Nuclear Burma :: Top Secret

[333Unit]

A five-year investigation by CAT(Cyber Army Team) has revealed evidence suggesting the military regime in Myanmar (or Burma) is developing a nuclear weapon. After the defection of Major Sai Thein Win from Myanmar, hundreds of photographs and testimony were disclosed, showing high-level involvement from the Burmese military with the aid of North Korea. The below videos via Al Jazeera go in further depth to the expanding nuclear program:

[333Unit]

[333Unit]

Myanmar’s military rulers are attempting to build a nuclear weapon, according to a report based on information provided by a former major in Myanmar’s army. But analysts say the program is primitive and poorly planned.

[333Unit]

The CAT's report, says while success may be beyond Myanmar’s reach, “the intent is clear.” It says its analysis leads to “only one conclusion: this technology is only for nuclear weapons and not civilian use or nuclear power.”

[333Unit]

[333Unit]

The Burmese Junta is following the North Korean model of maintaining it’s grip on power via high levels of military investment. In preparation of the oncoming election, vast, interconnected tunnels are being built in case of civilian unrest. Indeed, weapons inspectors and Burmese experts that the development of nuclear weapons may be as much for use against internal dissidents as external threats.

[sunny]

Burma’s alleged nuclear weapons program

Author: Trevor Wilson, ANU

Claims that Burma is planning a nuclear weapons program have been circulating ever since Burma began a nuclear science training program with Russia in 2002, but until recently there was little hard evidence to back up these claims. A detailed report published in June from a Burmese Army defector and commissioned by the democracy advocacy broadcasting network, Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) finally provided some evidence for the claims.

The June report was scrutinised by former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspector, Robert Kelley, an American. Kelley found no evidence that weapons production was close at hand but found the allegations to be serious. Viewing the physical evidence item-by-item in his report for DVB, Kelley suggested that, although the main source on the ‘intentions’ of the military regime was an army defector, it merely ‘implied an intention’ to acquire nuclear weapons.

This and similar media reports prompted a public denial by the Burmese regime, which rejected the claims as ‘groundless’ and ‘unfounded’. An additional press statement published by the regime referred to Burma’s record of supporting non-proliferation and cooperation with the IAEA, including hosting an IAEA inspection visit in 2002. In a subsequent Jakarta Post opinion piece on 25 June, Kelley wrote that ‘taken altogether…, in Myanmar’s covert program (has)…but one use, nuclear weapons’. But is this unequivocally the case?

What has been the response of the international community?

Western Governments, generally hyper-sensitive about any potential ‘rogue’ nuclear development, have been forced by media publicity to declare ‘concern’ about such reports, but have strikingly not confirmed the content of the claims. This low-key reaction may be explained by the lack of conclusive evidence of a Burmese nuclear weapons program. A US State Department report, Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements published in July stated that Washington ‘lacks evidence to support a conclusion that Burma has violated its NPT obligations or IAEA safeguards’.

This Western ‘concern’ is not shared by other members of the international community. Burma’s Asian neighbours have shown no signs of alarm. At the ASEAN Regional Forum meeting in Hanoi on 22 July, Burma’s UN Security Council ally Russia was able to allay EU concerns by reportedly saying that firm evidence was still lacking and more investigations were needed.

So far other ASEAN members have only issued mild public statements on the subject. None have criticised the Burmese regime, which until now was following several other ASEAN members in its quest for nuclear science capabilities for peaceful uses.

The issue has also not yet been taken up in the UN Security Council or by the UN Secretary-General, suggesting that it may be premature to accuse Burma of breaching any international rules.

But the IAEA has been rather tardy in responding to these potentially worrying developments.

In its only statement to date, the IAEA said it had looked into the reports and it is interested in receiving further information from the Burmese regime. Yet the IAEA’s hands are somewhat tied by its own procedures, under which NPT signatories are permitted small quantities of nuclear material without disclosure. There is now pressure on the regime to sign an Additional Protocol, which would allow the IAEA to carry out unannounced inspections of Burma’s nuclear facilities.

