Japan Raids Yamaha over Helicopter Sale to China

Japanese authorities yesterday searched more than 20 Yamaha Motor facilities to investigate allegations that the company attempted to illegally sell China helicopters that could be used to spread biological agents, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Aug. 27, 2004).

The company denied any wrongdoing. Japanese authorities allege Yamaha tried to sell one helicopter to China last month without receiving permission from the trade minister. 

The Japanese trade minister must give approval for the sale as the helicopter is subject to export controls.

The RMAX unmanned helicopter flies at altitudes of up to 500 feet and is used in Japan to spread agricultural chemicals. According to reports, the aircraft could be modified to spread germs.

Yamaha said it has exported nine of the helicopters to a Beijing-based company in recent years and that the raid was triggered by the attempted delivery of the 10th vehicle. 

“We do not recognize at all (that we were) engaging in acts that violate laws,” said Toyoo Otsubo, public relations director at Yamaha. He added that his company did not think the helicopter had any military uses (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Jan. 23).

Back to top

Experts Back Regional DHS Offices to Aid Disaster Response

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Homeland Security Department should establish regional offices to better support emergency responders in the event of a major terrorist attack or other catastrophe, experts said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 6, 2004).

The department has said it intends in this fiscal year to begin developing a regional structure, an idea long championed by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Proponents say regional offices would better incorporate state and local officials’ needs into the department’s plans and would improve coordination of multijurisdiction response efforts, which are often ad hoc or uneven.

Experts at a Heritage Foundation discussion agreed that regional offices are needed to aid state and local responders but differed over questions such as whether aspects of the effort should be outsourced to private companies.

“The regional organization must be about one thing only, and that’s the deliverance — the assured deliverance — of preparedness for a catastrophic incident,” said Computer Sciences Corporation consultant William Moore.

The retired U.S. Army major general said Hurricane Katrina showed that the federal government was ill equipped to step in effectively in a catastrophe large enough to outstrip local capacity.

“Are we better now than we were when Katrina hit? I think the answer is ‘not so,’” he said.

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, now a Heritage Foundation fellow, said state and local responders need more help and better coordination systems for catastrophes.

“They feel a lack of connectivity between the federal and the local governments,” Meese said, referring to local officials around the country to whom he has spoken.

The two differed over the role of private industry in the effort. Moore said administration of a “regional contingency support system” comprising 10 offices around the country should be contracted out to the private sector, which he said is “more agile” and has “greater resources” than government.

“Industry hasn’t been as prominent a player as they ought to be,” Moore said. “I would suggest that we outsource — that shakes a lot of people, I know — a lot of support services.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s existing regional structure, Moore said, proved inadequate during the hurricane and should not now be copied by Homeland Security as a whole. Private contractors would have performed better, he said.

“The current effort won’t get the job done when D-Day comes,” Moore said.

Meese encouraged using the “lessons learned” from Katrina to “correct the deficiencies” — not start from scratch with a new approach.

“Let’s keep it as simple as possible and use what has already worked and build on that,” Meese said.

In a paper last week, Meese, Heritage Foundation colleague James Carafano and Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis expert Richard Weitz argued that Homeland Security “should create a regional framework that primarily serves the needs of states, local communities and the private sector.”

The National Response Plan and National Incident Management System can “provide the national hub” for the regional network, but Homeland Security “lacks a suitable operational structure to support them,” the three wrote.   They said the regional network should be placed under an undersecretary for preparedness, bringing together parts of various Homeland Security component agencies and most department grant-making authority.

“The DHS should create a regional framework with the primary aims of enhancing information-sharing and other coordination among the states, the private sector and the DHS headquarters in Washington. The regional offices should not have operational or policy-making responsibilities,” they wrote.

Back to top

South Korea Pledges Some PSI Cooperation

South Korea today pledged limited cooperation with a U.S.-led WMD interdiction effort, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Nov. 22, 2005).

The Proliferation Security Initiative, a series of bilateral ship-boarding agreements designed to uncover illicit shipments of WMD materials on the high seas, has faced criticism from North Korea, according to AP. 

Seoul has not committed to formally joining the effort, but agreed to provide “possible cooperation” and to send delegates to observe interdiction exercises. Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon called it a “sensitive” issue.

“South Korea shares the purpose of PSI and will cooperate on a case-by-case basis, but is not considering formally joining” the effort, he said (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press, Jan. 24).

