A Pakistani kite bearing the image of top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the confessed head of a nuclear networking being investigated by authorities (AFP photo/Arif Ali). IAEA Seeks to Inspect Pakistani Nuclear Sites As part of its investigation into the recently exposed international nuclear smuggling network, the International Atomic Energy Agency has formally asked Pakistan to allow agency inspections of its nuclear facilities, the Pakistani newspaper The News reported today (see GSN, March 19). The purpose of the inspections would be to recover environmental samples to help verify Iranian claims that traces of highly enriched uranium found in Iran originated in Pakistan, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said...Full Story

Target Date for Fielding U.S. Missile Defense Was Not Politically Set, Official Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A senior U.S. military official disputed suggestions by a Democratic legislator yesterday that a Sept. 30 deadline to begin operating elements of a national missile defense system was set to help President George W. Bush in the November election (see GSN, Feb. 3)...Full Story

Blair, Qadhafi Pledge to Share al-Qaeda Intelligence British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi agreed yesterday to increase their cooperation in the war on terrorism, including exchanging sensitive information on al-Qaeda (see GSN, March 25; Nicholas Watt, The Guardian, March 26)...Full Story

	Friday, March 26, 2004

Blair, Qadhafi Pledge to Share al-Qaeda Intelligence British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi agreed yesterday to increase their cooperation in the war on terrorism, including exchanging sensitive information on al-Qaeda (see GSN, March 25; Nicholas Watt, The Guardian, March 26). Speaking after the two leaders met in Tripoli, Blair said the United Kingdom was offering Qadhafi a “new military relationship” and pledged cooperation in the fight “to defeat the common enemy of extremist fanatical terrorism driven by al-Qaeda.” Libyan Foreign Minister Abd al-Rahman Shalgam said al-Qaeda terrorists “are the real obstacle against our progress. They are against our security.  They are against women. They are against the new culture.  They are against political moderation, against any change in the region” (Los Angeles Times, March 26). British diplomats traveling with Blair said Libya has been providing information about the Libyan Islamic Fighters Group, an organization affiliated with al-Qaeda. “The Libyans obviously have intelligence that we would never be able to lay our hand on,” said a diplomat, indicating that the information would be passed on to U.S. intelligence services. Richard Dearlove, head of Britain’s MI6 intelligence agency, has met in Tripoli with his Libyan counterpart, Musa Kusa, to discuss the war on terror and Libya’s dismantlement of its banned weapons programs, according to the Guardian. Shalgam said Libyan intelligence had long been aware of the dangers posed by Osama bin Laden, even as western countries supported his forces against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Al-Qaeda attempted to kill Qadhafi in 1998, according to the Guardian. “When we started speaking about terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s some countries in America and Europe were supporting these people,” Shalgam said. “At the time we spoke about bin Laden and others — and we considered them terrorists,” he added (Watt, The Guardian). After the meeting, Blair announced that Shell oil group had won a contract worth up to $1 billion for the exploration of natural gas in Libya, and that the British aerospace firm BAE Systems was approaching a deal on civil aviation services for Libya, the New York Times reported. Meanwhile in London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw praised the “high degree of courage” exhibited by Qadhafi in recent months. However, British Conservative Party leader Michael Howard said calling Qadhafi “courageous for giving up murder and terrorism is really extraordinary” (Patrick Tyler, New York Times, March 26). Back to top       Bush Administration Delays Syria Sanctions Due to Increased Middle East Tensions The Bush administration has delayed imposing new sanctions against Syria due to tensions in the Middle East caused by Israel’s assassination this week of the leader of the militant group Hamas, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, March 18). The planned sanctions are called for in the Syria Accountability Act, which was signed into law late last year and imposes sanctions against Damascus for its alleged WMD activities and support for terrorism. After weeks of interagency consultations, the Bush administration decided to adopt up to three of the various diplomatic and economic penalties contained in the law, and could announce the new sanctions next week, the Times reported. While the United States has few commercial ties to Syria, making the anticipated economic sanctions largely symbolic, supporters said they could help deter foreign investment in Syria’s oil industry. “It’s important to both embarrass Syria as well as hurt their economy,” said Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). “The Bush administration has done everything it could to show that Damascus has to change its course,” she said (Christopher Marquis, New York Times, March 26). Back to top

