U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns (left) meets with Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon yesterday in New Delhi. Burns today praised U.S. congressional action on the U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal (Prakash Singh/Getty Images). Indian Nuclear Deal Ready for Full Congressional Vote Today U.S. House and Senate lawmakers agreed yesterday to final legislation exempting India from U.S. nuclear nonproliferation laws, clearing the way for a U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal to proceed, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 6). The full houses are expected to vote on the bill today and send it to U.S. President George W. Bush for signature.  Easy passage is expected on the final bill because the two earlier bills were easily approved in their respective houses...Full Story

OPCW Chief Sees World Without Chemical Weapons By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire THE HAGUE — There are only 14 nations that do not yet belong to the Chemical Weapons Convention.  This dwindling list, however, includes a Stalinist regime and several Middle Eastern countries that give no appearance of being ready to join now, if ever...Full Story

U.S. Begins Plutonium Transfer From Livermore The U.S. Energy Department has begun to transfer nuclear weapon materials from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California to Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, a department release announced yesterday (see GSN, Apr. 7)...Full Story

	Friday, December 8, 2006

U.S. Opens WMD “Cloud” Facility to Test Sensors The United States this week announced the opening of a facility to study clouds of toxic gases released by chemical or biological weapons, the U.S. Army announced (see GSN, Oct. 11, 2005). The $2 million facility is located at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center at the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. “The ability to rapidly and accurately detect chemical and biological warfare material is fundamental to our nation’s defense,” said center director Jim Zarzycki. The facility features a “vortex chamber” that simulates a cloud of toxic agent, according to an Edgewood release.  The new tool would enable scientists to study WMD detection systems designed to sense clouds of agents several kilometers away (Edgewood release, Dec. 4). Back to top

