North Korean chief nuclear negotiator Kim Kye Gwan takes questions at a press conference last week at the North Korean Embassy in Beijing (Getty Images/Peter Parks). Experts Praise U.S., North Korean Attitudes at Nuclear Talks By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Two prominent experts yesterday declared the most recent multilateral negotiations on North Korea’s nuclear program a success and a cause for optimism that a final deal could be reached, despite a U.S.-North Korean stalemate that hindered chances for an agreement and prompted a recess in discussions (see GSN, Aug. 11)...Full Story

U.S. Emergency Planning Shows Heavy WMD Focus By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks figured in two-thirds of the disaster scenarios the U.S. Homeland Security Department considered last year in formulating a list of capabilities that emergency responders around the country should have (see GSN, April 15)...Full Story

IAEA Motion on Iran “Positive First Step,” Bush Says The call yesterday by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s governing board for Iran to reinstate its nuclear freeze was a “positive first step,” said U.S. President George W. Bush (see GSN, Aug. 11)...Full Story

	Friday, August 12, 2005

U.S. Emergency Planning Shows Heavy WMD Focus By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks figured in two-thirds of the disaster scenarios the U.S. Homeland Security Department considered last year in formulating a list of capabilities that emergency responders around the country should have (see GSN, April 15). In developing the National Preparedness Goal, a priority-setting tool required by a 2003 presidential directive, Homeland Security drew up a list of 15 disaster scenarios and considered what capabilities personnel would need when responding to them. Ten of the scenarios, the full list of which was contained in a Government Accountability Office report published yesterday on Homeland Security’s “all-hazards” planning, involve weapons of mass destruction, and two others involve terrorism. “All-hazards” plans are those intended to be flexible enough to apply to both terrorist attacks and other disasters. The list was leaked earlier this year, before its completion, but yesterday’s report appeared to be the first official government publication of the scenarios (see GSN, March 16). WMD scenarios on the list include separate attacks using an improvised nuclear device, aerosolized anthrax, plague, blister agent, nerve agent, radiological dispersal device, food-borne disease and animal disease. Also considered were two attacks on industrial facilities with the intent of releasing toxic chemicals, one of which involved chlorine. The two other terrorist attacks on the list were a cyber attack and a strike with an improvised explosive device. The nonterrorist scenarios involved influenza, an earthquake and a hurricane. Consideration of the scenarios led to a list of 36 essential capabilities for first responders, 30 of which the auditing office said apply to both terrorist and nonterrorist events, despite the terrorism focus of the scenarios. As examples of such dual-use capabilities, the auditors cited on-site disaster management and search and rescue. The 36 core capabilities are reflected in Homeland Security decisions on grant funding to state and local agencies and govern the department’s spending, assessments and training. State and local emergency officials have criticized the department for focusing too much on terrorism planning at the expense of work to address more common disasters. “State preparedness officials and local first responders we interviewed said that DHS’ emphasis for grant funding was too heavily focused on terrorism and they sought to acquire dual-use equipment and training that might be used for emergency events that occur more regularly in their jurisdictions in addition to supporting terrorism preparedness,” the audit office says in the report. In response to such complaints, the report indicates, DHS “promoted flexibility” for fiscal 2005 grants but also said dual-use purchases were allowed all along. National Emergency Management Association Executive Director Trina Sheets said today that state emergency agencies, which the association represents, have “concerns that the planning scenarios are so terrorism-centric.” “We understand that they are looking at events of the highest consequences, but frankly, when resources are so limited at the state and local level,” Sheets said, Washington should display “a recognition that there has to be a continued focus on those hazards that states know they’re going to face on a regular basis.” “We cannot continue to direct resources away [from more probable threats] and towards terrorism,” Sheets said. The auditors reviewed the National Preparedness Goal, the National Response Plan and Homeland Security’s command and management processes and “determined that each supports a national all-hazards approach.” They say “challenges” in implementing uniform national assessments, priorities and training could arise from the varying situations faced by the country’s states and cities. “A key challenge will be establishing a standardized approach for measuring and reporting the risks faced by diverse states and localities in order to effectively prioritize and allocate federal resources,” they wrote. Back to top

