U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney (left) and Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) debated prewar Iraq’s WMD capability and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s potential connection to terrorists, last night during the 2004 vice presidential debate (AFP photo/Don Emmert). Potential Iraq WMD-Terror Alliance Justified Iraq War, Cheney Says in Debate By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The Bush administration decided to invade Iraq and remove the regime of then-President Saddam Hussein because the country was viewed as the “most likely” nation to share weapons of mass destruction with terrorists, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said during the vice presidential debate last night...Full Story

Fierce Opposition Greets U.S. Plutonium in France By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Amid intense protests by antinuclear groups, a ship containing more than 100 kilograms of Cold War U.S. plutonium arrived early this morning in France, where the material is to be made into reactor fuel for use in the United States (see GSN, Sept. 22)...Full Story

Survey Group Report to Say Iraq Did Not Possess WMD Stockpiles or Plans to Develop Them, Officials Say Chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq Charles Duelfer is set to say in a report today that prewar Iraq did not possess, or have plans to develop, weapons of mass destruction, U.S. officials said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 5)...Full Story

	Wednesday, October 6, 2004

Senate Intelligence Reform Bill Vote Set For Today By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate is set to vote today on intelligence reform legislation that would create a national director of intelligence, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said yesterday, adding that he expected the bill to be approved (see GSN, Oct. 5). The Senate voted 85-10 yesterday to approve a motion to end debate on the bill, which is intended to implement the intelligence reform proposals put forth this summer by the Sept. 11 commission. During a press conference, Frist praised his colleagues for rejecting several amendments to the bill that would have significantly modified the authority of the planned national intelligence director, such as a proposal to provide the director with direct authority over several intelligence agencies currently controlled by the Defense Department. “I’m just delighted with how the debate has gone, and I can see a light at the end of the tunnel,” Frist said. The move to end debate on the bill was opposed, though, by several influential senators, including the leaders of the Appropriations Committee — Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and top committee Democrat Robert Byrd (W.Va.), as well as Senator Carl Levin (Mich.), the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Both Stevens and Levin criticized their colleagues for moving too fast on intelligence reform. “I want the record to show I do not think this subject, reform of the intelligence community, has ever taken such a short period of time,” Stevens said, noting that the full Senate began debate on the intelligence reform bill last week. “I think this rush is unbecoming of the Senate. … I am appalled that we are moving at this pace,” he added. On Monday, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine), one of the original authors of the bill, stressed the need to work quickly. “I will predict right here and now that it will never pass, if we delay until next year,” she said. Once the Senate completes work on the bill, it is set to tackle another of the recommendations made by the Sept. 11 commission — the improvement of congressional oversight of homeland security and intelligence, according to Frist, who added that he expected both bills to be completed this week. This week, a 22-member Senate working group released recommendations to modify the structures of several committees, including the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to improve oversight. The working group’s proposals, however, do not go as far as those made by the Sept. 11 commission, which recommended either the creation of a joint House-Senate intelligence committee or the creation of separate committees in each house of Congress with consolidated appropriations and authorization authority. “There are a few members of our conference that think we didn’t go far enough, and there are a good many more than that that think we went too far. … But the goal here is to simplify the process of oversight,” said Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who along with Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), headed the working group. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) is expected to offer an amendment to consolidate appropriations and authorization authority in the House and Senate intelligence committees. “We all know around here the golden rule — and if you don’t have the power of appropriations, you don’t have power,” he said yesterday. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said he expected both the intelligence reform bill and the oversight recommendations to receive wide support in the Senate. “I think that both of them, while they have their detractors and critics, I think by and large we have strong support,” he said. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is expected tomorrow to begin considering its version of the intelligence reform bill, which would create a national intelligence director with less budgetary and personnel authority than envisioned in the Senate legislation. The House bill also differs from its Senate counterpart in containing a number of provisions related to new antiterrorism powers, illegal immigration and border security (see GSN, Sept. 27).  “I believe this is a fair bill that reflects the will of the 9/11 commission. I believe it reflects the will of Congress to protect the American people. And I believe it reflects the American people’s resolve to win the war on terror. It’s the right thing to do to keep this country safe,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said yesterday. The House bill came under fire, though, from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who charged that House Democrats had been left largely out of its creation. “The Republican 9/11 bill is weak where it should be strong; we can do better and we must,” Pelosi said. The White House has come out largely in favor of the Senate intelligence reform bill (see GSN, Sept. 29). In a letter sent yesterday to Hastert, the House Democratic leadership called for the bill to be debated on the House floor without restrictions to give representatives “the maximum ability” for debate and to offer amendments. “Any other procedure would be inconsistent with the special duty we have to treat matters dealing with Sept. 11 as hallowed ground,” the letter says. A Hastert spokesman said today that that the bill would be debated through an “open process,” and accused Democratic lawmakers of “trying to have it both ways” by first calling for quick passage and now seeking a long debate on the bill. Daschle (D-S.D.) was optimistic yesterday that the differences between the House and Senate intelligence reform bills could be resolved. “This is one of those rare occasions when I actually think that both the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, may come together here and do the right thing and do something that could be viewed as a real bipartisan effort,” he said. Daschle also said, though, “If this becomes somewhat of a political football again, all bets are off.” Back to top       Key Player in Homeland Security’s Creation Sees Trouble Ahead for Regionalization, Oversight Efforts By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The chief sponsor of the law that created the U.S. Homeland Security Department said yesterday that the planned creation of a regional structure for the department could meet with trouble. Former House of Representatives majority leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), who is now senior policy adviser at the Piper Rudnick law firm, said efforts to streamline legislative oversight of the 2-year-old department could also pose problems. Homeland Security has signaled plans to create a number of regional offices around the country in a structure that could resemble that of agencies such as the FBI, but participants in a Heritage Foundation discussion on the plan yesterday indicated the ultimate role of the offices remains unclear. In the event’s keynote speech, Armey said many of the component agencies of the department, most of which formerly stood alone or belonged to other Cabinet agencies, are already organized by region. The boundaries of their regional offices’ jurisdictions rarely coincide, he said, and Homeland Security’s bid to integrate the offices is likely to run up against “parochialism” and tenacious “civic relationships.” A town that is home to a major agency office, Armey said, could be loath to give up the office if Homeland Security moves to set up a consolidated regional bureau in another location. “That community, unfortunately, has both a congressman and a senator” to protect its interests at the expense of the department’s plans, Armey said. Armey expressed support for the principle of a regionalized Homeland Security Department. He said a regional structure could be particularly useful to remote towns that may contain critical infrastructure — he offered the example of a nuclear plant — but are too small or poor to successfully seek federal help in protecting such sites. Whatever the merits of regionalization, according to Homeland Security-watcher Dan Kaniewski of George Washington University, the department has made clear its intention to create regional offices by requesting $3.45 million in fiscal 2005 for the purpose. Kaniewski, who is deputy director of the university’s Homeland Security Policy Institute, said Homeland Security should at least create a single contact per region for state and local officials involved in antiterrorism efforts, who now often face confusion about where to turn for help from the federal government. Heritage Foundation homeland-security expert James Carafano, who presided over the event, said regionalization is likely to have a lasting impact on U.S. defenses. He predicted a “long, protracted conflict” against terrorist groups, likening the struggle to the Cold War. “The decisions that we make in the next few years about how we organize homeland security will stand for generations,” Carafano said. Armey did not clearly endorse any of several options Congress is considering for streamlining legislative oversight of Homeland Security, but he repeated the oft-heard complaint that the legislature is placing an overly onerous oversight burden on the department. The authority of the House’s temporary Select Committee on Homeland Security remains fragile, and department officials are currently obliged to testify before dozens of committees on Capitol Hill. Senators this week proposed turning the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee into a standing “homeland security-government operations” panel (see GSN, Oct. 5), while the select House committee has sought permanent standing status (see GSN, Oct. 1). “I don’t think Congress has yet devised a very effective model for oversight,” Armey said. He likened the current House panel to the House Budget Committee, which Armey said was filled, when it was created in the 1970s, with members seeking to protect the budget responsibilities of other committees on which they sat. Members of the current House select committee include several chairs of established, related committees. “Everybody is on that committee because why? He wants to protect his legacy interests, and you’ve got a committee there that’s a bit hamstrung,” Armey said. Armey, a longtime advocate of smaller government, said he initially thought creating the massive Homeland Security Department could lead to an overall reduction in the size of the U.S. government as the department’s agencies began to share functions that each once performed for itself. “That was probably a naive hope, but at least it was a rationale that got me through the night,” he said. Back to top