What, then, should be done?

Some of the reporting about Burma’s nuclear ambitions is exaggerated and misleading, which is probably inevitable given the military regime’s obsessive secrecy regarding defence and security matters. Most media reporting comes from sources associated with the Burmese opposition and is not necessarily impartial, which is why the independent assessment of ex-IAEA director Kelley is significant. While there is considerable physical evidence about its nuclear activities, insights into the intentions of the regime’s leadership still depend on uncorroborated statements by defectors.

Despite this, there is now an urgent need to get to the bottom of the speculation and, if necessary, stop Burma’s nuclear program from moving in unacceptable directions. If the regime’s denial is true, they have nothing to lose by inviting IAEA inspectors to confirm it. IAEA Inspections would reassure Burma’s neighbours and the international community, and would generate greater confidence in the regime’s own statements.

For its part, the IAEA should seize the opportunity to take firm preventative action without infringing Burma’s formal rights. Although the scope for effective action is restricted, the IAEA has a working relationship with Burma and can determine if there is a legitimate case for concern. Burma generally observes international requirements, with the notable exception of human rights, where its performance has long been widely condemned. On the whole, the military regime is likely to respect the authority of the IAEA rather than run the risk of incurring UN Security Council sanctions for the first time.

Trevor Wilson is Visiting Fellow in Political and Social Change at the Australian National University and former Australian Ambassador to Burma.

[sunny]

>>> ภัยคุกคามด้านตะวันตกกรณีพม่าย้ายเมืองหลวงและขุดอุโมงค์ประชิดชายแดนไทย ..
http://nonlaw.forumotion.com/forum-f1/topic-t661.htm

[sunny]

Nuclear Burma
Fri 10 Nov 2006

Dictator Watch now has an article up on speculations about the Junta's involvement in the proliferation of nuclear technology (NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND BURMA: THE HIDDEN CONNECTION). It's no secret that Burma has cultivated close ties with other 'rogue' states, like North Korea and Iran. They are also known to have purchased missiles from China, North Korea, Ukraine, and Russia. Despite the lack of enemies or potential conflicts beyond their own borders.

The new rumors are that, "Uranium ore is being mined in Moehnyin Township in Kachin State and Mogok in Mandalay Division. The ore is then transported to a refinery on the Irrawaddy River at Thabeikkyin (just over one hundred kilometers north of Mandalay), which is conveniently located between the two mine sites. There the ore is processed into a material known as “yellow cake,” which is likely what is being bartered."

S.H.A.N. reported some time last year about a possible nuclear facility in Maymyo. The junta claims that is was acquiring nuclear technology for medical research purposes. Considering they spend something like 30$ or less per year, per capita, on healthcare, it seems like they could have come up with a better lie than that.

Dictator Watch also reports that:

The SPDC has many secret facilities spread throughout Burma, but the most important are east of Mandalay in Maymyo (a.k.a Pyin-U-Lwin) and to the southwest of this in the Setkhya Mountains. The military complex at Maymyo includes Defense Industry buildings, the Defense Institute of Technology, and the Defense Services Academy. Approximately forty kilometers south of this the Chinese built a hydroelectric dam on the Myit Nge River. Local villagers who have fled to Thailand report that there is a tunnel from this dam leading to the defense complex, presumably to deliver electricity for weapons production. Just west of this, in the Setkhya Mountains, Burma’s “Nuclear Battalion” has in its own network of tunnels and reportedly is engaged in bomb-making research. Democratic Voice of Burma has reported that the center of this operation is near the villages of Lun Kyaw and Taung Taw, and that the latter is well guarded. Local villagers reported hearing huge explosions at night in April, June and September this year.

