The Earth’s southern hemisphere is completely covered by nuclear weapon-free zones, and a Mexico City conference would like to see the northern hemisphere adopt more of them (OPANAL map). Mexico Conference Urges Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire MEXICO CITY — An international conference on nuclear weapon-free zones opened here yesterday with diplomats arguing that the lessons learned from nearly 40 years of negotiating such areas should be broadly applied to reducing reliance on nuclear weapons in global security (see GSN, April 26). ..Full Story

U.S. Senators Plan New Chemical Security Measures By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. senators planning new laws on security at chemical facilities heard expressions of approval and detailed legislative proposals today from top experts in the field (see GSN, April 26)...Full Story

More Interviews Planned on Bolton, as White House Boosts Effort to Secure Appointment The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has included former high-level CIA and State Department officials on a list of people to be interviewed in coming days regarding John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, April 26)...Full Story

	Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Terrorism Incidents Rose Sharply Last Year The number of serious terrorism incidents worldwide more than tripled last year, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, April 19). The number of “significant” incidents was counted at 655 for 2004 — a marked increase from a record of roughly 175 the previous year, according to congressional aides who were briefed on the statistics. The State Department this year does not plan to include figures on terror attacks in its annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report, which is due by Saturday. The new U.S. National Counterterrorism Center is expected to add the statistics at a later date. Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) urged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a letter to include the data in the report, saying that “the large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people.” Bush administration officials said the apparent increase was the result of more inclusive methodology in counting incidents, sources said. The State Department’s acting counterterrorism chief, Karen Aguilar, said the statistics are not relevant to the report and that Rice withheld them on the advice of her counselor, Philip Zelikow, according to congressional aides who attended a private briefing with Aguilar on Monday. Aides to members of both political parties criticized the explanation. “It’s absurd to issue a report without statistics,” said GOP aide. “This is a self-inflicted wound by the State Department” (Susan Glasser, Washington Post, April 27). Back to top       Sept. 11 Commission Members Continue Work The heads of the Sept. 11 Commission are planning a series of hearings this summer to assess the Bush administration’s response to recommendations the panel made last year, USA Today reported (see GSN, Dec. 21). Remaining issues include giving Congress stronger oversight of intelligence and homeland security agencies, particularly in budget areas; improving the perception of the United States in the Arab world; creating a civil liberties board; and offering more radio frequencies for use by first-responders to improve communication during emergencies. “We know many of these recommendations are going to be implemented,” said former commission Chairman Thomas Kean. “The question is whether they’re going to be implemented before the next attack or after.” Kean said, however, that the decision in Washington to create a national intelligence director position, as recommended by the commission, made him “very, very happy.” Kean and commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton plan six hearings in June and July. A “report card” on progress in meeting the commission’s recommendations will be issued in July, USA Today reported (Mimi Hall, USA Today, April 27). Back to top

More Interviews Planned on Bolton, as White House Boosts Effort to Secure Appointment The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has included former high-level CIA and State Department officials on a list of people to be interviewed in coming days regarding John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, April 26). The list of up to 24 contacts includes former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin and one-time Assistant Secretary of State John Wolf. Both have remained publicly mum regarding Bolton’s nomination. Committee staffers also plan to speak with former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Thomas Hubbard, who has commented on his disagreements with the undersecretary of state (see GSN, April 22). The private interviews are expected to focus on questions about Bolton’s workplace conduct and his alleged efforts to influence intelligence analyses, the Times reported. State Department analyst Christian Westermann is set to be interviewed again. He previously told committee staff that Bolton tried to push him from his post when the two disagreed on the existence of a Cuban biological weapons program (see GSN, April 13). It was not known if Bolton will testify again before the committee, the Times reported (Douglas Jehl, New York Times, April 27). The Foreign Relations Committee does plan to submit a list of roughly 20 questions to Bolton, the Associated Press reported. The panel will be requesting e-mails and telephone logs that could relate to his disagreements in 2002 with intelligence analysts over Cuban weapons programs. Bolton himself was on Capitol Hill yesterday, AP reported. Aides to three Republican members of