Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), at left, and Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) listen to testimony on North Korea’s nuclear program yesterday during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill (Getty Images/Mark Wilson). Senators Question U.S. Approach to North Korea By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Several prominent Republican and Democratic U.S. senators yesterday criticized Bush administration efforts to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities, saying U.S. policies have lacked clarity and consistency and suggesting that public rhetoric by certain senior officials has impeded progress (see GSN, June 8)...Full Story

Iran Suggests it Could Return to Nuclear Smugglers By Greg Webb Global Security Newswire VIENNA — Perhaps seeking leverage in its negotiations with the European Union, Iran today cautioned that it could return to the nuclear black market if Western nations refuse to lift their ban on supplying technology to Tehran...Full Story

U.S. Administration, Legislators, Industry Back New Federal Law on Chemical Security By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — New federal legislation is needed to better protect U.S. chemical facilities from terrorist attack, members of Congress, federal officials and industry representatives agreed today (see GSN, May 25)...Full Story

	Wednesday, June 15, 2005

U.S, Turkey, Sign Export Control Agreement The United States and Turkey yesterday signed an agreement to improve Turkish border security border security and develop export controls to stop the transport of materials that could be used to create a weapon of mass destruction, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, June 3). There are fears that Turkey could be used as a launching ground for shipments of WMD materials to neighboring nations such as Syria or Iran, according to AP. “Developments in the world at large, and in Turkey’s neighborhood, continue to demonstrate the urgency of preventing the spread of dangerous weapons and these technologies,” said Eric Edelman, U.S. ambassador to Turkey. The Turkish Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the United States would provide “technical equipment and expertise to help identify materials with double usage that contain sensitive technology” (James Helicke, Associated Press, June 14). Back to top

Senators Question U.S. Approach to North Korea By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Several prominent Republican and Democratic U.S. senators yesterday criticized Bush administration efforts to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities, saying U.S. policies have lacked clarity and consistency and suggesting that public rhetoric by certain senior officials has impeded progress (see GSN, June 8). Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, two senior U.S. diplomats maintained the administration is pursuing the best approach available to negotiations and that simple North Korean unwillingness to give up nuclear weapons capabilities is the reason talks have been stalled for a year. During a hearing on efforts to resume negotiations, ranking committee Democrat Joseph Biden (D-Del.) charged, “President Bush has failed to resolve the dispute between those who advocate a policy of regime change and those who argue for talks to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons in return for sanctions relief, economic assistance and diplomatic normalization.” “This combination of ambivalence and confusion has produced no recognizable policy on perhaps the most critical security issue we’re facing this day,” he said (see GSN, Oct. 14, 2003). Republicans were less direct in their criticisms, but also questioned whether U.S. policies toward North Korea have been clear. “I understand that there may be a need for some ambiguity in United States policy toward North Korea, [but] it is not evident this ambiguity has been constructive or even intentional,” said committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). “Frequent news reports and our own conversations with United States officials suggest that there are many opinions within the Bush administration over how to proceed with North Korea. … But if our policy is to be effective, our ultimate course must be internal consistency and must be explainable to our allies,” he said. Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I) called the disruption of talks in the summer of 2003 a “debacle” (see GSN, Sept. 2, 2003).  He noted the Chinese government, a key U.S. partner in the negotiations, then blamed U.S. policy, including the “threatening” of North Korea. Blame Placed on North Korea Testifying before the committee were the administration’s two top negotiators on North Korea, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill and Special Envoy for the Six-Party Talks Joseph DeTrani. They maintained that the failure to resume negotiations to eliminate North Korean nuclear weapons and related programs in exchange for security guarantees and increased aid has resulted not from perceived hostility from the United States, but because Pyongyang so far has been unwilling to give up those reported capabilities. North Korean negotiators last year “made it very clear” that “they weren’t prepared to come back to a plenary session to discuss not only the proposals, but the whole initiative that speaks to denuclearization and the economic compensation and the security assurances they have demanded,” DeTrani said. U.S. negotiators, he said, have repeatedly told North Korea that the United States does not intend to attack or invade the country and that Pyongyang would receive “multilateral security assurances” if it renounces nuclear weapons. U.S. officials do not understand why North Korean leaders might perceive a hostile U.S. policy, the reason they cited for discontinuing negotiations, he said. “At great length, we’ve pursued this with the D.P.R.K., and we still have not discovered truly what they meant by a hostile policy.” Biden