Representative Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), speaking with reporters earlier this year, expressed confidence at a hearing yesterday that a nuclear technology agreement with India could satisfy congressional concerns (Frederick J. Brown/Getty Images). Congressional Doubts Persist on Indian Nuclear Deal By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Experts and U.S. lawmakers at a hearing yesterday continued to question the Bush administration’s proposal to allow India access to U.S. nuclear energy technology, saying it could benefit Indian nuclear weapons and ICBM programs and harm nonproliferation efforts (see GSN, Oct. 13)...Full Story

U.S., North Korea Exchange Friendly Diplomatic Gestures as Next Round of Nuclear Talks Approaches The United States and North Korea have recently exchanged diplomatic gestures, which could increase the likelihood of progress at the next round of talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear program, USA Today reported today (see GSN, Oct. 26)...Full Story

Iranian President’s Call for Destruction of Israel Raises U.S., Canadian Nuclear Concerns U.S. and Canadian officials expressed “concern” over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program yesterday following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s call for the destruction of Israel, CNN reported (see GSN, Oct. 27)...Full Story

	Thursday, October 27, 2005

Insurance Software Calculates Risk of Terror Attack There is a 3.5 in 100 chance that terrorists will use a weapon of mass destruction sometime in the next year, according to a computer program designed to calculate the danger of an act of terrorism in specific areas, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Aug. 5). Risk Management Solutions developed the program to enable companies that provide terrorism insurance to estimate the likelihood of an event in 228 countries. The risk-modeling firm uses statistical, historical, military, geographic and industrial information and input from defense advisers to prepare trends, graphs and ratios for the program, according to AFP. “We use statistical patterns of risk. We look at the intentions of the terrorists: they tell us a lot about their intentions, we have to listen. They publish, they tell us their reasons,” said Andrew Coburn, RMS terrorism department director. “We know what they are trying to achieve.” The modeling program allows for risk estimates for specific streets or buildings in the highest-risk cities. It helps insurance companies set prices for clients and tells them if particular risk levels have been exceeded for locations at risk of an attack. “Hot spots” for a potential terror strike — and thus an insurance payout — include New York City, London and Paris (Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 27). Back to top

New U.S. Intelligence Plan Focuses on WMD, Terrorism Blocking the spread of weapons of mass destruction and defeating terrorists are among the priorities of a new U.S. intelligence strategy unveiled yesterday, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, June 29). The top “mission objective” of U.S. intelligence agencies is to “defeat terrorists at home and abroad by disarming their operational capabilities and seizing the initiative from them by promoting the growth of freedom and democracy,” according to the 20-page plan. Agencies also need to enact “proactive counterproliferation efforts” and increase their work to block outlaw nations or terrorists from obtaining unconventional weapons, the document states (Jim Mannion, Agence France-Presse, Oct. 27). Back to top       Philippines Defends WMD Readiness The Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines said they are ready to combat acts of chemical or biological terrorism, the newspaper Abante reported this week (see GSN, Sept. 16). The statement comes after a U.S. counterterrorism official said that nations needed to increase their antiterrorism defenses, according to Abante. Police Chief Leopoldo Bataoil said his forces are on alert and monitor suspicious movements in the country. He offered the presence of uniformed police in crowded areas as evidence of this readiness (Noel Abuel, Abante/BBC Monitoring, Oct. 24). Back to top

