Despite an opening day plea by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, the Nonproliferation Treaty review conference was unable to reach any substantive agreement (U.N. photo). NPT Conference to Deadlock By Jim Wurst and Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — Facing a total deadlock, the 2005 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference planned today to end its monthlong meeting by adopting a substance-free final document. To reflect the failure to make any progress, the conference president changed the title of a section in the final document from “conclusions and recommendations of the conference” to “conclusions of the conference” (see GSN, May 26)...Full Story

Democrats Delay Bolton Nomination By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Democratic senators successfully delayed a vote yesterday on President George W. Bush’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Consideration of Undersecretary of State John Bolton for the job has followed a tortured path to the Senate floor and will now last at least another week as the Senate begins its Memorial Day recess (see GSN, May 25)...Full Story

Pine Bluff Workers Get Terror Warning Employees of Pine Bluff Chemical Weapons Depot in Arkansas were warned this week that militant environmental groups are becoming increasingly dangerous and urged workers to be on the lookout for suspicious activity, the Pine Bluff Commercial reported (see GSN, Jan. 7)...Full Story

	Friday, May 27, 2005

Former Counterterrorism Czar Cites Complacency By Chris Strohm Government Executive WASHINGTON — Former U.S. counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said yesterday that he fears the government and public are falling into a false sense of complacency about security needs while Iraq is becoming a new breeding ground for terrorism against the United States. He also said he believes another wave of attacks will eventually hit the country. “It’s been 44 months since 9/11 and there is, in some locations around the country and in popular opinion, a growing sense of complacency,” Clarke said during a keynote speech at the 2005 Government Security Conference in Washington. “We can’t get back to normal. We can never get back to normal.” Clarke cited several examples of how he believes the government and public are letting down their guard, including resuming general aviation at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, allowing airports to replace federal passenger and baggage screeners with private workers, and failing to adopt regulations for chemical plants that have lethal gases. Clarke said the main reasons for complacency are that there has not been another attack in the United States and the government consistently talks about how many senior al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed. “Someday they will come back; there will be a second wave,” he said. “And if we are complacent — if we think because we’ve [crossed] out all the names on our chart, if we think that we don’t have to reduce our vulnerabilities and improve our security here at home — we will suffer another major attack.” He cited four main indicators to gauge whether the terrorist threat still exists: the number of attacks in the world; the number of terrorists; the amount of money they have; and the amount of support they receive in Islamic countries. He said all of these indicators are on the rise, proving that the terrorist threat is growing. “If you believe that we’re destroying al-Qaeda and its related organizations, I think you’re wrong,” he said. “If you believe that even if we succeeded in doing that we’d be OK because there are no other threats in the world, I think you’re wrong.” He also said he is worried that a second generation of terrorists is growing up in Iraq while the U.S. government focuses on capturing or killing known insurgents like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is the most wanted man in Iraq. “What I fear happening today is that while we are all happily crossing out al-Zarqawi and others on our organizational chart of al Qaeda, we have alienated the Islamic world, our popularity is at an all-time low [and] we have destroyed whole cities in Iraq like Fallujah.” He said if 1 percent of people in grow to hate America, then that would be enough “to pose a major threat.” “Whether you think we should have gone into Iraq or not, I think you need to accept the reality that we may be converting parts of Iraq into a new breeding ground for terrorism. There are over 40,000 insurgents now in Iraq,” he said. Clarke also said some actions by federal agencies and Congress are encouraging complacency. The Homeland Security Department announced this week that it plans to reopen Reagan National Airport to certain precleared general aviation aircraft. The airport was closed to general aviation after the 9/11 attacks, mainly at Clarke’s request, he said. “I don’t think it should reopen for general aviation,” Clarke told reporters after his speech. “I think that if the Defense Department or the Secret Service sees a general aviation aircraft now going toward the White House ... they know it’s a problem because no general aviation aircraft should be there.” “If, in the future, general aviation aircraft are allowed in that zone ... then you won’t be sure when you see an aircraft whether it’s hostile or not,” he added. “By the time you figure out whether or not it actually did go through the security