North Korean officials reportedly acknowledged for the first time possessing a uranium enrichment program during a private discussion with U.S. envoy Joseph DeTrani (shown in a March photo with South Korean KEDO representative Sun Sup-chang) during a six-nation working group meeting last week (AFP photo/Timothy Clary). U.S. Considers Restoring Reactor Deal With North Korea The United States might consider offering North Korea a light-water nuclear reactor as part of efforts to persuade the communist nation to relinquish its nuclear ambitions, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, May 18). Sources said the decade-old offer — seemingly dead — was discussed privately during last week’s working group talks in Beijing on the nuclear standoff. “The North Koreans raised it,” said one Bush administration official. “They said, ‘If we address the (highly enriched uranium) program, what would that mean for the light-water reactor program?’”..Full Story

House Committee Questions U.S. Support for Chinese Membership in Nuclear Export Control Group By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers expressed concern yesterday over China’s efforts to join a multilateral export control regime that regulates trade in nuclear-related technology, citing Beijing’s planned nuclear assistance to Pakistan (see GSN, May 12)...Full Story

Missile Defense Battle Brews in U.S. Senate By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans expressed concern this week that Democrats might advance legislation to forestall the Bush administration’s plan to deploy a second batch of ground- and sea-based missile defense equipment (see GSN, May 12)...Full Story

	Wednesday, May 19, 2004

U.S. Promoted Iraqi WMD Claims Despite CIA Doubts Over Source’s Credibility The Bush administration publicly trumpeted WMD-related claims made by an Iraqi defector prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, months after the defector had been rejected by U.S. intelligence after performing poorly on a lie-detector test, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported yesterday (see GSN, May 17). Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri claimed to have worked at chemical, biological and nuclear sites around Baghdad. The White House included Saeed’s claims in a 2002 background paper on prewar Iraq that is still available on both the White House and State Department Web sites, the Inquirer reported. A footnote in one version of the background paper attributes Saeed’s claims to a 2001 New York Times article, in which the defector described himself as an engineer who had worked on renovating secret WMD-related facilities (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2001). The Times article appeared just days after CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency experts determined that Saeed was unreliable after a poor performance in a CIA-administered polygraph test, U.S. officials said. When members of the Iraq Survey Group, currently conducting the search for evidence of prewar Iraq’s alleged WMD efforts, took Saeed back to Iraq earlier this year, he was unable to identify a single site associated with weapons of mass destruction. “The overall impression was that he was trying to pass information far beyond his area of expertise,” a senior U.S. official said. Saeed was made available to U.S. intelligence through the Iraqi National Congress, a former opposition group that has been heavily criticized for providing inaccurate information on prewar Iraq’s alleged WMD efforts (Jonathan Landay, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 18).  U.S. officials said yesterday that the Defense Department would cease by the end of June paying the group more than $300,000 per month for information-collecting activities, the London Independent reported. “After 30 June, we expect all funding by U.S. agencies to be ceased because the Iraqi government will be sovereign,” INC spokesman Entifadh Qanbar said (Andrew Buncombe, London Independent, May 19). Sarin Meanwhile, Defense Department officials said yesterday that an artillery shell used in a roadside bombing in Iraq this week contained about a gallon of sarin, according to the New York Post (see GSN, May 18). Two preliminary tests have been conducted on the shell and further testing still needs to be performed at a U.S. laboratory before a conclusion can be made, officials said. The preliminary findings were alarming enough, however, that U.S. military teams are investigating the shell’s origins amid concerns that militants in Iraq may be planning to conduct attacks using Iraq’s alleged prewar WMD stockpile, the Post reported. “Not only have we found weapons of mass destruction, but they are in the hands of the exact people we don’t want them in the hands of. They may use them and not know what they have,” Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said. A gallon of sarin could kill hundreds of people if used in an enclosed space such as a subway station or building, according to Michael Powers of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute (Niles Lathem, New York Post, May 19). Back to top       Al-Qaeda Wants WMD Strike on U.S., Official Says Al-Qaeda wants to use an unconventional explosive such as a chemical or biological weapon on U.S. soil, the intelligence chief at the U.S. Homeland Security Department said Monday (see GSN, May 17). Retired Lt. Gen. Patrick Hughes said his fears are based on captured material, interviews and other information, according to the Associated Press. He said he worries about chemical and biological attacks and radiological weapons, and he is particularly concerned about another anthrax attack like the 2001 mail attacks that killed five people. Hughes said the potential for an anthrax attack is “not the only one,” but anthrax is easy to produce and disperse. He also noted that making some biological agents is “not hard to do,” with recipes for both anthrax and the deadly poison ricin readily available on the Internet. “We have a new norm,” said Hughes, who believes terrorists have adapted to security checks and changes implemented since Sept. 11, 2001. “If the past is indeed prologue, then we are going to screw up, or they are going to get