'Evidence lacking' of Burma's nuke plans

(The Age)- Information leaking out of Burma raises suspicions of a clandestine nuclear program in cahoots with North Korea but there's no solid evidence, a new study says.

The paper, released by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) says any suggestion of a secret weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program conducted by a rogue state like Burma must be cause for serious concern.

The author, Griffith University research fellow Andrew Selth, said no one could underestimate the lengths to which Burma's military leaders would go to stay in power and to protect the country from perceived external threats.

"Some of the information that has leaked out of Burma appears credible, and in recent years other snippets of information have emerged which, taken together, must raise suspicions," he said.

Relations between Burma and North Korea, which both achieved independence in 1948, have been traditionally patchy but warmed in 1988 when Burma was ostracised by the west after the abortive 1988 pro-democracy uprising.

Mr Selth said reliable information was scarce but it seemed that Burma had purchased weapons and munitions from North Korea. Periodic visits of North Korean freighters to Rangoon have prompted speculation that Burma has acquired more advanced weaponry, such as SCUD-type missiles.

Media reports last month claimed Burma had embarked on a secret nuclear weapons program, aided by North Korea which has long conducted a clandestine nuclear weapons program, testing devices in 2006 and 2009.

Mr Selth said the US had steadfastly refused to accuse Burma of a secret WMD program, probably because it did not feel there was sufficient reliable evidence to mount a public case.

"Understandably, foreign officials looking at this issue are being very cautious. No one wants a repetition of the mistakes which preceded the 2003 Iraq War, either in underestimating a country's capabilities, or by giving too much credibility to a few untested intelligence sources," he said.

Mr Selth said the challenge was to determine if Burma had such a program and if so, to do something about it.

He said Burma's regime did not seem to fear international criticism or the threat of increased sanctions.

"The exposure of a WMD program would probably see Burma expelled from ASEAN," he said.

"Even if that were to occur, however, the generals seem prepared to see Burma return to its pre-1988 isolation and poverty, if that was the price they had to pay to remain masters of the country's and their own destiny."

READ MORE---> 'Evidence lacking' of Burma's nuke plans...

Mysterious Burmese facility revealed on Google Earth

The "interesting enigma" in central Burma, which some pundits say
may be part of a clandestine nuclear operation. Photo: Google Earth

By Stephen Hutcheon

(SMH) -Amateur spies and armchair sleuths using Google Earth have discovered a suspicious development in the Burmese jungle thought to be linked to the pariah state's clandestine nuclear program.

The main facility, which measures 82 by 84 metres, can been seen on satellite images published on both Google Earth and Google Maps (see embedded map below).

It features a pitched, blue corrugated roof, which, at first glance, makes it look like an over-sized swimming pool.

Click to enlarge

The large industrial complex is located in a rural area of central Burma, east of Mandalay near the town of Pin Oo Lwin.

That's the same zone in which defectors recently told two Australian researchers that the Burmese army had been building a nuclear research and engineering centre with support from North Korea and Russia.

The defectors' testimony was collected over two years by Professor Desmond Ball, a strategic studies expert at the Australian National University (ANU) and Phil Thornton, a freelance journalist based in Thailand.

Details of their investigation, which concludes that the secret reactor could be operational and producing a bomb a year by 2014, was published in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age earlier this month.

Sean O'Connor, a blogger specialising in open source military analysis and Google Earth imagery interpretation, said that, while it might not be related to the nuclear program, the facility "does represent an interesting enigma".

"The most likely explanation for the [unidentified] facility, apart from the previously mentioned decoy site, is a support function for the significant amount of tunnelling which must be undertaken in order to construct the [underground facilities] required by the [nuclear] project," he wrote in the Arms Control Wonk blog.

He speculates that the main structure, which appears to be dug into the ground in the foothills of the Setkhaya Mountains, could also be a "security and site support base for the facility".

One prominent NGO, which monitors international nuclear activity, told us that the building and related infrastructure is "a machine shop with no connection to a nuclear program".

The Google Earth images, which are provided by Digital Globe, a leading supplier of satellite imagery to commercial and governmental organisations, are dated from October 2005.

The NGO, which did not want to be named for "tactical reasons", said that it first became aware of the structure in early July and subsequently obtained 2009 imagery, which it is still assessing.

The NGO's conclusion is similar to the one reached by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a Washington-based non-profit organisation specialising in international security issues.

In a statement released this month, it described the structure as an "anomalous building buried in the ground" without "obvious nuclear industrial characteristics".

That hasn't been enough to stop the speculation, given the scale of the development, the new infrastructure (roads and powerlines) and the fact that access roads look to be guarded by checkpoints.

One commenter on Arms Control Wonk, who investigated the topology, found the elevation of the structure suspicious.

"The only purpose that comes to mind is building an earth-covered structure inside an artificial mound and disguising it by putting a normal-looking warehouse type building on top," George William Herbert writes.

"The only type of facilities worth doing that [which] I can think of would be nuclear or military command and control."

READ MORE---> Mysterious Burmese facility revealed on Google Earth...

Defectors outline Burma’s nuclear ambitions

(DVB)–Burma and North Korea may be collaborating on the development of a nuclear reactor in northern Burma, according to experts who carried out extensive interviews with two Burmese defectors.

One of the two defectors, who are both now based in Thailand, is a former army officer, while the other was an executive at Htoo Trading, a company with close ties to the military junta.

During interviews carried out over the course of two years with Phil Thornton, a Thailand-based journalist, and Desmond Ball of the Australian National University, the two men detailed North Korea’s assistance in helping Burma acquire a nuclear weapon.

The report, published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 August, said that the junta was building a nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction plant in northern Burma, much of it hidden in a network of tunnels dug into a mountain at Nuang Laing.

The report will add weight to a body of evidence that has emerged over the past two months that points to North Korea’s assistance in helping Burma develop a nuclear weapon.

In June DVB published a report on Burma’s secret network of tunnels, dug with North Korea’s assistance, with leaked intelligence documents saying the tunnels could accommodate heavy weaponry.

And in June a North Korean ship, the Kang Nam 1, that was being tracked by the US navy on suspicion that it was carrying arms in violation of a UN resolution on North Korea, appeared to be headed towards Burma before turning around.

At the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) regional forum last month, US Secreatry of State Hillary Clinton spoke of concern over Burma’s nuclear ambitions.

Htay Aung, a Burmese military analyst at the Network for Democracy and Development, said that Burma’s acquisition of nuclear technology would add a new dynamic to Asia’s regional security threat.

“If the junta has nuclear arms then there will be problem for everyone, including countries like China and India who have always been saying Burma is not a regional threat,” he said.

“We still can’t tell if countries like North Korea and Iran, those who already are in a hold of nuclear arms, are not going to sell their weapons to Burma.

“There is a chance that they will consider Burma, who is also facing against the US just like them, as a friend and sell nuclear weapons to the junta,” he said.

Reporting by Ahunt Phone Myat

READ MORE---> Defectors outline Burma’s nuclear ambitions...

Burma’s Missile Dream

North Korean missiles could become a major part of Burma’s military arsenal.

By AUNG ZAW
The Irrawaddy News
AUGUST, 2009 - VOLUME 17 NO.5

Naypyidaw appears to be intent on setting up a missile defense system to deter potential enemies

Is Snr-Gen Than Shwe delusional? Subordinates of Burma’s paramount leader are said to have repeatedly heard him say how much he admires North Korea’s use of missile technology to bully and defy its neighbors and the West. The bad news is that Than Shwe’s hard-line military leaders and ministers may agree with him.

However, Burmese opposition groups in exile suspect that army officers who disagree with Than Shwe’s policy deliberately leaked secret documents to exiled media groups, including The Irrawaddy. These documents throw light on Burma’s military ties with Pyongyang.

One leaked document detailed Gen Shwe Mann’s secret visit to Pyongyang in November 2008. Accompanying Burma’s No 3 general was Air Defense Chief Gen Myint Hlaing.

The 37-page secret report included photos of visits to a missile factory and anti-aircraft units, suggesting what was on the military’s shopping list. The documents gave details of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the two armed forces. The MoU indicated that North Korea would build some Burmese military facilities, including tunnels for missiles, aircraft and even naval ships. Burma would receive training for its special forces and air defense units, and a language exchange program between the two armed forces would begin.

The secret report mentioned a visit to a missile factory outside Pyongyang, where Shwe Mann studied the production of Scud-D, E and F missiles, but it is difficult to confirm whether Burma would buy long-range missiles. Analysts believe that Burma has purchased medium-range missiles with a range of 500 to 1,000 kilometers. The secret report recommends that Burma begin producing its own ballistic missiles.

Technology Transfer

In February 2006, Eric John, the then US deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, expressed Washington’s concern at what appeared to be the imminent re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Burma and North Korea. Calling the two countries “outposts of tyranny,” the Bush administration accused them of isolating themselves to the point of being driven into each other’s arms.