Potential Iraq WMD-Terror Alliance Justified Iraq War, Cheney Says in Debate By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The Bush administration decided to invade Iraq and remove the regime of then-President Saddam Hussein because the country was viewed as the “most likely” nation to share weapons of mass destruction with terrorists, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said during the vice presidential debate last night. Cheney’s remarks prompted his challenger for the job, Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), to charge the vice president with not “being straight” about any prewar Iraqi threat and to suggest the administration had neglected more serious potential proliferation concerns from North Korea and Iran.   Cheney’s remarks also came despite a substantial and growing body of conclusions by credible government sources that an Iraqi relationship with terrorists was not developing and that Iraq possessed no WMD stockpiles. The federal Sept. 11 commission concluded that there was no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al-Qaeda, U.S. intelligence officials have indicated prewar Iraq was not deemed an imminent threat, and U.S. investigators in Iraq are expected to report today that Iraq posed a diminishing WMD threat before the war (see related GSN story, today). Cheney criticized the argument of presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) that a U.S. president must show the Americans and the world that a U.S. attack is justified, and said that knowing what he knows now, he would still have advised attacking Iraq. “The effort that we’ve mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction,” Cheney said in response to a question. “What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I’d recommend exactly the right — same course of action,” he said. President George W. Bush, debating Kerry last week, reiterated his administration’s position that the war on Iraq was justified because the United States “must take threats seriously before they fully materialize (see GSN, Oct. 1).” Cheney Called Misleading Edwards said Cheney was suggesting a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda that did not exist. “You’ve gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There’s not.  And in fact, the CIA is now about to report that the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best. And in fact, the secretary of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection. We need to be straight with the American people,” Edwards said. Edwards accused the Bush administration of prematurely starting a war with Iraq, cutting off U.N. inspections of the country that might have revealed “what we now know, that in fact, there were no weapons of mass destruction.” Cheney said that “there’s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. And the point is that that’s the place where you’re most likely to see the terrorist come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years.” “The concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been for years listed on the state sponsor of terror; that he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; [Hussein] paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with al-Qaeda,” Cheney said. Cheney’s suggestion last night that Iraq might have shared weapons of mass destruction in the future with al-Qaeda echoed remarks he and Bush have made on the campaign trail this summer. At a campaign speech Saturday in Ohio, Bush called Iraq a “gathering danger” and Hussein “a threat.” “We didn’t find the stockpiles we all thought were there.  But, remember, Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction.  He could have passed that capability onto a terrorist enemy, and that was a risk we could not afford to take after Sept. 11,” he said. At Odds With Other Conclusions Such comments appear at odds with assessments by the intelligence community and other top officials recently. A new CIA assessment reported Monday by Knight Ridder said there was no evidence that Hussein’s regime harbored alleged Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said at an event this week that he had seen no “strong, hard evidence” linking Hussein and al-Qaeda and that suspected Jordanian terrorist al-Zarqawi, believed responsible for beheadings of Westerners and other terrorism in Iraq, was probably not allied to bin Laden. Cheney last night said there were still questions about a possible relationship between Hussein and al-Zarqawi. Bush said in June “Zarqawi’s the best evidence of connection to al-Qaeda affiliates and al-Qaeda.” Former CIA director George Tenet in a speech last February said U.S. intelligence analysts did not view Iraq as an imminent threat prior to the war.  