Back to top

China, Russia Still Resisting Western Push on Iran

Resistance from U.N. Security Council members China and Russia to European Union and U.S. efforts to refer Iran’s nuclear dossier to the council is likely to complicate a vote at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s emergency Board of Governors meeting next week, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 23).

Meanwhile, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei rejected a request from Western countries to issue a complete progress report on Iran’s case before the meeting, the Times reported (Steven Weisman, New York Times, Jan. 24).

Instead, ElBaradei is expected to provide board members with an abbreviated update, with the full report still scheduled for release in March, Agence France-Presse reported.

The brief will be presented in response to formal requests from Australia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, according to documents acquired by AFP  (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, Jan. 23).

Security Council referral requires a majority vote of the agency’s 35 board members, and some EU and U.S. officials believe that up to 20 members could be ready to send Iran’s case to the international body. Referral without Russian and Chinese support would, however, effectively negate any possibility of action at the Security Council.

Without a tough assessment from ElBaradei, support for such a vote could also be eroded, a European diplomat told the Times.

Russia is pushing for Iran’s nuclear activities to be reported for consideration by the Security Council. If negotiations then fail, pressure would increase for a referral at the board’s next regular meeting in early March. European diplomats said that formula was emerging as a likely scenario.

“The decision of ElBaradei to not advance a report right away makes the Russian timetable more likely than the European timetable,” said the diplomat. (Weisman, New York Times, Jan. 24).

China announced today that it is “conscientiously studying” the EU draft proposal to refer Iran’s nuclear dossier to the Security Council, Reuters reported.

“But on the other hand, we believe that further applying diplomatic efforts, and diplomatic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, remains a relatively suitable and better option,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan (Chris Buckley, Reuters, Jan. 24).

The IAEA deputy director general for safeguards, Ollie Heinonen, is scheduled to travel to Iran tomorrow to follow up on several agency requests, including access to the Lavizan site in Tehran, AFP reported yesterday.

“But it will take time to evaluate the results, even if a breakthrough is made in access and in getting data, on P-2 centrifuges, for instance,” said one diplomat.

Diplomats have said that Iran may have received three shipments of sophisticated P-2 uranium enrichment centrifuges. Iran has denied the allegations (Agence France-Presse I, Jan. 23).

The United States said yesterday that it was “absolutely” crucial to refer the issue to the Security Council, AFP reported.

“The case for referral is very strong and that’s what we intend to seek at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting,” said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

“The Security Council can then take up the matter at a later time but the referral absolutely has to be made,” she said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said such a delay could provide time for a negotiated resolution to the standoff.

“Our hope is that once Iran is referred to the Security Council that that provides a context in which a diplomatic solution can be found,” McCormack said (Agence France-Presse II/IranMania.com, Jan. 23).

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said yesterday that President George W. Bush was determined to resolve the issue peacefully “but has made clear that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable,” the Jerusalem Post reported.

Bolton added that, even if Iran’s case is referred to the Security Council next month, it remained unlikely that sanctions would be imposed immediately.

“In the first instance I suspect that if it comes to the Security Council in a few weeks we would look for a statement that essentially calls on Iran to comply with the existing IAEA resolutions,” he said. “I think that would be a gut check for the Iranians, and if they don’t heed that warning we would have to consider what to do next” (Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 23).

Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said today that the United States hopes to avoid an escalation of the crisis, Reuters reported.

“My country is trying to avoid any confrontation,” Zoellick said.

“That’s why we’ve worked with the Russians and others on this process and that’s why we’re trying to work in the global context with our U.N. Security Council partners and others to make clear to Iran that this would not be a positive development,” he said (Reuters/Yahoo!News, Jan. 24).

Back to top

South Korea Pushes for February Resumption of North Korea Nuclear Disarmament Talks

South Korea announced today that it was pushing to have multilateral negotiations on North Korea’s nuclear programs reconvene next month, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 23).

“The government and other relevant countries will be discussing ways on resuming the six-way talks in February,” said Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon (Agence France-Presse, Jan. 24).

Meanwhile, a U.S. Treasury Department delegation yesterday urged Seoul to bolster its efforts to “financially isolate WMD proliferators,” the U.S. Embassy said in a statement.