John said there were grave concerns about the potential transfer of military technology to Burma from North Korea; these concerns appear to have been well-founded.

In June this year, police in Japan arrested the presidents of three Japanese companies on suspicion of violating the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law. They were accused of attempting to export a 7 million yen (US $73,000) magnetic measuring device that could be used to develop long-range ballistic missile systems, the Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun reported.

According to the report, the Toko Boeki trading firm had tried in September 2008 and in January 2009 to export the device to Burma’s Ministry of Industry 2, which plays a key supporting role in Burma’s nuclear program because it is headed by the chairman of the Myanmar Atomic Energy Committee. Both attempts were halted when the Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry notified the company that they had failed to request an export license.

Police initially believed that the device was bound for North Korea via Malaysia and Burma, until they studied the contents of the order and materials seized when they raided the Toko Boeki company in February. They suspected that the firm had exported other missile development-related equipment to Burma, leading them to believe that North Korea was trying to transfer missile technologies, such as its Taepodong system, to Burma.

The export attempts were based on an order by the Beijing office of the Hong Kong-based New East International Trading Ltd in early 2008. The firm is believed to be under the direct control of the Second Economic Committee of the Pyongyang’s Workers’ Party of Korea. The committee is responsible for the party’s military procurements.

Arms Build-up

Though Burma is poor and its population suffers from almost daily power blackouts, the revenue from selling the country’s gas reserves to its neighbors is allowing the military regime to expand its arms purchases.

Over the past decade, Burma has been buying missiles from North Korea, China and Russia, and both Burmese and foreign defense analysts suggest that Burma has bought short and medium-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs).

Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that since 2001 Burma has obtained low altitude surface-to-air missile systems from Bulgaria, SRBM air defense systems from Russia and countries in eastern Europe, and is thought to have purchased surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs) from Ukraine, as well as multiple rocket launchers from China.

Defense analyst Maung Aung Myoe wrote in his 2009 book, “Building the Tatmadaw,” that Burma had appeared to acquire some 36D6 radar from Ukraine in late 2002. It is designed to detect air targets at low, medium and high altitudes, and to perform friend-or-foe identification.

Maung Aung Myoe also wrote that as early as 2003, Burma was in secret talks with North Korea to buy Hwasong (Scud-type) missiles.

The Burmese leaders became more serious about buying missiles and missile technology after a series of border skirmishes with Thai forces in 2001-2002. At the height of the tension, Thailand reportedly employed Suppression of Enemy Defense Systems (SEADS), before sending its sophisticated F-16 jet fighters into border air-space. Sources in the Tatmadaw admitted that communication lines between front-line troops and command centers were severely disrupted.

The Burmese leaders reportedly do not trust their eastern neighbor, and well-informed sources inside the Tatmadaw said that Burma worries about a proxy war, possibly backed by a marine invasion by a foreign power. Burma has since installed fiber-optic communication systems to counter future use of SEADS.

When US, British and French warships hurried to Burmese waters to deliver relief supplies to victims of Cyclone Nargis in the Irrawaddy delta in 2007, the regime refused them entry. However, it discovered it could barely mobilize naval ships and jet fighters, let alone its air defense system.

During their visit to Pyongyang six months after Cyclone Nargis, Shwe Mann and top leaders were given a briefing on air defense and radar systems to be installed in southern Burma.

According to Maung Aung Myoe, the Tatmadaw has acquired Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) for defense, while jet fighters and missiles would be used for both the middle and outer defense zones. The new air defense systems have been deployed in Naypyidaw and along the Thai-Burmese border.

The author said the Burmese armed forces appeared to focus on two different types of air defense missions in Burma: the air defense of key political and military installations, and battlefield air defense.

Tunnel Vision

Burmese leaders are thought to be seriously considering hiding the new radar systems and missiles. Since the early 2000s, The Irrawaddy has reported rumors and news of tunnel building in central Burma.

Military sources said new tunnels around Naypyidaw and in central Burma would be used as bunkers for the central command, and to hide missiles, jet fighters and radar equipment. The secret report revealed that Burma is interested in building yet more underground facilities.

Late Prime Minister Gen Soe Win, a protégé of Than Shwe, was interested in tunnel warfare, and officers who attended the National Defense College studied tunnel warfare and defense. However, it is thought that the Chinese, who remain a major arms supplier to the junta, have counseled that tunnel warfare is less relevant in modern warfare.

Though photos of tunnels published in exiled and international media drew international attention recently, their purpose has to be verified. Currently there are 12 hydropower projects scheduled for construction. These include the Paunglaung hydropower project near the new capital, and the largest in the country, the Ye Ywa hydropower project 50 km (31 miles) southeast of Mandalay.

It is difficult to distinguish whether the tunnels were for military purposes, or for hydropower, until unsolicited photographs and video of a tunnel construction site were posted on news web sites including the Democratic Voice of Burma, Yale Global online and The Irrawaddy.

It is safe to assume that some of the tunnels are for military purposes and are now operational. The secret report mentioned the building of command posts in the tunnels, and it verifies that the regime plans to build underground military facilities in Shan State and central Burma.

Some Burmese defense analysts think the junta has already prepared emergency escape routes in Naypyidaw in case of war. Burma’s army leaders are not planning to flee, however, but to fight back by using guerilla warfare and launching a “people’s war” in central Burma or from Shan State. Should such a war break out, the regime also plans to mobilize its mass organizations—the fire brigades and civil services—to defend the nation. (See: The Irrawaddy “Than Shwe’s The Art of War” Mar—Apr, 2009 - Volume 17 No.2)

During the 1988 student uprising in Rangoon that ended with a bloody military crackdown, a US fleet was spotted near Burmese waters. Than Shwe and hard-line leaders must feel that having missiles and air defense systems will make foreign powers more wary, giving them cause to hesitate before they send warships close to Burma’s shores again.

READ MORE---> Burma’s Missile Dream...

Revealed: Burma’s nuclear bombshell

Senior General Than Shwe
Ringing alarm bells ... the junta's leader, General Than Shwe.

By Hamish McDonald Asia-Pacific Editor

(SMH) -BURMA’s isolated military junta is building a secret nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction facilities with North Korean help, with the aim of acquiring its first nuclear bomb in five years, according to evidence from key defectors revealed in an exclusive Herald report today.

The secret complex, much of it in caves tunnelled into a mountain at Naung Laing in northern Burma, runs parallel to a civilian reactor being built at another site by Russia that both the Russians and Burmese say will be put under international safeguards.

Two defectors were extensively interviewed separately over the past two years in Thailand by the Australian National University strategic expert Desmond Ball and a Thai-based Irish-Australian journalist, Phil Thornton, who has followed Burma for years.

One was an officer with a secret nuclear battalion in the Burmese army who was sent to Moscow for two years’ training; the other was a former executive of the leading regime business partner, Htoo Trading, who handled nuclear contracts with Russia and North Korea.

Their detailed testimony brings into sharp focus the hints emerging recently from other defector accounts and sightings of North Korean delegations that the Burmese junta, under growing pressure to democratise, is seeking a deterrent to any foreign ‘‘regime change’’.

Their story will ring alarm bells across Asia. ‘‘The evidence is preliminary and needs to be verified, but this is something that would completely change the regional security status quo,’’ said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, the head of Thailand’s Institute of Security and International Studies, yesterday.

‘‘It would move Myanmar [Burma] from not just being a pariah state, but a rogue state – that is, one that jeopardises the security and wellbeing of its immediate neighbours.’’

Washington is increasingly concerned that Burma is the main nuclear proliferation threat from North Korea, after Israel destroyed in September 2007 a reactor the North Koreans were apparently building in Syria.

Professor Ball said another Moscow-trained Burmese army defector was picked up by US intelligence agencies early last year. Some weeks later, Burma protested to Thailand about overflights by unmanned surveillance drones that were apparently launched across Thai territory by US agencies. These would have yielded low-level photographs and air samples, in addition to satellite imagery.

At a meeting with Asian leaders, including some from Burma and North Korea, in Thailand last week, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and other foreign ministers won promises from the Burmese they would adhere to United Nations sanctions on North Korean nuclear and missile exports.

China and other Asian nations had recently helped persuade Rangoon to turn back a North Korean freighter, the Nam Kam 1, that was being shadowed by US warships on its way to Burma with an unknown cargo. A month ago, Japanese police arrested a North Korean and two Japanese for allegedly trying to export illegally to Burma a magnetic measuring device that could be used to develop missiles.

Professor Ball, who has studied the Burmese military for several years, said the evidence from two well-placed sources demanded closer study: ‘‘All we can say is these two guys never met up with each other, never knew of each other’s existence, and yet they both tell the same story basically.

‘‘If it was just the Russian reactor, under full International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, which the Russians keep insisting is their policy and the Burmese may have agreed to with that reactor, then the likelihood of them being able to do something with it in terms of producing fissionable fuel and designing a bomb would be zero.