responded: “You can’t have a proposal tabled that says normalization is down the road if these weapons are given up, and then have a series … of statements from the vice president, from the ambassadorial nominee to the United Nations … from the secretary of defense, and so on, about this regime and how bad it is.” The North Korean government over the past year has cited as evidence of hostility a number of statements by top U.S. officials, including by Vice President Dick Cheney, who in a news interview last month called North Korean leader Kim Jong Il “one of the world’s most irresponsible leaders” and the chief of a police state. Pyongyang also has cited as hostile joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises and the Pentagon decision reported last month to deploy 15 F-117 stealth fighters in South Korea. According to a Los Angeles Times report yesterday, a senior U.S. State Department official said Washington rejected a North Korean precondition for further talks that the United States declare it has no “hostile intent” for North Korea, and promise “peaceful coexistence” with the communist nation (see GSN, June 14). Approach Questioned Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) questioned whether the administration should be more flexible in its negotiating position, for instance by considering bilateral negotiations. “Obviously we’ve not seen progress. Obviously we’ve got difficulties here. So I think most of us, just with an element of common sense, would come to some conclusion that maybe something’s not working,” he said. Chaffee noted the administration’s prior senior negotiator, Charles L. Pritchard, resigned in 2003, criticizing the White House for unwillingness to engage in direct U.S.-North Korea negotiations instead of six-party talks. “Are we so rigid on insisting on these six-party talks … that we’re missing opportunities?” he said. Hill said the United States should continue to attempt negotiations through the six-party process, because the other nations, Japan, China, Russia and South Korea, “at the end of the day are going to have to participate in settlement.” “We can’t have a situation where we have shifted to a bilateral mode and leave them out of it until the end of it, when we give them a check,” he said. Back to top       Iran Suggests it Could Return to Nuclear Smugglers By Greg Webb Global Security Newswire VIENNA — Perhaps seeking leverage in its negotiations with the European Union, Iran today cautioned that it could return to the nuclear black market if Western nations refuse to lift their ban on supplying technology to Tehran. “If any country needs to have access to technology [and] they cannot get it from the correct sources, they’re bound to respond to any other sources,” senior Iranian nuclear negotiator Sirus Naseri told reporters here at the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran has suspended efforts to develop uranium enrichment technology while it discusses a long-term deal with the three largest EU nations, France, Germany and the United Kingdom (see related GSN story, today). However, Iranian officials have insisted that they will someday develop the ability to enrich uranium to fuel nuclear power reactors both in Iran and abroad (see GSN, May 26). They have sought to trade assurances that Iran’s nuclear activities are peaceful in exchange for tangible Western incentives, including nuclear technology. Iran’s current infrastructure, including partially completed uranium enrichment centrifuge facilities, was built by purchasing equipment through an illicit nuclear smuggling network over the past 20 years. “If the international community doesn’t want these sorts of clandestine networks to be there anymore, there has to be a free flow of technology, equipment and material,” Naseri said. “It is the lawful position of states to be able to have access to them.” Both the United States and the international nuclear agency, however, have been pushing initiatives that would limit the nuclear capabilities of developing nations. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has called for a freeze on building new fuel production facilities until a system is established to place nuclear fuel supplies under multilateral control (see GSN, Feb. 23). U.S. President George W. Bush has called for banning the sale of nuclear fuel facilities to nations that don’t yet have them (see GSN, Feb. 11, 2004). Iran, however, has insisted that it will build a self-sufficient nuclear power program with or without international support. For the past two years, international authorities have been closing down the smuggling network Iran once used to build its existing facilities, but there could be other suppliers, Naseri hinted. “The underground network will surface from somewhere else,” he said. Back to top       Saudi Arabia Rejects Call for Full IAEA Inspections Saudi Arabia is insisting it has a right to sign the Small Quantities Protocol that allows for less intrusive international nuclear inspections, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, June 14). The European Union has been pushing for full International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear inspections in Saudi Arabia.  