the Foreign Relations Committee who have expressed concerns about Bolton — Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) — said the nominee did not meet with the lawmakers. A spokeswoman for Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) would not comment on any meeting. Murkowski said she would make her decision on Bolton when the committee votes on May 12. “At this point in time I have not been presented with anything that would change my mind,” she said (Lolita Baldor, Associated Press/ABC News, April 27). A vote count being prepared this week could show that the full GOP-controlled Senate would support Bolton’s nomination even if the committee does not issue a recommendation or even votes against his appointment, the Washington Post reported today. A “nose count that demonstrates majority support for Bolton ensures that any Democratic effort to drag heels again in committee is just struggling against the inevitable,” said a senior Senate Republican aide. On the Senate floor, Democrats would have to use a filibuster or turn several Republicans against Bolton to block his appointment, the Post reported. The Bush administration’s greatest concerns focus on Voinovich and Hagel, who have not indicated which way they are prepared to vote. The White House is issuing responses to allegations against Bolton, and pressing its case that he is the best man to clean up the United Nations, according to the Post. “A vote for John Bolton will be a vote for change at the United Nations,” said Dan Bartlett, senior adviser to President George W. Bush. “A vote against will be for the status quo. The president believes the status quo is unacceptable and wants a person … who will be an agent for change” (VandeHei/Babington, Washington Post, April 27). Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove also met or called Republican senators yesterday to promote Bolton’s nomination, the New York Times reported. While there is concern that a loss in this matter could hurt Bush politically, some Republicans said the White House could appear more open to multilateral cooperation with other nations if Bolton goes down.   “Losing this might actually be beneficial,” said a GOP lobbyist close to the White House. “I think what will happen is that it will just atrophy on the Hill. And Bolton will just withdraw.  I don’t know if there will be indications from the White House, there will just be a lack of activity” (Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, April 27). Back to top       India Readies Law Outlawing WMD Proliferation Indian lawmakers are preparing a bill that would exact heavy penalties on people or entities found to be engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or weapons materials, The Indian Express reported today (see GSN, April 22). India’s Parliament could pass “The Weapons of Mass Destruction and Their Delivery Systems (Prevention of Unlawful Activities) Bill, 2005” before the body’s present session ends on May 13, according to the Express. The act would bar the export, trade, transfer or shipment of weapons and weapons-related materials, equipment or technology, the Express reported. The ban would cover nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, munitions and devices, radioactive material, fissile material and delivery systems. The penalty for dealing in unconventional weapons or radioactive material under the law would be five years to life in prison. Possession of a nuclear device or aiding terrorists to obtain weapons of mass destruction also could lead to a life sentence and a large fine. India also pledges in the bill not to support efforts by other nations to develop or obtain unconventional weapons. An agency might be organized to execute regulations called for by the act, the Express reported. Officials hope the legislation will convince other nations of India’s commitment to nonproliferation, and entice the United States, Russia and other countries to share nuclear technology with New Delhi (Shishir Gupta, The Indian Express, April 27). Back to top

Mexico Conference Urges Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire MEXICO CITY — An international conference on nuclear weapon-free zones opened here yesterday with diplomats arguing that the lessons learned from nearly 40 years of negotiating such areas should be broadly applied to reducing reliance on nuclear weapons in global security (see GSN, April 26).  Scheduled one week before the opening of the review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the three-day conference focuses on how zones can promote the disarmament and nonproliferation goals of the international pact. Lessons learned from the development of the zones, such as verification mechanisms and dealing with noncompliance, “could lead to practical ways to enhance the nuclear arms control regime and to concrete steps towards reaching our ultimate goal — a world free from nuclear weapons,” said Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This conference of states that have renounced nuclear weapons are pressing at this session a long-standing demand for legally binding pledges from nuclear-weapon states not to use nuclear weapons against them. These so-called negative security assurances are seen as an essential component in reducing the role of nuclear weapons in international security, but have been resisted by the nuclear powers. Of the five nuclear-weapon parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and United States — only China has given unequivocal commitments. Another common theme yesterday was how the precedents set by the four existing zones could be useful in defusing crises in other regions of the world, notably the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula.  