‘‘I’d be more worried about a meltdown like Chernobyl … It’s the North Korean element which adds the danger to it.’’

North Korea’s interest could be a combination of securing a supply of uranium from Burma’s proven reserves, earning hard currency, and keeping its plutonium extraction skills alive in case it agrees to fully dismantle its own Yongbyon nuclear complex. ‘‘Do they want another source of fissionable plutonium 239 to supplement what they get from their Yongbyon reactor?’’ Professor Ball said.

READ MORE---> Revealed: Burma’s nuclear bombshell...

Burma’s nuclear secrets

(SMH) -Is the military junta preparing to build a nuclear arsenal? Two years of interviews with defectors have persuaded two Australian investigators there’s more to the claim than global scepticism suggests. The report by Desmond Ball and Phil Thornton was the basis for this article.

A FEW years back, a paranoid military regime packed up Burma’s capital and shifted it north a few hundred kilometres. Rangoon, it seems, simply wasn’t safe enough any more. The generals’ new home was to be known as the Abode of Kings; more commonly as Naypyidaw. A city rose from the tropical plains with shiny buildings and slick roadways – a strange priority in a country suffering chronic poverty and a health system at the bottom of world rankings.

Now, a fresh question hangs over the goals of Burmese rulers. Could this junta’s priorities be so skewed as to embark upon construction of a nuclear arsenal? And might it have reached out for help to another paranoid regime, North Korea?

Desmond Ball and Phil Thornton are convinced this is a genuine threat. They have spent two years on the Burmese border, interviewing defectors who claim to know the regime’s plans.

The testimony of two Burmese men in particular has caused Ball and Thornton to confront their own deep scepticism about the claims.

Theirs might seem an unlikely collaboration – Ball, a professor of strategic studies at ANU with a deep interest in nuclear technology, and Thornton, a freelance journalist based in Thailand. But their report on the two defectors’ claims adds to mounting – albeit sketchy – evidence that Burma may be chasing the bomb.

There have been hints Burma aspires to a nuclear program. What is uncertain is the extent and intent. Rumours have swirled around refugee circles outside Burma about secret military installations, tunnels dug into the mountains to hide nuclear facilities, the establishment of a ‘‘nuclear battalion’’ in the army and work done by foreign scientists. But one defector – known as Moe Jo to protect his identity – gives the claims added weight. He warned of the regime having a handful of bombs ready by 2020.

Moe Jo escaped Burmese army service and fled to Thailand. Ball and Thornton met with him in dingy rooms and safehouses. ‘‘His hands shook and he worried about what price his family would have to pay for his actions,’’ they write. ‘‘Before rejecting his country’s nuclear plans, Moe Jo was an officer with 10 years’ exemplary army service. A former graduate of Burma’s prestigious Defence Services Academy, he specialised in computer science.’’

Moe Joe said the regime sent him to Moscow in 2003 to study engineering. He was in a second batch of trainees to be sent to Russia as part of effort to eventually train 1000 personnel to run Burma’s nuclear program.

Before leaving, he was told he would be assigned to a special nuclear battalion.

‘‘You don’t need 1000 people in the fuel cycle or to run a nuclear reactor,’’ said Moe Joe. ‘‘It’s obvious there is much more going on.’’

We knew Russia agreed in principle to sell Burma a small nuclear plant – a light water reactor – and to train about 300 Burmese scientists to run the site. The stated reason is for research purposes, specifically to produce medical isotopes.

In dispute is whether the Russian reactor would be large enough to be diverted to produce enriched uranium or plutonium for a nuclear weapon. Usually a heavy water reactor is needed to achieve this, but perhaps not with North Korean help. Ball and Thornton write: ‘‘As North Korea has shown with their [light water] reactor, it may be slow and more complex, but it is capable.’’

Moe Jo alleged a second, secret reactor of about the same size as the Russian plant had been built at complex called Naung Laing. He said that the army planned a plutonium reprocessing system there and that Russian experts were on site to show how it was done. Part of the Burmese army’s nuclear battalion was stationed in a local village to work on a weapon. He said that an operations area was buried in the nearby Setkhaya Mountains, a set-up including engineers, artillery and communications to act as command and control centre for the nuclear weapons program.

‘‘In the event that the testimonies of the defectors are proved, the alleged ‘secret’ reactor could be capable of being operational and producing a bomb a year, every year, after 2014,’’ write Ball and Thornton.

Claims of this type have stirred serious official concerns. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, journeyed to Thailand for a regional security meeting last month and directly raised the issue. ‘‘We know that there are also growing concerns about military co-operation between North Korea and Burma, which we take very seriously,’’ she said.

The unease escalated when a North Korean freighter, the Kang Nam I, steamed towards Burma last month carrying undisclosed cargo. A South Korean intelligence expert, quoted anonymously, claimed satellite imagery showed the ship was part of clandestine nuclear transfer and also carried long-range missiles. Shadowed by the US Navy, the vessel eventually turned around and returned home.

Japanese police also recently caught a North Korean and two Japanese nationals allegedly trying to export a magnetic measuring device to Burma that could be used to develop missiles.

But it was what Clinton said during a television interview in Bangkok the next day that raised most eyebrows. For the first time, a senior White House official openly speculated on the prospect of nuclear co-operation between Burma and North Korea.

Clinton: ‘‘We worry about the transfer of nuclear technology and other dangerous weapons.’’

Question: ‘‘From North Korea, you mean?’’

Clinton: ‘‘We do, from North Korea, yes.’’

Q: ‘‘To Burma?’’

Clinton: ‘‘To Burma, yes.’’

Q: ‘‘So you’re concerned about the tie – the closer ties between North Korea and Burma?’’

Clinton: ‘‘Yes, yes.’’

But there are many doubts over how far Burma’s military regime has advanced its nuclear aspiration. Ball and Thornton say a regional security officer told them the Naung Laing operation was a decoy to distract people from the true site of the reactor.

‘‘Before it was a heavily guarded ‘no go-zone’. Now you can drive right up to the buildings. Villagers are allowed to grow crops again.’’ The security officer said the Russian-supplied reactor was located in the Myaing area.

To add to the confusion, there are doubts over the existence of the Russian reactor. ‘‘I’m sure the Russian reactor has not been built already,’’ says Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a Burma watcher over most of the past decade. He will soon have a book published on nuclear plans across South-East Asia.

He sees ‘‘nothing alarming’’ in the prospective Russian deal – Russia is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which governs the export of civilian nuclear technology – and doubts Moscow would hide a reactor. Nor has the International Atomic Energy Agency raised questions about Burma’s nuclear ambitions.

But Fitzpatrick is sceptical about the stated reasons offered by Burma’s rulers to explain their interest in nuclear technology, whether for research or power generation.

‘‘The most logical explanation for this interest in research is a prestige factor,’’ he says. Burma wants to demonstrate a level of technology expertise and perhaps also deliberately raise doubts over its nuclear capability. Having the bomb, after all, is a power military deterrent against foreign attack.’’

Of the defectors’ claims, he says: ‘‘I’ve heard these reports and I pay attention to them, and they shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.’’ North Korea is willing to sell anything to anyone, he says, and points to recent evidence that Pyongyang secretly sold a nuclear reactor to Syria.

Ball and Thornton add to the mystery by reporting the testimony of another defector they call Tin Min. He claimed to have worked as a bookkeeper for a tycoon closely linked to the Burmese military regime, whose company had supposedly organised nuclear contracts with Russia and North Korea. The deal with North Korea on nuclear co-operation supposedly dates back nine years, covering construction and maintenance of nuclear facilities.

‘‘Tin Min spoke excellent English and presented his reports to us with a touch of self-importance,’’ write Ball and Thornton. ‘‘Tin Min had good reason to know what it was like to feel important; before defecting, he had scaled the heights of his country’s high society and had reaped the benefits of that position.’’

Tin Min dismissed the regime’s rationale for requiring nuclear technology. ‘‘They say it’s to produce medical isotopes for health purposes in hospitals. How many hospitals in Burma have nuclear science? Burma can barely get electricity up and running. It’s a nonsense.’’

He claimed his boss once told him of the regime’s nuclear dreams. ‘‘They’re aware they cannot compete with Thailand with conventional weapons. They want to play power like North Korea. They hope to combine the nuclear and air defence missiles.’’ He said the nuclear program was known as UF6 Project and was run by the senior general Maung Aye. Ball and Thornton conclude the nuclear co-operation is based on a trade of locally refined uranium from Burma to North Korea in return for technological expertise.

Tin Min claimed his boss controlled much of the shipping in and out of Burma and could organise the transport of equipment to nuclear sites from the port at Rangoon. ‘‘He arranges for army trucks to pick up the containers of equipment from the North Korean boats that arrive in Rangoon and transport them at night by highway to the river or direct to the sites.’’