procedures, it could hit the White House.” Clarke objected to the use of private screening companies, saying the creation of the Transportation Security Administration represented “the one great thing that we have done since 9/11 to increase security” and “an example of how the government can work.” TSA is accepting applications from airports to replace federal screeners with a privatized workforce. Congress required the agency to give airports the option of using private screening companies again, as long as those companies provide screening services that are at least as good as the federal workforce. Clarke noted that the government has yet to mandate security improvements at chemical plants, and a report this week from the Government Accountability Office shows that federal efforts to secure cargo coming into U.S. ports are lacking. “There’s complacency when people see the federal government not responding to obvious threats,” Clarke said. Back to top       Lawmaker Challenges Companies to Develop Antiterror Technology By Chris Strohm Government Executive WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Wednesday that technology developed for the war on terrorism could also benefit the U.S. economy. Representative Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) said the war on terrorism will be “an indefinite struggle,” and he challenged private companies to develop technology that enhances security and makes the U.S. economy stronger. “Our job is to sustain this war on terror by making investments in security that actually improve America’s economy,” Cox said during a keynote speech at the 2005 Government Security Conference in Washington. “Can we, as we introduce new security technology into some productive process, make that production process simultaneously more efficient?” “Right after 9/11, all we were asking of our security investment was that it not slow down the country too much, that the lines that were formed not be too long, that the depression in the gross domestic product not be too much,” he said. “We need to ask more because, going forward, we’re going to need the economic engine of the United States of America to drive this war on terror and ultimately to win it.” For example, Cox asked if technology to inspect cargo could also improve the efficiency of moving it. “Can’t we ask that our technology investments move things more quickly through the ports? Why can’t technology that tracks and inspects containers for security purposes also improve throughput in the ports and satisfy commercial demand for better real-time tracking of shipments? “I think protective measures can do something for our homeland security and something for our economy at the same time,” he said. But, he added, technology investments must be sustainable and the government should ensure that basic federal research can quickly become applied technology. “Our investments in homeland security technology have got to be sustainable,” he said. “This isn’t something that we can attack as we did during World War II by developing an all-powerful weapon that will force our enemies to surrender. We can’t build Liberty ships faster and thus hasten the conclusion of the conflict. Instead, we know that year in and year out - forever - we’ve got to make the investment necessary to stay one step ahead of the terrorists.” Cox also called on the Homeland Security Department to put more emphasis on prevention activities and finding potential terrorists, as opposed to overseeing response-and-recovery activities. “We’ve got to have a prevention strategy that is focused on finding those terrorists before they act. Very little, I will hasten to add, of what the Department of Homeland Security spends its money on these days is devoted to what ought to be a high priority. We’ve got to reconfigure in order to do that.” He added: “When I think of prevention, what I’m thinking off is finding the terrorists where they live and interdicting and disrupting what they’re doing well before it happens.” Back to top

Democrats Delay Bolton Nomination By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Democratic senators successfully delayed a vote yesterday on President George W. Bush’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Consideration of Undersecretary of State John Bolton for the job has followed a tortured path to the Senate floor and will now last at least another week as the Senate begins its Memorial Day recess (see GSN, May 25). Republicans were unable yesterday to persuade enough Democrats to vote to end debate on Bolton’s nomination. A Republican-driven motion for “cloture,” requiring 60 votes to pass, was defeated when only 56 votes were cast in favor, with 42 in opposition.  While all Republicans present and three Democrats voted to end debate, Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio), reaffirmed that he would oppose Bolton’s nomination when a vote is held. He cited previously voiced questions about the official’s conduct and approach as the State Department’s top arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation official. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), who has expressed disappointment about a Defense Department proposal to close a major Air Force base in his state, reportedly also said he would vote against confirmation. A simple majority of votes is needed to confirm the nomination. Three other Republicans senators, Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), who previously had criticized Bolton’s conduct, did not speak yesterday or Wednesday, when Senate floor debate over the bid began.  