Congressional Doubts Persist on Indian Nuclear Deal By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Experts and U.S. lawmakers at a hearing yesterday continued to question the Bush administration’s proposal to allow India access to U.S. nuclear energy technology, saying it could benefit Indian nuclear weapons and ICBM programs and harm nonproliferation efforts (see GSN, Oct. 13). The proposal requires changes to numerous U.S. export control laws, created by Congress in the 1970s following an Indian nuclear test in 1974, which prohibit nuclear technology transfers to countries not under full international safeguards. A senior U.S. official last week suggested that India’s support for U.S. efforts to curtail Iran’s nuclear program had eliminated much congressional opposition to the deal. At an International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors meeting last month, India voted in favor of a resolution declaring Iran in noncompliance with its international safeguards obligations (see GSN, Sept. 26). New Delhi, however, issued a statement to indicate that it did not wholly endorse the finding. The board passed the resolution by a majority vote, the first time a major safeguards decision was not approved by consensus. “Since the Indian government was very clear and decisive to vote in the IAEA, that issue has disappeared in the U.S. Congress and we now find substantial support in the U.S. Congress for the agreement reached in July,” Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns told an Asia Society gathering last week. “I think by the time President [George W.] Bush visits [New] Delhi, and India, in the early winter of 2006, you will have seen both governments have met our commitments, and I hope President Bush and Prime Minister [Manmohan] Singh will be in a position bring this agreement into effect,” he added. House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) yesterday disputed that opinion in opening comments at a hearing on the India proposal. “I am troubled by a number of public statements by administration officials that congressional support for the overall agreement is broad and that our consent is virtually guaranteed. I do not understand how these statements could be made with Congress having yet to be fully consulted,” he said. Restating his criticism from a hearing last month, Hyde said the administration still has given Congress “little if any information … regarding either the details of its ongoing discussions with the Indian government or the legislation it plans to introduce.” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said at a briefing yesterday that India would first need to “take several steps,” including separating its civilian and military nuclear facilities, “before we actually present any agreement to the Congress.” Nonproliferation Policy Education Center Executive Director Henry Sokolski, testifying before the committee yesterday, warned that the administration’s press to quickly finalize a deal by early 2006 could undercut Congress’s ability to shape its details. “I think you folks need to weigh in … before they pre-empt your legislative power,” he said. Support and Opposition While Hyde said he was undecided about the proposal, some committee members did appear to have made up their minds — both for and against the agreement. Ranking Democrat Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) said New Delhi’s vote at the IAEA meeting had resolved his “deep concern over India’s relationship with Iran.” “I am pleased … that India has since demonstrated that it takes this new partnership with Washington seriously,” he said. While the details of the proposal “are still being worked out,” Lantos expressed confidence the deal could be modified to satisfy Congress. It should also cause a “strengthening of the international nonproliferation regime,” including by increasing international safeguards on Indian technology and extending its moratorium on nuclear testing, he said. Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas) said the deal would destroy the United States’ credibility as an international nonproliferation advocate. “In the 60s, India signed a 30-year agreement with the United States to only develop peaceful uses from the nuclear technology we exported to them. India broke its word and detonated a test nuclear bomb in 1974. India then refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and today almost all of India’s nuclear facilities are not subject to the IAEA safeguards,” he said. “Now, we have U.S. officials actively proposing to join India in breaking its word, looking the other way, rewarding India for bad behavior. This is unacceptable.  We either have a treaty or we do not. And if we allow India a pass, [we’ll have] a long line of other countries that will expect the same pass,” he said. Experts Critical Only one of the five experts asked to testify at yesterday’s hearing expressed enthusiastic support for the proposal. “This new policy gives the U.S. an additional ally in the international effort to restrict the flow of [nuclear] technology,” said Neil Joeck, a senior fellow at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Center for Global Security Research. While “important concerns have been raised about the details of the safeguards,” he said, “we should not overlook the powerful symbolism of the step that India has already taken,” such as its proposed commitment to help negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for weapons. The other four experts expressed concerns. Each suggested ways in which the proposal could be amended, such as by requiring India to stop producing military fissile materials, ending nuclear weapons production, and precluding cooperation between the two nations on sensitive fuel-cycle capabilities. “I think the deal at least as it currently stands is a loss for nonproliferation,” said Robert Einhorn, a senior adviser on international security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. India’s proposal to separate military and civilian nuclear activities and place the latter under international safeguards is “largely symbolic,” he said, as it “has no effect on India’s ability to keep on producing fissile material for nuclear weapons at facilities not designated as eligible for safeguards.” Without additional requirements on the deal, said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, “it will be difficult to have confidence that the agreement will not cause serious damage to nuclear nonproliferation.” If India fails to end fissile material production for nuclear weapons, U.S. nuclear assistance “would likely spill over into India’s nuclear weapons program,” he said. The international community could perceive the agreement as rewarding ongoing bad behavior by India, said Leonard Spector, deputy director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He said India’s violation of nonproliferation obligations persist today, with its continued use of a Canadian-supplied research reactor in its nuclear weapons program. The CIRUS reactor, donated for nonmilitary use in 1956, still “features prominently” in India’s nuclear weapons program by supplying a significant amount of plutonium, Spector said. “What matters is the question of whether or not the United States should undertake new nuclear commerce with a country that is misusing old nuclear commerce, partly from us but mostly from Canada,” he said. Approving the proposal in its current form would help India expand its nuclear weapons arsenal, give technical support to its ICBM program, and undermine efforts to restrict nuclear and missile proliferation, according to prepared testimony by Sokolski. Question of Priorities Representative Edward Royce (R-Calif.) said curbing the spread of nuclear weapons should be the overriding consideration when evaluating the administration’s proposal. “The goal of curbing nuclear proliferation, which is a global concern, should trump other factors when gauging this deal. WMD proliferation is that great a threat,” he said. Lantos, on the other hand, suggested that fostering a strong U.S.