Indian Nuclear Deal Ready for Full Congressional Vote Today U.S. House and Senate lawmakers agreed yesterday to final legislation exempting India from U.S. nuclear nonproliferation laws, clearing the way for a U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal to proceed, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 6). The full houses are expected to vote on the bill today and send it to U.S. President George W. Bush for signature.  Easy passage is expected on the final bill because the two earlier bills were easily approved in their respective houses. One measure opposed by the White House was loosened yesterday to require only a presidential report on the India’s support of U.S. efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, AP reported.  Lawmakers had considered requiring a formal presidential certification that India was helping, but backed off after receiving a letter of protest from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (see GSN, Dec. 1). Resisting the Bush administration on another measure, the final bill includes a ban on transferring uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing equipment to India, according to AP (Foster Klug, Associated Press I, Dec. 8). Bush administration officials praised the final bill and looked forward to future U.S.-Indian nuclear trade. “This is a major, historic step forward for both our countries,” Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said during a visit yesterday to New Delhi.  “The civil nuclear agreement in our eyes is the symbolic center of this new strategic partnership between India and the United States” (Associated Press II/Santa Fe New Mexican, Dec. 8). The planned deal calls for the United States to provide nuclear technology and materials to India in exchange for India opening its civilian nuclear sector to international oversight.  Because India has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, U.S. and international export control rules must be modified before any trade can begin. Traditional nonproliferation advocates criticized the new legislation for exempting India from those rules. “The so-called congressional nonproliferation leaders, Senators Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and Congressmen Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and Henry Hyde (D-Ill.) have concluded a bill that makes a mockery of U.S. nonproliferation objectives and given in to many, though not all, of the Indian government’s objections to their original legislation,” said Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association. “We should all be outraged,” concurred Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (Reuters/New York Times, Dec. 8). Back to top       U.S. Begins Plutonium Transfer From Livermore The U.S. Energy Department has begun to transfer nuclear weapon materials from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California to Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, a department release announced yesterday (see GSN, Apr. 7). The move is part of an effort to move U.S. stocks of plutonium and highly enriched uranium into consolidated storage sites that can be secured more effectively and efficiently, according to the release.  Nearly all of the Livermore’s weapon material will be removed. “Consolidating material is one of our main goals to transform the Cold War-era nuclear weapons complex to be even more secure, more efficient and more modern,” said Linton Brooks, chief of the department’s National Nuclear Security Administration.  “We are taking concrete steps to reduce the number of locations where we process and store significant quantities of nuclear weapons materials.” The first shipment from Livermore was completed recently, the release says, and completion of the transfer is scheduled for 2014 (NNSA release, Dec. 7). The consolidation policy represents a change for the department, which only a year ago approved plans to double Livermore’s plutonium storage capacity (see GSN, Nov. 30, 2005). Security costs had skyrocketed, however, hitting $100 million a year at Livermore, the Contra Costa Times reported today. While many local activists have long urged the removal of weapons materials, some expressed concern that the transferred material would be used to produce new nuclear warheads. “They’re taking it to Los Alamos for pit production experiments and then will move it again for a new pit factory,” said Marylia Kelley, head of the watchdog group Tri-Valley CAREs (see GSN, Oct. 23).  “Our position is that plutonium at Livermore is not secure.  It is vulnerable to disgruntled employee scenarios, to theft, to terrorist attack and to catastrophic release in the event of a major earthquake.  We want to see it moved for safety and security reasons, but we only want it moved once and not used for weapons” (Ian Hoffman, Contra Costa Times, Dec. 8). Back to top       U.S. Announces Program to Enhance Radiation Scanning of U.S.-Bound Shipping From Overseas Ports The United States yesterday announced a program to conduct radiation scans on all U.S.-bound containers on cargo ships leaving three major international ports.   