nuclear Propaganda Fail: The New York Review of Books Gets It Wrong on Iran and NYR, Iran and the Bomb: Another View.

Bernstein is better on plutonium than protesters in Iran—wonder what impact replacing the theocratic regime in either Iran or Israel or both would would have on the proliferation problem?

UPDATED 01/16/2011 Aftenposten, Iran in secret pursuit of nuclear bomb. Aftenposten (Norwegian) has culled some of the Wikileaks cables to report that Iran has been on a shopping spree to acquire the technology, equipment and raw materials needed to develop a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately, some companies in various nations have witting and unwitting filled purchase orders: South Korea, China, Spain, Japan, Namibia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, North Korean, Taiwan, Brazil, Spain, Sweden³, Switzerland, Ukraine, Czech Republic, India, Turkey, Germany, Ecuador, Canada, Netherlands, USA, United Kingdom, Austria, Malaysia, Russia³, Pakistan³, Syria³, France³, Italy³, Macedonia³, Armenia³ and the Emirates³.

UPDATED 01/14/2011 CSM, Former nuclear inspector: China falling short on enforcing sanctions on Iran.

UPDATED 09/24/2010 CSM, Why Russia is cutting off major arms sales to Iran. Kudos to President Dmitry Medvedev!

UPDATED 09/08/2010 CSM, IAEA report: What's driving Iran's latest bout of nuclear obstinacy.

UPDATED 03/07/2010 Reuters, China says Iran sanctions no cure.

It seems pretty clear that all nations agree that Iran sanctions are not a cure. Rather an incremental process whereby every nation decides notwithstanding current interests they will begin disentangling and disengaging from a high probability proliferator. It seem beneficial that disentanglement and disengagement does not happen in unison, but rather contiguously and continuously across time and nations. Some nations will disentangle and disengage immediately others will require considerably more time to unwind, substitute, and pursue alternatives. A nation with more entanglements and engagements has a greater opportunity and incentive to influence a high probability proliferator, while simultaneously participating in the disentanglement or disengagement. But refusing to participate or impeding disentanglement and disengagement because sanctions are not a cure is nothing less than facilitating a high probability proliferation. The wonderful Iranian people are pursuing a cure—some are being water and chemically cannoned by riot vehicles provided courtesy of China. (see NYT, U.S. Enriches Companies Defying Its Policy on Iran for our support to Iran nothwithstanding our calls for sanctions.

UPDATED 01/17/2010 UPI, China not to back new sanctions. Simply referring to "room for negotiation" without explanation or active participation risks the appearance of obstructing nonproliferation efforts.

UPDATED 01/14/2010 NTI, Iran Denies Suspending Uranium Enrichment.

UPDATED 01/12/2010 VOA, US Defense Spy Chief: Iran Undecided on Nuclear Bomb.

"The fact is, Iran is not dealing straight up,...So they [Iranian leaders] can say whatever they would like. I'm [Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess] an intelligence professional. My job is to verify. And so we continually work on trying to verify what it is the Iranians say. But they are engaged in use of words that is not moving this in a positive direction."

Fortunately for the general Iran is a leaky sieve—unfortunately, Iran’s current leadership are operating with wacky religious beliefs. The general is not just trying to separate and verify data (signal) from wacky religious beliefs, dogma, and rhetoric (noise), but their unique brand of wacky religious beliefs, dogma, and rhetoric (noise)—it's very difficult, even for an experienced professional to get at the signal.

UPDATED 01/06/2010 NYT, Iran Shielding Its Nuclear Efforts in Maze of Tunnels.

UPDATED 01/05/2010 LAT, China dismisses more UN sanctions talk during its Security Council presidency in January.

China risks its credibility and projecting a perception that it's a facilitator of nuclear proliferation instead of impeder. Diplomacy must proceed in combination with other continuous cooperative actions related to increasing the probability of nonproliferation and decreasing the probability of proliferation. China must explain its assertion that now is not the time for further action in parallel with diplomacy.

UPDATED 01/02/2010 NYT, U.S. Sees an Opportunity to Press Iran on Nuclear Fuel.

