EU to Fund Biological Weapons Treaty Efforts

European Union nations in February agreed to spend more than $1 million on two programs to increase membership in the Biological Weapons Convention and adherence to states’ obligations under the treaty, Arms Control Today reported (see GSN, March 15).

The 18-month program approved Feb. 27 is a component of the “EU Strategy Against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

One project calls for five workshops focusing on regions in which a significant number of countries have yet to join the treaty, including Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Pacific Island states, Arms Control Today reported. The workshops would offer information to diplomats and bureaucrats on the treaty and EU nonproliferation efforts.

In the second project, European officials would offer legal and technical support to BWC member states that have yet to develop national legislation required by the treaty (see GSN, Feb. 17). Legislation must address issues such as criminalization of biological weapons development and securing biological agents and related materials and equipment (Michael Nguyen, Arms Control Today, April 2006).

Back to top

U.S. Says Anthrax Vaccine Maker Made False Claims

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in a letter released yesterday accused the manufacturer of the next-generation anthrax vaccine of making exaggerated claims about the purity and efficacy of the drug, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, March 17).

VaxGen Inc. of California made “false or misleading statements” about the countermeasure by using biased interpretations of studies on the vaccine, the agency said.

The letter cited a promotional document distributed in October in Washington that claimed VaxGen’s manufacturing practices created a vaccine “at nearly 100 percent purity” that offered immunity similar to an earlier drug. The agency said that early research does not back these claims.

VaxGen spokesman Paul Leland said the company was reviewing the letter.

“We'll review it internally, and we're going to respond, and if needed we’ll put a plan together,” he said. “If there is something that’s incorrect, then we will take corrective action” (Justin Gillis, Washington Post, April 5).

Back to top

Rice Promotes U.S.-Indian Deal to Lawmakers

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a Senate panel today that the U.S.-Indian nuclear sharing agreement would not cause new military competition among Asian countries, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 4).

“Civil nuclear cooperation with India will not lead to an arms race in South Asia,” Rice said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.   She is expected to appear later today in front of the House International Relations Committee.

Rice said India is unlikely to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 

“We are simply seeking to address an untenable situation,” she said. “This agreement does bring India into the nonproliferation framework, and does strengthen the regime.”

The “path-breaking” agreement “obviously deserves the support of the U.S. Senate,” Rice said.

Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) agreed that the deal would place more international safeguards on India, but added the agreement “would not prevent India from expanding its nuclear arsenal.”

Ranking committee Democrat Joseph Biden (Del.) said “it comes down to a simple bet we are making, that India appreciates as much as we that the two nations have the potential to be anchors for stability.” He indicated he would support the deal when it comes up for a vote, AP reported. Congressional approval is required for the deal to go through.

Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) said the White House is asking Congress to approve the agreement without telling lawmakers what safeguards would be put in place. The International Atomic Energy Agency would receive the safeguards, but “I don't know they should be substituted for Congress,” he said.

Senator George Allan (R-Va.), however, called the deal “a good bet” when considering the benefits to India and the global community. He said India and the United States share democratic values, giving the two a shared sense of security (Barry Schweid, Associated Press I/Yahoo!News, April 5).

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), however, criticized the agreement, AP reported

“I do not share the view that closer U.S.-India ties will be a counterweight to China, which seems to be the unstated yet driving force behind this deal,” she said in remarks prepared for the hearing.   “This type of thinking is not only outdated and dangerous, it flies in the face of reality.”

Boxer said India’s record indicates that it does not desire to become a “hedge” against China. “It is naive to think otherwise,” she said (Barry Schweid, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, April 5).

House lawmakers are also expected to grill Rice, USA Today reported.

“The intention is to do due diligence, and there are a lot of questions members want answered,” said International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.).

Ranking committee Democrat Tom Lantos (Calif.) said the White House has yet to provide details on how it would work with the nuclear industry in India.

Seven proliferation experts sent a letter yesterday to the lead Republicans and Democrats on each committee asking lawmakers to delay action on the agreement until the White House “has specified what further steps it is planning to take” to prevent proliferation.

Institute for Science and International Security chief David Albright said he is worried by certain Indian practices. He said that for two decades, an Indian uranium enrichment facility has placed ads in newspapers for sales of nuclear technology. These ads reveal sensitive information, and end-users for the equipment have not been identified.