Tenet in an October 2002 letter to Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote that Iraq was not sharing weapons of mass destruction with terrorists but “probably would become much less constrained” in conducting terrorism against the United States, and possibly use chemical or biological weapons. The letter also noted “growing indications of a relationship with al-Qaeda,” though apparently not a cooperative one. A Sunday New York Times article said top nuclear weapons experts prior to the war had disputed a claim by Cheney and other top Bush administration officials that aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to purchase prior to the war were for building nuclear weapons. It said the administration often did not disclose that dissent from the public. Edwards said Iran’s nuclear weapons program makes it “more dangerous today than they were four years ago” and called Tehran “the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.” Cheney said the administration has “made major progress in dealing here with a major issue with respect to nuclear proliferation, and we’ll continue to press very hard on the North Koreans and the Iranians as well.” Global Test Cheney took issue with Kerry’s assertion last week that a U.S. president should justify an attack made in self-defense. Kerry said a U.S. president has the right to a pre-emptive strike. He said, though, prior to such an attack the president should provide evidence to his country and the world that the strike is justified. The administration failed to do that, Kerry said. “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. Customary international law for more than 100 years has required that states have evidence of an imminent threat to justify a pre-emptive attack in self-defense. The Bush administration has asserted that such evidence isn’t required — that the United States can attack a country before a threat develops, which would be a preventive rather than pre-emptive attack. Cheney echoed charges by Republicans that Kerry at that debate had advocated allowing other countries to prevent use of U.S. force in self-defense. “We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed pre-emptively to protect the United States,” he said. “That’s part of a track record that goes back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time and said, ‘Troops should not be deployed without U.N. approval.’”   Edwards said Cheney was being misleading in his characterization of Kerry’s policy, and Edwards said Kerry “will never give any country veto power over the security of the United States of America.” Edwards said further that prior to a war, “We’re going to make sure that the American people know the truth about why we’re using force and what the explanation for it is. … We’re also going to make sure that we tell the world the truth because the reality is for America to lead, for America to do what it’s done for 50 years before this president and vice president came into office, it is critical that we be credible.” Edwards did not fully articulate Kerry’s position, however, which is that a pre-emptive attack should be an option for a U.S. president but preventive war — against a threat for which there is no evidence of imminence — should not be contemplated. Back to top       Survey Group Report to Say Iraq Did Not Possess WMD Stockpiles or Plans to Develop Them, Officials Say Chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq Charles Duelfer is set to say in a report today that prewar Iraq did not possess, or have plans to develop, weapons of mass destruction, U.S. officials said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 5). The report of the latest findings of the Iraq Survey Group, the unit conducting the search for evidence of prewar Iraq’s WMD efforts, states that while former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein wanted to develop weapons of mass destruction, he did not have the means to do so, officials said. The unit found that Iraq’s WMD programs and knowledge base were in far worse shape in 2003 than when U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, according to the Washington Post. “They have not found anything yet,” one U.S. official said. The report is set to say, though, that Iraq had plans to develop a ballistic missile with a range of between 400 and 1,000 kilometers, and plans to develop a cruise missile with a range of 1,000 kilometers, a senior official said. Both systems would have violated the 150-kilometer range allowed by the United Nations, according to the Post. The report also includes a long list of various individuals and companies from around the world that illegally traded with prewar Iraq, the senior official said. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the report would help illustrate the threat posed by prewar Iraq and the need for war, the Post reported. “I think the report will continue to show that he was a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction,” McClellan said. Representative Jane Harman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the report demonstrates just the opposite. “Intentions do not constitute a growing danger,” Harman said. “It’s hardly ‘mushroom clouds’, hardly ‘stockpiles’” (Allen/Priest, Washington Post, Oct. 6). Back to top       Poland Opens WMD Training Center Poland yesterday opened a center for training military personnel and civilians to defend against WMD attacks, the PAP news agency reported (see GSN, July 27). The center is located at the National Defense Academy in Rembertow outside Warsaw, according to the report. Col. Leszek Slomka, head of the center, said threats have changed and “we must be prepared for facing them” (PAP news agency/BBC Monitoring, Oct. 5). Back to top

