U.S. President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry (Mass.) presented differing views on WMD nonproliferation strategies during last night’s presidential debate (AFP photo/Jeff Haynes). Kerry, Bush Differ Sharply on Nonproliferation By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Debating head-to-head for the first time last night, President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) expressed numerous, strong differences in their views on how the United States should stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction...Full Story

House Homeland Security Committee Seeks Permanency By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Invoking the Sept. 11 commission’s call for stronger congressional oversight of antiterrorism programs, a temporary House of Representatives panel formally asked yesterday to be granted permanent status (see GSN, Aug. 18)...Full Story

Nigeria Commissions Research Reactor; HEU-Fueled Facility Goes Against U.S.-Led Nonproliferation Effort By Greg Webb Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Nigeria commissioned its first nuclear research reactor yesterday, potentially undermining a U.S.-led push to eliminate the use of highly enriched uranium reactor fuel. Such fuel, either in its fresh or irradiated forms, could be used to manufacture nuclear arms if it was diverted to national weapons programs or stolen by terrorists...Full Story

	Friday, October 1, 2004

House Homeland Security Committee Seeks Permanency By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Invoking the Sept. 11 commission’s call for stronger congressional oversight of antiterrorism programs, a temporary House of Representatives panel formally asked yesterday to be granted permanent status (see GSN, Aug. 18). In recommendations submitted to the House Rules Committee, the 22-month-old Select Committee on Homeland Security called for the creation of a standing, 29-member Homeland Security Committee with jurisdiction over most aspects of the Homeland Security Department’s work. The matter was immediately referred to the Rules Committee’s Technology and the House Subcommittee, where congressional sources said action is likely to be taken early in the next Congress. “Not only the 9/11 commission but virtually every other commission and outside expert has recognized that effective and efficient legislation and oversight with respect to homeland security requires congressional reorganization that vests in a single standing committee in each chamber jurisdiction that parallels the homeland-security mission,” the homeland-security committee said in a report containing its proposed changes to a law governing the structure of Congress. “Despite [a] significant executive-branch reorganization” since 2001, the panel wrote, “congressional structures remain almost the same as they were before the 9/11 attacks. Scores of committees and subcommittees of the Congress have some claim to jurisdiction over various elements of the Department of Homeland Security. … This creates chaos for the department.” The new committee would have “exclusive authorizing and primary oversight jurisdiction with respect to the Department of Homeland Security’s responsibilities and activities related to the prevention of, preparation for and response to acts of terrorism within the United States.” The panel would oversee areas of information analysis and distribution, research and development, borders, immigration, transportation security and terrorism-response preparedness — taking some responsibilities away from other House committees. “If we are truly serious about increasing security and better protecting our communities,” said the top Democrat on the select panel’s Rules Subcommittee, Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), “we must give Congress this power.” Select committee Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) claimed support for the proposal from virtually all the select panel’s members, the Sept. 11 commission, two former House speakers and “a wide array of commissions and think-tanks across the political spectrum.” House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has expressed support for a permanent select committee, which would be more secure in its prerogatives than the current panel but enjoy less extensive powers than a permanent standing committee as proposed yesterday. Yesterday’s report was signed by dozens of the select panel’s members, including leaders of other House committees. Notably absent, however, were the signatures of Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska), whose panels stand to lose the most responsibility if a permanent homeland-security committee is created. Rules Technology and the House Subcommittee Chairman John Linder (R-Ga.) is expected soon to begin informal consultations with various House committee chairs on the proposal. First-Responder Funding Reform Included in 9/11 Bill As the select committee works to secure its own future status, it has also seen its signature piece of legislation to date — a bill to reform federal funding of emergency responders to better reflect the varying terrorist threat around the United States — given new life through inclusion in a mammoth bill designed to implement the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendations (see GSN, March 19). The bill on “faster and smarter funding for first responders” seeks