Ban, however, said South Korea was already meeting its international obligations to curtail WMD financing and could do little more, Reuters reported (Jack Kim, Reuters/Yahoo!News, Jan. 24).

Back to top

U.S. Plans to Consolidate Savannah River Plutonium

The U.S. Energy Department plans to consolidate plutonium stored at its Savannah River Site in South Carolina in one place to better monitor the material and defend against terrorism, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 17, 2005).

An old nuclear reactor will house the material, according to Energy Department documents.

“This will be a more secure, hardened facility,” said Perry Holcomb of the SRS Citizens Advisory Board.

Studies by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and the Government Accountability Office recommended changes. The safety board’s report in 2003 also suggested that nuclear weapons complex storage space lacks proper filtration, ventilation and fire protection. It also found that plutonium could not be removed from storage containers to ensure stability.

The new Energy Department plans would make it possible to open the storage containers to test the material, as well as enable personnel to monitor the containers from outside of the storage area.

The Energy Department will not confirm how much plutonium is stored at Savannah River. However, the facility is set to receive at least 34 tons for conversion into reactor fuel, and an additional 13 tons is expected, but would not be converted, AP reported.

The department is also considering moving plutonium from around the country to one site, although an agency spokesman said a report on that proposal is not due until year’s end or early 2007.

Law prohibits the Savannah River Site from receiving more plutonium until a plan is developed to dispose of materials that cannot be converted to fuel. However, some analysts have said all excess plutonium will eventually end up on site.

“I certainly assume that when that project is finished it will allow the site to store all plutonium for DOE,” said Mal McKibben of the Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness (Associated Press/AccessNorthGa.com, Jan. 23).

Back to top

Pakistan Says It Opposes Regional Arms Race

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said yesterday he is opposed to an arms race between countries in the region, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 19).

“As a nuclear weapons state, we adhere to the doctrine of minimum credible deterrence and are opposed to any nuclear proliferation as well as an arms race in the region,” he said at a Washington forum. Aziz is in Washington to meet with President George W. Bush and other administration officials. 

Pakistan, according to Aziz, is pressing for a “strategic restraint regime,” which would prevent an arms race and provide stability in the region. He said that nuclear tests by rival India forced Pakistan “to respond in order to establish a credible nuclear deterrence.”

Aziz said that antiballistic missile tests would destabilize the region. 

India is reportedly developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. Pakistan has tested various missiles, while China has a number of short- and long-range missile options.

Aziz said Pakistan supported Iran’s “right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy” under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Russia and China should play a “constructive” role in resolving the standoff with Tehran, he added.

“We oppose any resort to use of force as this would aggravate the already troubled situation in the region,” he said.

Pakistan is also “committed to the prevention of nuclear proliferation,” Aziz said. The country “has developed a strong command and control structure to protect our strategic assets as well as effective export controls to ensure against nuclear leakage” (P. Parameswaran, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Jan. 24).

Back to top

Senators Oppose Cuts to U.S. ICBM Forces

The U.S. Defense Department should not downsize its arsenal of 500 nuclear missiles installed in Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota, senators from those states argued yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 12, 2005).

InsideDefense.com has reported that the Pentagon’s forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review calls for cutting the missile count to 450, according to the Associated Press.

Senators Max Baucus (D-Montana), Conrad Burns (R-Montana), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Craig Thomas (R-Wyoming) met with the U.S. Strategic Command chief, Gen. James Cartwright, to discuss the reports of a potential reduction. The senators said they told Cartwright that nuclear deterrence remains crucial.

“We must not let our guard down and let our enemy know we have an empty holster, so to speak,” Burns said.

“In this day and age, when we have so many brave military men and women fighting overseas, it’s important that we have a strong nuclear defense at home,” Baucus said (Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press/Grand Forks Herald, Jan. 24).

Back to top

U.S. to Discuss Iran, North Korea in China Talks

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick is expected to discuss the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea during talks with Chinese officials beginning today is Beijing, Reuters reported (see GSN, Dec. 9, 2005).

Preparations for a “strategic dialogue” and bilateral relations are also expected to be discussed. 

“We hope to improve the bilateral strategic dialogue in order to improve mutual understanding and mutual trust,” Chinese Premier Wen Jiaobao said.

Zoellick said the talks would focus on Iran and North Korea.

