Ukraine has been selected as the next recipient country of an international program to follow up on past WMD disarmament efforts, such as the destruction of strategic weapons the nation inherited upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. Above, a Tu-160 long-range bomber was destroyed in 2001 (AFP photo/Mikhail Chernichkin). Ukraine Selected as Next G-8 Global Partnership Recipient, U.S. Official Says By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Ukraine has been selected as the next country to receive nonproliferation aid through an effort conducted by the Group of Eight global economic powers, a U.S. State Department official said this week (see GSN, Sept. 14)...Full Story

U.S. Expected to Activate Missile Defense System After Presidential Election, Official Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The activation of initial components of the national missile defense system planned by President George W. Bush will probably occur at least six to eight weeks from now, a senior U.S. military official said today, placing it well after the Nov. 2 presidential election (see GSN, Oct. 13)...Full Story

Army Anthrax Practices Raise Concerns Over Proposed Biodefense Labs in Urban Centers Mishandling of anthrax at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md., in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks, has raised safety concerns about proposed biodefense facilities that would handle dangerous microbes, USA Today reported today (see GSN, April 30)...Full Story

	Thursday, October 14, 2004

Ukraine Selected as Next G-8 Global Partnership Recipient, U.S. Official Says By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Ukraine has been selected as the next country to receive nonproliferation aid through an effort conducted by the Group of Eight global economic powers, a U.S. State Department official said this week (see GSN, Sept. 14). The decision to include Ukraine as a recipient to the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction was made in the past several weeks, the State Department official said. The official added that no formal announcement has yet been planned. U.S. officials have previously said that an announcement on new Global Partnership recipients could be made by the end of the year. The G-8 Global Partnership, launched in 2002, seeks to provide funding for nonproliferation activities, primarily in Russia. Under the effort, G-8 members — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — have agreed to pledge $20 billion over 10 years. Since the Global Partnership began, a number of additional countries have signed on as donors. The effort has been beset by concerns, though, that funding pledges have fallen short and that little money has been spent on actual projects. To date, nonproliferation projects carried out in Russia with the aid of the Global Partnership have focused primarily on chemical weapons disposal and nuclear submarine dismantlement. While saying that Ukraine has made suggestions as to what types of projects it would like to have supported, the State Department official refused to provide details. Funding levels would be based on the needs for proposed projects. One possible project, according to Raphael Della Ratta of the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, is an effort to redirect former Soviet nuclear, biological and missile scientists in Ukraine to civilian research projects. The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington did not respond to calls for comment. Della Ratta yesterday praised the addition of Ukraine to the Global Partnership, saying it was “very important” that the effort begins to expand beyond Russia.  One concern, though, centers on efforts to construct a new concrete shelter for the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine, the site of a major radiological disaster in 1986. Noting that the issue of nuclear safety had “creeped into” the Global Partnership, Della Ratta questioned whether countries that have contributed to the Chernobyl shelter would seek to have those funds apply to the Global Partnership as well, thereby reducing funding for new projects. Proposals to include Ukraine in the Global Partnership as a recipient country stretch back to the launching of the initiative at the 2002 G-8 summit in Canada, according to experts. The State Department official said that G-8 members last year received a formal request from Kiev asking to be considered as a recipient, the first stage in what the official described as an informal process. G-8 members then reviewed Ukraine’s commitment to nonproliferation principles and examined possible projects in the country before agreeing by consensus to expand the Global Partnership, the official said. In May, Kiev received a letter from U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton welcoming Ukraine’s willingness to join the Global Partnership, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Strengthening the Global Partnership Project While the issue of expanding the Global Partnership was expected to be a topic at this year’s G-8 summit, held this summer in the United States, no formal announcement was made at that time. Noting that Ukraine launched its attempt to join the Global Partnership soon after the effort began, the State Department official said other