to replace current grant-giving formulas used by Homeland Security’s Office for Domestic Preparedness, which are based heavily on population and per-state minimums that have been widely criticized as inappropriately political. The bill was expected to reach the House floor earlier this year (see GSN, May 11) but was stymied by other priorities and an inability to gain the support of a few key legislators, congressional sources said. Now, the measure’s inclusion in the popular Sept. 11 commission bill, which is expected on the House floor next week, appears likely to ensure its passage in some form. Talks on the stand-alone responder-funding bill were cut short by the Sept. 11 commission bill’s creation, said one source familiar with the legislation. “We were just in the process of negotiations with New York City, and, at that point, the speaker decided to create this H.R. 10” implementing the Sept. 11 panel’s recommendations, said the source. New York and its congressional delegation have been among the most vocal supporters of reforming responder funding to direct more grants to high-threat cities. The related Senate responder-funding bill has also been included in that chamber’s version of legislation to implement the Sept. 11 panel proposals (see GSN, Dec. 19). Back to top

Kerry, Bush Differ Sharply on Nonproliferation By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Debating head-to-head for the first time last night, President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) expressed numerous, strong differences in their views on how the United States should stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The differences were apparent on how the candidates would deal with North Korea, Iran, unsecured nuclear-weapon materials in Russia, new U.S. nuclear weapons, and using force against countries suspected of developing catastrophic weapons — as well as even how the two defined the problem. Asked about “the most serious threat” facing U.S. national security, Kerry said “nuclear proliferation.” “There are some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia. At the rate that the president is currently securing that, it will take 13 years to get it,” Kerry said, referring to ongoing U.S. cooperation with Russia and other states to secure, neutralize and destroy such materials through the U.S. Defense Department’s Cooperation Threat Reduction program and similar efforts. Kerry said nuclear proliferation demanded increased spending on such programs, a new approach on negotiations with North Korea, and termination of a U.S. program to develop a “bunker-buster” nuclear weapon capable of penetrating the earth (see GSN, July 16). “We’re telling other people, you can’t have nuclear weapons, but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using,” Kerry said. Not this president.  I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world, we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation.” Bush said the “biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network.” He listed several efforts the administration had undertaken to address the problem: creation of the multinational Proliferation Security Initiative to interdict suspected unconventional weapons and materials shipments at sea (see GSN, Aug. 6), the rollback of a Pakistani-linked nuclear smuggling network, successful efforts to persuade Libya to renounce its weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Sept. 23), and the aggressive development and activation of a national missile defense system (see GSN, Sept. 30). “We’ll be implementing a missile defense system relatively quickly. And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century,” he said. Nonproliferation Spending Kerry vowed to increase spending sufficient to reduce to four years the projected time for securing Russian nuclear materials. “Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today. And this president, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear material in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the two years preceding 9/11,” he said. “The president actually cut the money for it,” Kerry said. Bush said funding on nuclear nonproliferation increased by about 35 percent during his administration, though several nonproliferation experts said they are not aware of the increased spending he described. “The numbers we have is it has increased 29 percent,” mostly as a response to requests by the Bush administration for Energy Department nonproliferation activities, according to Molly Pickett, an analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. She said, though, that some of the overall increase, to about $2 billion this year for programs in the Energy, State and Defense departments, occurred as a result of Congress’ unwillingness to approve a significant cut to the Cooperative Threat Reduction program proposed by the administration for fiscal 2002. “There was a backlash and Congress put it back in,” she said. The White House did not respond in time this morning to a request for clarification. North Korea The candidates also sharply differed on how they would try to stop suspected North Korean nuclear weapons development.  