UPDATED 12/22/2009 Brookings, Sanctioning Iran: If Only It Were So Simple. Most do not argue that Iran sanctions are a panacea—most acknowledge the limited usefulness of sanctions—most do not suggest Iran or nuclear proliferation in general are simple matters. Nevertheless, a consensus for the combination of: diplomacy; smart application and administration of sanctions; comprehensive inspections; and the application of targeted United Nations authorized force have been shown useful in curbing proliferation. Ultimately the Iranian people must be the ones to exchange their authoritarian religious leaders for non-authoritarian secular leaders. Leaders who depend on the consensus of the talented Iranian people not on wacky religious dogma and doctrine to govern.

UPDATED 12/16/2009 Reuters, Iran missile test draws Western condemnation.

It’s useful to recall that this isn't about Iran, but about how all nations' proliferation efforts will be handled. Patient, persistent diplomacy aimed at continuous closing consensus sanctions—who cares if Iran's wacky religious regime test-launch a missile or two or three a day. It's useful to be mindful, as Zbigniew Brzezinski recently cautioned, that some are seeking to use Iran's irresponsible non-imminent (remote) generalized threats and harmless schoolyard antics and bullying to justify an unlawful preventative attack (as opposed to lawful preemptive attack).

UPDATED 11/27/2009 Reuters, IAEA votes to rebuke Iran over nuclear cover-up.

A mostly symbolic IAEA Board of Governors resolution expressing frustration at Iran's delayed disclosure of the Qom nuclear site—Iran made a belated disclosure of the Qom site after a U.S. disclosure—a move unlikely to increase Iran's credibility or trust by the IAEA or community of nations. In an encouraging sign of unity against nuclear proliferation all five major Security Council nations voted in favor of the resolution that requires Iran to cease construction activity of the Qom site, among other items:

Urges Iran to comply fully and without delay with its obligations under the above mentioned resolutions of the Security Council, and to meet the requirements of the Board of Governors, including by suspending immediately construction at Qom;

Urges Iran to engage with the Agency on the resolution of all outstanding issues concerning Iran’s nuclear programme and, to this end, to cooperate fully with the IAEA by providing such access and information that the Agency requests to resolve these issues;

Urges Iran to comply fully and without qualification with its safeguards obligations, to apply the modified Code 3.1 and implement and ratify promptly the Additional Protocol;

Urges Iran specifically to provide the Agency with the requested clarifications regarding the purpose of the enrichment plant at Qom and the chronology of its design and construction;

Calls on Iran to confirm, as requested by the Agency, that Iran has not taken a decision to construct, or authorize construction of, any other nuclear facility which has as yet not been declared to the Agency;

Requests the Director General to continue his efforts to implement the Safeguards Agreement in Iran, resolve the outstanding issues which give rise to concerns, and which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, and to implement the relevant provisions of UNSC resolutions;

UPDATED 11/19/2009 UK Guardian, Barack Obama: Iran faces fresh nuclear sanctions within weeks

"Iran's foreign minster [sic Foreign Minister], Manouchehr Mottaki, speaking in Manila, dismissed talk of further sanctions. "Sanction was the literature of the 60s and 70s,' he said. 'I think they are wise enough not to repeat failed experiences.'"--UK Guardian--

Iran's foreign minister is absolutely incorrect with respect to sanctions relating to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or potential proliferation of WMD or a prior opaque pattern with respect to potential proliferation of WMD. The community of nations must continue their impressive work to ensure all state sanctions relating to production of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or potential proliferation of WMD or a prior opaque pattern with respect to potential proliferation of WMD continually escalate from trivial to total state isolation until confident conforming compliance with all IAEA guidance is demonstrated by the offending state.

UPDATED 11/16/2009 Reuters, Secrecy raises fears of more Iran atom sites: IAEA and IAEA, Latest IAEA Safeguards Reports Sent to IAEA Board. Download the November 16, 2009 IAEA report on Iran from ISIS (43K pdf) or ACA (43K pdf).

UPDATED 10/22/2009 Haaretz, Iran, Israel attend secret nuclear meet in Cairo.

UPDATED 10/04/2009 NYT, Iran Agrees to Allow Inspectors on Oct. 25.

UPDATED 10/04/2009 NYT, Report Says Iran Has Data to Make a Nuclear Bomb.