countries’ applications would likely take less time to resolve. To date, Armenia, Georgia and Kazakhstan have sent letters to the G-8 members asking to be considered as possible Global Partnership recipients, the official said. An expert-level working group meeting on the Global Partnership is expected to be held in mid-November. It should include discussion on other possible recipients, the State Department official said. The working group’s findings are set to be discussed during a meeting of G-8 senior officials expected to be held by the end of the year, the official said. Ideally, Della Ratta said, Iraq and Libya could also be added as Global Partnership recipients sometime in the future. The two countries share a number of nonproliferation issues with Russia, he said, such as the presence of chemical weapons in Libya and former WMD and missile scientists in Iraq and Libya.  Back to top       United States Refuses to Lift Sanctions Imposed on Indian Scientists for Alleged Aid to Iran The United States does not plan to lift sanctions imposed on two Indian nuclear scientists for allegedly aiding Iran’s WMD and missile programs, the Pakistan Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 4). Last month, the United States imposed sanctions on 14 entities, including two Indian scientists identified as C. Surender and Y.S.R. Prasad, for violating the Iran Nonproliferation Act. Surender has said that he has never visited Iran, but was contacted by Iranian nuclear officials at least once for aid to Tehran’s nuclear program, according to the Times.  Prasad has said that he had visited Iran, once to “observe” the installation of a Russian nuclear reactor similar to one set to be installed in a nuclear power plant Russia is constructing for India. The scientist also visited Iran several times on assignments from the International Atomic Energy Agency, most recently in mid-2003, according to the Times (Pakistan Times, Oct. 14). Back to top

Russia Announces Completion of Iranian Reactor The Russian Atomic Energy Agency announced today that construction has been completed on the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran, according to Reuters (see GSN, Oct. 12). “We’re done. All we need to do now is work out (with the Iranians) the agreement on sending spent fuel back to Russia,” an agency spokesman said. Russia has not provided reactor fuel yet and has pledged not to start the reactor until it reaches an agreement with Iran on the return of spent reactor fuel, which could be used to make nuclear weapons. Alexander Rumyantsev, head of the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, is set to travel to Iran late next month (Reuters/Washington Post, Oct. 14). Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported today that differing views on whether or not international sanctions and inspections can prevent states from developing weapons of mass destruction are complicating efforts to develop a consensus between the United States and Europe on the response to Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons development (see GSN, Oct. 13). While officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency have argued that sanctions and inspections were effective in halting Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, the Bush administration has seized on aspects of the report released last week by chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq Charles Duelfer (see GSN, Oct. 7). Duelfer concluded that the United Nations sanctions “were in free fall,” the Times reported. He disagreed with assertions by some that sanctions regime was “working” in Iraq, instead saying that it succeeded in “modifying [former Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein]’s behavior.” President George W. Bush has used Duelfer’s findings to argue that Hussein was “gaming” the U.N. oil-for-food sanctions system, waiting for international attention to subside so he could renew his weapons program. Statements by Douglas Feith, the senior policy planning official at the U.S. Defense Department, have increased speculation that Washington is contemplating military action against Iran. “And you know, one of the options short of war was a kind of sanctions regime that the oil-for-food program was supposed to provide,” Feith told the Washington Times last week. “If it’s a completely corrupt program and it doesn’t work and it’s ineffective . . . then you have fewer options short of war” (see GSN, Oct. 8). Such remarks, according to the Financial Times, underscore the differing approaches to sanctions — for U.S. neoconservatives such as Feith, sanctions are a tool for “regime change,” while for Europeans, they are a tool for containment. The Bush administration is “not a great lover of sanctions when it sees other alternatives at its disposal,” according to Raad al-Kadiri, an analyst at PFC energy consultancy in Washington and a former adviser to the coalition authority in Baghdad. He added, however, that he doubted Washington would take military action without first attempting to impose sanctions (Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, Oct. 14). In Washington, a U.S. State Department spokesman said yesterday that the administration remains intent on having Iran’s case referred to the U.N. Security Council, while remaining open to the possibility