-India strategic alliance and enlisting India as an ally in preventing Iranian proliferation should be key factors for Congress as it considers the deal. While members should be informed about the technical aspects of the deal, he said, “At the end of the day, we will still be left with the necessity of making decisions on the basis of political and strategic criteria.” There are “overarching strategic [and] political criteria which must be brought into play before Congress decides to act,” he said. Einhorn, however, argued that the proposed deal suggests a deprioritization of nonproliferation by the United States. “In general, the deal conveys the message that the United States, the country that the world has always looked to as the leader against proliferation, is now giving nonproliferation a back seat to other foreign policy goals.” Back to top       U.S., North Korea Exchange Friendly Diplomatic Gestures as Next Round of Nuclear Talks Approaches The United States and North Korea have recently exchanged diplomatic gestures, which could increase the likelihood of progress at the next round of talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear program, USA Today reported today (see GSN, Oct. 26). The White House allowed a North Koran diplomat to speak today on Capitol Hill. Officials in North Korea, meanwhile, last week hosted New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and told him they were flexible in their demand for a civilian nuclear reactor. Pyongyang has also allowed U.S.  tourists to enter the country to celebrate the 60th anniversary of victory against Japan in World War II, according to USA Today. North Korean Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Han Song Ryol is set to speak today on the “road to peace in the Korean Peninsula,” according to Sang Joo Kim, executive vice president of the Institute for Corean-American Studies. A North Korean official has not visited Washington since June 2004, according to the State Department. Special permission is needed for North Korean diplomats to travel beyond 25 miles outside of New York because there are no formal diplomatic ties between Washington and Pyongyang. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the United States was “realistic” in its expectations for the upcoming talks, but “we have a basis on which to build” following successful talks in August and September.  Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill and other negotiators now have room to negotiate directly with Pyongyang. However, former U.S negotiator with North Korea Jack Pritchard said he is “concerned that Hill's leash is not as long or as elastic as I hoped” (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, Oct. 27). China said today it expects the six-party talks to resume as expected early next month, but did not provide a set date, the Associated Press reported. “After the last round, it was agreed to meet again in the first half of November,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said. “The various parties have agreed and said there were no difficulties” in sticking with the established schedule (Associated Press, Oct. 27). “According to the information we have, the possibility of opening a fifth round of six-party talks is being considered for the week beginning Nov. 7,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said (Reuters/New York Times, Oct. 26). Back to top       Iranian President’s Call for Destruction of Israel Raises U.S., Canadian Nuclear Concerns U.S. and Canadian officials expressed “concern” over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program yesterday following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s call for the destruction of Israel, CNN reported (see GSN, Oct. 27). Ahmadinejad yesterday — quoting Ayatollah Khomeini — told protesting students in Tehran that Israel “must be wiped out from the map of the world.” U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the remark “underscores our concern and the international community's concerns about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.” “We cannot tolerate comments of such hatred, such anti-Semitism, such intolerance. These comments are all the more troubling given that we know of Iran's nuclear ambitions,” said Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew (CNN, Oct. 27). Ahmadinejad’s statement prompted Israel to call for Iran’s removal from the United Nations, Agence France-Presse reported. “It's the first time since the creation of the U.N. in 1945 that one of its members has openly called for the destruction of another,” said Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres. “Iran's intentions are dangerous because this country wants to develop a nuclear weapon and long-range missiles.” Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon echoed Peres’ statements.  “We believe this country does not have a place in the U.N. because it has long threatened the existence of the state of Israel with its nuclear program and missiles,” he said.  “Iran is our most dangerous enemy” and “threatens the free world,” he added (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, Oct. 27). In Jerusalem, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday rejected Israeli calls for quick action against Iran, saying the nuclear matter is “too serious to be guided by politics.” “We rely on the professional assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” he said. “All our assessments … do not substantiate the allegations that we have a clear and present danger coming from Iran” (Haaretz/Associated Press, Oct. 26). Meanwhile, Iranian Vice President Parviz Davudi yesterday cautioned against interference in its nuclear negotiations, Agence France-Presse reported. “Iran recognizes the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and its rules — we will see any irresponsible interference as a serious threat and we demand a nondiscriminatory approach,” he said. “Iran announces it is ready for negotiations on its nuclear program with all members of the IAEA and other countries without preconditions,” Davudi added (Agence France-Presse II/IranMania.com, Oct. 26). Back to top       Italy Denies Passing on Forged Niger Uranium Papers Italy this week denied claims that before the invasion of Iraq it gave the United States and the United Kingdom false documents indicating that Baghdad was looking to buy 500 tons of uranium yellowcake in Niger, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 17). The documents were cited as proof that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, according to AP. Italy’s denial came quickly after officials in Rome said Nicolo Pollari, head of the Italian SIMSI intelligence agency, would testify next month before a parliamentary commission.  The office of Premier Silvio Berlusconi “categorically” denied claims in an Italian newspaper that Italy passed on documents it knew to be forged.  “The facts that are narrated … do not correspond to the truth,” the government said in a statement, denying it had any “direct or indirect involvement in the packaging and delivery of the ‘false dossier on Niger's uranium’” (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 26). Back to top

