Russian scientists at work at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow. Western grants have been found to reduce the likelihood that such scientists would want to work in rogue states (International Science and Technology Center photo). One-Fifth of Russian Scientists Surveyed Would Consider Working in Rogue States By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A “small, but significant” number of Russian scientists have expressed a willingness to consider working in rogue states, a researcher at the U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory said here yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 17)...Full Story

Pentagon Looks to Declare Anthrax Risk Emergency, Resume Mandatory Vaccinations By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A senior Republican congressman is investigating a U.S. Defense Department claim that an emergency exists requiring it to resume mandatory military anthrax vaccinations, which were blocked by a federal judge in October (see GSN, Nov. 11)...Full Story

Bush Signs Intelligence Reform Bill By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law today legislation that will enact some of the most far-reaching changes to the U.S. intelligence community in decades (see GSN, Dec. 9)...Full Story

	Friday, December 17, 2004

Bush Signs Intelligence Reform Bill By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law today legislation that will enact some of the most far-reaching changes to the U.S. intelligence community in decades (see GSN, Dec. 9). The bill, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, implements two of the key recommendations put forth this summer by the Sept. 11 commission — the creation of a national director to oversee the intelligence community and the creation of a national counterterrorism center. “Those charged with protecting America must have the best possible intelligence information, and that information must be closely integrated to form the clearest possible picture of the threats to our country,” Bush said this morning at the signing ceremony. “Under this new law, our vast intelligence enterprise will become more unified, coordinated and effective. It will enable us to better do our duty, which is to protect the American people.” Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) and top committee Democrat Joseph Lieberman (Conn.) today praised Bush’s action. Collins and Lieberman were the two main Senate negotiators in the effort to resolve the Senate version of the legislation with that passed by the House of Representatives to reach a final bill. “We are so proud that the president signed into law today the Collins-Lieberman Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. It took a lot of hard work to get to this day and to deliver real and comprehensive reform legislation to the American people,” they said in a joint statement. The Senate must still confirm Bush’s as-yet undeclared choice for the position. As envisioned by the bill, the director will serve as the principal intelligence adviser to the president and will be responsible for managing the collection and analysis of U.S. intelligence. The director will be separate from the CIA director and has the authority to establish national intelligence centers to focus on issues such as regional concerns. The position also has a degree of budgetary and personnel authority over many of the intelligence agencies currently located in several departments, such as Defense, Energy and State.  The director will be responsible for determining the overall intelligence budget, and will direct intelligence appropriations through department heads to the various agencies. The director will also have the authority to transfer in a single fiscal year either $150 million or less than 5 percent of an agency’s total funding. Concerning personnel, the national intelligence director will “recommend” to the president nominees for CIA director, and will have “the right to concur” in the appointment of most other intelligence agency chiefs. The director also “must be consulted” for recommendations for the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the deputy assistant Coast Guard commandant for intelligence. The director will not have not have the authority, though, to fire agency chiefs. In addition, the director will have the authority to transfer up to 100 personnel from intelligence agencies to any newly created national intelligence center and to transfer up to 150 personnel for up to two years to the office of the national intelligence director. The director also was given the authority to transfer an unlimited amount of personnel among intelligence agencies as long as such transfers do not last longer than two years.  The bill also contains a provision, intended to ensure that the national intelligence director does not disrupt the military chain of command, that calls upon the president to “issue guidelines to ensure effective implementation of the authorities provided to the DNI [director of national intelligence] in a manner that respects and does not abrogate the statutory responsibilities of the … heads of executive branch departments.” The provision, which was the focus of debate in the negotiations on a final bill, was called for by House Republicans concerned that the national intelligence director would damage the ability of military commanders to receive battlefield intelligence. Serving under the national intelligence director will be a principal deputy, who will also be appointed by the president on the recommendation of the director and confirmed by the Senate. The national intelligence director also has the authority to appoint as many as four additional deputies. In addition, the director’s office will contain a general counsel, civil liberties protection officer, science and technology director, national counterintelligence executive and an inspector general. The national intelligence director is also responsible for appointing personnel within his office to ensure that intelligence analysts conduct alternative analyses, to ensure objectivity and to prevent politicialization of intelligence. The bill creates a National Counterterrorism Center, within the director’s office, responsible for “strategic operational planning” of counterterrorism missions. The center’s director, who will be confirmed by the Senate, will report to the national intelligence director on budgetary and intelligence issues and to the president on the planning and progress of joint counterterrorism missions. In addition, the bill requires the president to establish within the next 18 months a National Counterproliferation Center. The president may choose not to do so, though, if it is determined that such a center “does not materially improve the government’s ability to halt” WMD proliferation. The bill also creates a Joint Intelligence Community Council, chaired by the national intelligence director and consisting of the heads of the Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, State and Treasury departments. The purpose of the council is to advise the director on “budget and other matters” and to ensure the “timely execution” of intelligence programs. The intelligence reform provisions within the bill go into effect no later than six months after its enactment. President George W. Bush has 180 days after the effective date to submit an implementation plan to Congress. In addition to the intelligence reform provisions, the bill also contains a number of provisions related to transportation security, illegal immigration, counterterrorism and foreign policy. Outside intelligence experts were skeptical this week as to how effective the bill will be in implementing intelligence reform. Calling the measure “largely ceremonial,” Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, said yesterday that the bill is missing several key details, such as defining the relative authority of the various intelligence agency chiefs. One “basic question” that is unanswered, he said, is who will be responsible for the daily intelligence brief to the president — the national intelligence director or the CIA director. James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation said the bill does not address other reform needs, such as an improved intelligence community work force. “This is the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end,” he said. Who Will Serve? Speculation has already begun as to who will be chosen as the first national intelligence director. Among the names that have been cited in the media are CIA Director Porter Goss, National Security Agency Director Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden and former Sept. 11 commission Chairman Thomas Kean. The bill says the at least one of either the national or deputy intelligence directors “should be an active duty officer, or at least have by training or experience an appreciation of military intelligence activities and requirements.” The selection of the first national intelligence director could be the most important appointment Bush makes in his tenure as president, Carafano said. “The first person really has to be the right person,” he said, as the first director will set the tone for how the position operates. Back to top