Fierce Opposition Greets U.S. Plutonium in France By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Amid intense protests by antinuclear groups, a ship containing more than 100 kilograms of Cold War U.S. plutonium arrived early this morning in France, where the material is to be made into reactor fuel for use in the United States (see GSN, Sept. 22). Activist groups say the military plutonium poses a security risk, but backers stress that the program is intended to increase global security by taking weapon-usable nuclear material out of circulation. “Anytime we can dispose of plutonium, whether it’s surplus plutonium or whether it’s plutonium out of a nuclear weapon, it’s a good thing,” U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Bryan Wilkes said yesterday in an interview. French opponents of the plan have mounted a series of sometimes dramatic protests in recent days but said heavy security at the plutonium’s arrival in Cherbourg prevented them from getting close to the material today. “The military nature of the arrival in France clearly demonstrates that nuclear weapons materials are a threat to global security and have no place in commerce,” Greenpeace campaigner Tom Clements said today in a statement. The plutonium is to be taken across France by truck. Greenpeace and allied groups contend that the material’s presence jeopardizes public security in the country and that industry is using the program to encourage expanded plutonium production. “International efforts to stop the development of nuclear weapons have been taken hostage by the commercial plutonium industry,” Greenpeace France antinuclear head Yannick Rousselet said yesterday in a statement. “The goal of today’s action,” Rousselet said after Greenpeace yesterday briefly blocked a road over which the plutonium was expected to be transported, “is to send a signal to the American, French and British governments that they must stop plutonium proliferation before a disaster occurs.” The U.S.-French operation stems from a 2000 agreement in which the United States and Russia each pledged to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapon-grade plutonium. The two countries chose to convert the plutonium into mixed uranium-plutonium oxide and to use that material, known as MOX, as fuel in civil nuclear reactors. The United States and Russia both plan to build facilities to produce MOX. Before beginning construction at a South Carolina site, however, the United States opted to send the one-time plutonium shipment to France for conversion at an existing MOX plant. Beginning next year, the resulting assemblies are to be used in the United States as a test fuel batch for MOX-based power generation. The amount of U.S. plutonium involved has generated confusion in recent days. French nuclear firm Areva, which is conducting the conversion operation, said today in a statement that 140 kilograms arrived in Cherbourg, repeating the number that has been reported by most press outlets. Wilkes said yesterday, however, that only 125 kilograms of the material was sent to France. He said confusion arose because the agreement governing the program allowed the United States to send up to 140 kilograms. The plutonium left Charleston, S.C., two weeks ago, and activists first expected it to arrive over the weekend. They now hypothesize that the two ships involved, only one of which contained plutonium, had been waiting at sea in recent days — first for the weekend to be over so that part-time activists would leave Cherbourg and return to their jobs, then for the outcome of a suit filed by Areva requesting that Greenpeace be ordered to keep its distance from the plutonium. A Cherbourg court ruled yesterday in favor of the company, setting possible fines approaching $100,000. “They sailed in circles for a little while,” spokesman Stephane Lhomme of the activist group Sortir du Nucleaire said today in an interview. The heavily armed state of the boats, Lhomme added, shows that a terrorist threat existed that made waiting at sea a security risk in itself. After arriving in Cherbourg, the plutonium was transported by truck to an Areva site in nearby La Hague. Areva plans to keep the plutonium in La Hague for at least 48 hours, according to Lhomme. Protected by layers of stiff security measures, some of them secret, the material is then to be taken to the company’s Cadarache and Marcoule plants in the south. “It’s quite frankly irresponsible for some of these groups to do the fear-mongering that they’re doing, because we have a safe, responsible plan,” Wilkes said. “We are confident that the arrangements that have been made with our partners are sufficient and strong enough so that the material will be protected every step of the way.” “When you don’t have the arguments or the facts on your side, you just have to maybe yell a little louder or cause a little bit more commotion, and that seems to be what’s happening,” Wilkes said. When a truck carrying enriched uranium from Germany was involved in a minor traffic accident yesterday near Beaugency, France, however, the campaigners seized the opportunity to make their point. “Although the consequences appear to be limited, this event illustrates the threat that looms over the population because of shipments of nuclear materials, particularly plutonium and uranium,” Sortir du Nucleaire said in a hurriedly issued statement. Yesterday’s blockade took place on a road between Cherbourg and La Hague. It was the latest action in an intense campaign that antinuclear groups have mounted in recent days, landing some members in jail and leading to the legal action by Areva. “They do not respect the laws,” Areva spokesman Patrick Germain said this week in an interview. On Monday, the activists made public the four possible routes they say the plutonium trucks could take between La Hague and south France. The