The zones are “a testament to what nations can do, region by region, to achieve common security objectives,” ElBaradei said in a speech. “An important benefit of these zones is that they open a forum for expanded regional dialogue on issues of security.”  “To be successful, a collective security system must be equitable, inclusive and effective. … And it must not rely on nuclear deterrence,” he added. The conference is being held at Tlatelolco Plaza, where the first nuclear weapon-free zone treaty covering an inhabited part of the globe — Latin America and the Caribbean — was concluded in 1967. “The Treaty of Tlatelolco was visionary in [stopping] a nuclear arms race in our region,” said Edmundo Vargas Carreno, secretary general of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, which oversees the treaty. At the time, several Latin American countries, notably Argentina and Brazil, were conducting nuclear weapons research. By keeping the region “free of the nuclear threat,” Vargas said, Latin America and the other countries adhering to such zones should be “granted more effective guarantees” against nuclear attacks by the nuclear weapon states. This, he added, was “the main purpose of this conference.” In a message read to the conference, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called the Treaty of Tlatelolco “an inspiring landmark in global efforts to promote nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.” He said he hoped the meeting “will remind all states not only of the strategic and moral values of nuclear weapons free zones, but also of the possibilities for progress on a range of fronts in our quest for a world free of nuclear weapons.” In general, countries covered by a free-zone treaty pledge not to develop, test, possess or use nuclear weapons, nor will they allow nuclear weapons to be stationed on their soils or territorial waters. The treaties request that specific states outside of the region, usually the nuclear powers and countries with territories within the zone, respect the pact. Not all the governments outside the zoned regions called on to sign the various protocols have done so. There are treaties banning nuclear weapons from some 100 countries: the treaties of Tlatelolco, covering Latin America and the Caribbean; Rarotonga, covering the South Pacific; Bangkok, covering Southeast Asia; and Pelindaba, covering Africa. All nations in zones covered by a treaty have signed the pact. Pelindaba is the only treaty that has not yet entered into force. The United Nations recognizes Mongolia as a single-nation nuclear weapon-free zone. There are also treaties banning nuclear weapons from uninhabited regions of the world — Antarctica and the seabed. The areas covered by most of the zones abut each other, making the entire Southern Hemisphere free of nuclear weapons. Back to top       U.S., Latvia Sign Nuclear Threat Reduction Agreement The United States and Latvia signed an agreement yesterday to allow the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration to remove Soviet- and Russian-origin nuclear fuel containing highly enriched uranium from Latvia, the U.S. Energy Department announced (see GSN, June 7, 2004). Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Latvian Environment Minister Raimonds Vejonis signed the pact, which provides for repatriation to Russia of fuel from Latvia’s Salaspils research reactor, as well as security enhancement at the site.  The two nations also agreed to collaborate on improving the protection, control and accountability of Latvian nuclear materials to counter the threat of diversion or theft of the materials. The reactor was closed in 1998 and is set to be decommissioned (U.S. Energy Department release, April 26). Russia is prepared to handle the fuel, ITAR-Tass reported today. “We are ready to accept nuclear fuel from the Salaspils reactor for [processing],” said a spokesman for the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry. “Nuclear fuel from Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Libya, Uzbekistan and the Czech Republic has already been brought to Russia within the framework of a joint … program” with the United States and International Atomic Energy Agency (ITAR-Tass, April 27). Back to top       IAEA Reconsiders Small Quantities Protocol The International Atomic Energy Agency has circulated a confidential report asking the 35 states on its Board of Governors to rescind the Small Quantities Protocol, warning that it could be used as a loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, April 20). The protocol allows treaty members to forgo notifying the agency of natural uranium stocks up to 10 tons, according to Reuters. The protocol “has the effect of holding in abeyance the implementation of most of the safeguards measures,” along with “obligations to provide certain information and the agency’s right to request access to relevant locations,” according to the agency’s report. “As a result the [agency] does not independently verify a state’s initial confirmation that it meets the requirements for (the protocol), nor that that state continues to do so,” the report says. Eighty-six of the 189 NPT member states have signed a Small Quantities Protocol, Reuters reported. Once the protocol is signed, a country is assured that the agency will have minimal inspections authority, one diplomat from a board member state said. “Once you sign the Small Quantities Protocol, you’re off the hook,” said the diplomat. The report recommends that the board not allow any new protocols to be signed and that Director General Mohamed ElBaradei be allowed to request that all current signatories agree to cancel the agreements, according to Reuters. The issue is likely to be discussed at the next regular board meeting in June. Meanwhile, the