lucky,” Hughes said, adding, “I can’t sleep” (Katherine Pfleger Shrader, Associated Press/Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 18). Back to top       Australia Improves Ties With Libya Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was expected to begin a two-day visit to Libya today to discuss increasing trade with the African country after Tripoli agreed to renounce weapons of mass destruction, according to Agence France-Presse (see GSN, May 14). “We have some commercial interests there that we’re prepared to promote and exploit now which when we had other grave concerns about Libya, we weren’t prepared to promote,” Downer said yesterday. “So this has opened up opportunities to build our relationship with Libya, and that’s a sensible thing to do after Libya has taken that decisive step to abandon its WMD programs,” he said Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile announced Monday that Australia plans to appoint a new diplomat to Libya soon — more than 15 years after Australia suspended diplomatic relations with Libya, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse, May 18). Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department indicated yesterday that Libya could soon be removed from a list of countries found not to be fully cooperating with U.S. antiterrorism efforts. “The decision to include Libya on this list comes in the context of an ongoing and comprehensive review of Libya’s record of support for terrorism. While this process is not complete, Libya has taken significant steps to repudiate its past support for terrorism. When our review of Libya’s overall record is complete, we will consult further with the Congress,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in a statement (U.S. State Department release, May 18). The United States yesterday removed Sudan from the list of uncooperative countries, according to Agence France-Presse. The decision to remove Sudan and consider removing Libya, however, is mostly symbolic as both countries remain on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, according to a State Department official. “This basically strips away one layer of the sanctions onion for Sudan and says that that layer could be removed for Libya,” the official said. “It doesn’t green-light anything for either of them. They would have to come off the state sponsors list for that to happen,” the official added (Matthew Lee, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 18). Back to top

U.S. Considers Restoring Reactor Deal With North Korea The United States might consider offering North Korea a light-water nuclear reactor as part of efforts to persuade the communist nation to relinquish its nuclear ambitions, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, May 18). Sources said the decade-old offer — seemingly dead — was discussed privately during last week’s working group talks in Beijing on the nuclear standoff. “The North Koreans raised it,” said one Bush administration official. “They said, ‘If we address the (highly enriched uranium) program, what would that mean for the light-water reactor program?’” The private discussion between Joseph DeTrani, the top U.S. representative to the talks, and his North Korean counterpart, Ri Gun, was the first time since 2002 that North Korean acknowledged a program to enrich uranium, the Times reported. DeTrani reportedly told Ri that building the reactor could be “one element” of a U.S. policy if the North Korea abandoned its nuclear arms program, rejoined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and permitted International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to monitor Pyongyang’s nuclear activities. Under the 1994 Agreed Framework negotiated by the Clinton administration, the United States, Japan and South Korea agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water reactors, a design considered to be less useful for potential nuclear weapons applications. The agreement died after North Korea reportedly admitted to a U.S. diplomat in October 2002 that it was working on a secret uranium enrichment program. Concrete had been poured for the foundation of the first light-water reactor in August 2002 and construction was suspended the following December. DeTrani’s reactor offer led to interagency disputes between administration officials who oppose making concessions to North Korea and others who prefer compromise, the Times said. Defense Department officials generally have been opposed to making concessions, while State Department officials, particularly in the East Asia bureau, favor a new deal, according to the Times. “We’ve been that route before,” said one official who opposes the reactor offer. The official added that it appeared DeTrani exceeded the talking points prepared during interagency discussions, which the official said prevented him from discussing concessions such as the reactor. Another administration official said that DeTrani’s discussion of the reactor did not undermine the U.S. position that Pyongyang must completely and verifiably dismantle all its nuclear arms programs. A senior White House official said the U.S. policy “remains unchanged.” “We see no future for the light-water project,” the official said Resuming the light-water reactor deal with North Korea would be a bad idea, said Henry Sokolski, director of the private Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. “I think we should leave bad enough alone,” Sokolski said. “This is no way to improve any aspect of the crisis. This is literally a radioactive idea that should be kept away from all people who care about keeping peace on the (Korean) Peninsula for the future. If we are going to bribe them, find something else,” he added. Sokolski said providing North Korea with a light-water reactor would only “increase the uncertainty of how many bombs’ worth of plutonium they can produce.” Publicly, DeTrani told reporters in Beijing that the talks were a “good meeting.” Asked if progress had been made, DeTrani replied, “Yes, definitely” (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, May 19). Meanwhile, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is prepared to tell North Korean leader Kim Jong Il during their