Democrats indicated they would oppose ending the debate until the Bush administration released additional documents dealing with how Bolton handled certain intelligence information. Three Democratic senators, Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), voted to end debate. Foreign Policy Approach Cited    In speeches Wednesday and yesterday, Voinovich recited a number of criticisms against Bolton. He particularly emphasized charges that Bolton sought to publicly overstate U.S. intelligence assessments of suspected WMD proliferation. Voinovich also argued that an noncooperative approach to arms control and nonproliferation had undermined U.S. efforts to persuade countries including North Korea and Libya to give up suspected weapons programs. “At a time when the United States strives to fight terrorism globally, to build a stable and free Iraq, to find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, to spread democracy in the place of oppressive regimes, and to enact needed reforms at the United Nations, it is imperative that we have the support of our friends and allies internationally,” he said Wednesday. “In the spirit of the president’s objectives, we cannot ignore the damage that John Bolton could have on U.S. public diplomacy,” he said yesterday. Voinovich noted a letter signed this year by 102 former U.S. diplomats that listed a number of major Bolton-led administration initiatives it says undermined efforts to improve U.S. security through arms control. The letter cites the U.S. withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, opposition to ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the scuttling of negotiations on a verification regime for the Biological Weapons Convention. “When was the last time that 102 diplomats have opposed the appointment of a new ambassador?” Voinovich said. Speaking in favor of Bolton, other Republicans senators cited Bolton’s promotion of the multilateral Proliferation Security Initiative to seize suspected WMD materials on the high seas as evidence that he is inclined to work cooperatively with other countries. “This success alone should disprove the argument that Mr. Bolton is somehow an arch unilateralist, bent on subverting collective international action,” said Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). He cited as other examples of “multilateral success” a G-8 program to battle WMD proliferation, a successful drive to repeal a U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism, and negotiations of the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty to reduce the number of deployed U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons. The diplomats’ letter had criticized that treaty for failing to have any verification measures, to require any progress reports, to destroy any warheads or to anticipate further reductions. Back to top

NPT Conference to Deadlock By Jim Wurst and Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — Facing a total deadlock, the 2005 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference planned today to end its monthlong meeting by adopting a substance-free final document. To reflect the failure to make any progress, the conference president changed the title of a section in the final document from “conclusions and recommendations of the conference” to “conclusions of the conference” (see GSN, May 26). Conference president Sergio de Queiroz Duarte of Brazil said that little “in terms of results” was accomplished at the meeting held every five years, but cautioned against making dire assessments of the long-term implications. “I don’t think we can say that the results of the conference have or have not undermined the treaty. … We have to see the way in which the results of the conference will impact on the treaty,” he said at a press conference this afternoon. “It is extremely regrettable that this conference has been unable to adopt a final consensus document. We, as states parties to the treaty, should take this undesirable result seriously, and renew our determination to fully explore ways to maintain and strengthen the credibility and authority of the NPT regime,” Japanese Ambassador Yoshiki Mine said during the morning’s plenary session. The heads of each conference committee presented their final reports at the meeting, acknowledging that all three panels had failed to achieve consensus on matters of disarmament, nonproliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Only Main Committee I was able forward to the plenary the papers on disarmament that were under consideration when its meetings ended on Wednesday. Committee Chairman Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat of Indonesia said the papers “do not reflect fully the views of all state parties, nevertheless the committee agreed to annex the papers” to the final report.  