In addition, the State Department in 2004 placed sanctions on Indian scientist Y.S.R. Prasad for proving assistance to Iran’s nuclear program. He is the former chief of the Indian Nuclear Power Corporation and an expert on the extraction of tritium, which can be used in nuclear warheads (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, April 5).

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns acknowledged the deal would be a tough sell to lawmakers, Reuters reported.

“Sometimes bold ideas take a little while to be understood or to be accepted,” he said. “But we are very confident we have done the right thing here.”

“They can't just be expected to sign off on something without having held hearings, which begin today, and without having been able to get the detailed answers from the American government which they are entitled to have. There is no question that this is controversial,” he added (Reuters I/New York Times, April 5).

Lantos said that lawmakers are already discussing changes to the agreement, Reuters reported.

“I will urge my colleagues that while we need to be fully aware of all the shortcomings, and we have to do everything in our power to rectify those, that is the wrong prism through which to view the agreement,” he said.

He added that Rice “can make an enormous difference in gaining support for the legislation.”

Lantos said he expects the deal to pass.

However, Ron Somers, president of the U.S.-India Business Council, said amendments might kill the deal.

“If too many conditions are added or if the deal starts getting tinkered with, it could unravel very quickly and the overall deal could collapse,” he said. “This would be devastating to the overall trust and partnership.”

Lantos said a list of “improvements” has been drafted but would not provide specifics.

“I am very strongly in favor of maximum congressional oversight within a realistic framework, but we can't tell our negotiators to go back to the Indians and obtain concessions,” he said, adding that neither side is completely pleased with the deal (Reuters II/New York Times, April 4).

Back to top

U.S. Lawmaker Expresses Doubts on Iran Intelligence

The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said yesterday that U.S. intelligence on Iran is inadequate and might contain corrupted information that is being accepted as legitimate, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 4).

“I remain skeptical — lots of unanswered questions,” Representative Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said at a Council of Foreign Relations event in Washington. Harman said she was among a group of lawmakers who received a briefing from U.S. intelligence agencies containing information shared with the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“The conjecture that I have is that if I were Iran, and I wanted to put out disinformation, it might look a lot like what our government is claiming is information,” Harman said. “I can’t tell you that's true, but I can’t tell you it’s not true.”

She did not give any details of what was said during the classified briefing.

Harman added that she believes Iran is a threat, but added, “The issue is how capable are they and what are the real intentions of Iran’s leaders, and I think the jury is out on both of those.”

“I want to be absolutely sure that we base decisions — especially tough decisions like what are the next steps with Iran, and I surely hope they are diplomatic because I think those are our best options — on pristine and pure intelligence or the closest we can get to that,” she added.

Former CIA acting chief John McLaughlin, speaking at the same event, took issue with the phrase “pristine intelligence.”

“It’s important, I think, to realize that intelligence isn't going to be pristine and pure,” he said.

Intelligence often is not complete and policy decisions must go forward at some point, McLaughlin said.

“We are getting a little caught in the idea that intelligence has the answer to everything,” he said (Associated Press I/New York Times, April 4).

Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called on the United States to include nuclear issues in planned bilateral talks with Iran on Iraq, Agence France-Presse reported.

Steinmeier discussed Iran with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a meeting yesterday in Washington. The German foreign minister also brought up Iran in a session with national security adviser Stephen Hadley. 

“Based on reports that there are apparently talks taking place arranged by the American ambassador in Baghdad with the Iranian leadership about the situation in Iraq, I advised that the topics should not be limited just to Iraq but expanded to include one of the most urgent problems confronting us all: the suspicion that Iran, the Iranian leadership, is pursuing secret atomic weapons programs,” Steinmeier said.

Steinmeier noted that the United States was reluctant to breach the nuclear issue in the bilateral talks.

“We are oversimplifying the situation if we say that there is European pressure on the United States, on the American administration — this is above all an internal American discussion. But at the moment, I cannot see any signs that they are prepared to take part in such discussions,” he said (Agence France-Presse I/JTW News, April 5).

A U.S. official said that Washington believes diplomacy is “an effective means to an end” and that using force against Iran was “not under active consideration,” the Financial Times reported today.