An EU diplomat said Saudi Arabia was asked for “a gesture of good faith” by allowing full inspections to proceed after signing the protocol. However,  Riyadh Arabia “was only ready to make such a gesture if other signatories to the [Small Quantities Protocol] made such gestures also,” the diplomat said. The diplomat said EU countries see the Saudi’s response to the proposal as preliminary (Agence France-Presse/Khaleej Times, June 14) Back to top       RNEP Funding Further Approved By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee yesterday approved $4 million requested by the Bush administration for the Energy Department to continue a feasibility study in fiscal 2006 on the controversial Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (see GSN, May 25). The Senate Armed Services Committee last month correspondingly passed language authorizing the Energy Department to resume the study, discontinued last year, on whether to develop the new capability for striking hardened and deeply buried facilities. The fate of the program nevertheless is uncertain and should be resolved when House and Senate leaders meet to resolve differences in various bills addressing the bunker buster. The House Armed Services Committee last month approved legislation authorizing the Air Force to continue the study. The House Appropriations Committee last week, however, omitted defense appropriations for the research (see GSN, June 8). Congress denied all funding for the program last year, following the lead of Representative David Hobson (R-Ohio), the House Appropriation Energy and Water Subcommittee chairman. Hobson this year, however, negotiated with other House Republicans to allow the study to be resumed through the Air Force, with the idea that the focus would be on evaluating conventional penetrator options. The legislation approved yesterday also would provide $25 million, $15 more than requested by the White House, for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program to study possible changes to make the U.S. nuclear arsenal more reliable and easier to maintain. Back to top       Labs’ Report Calls for Nuke Program Changes A report by the U.S. nuclear laboratories states that the cost of maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal is greater than the available budget and keeping old warheads is forcing the United States to retain an unnecessarily large atomic stockpile, the Albuquerque Journal reported yesterday (see GSN, May 10). The findings of the report, authored by scientists from the Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories, echo concerns raised in a House Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee report released last month. The House report calls for a reorganization of the nuclear weapons infrastructure. Both reports say it is impossible to maintain the Cold War nuclear arsenal by replacing parts as needed, according to the Journal. Maintenance of these weapons is possible “only at significantly increasing costs,” the laboratories’ report states. The “Stockpile Stewardship” program “merely preserve(s) nuclear weapons with outdated technology and a ponderous and expensive enterprise required to support old technology,” according to the laboratories’ report. Maintenance of older weapons forces the United States to “retain a relatively large number of reserve weapons to ensure against contingencies,” the report states. The House subcommittee report, directed by Representative David Hobson (R-Ohio) and included in the proposed 2006 Energy Department budget report, calls on the laboratories to design a “Reliable Replacement Warhead … designed for ease of manufacturing, maintenance, dismantlement and certification without nuclear testing.” To achieve this goal, the report recommends: reduction of spending on upkeep of current weapons; an increase in spending for the Reliable Replacement Warhead; a reduction on spending for potential underground testing in Nevada; a reduction in spending for nuclear weapons supercomputers; elimination of funding for a factory slated to produce plutonium nuclear weapon cores; and the delay of funds for a new Los Alamos plutonium laboratory until the United States has a better idea of the design of new warheads (John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal, June 14). Back to top       Rafsanjani Presidency Seen as Only Chance for Negotiating End to Iran’s Nuclear Program A victory by former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in Iran’s presidential election Friday could offer hope for a negotiated end to Iran’s nuclear effort, some Western observers have said (see GSN, June 14). “The hope is that Rafsanjani would change the dynamic of the program,” a senior Western diplomat in Tehran told the London Times. “There is a slim chance that if the package of incentives offered by Europe was good enough, he may put aside the enrichment program for a few years.” “[Iran’s top religious leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei and the hard-liners think that the West will never allow Iran to enrich,” the diplomat said. “They see it as better to have the spat now and get on with the enrichment program.” The two other leading candidates are not seen as helpful to the European effort. Reformist Mostafa Moin is seen as too weak to stand up to the hard-line elements, and Mohammed Qalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard officer, would consolidate power for the hard-liners, according to the Times (Anthony Loyd, The Times, June 15). Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization head, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, yesterday expressed support for Rafsanjani, Reuters reported. “With his unique prudence, Rafsanjani is the only one who can solve Iran’s nuclear standoff,” Aghazadeh told the Jomhuri-ye Eslami newspaper. He added that Tehran was determined to continue its nuclear efforts (Reuters, June 14). Iran is doing its best to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, senior Iranian nuclear negotiator Sirus Naseri told Agence France-Presse (see related GSN story, today). “Iran has tried to be as cooperative as we could be,” Naseri said, in response to recent criticism by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei (see GSN, June 14; Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, June 15). Meanwhile, French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday reiterated their commitment to pressing for Iran’s abandonment of uranium enrichment, the Associated Press reported. The goal is “Iran’s full and total renunciation of all activities to convert or enrich uranium,” said Chirac spokesman Jerome Bonnafont (Associated Press, June 14). Back to top       South Korean Delegation to Press Pyongyang for Return to Six-Nation Nuclear Talks A South Korean delegation in Pyongyang for an anniversary celebration of a historic summit