The other two committee chiefs had even less to report. Main Committee II on nonproliferation “did not reach consensus to attach the chairman’s draft to the final report of the committee and to forward it the conference for further consideration,” said Chairman Laszlo Molnar of Hungary. Committee III, which addressed peaceful nuclear activity, “worked in a consensual spirit until its very last hours, nevertheless in the end no consensus was found on the substantive parts of the draft report. … Consequently the report you now have before you … is primarily of a technical nature,” said Chairwoman Elisabet Borsiin-Bonnier of Sweden. The conference plenary approved the technical components of its final report and a conclusion that was entirely without recommendations. Duarte also said that he would not submit a final statement to the plenary on his own. Passage of the entire document was delayed until this afternoon to allow time for translations to be prepared for delegates. The rest of the final plenary today was expected to be taken up largely with statements by governments and groups of states. Delegates took time this morning to express their regret and sometimes indignation regarding the results of the conference. “Today as we conclude this review conference, it has become obvious that questions will be further raised about the future of the NPT. These notwithstanding, the Group of Nonaligned States Parties remain committed to the NPT. We maintain that it continues to have an important cornerstone status in the global disarmament framework,” said Malaysian Ambassador Rastam Mohn Isa on behalf of the Nonaligned nations. Canadian Ambassador Paul Meyer criticized the “hubris” and “intransigence from more than one state on pressing issues of the day.” Several speakers noted the importance of the commitments made at the 1995 and 2000 meetings, but did not mention the United States, which has been criticized for backing off those agreements. Delegates said their nations would continue to press for nuclear disarmament, entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, curbing of North Korea’s nuclear program and other measures to promote nuclear safety. The world’s leaders must seriously address treaty issues, Meyer said, calling for annual conferences. “We believe this is a treaty worth fighting for and we are not prepared to stand idly by and watch while its crucial supports are undermined,” Meyer said.  “Rather than looking back on where we have fallen short, we must look ahead on what we can accomplish,” he added. In a departure from the grim assessments of the other speakers this morning, U.S. Ambassador Jackie Sanders said, “While this review conference did not reach consensus, we did break new ground” on several important issues, such as how to address “indicators of noncompliance” and possible consequences for withdrawal from the treaty. “There was serious consideration of, and often broad agreement on, steps to strengthen the treaty’s implementation,” Sanders said, and on the “grave challenges to security and to the nonproliferation regime posed by Iran’s and [North Korea’s] compliance with nonproliferation and safeguards obligations.” The final procedural roadblock was removed last night over a footnote to the agenda of the conference. A May 11 compromise removed all references to previous conferences from the agenda’s main text and included, as a footnote, a presidential statement saying, “It is understood that the review will be conducted in the light of the decisions and the resolution of the previous conferences, and allow for discussion of any issue raised by states parties.”   The United States had worked to remove any references to the decisions of the 1995 and 2000 review conferences from the record of this conference. However, a statement from the Nonaligned Movement was also included in that footnote that did refer to those conferences. Despite at British objection to the inclusion of that statement, the final version includes both paragraphs. Lost Opportunity The British American Security Information Council and the Oxford Research Group published 16 papers before the conference containing recommendations for strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. By the time of their press conference yesterday, however, it was clear that none of them would come to pass. “This conference is essentially a tremendous lost opportunity. I wouldn’t call it a failure, but it’s a tremendous lost opportunity,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “Inaction is not an option, and yet that is essentially what a small number of states have decided will be the outcome of this conference for the other states,” he added, singling out Iran and the United States. Iran sought to excise any reference to its nuclear program from conference reports, while the United States backed off from commitments made by NPT states at the last two conferences. Kimball called that move a “fundamental mistake,” arguing that adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the proposed fissile material cutoff pact and other initiatives supports the U.S. interests. “If one state, particularly the world’s leading state, decides to ignore past agreements that it has made in the context of the treaty it makes the decisions of future conferences all the less valuable,” Kimball said. “It also jeopardizes the will and interest of other states in keeping to agree and support in various ways the core principles of this treaty.” William Potter, director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, said in an interview he hoped the lack of agreement at the conference might shock some nations into action in pushing nonproliferation. “Even that I think is pretty wishful thinking. I think we’re getting exactly what some countries want, which is nothing.” The United States could see the outcome of the conference as validating Washington’s disdain for multilateral agreements, Potter said, while Egyptian officials might be looking at