UPDATED 10/02/2009 NYT, Iranian Opposition Leader Warns Against Sanctions.

“This would impose further pain on a nation that has already suffered a great deal by its schizophrenic rulers. We are against any kind of sanctions on people.”--Iran Opposition Leader Mir Hussein Moussavi--

UPDATED 10/02/2009 NYT, Iran Agrees to Send Enriched Uranium to Russia.

UPDATED 10/01/2009 Reuters, Iran nuclear talks with U.S. and allies eases tension.

Reports, if confirmed, that Iran will obtain 20% enriched fuel² from the IAEA, via Russia are good news. Iran is apparently amenable to obtaining nuclear fuel from an IAEA fuel bank in lieu of continuing its pursuit of the fuel cycle? Hopefully, Israel, Pakistan, and India will be convinced global security requires all nations to rely on a fuel bank. The major nuclear powers must continue reducing their uranium and plutonium stockpiles so that within a short period EVERY nation has switched to an IAEA run and controlled fuel bank for ALL its fissile material.

UPDATED 09/28/2009 NewsHour, Iran Claims Missile Test as Calls for New Sanctions Grow.

UPDATED 09/26/2009 VOA, Iran to Allow IAEA Inspectors into Nuclear Plant. Israel must focus on becoming a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and follow-on Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Leave Iran (an NPT signatory) and its nuclear fuel cycle to the United Nations Security Council and IAEA. Ditto for Pakistan and India.

UPDATED 09/25/2009 NYT, U.S. to Accuse Iran of Having Secret Nuclear Fuel Facility.

Iran has informed the IAEA that it has another previously undisclosed enrichment facility. Repeatedly lying to the world when saying it had cooperated fully with the IAEA. A lie repeated again this week by the putative Iranian president at the United Nations. Iran's has decided to come clean after it learned we've been monitoring construction of the secret Iranian facility for years. Better late than never. There is some beauty in Iran's religious regime¹ being hoisting on its own petard.

UPDATED 09/23/2009 Reuters, Six powers demand "serious response" from Iran.

In an encouraging and remarkable display of unity the major nuclear powers and permanent security council members have encouraged Iran to transparently cooperate with IAEA or face additional consequences.

UPDATED 09/15/2009 Reuters, Iran sees better cooperation with nuclear watchdog.

UPDATED 09/11/2009 NYT, U.S. to Accept Iran’s Proposal to Hold Talks.

Kudos to the president for talking to Iran in person and anywhere and anytime, and on any topic of national importance to them or us.

UPDATED 09/10/2009 ProPublica, Exclusive: Read Iran’s New Proposal for Nuclear Talks.

Article includes a copy of Iran's proposal. UPDATED 09/11/2009 U.S. negotiators find little in the proposal to form a basis for negotiation. Russia has unfortunately indicated its opposition to additional sanctions should Iran continue to be unresponsive to all IAEA requests. Perhaps it can point to hooks upon which to hang negotiations? (see CSM, Iran nuclear proposal rejected as Russia dismisses sanctions and Xinhua, Iran Nuclear Crisis) Surely Russia's stature will significantly diminish if it supports national intransigence to legitimate IAEA requests.

UPDATED 09/05/2009 Reuters, Iran dismisses bomb studies intelligence as forged.

On matters of fissile material and nuclear proliferation nothing but total transparency is acceptable for all nations (i.e. total and unimpeded access to all facilities, scientists, documents, stockpiles, hardware etcetera). All nations' ability to participate in any international system must be inversely related to that nation's opaqueness on matters of fissile material and nuclear proliferation. All nations' ability to participate inany international system must be highly correlated with that nation's total transparency on matters of fissile material and nuclear proliferation. The non-transparent nation's disconnect from all international systems must be immediate, objective, progressive, proportional, public, consistent, and reversible.

9/02/2009 Reuters, Iran nuclear "threat" hyped: IAEA's El Baradei.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) out-going Director General Mohamed ElBaradei tells the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that in many ways the Iran nuclear threat has been hyped. (see below for latest IAEA report on Iran's efforts to master the nuclear fuel cycle.)