One-Fifth of Russian Scientists Surveyed Would Consider Working in Rogue States By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A “small, but significant” number of Russian scientists have expressed a willingness to consider working in rogue states, a researcher at the U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory said here yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 17). A 2002 study of 600 scientists found that 21 percent would consider working for at least a year in Iran, Iraq, North Korea or Syria, said Deborah Yarsike Ball of the laboratory’s Proliferation and Terrorism Prevention Program. The most popular potential destination was North Korea, Ball said, describing the finding as “positively perplexing.” “You’re not going to North Korea for the job benefits,” she said during a presentation sponsored by Kennan Institute. Ball refused to speculate on why North Korea would be the most popular destination for those Russian scientists willing to consider “going rogue.” The study, which involved scientists with backgrounds in physics, chemistry and biology, was conducted by a Russian survey firm at 20 research institutes. She said, though, that the then-Atomic Energy Ministry rebuffed several attempts to gain access to its laboratories, resulting in many weapons sites being off-limits. About 16 percent of the survey’s participants, she said, indicated they had conducted weapons-related research in the preceding 10 years. In the wake of the economic troubles caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, there has been concern that former Soviet WMD scientists may sell their expertise to rogue states or terrorist groups seeking to develop unconventional weapons. To address such concerns, the United States and other Western countries have established programs intended to help redirect such scientists to civilian research projects. The study found that Western grants have contributed to a reduced willingness by most Russian scientists to consider working in rogue states, Ball said, adding that Russian grants had little effect. Older scientists and those living closer to Moscow were also less likely to work abroad, she said.  The study found, Ball said, that most Russian scientists have a strong moral sense of responsibility about how their work is used, a strong sense of duty to place Russian national interests above their own and that they favor tighter controls on working abroad. She warned, though, that younger Russian scientists feel less strongly about those issues than those brought up during the Soviet era. Back to top       U.N. Report on Global Threats Addresses U.S. Concerns, Former U.S. National Security Adviser Says By Marina Malenic Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The recently released U.N. report on global threats — including terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — takes into account U.S. security concerns, a former U.S. official and security expert said yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations (see GSN, Dec. 1). “In the end, we came together on a report that I think is not only forward-looking but is very supportive of the security concerns of the United States,” said former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, a member of the panel that prepared the report. The 16-member High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes, created by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in the aftermath of the 2003 debate over the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq by the U.S.-led coalition, released its report earlier this month. It includes 101 recommendations covering nonproliferation and other areas that are expected to be submitted to the United Nations for consideration next year. Scowcroft noted that the panel had proposed, “a definition of terror, removing the possibility that terrorists can hide under the guise of freedom fighters to accomplish their job.” Terrorism is defined by the panel as “any action … that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.” “It makes clear that no cause whatsoever justifies the targeting of civilians and noncombatants. The United Nations must make clear that it has zero tolerance of terrorism of any kind for any reason,” Annan said at the Council on Foreign Relations event. Scowcroft also discussed the panel’s conclusions regarding the use of force as a pre-emptive measure. “I think that the