IAEA Seeks to Inspect Pakistani Nuclear Sites As part of its investigation into the recently exposed international nuclear smuggling network, the International Atomic Energy Agency has formally asked Pakistan to allow agency inspections of its nuclear facilities, the Pakistani newspaper The News reported today (see GSN, March 19). The purpose of the inspections would be to recover environmental samples to help verify Iranian claims that traces of highly enriched uranium found in Iran originated in Pakistan, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. She also said that the agency expects Pakistan to provide “all possible information” on the nuclear network, adding that the agency wants to learn whether terrorist groups or other countries besides Iran, Libya and North Korea, purchased Pakistani nuclear technology. While Pakistan is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the IAEA has asked Islamabad to “voluntarily” comply with the inspection request, Fleming said (The News/BBC Monitoring, March 26). Meanwhile, Pakistani authorities said that businessman Aizaz Jaffery, who was arrested in January, has become the focus of an investigation into the financing of the international nuclear network, according to the Financial Times. While Jaffery was not initially considered as a suspect, a sudden set to trips he made to the United Arab Emirates late last year raised suspicion that he might be the network’s financial manager, the Times reported. Investigators said they were examining whether the trips to Dubai were intended to shut down the financial network used to transmit funds from purchasers of Pakistani nuclear technology to Pakistan. Jaffery also visited Iran after Pakistani authorities in late November detained three employees of the Khan Research Laboratories, Pakistan’s main nuclear weapons facility, an official said. Authorities are investigating whether the purpose of Jaffery’s trip was to learn how much information Iran had provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency about the nuclear technology it had obtained from Pakistan, the official said (Bokhari/Burnett, Financial Times, March 26). Back to top       U.S.-Russian HEU Deal Remains on Track Despite Breakup of Russian Atomic Energy Ministry By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Russia’s elimination of its Atomic Energy Ministry as part of a massive government reorganization will not affect an agreement with the United States to convert highly enriched uranium from Russian warheads to civilian use, sources said this week (see GSN, Jan. 16). Earlier this month, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced he would reassign the ministry’s activities to other cabinet-level departments during a reshuffling that saw the number of Russian ministries cut almost by half (see GSN, March 10). Under the new governmental structure, expected to be finalized within a few months, nuclear activities will be handled by the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, which will be part of a new Industry and Energy Ministry. “In our rights we may not be the successor of Minatom [the Atomic Energy Ministry], but in our functions that is what we are,” agency Director Alexander Rumyantsev, who formerly headed the Atomic Energy Ministry, said Monday during a press conference in Moscow. According to Matthew Bouldin of the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, three approaches are being considered for the final delineation of control over various Russian nuclear activities. In one approach, the new atomic energy agency could directly transfer defense-related nuclear activities to the Defense Ministry. Another approach being considered is for the Industry and Energy Ministry and the Defense Ministry to have “dual jurisdiction” over the new agency — an approach similar to the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, Bouldin told Global Security Newswire today. He also said that a “bureaucratic influence” approach might also be implemented, under which the Defense Ministry would have “more influence” over the atomic energy agency. It remains “up in the air” as to which approach will be used, said Bouldin, who is set to release today a paper on the nonproliferation aspects of the new Russian government reorganization. He added, though, that he expected some combination of the three to be implemented. While some experts have raised concerns that the reorganization could complicate U.S.-Russian nonproliferation efforts, both U.S. and Russian sources said that one such effort — the “Megatons to Megawatts” project — will be unaffected. The Megatons to Megawatts program took effect in 1994, aiming to remove 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from Russian nuclear weapons for conversion to civilian nuclear power plant fuel by 2013. As the program reached its halfway point this year, it has eliminated the equivalent of 8,000 nuclear warheads and has provided enough nuclear fuel to power a city the size of Boston for about 300 years, according to the U.S. Enrichment Corp. (USEC), the U.S. commercial agent for the program. Rumyantsev said Monday that the Megatons to Megawatts contract is being fulfilled “like clockwork.” Similarly, USEC does not see the program being hindered by the Russian government restructuring, company spokesman Charles Yulish told GSN today. He said he was “quite confident” the program would continue unabated, noting that the Russian governmental reorganization would leave the same people and agencies in