Board of Governors is expected to refuse Saudi Arabia’s recent request to sign the protocol, diplomats on the board told Reuters (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, April 26). Back to top       Europe Calls on Iran to Allow IAEA Access to Nuclear Sites; U.S. Plans Bomb Sales to Israel The Council of Europe yesterday issued a resolution pressing Iran to fully open its nuclear sites for examination by International Atomic Energy Agency, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 26). The declaration, which comes three days before another round of Iran-EU nuclear talks, pledges consideration of Tehran’s security concerns. “Iran should be assured that the readiness to meet the ... concerns about its nuclear program would open new possibilities for international cooperation,” the resolution says (Associated Press/Santa Fe New Mexican, April 26). Meanwhile, the U.S. Defense Department reported to Congress yesterday its planned sale to Israel of 100 bunker-busting conventional GBU-28 bombs, Reuters reported (see GSN, April 13). The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency said the sale would “not affect the basic military balance in the region.” However, some experts said the proposed sale appeared to be made with Iran in mind. “One could be suspicious that these bombs could be used for an Israeli attack on Iran,” said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. “This particular munition is designed to destroy deeply buried high-value assets such as command centers or nuclear weapons facilities,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. “Draw your own conclusions” (Reuters, April 26). Back to top       U.S. Official Doubts Future North Korean Talks U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific Christopher Hill today expressed doubt about a potential return by North Korea to six-party talks on its nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, April 26). “The future of talks is very much uncertain at this point,” Hill said. “I think it is clear we have a problem here.” “We continue to have a North Korean regime that is very ambivalent about whether it wants to negotiate a settlement,” he said. Meanwhile, South Korean presidential security adviser Kwon Jin-ho said there “have been no activities” indicating that North Korea is preparing to test a nuclear weapon (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, April 27). Back to top       Russia to Get Two New Missile Submarines; Canada Aids Scrapping of Old Russian Nuclear Subs The Russian navy expects to receive two new strategic missile nuclear submarines by the end of 2006, Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov told Interfax today (see GSN, Jan. 31). The Yuri Dolgoruky and Dmitry Donskoy are each to be equipped with 12 missiles with a range of 5,000 miles, the Associated Press reported (Associated Press, April 27). Meanwhile, Canada yesterday announced a $26 million aid package to assist Russia in dismantling decommissioned nuclear submarines, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 31). “The initiative is part of Canada’s pledge to contribute up to $1 billion over 10 years, under the G-8-led Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction,” Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said in a statement. The money will allow towing of eight Victor class submarines to the Zvezdochka shipyard. Four are set to be defueled, while three are to be completely taken apart, according to AFP. “Canada is also working through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to ensure that the spent nuclear fuel removed from the submarines is safely secured and stored,” Pettigrew said (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, April 26). Back to top       DOE to Release Los Alamos Bid Request in May The U.S. Energy Department next month will release the request for proposals for entities interested in taking over management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 26). The document was initially expected to be issued this month, said Bryan Wilkes, spokesman for the agency’s National Nuclear Security Administration. “It’s an important contract and an important process, and the people who are key in that and are reviewing the contract and are putting together the RFP … just want to make sure they get it done right,” Wilkes said. Proposals will be accepted for 90 days after the document is issued, AP reported (Associated Press, April 27). Back to top

U.S. Senators Plan New Chemical Security Measures By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. senators planning new laws on security at chemical facilities heard expressions of approval and detailed legislative proposals today from top experts in the field (see GSN, April 26). The federal government and the chemical industry have done too little to address glaring vulnerabilities at sites that could prove attractive to terrorists, the experts told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “It is my conviction that al-Qaeda or one of its many radical jihadist imitators will attempt to carry out a major terrorist attack on the United States within the next five years. At the top of the list of likely targets is the chemical industry,” Council on Foreign Relations national security expert Stephen Flynn said. “There are practical steps that can be taken right now at a reasonable cost that can reduce the risk that the next terrorist attack will be catastrophic,” said the former Coast Guard commander, who after the 2001 al-Qaeda attack directed the council’s Independent Task Force on Homeland Security Imperatives.   “We must necessarily begin with a far more active role by the federal government in advancing security within an industry that has long been accustomed to managing its own affairs.” Homeland Security Department data cited by committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) indicate that there are about 300 chemical facilities nationwide where a toxic release could affect more than 50,000 people. Lawmakers and panelists repeatedly noted that many industrial chemicals found at such sites are similar to the chemical weapons of the early 20th century. An attack on such a facility, they said, would amount to a WMD strike carried out without the need for transporting a weapon. Meanwhile, Homeland Security Department programs that could address the weakness are “still in their infancy,” U.S. Government Accountability Office Natural Resources and Environment Director John Stephenson told the committee, adding that the overall state of U.S. chemical security is essentially unknown. Collins said existing legislation on the facilities was designed with accidents, not attacks, in mind and that new laws were needed that would require companies to assess and remedy vulnerabilities. “I’m confident,” top committee Democrat Joe Lieberman (Conn.) told the chairwoman, “that under your leadership, we’re going to get something done to protect the American people from the risk of a chemical accident in this Congress.” Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) provided a voice of caution on the legislative push, recommending “a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis” to ensure legislation on the matter would not unduly harm chemical companies. Voinovich focused in particular on protecting information that could compromise companies’ competitiveness if revealed, calling it important that “only responsible government authorities … have access to such information.” Experts Outline Possible Elements of Legislation Flynn and former White House antiterrorism adviser Richard Falkenrath each laid out a set of priorities that should be addressed by new legislation, which they portrayed as sorely needed because of a lack of effective action to date. “There has been no significant reduction in the inherent vulnerability of the most dangerous TIH [toxic-by-inhalation] chemical facilities and conveyances to terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001,” said Falkenrath, now a Brookings Institution visiting scholar. “Government officials who have been responsible for this issue … tend to confuse bureaucratic activity with results,” he said, and “seem to believe that their only options for improving the security of chemical facilities and conveyance systems in the United States are voluntary measures conducted in cooperation with the chemical industry.” In his proposals for legislation, Falkenrath called for requiring an inventory of facilities, mandatory standards of security, a certification procedure for facilities that meet the standards, a verification process to confirm the certifications, compliance mechanisms including “tough civil and criminal penalties” for violations, and an appeal procedure through which site owners could contest government actions. Flynn said lawmakers should consider providing resources that Homeland Security, the FBI and local emergency officials could use to develop standards on site security, exercises, training and community outreach. Legislation on the subject, he said, could also establish an outside auditing process on site security; create a “chemical security compliance office” in Homeland Security; support research and development on less dangerous chemical production, handling and storage processes, on technologies to mitigate the risk of chemical releases and on “lower-cost, more user-friendly” protective equipment for emergency personnel; and prohibit new development near chemical sites without risk assessments that have been reviewed by state officials. Both experts said existing voluntary measures are insufficient and that a government-defined, risk-based approach is needed. “Clearly, where results can be achieved on a voluntary basis, they should be,” Falkenrath said, “but it is a fallacy to think that profit-maximizing corporations engaged in a trade as inherently dangerous as the manufacture and shipment of TIH chemicals will ever voluntarily provide a level of security that is appropriate given the larger external risk to society as a whole.” After all, he said, “The body politic does not trust nuclear power plant or commercial airport operators to provide appropriate levels of security on a voluntary basis, and for good reason.” Flynn identified two factors behind what he called the lack of effective industry action. “Executives in this increasingly competitive industry worry that such [security] investments will place them at a competitive disadvantage,” he said, and “there are unique liability issues associated with industry-led efforts to define and implement adequate security.” The need for action is urgent, said Falkenrath, because of both the danger of the chemicals and the potential ease with which an attack could be mounted. “Without going into details, it should suffice to say that there are a large number of possible terrorist tactics for triggering a large-scale release of a TIH chemical in proximity to a dense population concentration, none of which are particularly difficult,” he said. “The casualty potential of a terrorist attack against a large TIH chemical container near a population center is comparable to that of a fully successful terrorist employment of an improvised nuclear device or effective biological weapon,” he said. “The key difference is that TIH chemical containers are substantially easier to attack than improvised nuclear devices or effective biological weapons are to acquire or fabricate.”   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.