He also claimed to have paid a construction company in about 2004 to build a tunnel in a mountain at Naung Laing wide enough for two large trucks to pass each other.

But his story cannot be further tested. Tin Min died late last year.

There are obvious dangers of relying on the testimony of ‘‘defectors’’. The people giving evidence may have ulterior motives, as Ball and Thornton recognise, and the regime is not shy at disseminating false information.

Andrew Selth from Griffith University, a former senior intelligence analyst and an experienced Burma watcher, remains suspicious. ‘‘Understandably,’’ he recently wrote for the Lowy Institute, ‘‘foreign officials looking at these matters are being very cautious. No one wants a repetition of the mistakes which preceded the last Iraq war, either in underestimating a country’s capabilities, or by giving too much credibility to a few untested intelligence sources.

‘‘There has always been a lot of smoke surrounding Burma’s nuclear ambitions. Over the past year or so, the amount of smoke has increased, but still no one seems to know whether or not it hides a real fire.’’

Concern is not going away, however. The most recent edition of US Foreign Policy magazine compared claims surrounding Burma’s nuclear program to 1950s leaks about Israel having a secret nuclear site in the desert. Similar doubts held for claims about India and Pakistan. All three countries have since tested the bomb.

Ball and Thornton are convinced the world must face up to some uncomfortable possibilities. ‘‘According to all the milestones identified by the defectors, Burma’s nuclear program is on schedule. It is feasible and achievable. Unfortunately, it is not as bizarre or ridiculous as many people would like to think. Burma’s regional neighbours need to watch carefully.’’

Additional reporting by Daniel Flitton

READ MORE---> Burma’s nuclear secrets...

Suspected North Korean Ship Returns Home

BLOGGER's WARNING:
Must keep an eye on shippings coming from other countries
by land, air, sea and strict control around the borders as well

By ARKAR MOE
The Irrawaddy News

A South Korean official reported on Tuesday that the North Korean vessel, Kang Nam I, which the U.S. Navy had been tracking because it was suspected of carrying illicit cargo, had probably arrived back home, according to a report by the Associated Press on Tuesday.

The U.S. Navy reported on June 19 that it was tracking the cargo vessel after it left port. The ship, which was believed destined for Burma, suddenly turned back on June 28 without delivering its cargo.

The Kang Nam I is believed to have entered the port of Nampo on North Korea's western coast late Monday, said a South Korean Defense Ministry official, who spoke of condition of anonymity, citing department policy. He said South Korea was trying to obtain confirmation of the vessel's return.

The chief of U.S. Naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, told reporters in Seoul on Monday that the ship's pending return showed that efforts are working to enforce UN sanctions.

"I think that's an indication of the way the international community came together," Roughead said of the ship's reversal.

He called the monitoring of the Kang Nam I "a very effective way" of stopping proliferation, and said the Navy will continue to conduct operations that support the effort to sanction North Korea.

Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council issued a condemnation of North Korea's recent missile tests after a closed meeting in New York on Monday.

Accordingly to an Agence France Presse report on Tuesday, Japan's cabinet is expected to send a bill to parliament that allows the coast guard to inspect North Korean ships for nuclear and missile-related materials, in line with a UN resolution.

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso’s cabinet hopes parliament will pass the bill by the end of this month, officials said, but the bill’s passage is not certain due to opposition to the unpopular prime minister.

The bill would authorize the coast guard to inspect ships both on the high seas and in Japanese waters. Inspectors would first be required to get approval from the captain of any ship targeted and from its country of origin, however.

Japan's Maritime Self-Defence Force, which is banned from offensive military action, could be called on to back up the coast guard if a ship targeted for inspection appears heavily armed, government officials said.

A UN Security Council resolution over North Korea's recent nuclear and missile tests passed last month calls on member states to stop and search vessels suspected of carrying banned weapons for the communist state.

Neither the UN resolution nor the Japanese bill authorizes the use of force.

Along with the United States, Japan pushed hard for tough sanctions after North Korea launched a long-range rocket on April 5, and conducted its second underground atomic test on May 25, followed by a series of missile launches.

READ MORE---> Suspected North Korean Ship Returns Home...

UN Security Council Condemns NKorea Missiles

By RON DePASQUALE / AP WRITER
The Irrawaddy News

UNITED NATIONS — The UN Security Council on Monday condemned North Korea's recent firing of seven ballistic missiles on US Independence Day, the reclusive country's biggest display of firepower in three years.

Uganda UN Ambassador Ruhakana Rugunda, who holds the 15-member council's rotating presidency, said the council members "condemned and expressed grave concern" at the missile launches, which violated UN resolutions and "pose a threat to regional and international security." The council will continue to closely monitor the situation and is committed to a "peaceful, diplomatic and political solution," he said.

On Saturday, North Korea fired missiles into the ocean off its east coast in violation of three UN resolutions.

Security Council members agreed that Pyongyang "must comply fully with its obligations" under the resolutions, Rugunda said.

The North's missile tests aggravated tensions that were already high after its May 25 underground nuclear test blast.

The council punished the North after its May nuclear test with a resolution and tough sanctions clamping down on alleged trading of banned arms and weapons-related material, including authorizing searches of suspect ships.

Japan requested Monday's Security Council meeting. Japanese UN Ambassador Yukio Takasu said the council should act "calmly and responsibly" and focus on enforcing existing resolutions.

"Those are very effective measures if everyone implements them," Takasu said.

He said Japan has asked all Southeast Asian nations, except junta-ruled Burma, to enforce the UN's North Korea resolutions. Takasu credited the new resolutions with forcing a North Korean ship suspected of possibly carrying illicit cargo to turn back, saying Pyongyang is "changing its behavior" and is "getting the message."

However, exactly why the ship, Kang Nam 1, turned back or what kind of cargo it carried remains unclear. Some observers have speculated that it was carrying weapons, possibly to Burma, where it has been suspected of transporting banned goods before.

The ship, that has likely returned home, according to South Korean officials, was the first to be monitored under UN Security Council Resolution 1874, passed last month. North Korea has said it would consider interception of its ships an act of war.

Takasu said that while the North's missile explosions were a provocation, the UN must not overreact.

"The Security Council should not be dictated by the pace and timing of the actions of the D.P.R.K (North Korea), we should be in control of the situation," he said. "In other words, we should try to contain the situation and try to diffuse emotional tensions as much as possible."

READ MORE---> UN Security Council Condemns NKorea Missiles...

Time to rethink multilateralism?

by Joseph Ball

Mizzima News - Much has been made in recent weeks of Burma's burgeoning relationship with North Korea – illicit arms trafficking, assistance in obtaining "the bomb" and expert direction on the construction of tunnel facilities. Admittedly, these are interesting stories to follow. But by far the greatest, and most contradictory, gift the reclusive regime in Pyongyang has provided the generals in Naypyitaw with is the gift of how to survive in the midst of a hostile international community.

Acquiring nuclear weapons is very much a long-term prospect, and incorporates a process fraught with significant obstacles. The recently exposed tunnel complexes are ultimately of less practical military use and purpose than what is at times inferred. But how to plot a course through an international diplomatic minefield…well, that is a gift that gives and just keeps on giving.

In his talks with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon over the past weekend, Burma's military leader, Senior General Than Shwe, is reported to have explicitly related to the Secretary-General – regarding the refusal of permission for Ban to meet with detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi – that the junta will not be seen to kowtow to international pressure.

And so, they didn't.

In short, the crux of Pyongyang's curriculum in conducting international relations encapsulates a need to appreciate that the international community must alternately be placated and put in its place, while staunchly adhering to the belief that it is bilateral relations that definitively carry the day. Any welcomed access to international institutions is viewed as a result of a progression in bilateral relations, as opposed to the corollary – which would see bilateral acceptance coming on the heels of adherence to international prerogatives.

The most prominent example of Pyongyang both placating and confronting the international community is the on-again off-again six-party talks. While often held out as a possibility through which to address the crisis in Burma, the six-party talks, covering 2003 to 2007, have arguably resulted in no tangible progress of which to speak, with North Korea at present – sparked by international outrage over an April satellite launch – claiming it "will never again take part in such talks and will not be bound by any agreement reached at the talks." Pyongyang, too, will not be seen to kneel before any international community.

Meanwhile, the North has long held to a foreign policy prioritizing bilateral talks with the United States in order to address the fifty-six year impasse on the peninsula, as the United States is perceived as critical in assisting the country out of its economic malaise and in relieving pressure on the security sector.

However, the United States has not warmed to the idea of bilateral talks – opting instead to try and work through an international framework – leaving a North Korean regime increasingly feeling threatened and fixated on security concerns and, thus, ignoring the development of the state and people, though able in turn to blame sanctions for the state of the economy.

It should not be forgotten that it was a bilateral initiative launched by the United States toward North Korea at the close of the eighties that realized the most success, before souring over the course of the nineties. During the course of the thaw, regular exchanges between the two countries took place in such diverse theaters as academia, sports, journalism and cultural studies.

