Backed their families, U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney delivered their victory speeches Wednesday in Washington following a successful re-election bid against Senators John Kerry and John Edwards (AFP photo/Timothy Clary). Second Bush Term Could Bring Iran Policy Changes By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Rather than signaling continuity in Iran policy, U.S. President George W. Bush’s second term could bring major strategic shifts on both sides of the long-standing Western-Iranian nuclear standoff, foreign policy experts here said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 4)...Full Story

Experts Question a Core U.S. Arms Control Tenet By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — International security experts attending a recent workshop challenged a core tenet of the Bush administration’s arms control strategy, called dissuasion, which has been used to justify a number of U.S. national security policies...Full Story

U.S. Orders New Anthrax Vaccine The U.S. Health and Human Services Department has awarded a contract worth almost $880 million to the U.S. company VaxGen to produce 75 million doses of a new type of anthrax vaccine, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 2)...Full Story

	Friday, November 5, 2004

Experts Question a Core U.S. Arms Control Tenet By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — International security experts attending a recent workshop challenged a core tenet of the Bush administration’s arms control strategy, called dissuasion, which has been used to justify a number of U.S. national security policies. The idea of dissuasion as indicated in U.S. strategy documents is that U.S. research and development of advanced, potentially revolutionary military capabilities, as well as other actions, can discourage potential adversaries from pursuing certain new capabilities of their own because they view such efforts as futile. Although the idea dates back to the beginning of the Cold War, the Bush administration has given it unprecedented prominence, the experts said, using it to support the consideration of new nuclear weapons, the pursuit of advanced conventional capabilities and the fielding of a national missile defense system. Other U.S. policies, such as the invasion of Iraq and the implied threat of a nuclear response to a chemical or biological attack, also have been called dissuasive. Experts attending a workshop in September hosted by the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Contemporary Conflict and the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, however, argued that such key Bush administration policies may prove counterproductive, driving potential adversaries to seek greater capabilities for deterrence against a seemingly growing U.S. threat. Dissuasion “may be effective for de-motivating certain types of military competitions,” wrote Brad Roberts, a researcher at the Institute for Defense Analyses, in a paper presented at the workshop. “But it may likewise motivate other responses, whether asymmetric military ones or a general desire to compete in order not to be taken advantage of,” he wrote. He argued the United States has at least five options for dissuasion against China, all with potentially negative consequences, and that achieving a deeper relationship with the country “may instead require restraint in the development of some key military capabilities.” Center Director Peter Lavoy told the workshop that dissuasion is difficult to use against ideological enemies who are “predisposed not to be persuaded by you,” which appears to be the case with the so-called rogue states of today, according to a summary of the workshop released by the center. Robert Litwak of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the summary said, argued that efforts to dissuade proliferation by states such as North Korea and Iran are undermined by the U.S. pursuit of regime change against such nations. A Prominent Goal “Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States,” the administration wrote in its September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States. The administration’s National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction declared dissuasion the primary method for preventing foreign acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, wrote Air Force Col. Chuck Lutes, a senior fellow at the National Defense University’s Institute for National Security Studies. Proponents have said the policy was recently successful in persuading Libya to renounce its WMD ambitions and, more historically, in the Soviet Union’s decision not to develop an aircraft carrier during the Cold War. They have argued that with the prospect of new advanced strategic capabilities such as earth-penetrating and WMD-incinerating nuclear weapons and missile defenses mapped out in the Defense Department’s 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, potential adversaries such as North Korea, Iran and perhaps China might judge efforts to gain certain new or improved weapons capabilities pointless. “A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking political, military, or technical courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security,” that review said. Potentially Counterproductive The Bush administration’s approach in that seminal review, however, may instead encourage nuclear proliferation by rogue and ‘fence-sitter’ states, argued