Kerry advocated bilateral talks between North Korea and the United States. “I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the Armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues, and the nuclear issues on the table,” Kerry said. He argued the administration had failed to stop North Korea from pursuing nuclear weapons because it had refused to negotiate with the country’s leadership. “For two years, this administration didn’t talk at all to North Korea. While they didn’t talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out, and today there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. That happened on this president’s watch,” Kerry said. Bush argued against bilateral negotiations. “I can’t [tell] you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It’s precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It’ll cause the six-party talks to evaporate, it means that China no longer is involved in convincing, along with us, [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il to get rid of his weapons.” “We must have China’s leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves. And if you enter bilateral talks, they’ll be happy to walk away from the table. I don’t think that’ll work,” he said. Bush said North Korea was breaking a previous bilateral agreement by processing highly enriched uranium. Iran Kerry charged the Bush administration’s approach toward Iran has been unsuccessful, saying, “Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous” (see GSN, Sept. 29). He said the United States earlier could have offered to provide Iran with nuclear fuel, to challenge the country to renounce alleged weapons-oriented efforts. If Iran refused, he said, the United States might have had more leverage to muster international sanctions. “The president did nothing,” he said. Bush advocated multilateral discussions with Iran to try to persuade it to discontinue its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. “We’ve worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs,” he said. Kerry said the “British, French and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort — without the United States, regrettably.” Bush said Iran already is sanctioned by the United States. “We can’t sanction them anymore. There are sanctions in place on Iran.” Kerry responded, “The United States put the sanctions on alone. And that’s exactly what I’m talking about. In order for the sanctions to be effective, we should have been working with the British, French and Germans and other countries.” Iraq and Preventive v. Pre-Emptive War The candidates also differed strongly on when the United States would be justified in attacking another country suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, and debated whether the United States should have attacked Iraq as it did. Bush reiterated his administration’s policy that the United States should be willing to attack another country before there is complete evidence the country has the ability and intention to strike the United States with a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon. “In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell; America and the world are safer for it,” he said. That so-called “Bush Doctrine” of preventive war is considered destabilizing by many in the international community, and Bush administration critics have argued that the policy could encourage countries to seek their own nuclear weapons to deter U.S. action. International law permits pre-emptive war, meaning a country can attack another if it has demonstrable evidence of an imminent attack. Kerry reiterated his support for this approach, and criticized Bush for pursuing Iraq without evidence of an imminent threat or alternatively with U.N. Security Council approval “A president always has the right, and always had had the right, for [a] pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War, and it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control,” Kerry said. “But if and when you do it, … you’ve got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons,” he said. Kerry faulted Bush for maintaining he would in hindsight have still attacked Iraq, “even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection of al-Qaeda.” Kerry said he too viewed ex-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a threat prior to the war, but supported securing U.N. Security Council authority for military force. He said his position was “Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him, and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.” Bush dismissed the idea the United States should seek global authority for such action, because it was done “to protect the American people.” “To date the campaign and the coverage of it have not addressed how each candidate proposes to address the biggest threat to U.S. security: the world’s growing set of weapons of mass destruction dangers. But that may have begun to change with last night’s refreshingly substantive debate,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. Back to top       Penalized Nations Protest U.S. Sanctions Belarus yesterday criticized the United States for imposing sanctions on a Belarusian company for allegedly aiding Iran’s WMD and missile efforts, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Sept. 30). The company, Belvneshpromservis, was among a number of entities from several countries that were sanctioned this week for violating the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. “We categorically deny all accusations and are surprised that the U.S. State Department once again is focusing attention