The former chief of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Anthony Zinni, said the United States would need 1 million troops to take Tehran. 

Use of special operations forces and Iranian militant exiles would also be difficult. “It would be like throwing eggs against a brick wall,” said Patrick Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency Middle East specialist.

Lang added that Israel does not have the ability to strike effectively because of distance. 

He and former CIA official Larry Johnson said a “worthwhile air campaign” would require 1,000 sorties by cruise missiles and aircraft (Dinmore/Wetzel/ Sevastopulo, Financial Times, April 5).

A top Iranian military official said Iran could defend itself from outside invaders, the Associated Press reported.

The official made the claim as Iran tested a new medium range surface-to-sea missile said to be able to avoid radar.

“'The missile command of the [Revolutionary] Guards’ naval force ... via positioning various types of surface-to-sea missiles, is able, while defending the coastlines and islands, to confront any extraterritorial invasion,” said Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi.

The United States said Iran has made some progress with missile technology but it believed to be overstating its capability.

“We know that the Iranians are always trying to improve their weapons system by both foreign and indigenous measures,” said Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman. “It’s possible that they are increasing their capability and making strides in radar-absorbing materials and technology.”

However, “the Iranians have also been known to boast and exaggerate their statements about greater technical and tactical capabilities,” he said (Associated Press/New York Times, April 4).

The White House said yesterday that testing of new military technology in Iran is proof on Tehran’s willingness to isolate itself internationally and pursue nuclear weapons, AFP reported.

“Their aggressive military program and defiant rhetoric are further examples of how the regime is isolating itself and the Iranian people from the rest of the world,” said spokesman Scott McClellan.

“It is also a reminder of why the international community is united in its concern about the regime’s possible development of nuclear weapons and why the international community is calling on Iran to comply with its international obligations or face further isolation.”

“Last week the Security Council sent a very clear statement to the regime, and said, ‘Comply with your obligations, come clean,’” McClellan added. “You have 30 days to come clean, make a commitment to come clean and comply with your obligations, or we’re going to back at the Security Council consulting about next steps to take.”

McClellan urged Iran “to suspend its uranium enrichment and enrichment-related activity and come back to the negotiations and act in good faith” (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, April 4).

Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Wang Guangya warned Iran that “noncooperation will lead to undesirable results,” United Press International reported yesterday.

“I do hope that before the 30 days expire there will be activities at least being resumed which will lead to good results,” he said.

When asked what would happen if this does not occur, he said, “We have words for the Iranians. We call on them to cooperate and we also warn about noncooperation.”

“I think that they have to realize the political situations in the world and also to consider that noncooperation will lead to the undesirable results. We are smart people.  They are also smart people.”

Wang cautioned against imposing sanctions on Iran, saying, “if [Security Council] members are thinking of taking action ... on this issue, it will prove to be more counterproductive rather than productive because this region — I mean the Middle East region — has so many problems already. We don’t need to escalate the situation for the worse” (United Press International, April 4).

Back to top

South Korea Urges Pyongyang to Return to Talks

South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok said today that North Korea should return to talk on its nuclear program, while the United States indicated that its patience is waning, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 4).

Pyongyang’s stand that it would not return to the negotiations until Washington rescinds economic penalties is only likely to lead to a harder line by the United States, Lee said.

“I see there is a considerable problem in North Korea's judgment. It has to give serious thought to whether that’s a wise decision,” he said.

“If North Korea shows a positive attitude after coming back to the six-party talks, it will give rise to some room for other countries to tell the U.S.” not to take such a hard line with the North, Lee added. “If it sticks to what it's doing now, however ... it would undermine pro-dialogue officials in the U.S.”

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban expected to discuss the matter in Russia during his trip to Europe that begins tomorrow.

U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Alexander Vershbow said he hoped the issue could be resolved diplomatically. 

“All U.S. government officials hope this problem will be resolved through negotiation. At the same time, it’s also true that many officials are running out of patience,” he said during an online session with South Koreans.

The United States and North Korea could meet next week when officials from the six nations involved in talks meet in Japan for a security conference. The top U.S and North Korean nuclear negotiators are expected to attend (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press, April 5).