UPDATED 09/02/2009 BAS, Inside the Iranian nuclear program

UPDATED 08/29/2009 Reuters, U.N. nuclear watchdog denies hiding Iran information.

1. On 5 June 2009, the Director General reported to the Board of Governors on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) (GOV/2009/35). This report covers relevant developments since that date.

2. On 12 August 2009, Iran was feeding UF6 into Unit A24, and ten cascades of Unit A26, at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) at Natanz.1 On that day, the eight other cascades of Unit A26 were under vacuum. Iran has continued with the installation of cascades at Unit A28; fourteen cascades have been installed and the installation of another cascade is continuing.2 All machines installed to date are IR-1 centrifuges. Installation work at Units A25 and A27 is also continuing.

3. Iran has estimated that, between 18 November 2008 and 31 July 2009, 7942 kg of UF6 was fed into the cascades and a total of 669 kg of low enriched UF6 was produced.3 The nuclear material at FEP (including the feed, product and tails), as well as all installed cascades and the feed and withdrawal stations, are subject to Agency containment and surveillance.

4. As reported earlier, the Agency had informed Iran that, given the increasing number of cascades being installed at FEP and the increased rate of production of low enriched uranium at the facility, improvements to the containment and surveillance measures at FEP were needed for the Agency to continue to fully meet its safeguards objectives for the facility (GOV/2009/35, para. 3). In the course of a series of meetings, Iran and the Agency agreed on the improvements, which were put in place on 12 August 2009. The next physical inventory verification (PIV) at FEP is planned for November 2009. At that time, the Agency will be able to verify the inventory of all nuclear material at the facility and evaluate the nuclear material balance after the cold traps have been cleaned out.

5. Iran and the Agency have also agreed on improvements regarding the provision of accounting and operating records, and on the requirements for timely access for unannounced inspections (GOV/2009/35, para. 5).

6. Between 24 May 2009 and 13 August 2009, a total of approximately 37 kg of UF6 was fed into a 10-machine IR-4 cascade, a 10-machine IR-2m cascade and single IR-1, IR-2m and IR-4 centrifuges at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP). The nuclear material at PFEP, as well as the cascade area and the feed and withdrawal stations, remain under Agency containment and surveillance.

7. The results of the environmental samples taken at FEP and PFEP indicate that both plants have been operating as declared (i.e. less than 5.0% U-235 enrichment).5 Since the last report, the Agency has successfully conducted three unannounced inspections. A total of 29 unannounced inspections have been conducted at FEP since March 2007.

8. The Agency has continued to monitor the use and construction of hot cells at the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) and the Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production (MIX) Facility. There have been no indications of ongoing reprocessing related activities at those facilities. While Iran has stated that there have been no reprocessing related R&D activities in Iran, the Agency can confirm this only with respect to these two facilities, as the measures of the Additional Protocol are not available.

9. On 19 June 2009, the Agency requested Iran to update the Design Information Questionnaire (DIQ) for the Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP) and the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) to reflect the design features of the fuel assembly verified by the Agency during its May 2009 inspection at FMP (GOV/2009/35, para. 9). Under cover of a letter dated 21 August 2009, Iran submitted an updated DIQ for FMP, which the Agency is now reviewing.

10. On 11 August 2009, the Agency conducted both a PIV and design information verification (DIV) at FMP, at which time it was noted that the final quality control equipment had been installed, and the fuel assembly referred to above was undergoing quality control testing. Assessment of the results of the PIV is still pending.

11. On 17 August 2009, Iran, following repeated requests by the Agency, provided the Agency with access to the IR-40 reactor at Arak, at which time the Agency was able to carry out a DIV. The Agency verified that the construction of the facility was ongoing. In particular, the Agency noted that no reactor vessel was yet present. The operator stated that the reactor vessel was still being manufactured, and that it would be installed in 2011. Iran also stated that no hot cell windows or manipulators could be procured from foreign sources and that it was considering producing them domestically. Iran estimated that the civil construction work was about 95% completed and that the plant itself was about 63% completed. The facility at its current stage of construction conforms to the design information provided by Iran as of 24 January 2007. However, Iran still needs to provide updated and more detailed design information, in particular about the nuclear fuel characteristics, fuel handling and transfer equipment and the nuclear material accountancy and control system. The Agency has continued using satellite imagery to monitor the status of the Heavy Water Production Plant, which seems not to have been operating since the last report.