Experts Praise U.S., North Korean Attitudes at Nuclear Talks By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Two prominent experts yesterday declared the most recent multilateral negotiations on North Korea’s nuclear program a success and a cause for optimism that a final deal could be reached, despite a U.S.-North Korean stalemate that hindered chances for an agreement and prompted a recess in discussions (see GSN, Aug. 11). Negotiators from Washington and Pyongyang appeared committed to serious talks on eliminating North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, according to Charles Pritchard, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, and James Walsh, executive director of Harvard’s Managing the Atom Project. “There was an open concern about whether the U.S. was serious … and there were real concerns about whether the North Koreans were serious,” Walsh said. “And my sense out of this first round is that both parties, both sides come away with a view that there is something serious here.” Pritchard, a prominent critic of the administration’s previous efforts since resigning as President George W. Bush’s top negotiator in 2003, called the recent negotiations “a resounding success.” Pritchard said the North Koreans were “engaged” throughout the negotiations and attributed that to the “the professional approach” of Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, lead U.S. envoy to the six-party talks. The North Korean negotiators “also conducted themselves professionally,” Walsh said. He and Pritchard spoke at an event sponsored by the Brookings Institution.  The 13-day talks ended Sunday with a “recess,” after North Korea insisted that any deal must include helping the country obtain a light-water nuclear reactor for civil energy production. The U.S. position is that North Korea should not conduct any nuclear program following a deal and that other forms of energy would be provided to the country. Talks are scheduled to resume the week of Aug. 29. U.S. Change Noted Both experts said they had noted signs the Bush administration has developed a stronger commitment to negotiating a settlement, citing in particular face-to-face communications between negotiators in recent months and an absence of derogatory rhetoric toward the North Korean government. Senior administration officials realized their previous approach was leading to “failure,” and “decided to change direction,” Pritchard said. “What you saw was an administration that began to control the rhetoric,” he said. Pritchard said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “wants to succeed” and that Hill “has the instinct of a professional negotiator to engage, to look for ways around problems, and to seek solutions and to support the policies of the administration as he’s been given them and to influence the development of those policies.” North Korean Signals Pritchard and Walsh suggested the North Korean leadership also has shown recent signs it is truly willing to negotiate the elimination of its nuclear weapons capabilities. They noted a previously reported account of a June 17 meeting between leader Kim Jong Il and South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, in which Kim said that the dying wish of his father, Kim Il-Sung, was for a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. Kim at that meeting reportedly also said North Korea was willing as part of a deal to return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, from which it withdrew in 2002, and be subject to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. Walsh, who visited North Korea last year, said officials there repeatedly said that Kim had made a “brave strategic decision” to have a new relationship with the United States, to put aside 100 years of enmity, and eventually to abandon nuclear weapons as part of a new relationship. Pritchard said a desire to maintain good relations with China also was a key reason North Korea returned to the talks more than a year after the previous round of negotiations. Obstacles Loom Both experts acknowledged, though, that any deal faces numerous remaining, such as the U.S. demand that North Korea admit to having an alleged highly enriched uranium program and Pyongyang’s insistence that it be allowed to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program. Pritchard said the United States and North Korea are “diametrically opposed” on whether Pyongyang should be allowed to operate civilian nuclear power plants in the future. He said the administration should not allow the issue to undo a possible agreement. “That is not, in my opinion, an essential element, a core element of what is important to the United States,” he said. “Putting that in a bundle of [mutually agreed] principles up front is in fact extraordinarily difficult, it invites the North Koreans not only to dig in their heels but to command a proactive statement guaranteeing their right at the beginning of this,” Pritchard said. Walsh said allowing North Korea to have a light-water reactor program should not necessarily be a great U.S. security concern. “Light-water reactors are not big plutonium producers. And as long as they import the fuel rather than enrich it themselves and return the spent waste, then from a proliferation standpoint the risk isn’t zero but it’s very small,” he said. “I’d be surprised if this ends up being a deal killer,” he said. Where the money would come from to fund such a reactor, however, could be a problem.  Hill at a press conference this week said none of the six parties have said they would pay for such a project. Back to top       IAEA Motion on Iran “Positive First Step,” Bush Says The call yesterday by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s governing board for Iran to reinstate its nuclear freeze was a “positive first step,” said U.S. President George W. Bush (see GSN, Aug. 11). “The world is coalescing around the notion that the Iranians should not have the means and the wherewithal to be able to develop a nuclear weapon,” Bush said yesterday (Reuters, Aug. 11). Iran’s Foreign Ministry dismissed the IAEA resolution as “political,” the Associated Press reported today. “It comes from American pressure. ... It lacks any legal or logical basis and is unacceptable,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi. Tehran’s top IAEA delegate, Sirus Naseri, also dismissed the ruling