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon confirmed that Deputy Foreign Minister Chun Young-woo, Seoul’s chief nuclear negotiator, would attend the conference. He would not confirm that North Korea’s nuclear negotiator would be there, but said if he does attend “we expect an opportunity will naturally rise for exchange of opinions between representatives” (Associated Press/OhmyNews.com, April 5). 

Back to top

U.S. Missile Defense Not Expected to Affect Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces Until 2020

The U.S. missile defense program would not pose a significant interception threat against Russian nuclear missiles until 2020, the former chief of staff of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces said today (see GSN, Feb. 28).

“The U.S. missile defense system will have limited interception capabilities at least until 2020 and will not be able to decrease the efficiency of the Russian strategic nuclear forces considerably,” said Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin.

“In addition to that, such new missiles such as Topol-M, Bulava, etc., feature such design solutions as to make the U.S. missile defense system useless,” he added, according to Interfax.

However, placement of modified defense systems installed near Russian borders could eventually have an impact, Yesin said.

“In this case Russia will have to take additional measures aimed at countering missile defense measures to maintain its nuclear potential,” he said (Interfax, April 5).

Back to top

Mutually Assured Destruction No Longer a Safe Deterrent, Defense Department Official Says

The United States can no longer expect that the concept of mutually assured destruction would prevent a WMD strike, a senior Defense Department official said Monday (see GSN, Jan. 21, 2005).

“The new strategic environment requires new approaches to deterrence and defense,” Peter Flory, assistant defense secretary for international security policy, said during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.

Rather than relying on the threat of a devastating response to deter attacks by rogue nations and terrorists, the United States needs “a more discriminate approach and a broader range of options and capabilities, including both offenses and defenses,” Flory said.

Flory discussed the New Triad defense strategy, which consists of nuclear and conventional offensive strike systems, active and passive defenses, including improvements to missile defense; and a military infrastructure capable of responding to nuclear attacks.

The triad, when completely operational, is expected to provide protection against a variety of foes, Flory said, including those “whose values and calculations of risk gain and loss may be very different from and, in many ways, harder to discern than those of our past adversaries.”

Since implementation of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review that produced the New Triad, the United States has made significant changes to its strategic capabilities, Flory said. Those include assigning U.S. Strategic Command to lead Pentagon efforts against weapons of mass destruction, among other tasks; fielding missile interceptors in Alaska and California; and reducing the nuclear arsenal, with plans to cut the number of deployed strategic warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012.

Flory said nuclear weapons remain an important deterrent against a WMD attack or significant acts of aggression.

“A nuclear weapon is still a viable part of our inventory, but … one size does not fit all,” said Gen. James Cartwright, head of U.S. Strategic Command. The United States needs “a weapon that will give a broader and potentially more appropriate choice” against terrorists.

One example offered was Trident missiles carrying conventional warheads. “This conventional prompt global-strike capability will be a credible choice that will offer the nation a broader set of tools to confront the enemies we face today and in the future,” Cartwright told lawmakers. “And we believe it’s essential to offer this choice for the nation” (Federal Information and News Dispatch Inc. April 4).

Back to top

Second Fire in Two Days Reported at Umatilla

A small fire ignited Saturday during disposal of an M55 rocket at the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Oregon, the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency reported (see GSN, April 4).

The incident occurred at 12:39 p.m. during the fifth of seven cuts being made to the rocket in one of the facility’s explosive containment rooms. There were no injuries.

The fire was similar to several earlier ignitions, one of which occurred Friday (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, April 1).

Back to top

Deployed U.S. Missile Interceptors Contain Questionable Parts

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The first nine anti-ICBM interceptors deployed in Alaska and California as part of the Bush administration’s national missile defense system contain potentially unreliable parts that will need to be replaced, a congressional report said last month (see GSN, Jan. 12).

Ground-based Midcourse Defense program “officials have recommended that MDA [Missile Defense Agency] remove the first nine interceptors emplaced at Fort Greely and Vandenberg Air Force Base, as the interceptors are scheduled for upgrades, so that any parts that tests have shown may not be adequately reliable or appropriate for use in space can be replaced,” the Government Accountability Office said in its March report.

The unidentified parts of the interceptor’s “kill vehicle” could undermine the system’s potential effectiveness, according to the report.