Stanford University professor Scott Sagan at the workshop. Increased U.S. nuclear superiority in the interest of dissuasion “clearly conflicts with the Article VI [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)] commitment to work in good faith toward the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons,” Sagan wrote in his paper for the meeting. “In a wider set of non-nuclear weapons ‘fence-sitter’ states, especially those in which domestic political actors may hold contrasting positions about getting nuclear weapons, the belief that that the United States has abandoned Article VI commitments had increased,” he wrote. Elaine Bunn, a research fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies of the National Defense University, wrote, “U.S. deployments may dissuade them [North Korea and Iran] from building more weapons of mass destruction, from throwing good money after bad.” She added, though, that “The debate in the U.S. over the limitations and ineffectiveness of missile defenses, and their ability to be overwhelmed by countermeasures or saturation, might convince them that their investment in ballistic missiles remains a good one, and have the opposite effect.” Roberts argued that U.S. emphasis on developing new strategic capabilities, the so-called “New Triad” outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review — nuclear and conventional offensive strike systems, active and passive defenses and a revitalized defense structure — could spur China to accelerate its efforts with the idea of invading Taiwan if it can gain some medium-term advantage before the Triad is realized. “Rather than pace the development of U.S. [ballistic missile defense] with incremental improvements to its strategic forces, China might opt to race the New Triad envisioned in the Bush administration’s 2002 Nuclear Posture Review,” he wrote. “The wrong dissuasion strategy may motivate China to compete for strategic advantage over Taiwan,” he wrote. Uncertainty of Outcomes Many of the experts at the workshop said it is difficult to determine whether policies of dissuasion would be, or were in the past, effective. Many factors, some perhaps unknown, may also influence an adversary’s decisions, they said. “Much like deterrence, this is an effort to ‘prove a negative,’” wrote Jeffrey Giles, assistant vice president and manager of the advanced concepts and strategies division at Science Applications International Corp. Russia may have failed to develop an aircraft carrier because of the “the natural obstacles that a traditional land power would face in trying to develop an ocean-going navy,” he wrote. Some countries “may choose not to compete with the United States in certain categories of traditional military strength (e.g., fighter aircraft) because they are investing heavily in transformational technologies,” he added. The Iraq war may have affected various so-called rogue states differently, Bunn asserted. While Libya may or may not have been dissuaded as a result of the Iraq invasion, the apparent continuation of suspected North Korean and Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons suggests they were not deterred by the invasion. “Iran is also showing every sign of being determined to go forward, rather than being dissuaded,” she wrote. While Iraq was presented as “a warning to other states” by U.S. officials, pragmatists in the administration feared it would backfire by motivating Iran and North Korea to accelerate their WMD acquisition efforts, Litwak said according to the conference summary. The administration currently appears to be very reluctantly pivoting away from regime change and preventive war policies toward policies of deterrence, and assurance of regime survival, he said. Back to top       U.N. Disarmament Committee Addresses Proliferation By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — Repairing the strains in multilateral disarmament —especially the stress being placed on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) by the vision of additional nations gaining nuclear weapons and the lack of disarmament by the five recognized nuclear weapon states — was the dominant theme running through the five-week session of the U.N. General Assembly’s Disarmament Committee (see GSN, Nov. 2). The session, which ends today, occurred in the context of the next NPT Review Conference in May 2005 and the continuing deadlock in the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in Geneva over issues such as negotiations for a fissile materials cutoff treaty. “We are not making as much progress as we should, but I’m little more optimistic after this session of the committee. At least we are trying to build some level of communication between delegations,” Mexican Ambassador Luis Alfonso De Alba, the committee chairman, said yesterday. “There is a reality that is moving faster than any negotiation and that’s the increased risks” of proliferation, the “persistence of nuclear weapons,” and the possible extension of weapons to nonstate actors. The committee approved 55 resolutions, which will be sent later this year to the U.N. General Assembly for consideration. Resolutions approved by the assembly are not legally binding, but are considered to represent the political will of U.N. members. Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs Nobuyasu Abe said at the committee’s opening session in October that nations should not believe that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty “will alone suffice to solve all the problems relating to the achievement of its nonproliferation and disarmament goals.  