“I'm interested in learning from my Chinese colleagues about not only their discussions with Kim Jong Il but what that trip is signifying in terms of North Korea's possible interest in economic reform,” he said (Reuters/Malaysia Star, Jan. 24).

Back to top

Los Alamos Director Lauds Lab’s 2005 Efforts

The director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico said the facility has recovered from problems that led the U.S. Energy Department to put control of facility up for bid for the first time, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 22, 2005).

The laboratory was shut down for two months last year during a search for two reportedly missing disks, which in actuality never existed. Budget constraints have also slowed work at Los Alamos, according to AP.

“I have never seen any organization go through what we have and make such a remarkable recovery while under the public microscope,” said facility Director Robert Kuckuck.

He added that the National Nuclear Security Administration and the University of California, which manages the laboratory, had given the site outstanding ratings in 2005 for threat reduction, stockpile and facilities stewardship, science and engineering and weapons certification. The laboratory’s administration and operations received a mark of satisfactory from the security agency and good from the university in administration and operations.

In 2005, the site received six outstanding ratings, along with three good and one satisfactory grade. This is up from three outstanding, four good, two satisfactory and one unsatisfactory rating in 2004, according to AP (Associated Press/The New Mexican, Jan. 23).

Back to top

Annual U.S. Missile Defense Spending Could Double

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The annual cost of the Bush administration’s missile defense plans could more than double to $19 billion by 2013, and total $247 billion from 2006 through fiscal 2024, according to a U.S. government report (see GSN, Nov. 30, 2005).

The report, “The Long-Term Implications of Current Defense Plans and Alternatives: Detailed Update for Fiscal Year 2006,” was produced by the Congressional Budget Office and released this month as an update to a September 2004 report.

The study projects an average $13 billion per year cost for missile defense through 2024. 

The administration requested about $8.5 billion for the program last year for the current fiscal 2006, according to the report. The annual cost should climb rapidly to $19 billion by 2013, due to major equipment purchases, before dropping significantly to about $8 billion annually by 2024, it says. All figures are in 2006 dollars. 

The projections factor the anticipated costs for development, procurement, operation and maintenance of most major Bush administration missile defense initiatives. Administration officials have said they are pursuing a “layered” approach to missile defense, which involves developing multiple technological approaches to striking various ballistic missiles from land, sea, air and possibly space.

The report’s projections also incorporate an assumption for the unexpected cost growth of the systems under development, based on historic cost-growth rates for major weapons systems since the Vietnam War. 

Without factoring historic cost growth, the report says, the average annual cost would be $10 billion, with a peak at $15 billion in 2013, and an overall cost of $190 billion overall through 2024.

The report incorporates potential costs for the following major systems: Ground-based Midcourse Defense system interceptors and radars; nine low-orbit, infrared Space Tracking and Surveillance System satellites; a boost-phase kinetic energy interceptor system; seven Airborne Laser 747 aircraft; additional Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) short-range missile defense systems; and Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) components.

The report also includes costs for the sea-based Aegis missile defense system under development, and space-based and mobile ground-based interceptor systems that are under early consideration. It does not, however, factor the Air Force’s SBIRS-High early warning satellites, which are intended for nonmissile defense uses as well, and does not specify how many ground-based, space-based, or sea-based systems it assumes will be purchased.

Victoria Samson, a Center for Defense Information missile defense analyst who released an analysis of the report last week, said she believes the report underestimates the probable cost of the administration’s plans. “If they did everything they wanted to, reports have estimated it could run over a trillion dollars,” she said, citing a 2003 report by prominent U.S. economists that drew such a conclusion.

The projected growth for missile defense costs corresponds with substantial overall Defense Department cost increases, according to the CBO report. Military funding reached $509 billion in fiscal 2005, including $74 billion in supplemental funding, it says.

It says the annual total could average about $522 billion a year through 2011 and $563 billion per year from 2012 through 2024, if historical cost growth and military expenditures to fight terrorists abroad are factored. That estimate, though, appears to assume that supplemental appropriations for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq will end in fiscal 2006.

Congress last year pushed back against missile defense budget cost growth, with key senior lawmakers saying the Defense Department would need to reduce some of its ambitions (see GSN, May 12, 2005).

The report says if the Defense Department chooses to buy no additional missile defense systems, but instead only invests in research and development, it could spend an average $3 billion through 2024.

Back to top