The Tatmadaw, Burmese military, is a highly nationalistic institution. As such, it attests to represent the state of Burma. And the state of Burma exists within a system of states. States have armies and defined national interests. The international community, practically speaking for the purposes of the junta, has neither.

In the aftermath of Ban's largely perceived failed visit, several voices are calling for ever greater international action to ratchet up the pressure on the junta. This is a pipedream. Burma's generals are acutely aware that the United Nations is not the equivalent of a World Government. For that matter, regional organizations are also of limited importance to the junta in its attempts to balance security and economic interests.

A practical limitation on regional, or international for that matter, organizations clearly played itself out this past week in Honduras. While much was made of the Organization of American States (OAS) determining to expel the Central American country this past Saturday, the fact is Honduras had already unilaterally rejected any authority of the OAS. Significantly, this means – barring some kind of agreement between the competing factions – that it will be up to individual states to decide how to punish the country. Of course, it will also be up to individual states to decide if it is in their greater national interest to pursue a positive relationship with the new government.

The argument that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) needs Burma more than Burma needs ASEAN is not new. It is not difficult to envision a non-ASEAN Burma quickly reaching bilateral trade and economic packages with a number of remaining member states.

Bilateral relations, as with North Korea's leadership, do matter to Burma's generals – and North Korea is but one example of this. Junta representatives were not sent to ASEAN or U.N. headquarters in recent months to seek consultation and exchange information on recent events inside the country and other matters. No, liaisons were instead sent directly to national capitals maintaining a working bilateral relationship with the regime.

Further, the visit earlier this year of former Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong to Naypyitaw is likely one of the more significant visits by a foreign leader or delegation in some time. Serving as an ambassador for the interests of the Lion City – as opposed to any wider grouping – in the future of Burma, reported exchanges between Than Shwe and Goh took a decidedly different turn to, say, what the United Nations top diplomat experienced.

As with North Korea, Burma is interested in bilateral relations with North American and European powers in order to gain access to greater financial rewards and, by default, access to and acceptance within the international community. But, with little interest on the part of prospective partners, the regime instead consistently resorts to a disproportionate emphasis on security doctrine – ensuring its own survival to the detriment of the greater good.

It may be that there is no diplomatic, bilateral or otherwise, breakthrough presently waiting to be had concerning Burma's heretofore recalcitrant generals, but pretending that increased pressure from an international consortium is automatically the most effective means of assuaging change is to refuse to question and challenge an historically failed strategy.

If the United States and other national governments currently viewed as hostile to the Burmese junta are to try and wrest change from the generals, it may be time to contemplate more actively joining in the game already in progress – expanded bilateral relations – instead of waiting for the start of a game Burma's generals have no intention of ever seriously playing. Results certainly won't be easy or swift to come by, but the last decades prove this of all strategies thus far employed.

For those obsessed with the primacy of multilateralism and international action…think of it as a strategy of enhanced multilateral bilateralism on the part of the international community.

And, it unfortunately has to be noted, the adoption of additional sanctions by sovereign governments does not count as pursuing a bilateral policy – as it has been remarked upon seemingly ad infinitum of the need for international acceptance of a sanctions policy vis-à-vis Burma if sanctions stand a chance of critically affecting the existing socio-political power matrix.

In the meantime, headlines will continue to be dominated by evolving "diabolical" bilateral workings between Pyongyang and Naypyitaw in concert with a litany of calls for increased international pressure to counter the growing threat. As well as, it should be noted, calls for China to increase bilateral pressure on the junta. But where's the bilateral carrot and stick game from governments of a different political ilk to that of Beijing?

In the absence of an altered strategic approach, Burma's generals will continue to ape, intentionally or not, the North Korean perfected and contradictory response of over emphasis on military security at the expense of socio-economic and political development and a truly national agenda. But, despite its considerable shortcomings, it is a strategy thus far proven to at least do one thing – maintain the political status quo in the face of stiff international consternation.

READ MORE---> Time to rethink multilateralism?...

Russia, US to agree nuclear arms cuts

(News.com.au) -RUSSIAN and US leaders Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama have announced agreements on Afghanistan and cutting their nuclear arsenals as they seek a new era in battered relations.

The ex-Cold War foes have issued a declaration on replacing a key disarmament treaty - including figures for major cuts in nuclear warheads - and have clinched a breakthrough deal for US military transit for Afghanistan across Russia.

But as Mr Obama made his first visit to Moscow as president, they still remain divided over US plans to install a missile defence shield in eastern Europe and Moscow's policy towards the pro-Western, ex-Soviet state of Georgia.

"The president and I agreed that the relationship between Russia and the United States (has suffered) from a sense of drift," Mr Obama said in the Kremlin with Mr Medvedev today.

"We resolved to reset US-Russian relations. Today, after less than six months of collaboration (since coming to office), we have done exactly that," he said.

The declaration signed by the presidents pledges to reach a new nuclear arms reduction pact to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

Mr Obama said it provides for cuts of "up to a third" from current limitations.

It "commits both parties to a legally binding treaty that will reduce nuclear weapons," the White House said.

START is due to expire on December 5 but the declaration gave no target date for a renewal, instructing negotiators to complete the work as quickly as possible.

The declaration called for a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads in Russian and US strategic arsenals to between 1500 and 1675 within seven years and the number of ballistic missile carriers to between 500 and 1100.

The cuts go beyond those levels set in the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which calls for both countries to reduce the number of deployed warheads to between 1700 and 2200 on either side by 2012.

Mr Obama also proposed that the United States host a global nuclear security summit next year and suggested to Mr Medvedev that Russia host a subsequent one in order to draft a new, "reinvigorated" non-proliferation treaty.

The Afghanistan agreement means Russia has authorised the use of its airspace for the transit of US troops and arms, a major boost for Mr Obama's bid to step up the fight against the Taliban.

Previously Russia had allowed the US to ship only non-lethal military supplies across its territory by train.

The two sides also signed an agreement to resume bilateral military cooperation suspended in August last year over Moscow's war in Georgia, an event which sent ties plummeting to a post-Cold War low.

But amid the smiles and expressions of goodwill, the US plan to install missile defence facilities in the Czech Republic and Poland - which Russia says threatens its security - remained a major sticking point.

Mr Obama expressed hope, however, that "over time we will have seen that the US and Russian positions can be reconciled" and announced that both sides would step up their joint analysis of missile threats.

He also bluntly repeated the US dissatisfaction with Russia's recognition of two breakaway Russian regions as independent, Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity "must be respected".

"There are areas where we still disagree... we had a frank discussion on Georgia."

From correspondents in Moscow
Agence France-Presse

READ MORE---> Russia, US to agree nuclear arms cuts...

NKorean Launches Maybe Included New Scud

By HYUNG-JIN KIM / AP WRITER
The Irrawaddy News

SEOUL — A barrage of ballistic missiles that North Korea test-fired over the weekend may have included a new type of Scud missile with an extended range and improved accuracy that poses a threat to Japan, a South Korean newspaper reported Monday.

Pyongyang launched seven missiles into waters off its east coast Saturday in a show of force that defied UN resolutions and drew international condemnation.

On Monday, South Korea's mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported the launches were believed to have included three Scud-ER missiles with a range of up to 620 miles (1,000 kilometers).

The paper said the Scud-ER has a longer range and better accuracy compared with previous Scud series so is "particularly a threat to Japan."

Tokyo is about 720 miles (1,160 kilometers) from the base on North Korea's east coast from where the missiles were fired. Some other parts of Japan are closer, well within the range of a Scud-ER.

Scuds are single stage, liquid-fueled missiles, originally developed in the former Soviet Union, and generally known for poor accuracy. Ballistic missile programs in Pakistan and Iran were built on Scud technology.

The Chosun Ilbo, citing a government source it did not name, said the other four missiles were two Scud-C missiles with a range of 310 miles (500 kilometers) and two medium-range Rodong missiles that can travel up to 810 miles (1,300 kilometers).

Five of the seven missiles flew about 260 miles (420 kilometers) from an eastern coastal launch site and landed in one area, meaning their accuracy has improved, the paper said.

South Korea's Defense Ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae said Monday that the North demonstrated improved missile accuracy in the latest tests because they all landed in the same area.

He declined to confirm details of the Chosun Ilbo report.

Another ministry official told The Associated Press on Sunday that the missiles appeared to have traveled about 250 miles (400 kilometers), meaning that key government and military facilities in South Korea were within range. The official spoke on condition of anonymity citing department policy.

North Korea has long-range missiles as well. The Taepodong-2 has a potential range of more than 4,100 miles (6,700 kilometers), putting Alaska within striking distance.

The country is believed to be developing a missile with an even longer range that could potentially put the US west coast, Hawaii, Australia and eastern Europe within striking distance.