move led to the distribution by Agence France-Presse of a map showing the routes and attributing the information to Greenpeace. Today, Greenpeace published photos of a truck it said was carrying the plutonium to La Hague. The groups sent boats Sunday into Cherbourg’s off-limits military port, a step that led to the arrest of activist Eugene Riguidel of France, a former international sailing champion. Riguidel and two Greenpeace activists were freed Monday after spending a night in jail and are to appear Nov. 30 at a Cherbourg court, where they could each receive up to a year in prison. “These boats are death boats, and the citizens of the whole world must react,” Associated Press quoted Riguidel as telling reporters as he left the jail. “We were not born on this Earth to blow ourselves to bits with plutonium.” The groups have called on mayors of communities along the potential truck routes — successfully, in the case of Green Party leader and Begles Mayor Noel Mamere, whose city lies on one of the four routes — to issue decrees forbidding the transport of the material through their jurisdictions. Activist group Tchernoblaye has also appealed to the Council of State, France’s highest court of administrative law, to prevent the processing of nuclear material at the Cadarache plant. The court has not yet ruled on the case, which is based on a 2002 government order that “commercial production” at the site be stopped as of last year because of seismic risks. Participants in the current operation have said the decree does not apply since the arrangement is noncommercial. Wilkes said the protests would have little impact. “This may have some effect on some of these groups getting publicity, or even on their fund-raising plans, but it won’t have any effect on our effort with our international partners to continue with this program to dispose of material that could make thousands of nuclear weapons,” he said. Center for Nonproliferation Studies Deputy Director Leonard Spector said in an interview yesterday that activists’ opposition to the project is “surprising” given their traditional support for eliminating dangerous materials. Responding to the charge of a plutonium-industry agenda behind the operation, the former senior U.S. arms-control official said, “It just seems inconceivable that somehow this is going to become an inexpensive activity that’s going to displace uranium as fuel.” “It’s OK to be watching that and making sure it doesn’t happen, but this reaction is a bit overblown,” Spector said. Spector concurred with Wilkes that the current flurry of French protests would not sidetrack the “MOX for Peace” program. “There are big challenges. What we’re seeing in France is a smaller challenge,” Spector said. Of greater concern for the program’s future, he said, are questions of liability for damages incurred while disposing of the plutonium. Those questions are still to be worked out between Washington and Moscow, as well as the status of Russia’s own MOX-plant plans. Wilkes acknowledged the liability questions have yet to be resolved but expressed confidence that U.S.-Russian negotiations would yield a solution. “It’s being worked on at the highest levels, and we’re confident that an agreement can be worked out,” he said. Back to top       Iran Continues Producing Uranium Gas Iran has produced “a few tons” of uranium hexafluoride gas, a senior official said today, confirming Tehran’s defiance of last month’s International Atomic Energy Agency resolution demanding the suspension of all uranium enrichment activities (see GSN, Oct. 5). “Out of the 37 tons of yellowcake, a few tons has been used and converted,” Hossein Mousavian, Iran’s chief IAEA delegate, told Agence France-Presse. He was referring to 37 tons of raw uranium that Iran had previously said it would convert into uranium hexafluoride (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 6). The gas is a critical part in the process of enriching uranium, which the United States and its allies fear could be used for nuclear weapons. Mousavian said the conversion process was done under IAEA supervision, the Associated Press reported. “Every stage of the process is under full IAEA supervision. The agency knows of every milligram of uranium converted,” he said (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press/Skagit Daily Herald, Oct. 6). A diplomat said today that the U.N. agency was aware that Iran began processing uranium more than a week ago, Reuters reported.  The agency has installed monitoring cameras at the Isfahan uranium conversion facility to oversee the production of uranium hexafluoride and to ensure that materials are not diverted for weapons activities, Reuters reported. “The uranium conversion is being conducted under the supervision of the IAEA,” said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Oct. 6). Iran intends to resume uranium enrichment within months, a top Iranian lawmaker told AFP. Kazem Jalali, spokesman for the Iranian parliament’s foreign policy and national security commission, spoke as parliament began working on legislation requiring the resumption of uranium enrichment. “Why should we not resume enrichment?” he said yesterday. “Where in the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] and in the Additional Protocol does it say that enrichment is forbidden and therefore it should be stopped? It is our natural right” (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 6). Back to top       U.S.-Russian “Megatons to Megawatts” Program Has Eliminated Equivalent of 9,000 Warheads By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S.