I hope that our deliberations will reflect the fundamental reality that both nonproliferation and disarmament must be pursued together in a mutually reinforcing manner.  The wider our agreement on this basic issue, the greater will be the likelihood of reaching widespread agreement on the relevant nuclear-weapon initiatives before us.” The heart of the U.N. debate over nuclear disarmament centers on the effectiveness of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the potential fissile material cutoff treaty.  At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the consensus final document called for an “unequivocal undertaking” by the nuclear powers to pursue disarmament through a series of specific steps, including the entry into force of the test ban treaty, negotiations for a treaty banning production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, the principles of transparency and irreversibility in arms reductions and cuts in nonstrategic weapons. The United States has still not ratified the test ban treaty and has opposed any verification regime for a fissile material treaty, while the majority of NPT parties have insisted that they cannot be ignored within any deliberations on the treaty. The New Agenda Coalition — Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden — which became the de facto non-nuclear counterparts to the nuclear powers during the 2000 NPT deliberations, has framed its entire disarmament campaign in terms of maintaining the viability of the 2000 decisions. “Nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation are mutually reinforcing processes. Without nuclear disarmament, we run the risk of a new nuclear arms race. Nonproliferation is vital. But it is not sufficient,” Swedish Ambassador Anders Liden said last month, speaking for the New Agenda U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker told the committee that any suggestion that the United States is not fulfilling its NPT disarmament commitments “is both unjust and untrue,” citing its dismantlement of 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988 and the entry into force of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), a bilateral agreement with Russia. The real danger to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is countries attempting to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of the pact, he said. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been signed by 173 countries, but the United States and 10 other nations must ratify the pact for it to enter into force. While the concept of a fissile cutoff treaty is accepted, the divisions lay between states that want to see the scope limited to future production and those who want to it to include declarations on existing stockpiles by nuclear weapons states, which they argue is better for disarmament since it would cover the all the materials in the inventories of the nuclear weapon states.  A review of some of the key nuclear disarmament resolutions show an across-the-board support for much of the international agenda, but sharp differences on some key practical steps as well as varying perceptions regarding what is being achieved. An indicator of this division in perception is the draft resolution, sponsored by the United States and Russia, on their bilateral strategic arms reductions. The two key nuclear powers have tabled this draft over the last several years — except last year when Russia would not agree to a text in protest to the U.S. withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty — as a kind of report card on their progress on reducing long-range missiles. The 2002 resolution was adopted without a vote.  This year’s draft was similar in referring to the entry into force of SORT, cuts in strategic warheads and the halt in fissile material production. However, some committee delegates said they were uneasy by wording in the resolution that suggested these efforts fulfilled the U.S. and Russian disarmament obligations under NPT Article 6, which calls on treaty states to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” After adopting the resolution by consensus, several countries argued that while they welcomed the progress, more was needed for them to feel Russia and the United States were fulfilling their NPT obligations. De Alba said countries “welcome the approach in as much as it would be a signal that they do understand they have commitments under Article 6 and they intend to keep those commitments.” On the other hand, he said, “During the NPT, we will insist that they keep reporting because it is the only way that the sense that everybody is doing their duty to strengthen the consensus on reinforcing the NPT.” Two resolutions from non-nuclear weapon states enjoyed broad support, but not consensus. Together they offer a clear picture of what kinds of disarmament steps they expect from the nuclear weapons states within the NPT framework. The New Agenda altered its annual draft resolution on nuclear disarmament streamlining it to highlight a few key initiatives including the fissile material cutoff treaty negotiations, further reductions in nonstrategic arsenals, diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines and setting up a subsidiary body in the Conference of Disarmament “to deal with” nuclear disarmament. The New