Beginning early next year, port authorities would used radiation detectors and X-ray machines to scan for nuclear weapon and dirty bomb materials in containers leaving ports in Pakistan, Honduras and the United Kingdom, the New York Times reported (see GSN, Sept. 27). Called the Secure Freight Initiative, the $60 million program would also scan some, but not all, U.S-bound containers at three additional ports in South Korea, Singapore and Oman (Eric Lipton, New York Times, Dec. 8). “Our highest priority and greatest sense of urgency has to be aimed at preventing a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb attack against the homeland,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. “This initiative advances a comprehensive strategy to secure the global supply chain and cut off any possibility of exploitation by terrorists” (DHS release, Dec. 7). Some nuclear terrorism experts played down the effectiveness of U.S. programs to prevent nuclear weapons from entering the country. “I am not presently optimistic that current efforts to inspect and scan will have any payoff against highly enriched uranium,” said Peter Zimmerman, director of the Kings College London Center for Science and Security Studies (see GSN, Oct. 3).  He said simple materials, such as aluminum foil, could easily shield fissile materials from radiation detectors (Reuters/New York Times, Dec. 8). “The good news is we will only waste $60 million,” added James Jay Carafano, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow (Lipton, New York Times). Back to top       North Korea Talks Could Resume This Month Six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear crisis could resume this month, ITAR-Tass reported today (see GSN, Dec. 4). “A proposal on holding a new round in Beijing in the second half of this month is being considered,” said a source.  Tass reported Dec. 16 as the date under consideration (Reuters/New York Times, Dec. 8). Still, other reports appeared to cast doubt on talks restarting soon.  A North Korean diplomatic source told ITAR-Tass that U.S. moves to freeze North Korean assets would need to end before Pyongyang would return to the table. “We will not enter into six-party talks until the atmosphere of pressure is removed and all of our financial operations that have been blocked by the USA are restarted,” the diplomatic source said. Part of the “atmosphere of pressure” appeared to include a North Korean claim the United States currently deploys nuclear weapons in South Korea. “[North Korea] has practically no doubts that there are American nuclear weapons in the south of the Korean Peninsula,” the source said.  “Those who claim the opposite are misleading us and the world community” (ITAR-Tass, Dec. 7). U.S. and South Korean officials quickly denied the claim. “There is no U.S. nuclear weapon in South Korea,” President Roh Moo-hyun said today.  “Deployment of nuclear weapons is not the presupposition for the provision of the U.S. nuclear umbrella” (Yonhap I, Dec. 8). “The United States affirms that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the D.P.R.K. with nuclear or conventional weapons,” U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday (Yonhap II, Dec. 8). Back to top       Iran Could Demand U.S. Concessions in Nuclear Dispute in Exchange for Help in Stabilizing Iraq Tehran could seek U.S. concessions on Iran’s nuclear activities if the Bush administration heeds a call to seek Iran’s help in stabilizing Iraq, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 6). A report this week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group urged President George W. Bush to engage Iran and Syria in an effort to develop peace in Iraq. Iran, however, would probably want something out of the deal besides a peaceful neighbor, said Mark Fitzpatrick, a nonproliferation expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Iran would likely seek U.S. acceptance of Iran’s nuclear program, a move that Washington was unlikely to make, said Fitzpatrick.  More feasible, he said, would be a U.S. assurance not to attack Iran and an easing of sanctions. One Iranian political group offered a clear set of demands. “If the United States lifts sanctions against Iran, recognizes Iran’s nuclear rights and releases Iran’s foreign assets in the U.S., then we can be optimistic about [a] possible active role of Iran on the security in Iraq and other regional issues,” said Mojtaba Bigdeli, spokesman for Iranian Hezbollah, a political group that supports Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Jim Krane, Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Dec. 7). Meanwhile, China urged U.N. powers to move slowly toward imposing sanctions against Iran for its refusal to meet a Security Council demand to freeze its sensitive nuclear activities. Representatives from the five permanent council members and Germany met unsuccessfully this week to see if they could agree on a set of sanctions.  China and Russia have balked at the U.S.-backed measures proposed by France, Germany and the United Kingdom. “The issue should be settled peacefully through dialogue and consultation,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said yesterday.  “The actions taken by the Security Council should be conducive to this goal, and it is our belief that we should give more time to diplomacy” (Agence France-Presse/Channel NewsAsia, Dec. 7). Back to top       Russia Completes Upgrade to Strategic Bomber Russia has finished upgrading a Tu-160 strategic bomber, the first in a program to modernize the “Blackjack” aircraft, Vzlyet reported this week (see GSN, Jan. 20, 2004). The plane arrived at the Kazan aircraft production association last year and will soon begin flight testing, according to Vzlyet (Defense and Security, Dec. 6). Back to top       U.S. Strategic Bomber Plans Take Shape A major U.S. aerospace contractor expects the next U.S. strategic bomber to complement, not replace, the current B-2 bomber fleet, Flight International reported Monday.  The Air Force has aimed to field the next-generation long-range strike aircraft by 2018 (see GSN, Sept. 29, 2004). Because it would keep a nuclear mission, the aircraft would probably need to be “mannable,” instead of remotely piloted, said Northrop Grumman long-range strike manager Dave Mazur (Flight International, Dec. 4). Back to top