panel report broke new ground in first reaffirming the right of self-defense, but clarifying in a sense — without changing the right of self-defense — that pre-emptive action, that is, action in the face of an immediate threat, is a part of self-defense,” said Scowcroft. “It won’t solve all the problems, but I think it is a big help and it’s broadly supportive of the arguments of the United States.” Annan added that, under the recommendations of the panel, the U.N. Security Council would have to be “proactive” in addressing emerging threats. “The other issue the panel pressed is that where there is a convincing and persuasive case, the Council must face up to its responsibilities and act, rather than create a situation where a member state feels it has to go outside the council to … get redress or to take action,” he said. “The Security Council must be proactive to prevent nightmare scenarios such as a nuclear terrorist attack from unfolding. The council must stand ready to authorize the preventive use of force in appropriate circumstances,” Annan said. Annan also addressed the panel’s recommendations on granting greater authority to the International Atomic Energy Agency to curb nuclear weapons proliferation. “Tomorrow’s United Nations would provide a more muscular framework to prevent a cascade of nuclear proliferation,” Annan said. “We need tighter rules for inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. We need incentives for states to forgo domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing facilities. And we need a verifiable fissile material cutoff treaty.” Back to top       Qadhafi Says He Helped to Re-Elect Bush Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi said his pledge to eliminate his country’s WMD programs helped to re-elect George W. Bush as U.S. president, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Nov. 29). In an interview with Italian state television set to broadcast today, Qadhafi said he wanted the United States and other Western nations to reward him for his decision by providing Libya with nuclear technology for civilian uses. “It was Mr. Bush who promised to reward Libya if we got rid of this program,” Qaddafi said, according to an English-language transcript. “We know that with this withdrawal, we contributed by 50 percent to his electoral campaign” (Craig Smith, New York Times, Dec. 17). Back to top       Homeland Security Issues Draft Cargo Security Plan The U.S. Homeland Security Department yesterday released a draft cargo security strategy, citing interception of weapons of mass destruction as its prime objective, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 16). While the draft plan acknowledges that U.S. intelligence has found little evidence to suggest that terrorists are planning to ship unconventional weapons from overseas, the prevalence of smuggling and the consequences of a potential WMD attack led the department to conclude more must be done to safeguard shipping. Crucial to that effort under the plan will be quickly installing more sophisticated sensors at U.S. ports, airports and border crossings, identifying high-risk cargo and ensuring that tampering does not occur to containers entering the United States, AP reported. Departing Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge acknowledged the difficulty of protecting a system in which shipments change hands constantly as they are moved on various modes of transportation around the world. “We need to set standards, we need to identify best practices, and we need to call upon the companies and the individuals responsible for cargo security to help us develop that strategy,” Ridge said. “It’s absolutely critical to the parents who must have that Dancing Elmo doll delivered in time for Christmas,” he said. Due to confusion within the department — particularly among Customs and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Coast Guard — only ad-hoc measures have been adopted to protect cargo shipping, Ridge said. “During the two years since DHS was established, this has frequently led to questions of “who’s in charge?’” the draft strategy says. Deputy Homeland Security Secretary James Loy acknowledged the delay. “This session is already a year late,” he said yesterday during a meeting in northern Virginia of government and business representatives on cargo security (Leslie Miller, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Dec. 16). Back to top