Iran’s nuclear program and figuring a weakened treaty could make it easier for Cairo to develop a weapons program should that become necessary. Kimball said there were positive aspects to the conference. The proposals put forth by various delegations, while ultimately unsuccessful, addressed substantive topics such as making the Additional Protocol a universal standard for nations with International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreements, blocking nations from diverting civilian nuclear technology to weapons efforts after withdrawing from the treaty and accelerating nuclear disarmament. It will be up to nations other than the United States to press these matters, he said. “We can’t just shrug our shoulders and walk away and say, well, you know, we did the best we could but here we are, and we’re just going to give up. We can’t do that.” Janet Bloomfield, British coordinator of the Atomic Mirror project, criticized what she called a “democratic deficit” at the conference. She said there should be a push to have national lawmakers look into the outcome of the conference “and how we can move forward to make real progress on eliminating nuclear weapons and preventing nuclear proliferation.” One of the Group of Eight nations could also use its presidency of the body to press the issue, Bloomfield said, much as the United Kingdom is promoting support for Africa this year. Back to top       Experts Warn Loose Russian Nuclear Materials Could Lead to WMD in Terrorists Hands By David Francis Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Nuclear weapon experts told a U.S. congressional panel that Russia needs to do a better job of securing critical materials to prevent terrorists from acquiring a nuclear weapon (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2004). Russia’s “culture hasn’t changed enough that they really see the need for protection” of nuclear materials, David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said at a hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack. Albright warned that the lack of Russian accounting of nuclear warheads and materials following the fall of the Berlin Wall has created a tenuous situation in which nations are forced to rely on incomplete information to make nuclear threat assessments. Without a firm grasp on where nuclear materials are located, it is difficult to determine whether terrorists have obtained the materials, Albright explained. Albright added that there has been no solid intelligence to indicate that terrorists have acquired the material necessary to create a bomb.   But he did outline the steps a terrorist organization would need to take to create a weapon and where in the process law enforcement should intercede. He recommended dedicating resources to locate and secure fissile materials throughout the former Soviet Union. He also urged intelligence services to locate sites where a bomb could be manufactured. This would involve cooperating with other nations to identify scientists and others with knowledge on how to create a bomb, Albright said.  Ronald Lehman, director of the Center for Global Research, agreed with the course of action outlined by Albright. Because assembly of a bomb is not an easy task, Lehman said intelligence must keep a watchful eye on those with knowledge on how to build a weapon. Lehman urged intelligence services to make contact with any person believed capable of helping terrorists create a weapon. “We’ve got to recognize in order to assemble the bomb, [terrorists] need to have the right people,” Lehman said. He called for better monitoring of the whereabouts of former Soviet scientists and for dedicating more resources to policing them. However, Lehman cautioned that the need for better intelligence of the people capable of creating a bomb needs to be balanced with the securing of nuclear technology and materials. “We run the risk of replaying the old debate over whether the technologies are the problem or those that use them are the problem” Lehman said. “We won’t be effective until we recognize that action must be taken on both fronts.” Nations also need to take more seriously the nuclear terrorism threat, Lehman said. Many countries have been vigilant in combating conventional terrorists, but have not taken the necessary steps to prevent terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb. “Many governments are stepping up to the terrorist problem, but many are not engaging effectively on the [WMD] challenge as it relates to terrorism any more effectively than they have dealt with problem of the spread of nuclear weapons to nation-states,” Lehman told the committee. Laura Holgate, vice president for Russia/New Independent States Program at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, agreed that the threat of nuclear terrorism has not been taken seriously enough. She said shedding the Cold War mindset of rational state actors possessing weapons of mass destruction no longer applies. “The bad news is that the U.S. and international programs have not adapted to today’s nuclear threat: terrorists’ pursuit of nuclear weapons through theft of materials or weapons,” Holgate said. She said countries must be vigilant in making sure scientists with knowledge of nuclear weapons do not share secrets with rogue states, as was the case with A.Q. Kahn, the top Pakistani scientist who headed a network providing nuclear information to Iran, Libya and North Korea. She also warned that North Korea would