The launches on July 4—the US Independence Day holiday—also appeared to be a poke at Washington as it moves to enforce UN as well as its own sanctions against the isolated regime for its May 25 nuclear test.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned they were "very destabilizing, potentially."

North Korean state media have not specifically mentioned the launches but boasted Sunday that the country's military could impose "merciless punishment" on those who provoke it.

"Our revolutionary forces have grown up today as the strong army that can impose merciless punishment against those who offend us," the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

The North has engaged in a series of acts this year widely seen as provocative. It fired a long-range rocket it said was a satellite in early April, and in late May it carried out its second underground nuclear test following the first in late 2006.

The UN Security Council punished Pyongyang with tough sanctions centered on clamping down on North Korea's alleged trading of banned arms and weapons-related material.

The US has been monitoring a North Korean freighter because of suspicions it may be carrying illegal weapons, possibly to Burma. The ship, however, turned around a week ago without stopping at any port and headed toward home.

Won, the Defense Ministry spokesman, said the Kang Nam 1 was expected to arrived in the North later Monday.

Separately, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman pledged to work with the US to block North Korea from using the Southeast Asian nation's banks for any weapons deals.

"If America has any information that is available to them, then I think they should give it to us so that we can act upon it," Anifah told reporters. "If they have evidence, we'll be most willing to work together to solve this problem."

The assurance came as US envoy Philip Goldberg, in charge of coordinating the implementation of sanctions against Pyongyang, met with Malaysian officials in Kuala Lumpur.

South Korean media have reported that North Korea sought payment through a bank in Malaysia for a suspected shipment of weapons to Burma.

Associated Press writers Jae-soon Chang in Seoul and Julia Zappei in Kuala Lumpur contributed to this report.

READ MORE---> NKorean Launches Maybe Included New Scud...

China urges calm after North Korea strikes

(News.com.au) -CHINA has urged calm after North Korea test-fired seven missiles off its east coast in an act of defiance apparently timed for the US Independence Day holiday.

"China ... hopes that all sides will maintain calm and restraint, and jointly safeguard peace and stability in the region," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.

The launch of the ballistic missiles -- which the North is banned from firing under UN resolutions -- yesterday further fuelled tensions after the reclusive state conducted a nuclear test in May.

On Thursday the North test-fired four short-range missiles with a range of 120km into the Sea of Japan.

The US, Britain, France, Japan and Australia have condemned the latest launches, which come after a series of bellicose moves by North Korea this year.

US and South Korean officials believe ailing leader Kim Jong-Il, 67, is staging a show of strength to bolster his authority as he tries to put in place a succession plan involving his youngest son, Kim Jong-Un.

A long-range rocket launch on April 5 was followed by a nuclear test -- the second since 2006 -- on May 25.

In the days after its atomic test, Pyongyang fired six short-range missiles, renounced the truce in force on the Korean peninsula for half a century and threatened possible attacks on Seoul.

China, as North Korea's main ally, has long favoured cautious diplomacy with its neighbour.

But it supported a United Nations resolution, adopted in response to North Korea's nuclear test, calling for beefed up inspections of air, sea and land shipments going to and from North Korea, and an expanded arms embargo.

From correspondents in Beijing
Agence France-Presse

READ MORE---> China urges calm after North Korea strikes...

N Korea Using Malaysian Bank for Burmese Weapons Deals: Yonhap

By ARKAR MOE
The Irrawaddy News

North Korea sought payment through a bank in Malaysia for a suspected shipment of weapons to Burma being carried on a freighter tracked by the US Navy, according to a source quoted by South Korea’s Yonhap news agency.

Yonhap reported on Saturday that the source said a US envoy would visit Malaysia this weekend to focus on ways to cut off the payment to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.

“Kim will have a hard time collecting his money,” said the high-level source.

The revelation comes as the North Korean freighter Kang Nam 1 is apparently returning home after being tracked by a US Navy destroyer that suspected it of carrying cargo banned under UN Security Council Resolution 1874, which toughened sanctions imposed after North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006.

Philip Goldberg, the US coordinator for the implementation of the resolution, which was passed on June 12 to punish North Korea for its May 25 nuclear test, is scheduled to arrive in Malaysia on Sunday. Goldberg is in China ahead of his visit to Malaysia.

The White House said that US President Barack Obama discussed North Korea and financial regulations with Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razakon by phone late last month.

According to another source in Seoul, the Kang Nam 1 is believed to be carrying small Soviet-era arms such as AK-47 rifles and RPG-7 anti-tank launchers manufactured in North Korea.

Adm Gary Roughead, the chief of US Naval operations, told reporters on Saturday that the Kang Nam 1 was being closely watched and is now in the East China Sea.

“I believe we are seeing the effects of the UN Security Council resolution,” he said.

On Friday, South Korean news channel YTN quoted an unidentified diplomatic official as saying that Burma requested that the Kang Nam 1 turn around.

The US State Department announced on Tuesday that it had frozen the US assets of Namchongang Trading Corp and Iran-based Hong Kong Electronics to curtail North Korea’s ability to trade in missiles and nuclear materials. Namchongang Trading Corp is allegedly connected to the Burmese arms industry.

READ MORE---> N Korea Using Malaysian Bank for Burmese Weapons Deals: Yonhap...

North Korea fires four short-range missiles

By Lim Chang-Won
News.com.au - Agence France-Presse

* North Korea reportedly fires missiles
* US says they're not worried about attack
* Efforts to reign in rogue state continue

NORTH Korea has reportedly test-fired four short-range missiles, further fuelling tension sparked by its nuclear standoff with the international community, in a move the White House has called the latest in a string of "provocative" acts.

South Korean military officials said the missiles - apparently surface-to-ship ones - were fired into the East Sea (Sea of Japan) between 5.20pm (6.20pm AEST) and 9.20pm (8.20pm AEST) local time. All were launched on Thursday from a base at Sinsang-ri, near the eastern coastal city of Wonsan, a spokesman told the Yonhap news agency.

Other officials told the agency on condition of anonymity they landed about 100km off the coast, where the North has imposed a maritime ban until July 11 for what it calls a military drill.

Spokesmen from the defence ministry confirmed the first three firings but could not be reached for comment on the fourth.

It was the first military action the hardline communist state had taken since the United Nations on June 12 imposed tougher sanctions for its May 25 nuclear test.

South Korea's Joong Ang Ilbo newspaper, quoting an intelligence source, said the North was likely to fire a series of short-range missiles - including Scud-B missiles with a range of 340km - in the coming days. The North may also fire Rodongs, whose 1300km range would likely be shortened to about 400km for the current round of testing.

In the days after its atomic test - the second since 2006 - Pyongyang fired six short-range missiles and renounced the truce brokered on the Korean peninsula after a civil war in 1950 to 1953. In response to the UN resolution tightening curbs on its missile and atomic activities, it vowed to build more nuclear bombs.

World condemnation

US and South Korean officials believe ailing leader Kim Jong-Il, 67, is staging a show of strength to bolster his authority as he tries to put in place a succession plan involving his youngest son.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that broadly-backed international sanctions imposed on North Korea were starting to take effect and raised hopes that Pyongyang will yield to the pressure.

"The North Koreans said they were going to launch these missiles. I don't think that's surprising that they've launched these missiles. I take the North Koreans at their word that they're going to continue their provocative actions."

Washington has said it is not ruling out the possibility of a long-range missile launch toward Hawaii on or around July 4, the US Independence Day, although the Pentagon has expressed doubts about such a scenario.

A spokesman for Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said the Government is "very concerned" about the missile launches and called on North Korea to immediately desist.

Japan's Prime Minister Taro Aso also condemned yesterday's launches, saying: "We have repeatedly warned that such a provocative act is not beneficial for North Korea's national interest."

The commander of US Northern Command, General Victor Renuart, told The Washington Times he did not think Pyongyang's missiles posed any real threat to the US.

"The nation has a very, very credible ballistic-missile defence capability. Our ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California ... give me a capability that if we really are threatened by a long-range ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) that I've got high confidence that I could interdict that flight before it caused huge damage to any US territory," he said.

In Beijing, a US delegation met officials yesterday for talks on giving the UN sanctions more teeth.

The support of China, the North's sole major ally and largest trade partner, is seen as crucial in making the sanctions stick.

Warships tracking suspected weapons

US warships have since mid-June been tracking a North Korean ship suspected of carrying weapons. The Kang Nam 1 was reportedly headed for Burma but US officials said on Tuesday it has now turned back.

China said its top envoy on the North Korean nuclear issue, Wu Dawei, had begun a visit to Russia, the United States, Japan and South Korea.

They are members of a forum which has tried since 2003 to persuade the North to scrap its nuclear programmes in return for energy aid and diplomatic and security benefits.

The North announced it was quitting the talks after the UN censured its long-range rocket launch on April 5.

North and South Korea meanwhile held more talks about the fate of their last major joint business project, the Seoul-funded Kaesong industrial estate just north of the border.