between the two sides plans to press for a return to six-nation talks on North Korea’s nuclear effort, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said today (see GSN, June 14). Seoul “will make active use of inter-Korean dialogue opportunities ... to urge the North to return to the six-party talks so as to work for harmonious progress in (resolving) the North Korean nuclear program and for inter-Korean relations,” Ban said. South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young and Kim Yong Nam, North Korea’s ceremonial head of state, are expected to discuss the nuclear issue tomorrow, the Associated Press reported. Cabinet-level talks are also scheduled for next week in Seoul, according to AP (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 15). The United States is still waiting for a further response from North Korea after Pyongyang expressed commitment to six-party talks at a recent meeting with U.S. officials in New York, said Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill. “While they were positive about the six-party talks, they did not give us a date,” said Hill, who arrived today in Seoul. “I hope they will give us a date” (Burt Herman, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 15). The Bush administration’s North Korea policy is “incoherent,” a U.S. expert told the Korea Times in an interview published today.   He believes nothing would come of resumed nuclear negotiations. “I think the basic failure is that the administration is divided internally,” said Bruce Cumings, a history professor at the University of Chicago and author of North Korea: Another Country. Cumings faulted the Bush administration for not completing a missile control deal with Pyongyang negotiated by the Clinton administration in 2000. “If we somehow get into another conflict with North Korea and a lot of people die, historians are going to look at that agreement and ask why it was left hanging,” Cumings said. “The Bush administration has kicked the can down the road for five years while North Korea looks like it is arming itself with more nuclear weapons,” he said (Reuben Staines, Korea Times, June 15). Back to top       Russian, U.S. Officials to Discuss Nuclear Security Russian atomic energy agency head Alexander Rumyantsev is expected to depart for Washington today to discuss nuclear security with his U.S. counterpart, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Jan. 20). The United States is pushing to improve security at Russian nuclear sites, but funding and contracting disputes and Moscow’s discomfort over U.S. access to sensitive facilities has delayed some aspects of the effort, according to AP. U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Washington and Moscow were nearing an agreement on a program to recycle plutonium from nuclear weapons into mixed-oxide fuel for nuclear power plants, AP reported (Associated Press/China Post, June 15). Back to top

U.S. Plans to Defend Against Engineered Bioattack By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States is pursuing multiple avenues of defense against a possible terrorist attack using bioengineered pathogens, officials said at a House of Representatives subcommittee hearing yesterday (see GSN, June 10). Top leaders such as Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff have recently stepped up calls for greater use of terrorist threat information in setting a hierarchy of planning and spending priorities. Witnesses yesterday warned the Government Reform National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations Subcommittee, though, about limits to what can be known about potential engineered threats. They stressed the need for maintaining a broad, flexible array of countermeasures. “It's very difficult for us to come up with specific antidotes, pills and vaccines for everything the terrorists might throw at us," said Dale Klein, WMD defense assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.  “We're trying to do more on capabilities, rather than a specific threat.” Klein called the threat of new pathogens being used against U.S. troops his “main concern” as he “look[s] to the future.” Top Homeland Security biological defense official John Vitko said his agency and the Health and Human Services Department have developed a strategy to address the potential for a bioengineered attack, a document he said highlights monitoring of scientific research around the world, as well as broad countermeasure development to give the United States flexibility when confronting an unknown pathogen. Subcommittee members voiced concerns about what some called the slow pace and insufficient coordination of WMD countermeasure development in federal agencies. “Even with the advent of Project Bioshield,” Chairman Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said of the 2004 law intended to spur countermeasure development through a government-supported market for the products, “the development of critical countermeasures still seems fractured and without a clear focus on known threats. Precious time and money are being wasted.” Witnesses responded to such concerns by emphasizing the time-consuming nature of any drug research and development, as well as Bioshield's focus on supporting the later stages of development. “No matter how hard we work or how much money we spend, some steps in the process cannot be rushed,” said Health and Human Services Public Health Emergency Preparedness Assistant Secretary Stewart Simonson. Several officials in testimony previewed coming steps in their agencies' countermeasure work.  Klein said that the Defense and Health and Human Services departments have been working on an interagency cooperation agreement on countermeasures and that the Pentagon may soon hand off its first project to the health agency:  a blood plasma-derived bioscavenger that acts as a sponge to remove nerve agent from the body. Simonson said his department is “in the final execution phases” of Bioshield contract awards for a therapeutic drug against anthrax, a botulinum antitoxin and a new smallpox vaccine.  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci said a new countermeasure plan approved this week envisions work on reconstituting bone-marrow stem cells in people exposed to high levels of radiation, among other activities. Back to top