-Russian “Megatons to Megawatts” program has so far eliminated the equivalent of 9,000 nuclear warheads, the U.S. Enrichment Corp. announced yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 16). The program seeks to convert 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium removed from Russian nuclear weapons into fuel for use at U.S. civilian nuclear power plants by 2013. To date, about 225 metric tons of Russian highly enriched uranium has been purchased by USEC and converted into nuclear fuel at a cost of more than $3.5 billion. Russia is set to receive a total of $8 billion by the conclusion of the program. The program was launched in 1994 by a commercial agreement between USEC and the Russian company Techsnabexport, following a governmental agreement reached the prior year between Washington and Moscow. About 10 percent of U.S. electricity is produced using the fuel created through the program. “The Megatons to Megawatts program is one of the most successful nonproliferation efforts worldwide,” USEC President and Chief Executive Officer William Timbers said in a press statement. “We are proud of our excellent working relationship with Russia and the fact that Soviet-era nuclear warheads once aimed at American cities are now lighting and powering our country from coast to coast.” Yesterday’s announcement was a “milestone” that demonstrated the “continued progress” of the program, USEC spokesman Charles Yulish said today.  “I deeply regret to report to you that it’s working smoothly,” he said jokingly.  Yulish also said that yesterday’s announcement was timed to the statements made by both President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry (Mass.) during last week’s presidential debate concerning the threat posed by nuclear proliferation (see GSN, Oct. 1). “Good news can happen too,” Yulish said. Back to top       Security Council Set “Worst Precedent” in Handling of North Korea Nuclear Work, ElBaradei Says The U.N. Security Council failed to act when faced with North Korea’s nuclear efforts more than a year ago, setting a dangerous precedent for other potential violators of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said today (see GSN, Oct. 5). He said it took seven years for North Korea to join the treaty in 1992, and that the communist nation has since then failed to comply with its directives. Pyongyang announced its withdrawal from the pact in 2003. “Naturally all of these actions were promptly reported by the IAEA to the Security Council — but with little to no response,” he said. He warned that the council sent the wrong signal by not acting more decisively. “This type of reaction by the council may be setting the worst precedent of all if it conveys the message that acquiring a nuclear deterrent, by whatever means, will neutralize any compliance mechanism and bring about preferred treatment,” ElBaradei said. “People in the international community are getting impatient to see quick results and to see North Korea turning back to the nonproliferation regime,” he added (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 6). Back to top       ElBaradei Praises South Korean Cooperation With IAEA Investigation of Nuclear Experiments Top international nuclear official Mohamed ElBaradei yesterday praised South Korea’s cooperation with the agency’s investigation into nuclear experiments disclosed recently by Seoul, according to Agence France-Presse (see GSN, Oct. 5). “We have not seen any cover-up,” ElBaradei said during a news conference in Seoul. “We are getting good cooperation from the South Korean government.” The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said he expects one or two more inspection teams to travel to South Korea this month, and plans to report in November to IAEA members on the results of the investigation. ElBaradei also dismissed North Korean claims that the United States has engaged in a double standard regarding the experiments, which involved small amounts of enriched uranium and plutonium, AFP reported. “North Korea has a full-fledged reprocessing plant operating while South Korea has been continuously under safeguard and under verification,” he said (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 6). Back to top       United States Understands Brazil Has No Nuclear Weapons Ambitions, Powell Says While Brazil might be reluctant to allow international inspectors to view its uranium enrichment plant, the United States has no concerns that it has nuclear weapons ambitions, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 5). “The United States understands that Brazil has no interest in a nuclear weapon, no desire and no plans, no programs, no intention of moving toward a nuclear weapon,” Powell said in an interview on TV Globo while visiting Brazil. “They have a nuclear power program. We understand that.” Powell also rejected concerns that Brazil’s opposition to unlimited inspections might lead nations of concern such as Iran and North Korea to reject examination by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  “I don’t have those concerns,” he said. “I don’t think Brazil can be talked about in the same vein or put in the same category as Iran or North Korea” (Steven Weisman, New York Times, Oct. 6). Meanwhile, Brazil has agreed to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency with some access to its uranium enrichment equipment, diplomats said today. The agreement would allow the agency to verify that Brazil is not enriching uranium to weapon-grade levels and that the material was not being diverted away from the plant at Resende, they said. “They came upon a formula that gives the agency enough and yet lets Brazil save face,” said one diplomat at a mission that deals with the U.N. agency (George Jahn, Associated Press/Washington Post, Oct. 6). Back to top       Nobel Peace Prize Bookmakers Give IAEA, ElBaradei Best Odds; Nunn, Lugar Not a Bad Bet Online bookmakers have their eyes on the prize this year, the Nobel Peace Prize that is (see GSN, Sept. 27). Several Internet bookmakers give the best odds of winning this year’s prize to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, Agence France-Presse reported “Their odds are 2-to-1. The odds of the next best are double,” said Paddy Power of his self-named Irish betting site.  