OPCW Chief Sees World Without Chemical Weapons By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire THE HAGUE — There are only 14 nations that do not yet belong to the Chemical Weapons Convention.  This dwindling list, however, includes a Stalinist regime and several Middle Eastern countries that give no appearance of being ready to join now, if ever. Rogelio Pfirter’s job is to make sure they do. The Argentinean diplomat leads the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the treaty’s monitoring body.  He described himself yesterday as an optimist who believes governments that believe in peace will ultimately do the right thing. “I think that we need to persuade them that joining the convention at the earliest is the right way to go,” Pfirter said.  “Of course, different countries have different reasons for not being here.  In some cases it might be not lack of will but rather lack of ability to move forward.” “In other cases I believe that the lack of progress is the result of more political or strategic or both types of reasons.  Those cases are more difficult.” As of this week’s Conference of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, 181 nations have pledged not to develop, stockpile or use toxic agents such as mustard gas, sarin or soman.  Each new member reduces the threat that nations will again deploy those materials in warfare or that terrorists will gain access to those weapons.  All treaty members are obligated to declare and destroy any chemical stocks, and to take internal measures to prevent illicit use of dangerous chemicals. The goal of the action planned approved by member nations in 2003 is to bring 195 nations — the number of countries the agency believes capable of signing a treaty — into the fold by April 29, 2007, the 10th anniversary of the treaty’s entry into force.  It calls for the agency and member nations to use various means to promote membership, including workshops and bilateral meetings, and to offer technical assistance to nations moving toward joining. Twenty-four nations have signed the convention since the action plan was adopted.  Delegates yesterday agreed by consensus to maintain the effort for another year. “While we have made significant progress towards universality, much efforts would be required to persuade those who have not so far favored joining the convention,” said Algerian delegate Said Moussi, facilitator on treaty universality for the OPCW Executive Council. The countries that remain outside the treaty are Angola, the Republic of Congo, Guinea Bissau and Somalia in Africa; Myanmar and North Korea in Asia; Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon and Syria in the Middle East; and the Bahamas, Barbados and Dominican Republic in the Caribbean and Latin America. A diplomatic source said the Bahamas, Barbados, Republic of Congo, Iraq and Lebanon are seen as likely to join the convention in 2007. Some nations have extremely limited economies and international relations and see little reason to sign the pact, said John Gilbert, a senior science fellow at the Center for Nonproliferation and Arms Control.  They often face more pressing troubles. The major challenges clearly lie in North Korea and the Middle East, where nations are not only reluctant to join but suspected of stockpiling chemical weapons. North Korea is believed to be among the world’s major chemical weapons holders.  The secretive regime in Pyongyang is unlikely to open itself to the international scrutiny required under the treaty, Gilbert said.  “I think that North Korea is probably a lost cause unless and until there is severe regime change there,” he said. In his opening address to the conference, Pfirter acknowledged North Korea’s “absolute indifference” to the treaty, but noted that the U.N. Security Council has called for it to halt all WMD programs.  He also said he would eventually like to see chemical weapons addressed at the six-party talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear program. There is perhaps cause for cautious optimism in the Middle East.  Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon all sent observers to the conference this week.  The Iraqi government has a mandate to join the treaty, while the Lebanese parliament is considering the matter, Pfirter said. “The fact that some of those countries are even participating in our meeting … shows that this is again not a static issue,” he said. Resolution to the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely necessary to create meaningful movement in the region toward the treaty, Gilbert said.  If one of the countries in the region signed on, though, the others might follow suit. Israel is unlikely to follow the lead of Iraq or Lebanon, as those countries’ internal troubles would undermine their capabilities to meet their treaty commitments, Gilbert said.  A move by Egypt or Syria which, like Israel, are suspected of operating chemical weapons programs, would be far more significant, he added. Pfirter rejects the argument that peace in the Middle East must precede entry into the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Joining the treaty would instead be a building block of peace, he said. “It is quite clear that any step that would free the people of the region of a set of one category of weapons of mass destruction would represent in itself an objective progress of progressive steps toward permanent, legitimate peace,” Pfirter said. He said there is no reason to believe that chemical weapons would act as a deterrent against nuclear weapons, such as those that Israel is widely assumed to possess. The OPCW Technical Secretariat will continue to communicate to nations that chemical weapons are “illegal, immoral, contrary to international law but they’re also from a strategic point of view of doubtful value,” he said.  The challenges to Pfirter’s agency do not end with bringing countries into the convention. Those that join and that possess chemical weapons are required to eliminate their stockpiles by no later than April 29, 2012.  No delegate at this week’s meeting allowed that obligation go unmentioned during opening statements. The United States, though, is now not expected to finish disposal until 2023.  Experts say that efforts to eliminate weapons in Russia and China are also likely to continue past the deadline. If preparations are being made at the agency for eventual deadline violations, they are not yet ready to be noted in public. “As director general of this organization I have to say there is no possibility of possessor states to go beyond 2012,” Pfirter said.  “It is what the convention is telling us.  It is the clear obligation of possessor states.  So we look for them to do everything necessary to fulfill their obligations on time.” Pfirter said he believes the state holders of chemical weapons are adequately securing them from falling into the possession of terrorists.  A greater danger comes from potential access to chemicals being used in thousands of industrial and commercial sites around the world, he said. The conference today approved an OPCW budget that includes funding in 2007 for inspections of 200 industrial sites, 20 more than authorized for this year. There is no doubt in Pfirter’s mind that all this work there is a world coming one day without chemical weapons. “I think there is.  There has to be.  Some might think that it is a naive approach, but I’m quite sure that it is an approach that we need to have in order to continue pressing for such a goal.  It is an obligation.” Back to top       Pentagon Examines Rising Costs of CW Destruction Dramatically rising costs have forced the U.S. Defense Department to examine its plans to destroy chemical weapons stored at depots in Colorado and Kentucky, Reuters reported Tuesday (see GSN, Nov. 22). Once set to cost $4.61 billion, the destruction cost estimates have increased to $7.96 billion over the last three years, forcing an automatic review of the program.  U.S. law requires canceling programs with costs that spiral out of control unless they are deemed necessary for national security reasons, Reuters reported. A defense official said the U.S. chemical weapons destruction program would probably merit being “essential to national security” and it would probably continue because there are no alternatives to destroying the weapons. Still, the Colorado and Kentucky programs could be restructured, said another defense official (Reuters, Washington Post, Dec. 5). Back to top

Failure to Launch Marks U.S. Missile Defense Test A U.S. missile defense test failed yesterday when “an incorrect system setting” prevented the launch of an interceptor missile, the Missile Defense Agency announced (see GSN, Mar. 9). The agency had planned to engage two targets simultaneously with the Aegis-class USS Lake Erie by firing two interceptors, but when the first interceptor failed to launch, the second interceptor’s launch was cancelled, according to an agency release. Officials had planned to shoot down a ballistic missile with a Standard Missile 3 interceptor while attacking a mock aircraft with a Standard Missile 2 (MDA release, Dec. 7). The test failure was the second in nine attempts, said agency spokesman Chris Taylor, and the agency plans to repeat the test attempt, probably next year, the Associated Press reported (David Briscoe, Associated Press/Forbes.com, Dec. 8). 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.