U.S. Administration, Legislators, Industry Back New Federal Law on Chemical Security By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — New federal legislation is needed to better protect U.S. chemical facilities from terrorist attack, members of Congress, federal officials and industry representatives agreed today (see GSN, May 25). The Bush administration and the chemical industry should be commended for some successes in bolstering chemical plant security in the wake of the September 2001 al-Qaeda attacks, but new law is needed to ensure such steps extend to the whole industry, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee members and witnesses said at a hearing this morning. “The consequences of an attack on one of these facilities could well dwarf the horror we witnessed on Sept. 11, 2001,” top committee Democrat Joe Lieberman (Conn.) said.  Although committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) acknowledged that a “bipartisan legislative approach backed by the administration has not yet emerged,” Lieberman expressed confidence that Congress would pass legislation this year “that will diminish greatly our vulnerabilities in this particular area.” A Homeland Security Department official said at the hearing that Secretary Michael Chertoff believes existing government authority in the area is inadequate. “Considerable progress has been made through voluntary efforts, but ... further progress is required,” acting Undersecretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Robert Stephan told the senators. “We are currently assessing the need for a carefully measured, risk-based regulatory regime in this sector,” Stephan said. “Today, I can report on his behalf that Secretary Chertoff has concluded that from the regulatory perspective, the existing patchwork of authorities does not permit us to regulate the industry effectively. ... While most companies have been eager to cooperate with the department, it has become clear that the entirely voluntary efforts of these companies alone will not sufficiently address security for the entire sector.” “We will ... look forward to working with you in the coming weeks,” he told committee members, “on the particulars of proposed legislation.” The American Chemistry Council's 150 members, which together represent more than 80 percent of U.S. chemical production capacity, have implemented a voluntary post-Sept. 11 security code. Meanwhile, the federal government has been conducting assessments and helping to fund physical security improvements at hundreds of sites. Collins noted, however, that the Homeland Security Department has identified more than 3,000 chemical facilities where an attack could affect more than 1,000 people. “Only a fraction” of U.S. chemical sites, she said, are subject to federal regulation or subscribe to voluntary industry standards. In testimony prepared for a House of Representatives subcommittee hearing this afternoon, an American Chemistry Council official expressed support for federal legislation to improve security in the sector, provided the law “respect” council members’ “substantial, voluntary, at-risk expenditures implementing” the association's security code. “Not all chemical facilities are currently regulated under the” 2002 Maritime Transportation Security Act, council Security and Operations Managing Director Martin Durbin said. “Not all chemical facilities belong to ACC and [they] may not have taken the same kinds of aggressive steps that our members have taken, steps that have cost our members an estimated $2 billion since 9/11.” New law on the matter, Durbin said, should set national security standards, require vulnerability assessments and security plans at facilities and give Homeland Security oversight, inspection and enforcement authority. Back to top

U.S To Sell India PAC-3 Missile Defense System The United States has agreed to sell India the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile defense system, the India Express reported today (see GSN, March 9). Government sources said the sale has been confirmed through high-level diplomatic channels between the two countries. These sources said Washington has given permission to Lockheed Martin, the system’s manufacturer, to give a presentation to India on the PAC-3. The agreement to sell the missile defense system comes as India’s Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee prepares to visit Washington next month (Shishir Gupta, Indian Express, June 15).  Back to top       Japanese Legislature Seeks to Give Defense Chief Greater Authority in Future Missile Defense Decisions The lower house of Japan’s parliament yesterday backed giving the country’s defense chief authority to fire interceptors at incoming enemy missiles without consulting the prime minister or Cabinet, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, June 10). The upper house of parliament is likely to approve and enact the law before March 2006, a lower house official said (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 14). A sea-based missile defense system Tokyo is developing with Washington is scheduled to move from research to development in the next fiscal year, but some Japanese lawmakers warned that their country expected to be fully included in the benefits of the project. “If Japan loses out through the project or is excluded from some areas of the development, we have to question the wisdom of the technological exchange,” said Seiji Maehara, of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan. A final test of the Aegis-based project prior to moving into the development phase is scheduled for March 2006 off the coast of Hawaii, Asia Pulse reported (Asia Pulse, June 15).               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.