summit talks set for Saturday that he would try to normalize diplomatic relations during his term if Kim resolves the nuclear weapons and other issues, sources said Tuesday. Koizumi has told those near to him, “I’d like to realize normalization of the ties between Japan and North Korea during my term,” the Yomiuri Shimbun reported (Yomiuri Shimbun, May 19). Elsewhere, the United Kingdom yesterday called on North Korea to follow Libya’s lead and end its development of nuclear weapons, the London Daily Telegraph reported. Foreign Minister Bill Rammell met in London with North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kung Sok Ung. He told Kung that Pyongyang’s renouncing nuclear arms would lead to international aid. Rammell also pressed for U.N. human rights monitors to be admitted into North Korea (Anton La Guardia, Daily Telegraph, May 19). Back to top       House Committee Questions U.S. Support for Chinese Membership in Nuclear Export Control Group By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers expressed concern yesterday over China’s efforts to join a multilateral export control regime that regulates trade in nuclear-related technology, citing Beijing’s planned nuclear assistance to Pakistan (see GSN, May 12). The United States supports China’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John Wolf said during a House International Relations Committee hearing.  “By joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group, China is stepping up to a set of responsibilities that reflect and will incorporate the kind of position that China … aspires to have around the world,” Wolf said.  Several lawmakers, though, questioned China’s commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, specifically regarding Beijing’s intention to construct a 300-megawatt civilian nuclear reactor in the Pakistani city of Chashma. The facility would be the second nuclear plant that China has built for Pakistan; the first is also at Chashma. “China, in joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group with a contract in hand to provide a new nuclear power reactor to Pakistan is a very serious issue. Is the administration confident that this nuclear assistance to Pakistan does not pose a proliferation threat?” said Representative Tom Lantos (Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, in his opening remarks. NSG members have agreed not to transfer nuclear technology to any country that does not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor all of its nuclear activities, such as Pakistan. The Chashma reactor contract would be “grandfathered” in and allowed if Beijing became a regime member, Wolf said. “The United States would prefer that no country provide Pakistan the benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation. But the Chashma 2 plant will be under IAEA safeguards, and the NSG full-scope safeguards provisions have always made allowance for the completion of agreements and contracts entered into before NSG membership,” he said. Lantos also expressed concern that China might seek to further provide nuclear assistance to Pakistan after becoming a regime member by couching such assistance as “follow-on contracts” to the second Chashma plant. Wolf said that the Bush administration has called on China to provide “prompt” information about its commercial support for foreign civilian nuclear programs, including the Chashma reactor. When asked, though, Wolf said he was “unaware” if the Bush administration had requested to examine the Chashma reactor project contract, prompting a heated exchange with Representative Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). “There’s a difference between asking for full information and asking for the contract. If they say they have a contract, that’s a legal document. Any first year, you know, law student in doing due diligence would ask to see the contract,” Ackerman said.  “I’m not sure that if a third party asked us to see the contract of a Westinghouse contract with somebody else that Westinghouse would necessarily show that third party the details of the contract,” Wolf replied. The administration itself is concerned about possible information exchanges between Chinese and Pakistani scientists during the construction of the Chashma reactor, according to Wolf. “It will be important that they make sure that no information is passed that shouldn’t pass,” he said. Lawmakers at yesterday’s hearing also discussed China’s record of enforcing its national export control regulations (see GSN, April 15).  “It is not enough for the Chinese government to say they share our objectives. They must provide us with foolproof evidence that every Chinese company, whether owned by private entities, the Chinese military, or whatever organization, is fully under control of the central government of China when it comes to the issue of nuclear proliferation,” Lantos said. Wolf acknowledged the administration’s broader proliferation-related concerns regarding China, especially related to chemical- and missile-related exports, but cautioned against linking NSG membership to progress on the issue. “Tying NSG membership to a host of other issues at the last moment, we do not believe would bring us progress on the other issues. But it could well cause the cessation of cooperation on nuclear issues that we care about and on which we are now engaging even today,” he said. Instead, by admitting China into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the United States and other countries may be able to increase their pressure on China to better enforce its export-control system, Wolf said.  “I think it adds to the influence that can be brought to bear, because instead of just the United States having a bilateral discussion with China, it will now be several dozen other members,” he said. Wolf denied that the Bush administration’s support for China’s membership into the regime was based on U.S. commercial interests. He said, though, that the United States was “interested in promoting the sale of U.S. nuclear technology” to the Chinese civilian sector. “We think that it’s both good for the U.S. economy, but it’s also good in terms of giving us influence, in terms of an evolving civil nuclear program in China,” Wolf said of China’s membership. “It’s a program that’s going to evolve. … To the extent that U.S. technology provides the basis for that, it does give us the means to have a direct discussion with China on how that technology is used, and we think that that’s valuable,” he said. Back to top