Russian Scientists at Work on Smallpox Vaccine The head of the Russian Association of Biotechnologies Experts said yesterday that scientists from his country are developing an oral smallpox vaccine, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Oct. 20). Work on smallpox vaccines, which was stopped by the World Health Organization in 1980, must continue “because of the growing threat posed by bioterrorism,” Anatoly Vorobyov told ITAR-Tass. Vaccinations against the disease ended that year following the total elimination of naturally occurring smallpox. Vorobyov said Russian scientists have restarted work on a vaccine pill from 30 years ago. “Chemical tests will begin soon.  (The vaccine's) efficiency on animals has been established, it still needs to be tested on humans,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 26). Back to top

Russian CW Destruction Facility Nears Completion A chemical weapons disposal facility in the Udmurtia Republic of Russia is more than 90 percent finished, ITAR-Tass reported today (see GSN, Sept. 12). Work has begun on a lewisite destruction line and on a furnace that will be used to burn waste at the Kambarka facility. German companies are providing needed equipment and German specialists helped to design and construct some buildings in the industrial part of the plant, according to ITAR-Tass. A Russian official said international inspectors, who have visited the site during construction, controlled the assembly of the site. They also monitored safety. “Representatives from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, who visited Kambarka in September, spoke very highly of the measures taken there to guarantee ecological safety,” said Valery Malyshev, deputy chief of the conventional problems department. The site stores more than 6,000 tons of lewisite, which is slated to be destroyed in the next 3 1/2 years, ITAR-Tass reported (ITAR-Tass, Oct. 27). Back to top

Cost of U.S. Missile Interceptors Could Rise The U.S. Missile Defense Agency believes that a proposed $25 million reduction in fiscal 2006 for future purchases of U.S. missile interceptors could boost the price of each interceptor by $20 million, Inside Missile Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 7). The agency had sought $50 million for long-lead procurement of 10 Block 2008 ground-based interceptors. While the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the request, its House of Representatives counterpart allocated only $25 million for the purchase of five interceptors. The Defense Department in an Oct. 12 appeal argued that failing to approve the entire requests would cause procurement and fielding problems for the interceptors. “The proposed reduction may not shut the manufacturing line down, but it increases interceptor unit costs by $20 million each and due to low quantities resulting from the proposed reduction places some (second) and (third) tier vendors at substantial risk of exiting the market,” the Defense Department said. “The restoration and certification of these vendors could further increase interceptor costs by millions of dollars and take up to (one) year” (Thomas Duffy, Inside Missile Defense, Oct. 26). Potential fiscal 2006 budget cuts to the agency’s Kinetic Energy Interceptor program could damage efforts to produce a destruction capability against missiles during their boost phase, the Defense Department argued. The Kinetic Energy Interceptor is designed as a failsafe program should the Airborne Laser fail to function as a boost-phase missile killer. Mobile land- and sea-based KEI interceptors would be designed to target incoming missiles during the five-minute boost-phase period, according to Inside Missile Defense. The Missile Defense Agency had sought $218.7 million for the KEI program in fiscal 2006. However, the Senate Armed Services Committee cut $50 million as it considered “risk mitigation for the boost phase to be excessive,” the Defense Department said in its appeal of the decision. “The proposed reduction will result in scaling back interceptor and fire control risk-reduction activities and eliminate activities such as system engineering, mission assurance, and affordability initiatives crucial to improving program performance and overall system cost,” the appeal states. “Most importantly, if the Airborne Laser program should not be able to overcome remaining technical challenges, the Kinetic Energy Interceptors program will not be in proper position to quickly support the boost-phase missile defense mission, deferring capability for years” (Thomas Duffy, Inside Missile Defense, Oct. 26). Meanwhile, the U.S. 94th Air and Missile Defense Command was activated on Oct. 14, United Press International reported. There are now three Army air and missile defense commands — two on active duty and one in reserve. The new command will support planning for theater-level air and missile defenses, among other duties, UPI reported (Martin Sieff, United Press International/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 25).   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.