on a Belarusian enterprise,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Ruslan Yesin said. “Belarus has a strict system of control over the delivery of goods with dual applications” (Associated Press, Sept. 30). Meanwhile, Ukraine said yesterday that it not received a response from the U.S. State Department after asking for an explanation of the sanction against a Ukrainian company, according to Agence France-Presse. Ukrainian officials asked for the explanation to see if the activities of the Zaporizhzhya Regional Foreign Economic Association of Ukraine “conformed to the law,” Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Markian Lubkivsky said (Agence France-Presse/IranMania.com, Sept. 30). Back to top       Container Security Initiative Begins at Italian Port A U.S. effort to screen cargo containers for possible terrorism threats destined for the United States went into operation yesterday at the Italian port of Naples (see GSN, July 28). Through the Container Security Initiative, U.S. customs agents are deployed at foreign ports to identify high-risk cargo containers destined for the United States. Local customs personnel then inspect those containers. Naples is the 26th port worldwide where the Container Security Initiative is in place, according to the U.S. State Department. The Italian ports of Genoa and La Spezia are already involved in the program (U.S. State Department release, Sept. 30). Back to top

Nigeria Commissions Research Reactor; HEU-Fueled Facility Goes Against U.S.-Led Nonproliferation Effort By Greg Webb Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Nigeria commissioned its first nuclear research reactor yesterday, potentially undermining a U.S.-led push to eliminate the use of highly enriched uranium reactor fuel. Such fuel, either in its fresh or irradiated forms, could be used to manufacture nuclear arms if it was diverted to national weapons programs or stolen by terrorists. This reactor, however, has been designed for peaceful purposes, officials said, and Nigeria has constructed the facility under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The U.N. agency will also monitor its operation. “The reactor will solely be applied for scientific research which includes soil mapping to quantify different elements in the soil to boost agricultural production and to reduce the use of chemical fertilizer as well as for solid minerals identification in Nigeria,” Ibrahim Umar, director of the Ahmadu Bello University Center for Energy Research and Training, said in an interview with Agence France-Presse. “It will also be used in petroleum exploration and for identifying elements associated with diseases in the human body and other human-related research purposes.” China supplied the NIRR-1 reactor and its fuel, nearly 1 kilogram of uranium enriched to contain 90 percent of the uranium 235 isotope, a weapon-grade concentration.  The news comes on the heels of an international meeting in Vienna last month to give momentum to the U.S.-led Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an effort to secure highly enriched uranium from research reactors around the world mostly by returning the material to the nations that originally supplied it, primarily the United States and Russia (see GSN, Sept. 22). In addition, the initiative looks to develop lower-enriched fuels and to convert reactors to use those fuels. The Nigerian reactor illustrates the hurdles the initiative faces as China continues to export reactors, Germany is constructing a domestic facility, and Russia considers exporting sea-based reactors to developing nations (see GSN, Aug. 27). All those facilities would use highly enriched uranium for fuel. “The international community has not embraced the principle of HEU elimination in a consistent fashion,” said William Potter, director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. The Nigerian development is “very much at odds with the Global Threat Reduction Initiative,” he said. While there is not enough highly enriched uranium at the Nigerian site to create a nuclear weapon, some nonproliferation experts expressed concern that terrorists could attack multiple sites to acquire sufficient material. A well-coordinated terrorist effort against four or five poorly protected nuclear facilities could yield enough material for an atomic weapon, the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s Laura Holgate told reporters at last month’s Vienna conference. Such a multiple attack would not necessarily need to be done simultaneously to succeed, according to another expert. Stolen uranium could go unnoticed, due to poor security and accounting measures, or corrupted officials could fail to report the theft, said Matthew Bunn, a proliferation specialist at Harvard University. Consolidating weapon-usable materials at secure storage sites would reduce the risk of theft, said Bunn, who criticized China’s decision to supply the Nigerian reactor. “It is always a bad thing to spread highly enriched uranium to sites where it does not need to be,” Bunn said. “Particularly sites that are unlikely to be able to be guarded to the standards such material requires.” [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.] Back to top       Bolton Questions IAEA’s Efficiency in Curtailing Nuclear Weapons Proliferation The International Atomic Energy Agency has been inefficient in curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons, while the Bush administration’s nonproliferation initiatives have had successes in Libya and in dismantling the black-market nuclear network, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said Tuesday (see GSN, Sept. 30). Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Bolton said the U.N. agency spends the majority of its resources on monitoring peaceful nations while failing to take necessary action in states of concern, the Washington Times reported. “Fifteen years ago, 80 percent of the agency’s safeguards budget was spent monitoring the compliance with safeguards agreements in three countries:  Canada, Japan, and Germany,” he said.  “Maybe some of you have doubts about Canada. I have no doubts about Japan or Germany, either.” “Now, today, the situation has been improved.  And my understanding is that a mere 60 percent of the IAEA safeguards budget is spent monitoring compliance with the safeguards agreement of Canada, Japan, and Germany,” he added. Meanwhile, Bolton said, the agency had not taken adequate action in addressing Iran’s nuclear work. “Despite the fact that we have now had the Iranian nuclear program, under consideration in the Board of Governors for six meetings, extending over a period of 18 months, the board has not yet come to the conclusion that Iran should be referred to the (U.N.) Security Council,” he said. IAEA statutes say the agency had a mandatory responsibility to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for violating nuclear safeguards, Bolton said (see GSN, Sept. 30). “There’s no doubt that there are legitimate questions about what Iran is up to,” he said. Even if Iran were referred to the council, Bolton said, there is a question among U.S. officials regarding the United Nations’ ability to act. “Are we looking at another situation analogous to the Cold War, where the Security Council is gridlocked?” he said. The need for results in nonproliferation is why the Bush administration launched the Proliferation Security Initiative, “which is, like the IAEA and the Security Council, a multilateral effort,” Bolton said. The October 2003 interdiction of the ship bearing a cargo of uranium centrifuge equipment destined for Libya, was a PSI success, Bolton said (Marion Baillot, Washington Times, Oct. 1). “The seizure of that ship and the equipment on it, we think, had a major … role in Libya’s decision to give up the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction last year,” he said. “And we think that the seizure and the subsequent attention given to it was a major factor in the disruption of the A.Q. Khan network and I think will have a deterrent and dissuasive effect on a number of states that are considering or involved in proliferation matters” Other experts at the AEI event also offered critiques of the present work and mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency. “This is not really an enforcement agency,” said Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation director for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “And, in fact, its primary purpose isn’t really safeguards.  From birth, this was a schizophrenic agency in the Republican administration of President [Dwight] Eisenhower.  This was an agency that was dedicated to the promotion of the peaceful use of nuclear power and nuclear energy.  And it was designed to help make the world safe for nuclear energy.” Despite its founding purpose, Cirincione said the agency remains a useful intelligence-gathering tool in the effort to curtail nuclear weapons proliferation. “If you’re looking to further U.S. national security, if you’re looking to get the best intelligence possible, you have to use all the tools at your disposal.  The IAEA is one of those tools,” he said. “There are difficulties conducting the inspections in Iran, the undersecretary is absolutely right, Iran has been stonewalling.  In many instances [Iran] has not come clean.  And for that reason it goes to the Vienna meetings and the 35-nation board finds unanimously that Iran is not cooperating,” Cirincione said. “But, still, even despite the lack of their full coordination, we are learning an enormous amount about this program and uncovering it and starting to lay it bare.” Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control said the U.N. nuclear watchdog was an anachronistic agency whose usefulness in curtailing proliferation was dubious. “The IAEA really is a historical relic in a sense.  That is, it was invented under Atoms for Peace, at the same time as our old Atomic Energy Commission,” he said.  “We divided up the old Atomic Energy Commission into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and DOE because, we, the United States, perceived that the public wouldn’t accept the idea that the same entity was in charge of both promoting nuclear energy and regulating it,” he said.  “That, unfortunately, however has not happened to the IAEA.  And so the IAEA is still in charge of both promoting and regulating nuclear energy.  In fact, it’s … an international entity whose official mission is proliferation.” He added that misconceptions remain about the agency’s mission in connection with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. “It’s often said that the IAEA’s job is to sort of verify the NPT.  That is not true,” he said.  “The NPT is a treaty with no verification mechanism.  