Pine Bluff Set for Munitions Destruction in February The Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas is set to begin destroying 3,850 tons of chemical weapons in February, about 10 months late according to the most recent schedule, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 31). “The previous target of April 2004 reflected an aggressive, 17-month schedule for testing and confirming operational readiness of the plant, procedures and people,” said project manager Randy Long. Long said the delay was caused by the need to incorporate additional safety measures, hire and train about 100 new workers, and gain authorization for chemical weapons while notifying federal, state and local officials. Roughly 12 percent of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile is stored at Pine Bluff (Associated Press, May 19). Back to top       U.S. Army Says Chemical Weapon Destruction in Oregon Could Begin by July The U.S. Army plans to begin destruction of 3,700 tons of sarin-filled rockets stored at the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon by mid-July, the Portland Oregonian reported (see GSN, May 11). Workers are scheduled to finish testing the incinerator’s systems and addressing environmental concerns in the next month or so. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality officials could then advise members of the Environmental Quality Commission to allow incineration to start at the commission’s July 16 meeting. “We could start up immediately after that,” if the commission approves, Army spokeswoman Mary Binder said. However, Dennis Murphey, the DEQ administrator overseeing the incineration project, warned that “there’s an awful lot of work that has to be done by the Army and by the contractor,” Washington Demilitarization Co., to meet Oregon environmental requirements. “I don’t think it’s wise at all to start” in July, said Karyn Jones, a member of the Hermiston activist group Gasp, which has sued to stop the incineration plan. “They still have so many things to take care of,” she added. Gasp wants the state to require the Army to change its destruction method from incineration to another technology such as chemical treatments. “Depending on what [the judge] rules, they may be forced to switch technologies,” Jones said (Andy Dworkin, The Oregonian, May 19). Back to top

Missile Defense Battle Brews in U.S. Senate By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans expressed concern this week that Democrats might advance legislation to forestall the Bush administration’s plan to deploy a second batch of ground- and sea-based missile defense equipment (see GSN, May 12). Arguing for the administration’s plan, a key Republican senator said yesterday that the currently authorized system of 20 ground-based interceptors, parts of which are planned for operation this year, would provide only a “really marginal” defense against a North Korean threat. The fiscal 2005 defense authorization bill on the Senate floor this week contains money for fielding in 2006 and 2007 a second batch of 20 ground-based interceptors, a third interceptor missile base, possibly overseas, and additional sea-based interceptors. Democrats are expected to introduce one or more amendments that might require that the Ground-based, Midcourse Defense system first be tested under realistic conditions before any additional deployments are funded and redirect funding for additional fielding to other defense priorities such as the war in Iraq. An independent report released last week argued that the system is probably not sufficiently developed to work even with additional interceptors and requires more development and operational testing (see GSN, May 14). That Union of Concerned Scientists report argued statistically that deploying additional interceptors would have little impact on the chances of defeating an enemy attack with multiple missiles. “Deploying more interceptors will not address the fundamental limitations of    the Block 2004 [fiscal 2004 and 2005] system that severely constrain its   effectiveness, nor will they improve its defensive capability in a meaningful    way,” the analysis said. The Bush administration has argued that deploying an incomplete a missile defense capability is better than nothing. Republican Concerns Prominent Republicans this week expressed concern about potential Democratic amendments to the bill.  A requirement for more testing is “probably one of the most difficult things to argue [against] on the [Senate] floor because there is this perception that if we have more operational testing that somehow the other things would be better,” said Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), speaking yesterday at an event sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation. He said amendments to move money from missile defense to “our men and women on the field of battle” also “could be difficult” to defeat. Allard said, however, that additional interceptors were needed to address a North Korean long-range missile capability, calling the currently planned capabilities insufficient. “We think we have some idea about how many missiles might be in North Korea capable of reaching here and the bottom line is without getting into classified information is we’re really marginal,” he said. Requiring more testing could interfere with providing an effective defense, added Allard, who heads the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee. “If we do too much testing we would not have the capability if there should for some reason or another be a launch against the United States,” he said. North Korea unsuccessfully tested a potential three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile in 1998 and has abided by a testing moratorium since. A U.S. intelligence community report last year said North Korea, nevertheless, “may be ready for flight-testing” that system.  Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) Monday on the Senate floor urged colleagues to “join together, support the chairman, support the committee, support the president in what he is trying to do, and not engage in a thousand cuts that could end up crippling this program yet once again, getting us to the point of deployment but no further than that point.” Kyl urged senators to “not retrench under the rubric of “more testing is necessary. … There are challenges.  The ideological opposition to missile defense, unfortunately, still exists,” he said. Once But Not Further Democrats have argued that the Bush administration is attempting to bypass legal operational testing requirements set up in the early 1980s to prevent the costly deployment of systems that do not work well or are unsafe. Democrats last year criticized the administration’s initial fielding plan but did not block funding. Critics this year have argued that the second fielding, estimated to cost $4.7 billion over several years, would effectively represent a deployment without operational testing and would draw additional missiles away from testing, retarding development. Since announcing the first fielding, the administration has canceled nine scheduled flight intercept tests of the system. “I am concerned that the bill would provide more than $10 billion for missile defense, including more than a half-a-billion dollars for additional interceptors, without imposing basic ‘fly-before-you-buy’ requirements on the program,” said Senator Carl Levin in a statement released on Monday on the bill. “If we want a missile defense that really works, rather than one that sits on the ground and soaks up money, we should not shy away from realistic testing requirements,” he said. During the closed-door Armed Services Committee markup of the bill earlier this month, Republicans defeated a proposal by Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to require operational testing for all missile defense systems being fielded. Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) also unsuccessfully proposed a measure to cut funding for the production of additional interceptors until operational testing and evaluation of these interceptors is completed. No Funding Trade-Off Required Kyl and Allard both argued that the administration’s missile defense plans would not come at the expense of the war effort. “Those of us on Armed Services that have been following that don’t think that if we continue spending money on missile defense we’re going to shortchange our people in the field,” Allard said. Requiring operational testing, however, “would slow down the program” and make it more expensive, he said. Kyl called the idea that missile defense spending draws money from other priorities a “false choice.” He said the defense authorization bill fully funds both priorities. “Of course, the bottom line is, they are both important. In the United States, we have the capability of doing both. Indeed, we have no choice but to do both. … So missile defense versus the war on terror would, indeed, be a false choice,” he said. Back to top       Missile Defense Laser Costs Climbing, GAO Says The U.S. Defense Department effort to create an airplane-mounted laser to shoot down missiles has already doubled the original cost estimate and still has technical difficulties, according to an audit expected to be released today by the General Accounting Office (see GSN, Jan. 7). Initialized eight years ago, the program has cost $2 billion through fiscal 2003, and the Pentagon is set to spend another $3.1 billion from fiscal years 2004 through 2009, the Washington Post reported. “The cost growth occurred primarily because the program did not adequately plan for — and could not fully anticipate — the complexities involved in developing the system,” the report says. Originally designed to destroy short- and medium-range ballistic missiles soon after launch, the laser system’s mission has been expanded by the Bush administration to include targeting intercontinental missiles and has become a key element in the administration’s pursuit of a layered defense against missile attack. The GAO report, however, states that the laser’s missile defense potential value is based so far on models and simulations, rather than “on any demonstrated capability of the system,” the study says. The system consists of a high-energy chemical laser mounted in a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. The laser is designed to rupture an enemy missile’s casing, thereby causing it to lose power or flight control. The report cites a history of technical difficulties and delays experienced by the program (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, May 19). Back to top

NNSA Meets Goals of Securing Domestic Radioactive Sources The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration over 18 months recovered and secured 5,529 domestic radioactive sources, which could have been used by terrorists to develop radiological weapons, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced yesterday. The amount surpassed a congressional target of recovering 5,000 sources during that period. In November, the Energy Department created the Nuclear and Radiological Threat Reduction Task Force, which consolidated three departmental programs to address both domestic and international radioactive materials (see GSN, Nov. 4, 2003). In the past three months, according to an Energy Department press release, the task force has recovered four “high-risk” strontium 90 radioisotopic thermoelectric generators near Houston, Texas, and has recovered about 500 “at-risk” radiological sources last month from a bankrupt company in Pennsylvania.  Since beginning its efforts, the National Nuclear Security Administration has recovered 9,500 at-risk domestic radioactive sources, the department said. “We are continuing to work overtime to secure and recover radioactive materials that can be used for dangerous purposes.  The national security effort we are involved in to recover these materials with other U.S. agencies is vital to the safety and security all Americans,” Abraham said in a statement (see GSN, May 10; U.S. Energy Department release, May 18).   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.