European Leaders Pledge Stronger Ties with Iran; Opposition Leader Accuses EU of Appeasement The European Union is prepared to strengthen ties with Iran if Tehran shows progress on issues related to terrorism and human rights, EU leaders said in a draft text released today in Brussels, where EU and Iranian officials have this week discussed Iran’s nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Dec. 14). The leaders “confirmed the Union’s readiness to explore ways to further develop political and economic cooperation with … Iran, following action by Iran to address other areas of concern,” which include “the fight against terrorism, human rights and Iran’s approach to the Middle East peace process,” according to the text (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Dec. 17). EU leaders should support a change in leadership in Tehran rather than tying itself to Iran, an exiled opposition leader said. “European appeasement provided ample opportunity to the mullahs to inch closer to the nuclear bomb,” said Maryam Rajavi of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (Reuters, Dec. 16). Elsewhere, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said that, despite the Bush administration’s skepticism about negotiations with Iran, France continues to believe that “political methods are a good way” to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear plans and urged the United States to support the process, AFP reported. “We need U.S. attention and support,” Barnier said during a trip to Washington. “We need the United States to be with us” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Dec. 16). Back to top       North Korean Nuclear Talks Unlikely to Resume Before Start of Second Bush Term Stalled six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program are unlikely to resume before U.S. President George W. Bush begins his second term next month, a South Korean official yesterday told the Korea Herald (see GSN, Dec. 16). “The chances are extremely slim that North Korea will return to the talks before then,” the official was quoted as saying, according to the Xinhua News Agency. “After verifying the new [administration] lineup in the United States, North Korea will then decide whether to return to the talks and what to do next,” the official said. “And with North Korea in such a position, our government should not act too hastily to push them” (Xinhua, Dec. 17). Meanwhile, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who began a two-day meeting with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun today in Japan, indicated economic sanctions would be a last resort against North Korea. Japanese public opinion has been steadily growing in favor of punishing North Korea over its abductions of Japanese citizens in the 1970s. The situation was exacerbated last week when Japanese scientists determined that cremated human remains received from Pyongyang as part of a repatriation effort for the victims were not from the individuals they were supposed to be. “There have been mounting calls for sanctions against North Korea over the false remains but we need to continue talking with Pyongyang even for the purpose of getting to the bottom of the case,” Koizumi said. “We will wait and see how North Korea responds and then we will take our next step.” South Korea said the false-remains incident ought to be examined closely before Japan takes any action. “I even think it may have been a simple miss or mistake,” Roh told the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper. “If it was a mistake, it is important that they clear up the misunderstanding with an appropriate explanation.” “If it becomes clear that it was done with evil intent, I think that sanctions (by Japan) are possible,” Roh added. “Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is reacting carefully and coolly and that is the appropriate response” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Dec. 17). Back to top