All the IAEA does under the NPT is make agreements, safeguards agreements with countries.  And then the IAEA determines whether those agreements have been fulfilled and that’s it” (Marina Malenic, Global Security Newswire, Oct. 1). Back to top       IAEA Concerned Brazil May Have Bought Nuclear Technology Through Black Market, Expert Says The International Atomic Energy Agency is concerned that Brazil may have acquired nuclear technology through the international smuggling network headed by former top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, a nuclear proliferation expert said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 24). “They are specifically worried about the Khan network being one of the sources of this program,” said Henry Sokolski, a former U.S. Defense Department official and now head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. “I can’t tell you how I know, but I know.” Several diplomats on the IAEA’s Board of Governors confirmed Sokolski’s comments, Reuters reported.  Early this year, Khan confessed to transferring nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.  While the U.N. nuclear watchdog is continuing its investigation, it has not received “information that any other country shopped on the network,” said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Sept. 30). Brazil yesterday rejected allegations that it had illicitly obtained uranium centrifuges, according to the Associated Press. “Brazil is a country with uranium-enrichment technology of its own. It does not belong to the category of nations which are learning technologies,” Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said. “I don’t think there is any concern about Brazil” (Vivian Sequera, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Sept. 30). Back to top       U.S., China Continue to Seek Talks With North Korea By Marina Malenic Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Senior U.S. and Chinese officials meeting here yesterday said they were confident that a diplomat solution to the standoff over North Korea’s nuclear programs could be achieved through six-party negotiations, despite Pyongyang’s decision to forgo the fourth round talks that had been expected last month (see GSN, Sept. 30). U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said their countries and negotiating partners Japan, Russia and South Korea favored pressing for a solution through the established multilateral framework. “All the parties who attend the Beijing six-party talks and, actually, the entire international community, have expressed the views that the resolution of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula through the six-party talks is the only feasible and correct option,” said Li. “I know that China and the United States have a common view that the six-party talks are the way to move forward to resolve the issue of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula,” said Powell, adding that, “I know that our Russian, South Korean and Japanese friends feel the same way.” “We stand ready to engage with North Korea when they decide that they are ready to have another round of discussions,” he added. “They have, in recent weeks, indicated that they are still committed to the six-party talks and we’ll just have to wait and see when they can be rescheduled.” Powell said it is premature to consider whether North Korea’s case should be referred to the U.N. Security Council if the talks proved unproductive. “I think that the six-party framework is what we should be concentrating on and not any other means of dealing with this right now … because it serves the interests of all parties,” he said. “All of North Korea’s neighbors are involved in this. They have as much of an interest and an even greater equity in seeing a denuclearized peninsula than does the United States.” North Korea has reportedly decided to delay additional multilateral talks until it learns the outcome of the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election. Last night, in the first of three debates between President George W. Bush and his Democratic rival Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Bush rejected bilateral talks with Pyongyang (see related GSN story, today). Citing the now-defunct 1994 U.S.-North Korean nuclear agreement, Bush said, “A better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved,” because North Korea would be more prone to abide by a multilateral agreement. “If [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement, he’s not only doing injustice to America, he’d be doing injustice to China, as well.” Kerry said he would open a bilateral discussion to supplement the multilateral talks. “I want bilateral talks which put all the issues from the Armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table,” he said. Bush countered, “The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. It’s exactly what Kim Jong Il wants.” Back to top       U.S. Energy Department Completes First Transfer of Nuclear Materials From Los Alamos The U.S. Energy Department yesterday finished transferring the first batch of nuclear materials from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to a facility at the Nevada Test Site, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, April 27). The purpose of the transfer is to move plutonium and highly enriched uranium from Los Alamos’ Technical Area 18, which has been the focus of security concerns, to a more secure facility at the Nevada Test Site, National Nuclear Security Administration officials said. The agency plans to transfer the most sensitive weapon-grade material from Los Alamos by September 2005, and to complete the transfer of the remaining material by 2008, AP reported.