But they failed to narrow differences or set the date for their next meeting, Seoul officials said.

READ MORE---> North Korea fires four short-range missiles...

As Burma Draws Fire, Asean Gets Burned

Burmese Minister of Foreign Affairs MajGen Nyan Win, center (in front of blonde lady), is seen standing among other heads of delegations at the 9th Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Hanoi in May. (Photo: AFP)

By AUNG ZAW
The Irrawaddy News
JULY, 2009 - VOLUME 17 NO.4

Asean leaders forge a tougher policy aimed at speaking the truth to Burma’s military government, but the generals fire back in words and armed clashes against ethnic Karen along the border

A mistake should not be repeated but in the case of Burma, mistakes are endless.

When leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) admitted Burma into its regional grouping, newspapers and magazines, including this one, expressed strong reservations. Why?

The simple fact is that Burma was not yet ready to join the regional club unless Asean was willing to serve as a shield, in effect giving political cover to one of the world’s most repressive regimes.

It’s sad to say that to this day Burma membership has been a disaster, creating a constant headache for Asean members who have increasingly been concerned with the question of their own credibility.

Ironically, the original goal of taming Burma by admitting the pariah state to the regional club has only further damaged the grouping’s reputation. Burma is not even up to the “Asean standard” of supporting authoritarian rulers by maintaining stability and promoting economic prosperity.

Needless to say, Burma has remained a major source of concern as regime leaders recently detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi inside the notorious Insein Prison, ignoring the outcry of regional leaders and the international community.

If Burmese leaders are finding it difficult to find excuses to confine the Lady of the Lake, Asean leaders also are facing a dilemma: how to nurture the rogue regime into democratic reconciliation.

Asean has no one to blame but itself for making a hasty decision to admit Burma in 1997 before the junta had made any genuine political progress at home.

Why such haste? one excuse Asean leaders cited was that if they delayed admission, Burma would fall into China’s sphere of influence.

Even the Chinese leaders—who quietly criticized Burmese officials at the Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem) held in Hanoi in May—are expressing deep frustration with the generals. The Chinese typically exercised cautious and quiet diplomacy when they conveyed the message to Burma’s leaders—but whenever Burma commits major diplomatic blunders, it always shuts the door, unwilling to listen even to its biggest neighbor.

It is true that Asean has paid a high price by admitting Burma. The once respected Asean has lost influence and become a subject of derision for its continuous support of the junta.

Asean leaders have failed to perform due diligence. Only now, with the latest incarceration of Suu Kyi, do they seem to have learned the importance of delivering a more realistic, tougher message to Burma in unison. Most embarrassed Asean leaders no longer shy away from speaking out on Burma.

Recently, Thailand’s prime minister and foreign minister were joined by Singapore and other original founders of Asean to pour scorn on Burma for staging the bizarre Suu Kyi trial, demanding her release and that of all political prisoners.

In Hanoi, Asean and its European partners issued a statement also calling for the lifting of restrictions placed on Burmese political parties.

Speaking to the Far Eastern Economic Review, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajjiva said that if the junta fails to release Suu Kyi, Asean’s credibility will be “affected inevitably,” adding that Burma’s political process must be inclusive to gain the respect of the international community.

“Thailand, as the Asean chair, expresses grave concern about recent developments relating to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, given her fragile health. In this connection, the Government of the Union of Myanmar is reminded that the Asean leaders had called for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,” Abhisit said.

But Asean alone should not be blamed for Burma’s failure, said the prime minister, who himself was facing credibility problems at home after Thailand cancelled a regional Asean summit due to political unrest. Even so, he said, “I think it would be unfair to single out Asean. I think the whole international community puts in an effort and if it’s not succeeding, why single out Asean?”

When pressed about Thailand’s business dealings and energy dependency on Burma, he replied, “We’re neighbors, and there is clearly an energy link, but having said that, there is a lot of Western business presence in Myanmar [Burma]. Again, we share a long common border and there’s a lot of border trade too, and the energy that we buy from Myanmar is the same as we buy from our neighbors. And we have to make sure that we ensure our people have enough energy and security. So I don’t think it’s particularly surprising or special, and it wouldn’t in any way detract us from the goal that we would like to see Myanmar succeeding in her political transition.”

Thailand and two other Asean partners, Singapore and Malaysia, are major trading partners of Burma. Thailand heavily depends on Burma’s gas, cheap migrant labor and natural resources. Singapore is a haven for the regime leaders and family members to visit and receive medical care.

Thailand’s more pragmatic, tougher support for Burma’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate is a direct result of the Democrat-led government now in power in Thailand.

Imagine if former prime ministers Thaksin Shinawatra or Samak Sundaravej were in power. The Suu Kyi trial would have received little attention from Thailand. Instead, the generals would probably have received a tacit blessing from Thai politicians and army leaders, many of whom have a history of cozy business ties with the Than Shwe regime.

With Abhisit, Burma was forced to revert to its neighborhood bully role, engaging in a war of words, telling Thailand in state-run newspapers to mind its own business and not to interfere in Burma’s internal affairs.

“Actually, it is Thailand that needs to forge national reconciliation,” Burma’s Deputy Foreign Minister Maung Myint mused. “Thailand saw year-long demonstrations in which different groups in red, yellow and blue made an attempt to oust the government and jeopardize the Asean Summit.”

But for the generals words alone were not enough, and actions followed.

Troops of the military regime and its ceasefire group, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army, launched an unusual rainy season offensive with about 9,000 soldiers against the Karen rebel army and civilians in early June.

Armed clashes forced at least 4,000 Karen refugees to flee their villages and many are still arriving in refugee camps on the Thai-Burmese border. The message was clear: don’t mess with Burma.

Then Goh Chok Tong, Singapore’s senior minister, flew to Burma with a message.

In meetings with the top brass, Goh acknowledged that the Suu Kyi trial is a domestic affair, but he pointed out that there is an international dimension to it that should not be ignored.

Goh stressed that the 2010 elections must be inclusive and that the opposition NLD party led by Suu Kyi must be part of the process of national reconciliation.

Goh is the first foreign leader to meet Than Shwe since the trial started, and he used the occasion to deliver a political message to the top leaders in Naypyidaw, saying, “I don’t believe any Singapore investors would come in a big way before the picture is clear, before this move to democracy is seen to produce results.”

Singapore is one of the biggest foreign investors in Burma, with annual bilateral trade of more than US $1 billion.

Burma did not blast Singapore. Instead Goh was given the red carpet treatment during his four-day trip. Is there any meaning behind that? Maybe not, but many Burmese analysts believe Goh’s message carried more weight than those from other Asean nations.

Goh, Abhisit Vejajjiva and Asean leaders performed well on the Suu Kyi trial—making a major departure from the old hands-off, “non-interference” policy.

But it’s still doubtful Than Shwe will listen, knowing full well that Asean has its own weaknesses.

The regime leaders remain defiant and shameless. After killing monks and peaceful demonstrators in September 2007, the Burmese regime signed the new Asean Charter. In 2008, the regime launched a massive crackdown on prominent activists and opposition leaders—the number of political prisoners jailed increased by the hundreds—and Asean was silent.

Thai professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak warned in the Bangkok Post: “Burma is currently in flagrant and fundamental violation of the Asean Charter’s Section 7 of Article 1 on democracy, good governance and the rule of law and the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Failure to redress this violation will render the Charter a travesty of regional community objectives and dilute Asean’s relevance on the broader international stage.”

The Suu Kyi trial and the imprisonment of the political opposition are just the tip of the iceberg.

Than Shwe has his own grandiose dream of setting Burma on a new course. The closer relations between Burma and North Korea are one example and a major cause of concern.

Burma recently hosted an event marking the 45th anniversary of the date when North Korean leader Kim Jong Il joined the central committee of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK).

Htay Oo, the secretary-general of the junta’s mass organization, the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), addressed an assembled audience at the Burmese event, effusing: “One of the feats performed by Kim Jong Il in leading the Party and revolution to a shining victory, shouldering upon himself the destiny of the country and nation is that he has strengthened and developed the WPK into a guiding force of the Songun revolution.”

“Songun” is North Korea’s “Military First” policy that grants the Korean People’s Army a leading role in the affairs of state and allocates national resources to the army before civilians.

Burma’s shady military ties with North Korea and the persistent rumors of Burma’s nuclear ambition, plus the building of tunnels in central Burma and Shan State, could become Asean’s next headache.

READ MORE---> As Burma Draws Fire, Asean Gets Burned...

'North Korean Ship Carries Weapons'

By HYUNG-JIN KIM / AP WRITER
The Irrawaddy News

SEOUL — A North Korean-flagged ship under close watch in Asian waters is believed to be heading toward Burma carrying small arms cargo banned under a new UN resolution, a South Korean intelligence official said Monday.

Still, analysts say a high seas interception—something North Korea has said it would consider an act of war—is unlikely.