Pentagon Looks to Declare Anthrax Risk Emergency, Resume Mandatory Vaccinations By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A senior Republican congressman is investigating a U.S. Defense Department claim that an emergency exists requiring it to resume mandatory military anthrax vaccinations, which were blocked by a federal judge in October (see GSN, Nov. 11). Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in a letter last Friday asked Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to declare a state of emergency with the aim of resuming anthrax vaccinations, apparently without first informing the soldiers to be vaccinated of the risks of side effects and obtaining their consent. In making his request, Wolfowitz cited “a classified November 2004 Intelligence Community assessment” of a threat to U.S. forces in South Korea and the U.S. Central Command region, which includes Iraq and stretches from the horn of Africa to Central Asia. “I have determined there is a significant potential for a military emergency involving heightened risk to United States military forces of attack with anthrax. … This heightened risk has been and continues to be the basis for the DOD program of vaccinating personnel serving in areas of the Central Command and Korea,” he wrote. The military suspended the vaccinations after a U.S. District Court judge ruled in October that a prior Food and Drug Administration approval for the drug’s use against inhalation anthrax was invalid, that the drug therefore remained experimental for that purpose, and so troops should be given it only with informed consent. The Defense Department appears unwilling to provide the vaccinations to soldiers with informed consent, apparently out of concern a voluntary vaccination program would result in refusals, increasing U.S. military vulnerability to an attack. In a letter last night obtained by Global Security Newswire, Representative Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) asked the Central Intelligence Agency to provide him with the intelligence assessment cited by Wolfowitz and a briefing on the perceived danger. “The basis for any determination of emergency use of a biological warfare countermeasure should be as clear as possible to those who take the vaccine and to their elected representatives,” wrote Shays, who chairs the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform. Shays also sent a letter to Thompson, asking whether his agency views Wolfowitz’s letter as a valid emergency determination under statutory requirements. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act “explicitly requires” a determination by the defense secretary and publication of such a determination in the Federal Register for emergency use, along with the concurrence of the Health and Human Services Department, he wrote. The Defense Department request “presents a number of unique, potentially troubling legal and procedural issues,” he wrote. Shays furthermore urged Health and Human Services to review Wolfowitz’s request “deliberately and openly … with maximum public input to avoid even the implication HHS will rubber stamp or give unquestioning, and underserved, deference to DOD determinations on medical matters.” “Hundreds of military personnel have suffered adverse reactions to the vaccine,” he wrote. The military has maintained the drug is relatively safe and effective against inhalation anthrax and that the Food and Drug Administration rule was legitimate. Defense Department Strategy Uncertain Observers say they are uncertain what Wolfowitz was trying to accomplish with his letter, noting as Shays did that federal law requires the defense secretary to determine a state of emergency and to publish the determination in the Federal Register prior to emergency use of an unapproved vaccine. The emergency-use provision was contained in the Project Bioshield Act of 2004 passed by Congress in July and this appears to be its first invocation. Furthermore, another U.S. law requires the military to obtain a presidential waiver to resume the anthrax vaccinations without informed consent, in light of the judicial ruling on the status of the vaccine, and whether there is an emergency or not, said John Michels, a partner in the Chicago office of McGuireWoods LLP representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit that pushed for the injunction.  “We are not exactly clear on the meaning of the Wolfowitz letter,” Michaels said. The law “says you can’t use investigational drugs without the consent of the soldier or a presidential waiver. That’s the bottom line right there,” he said. U.S. officials appear unwilling to pursue a presidential waiver. Officials with the Health and Human Services and Defense departments had not returned requests for comment by press time. Back to top       Proposed Biological Lab Poses Little Risk, Homeland Security Officials Say Residents near Fort Detrick, Md., would not be endangered by a U.S. Homeland Security Department biological threat research laboratory proposed for operation at the U.S. Army site, department officials said yesterday (see GSN, June 30). The $128 million National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center would not develop biological weapons or violate the Biological Weapons Convention, officials added. Critics questioned whether researchers at the facility would develop new strains of bacteria and viruses or new delivery methods in order to test U.S. defenses, according to the Associated Press. “How you can do that responsibly and in a way that does not induce a biological arms race is a real concern,” said Alan Pearson of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington. The center would “provide the nation with the scientific basis for awareness of biological threats and attribution of their use against the American public,” according to the final environmental impact statement on the project. Work would include examining U.S. vulnerability to biological threats, guiding countermeasure development and analyzing evidence from biological weapons incidents, according to the statement. Construction is expected to begin in early 2006 and be completed within 2 1/2 years, AP reported (David Dishneau, Associated Press/Herald-Mail, Dec. 16). Back to top

Mustard Leak Detected at Deseret Depot Workers at the Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah discovered mustard gas leaking from a munition Wednesday, the Deseret News reported (see GSN, Nov. 17). The 155 mm cannon shell had previously been placed in a container after leaking. That container then began leaking, so technicians moved the shell into a larger airtight container where it will remain until disposal, according to the depot. No chemical vapor escaped into the environment, a depot spokeswoman said (Deseret News, Dec. 16). Back to top

U.S., Japan Sign MOU on Missile Defense Cooperation The United States and Japan today signed a memorandum of understanding on increasing missile defense cooperation, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Dec. 15). The agreement will allow the two countries to share information on missile defense systems and cooperate on joint projects, a Japanese Defense Agency spokesman said. The agreement also calls for the creation of a high-level committee to supervise cooperative efforts, the agency said in a statement. “After joint research, we will move on to joint production," said Japanese Defense Chief Yoshinori Ono. “This is the demand of the times” (Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Dec. 17).   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.