that Iran can be induced in other ways to comply with a recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution demanding it halt uranium enrichment activities. “We continue to believe that Iran’s past behavior merits referral to the Security Council,” said spokesman Richard Boucher. “But I think … if Iran came around and did what they’re being asked to do, everybody would take that into account,” he added. “And so, on Friday, we’re going to … hear from the Europeans on the work they have been doing on how to get the Iranians to comply, and we’re going to discuss with them, further, what to do if … there is agreement in November to refer it [to the Security Council],” Boucher said (State Department briefing, Oct. 13). Back to top       Journalists Tour Iraqi Nuclear Site The Iraqi staff of the Tuwaitha nuclear complex provided a tour of the site to journalists yesterday in an attempt to address International Atomic Energy Agency concerns that high-precision nuclear equipment had been looted from Iraqi sites, according to the Financial Times (see GSN, Oct. 13). During the tour, journalists were taken to a building known as Location C where more than 500 tons of yellowcake uranium is stored under IAEA seal, according to the Times. Journalists also saw a hole in a barbed wire fence near the building used as a shortcut by nearby villagers, the Times reported. Tuwaitha personnel said they believe the United States removed most of the facility’s materials while it was under U.S. control from about April 2003 to July 2004, according to the Times. An Iraqi physicist said that he believed most of the missing equipment had been destroyed. “It is true what ElBaradei says, but he is exaggerating,” the physicist said, referring to IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Residents of a neighboring village Wardiya said they only took plastic barrels containing radioactive materials during looting last year. They dumped the uranium out — not knowing what it was — and used the barrels to hold drinking and bathing water. “We only took the barrels. How would I know what any of this other equipment is used for? How would I know who to sell it to,” said village resident Abed Ali al-Zubeidi. Villagers since the looting suffered rashes and other health problems. The United Nations inspected the village for contaminated material and treated illnesses, while U.S. troops bought the containers at $3 a piece, according to the Times (Charles Clover, Financial Times, Oct. 14). Back to top       U.S., EU Differ on Whether to Permanently Cancel North Korean Nuclear Reactor Project The European Union supports the continued suspension of a light-water nuclear reactor project in North Korea during diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff over Pyongyang’s nuclear program, Yonhap news agency reported (see GSN, Oct. 13). The United States, however, is pushing to terminate the project permanently, according to Yonhap (see GSN, May 28). It was suspended for one year nearly 11 months ago, after the United States accused North Korea of uranium-enrichment efforts (see GSN, Nov. 21, 2003).  “We don’t think there is any reason to terminate it at this stage,” said Dorian Prince, the EU ambassador to South Korea. “We don’t want to do anything negative, and we see no reason to change our position.” He added that he believed terminating the project could have a negative influence on diplomatic efforts with Pyongyang (Kazinform.com, Oct. 14). A South Korean official also voiced support today for a continued suspension, adding that the program should be considered for resumption if the standoff with North Korea is resolved, the Korea Times reported. “Though the project has been stopped due to the (North’s) nuclear problem, we believe it should be resumed if the six-party talks go well and produce tangible results,” Foreign Affairs Minister Ban Ki-moon said (Ryu Jin, Korea Times, Oct 14). Meanwhile, Washington is expected to move quickly following the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election to begin a new round of talks on North Korea’s nuclear program, South Korea’s ambassador to the United States told Reuters yesterday. If Democrat John Kerry is elected, Ambassador Han Sung-joo said it was “quite plausible” that that the North Koreans would wait until he took office on Jan. 20 before resuming talks. He added that he believed a potential Kerry administration “will take advantage of experienced people (who worked on North Korea) during the Clinton administration ... and so they can get to work on this issue — which they consider a highly important and urgent issue — almost immediately after taking office.” Kerry has said he would continue multilateral talks but would also engage in bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang, as Clinton did. The Bush administration has recently allowed senior U.S. envoys to hold side discussions with the North Koreans during multilateral talks, but continues an official policy of only engaging with the North in a multilateral setting. Such contacts constitute a “dialogue” rather than “negotiation,” according to Han. They have “not been terribly productive,” he said. If Bush is re-elected, Han said he did not expect much change in the U.S. policy on North Korea. The Bush administration “wants to see a resolution of this (nuclear) issue