Agenda said the “overall purpose” of its draft “is to uphold and safeguard the NPT in its entirety.” “Agreements need to be implemented, or they risk falling apart. And implementation needs to be accelerated, or the confidence in the regime risks being undermined.” said Swedish Ambassador Elisabet Bonnier, speaking for the coalition. The goal of the revisions was to appeal to non-nuclear NATO states that have not supported the New Agenda in the past; Canada was the only such country to vote for the 2003 draft. They succeeded in drawing more NATO countries from abstaining to voting in favor. The vote was 135-5, with France, Israel, Latvia, the United Kingdom and the United States in opposition and 25 abstentions. In an explanation of its vote, France, also speaking for the United States and United Kingdom, noted the pragmatism of the draft but faulted the New Agenda for not acknowledging progress in strategic arms reductions. Japan’s draft on “A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons” fared better and was approved by a vote of 151-2, with the United States and India in opposition and 16 abstentions. The United States opposed the draft’s endorsement of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; while India objected to the request that India join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state.  The resolution listed a series of steps that could be taken — including the entry into force of the test ban treaty, fissile materials negotiations, applying the “principle of irreversibility” to arms reductions, encouraging “a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies,” and placing fissile materials no longer used in nuclear weapons under international safeguards — that are drawn largely from the final document of the NPT’ 2000 review conference. The New Agenda countries were among the abstentions, saying the draft’s language did not adhere closely enough to the NPT 2000 language. Test Ban and Fissile Materials The CTBT resolution, calling on all states to become parties to the treaty and on all nuclear states to maintain their testing moratoria, was voted on Nov. 1. The vote was 147-1 with the United States in opposition and Colombia, India, Mauritius and Syria abstaining. The treaty was endorsed, or at least noted, in several resolutions. The United States voted against every one of those resolutions, saying it would never become a party the treaty, but would maintain its unilateral testing moratorium.  The annual committee resolution recalling that the CD will consider a fissile material cutoff treaty has always passed by consensus. However, this year the United States alone voted against the draft in objection to the included phrase “effectively verifiable treaty.” Israel and the United Kingdom abstained from the 147-1 vote. Some countries wanted the draft withdrawn in the face of the unraveling consensus, but the key sponsors kept it on the table. Other Nuclear Resolutions There were also traditional nuclear disarmament resolutions that framed the issue in different ways and thus resulted in widely different votes. India’s draft calling for a “review of nuclear doctrines” and for “immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons” passed 106–46, with 16 abstentions. Mexico’s proposal for a conference “to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers” passed 119-6, with 41 abstentions. The two resolutions on the Middle East followed the same pattern of previous years. The draft urging “all parties directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of the proposal to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East” was adopted by consensus. The draft calling on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and place its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards passed 157-4, with eight abstentions. The negative votes came from Israel, the United States, Marshall Islands and Micronesia. A resolution on “Measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction” was adopted by consensus with little debate. Missiles Addressing missile proliferation is an issue dealt with easier as a concept than as a practical exercise in arms control. While there is broad agreement that the proliferation of missile technology is linked to the threat of WMD proliferation, the majority of developing countries — in particular the more industrialized nations — do not want to create any system that would deny them assess to technology that also has civilian applications, such as satellite launching.             A panel of government experts, created by an earlier resolution, failed in its mandate to represent a report to the committee this year on how to “address the issue of missiles in all its aspects.” This year’s draft of the annual resolution on missiles, with Iran as the main sponsor, asked the secretary general to prepare a report on how the United Nations could address the issue and to establish a new panel in 2007. It was approved by a vote of 98-2, with the United States and Israel opposed and 60 abstentions. The European Union, among the abstainers, said a new panel “would only be meaningful based on an agreed specific mandate.” The committee approved the draft on Oct. 26, along with a resolution supporting the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. Biological and Chemical Weapons The resolutions on biological and chemical weapons took up far less time than nuclear issues since these weapons have treaties banning their use. Debate focused on implementing the conventions. Both texts called on all states to become parties to the treaties. The Chemical Weapons Convention resolution asked for full support for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The Biological Weapons Convention resolution recalled the last review conference’s decision to continue discussions of “enhancing international capabilities” to investigate alleged uses of biological weapons and to improve the surveillance and detection of infectious diseases. The draft avoided the issue of the lack of a verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention. Both resolutions were adopted by consensus. Back to top