and said Iran would be a “nuclear fuel producer and supplier within a decade.” Naseri added, however, that Tehran did “not leave the door closed to (the Europeans)” and would temporarily maintain a suspension on uranium enrichment “to give a chance for negotiations” (William Kole, Associated Press/WINK TV, Aug. 12). Iran is not likely to accept a South African offer to enrich uranium for Tehran’s nuclear energy program, a senior Iranian official said yesterday. “This is not going to happen. Iran wants to have the nuclear fuel cycle,” he said. A senior European diplomat in Tehran was also skeptical, Reuters reported. “It’s a nonstarter. It doesn’t sound viable in a practical sense. It would allow Iran to master a key part of the fuel cycle (UF6 production), which is precisely what we do not want,” the diplomat said. Another European diplomat, however, said International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei was “very keen” on the idea (Reuters, Aug. 11). U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said yesterday he would use next month’s summit in New York to arrange a meeting between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Western leaders if the nuclear standoff is not resolved by then. “It will be a way for all of us to collectively talk to them,” Annan told Reuters. More than 170 world leaders are expected at the meeting, set to address issues including terrorism and nuclear proliferation (Evelyn Leopold, Reuters, Aug. 11). The United States is likely to grant a visa to Ahmadinejad for the meeting, the Washington Post reported today. No evidence has been found that Ahmadinejad was involved in the taking of hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, according to a classified U.S. intelligence report distributed within the administration yesterday. “There is relative certainty that he was not one of the actual captors,” said a U.S. official familiar with the allegations, made by at least four former hostages (Robin Wright, Washington Post, Aug. 12). Back to top       Analysis Urges U.S. Innovation to Avoid Nuclear Showdown With China Over Taiwan By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States must “be more active and more innovative” to avoid a conflict with fellow nuclear power China over the status of Taiwan, two analysts at the conservative Nixon Center say in a new report released this week (see GSN, Aug. 4). New prospects for greater stability on both sides of the Taiwan Strait represent an opportunity for progress on long-standing differences between Beijing and Taipei over Taiwanese sovereignty, according to Nixon Center Chinese Studies Director David Lampton and former Assistant Director Travis Tanner. At the same time, they say, conflict could be precipitated by China’s strategy of bolstering its missile-based deterrent and the mainland’s recent Anti-Secession Law, which authorizes military force against Taiwan if the latter declares independence or reunification efforts otherwise come to a halt. “The Taiwan Strait is a place in the world in which two nuclear powers could be brought to blows through actions precipitated by a third party,” Lampton and Tanner caution in the report. The release of the analysis comes a month after high-ranking Chinese Gen. Zhu Chenghu made remarks that stoked U.S. and Taiwanese concern over China’s nuclear weapons (see GSN, July 15). In comments he acknowledged did not reflect official policy, Zhu said Beijing could use nuclear weapons in response to any U.S. military intervention in the dispute with Taiwan. China subsequently reiterated its long-standing official policy that it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in any conflict (see GSN, July 22). A week later, the U.S. Defense Department said in an assessment that China was upgrading its nuclear and missile arsenals (see GSN, July 20). The Nixon Center report focuses on the period from late 2003 through the beginning of this year. The authors say China’s military posture and the U.S.-opposed Anti-Secession Law fuel tension in the region. They add, however, that new stability in the United States, Taiwan and mainland China is to be expected following the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush; Taiwanese elections last year that put different parties atop the executive and legislative branches of government, creating a state of affairs that “presumably will limit [President] Chen [Shui-ban]’s ability to dramatically alter the status quo” by undertaking new efforts at increasing Taiwanese sovereignty; and the solidification of Chinese Premier Hu Jintao’s power through his appointment as chairman of the Central Military Commission. “The result of these events is a more secure leadership in all three capitals,” they write. The authors also point to the opportunity represented by newly increased contacts between Taiwan and China. They note recent meetings between the Beijing government and Taiwan’s opposition Pan Blue coalition, which controls the Taiwanese legislature, and the re-establishment of direct air travel across the strait for the first time in five decades. In their recommendations to the three parties, the authors say Taipei should “formulate a comprehensive defense strategy” not overly based on “sophisticated weapons systems” and should “actively pursue cross-strait initiatives.” China should, they say, stop deploying more missiles aimed at Taiwan, and the United States should “be more active and more innovative” to avoid the dramatic consequences of any conflict over Taiwan. Should such a conflict arise, they write, “Washington not only will find itself in a bitter, costly, and protracted conflict with a nuclear power, but the deteriorating situation will inevitably dampen the most dynamic region in an otherwise sputtering world economy, a wedge will have been driven between Washington and its allies, stability in East Asia will