“Even if MDA had successfully completed flight tests needed to anchor the models and simulations used to predict the performance of the initial BMDS [overarching Ballistic Missile Defense System] capability, the performance of some emplaced GMD interceptors would still be uncertain,” it says.

The agency to date has installed between 10 to 13 interceptors, with two in California and the rest in Alaska, though it will not say exactly how many.

Auditors recommended replacing the “questionable” parts as the interceptors are upgraded in fiscal 2007, which officials said would require removing the interceptors from their silos, according to the report. 

It is not clear that will happen. Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner said by e-mail today, “There are no plans for removal of any interceptors for upgrades at this time since there is nothing to be upgraded at this time.”

According to the report, use of faulty parts appeared to be part of broader quality control problems with the program that resulted from the 2002 directive by President George W. Bush to rapidly deploy Ground-based Midcourse Defense system elements before they were fully developed and deemed operationally capable.

It notes the agency has said the first two intercept attempts of the operationally deployed interceptors failed as a result of quality control problems (see GSN, Feb. 15, 2005).

“Management compromises made to accelerate fielding prevented MDA from meeting its Block 2004 goals,” it says, referring to the first fielded “block” of hardware.

“Quality control problems occurred when the program was accelerated.  According to MDA’s own audits, the interceptor’s design requirements were unclear and sometimes incomplete, design changes were poorly controlled, and the interceptor’s design resulted in uncertain reliability and service life,” it says.

Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Henry Obering said yesterday the GAO report was overly pessimistic about the quality of the deployed interceptors.

“Every interceptor that’s sitting in that silo in Alaska and California has been acceptance-tested. … They were acceptance-tested to what we call the maximum predicted environments,” he said at hearing of the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

The report says the questionable parts were not detected during the interceptors’ acceptance tests.

Obering acknowledged “poor quality control” and said the agency “did not do sufficient qualification testing” of the robustness of certain parts. However, Obering said he and “all of the experts” — including those from quality control teams — concluded that the parts did not need to be replaced.

He added that an interceptor flight test in December contained the parts in question and “performed exactly as we had hoped and had planned. So I don’t share the pessimism that came out of the conclusions.”

Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) appeared less optimistic. He described the parts as “critical” to the system. “This creates uncertainty about the performance of those interceptors,” he said.

Back to top

International Interest Growing for Missile Defense, U.S. State Department Official Says

There is growing interest among foreign nations in some level of involvement in the U.S. missile defense program, a senior State Department official said yesterday (see GSN, March 29).

Australia, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and other nations have initiated involvement or entered discussions on participation in missile defense projects, according to Paula DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance and implementation.

U.S. work with foreign nations on missile defense includes joint research and development projects, modeling and simulation exercises, co-production, testing and exercises, DeSutter said at a forum in Washington sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation.

For example, Japan for several years has cooperated with the United States on missile defense research and is purchasing U.S. technology such as the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 interceptor and Aegis ballistic missile defense system (see GSN, April 5). Australia has also agreed to participate in the program, while U.S. and Russian officials are discussing possible joint projects, DeSutter said.

“We can’t continue to use 20th-century tools to meet 21st-century challenges,” she said.

Missile defense is “a reasonable insurance policy to purchase in today’s international security environment,” DeSutter said. It offers a potential protection in the event that the United States or allied nations become the targets of ballistic missiles that could be carrying weapons of mass destruction, she said.

The program also supports nonproliferation and offers a “layered” defense against unconventional weapons, DeSutter said. As missile defense spreads around the world, rogue nations might see less reason to spend money on missile projects that could prove futile, she argued (U.S. State Department release, April 4).

Back to top

Aegis System Land-Based Testing Phase Complete

The United States has completed the land-based testing phase of the upgrade of the U.S. Aegis Ballistic Defense system, United Press International reported yesterday (see GSN, March 1).

Lockheed Martin said the tests, performed at a naval facility in New Jersey, verified that the Aegis met requirements for long-range surveillance and tracking. The company said the upgrades to the system bring it closer to being “tactically certified” to bring down enemy missiles.

“The upgraded weapon system enhances the ballistic missile defense capabilities of the current Aegis BMD fleet,” Lockheed said in a press statement (United Press International, April 4).

Back to top