Second Bush Term Could Bring Iran Policy Changes By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Rather than signaling continuity in Iran policy, U.S. President George W. Bush’s second term could bring major strategic shifts on both sides of the long-standing Western-Iranian nuclear standoff, foreign policy experts here said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 4). As France, Germany and the United Kingdom readied a new round of talks with Iran in Paris over Tehran’s alleged drive to obtain nuclear weapons (see related GSN story, today), scholars from major U.S. think-tanks said Iran has little incentive to end its quest for nuclear weapons and that Bush’s victory could bring changes in Iran policy by emboldening the president and ending some Europeans’ hopes for a new U.S. interlocutor. With its foreign policy still focused heavily on the Middle East and with Iran potentially seeing itself as more threatened than ever after Bush’s re-election, the White House will have to make intense efforts to resolve the crisis, Center for Strategic and International Studies Middle East Program Director Jon Alterman said yesterday. Iran presents a “challenge that’s unavoidable,” Alterman said at a panel discussion at the center. Tehran could be amenable to a negotiated solution on its nuclear program, the former State Department policy planner said, but would probably prefer to reach one based on Iranian possession of nuclear weapons. “They just get a much better deal if they have nukes when they’re making that deal,” he said. Alterman’s colleague at the center, Europe Program Director Robin Niblett, said stronger measures than those tried so far would be needed to alter the situation during Bush’s second term. U.N. sanctions against Iran — resisted so far by the three European Union countries that are in talks with Tehran, as well as by most other members of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors — could be needed, Niblett said at the panel discussion. “The likelihood of a successful outcome in the near term without going to the next stage — the potential of sanctions at the U.N. — is hard to foresee,” Niblett said. With U.S. forces heavily committed in neighboring Iraq, experts differed over the place of a U.S. military threat in addressing the Iran crisis. Brookings Institution Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy Studies Martin Indyk said the United States “needs to bite the bullet here and confront the problem” without ruling out a military attack on Iran. At a Brookings panel discussion yesterday, Indyk said Washington has largely allowed the three European countries to handle Iran’s nuclear ambitions but that EU unwillingness to take tough steps means the United States must soon decide whether to confront Iran on its own — “not a simple choice” to make, Indyk said. “I do not think our current approach is one that’s likely to produce positive results,” said the former U.S. ambassador to Israel and assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, who now heads Brookings’ Saban Center for Middle East Policy. “It may be in the end that we can’t stop the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Indyk said. “Therefore, the administration’s going to have to start planning now for two other options: One, the use of military force to try to delay the program — it’s not at all clear that that is a viable option, but it’s one that certainly needs to be looked at, and the looking at it can increase our leverage with the Iranians in the diplomacy — and the second thing we need to look at is how we bolster the deterrence, how we deal with the potential very dangerous nuclear arms race that could be triggered by an Iranian nuclear program that actually goes nuclear.” Cato Institute Vice President for Foreign Policy and Defense Studies Ted Carpenter took a different view, saying Bush’s Iran policy should not be based on the threat of an attack. “The Bush administration has an opportunity to back away from the excessively aggressive foreign policy that it has pursued the past four years and adopt a more restrained, prudent approach to world affairs,” Carpenter said in remarks distributed in a Cato press release. “The administration … needs to confront such difficult issues as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, recognizing that pre-emptive war is not a realistic option in either case,” Carpenter said. “Unfortunately, hawkish elements in the administration may conclude that the president’s election victory is a mandate for an even more aggressive foreign policy. If the president embarks on that course, the nation could be in for a long series of dangerous and unproductive military adventures, especially in the Middle East.” Whatever the approach, according