U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), architects of the U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction program to secure and dispose of former Soviet weapons of mass destruction, have been given 4-to-1 odds. Officials at the Nobel Committee, which awards the prize, said they are not bothered by the financial speculation linked to the prize, according to AFP. “It’s nice to get more attention even if the betting on the prize is not the most important thing for us,” said committee secretary Geir Lundestad. There are 194 nominees for this year’s prize, and the winner is expected to be announced Friday. At least six people — the five members of the Nobel Committee and Lundestad — know the winner’s identity in advance, AFP reported. “Let’s hope that none of the members are tempted by the big win,” said Lundestad. “We presume that these people probably have a lot of integrity. And we would notice if all of a sudden a lot of money was being placed on one candidate,” said Power. “And then we have few candidates who probably won’t win, like (U.S. President) George W. Bush or (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair, but you’d be surprised by the number of people who place a bet on them for a friend. As a joke,” he said. Bush has seen a slight upswing in support in recent weeks on the Australian betting site Centrebet, according to AFP. “Victory for Bush would result in a six-figure loss for the online betting agency,” Centrebet said in a statement entitled ‘Betting Agency Fears Nobel Peace Prize for Bush’ (Pierre-Henry Deshayes, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 6). [EDITOR’S NOTE: Sam Nunn is chief executive officer, and Richard Lugar serves on the board, of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.] Back to top

California Mail Facilities Install Anthrax Detectors California’s largest mail-handling facilities are installing anthrax detection devices, the Fremont, Calif., Argus newspaper reported yesterday (see GSN, April 10). A defense contractor has already installed the biodetectors on mail-processing machines in more than 40 postal centers in the Northeast United States and elsewhere. Full-time anthrax detection began last week inside a mail-processing plant in Oakland that houses 3,000 workers, according to the Argus. The plant is the first in California to receive the equipment. Centers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose and three other California cities are expected to soon follow. The system is designed to sniff the air around letters, then to pipe it into a spinning cone of water that traps germs and dust, filters them and injects them into a miniature DNA testing lab, according to the Argus. Once an hour inside the plastic cartridge, the DNA of airborne microorganisms are tested against two genetic signatures for virulent anthrax. These biodetectors can cost more than $100,000 each, according to the Argus, and the latest generation of devices can deliver a reliable diagnosis in 30 minutes. “In biology, nothing is ever black and white, and you always have to do a confirmation test,” said biochemist Cheg Widden, program director at Cepheid for GeneXpert, the DNA analyzer for the U.S. Postal Service. Testing has showed that the devices exceed agency expectations. “It’s greater than 99 percent confidence,” Widden said (Ian Hoffman, Freemont (Calif.) Argus, Oct. 5). Back to top

Sierra Leone Joins Chemical Weapons Treaty Sierra Leone last week formally joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, according to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (see GSN, Sept. 28). Sierra Leone submitted its instrument of ratification to the United Nations on Sept. 30, and the treaty’s provisions will enter into force for the country on Oct. 30.  To date, 166 countries have joined the treaty (OPCW release, Oct 1). Back to top

Iran Says Missiles Can Hit Europe Iran said that it has increased the range of its missiles to the point where they could hit areas in Europe, Reuters reported today (see GSN, Sept. 27). “Now we have the power to launch a missile with a 2,000-kilometer range. Iran is determined to improve its military capabilities,” Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran’s former president, told the country’s official news agency. Previous military estimates had placed Iran’s missile range at 810 miles, which would allow it to strike anywhere in Israel. “If the Americans attack Iran, the world will change. … They will not dare to make such a mistake,” Rafsanjani added. The United States has “serious concerns about Iran’s missile programs,” State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said yesterday. “We view Iran’s efforts to further develop its missile capabilities as a threat to the region and to the United States’ interests, and all the more so in light of its ongoing nuclear program,” Ereli said (see GSN, today). Ereli declined to say whether the United States believes the details of the claim, but said it was well known that Iran is completing medium-range missile development and working toward a longer-range system. “These kinds of long-range missiles ... have been an active area of Iranian weapons development for some time,” he said (Reuters/Washington Post, Oct. 5).   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.