through ... dialogue and by peaceful means and I think there will be a stepped-up effort to realize the fourth round of the six-party talks with concrete dates,” Han said. Following U.S. elections, Pyongyang could respond more favorably to recent U.S. overtures, such as repeated statements of nonhostility and allowing North Korean representatives at the United Nations to attend a conference in Washington, Han said. “All the U.S. has to do is to continue to do what it has been doing,” Han said (Carol Giacomo, Reuters, Oct. 13). Back to top       Taiwan Denies Reports of 1980s Plutonium Experiments A Taiwanese official said today that his nation’s nuclear weapons program did not involve separating plutonium before being shut down in the 1980s, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Oct. 13). Diplomats in Vienna said yesterday that the International Atomic Energy Agency has discovered evidence that plutonium experiments were conducted about 20 years ago in Taiwan. A senior Taiwanese nuclear official said today, though, that the experiments never happened. Plutonium from nuclear reactors must be separated and purified for use in nuclear weapons, according to AP. “We never made any plutonium separation experiments, not in the 1980s, and not earlier,” said Yang Chao-yie, deputy chairman of the Taiwanese Cabinet’s Atomic Energy Council. “The program was just research.” Taiwan follows a policy of full cooperation with the U.N. agency, Yang said, adding that Taiwan next year plans to install remote-control monitoring equipment at sensitive sites. “The inspectors will be able to find the information they want from their seats in Vienna,” he said (Stephan Grauwels, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 14). Back to top       Switzerland Investigating Possible Nuclear Smuggling Switzerland has begun an investigation into allegations that two Swiss citizens may have been involved in smuggling nuclear technology, a government spokesman said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 12). The spokesman said that other unknown individuals were also under investigation, according to Agence France-Presse. The Swiss effort is separate from a German investigation of allegations that Swiss engineer Urs Tinner helped smuggle nuclear technology to Libya (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 13). Back to top       Tennessee Facility Begins Converting Weapon-Grade Uranium for Nuclear Power Reactors Nuclear Fuel Services of Tennessee has begun downblending 33 metric tons of weapon-grade uranium into commercial reactor fuel for electricity production by the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 13). The material will come from the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. “The first shipments have already left the facility,” Tony Treadway, spokesman for the NFS plant in Erwin, about 120 miles north of Knoxville, said yesterday. Nuclear Fuel Services received a final license amendment to begin the process, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Tuesday. The regulatory process resulting in the decision began in 2002, according to AP, and no public hearings were held. The Sierra Club, the Tennessee Environmental Council, the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance and other environmental groups who oppose the project plan to file an appeal tomorrow demanding a full environmental impact statement, AP reported (Associated Press/Washington Post, Oct. 13). Back to top       Russia Resumes Submarine Construction for India Russia this month resumed construction of two Project 971 nuclear-powered attack submarines to be leased to India, according to The Hindu (see GSN, June 7). Construction of the submarines, which are improved versions of Russia’s Akula 2 attack submarine, was suspended several years ago because of a funding shortage, the Hindu reported. India is expected to arm the submarines with the 300-kilometer Club nuclear-capable missile. Similar submarines in the Russian navy have carried up to 28 cruise missiles (Vladimir Radyuhin, The Hindu, Oct. 14). Back to top

Army Anthrax Practices Raise Concerns Over Proposed Biodefense Labs in Urban Centers Mishandling of anthrax at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md., in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks, has raised safety concerns about proposed biodefense facilities that would handle dangerous microbes, USA Today reported today (see GSN, April 30). Bruce Ivins, a biodefense expert involved in Operation Noble Eagle — the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the subsequent anthrax mailings — recounted a December 2001 incident at the laboratory in which his officemate complained about careless handling of samples that could be tainted with anthrax. “I swabbed approximately 20 areas of (her) desk, including the telephone computer and desktop,” Ivins told Army investigators. Half of the samples “were suspicious for anthrax,” he said. Ivins said he disinfected the desk and did not report the incident to his superiors.  “I had no desire to cry wolf,” he later told an Army investigator. Such incidents were part of a larger pattern of mishandling of the pathogen, according to a 361-page U.S. Army report on the events of late 2001 and early 2002 at the institute. The six-member team that worked in the USAMRIID lab that handled anthrax was increased to 85 researchers in the wake of the attacks that killed five people. Most of the new workers had to learn to handle the pathogen “on the fly,” according to USAMRIID’s commander, Col. Erik Henchal, who led the forensic effort. Up to 70 researchers slept in cars or on cots to keep up with the workload, USA Today reported. Over the course of approximately eight months, the lab tested 30,000 suspicious envelopes, packages and other items. Researchers also tested about 320,000 environmental samples from locations such as the Hart Senate Office Building and Washington, D.C.’s Brentwood postal center. “They were running just fantastic numbers of (anthrax) samples,” said biodefense expert D.A. Henderson of the University of Pittsburgh. “I’m not sure what they have accomplished is appreciated.” Three strains of anthrax were found to have escaped from the Biosafety Level 3 laboratory in April 2002. Continued testing uncovered contamination in three other areas, including the office used by Ivins. Roughly 90 laboratory personnel were tested for exposure to anthrax, but no one became ill. “The good news is nobody got the disease,” said Alan Zelicoff, a biodefense expert and consultant. “The bad news is that nobody got the disease because just about everybody near the BL-3 suite had been vaccinated.” Such difficulties increase concerns about other proposed biodefense labs, some experts have said. About 50 maximum-containment labs nationwide harbor the deadliest bacteria, viruses and toxins, according to USA Today, and 40 new biodefense research labs are planned in cities such as Atlanta and Boston. “The message here from a scientific and policy standpoint is profound,” said Zelicoff. “Facilities that are medical and microbiological may not be suitably equipped for dealing with aerosolized versions of the organisms that they otherwise deal with in great safety. ... These facilities probably ought not be located in a heavily populated area. How do you contain smoke?” Accidents are rare and the kind of work deluge the Fort Detrick laboratory faced after the attacks is unlikely to be a factor in the future, said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “Most scientists do things in a very careful way,” Fauci said. “The chance that they’ll be working in the same rushed atmosphere they faced at Fort Detrick is very small” (Barbrow/O’Brian, USA Today, Oct. 14). Back to top

U.S. Expected to Activate Missile Defense System After Presidential Election, Official Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The activation of initial components of the national missile defense system planned by President George W. Bush will probably occur at least six to eight weeks from now, a senior U.S. military official said today, placing it well after the Nov. 2 presidential election (see GSN, Oct. 13). The components are undergoing a final “shakedown” to make last-minute adjustments that could take up to two months, said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John Holly, program director for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, speaking at an event here sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation. Holly said the decision to begin “initial defensive operations” probably would be made by Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “I would argue it’s probably the president and the secretary of defense that make the decision of when we actually go operational, given the advice of the Joint Staff and the combatant commanders involved. They’ll make that decision about what’s the right point in time,” he said. “In the absence of a compelling threat,” that decision is not likely to be made before the end of the shakedown period, Holly said. Holly was not specific about what would occur during the shakedown period. “We’ll work our way through and identify things that need to be changed and tweaked,” he said. Critics have charged the planned deployment, ordered by Bush in December 2002 to occur by the end of 2004, is politically motivated. They argue the system currently offers little or no defensive capability, noting that missile defense has not been subjected to realistic operational testing, numerous flight tests have been delayed, and key radars and satellite systems may not be ready for years (see GSN, Sept. 30). The initial components are expected to include at least six interceptor missiles based at Fort Greely, Alaska; potentially two interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California; satellite, ground- and sea-based radar; and massive communications and command and control hardware at sites across the West Coast and the Pacific. “We’re not done yet, we’re in a start mode,” Holly said. Military officials had anticipated the system would be activated on Oct. 1, which is the beginning of this fiscal year and about one month before the presidential elections. Rumsfeld and former Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish had “further refined” Bush’s goal of the end of 2004 “to mean 1 Oct. 2004,” an Air Force Space Command officer said in an unusually candid presentation on the subject last year. Rumsfeld in August said he did not remember setting the date and that there was no firm deadline for the deployment (see GSN, Aug. 19).    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.