have been compromised, and China likely would embark on a road of military buildup that will exact a huge toll on the world and on the [People’s Republic of China] for decades to come.” The authors do not clarify what “active” and “innovative” U.S. measures they have in mind and could not be reached for this article. In addition to that proposal, they say the United States should seek to “slow or reverse the ongoing militarization of the Taiwan Strait,” continue monitoring Taiwanese constitutional matters, press for restraint and transparency in the potential arms deals that could result if the European Union lifted its arms embargo against China, and seek to ensure all U.S. executive-branch agencies present a common position on China. The report also touches on Taiwanese efforts to develop weapons to counter China. Some Taiwanese and U.S. analysts, the authors write, have proposed that Taiwan develop “either offensive conventional counterforce capabilities to deter China from launching a conventional attack on Taiwan or an offensive strategic countervalue capability, perhaps even nuclear, to threaten major Chinese cites like Shanghai, Nanjing, Guangzhou and even Hong Kong.” Taiwan has reportedly weighed plans to produce hundreds of medium- and short-range surface-to-surface missiles, and Jane’s Defense Weekly reported last year that Taipei had built a missile and radar facility on an island off the coast of mainland China that could aid in strikes on Chinese air bases and missile platforms. International Atomic Energy Agency diplomats were anonymously cited last year as saying the U.N. agency had discovered evidence that Taiwan conducted plutonium-separation experiments in the 1980s before the United States persuaded it to shelve its incipient and covert nuclear-weapon program. Taiwanese Atomic Energy Council Deputy Chairman Yang Chao-yie said in response to the reports that Taiwan had never conducted plutonium-separation experiments before the program was shut down in 1988 (see GSN, Oct. 14, 2004). “True or not,” Lampton and Tanner write, “these reports suggest that Taiwan is spending a great deal of time and money thinking of ways to deter the PRC, some of which are contrary to long-standing U.S. policies and interests.” Back to top       South Korea Plays Down Differences With U.S. on Support for North Korea Energy Reactor South Korea today played down apparent differences with the United States over North Korea’s right to operate a nuclear energy program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Aug. 11, and related story, today). Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said yesterday that Pyongyang had a “natural right” to a civilian nuclear program. South Korean officials today clarified the remark, saying Chung was referring to what might be allowed if North Korea were to rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. “Our official stance is that North Korea would be able to engage in civilian nuclear activities if and when it gives up weapons programs, returns to the NPT and observes [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards,” said Cho Tae-yong, head of the Foreign Ministry’s task force on the nuclear issue. Cho added that North Korea could not be allowed to have any sort of uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing facilities. “There is nothing like a rift between Seoul and Washington on this issue,” he said. Washington also denied suggestions of a dispute. “There’s no rift between the United States and South Korea,” said State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli. “We are close partners in a broad bilateral relationship and particularly in our common approach to denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula” (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Aug. 12). South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon met today for nearly three hours with his Chinese counterpart, Li Zhaoxing, for consultations on the North Korea nuclear issue, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse II/SpaceWar.com, Aug. 12). Meanwhile, North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan has accepted an invitation from a U.S. researcher to visit Harvard University in October or November to discuss nuclear issues, the Yonhap news agency reported today. “I invited Vice Foreign Minister Kim to come to Harvard to lead a delegation in the fall for further discussions of the nuclear issue with staffers and members of the U.S. Senate, and he generously agreed to that,” said James Walsh, head of the university’s Managing the Atom Project at its Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Unless the six-nation talks collapse, Walsh said he expects the State Department to approve U.S. travel for Kim (Yonhap/BBC Monitoring, Aug. 12). Back to top       United Kingdom Eases Indian Nuclear Sanctions The United Kingdom announced yesterday that it would ease nuclear restrictions on India, Press Trust of India reported (see GSN, Aug. 2). “The government has notified Parliament yesterday about the significant changes in its laws regarding the export of dual-use nuclear technologies to India,” said a British Foreign Ministry spokesperson.  The relaxed sanctions allow India and Pakistan to import dual-use items from the Nuclear Suppliers Group on a “case-by-case” basis. Equipment must be directed to facilities operated under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision and safeguards, PTI reported. Applications for other items, including those restricted by WMD end-use controls, will also be evaluated. “We will be again opening the doors to Indian nuclear scientists and research organizations, academics and nuclear industry officials to come to the U.K.,” the British spokesperson said (Press Trust of India/Silicon India, Aug. 12). Back to top