probably be willing to sell nuclear secrets. Weapon scientists from the former Soviet Union also pose a formidable problem, according to Holgate. She argued that the best way to confront the modern nuclear threat is to find work for these scientists. Holgate praised the Energy Department’s Russian Transition Initiative, which helps former Russian WMD scientists find peaceful employment. Still, Holgate said more needs to be done. She suggested moving non-weapons research away from facilities that produce bombs, developing ways to eliminate excess staff from these facilities, reducing the number of employees working to create weapons, and supporting local economic development. Lawmakers, who offered no specific recommendations, seemed content to question the panel on nature of nuclear threats. But subcommittee members all agreed that more needs to be done to confront the problem, and pledged to work to ensure a nuclear weapon does not make it into the hands of terrorists. “With tens of thousands of nuclear weapons worldwide, several hundred of which may be vulnerable to theft by terrorists or by criminals, and other nuclear materials such as plutonium possibly accessible to terrorists, this government cannot ignore this issue,” Chairman John Linder (R-Ga.) said. [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.] Back to top       Pakistan Confirms Transfer of Centrifuges to IAEA Pakistan has transferred uranium centrifuge components to the International Atomic Energy Agency to help the investigation into Iran’s nuclear program, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, April 4). Inspectors can now compare uranium traces on the Pakistani equipment to material found on Iranian centrifuges. Iranian officials have said that uranium on their equipment was present when they purchased it from an illicit nuclear smuggling network. “As regards the used components of an old and discarded centrifuge, which have no bearing on our national security, they have been sent with our experts for their analysis in the presence of our experts,” said Pakistani Foreign Ministry Spokesman Jalil Abbas Jilani. Pakistan’s announcement yesterday coincided with a visit by Christina Rocca, U.S. assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, according to Reuters (Zeeshan Haider, Reuters, May 26). Back to top       Pentagon Prepares for North Korean Intransigence The U.S. Defense Department said yesterday it was preparing for the possibility that North Korea had decided to permanently end its participation in six-party nuclear negotiations, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, May 20). However, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill and Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Richard Lawless promised U.S. “flexibility” if Pyongyang resumed talks. Pyongyang might have withheld from talks in hopes of being offered additional aid, Lawless told a House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee. “At the same time, we are preparing ourselves for the possibility the D.P.R.K. has made a strategic decision to abandon the talks,” he said (Carol Giacomo, Reuters, May 26). Hill predicted that Pyongyang’s isolationism would eventually lead to the regime’s collapse, AP reported. He said food shortages and a poor quality health care system may make the rigid communist system unsustainable. Lawmakers pressed repeatedly for Hill to explain why Washington does not negotiate directly with North Korea. He replied that Washington could not negotiate an agreement with North Korea that did not also include the South. “You can’t work it out bilaterally and then at the end of the process just hand them the check,” he said (George Gedda, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 26). North Korea yesterday denied U.S. reports that it is preparing for a nuclear weapons test, the Associated Press reported. “The U.S. leadership has recently ... come out with a fabrication that there are some kind of missile tests and signs of an underground nuclear test,” the Korean Central Television Station announced. Pyongyang also claimed that the United States seeks to topple North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. “Our army and people do not want a war (or) our relations (with the United States) to worsen, but we also would not beg for dialogue and peace under any circumstances,” Pyongyang announced (Paul Alexander, Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, May 27). Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force has sent 15 F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter jets to South Korea, Reuters reported yesterday. The four-month deployment is not linked to rising regional tensions, according to an Air Force spokesman, but “is part of an ongoing measure to maintain a credible deterrent posture and presence in the region” (Reuters, May 26). Elsewhere, the World Food Program has warned that a decrease in food donations will force the organization to cut off almost all aid to North Korea over the next two months, AP reported. “There is now a food crisis in North Korea, and that crisis is getting worse by the week, by the day ... 