In this image released by the US Navy, the guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain sails in the Pacific Ocean. The destroyer has been sent by the US military to monitor the North Korean ship Kang Nam I. (Photo: Getty Images)

The Kang Nam, accused of engaging in illicit trade in the past, is the first vessel monitored under the new sanctions designed to punish the North for its defiant nuclear test last month. The US military began tracking the ship after it left a North Korean port on Wednesday on suspicion it was carrying illicit weapons.

A South Korean intelligence official said Monday that his agency believes the North Korean ship is carrying small weapons and is sailing toward the Burmese city of Rangoon.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity citing the sensitive nature of the information, said he could provide no further details.

Burma's military government, which faces an arms embargo from the US and the European Union, reportedly has bought weapons from North Korea in the past.

The Irrawaddy, an online magazine operated by independent exiled journalists, reported Monday that the North Korean ship would dock at the Thilawa port, some 20 miles (30 kilometers) south of Rangoon, in the next few days.

The magazine cited an unidentified port official as saying that North Korean ships have docked there in the past. The magazine's in-depth coverage of Burma has been generally reliable in the past.

South Korean television network YTN reported Sunday that the ship was streaming toward Burma but said the vessel appeared to be carrying missiles and related parts. The report cited an unidentified intelligence source in South Korea.

Kim Jin-moo, an analyst at Seoul's state-run Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, said the North is believed to have sold guns, artillery and other small weapons to Burma but not missiles, which it has been accused of exporting to Iran and Syria.

The UN sanctions, which toughen an earlier arms embargo against North Korea, ban the country from exporting all weapons and weapons-related material, meaning any weapons shipment to Burma would violate the resolution.

The Security Council resolution calls on all 192 UN member states to inspect North Korean vessels on the high seas "if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo" contains banned weapons or material to make them. But that requires approval from the North.

If the North refuses to give approval, it must direct the vessel "to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities."

North Korea, however, is unlikely to allow any inspection of its cargo, making an interception unlikely, said Hong Hyun-ik, an analyst at the Sejong Institute think tank outside Seoul.

A senior US military official told The Associated Press on Friday that a Navy ship, the USS John S. McCain, is relatively close to the North Korean vessel but had no orders to intercept it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Any chance for an armed skirmish between the two ships is low, analysts say, though the North Korean crew is possibly armed with rifles.

"It's still a cargo ship. A cargo ship can't confront a warship," said Baek Seung-joo of the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses.

Tension on the Korean peninsula has been running high since the North's May 25 nuclear test, with Pyongyang and Washington exchanging near-daily accusations against each other.

President Barack Obama assured Americans in an interview broadcast Monday that the US is prepared for any move North Korea might make amid media reports that Pyongyang is planning a long-range missile test in early July.

"This administration—and our military—is fully prepared for any contingencies," Obama said during an interview with CBS News' "The Early Show."

Still, ever defiant, North Korea declared itself a "proud nuclear power" and warned Monday that it would strike if provoked.

"As long as our country has become a proud nuclear power, the US should take a correct look at whom it is dealing with," the country's main Rodong Sinmun said in commentary. "It would be a grave mistake for the US to think it can remain unhurt if it ignites the fuse of war on the Korean peninsula."

READ MORE---> 'North Korean Ship Carries Weapons'...

US Defense Official to Hold Talks in Beijing

The Irrawaddy News

BEIJING (AP)— A US Defense Department official is headed to Beijing for talks amid ongoing tensions in the region over North Korea's missile and nuclear weapons programs.

Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy will lead the US delegation for the US-China Defense Consultative Talks on Tuesday and Wednesday, the US Embassy said, without providing information on the agenda.

Flournoy was due to travel onward to South Korea for talks with officials in Seoul on Friday.

China is North Korea's most important ally and supplier of economic assistance. It played host to six-nation talks aimed at pressing the North to halt its nuclear programs in return for financial aid and diplomatic inducements.

North Korea has since snubbed those talks, conducted an atomic test in May and threatened war in response to UN sanctions. It also test-fired a ballistic missile and is reportedly preparing for another long-range missile launch and a third nuclear test.

China has publicly opposed the North's provocations and supported UN sanctions against the regime. However, Beijing opposes harsher measures that could send its isolated hard-line communist neighbor tottering and spark a refugee crisis on its border.

Flournoy was due to meet with Chinese officials including People's Liberation Army deputy chief of staff, Lt-Gen Ma Xiaotian, who last month told an international security forum that Beijing "has expressed a firm opposition and grave concern about the nuclear test."

South Korea has proposed that it and the other four nations in the talks meet to decide future steps, possibly on the sidelines of a regional security forum scheduled in Phuket, Thailand, in July. The US and Japan have agreed to participate, while China and Russia have yet to respond, according to a South Korean Foreign Ministry official.

Despite closer consultations about North Korea, US-China military contacts have proceeded only intermittently amid continuing suspicions about each others intentions. Beijing last year called off some meetings to express its dissatisfaction over US arms sales to self-governing Taiwan, the island Beijing claims as its own territory.

READ MORE---> US Defense Official to Hold Talks in Beijing...

Dream of Burmese Generals

by Mizzima News

(Editorial)- Despite the UN Security Council’s threat of imposing sanctions, the Communist dictatorship of North Korea is defiant and is going ahead with its plan of becoming a nuclear weapons state.

Since the 1990s the economy of North Korea with a population of 23 million has been deteriorating and millions of its people are on the brink of famine. But the ostentatious and recalcitrant leader Kim Jung-il does not care, for he cares only about his plutonium weapons.

At the same time, south of the Korea peninsular is developing and is heading for the top slot in Asia. The people of South Korea can enjoy one of the highest living standards in the world. But in the North, the leader, a fan of Hollywood movies, is talking of principles of self-reliance repeatedly and using public money only for building its military strength. The GDP of North Korea is less than 3 per cent of South Korea.

After the nuclear bomb test on May 25, the UNSC unanimously voted for a resolution to impose sanctions on North Korea. But the North defied the sanction by testing a ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

While the people of the whole world are concerned over North Korea, which has an army of one million, becoming a nuclear weapons state, the leaders of the Burmese junta may be one of those who would like to emulate North Korea.

Burma severed diplomatic ties with North Korea after agents of North Korea assassinated South Korea’s cabinet members and officials including the Prime Minister and three ministers in the 1983 bomb blast at Martyrs’ mausoleum in Rangoon. The current regime approached North Korea to help build their military might and is getting technical assistance in recent years. Now they have restored friendly relationship based on mutual sympathy and common ground of facing the same hardships.

In an emergency resolution adopted by the UNSC, including China, which has traditional influence over both North Korea and Burma, North Korean vessels can be stopped and searched on high seas along with imposition of an arms embargo and financial sanctions. Even then, it is unable to rein in North’s nuclear weapons programme.

Though it is believed that Burma is still far from possessing nuclear weapons, it is very clear that it is expanding its military might. But only few will doubt the dream of Burma, ruled by Senior Gen. Than Shwe, the father of the bride, who wore diamonds like cascades in her wedding reception, to become a second North Korea.

READ MORE---> Dream of Burmese Generals...

UN widens sanctions on North Korea, China joins in

By Louis Charbonneau and Claudia Parsons

(News.com-Reuters) - The UN Security Council unanimously approved wider sanctions against North Korea overnight over its May 25 nuclear test, a move close ally China said showed firm opposition to Pyongyang's atomic ambitions.

The sanctions resolution banned all weapons exports from North Korea and most arms imports into the reclusive communist state. It authorized UN member states to inspect North Korean sea, air and land cargo, requiring them to seize and destroy any goods transported in violation of the sanctions.

Both China and Russia, which had been reluctant to approve punitive measures against North Korea in the past, backed the US-drafted resolution, which is binding under international law.

China's UN ambassador, Zhang Yesui, said the resolution showed the "firm opposition" of the international community to North Korea's nuclear ambitions, but he urged countries to exercise caution when inspecting North Korean cargo.

"Under no circumstances should there be use or threat of the use of force," Mr Zhang said.

US Ambassador Susan Rice said Washington would press for full implementation of the sanctions and would not get into a "tit-for-tat reaction" to every provocation from Pyongyang.

"It would not be a surprise if North Korea reacted to this very tough sanctions regime in a fashion that would be further provocation and further destabilizing," she said.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's press office issued a statement welcoming the 15-nation council's move.

"Acting unanimously and agreeing on credible measures, the members of the Security Council have sent today a clear and strong message to (North Korea)," the statement said, adding the South Korean UN chief would "spare no effort in facilitating the implementation of the resolution."

Two senior diplomats involved in the negotiations on the resolution said on condition of anonymity the Chinese had never really clarified whether they intended to implement the new sanctions resolution in contrast to earlier sanctions against North Korea that they ignored.

"The effectiveness of this resolution will depend on its enforcement," one of the diplomats said.

READ MORE---> UN widens sanctions on North Korea, China joins in...