12. The Agency finalized its assessment of the results of the PIV carried out at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in March 2009 (GOV/2009/35, para. 11), and has concluded that the inventory of nuclear material at UCF as declared by Iran is consistent with those results, within the measurement uncertainties normally associated with conversion plants of similar throughput. Between 8 March 2009 and 10 August 2009, approximately 11 tonnes of uranium in the form of UF6 was produced at UCF. This brings the total amount of uranium in the form of UF6 produced at UCF since March 2004 to approximately 366 tonnes, some of which was transferred to FEP and PFEP, and all of which remains under Agency containment and surveillance. Between March 2009 and 10 August 2009, 159 samples of ammonium diuranate, containing about 2 kg of uranium, were received at UCF from the Bandar Abbas Uranium Production Plant.

13. On 21 July 2009 and 10 August 2009, the Agency conducted design information verification at UCF. The Agency was able to confirm that the facility conforms to the design information provided by Iran.

14. Iran has not yet resumed the implementation of the revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part on the early provision of design information (GOV/2008/59, para. 9; GOV/2007/22, paras 12–14). Iran is the only State with significant nuclear activities which has a comprehensive safeguards agreement in force but is not implementing the provisions of the revised Code 3.1. The absence of such information results in late notification to the Agency of the construction of new facilities and changes to the design of existing facilities.

15. The Agency has not yet received the requested preliminary design information for the nuclear power plant that is to be built in Darkhovin (GOV/2008/38, para. 11).

16. In view of the anticipated loading of fuel into the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (GOV/2009/35, para. 15), now expected to take place in October/November 2009, the Agency installed a containment and surveillance system at that facility on 22–25 August 2009.

17. In a letter dated 12 July 2009, Iran informed the Agency that it had transferred all nuclear material out of the Uranium Chemical Laboratory at Esfahan and that it did not plan any other nuclear activities in this location and requested the Agency to consider this facility as a decommissioned facility. The Agency has scheduled an inspection to confirm the decommissioned status of this facility.

18. As referred to in the Director General’s previous reports to the Board (most recently in GOV/2009/35, para. 17), there remain a number of outstanding issues which give rise to concerns, and which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. As indicated in those reports, it is essential that Iran re-engage with the Agency to clarify and bring to a closure questions related to the alleged studies, the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document, and the procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related as well as the production of nuclear related equipment and components by companies belonging to defence industries.

19. It should be noted that, although the Agency has limited means to authenticate independently the documentation that forms the basis of the alleged studies, the information is being critically assessed, in accordance with the Agency’s practices, by corroborating it, inter alia, with other information available to the Agency from other sources and from its own findings. A description of all of the documentation available to the Agency about the alleged studies which the Agency has been authorized to share with Iran and which has been sufficiently vetted by the Agency was provided in the Director General’s report of May 2008 (GOV/2008/15, Annex A). It should be noted, however, that the constraints placed by some Member States on the availability of information to Iran are making it more difficult for the Agency to conduct detailed discussions with Iran on this matter. Notwithstanding, as the Director General has repeatedly emphasized, the information contained in that documentation appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran with a view to removing the doubts which naturally arise, in light of all of the outstanding issues, about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

20. In connection with the outstanding issues, Iran has provided to the Agency: (a) its overall assessment of the documentation related to the alleged studies (GOV/2008/15, Annex A), and (b) partial replies and a document, in response to specific questions presented by the Agency (GOV/2008/15, Annex B). Iran has indicated further that it has information which could shed more light on the nature of the alleged studies, but has not yet provided it to the Agency (GOV/2008/15, para. 23). In the meantime, the Agency has studied the information provided by Iran thus far, but has not yet been given the opportunity by Iran to discuss its findings in detail owing to Iran’s insistence that it had already provided its final responses. In the view of the Agency, however, there are still matters which need to be discussed based on the documents and information provided by Iran itself or which relate to information which the Agency has independently corroborated. Examples of information included in the documentation that Iran has not disputed as being factually accurate7 are provided below.