(Leslie Hoffman, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 1). Back to top       Attempted Plutonium Sale Only Involved Smoke Detectors, Kyrgyz Intelligence Agency Says The Kyrgyz National Security Service reported today that a man arrested on suspicion of attempting to sell plutonium had only been trying to sell smoke detectors containing the material (see GSN, Sept. 28). The man was arrested on Sept. 21 after Kyrgyz agents determined that he possessed plutonium 239. The National Security Service released documents today, though, that say the man had only been attempting to sell 60 smoke detectors containing small amounts of the material, according to the Associated Press. The man will remain detained on the charge of illegal use of radioactive materials, the agency said (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 1). Back to top       Bulgarian Police Recover Radioactive Material Bulgarian authorities yesterday recovered a stockpile of radioactive materials from a private home, the Bulgarian Interior Ministry announced (see GSN, Dec. 29, 2003). Acting on a tip, police raided the home of a man identified as Dancho D., located in a town about 25 miles northeast of Sofia, according to the Associated Press. The raid resulted in the recovery of seven containers of radioactive materials, an ampule of a radioactive substance and two mercury containers, police said (Associated Press, Oct. 1). Back to top       Tanzania Joins Test Ban Treaty Tanzania yesterday signed and ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, according to the CTBT Organization (see GSN, Sept. 29).  The country is home to a radionuclide station at the city of Dar es Salaam that is part of a global network used to monitor compliance with the treaty.  To date, 119 countries have ratified the agreement, including 33 of the 44 nations whose ratifications are necessary for the treaty to enter into force (CTBT Organization release, Oct. 1). Back to top

Companies Get U.S. Smallpox Research Funding The United States yesterday awarded contracts worth more than $200 million to two companies for research on safer smallpox vaccines, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Sept. 9). Acambis Inc. of Cambridge, Mass., and Denmark’s Bavarian Nordic A/S already had U.S. funding to begin the work, according to AP. Each is developing a smallpox vaccine with a modified version of the existing inoculation that would be safe for people with weakened immune systems. The additional contracts call for the companies to each produce up to 500,000 doses of vaccine and to perform human trials, said Gerald Kovacs of the National Institutes of Health. If their work is successful, the contracts allow the United States to order another 2.5 million doses from each supplier, according to AP (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Sept. 30). Back to top

Defense Department Conducting Cost-Reduction Studies for Pueblo Chemical Destruction Project Design work on the U.S. Army’s chemical weapons disposal facility in Pueblo, Colo,, will halt for nine months while the U.S. Defense Department seeks design alternatives to reduce the project’s cost, according to a press release issued yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 4). The Pentagon plans to explore ways to build a smaller plant with fewer operating personnel than the facility currently being designed. Neutralization is expected to remain the disposal method at the Pueblo Chemical-Agent Destruction Pilot Plant The facility is scheduled by 2010 to destroy 2,600 tons of mustard-agent filled weaponry stored at the U.S. Army Pueblo Chemical Depot (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Sept. 30). Back to top       Leaking Mustard Projectile Found at Deseret Depot Workers at the Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah yesterday found that one tablespoon of mustard agent had leaked from a 155mm projectile in a storage igloo, the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency announced in a press release (see GSN, Sept. 24). Crews decontaminated the area and secured the projectile in an airtight container. There was no danger to workers or the environment, according to the statement (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Sept. 30). Back to top

Chinese Company Criticizes U.S. Sanctions A Chinese company has threatened legal action after being sanctioned last week by the United States for alleged missile proliferation activities, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Sept. 24). “We hereby express our strong opposition and condemnation of this kind of outrageous and unjustified behavior of the U.S. government,” the Xinshidai Co. said in a joint statement with its parent company, the China New Era Group, according to the Xinhua News Agency. “We strongly demand that the U.S. government provide evidence for the sanctions, respect the fact and lift the sanction immediately,” the company added. “We reserve our right to resort to legal action when necessary.” (Agence France-Presse/ChannelNewsAsia.com, Oct. 1).   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.