to CSIS Director of Studies Patrick Cronin, the United States is in need of “a strategy that is very complex and multifaceted” for Iran and the whole Middle East — but could be hampered by continuity in a White House that Cronin said has already brought a loss in U.S. prestige and leadership. “Where [losing presidential candidate Senator John] Kerry would have had a global honeymoon, Bush starts essentially from a hole,” Cronin said. Back to top       European, Iranian Officials Meet in Paris Progress was being made in talks today in Paris on Iran’s nuclear program, a senior Iranian negotiator said (see GSN, Nov. 4). “We have reached a satisfactory compromise on some issues,” said Hossein Mousavian, during a brief pause in the talks with British, French and German negotiators, according to Reuters. “But there are some other issues left.  We are going to have a second round of negotiations. Maybe this will take another three or four hours before we can say whether we are able to agree on a compromise or not,” he added. While Iran has offered to freeze uranium enrichment for up to six months, the European powers were pressing for an indefinite suspension. “We still want a termination of the enrichment program and all related activities,” a Western diplomat close to the talks said. “I don’t expect a breakthrough (today).” “This was the compromise with the G-8 — no compromises,” the diplomat added, referring to last month’s meeting of the Group of Eight industrial countries in Washington on Iran. Sirus Naseri, one of the Iranian delegates at today’s talks, told Reuters he was “expecting a long day.” “It will take time. They (the talks) will not be easy because we are at the point of exchanging drafts,” Naseri said. A European diplomat told Reuters it was possible the talks would continue tomorrow (Jon Boyle, Reuters/Yahoo!News, Nov. 5). Back to top       North Korea Still Against Talks, Official Says North Korea remains opposed to resuming six-party nuclear talks following the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush, according to the first post-election remarks by a senior North Korean official, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Nov. 4). “We have watched the North Korea policy of the Bush administration in the past four years, and we doubt there will be a turnaround in the future,” Han Song Ryol, deputy chief of North Korea’s mission to the United Nations, today told South Korea’s Hankyoreh newspaper. “As long as the United States plans to attack us and pursues a change in our political system or maintains such a policy, six-nation talks will be a waste of time even if the talks are held,” Han said. “Only when we see evidence that the U.S. policy toward North Korea is changing substantially, such talks will be possible,” he added (Associated Press/ Yahoo!News, Nov. 5). South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said that Han’s remarks might not accurately reflect the Pyongyang regime’s position, Agence France-Presse reported. “I don’t think his comment reflects North Korea’s official position,” Ban told KBS radio. Pyongyang should resume negotiations, Ban said, adding that the Bush administration remains committed to a peaceful settlement to the standoff. “There will be no major changes in U.S. policy as (Bush) has maintained the principle of a peaceful settlement of the North Korean nuclear issue over the past four years,” Ban said. “I think the basic policy tone ... will continue as it is,” he added (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Nov. 5). The South Korean government is preparing for summit talks between President Roh Moo-hyun and Bush, scheduled to take place on Nov. 19 or 20 in Chile, on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, the Korea Herald reported. Chung Woo-sung, Roh’s foreign policy adviser, said yesterday that the North Korean nuclear issue was expected to be a top agenda item for the talks (Kim So-young, Korea Herald, Nov. 5). Back to top       South Korea Wants to Avoid U.N. Security Council South Korea is striving to avoid being reported to the U.N. Security Council for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty through past nuclear experiments involving plutonium and uranium, diplomats said Wednesday (see GSN, Nov. 4). As part of their efforts, South Korean diplomats have visited members of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors, which would make any referral, a Western diplomat on the board said.  “They really don’t want to be reported to the Security Council. They’re trying to move heaven and hell to avoid it,” the diplomat said. Another Western diplomat on the board said that while the United States is not seeking to have South Korea reported to the Security Council, “it would not block any such report” if it were determined that Seoul violated the treaty (Reuters/Daily Times, Nov. 5). Back to top       U.S. Demonstrates World’s Fastest Supercomputer A supercomputer set to be used to manage the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile has been deemed the fastest supercomputer on Earth, the U.S. Energy Department announced yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 19, 2002). The BlueGene/L supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California recently achieved a performance of 70.72 teraflops, the East Bay Business Times reported. That benchmark surpassed the previous record of 35.86 teraflops for the Japanese Earth Simulator in Yokohama, Japan. A teraflop stands for 1 trillion floating point operations per second. When the final portion of the computer is installed early next year, the BlueGene/L is expected have the equivalent of 130,000 processor chips and to reach a peak performance of 360 teraflops. The Energy Department’s Stockpile Stewardship Program is expected to use the BlueGene/L in its working ensuring the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without underground nuclear testing, according to a department press release (East Bay Business Times, Nov. 4). Back to top