6.5 million North Korean civilians need food assistance now, not at the end of the year,” said the program’s Asia director, Anthony Branbury. North Korea has depended on food aid since the 1990s, when more than 1 million people are estimated to have died from famine, according to AP (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 27). Back to top       Rice Praises Continued Iranian Nuclear Freeze Tehran’s decision to continue its suspension of uranium enrichment activities after talks with three European Union nations was a “very positive development,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday (see GSN, May 26). “What the EU-3 did in holding to the Paris agreement, of holding to the insistence on a suspension, on holding to objective guarantees as the outcome, which we believe has got to be a permanent cessation of the sensitive activities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, is a very positive development,” she said (Agence France-Presse /SpaceWar.com, May 26). Iran could still resume uranium conversion if it finds the pending European proposal unsatisfactory, AFP reported today. “We will restart (work at the) the Isfahan (uranium) conversion plant, and the fuel cycle is our (non-negotiable) red line,” top Iranian nuclear official Hassan Rohani, replying to a question on what would happen if Iran did not accept the proposal. “Since the European proposal was a new one and it is up to the regime’s officials to make a decision, we brought it to Tehran.  If not accepted we will begin enrichment in Isfahan,” he said. Rohani also warned European negotiators that if “they want to drag out the negotiations, we will begin the enrichment in Isfahan” (Agence France-Presse /SpaceWar.com, May 27). Meanwhile, the State Department announced yesterday that Washington’s decision to refrain from blocking Iran’s application to the World Trade Organization was intended to support the EU negotiations. President George W. Bush “decided on March 11 that in order to support the European diplomacy, the U.S. would drop its objection to Iran’s application to the World Trade Organization and would consider on a case-by-case basis the licensing of spare parts for Iranian civil aircraft, in particular, from the European Union to Iran,” said spokesman Richard Boucher (State Department briefing, May 26). Membership to the body generally takes years and requires economic and political reforms, the New York Times reported. The Bush administration has also emphasized that it has no intention of offering any more incentives to Iran for the time being. Iran, meanwhile, is interested in obtaining access to advanced nuclear reactors through its negotiations with the EU, according to the Times. European countries, however, are not permitted to sell Iran nuclear reactors which contain U.S. technology without U.S. approval. At Tuesday’s working-level meeting in Brussels, Iranian negotiator Hossein Mousavian, asked European officials why they did not just ask “their big boss,” the United States, to directly supply 10 nuclear reactors to Tehran, two participants in the meeting said. “The United States has always been the ghost at the table,” said one European participant (Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, May 27). Back to top       Bush to Name New IAEA Envoy U.S. President George W. Bush intends to nominate Gregory Schulte as U.S. envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 4, 2003). The previous U.S. envoy, Ken Brill, left last summer for undisclosed reasons.  Some diplomats at the agency have speculated that he was seen as soft on nonproliferation by John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and disarmament and the embattled nominee to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (see related GSN story, today). Bolton has also been accused of trying to undermine the candidacy of James Cunningham, the Bush administration’s choice to fill the post after Brill’s departure.  After failing to dissuade senior officials from choosing him, Bolton collaborated with Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), who put a secret hold on Cunningham’s nomination and blocked Senate confirmation, U.S. officials said. Schulte is currently serving at the U.S. Defense Department as chief of staff of the roles, missions, and organizations team for the Quadrennial Defense Review, Reuters reported (Reuters, May 26). Back to top       Northrop Grumman Drops Los Alamos Bid Northrop Grumman has elected not compete for the contract to operate Los Alamos National Laboratory, Dow Jones reported yesterday (see GSN, May 17). The company said it will continue to work with the Energy Department but has “determined that it can best provide that support through other key programs” (Dow Jones/iWon-Money.com, May 26). Back to top

Pine Bluff Workers Get Terror Warning Employees of Pine Bluff Chemical Weapons Depot in Arkansas were warned this week that militant environmental groups are becoming increasingly dangerous and urged workers to be on the lookout for suspicious activity, the Pine Bluff Commercial reported (see GSN, Jan. 7). “They haven’t strapped on a bomb yet, but that couldn’t be far in the future,” Army intelligence official Jim Love said, adding that “domestic terrorism is on the rise.” Employees were also warned about religiously motivated terrorists. “This is a religious war,” Love said, and called terrorists attacks “very professional.” Love told employees to “understand who hate us this week because it changes.” Madeline Taylor, a security specialist at Pine Bluff, also told workers to be on the lookout for “insiders.” “The insider is the biggest threat,” Taylor said. “Their objective is to blend in” (Larry Ault, Pine Bluff Commercial, May 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.