Coincidentally, I heard from a Kachin friend that there are currently rumors from Putao residents that the military is building a tunnel there. I was at a loss as to what they would be building a tunnel for, but perhaps the idea is not so farfetched. Putao is in the far north of Kachin State, near the remote and isolated Hukawng Valley in the Kachin Himalayas. Then again, they could also just be digging a tunnel to China.

[sunny]

Comments:

by SimonG on Tue 24 Apr 2007

In late 2001, two Pakistani nuclear scientists, Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and Abdul Majid met with Usama bin Laden in Afghanistan to plan developing nuclear weapons for Al Qaeda.

When US authorities began to track down this
link, two Pakistani nuclear scientists Suleiman Asad and Muhammed Ali Mukhtar fled to Burma.

I wonder if arab money is funding Burma's nuclear program ?

From my knowledge of nuclear issues, there are two paths to building a nuclear bomb. One is with uranium which is the path Iran is taking. The other is to use a reactor to breed, or obtain Plutonium.


by SimonG on Tue 01 May 2007

A further thought is where is Myanmar's uranium being enriched ?

Is there a link between Myanmar which mines and refines Uranium Ore with Iran which lacks sufficient Uranium for it's projects ?

Could Burmese Uranium be finding it's way to Uranium centrifuges at Netanz ?

by The Editor on Tue 01 May 2007
Well, Burma and Iran do have a friendly diplomatic relationship. But, Burma has friendly relationships with China, Russia, and the Ukraine as well, all three of which have traded weapons and weapons technology to the junta.

Burma just recently normalized relations with North Korea, but I'm sure there have been articles in the news prior to this about Burma and NK trading. So it's impossible to say where the uranium might be going. I'd be more concerned about Burma having nuclear weapons - which they seem to be developing - than Iran. It does seem that most of the dodgy weapons trading that goes on involves weapons and technology going in to Burma, but they'd certainly trade whatever they could to get what they want, and I wouldn't doubt that Burma's uranium is going places it shouldn't.

[sunny]

[img]http://www.topnews.in/law/files/S_M__Krishna.jpg[img]

Government dispels fears of n-weapons in Myanmar

India External Affair Minister S M Krishna said on Thursday that India has to accept Burma's denial of having a nuclear program, but it continues to monitor the situation because of security concerns.

"Myanmar [Burma] denies having a nuclear program, and the government of India will have to accept that," Krishna said in parliament's upper house, adding, "We will also gather through our own intelligence what is happening. The government always monitors developments closely because it concerns our security."

He said India monitors the existing nuclear weapons programs in neighboring countries such as Pakistan and China for national security.

India's nuclear concerns on Burma came up during discussions of a bill that generated intense debate in the parliament, because it involved US help on a nuclear energy plant to meet energy needs in India.

Burmese pro-democracy activists in India contend that India's policy on Burma is highly influenced by its energy needs and other security factors.

"It seems they are talking in limbo, since they have many agreements involving economics, trade and technology. However, they do worry about their security," said Zin Naing, an India-based Burmese activist.

"Moreover, they worry about the influence of China over Burma too," he added.

The Burmese military government strongly denied having a nuclear program in June, after concerns were raised based on the information provided by Burmese defector, Maj Sai Thein Win, who smuggled documents out of the country which included photographs of secret tunnels and bunkers underneath the capital of Naypyidaw. Other photographs showed crude attempts to build nuclear-related devices or instruments.

According to some activists, North Korea is supplying nuclear and ballistic missile technology to Burma. The US and various international groups have expressed concern, and said they are closely monitoring the relationship. However, the US said recently it has no direct evidence of North Korea exporting nuclear technology to Burma.

However, many in the Burmese opposition are suspicious of the two countries ties.

"If they have a chance, they will do whatever to posses nuclear weapons like North Korea," said Zin Naing.

Burma has been under military rule since 1962. India once supported the pro-democracy movements of Burma, but since 1990, India started to build ties with the military government to improve economic and security ties.

The Burmese military head, Sen-Gen Than Shwe, visited India in July to sign agreements on energy, the economy and cross-border security issues.