U.S. Orders New Anthrax Vaccine The U.S. Health and Human Services Department has awarded a contract worth almost $880 million to the U.S. company VaxGen to produce 75 million doses of a new type of anthrax vaccine, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 2). The vaccine is set to be produced using purified recombinant protective antigen, a protein that elicits antibodies to neutralize the toxins produced by the anthrax bacterium, according to a Health and Human Services press release. About 25 million people would be able to be inoculated through the plan, which envisions a three-dose regimen for the new vaccine.  The contract is the first to be awarded under Project Bioshield, which was launched this year to help accelerate the development and purchase of new medical countermeasures against WMD agents. “In an exceptionally short period of time, we have dramatically accelerated our research capacity to develop a new medical countermeasure against one of the most deadly agents of bioterrorism,” said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “Without Project Bioshield, we would likely still be years away from a new anthrax vaccine and today’s announcement might never have been possible” (U.S. Health and Human Services Department release, Nov. 4). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration must still approve the vaccine, the Associated Press reported. Under the contract, VaxGen will deliver the first 25 million doses in two years beginning in 2006, company President Lance Gordon said. The remaining 50 million doses would be delivered with three years, he said (Diedtra Henderson, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Nov. 4). House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) today praised the announcement of the vaccine contract. “This is another milestone in the war on terrorism. By securing the production of anthrax vaccines, we are reducing the biothreat,” Cox said in a press statement. “By using our country’s best intelligence to understand terrorist threats, we can allocate our resources and focus our efforts on the bioterror agents that pose the greatest threat to American lives” (U.S. Select Committee on Homeland Security release, Nov. 5). Back to top

British Scientists Work to Develop Wearable Detector The first wearable chemical weapons detector is being developed in the United Kingdom, Business Weekly reported today (see GSN, April 15). The detector is being jointly developed by researchers from the British company Smiths Detection and the British Army.  The equipment is expected to be small and light enough to be worn by soldiers in the field. A company spokesman said the system would be capable of detecting nerve, blister, blood and choking agents.  While the Defense Ministry has not yet placed an order for the new detectors, the company spokesman said he was hopeful that an order would be announced soon (Ben Fountain, Business Weekly, Nov. 5). Back to top

Ukraine to Create Radioactive Material Registry Ukraine plans to create, with U.S. aid, a central registry to track radioactive materials, officials said yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 18). The United States and Ukraine last week signed a memorandum providing $250,000 in U.S. funding to establish the registry and to train personnel, according to the Associated Press.  Officials hope the Ukrainian State Register for Radiation Sources will help prevent radioactive material from being diverted for use in “dirty bombs.” The registry “will play a critical role in consolidating and securing radiological sources,” Sheila Gwaltney, deputy chief of the U.S. mission to Ukraine, said in a statement. Much of the radioactive material left in Ukraine following the dissolution of the Soviet Union is not registered, AP reported. “Our border service each year prevents a number of people who are attempting to cross the border with radiation sources that can be used for a dirty bomb,” Ukrainian Nuclear Regulatory Committee spokeswoman Tetyana Kutuzova said (Natasha Lisova, Associated Press/Canada.com, Nov. 4). Back to top       Italy to Help Fund Disposal of Russian Cruiser Italy has agreed to provide more than $75 million to aid Russia’s dismantlement of a nuclear-powered missile cruiser, ITAR-Tass reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct., 21). Italy will support the effort through the G-8 Global Partnership, which provides funding for nonproliferation projects, primarily in Russia. The aid will be used, in part, to help develop technology for the disposal of nuclear-powered surface ships, since no such technology currently exists in Russia, a source at a shipyard in the city of Severodvinsk said. The Italian money is also expected to pay for removing nuclear fuel from the ship’s two reactors (ITAR-Tass/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Nov. 4).   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.