21. Although Iran has challenged the allegation that it has engaged in nuclear related high explosives testing studies, Iran has told the Agency that it has experimented with the civil application of simultaneously functioning multiple detonators (GOV/2008/15, para. 20), and was asked by the Agency to provide it with information which would prove that such work had been for civil and nonnuclear military purposes (GOV/2008/38, para. 17(c)). Iran has not yet shared that information with the Agency. The Agency would also like to discuss with Iran the possible role that a foreign national with explosives expertise (GOV/2008/38, para. 17(d)), whose visit to Iran has been confirmed by the Agency, played in explosives development work.

22. With respect to the letter with handwritten annotations which was part of the documentation related to the alleged green salt project (GOV/2008/15, Annex A.1, Doc. 2), Iran has confirmed the existence of the underlying letter, has shown the original to the Agency and has provided the Agency with a copy of it. The existence of this original demonstrates a direct link between the relevant documentation and Iran. As already requested of Iran, the Agency needs to see further related correspondence and to have access to the individuals named in the letter.

23. In respect to the alleged missile re-entry vehicle studies, the Agency still wishes to visit the civilian workshops which Iran has indicated to the Agency exist and which are identified in the documentation as having been involved in the production of model prototypes of a new payload chamber for a missile (GOV/2008/38, para. 17(e)). In addition, while asserting that the documentation on the alleged missile re-entry vehicle was forged and fabricated, Iran informed the Agency that it was well known that Iran was working on the Shahab-3 missile. In light of that, the Agency has reiterated the need to hold discussions with Iran on the engineering and modelling studies associated with the re-design of the payload chamber referred to in the alleged studies documentation to exclude the possibility that they were for a nuclear payload.

24. In light of the above, the Agency has repeatedly informed Iran that it does not consider that Iran has adequately addressed the substance of the issues, having focused instead on the style and form of presentation of the written documents relevant to the alleged studies and providing limited answers or simple denials in response to other questions. The Agency has therefore requested Iran to provide more substantive responses and to provide the Agency with the opportunity to have detailed discussions with a view to moving forward on these issues, including granting the Agency access to persons, information and locations identified in the documents in order for the Agency to be able to confirm Iran’s assertion that these documents are false and fabricated. The Agency has reiterated its willingness to discuss modalities that could enable Iran to demonstrate credibly that the activities referred to in the documentation are not nuclear related, as Iran asserts, while protecting sensitive information related to its conventional military activities.

25. For the Agency to be in a position to progress in its verification of the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, it is essential that Iran take the necessary steps to enable the Agency to clarify and bring to a closure the outstanding issues and implement its Additional Protocol.

26. The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has cooperated with the Agency in improving safeguards measures at FEP and in providing the Agency with access to the IR-40 reactor for purposes of design information verification. Iran has not, however, implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, on the early provision of design information.

27. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council.

28. Contrary to the requests of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues of concern which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. Regrettably, the Agency has not been able to engage Iran in any substantive discussions about these outstanding issues for over a year. The Agency believes that it has provided Iran with sufficient access to documentation in its possession to enable Iran to respond substantively to the questions raised by the Agency. However, the Director General urges Member States which have provided documentation to the Agency to work out new modalities with the Agency so that it could share further documentation with Iran, as appropriate, since the Agency’s inability to do so is rendering it difficult for the Agency to progress further in its verification process.

29. It is critical for Iran to implement the Additional Protocol and clarify the outstanding issues in order for the Agency to be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.

30. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

The above items from the report do not include Heading or Footnotes—a pdf of the report can be viewed or downloaded at Scribd (see below above link).

 -----notes-----

1. All religious regimes and regimens, like nuclear weapons have out lived their usefulness.

2. It appears Iran is requesting fuel based on definitional criteria as opposed to technical. Fuel less than 20% is considered low enriched uranium (LEU).

3. Aftenposten is also reporting that between 2007 and 2009 the Swedish company ÅF Colenco secretly helped Iran design a 360 MW light water reactor. This activity may have violated UN sanctions. The design and support help has since stopped. According to Aftenposten companies from Russia, Pakistan, Syria, France, Italy, Macedonia, Armenia and the Emirates may have engaged in activity that violated UN sanction, too.