charge of the effort there. In addition, Russia is proud of the program’s success to date and receives about $500 million per year from the effort, Yulish said. One unresolved question, however, is how the proceeds from the Megatons to Megawatts program will be used, according to Bill Hoehn, director of the RANSAC Washington office. Previously, a “substantial amount” of the funding received through the effort was transferred back to the Atomic Energy Ministry for use in consolidating the Russian nuclear weapons complex and to redirect some of its workforce, Hoehn told GSN today. Back to top       U.S., Russian Officials Discuss Improvements to Nuclear Confidence-Building Measures By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON ó Two Russian officials today wrapped up a week of meetings with their U.S. counterparts here on how to improve a system used by the two countries for the exchange of data required under the Strategic Arms Reduction treaties and other agreements (see GSN, March 4). In a first-ever exchange, watch officers from Moscow’s Nuclear Risk Reduction Center met with U.S. personnel from a parallel center housed in the State Department. U.S. watch officers are slated to visit Moscow next month and annual visits to each country are planned thereafter. U.S. Nuclear Risk Reduction Center Staff Director Harold Kowalski, who has headed the U.S. operation since it began, said the meetings this week focused on how better to use, distribute and translate information exchanged by the centers. The U.S. center handles up to 3,000 messages a year on nuclear matters, along with 15,000 communications on conventional weapons. The center has also begun communicating some Chemical Weapons Convention data, an activity Kowalski said is “just in the infant stages,” with the center handling three or four messages weekly. Kowalski also told reporters his center has been informally aiding nuclear rivals Pakistan and India in their bid to set up an arrangement similar to the U.S.-Russian Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers. Created in 1988 by the United States and the Soviet Union, Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers now exist in Russia, the United States, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The centers are used for routine exchanges of information, most often regarding movements of missiles, Kowalski said. “It’s been a very vanilla operation,” he said. Back to top       U.S. Considers Keeping Multiple Warheads on ICBMs The U.S. Defense Department is considering preserving up to 800 nuclear warheads on the U.S. arsenal of 500 Minuteman 3 ICBMs, the Oakland Tribune reported this week (see GSN, Sept. 26, 2003). In a never-ratified strategic arms control treaty signed in 1993, the United States and Russia agreed to eliminate all multiple-warhead, land-based strategic missiles, in part by converting some to carry single warheads, according to the Tribune.  However, Russia declared the document void after the United States pulled out from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 (see GSN, June 14, 2002). That freed Moscow to preserve its own multiple-warhead, land-based ICBMs, most of which are aimed at the United States. Similarly, the U.S. Minuteman missiles are largely aimed over the North Pole at Russian ICBM facilities, the Tribune reported. Pentagon officials confirmed that maintaining multiple warheads on Minuteman 3s is being considered as part of a large review of U.S. strategic forces, the Tribune reported. “According to the war we’re looking at that, we’re looking at eventually ... 500 missiles that could be uploaded to as many as 800 warheads,” Gen. Robert Smolen, Air Force director of nuclear and counterproliferation, told Air Force Magazine last July. “So somewhere in that mix of 500 is 800. And it could be one on some, two one another, three on another,” he said. The plan to preserve the 800 warheads on the 500 Minuteman 3s could be affected by the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty, which calls for both the United States and Russia to reduce their “operationally deployed” nuclear weapons to no more than 2,200 by the end of 2012, according to the Tribune. To meet the treaty requirements, the United States could choose to maintain one weapon per each Minuteman 3 and keep the remaining 300 in reserve. Otherwise, the United States would have to eliminate 300 other nuclear weapons, the Tribune reported (Ian Hoffman, Oakland Tribune, March 22). Back to top       Russia Warns NATO of Possible Nuclear Doctrine Revision Ahead of Alliance Expansion Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov has said that Moscow would revise its defense strategy, including its nuclear weapons doctrine, if NATO continues to maintain an offensive doctrine, The Hindu reported today (see GSN, Oct. 10, 2003).  Ivanov’s warning came shortly before NATO was scheduled to admit seven new members, including the three Baltic former Soviet states — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. “If NATO is preserved as a military alliance with its current offensive military doctrine, Russia’s military planning and principles of development of the Russian armed forces, including their nuclear component, will be revised accordingly,” he wrote in the latest issue of the journal Russia in Global Politics (Vladimir Radyuhin, The Hindu, March 26). Back to top