Report Questions Calif. Bioterrorism Preparedness Officials and health professionals in California are concerned that the state is not prepared to handle a public health crisis caused by bioterrorism due to organizational problems, lack of staff and budget cuts, the San Francisco Chronicle reported today (see GSN, Aug. 10). These concerns come as a state auditor released a report yesterday that found California’s plans for combating disease outbreaks and acts of terrorism have not been updated for years. The state’s Disaster Medical Response Plan was last updated in 1992, while the Medical Mutual Aid Plan was issued in 1974. California’s Emergency Medical Services Authority said it would update the plans by September 2006, according to the Chronicle. The audit also found that California’s Health Services Department has been slow to spend $88 million earmarked for hospitals to improve bioterror preparedness. Auditors attributed the slow spending to a hiring freeze that was lifted in June 2004. The Health Services Department said the auditor’s report does not accurately reflect state preparedness. The department claims it has met 62 of 64 federal conditions for disease control.  “California is better prepared today than ever before to respond to a bioterrorism act,” said department spokesman Ken August (Greg Lucas, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 12). Back to top

Miniature Chemical Agent Generators Pose Proliferation Risk, U.S. Scientist Warns Credit card-sized “micro-reactors” that can produce chemical agents such as phosgene and hydrogen cyanide are a proliferation risk, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 11). “The inherently small physical size of the equipment and small space required make it attractive for clandestine operations,” Tuan Nguyen of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Center for Global Security Research wrote in today’s edition of the journal Science. “Another danger created by the growing use of micro-reactors is that chemical weapon precursors could be synthesized rather than purchased, making it more difficult to discover the preparation of chemical weapons,” the article says. The technology could undercut the Chemical Weapons Convention, according to Nguyen. “The key issue with these advancements in science and technology is that it’s going to make it more difficult to monitor and verify compliance of the Chemical Weapons Convention,” Nguyen said. He urged the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to consult technology innovators to come up with solutions (Glenn Chapman, Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Aug. 11). Back to top       Abandoned Chemical Weapons Spark Japanese Inquiry Chemical weapons abandoned in Japan after World War II are causing concern among Japanese officials, the Japan Times reported yesterday (see GSN, July 26). The Japanese Environmental Ministry has found that chemical weapons may have been left at 138 sites following the war. The ministry is studying groundwater and soil at certain sites, according to the Times. “Witnesses have vague memories about the places where weapons were dumped,” making it difficult to locate the weapons, said Takako Kitamado, director of the ministry’s risk assessment office. (Kaho Shimizu, Japan Times, Aug. 11). Back to top       U.S. Army Destroys World War I-Era Chemical Weapon The U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency this week used its portable Explosive Destruction System to destroy a World War I-era 75 mm shell filled with mustard gas, according to an agency press release (see GSN, Nov. 3, 2004). The round had been stored at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware since it was discovered in a clam processing facility in late May.  Operators detonated the weapon inside the Explosive Destruction System’s containment chamber. They then neutralized the mustard gas within the airtight chamber. Leftover liquid and pieces of the shell are expected to be transported to a commercial disposal facility, the release said. (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Aug. 11). Back to top

U.S. Not Alarmed by Pakistani Missile Test The U.S. State Department yesterday expressed no reservations about Pakistan’s first cruise missile test, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Aug. 11). “It’s important to us that actions by states on the subcontinent are done in ways that aren’t provocative, in ways that aren’t threatening. I think that by all accounts that test met that criteria,” said State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli. “My understanding was that it was done in a way that was not alarming, it was not a surprise. But I’d leave it to the two parties to speak further to that since it involves them directly,” he added. Ereli said there was “nothing I have to share with you on that score” when asked if Pakistan received foreign assistance in developing the cruise missile (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Aug. 11). However, K. Santhanam, a former chief adviser at the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization, said Pakistan does not have the technology to develop a cruise missile independently, the Times of India reported yesterday. Santhanam speculated that the missile came from China. “China is peddling at least two types of cruise missiles in the international market. … My assessment is that this Pakistani missile is of Chinese origin, with a label change,” he said (Rajat Pandit, Times of India, Aug. 11). Back to top       Kazakhstan Joins Missile Nonproliferation Regime Kazakhstan has joined the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, Kazakhstan Today reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 1). Kazakhstan does not have a ballistic missile arsenal, according to the Kazakh Foreign Ministry (Kazakhstan Today/BBC Monitoring, Aug. 11).   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.