U.S. Accuses North Korea of Offering Missiles to Myanmar North Korea attempted to sell surface-to-surface missiles to Myanmar, raising strong objections from the United States, the Straits Times reported today (see GSN, Feb. 11). The United States has raised “concerns” about the attempted sale with Myanmar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Daley recently told U.S. lawmakers. While Myanmar indicated that it would not accept the North Korean missile offer, “we will continue to monitor the situation and will deal with it vigorously and rapidly,” Daley said (Straits Times, March 26). Back to top

Target Date for Fielding U.S. Missile Defense Was Not Politically Set, Official Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A senior U.S. military official disputed suggestions by a Democratic legislator yesterday that a Sept. 30 deadline to begin operating elements of a national missile defense system was set to help President George W. Bush in the November election (see GSN, Feb. 3). The date was chosen by the Missile Defense Agency for “internal management purposes” only and not required by the Bush administration, said agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish at a hearing of the strategic forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. “One [reason] was that we needed a date for people to work to. And secondly, we needed to measure ourselves, as to what the progress would be, in an enormous, complex activity,” he said. Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) suggested the date selection was politically motivated to support Bush’s re-election.  “It appears to me, unfortunately, that we’re rushing to deploy it and claim that we’ve deployed it, and have pictures taken and backs slapped to meet a date that has artificially been put out by the administration for political reasons,” she said. Bush vowed to deploy an effective national missile defense system “at the earliest possible date” when campaigning in 2000 and in December 2002 ordered operations to begin “in 2004,” avoiding a specific date. Tauscher suggested that the administration, by declaring that elements of the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense system would ready for operation in October, is seeking to imply that the system would have greater capabilities than it would actually have. “I feel deeply concerned that they trot people like you out, who have tremendous service and tremendous loyalty to this country, to represent a point of view that is more ideologically driven than it is by facts,” she said. “Well, I can’t speak to the politics of that type of thing,” said Kadish. “We’ve been working hard for over six years now in the GMD element towards this date. And I think if you review my testimony even four years ago, I was saying [that] the calendar year 2005 would be the time frame we were going to do this, and September, October this year is pretty close to that,” he said. A Specific Goal A review of public statements and documents gives no indication that the administration directed the agency to choose the Sept. 30 date for initial operations. Both civilian and military officials and contractors, though, have cited it as the target. In 2000, Kadish did testify that the Pentagon could produce an initial capability “by 2005” if then-President Bill Clinton gave the go-ahead. The Pentagon became more specific after Bush took office, however, setting a goal of installing an initial “test bed” of five interceptor missiles in Alaska by fiscal 2004, which ends Sept. 30. Kadish told the subcommittee yesterday that officials then selected the date because it was when they “postulated” the test bed would be ready. Steering clear of a specific date, Bush in December 2002 declared his administration’s objective to have initial operations “beginning in 2004.” The Pentagon said that would consist of 10 interceptors.   Congressional testimony the following spring, however, suggested the agency and senior Pentagon officials continued to view Sept. 30 as the deadline. “The department’s plans are to add by the end of FY 2004 one more Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) at Fort Greely in Alaska for a total of six GBIs at that site, and four interceptors at Vandenberg, Air Force Base, for a total of up to 10 interceptors at both sites,” Kadish said in written testimony in March 2003. “As you know, we’re on a very aggressive time line to deliver in 19 months, that initial capability and in support of the Missile Defense Agency,” Navy Adm. James Ellis, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said that month, of the deadline. This week, at a conference in Washington sponsored by the agency, one of the lead contractors posted a clock above its booth counting down the seconds until the date for initial defensive operations. Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner said by e-mail that the date was a goal, not a deadline, intended for having “up to” 10 missiles in place, and not necessarily on alert. “There has never been any direction, and certainly no “deadline” set, to have a certain number of interceptors operational and on alert by a specific date,” he said.  Despite the target date, the agency disclosed in February it would not have all 10 missiles in place and activated by Sept. 30 (see GSN, Feb. 3).  Tauscher and other Democrats yesterday argued the system is being imprudently hurried into service, noting that key pieces of the complex developmental system would not be in place for some time, and that technological immaturity meant the system has not been tested under operationally realistic conditions.  “We know when the [target] missile’s going to be shot. We know its trajectory.  We know its location. We have a little beeper on it that tells us, ‘Here I am. Here I am.  Come get me,’” Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said of previous system tests. “Rushing something into the field just to meet an arbitrary date on a calendar is not something we can strongly endorse,” said the panel’s senior Democrat, Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas. Untold Capability Kadish acknowledged “artificialities” in the testing so far, but said he believed system elements have been shown to offer some initial defensive capability. “We are now to the point where I believe that technology is going to support having a capability to defend the country where there is zero capability today,” he said. Kadish said the initial capability would be “very basic,” but he and other officials would not say exactly what level of protection the system might provide. “There will be an inherent capability there. Now, how capable that is, is another issue, and that will be addressed in the building,” said Christie, apparently referring to the Pentagon. I can “assure you that to the best of our technical ability, we are making sure that the combatant commanders and our political leaders, from the secretary [of defense] on down, understand what it is we have. And I can assure you it’s not being overstated,” Kadish told the panel. The Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Thomas Christie acknowledged yesterday that the operations goal has interfered with testing plans for the system. “The decision to exploit the test-bed elements for an initial                         defense operational capability has required some substantive changes in test planning,” he said. Christie said, though, that putting systems in place would help the agency test under more realistic conditions and ultimately field systems more quickly. Back to top       Retired U.S. Military Leaders Urge Delay of Missile Defense Deployment, Cite Higher Priorities By Marina Malenic Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Forty-nine retired U.S. generals and admirals have asked the United States to postpone deployment of a new missile defense system and redirect the funds to securing potential terror targets (see GSN, March 19). The officers, including retired Adm. William Crowe, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1985 to 1989, released a letter to President George W. Bush at a news conference today calling the missile defense technology “expensive and untested.” They also characterized the project as a less-than-optimal use of limited defense funds. “As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of mass destruction,” says the letter. The letter says that missile defense funding ought to be diverted for use in securing U.S. nuclear facilities, ports and borders against terrorist attack as the “militarily responsible course of action.” The retired brass said the U.S. nuclear deterrent, coupled with its capability to pinpoint the source of missile launches worldwide, is a sufficient guard against a missile attack. “It is, therefore, highly unlikely that any state would dare to attack the U.S. or allow a terrorist to do so from its territory with a missile armed with a weapon of mass destruction, thereby risking annihilation from a devastating U.S. retaliatory strike,” the letter says. Back to top       Missile Defense Blimps to Be Built in Ohio A U.S. defense contractor is set to update an 80-year-old factory to begin production of surveillance blimps to be used in missile defense, the Voice of America reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 30, 2003). Lockheed Martin yesterday announced a $24 million plan to refurbish a plant in Akron, Ohio, that built airships used by the U.S. Navy during World War II. The facility would manufacture the next generation of blimps that would be deployed for up to a month and patrol for low-flying cruise missiles able to evade conventional radar. The blimps would be capable of performing several functions currently performed by satellites, but at a fraction of the cost (Voice of America, March 25). Back to top       Australia Could Get More U.S. Missile Defense Dollars Australia’s Defense Department said participation in the U.S. missile defense plan could increase funds for defense technology research and development, Australian IT reported today (see GSN, March 8). Senior Australian officials said the two governments were already in talks over boosting Australia’s participation in defense research and evaluation of new technologies, which could mean more money for Australian firms. The Australian Defense Force is conducting an interoperability study. “The U.S. spends a huge amount on R&D, whereas our proportion reflects the size of our country and our budget,” said Air Vice Marshall Kenneth Clarke, head of capability systems. “The interoperability review will be identifying ways to support additional research,” he added. Some joint projects are already under way, according to Clarke. “We have an aggressive program with a range of U.S. research and development institutes, which are also looking at activities within Australia,” he said. “Australian technology is of clear interest,” he added (Simon Hayes, Australian IT/News.com.au, March 26).     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.