U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discusses on the Iranian nuclear crisis on NBC’s “Meet the Press” yesterday (Alex Wong/Getty Images). EU, U.S. Split on Iran Incentives The Bush administration appears to be resisting a European Union plan to offer of a Middle East security “framework” to Iran in exchange for Tehran giving up its nuclear program, the New York Times reported Saturday (see GSN, May 19). “The U.S. has received a European proposal but has not yet responded to it,” said a senior U.S. official. Washington’s response is expected Wednesday at a meeting in London. Administration hard-liners oppose security guarantees for Iran, including any Middle East “regional” framework. European officials said the plan would include a guarantee of some kind that the government would not be deposed, an idea which U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems to favor, according to European officials..Full Story

India, U.S. Continue to Haggle on Nuke Deal Details U.S. and Indian and officials are at odds over the schedule for implementing a pending civilian nuclear technology deal and are concerned that necessary legislation could get bogged down in the U.S. Congress, the International Herald Tribune reported Saturday (see GSN, May 17)...Full Story

U.S. House Panel Doubles Requested Funding for Reliable Replacement Warhead Program A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee last week doubled the White House fiscal 2007 funding request for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the San Francisco Chronicle reported (see GSN, April 26)...Full Story

	Monday, May 22, 2006

Philippines Senate Set to Pass Antiterror Bill The Philippines Senate is expected to vote soon on a bill designating 11 forms of terrorism, one of which is the production, acquisition, possession, use, diversion, supply or transport of WMD agents, the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported yesterday (see GSN, May 11). The bill defines terrorism as “premeditated, threatened, or actual use of violence, force, coercion, intimidation, or any means of destruction perpetrated against a person or persons, property, environment or the government, with the intention of creating or sowing a state of danger, panic, fear or chaos to the general public or a segment thereof.” Senators were expected to begin considering the bill today, with a vote expected by June 9. Critics have warned that the government could use the law to crack down on political opponents, according to the Inquirer (Juliet Labog-Javellana, Philippine Daily Inquirer/INQ7.net, May 21). Back to top

Senate Studies CDC WMD Preparedness Grants Facing scrutiny from a U.S. Senate committee, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is seeking to develop a system under which it could verify that terrorism preparedness grants are being used correctly by states, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Saturday (see GSN, March 6). A whistle-blower from inside the federal health agency has been working with staffers from the office of Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. At issue is the usage of $3.8 billion issued in recent years to help state and local health departments prepare for and respond to a potential biological, chemical or radiological incident. CDC officials told the Journal-Constitution that new public health laboratories and improvements to existing sites are among the indicators of improved U.S. preparedness. However, the U.S. Health and Human Services inspector general since 2003 has in several reports questioned usage by states of CDC funds. Millions of dollars went unspent, while other money was directed toward budget areas not related to preparedness, the reports have found. The Centers for Disease Control is preparing a strategy for determining the effect its grants have had on state preparedness efforts. “It’s absolutely essential we’re able to measure the state of our country’s preparedness,” said Richard Besser, CDC director for terrorism preparedness and emergency response (Alison Young, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 20). Back to top

EU, U.S. Split on Iran Incentives The Bush administration appears to be resisting a European Union plan to offer of a Middle East security “framework” to Iran in exchange for Tehran giving up its nuclear program, the New York Times reported Saturday (see GSN, May 19). “The U.S. has received a European proposal but has not yet responded to it,” said a senior U.S. official. Washington’s response is expected Wednesday at a meeting in London. Administration hard-liners oppose security guarantees for Iran, including any Middle East “regional” framework. European officials said the plan would include a guarantee of some kind that the government would not be deposed, an idea which U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems to favor, according to European officials U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are said to support efforts to back internal Iranian dissident movements in hopes of overthrowing the regime. Diplomats from both sides said the administration was also balking at a clause in the EU proposal that would protect European companies from punishment by the United States for violating its sanctions on Tehran (Steven Weisman, New York Times I, May 20). Rice said yesterday that the United States has no plan to offer Iran security guarantees, the Associated Press reported. “Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table,” she said. European officials have not asked Washington to offer such guarantees, she said. “What we’re talking about is a package that will make clear to Iran that there are choices to be made,” she told “Fox News Sunday.” “Either that there will be sanctions and actions taken against Iran by the international community or there’s a way for them to meet their civil nuclear concerns” (Douglass Daniel, Associated Press I/USA Today, May 22). Senate Democrats on Friday asked the Bush administration to develop an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, AP reported. “We must have objective intelligence untainted by political considerations or policy preferences and a comprehensive debate in the Congress about the best short and long-term approaches to resolving the international community’s differences with Iran,” according to a letter from several ranking Democrats. “An Iranian nuclear weapons program would be a significant threat to international peace and security,” they wrote. “Iran’s refusal to conclusively explain or halt its uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities and its acquisition of ballistic missiles, coupled with the troubling rhetoric of its president, presents serious challenges to security in the Middle East and requires the United States to energetically pursue a diplomatic solution” (Associated Press II/Washington Post, May 20). Diplomats said Saturday that world powers would consider ending U.N. Security Council debate on Iran’s nuclear program if Tehran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, resume talks, and allows international inspectors to again conduct intrusive nuclear inspections, AP reported. Tehran’s refusal to take such action could lead the world powers to push for sanctions and possibly open the door to military action. Diplomats said International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei would meet tomorrow in Washington with Rice and other top U.S. officials. He hopes to persuade them to step back from their demand for Security Council action against Iran (George Jahn, Associated Press III/USA Today, May 20). Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Saturday that Tehran would not give up uranium enrichment, AP reported. Mottaki said Iran supports ending council deliberations, but “suspending nuclear activities goes against our legitimate rights and is not part of the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty]” (Diana Elias, Associated Press IV/Hindustan Times, May 21). The Bush administration has begun working with Iran’s Persian Gulf neighbors to isolate the country, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. “Iran without nuclear arms is a threat. … With nuclear weapons it would become even more emboldened, in terms of moving forward with its aggressive designs,” Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said in an interview. “And that includes in the gulf, and many countries in the gulf are concerned about that.” U.S. officials are attempting to persuade the nations to sign on to various proposals.  “They don’t want to antagonize, so there is a degree to which they are conflicted,” said a senior State Department official.   However, he added, the gulf countries “as a whole are very receptive to the message.” Joseph presented the proposal last month during a trip to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. John Hillen, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, also led a delegation to the region last week, the Times reported. While Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have Patriot antimissile batteries, the Bush administration would like to expand regional defenses against aircraft and missiles. Analysts said that could mean combining missile defense technology with immediate intelligence from U.S. Navy Aegis cruisers. U.S. officials want to help the Gulf nations monitor cargo, improve detection of Iranian “front” companies, use export control regulations and identify and stop transactions that finance Iran’s WMD-related purchases. The strategy also aims to improve the countries’ ability to protect key infrastructure and train personnel in counterterrorism. Some gulf nations have expressed concern that Washington would push for military bases or other military assistance in an attack on Iran. U.S. officials, however, have said the effort is about defense. The program is “defensive, defensive, defensive,” Hillen said. Gulf nations are not likely to risk antagonizing Iran, regardless of U.S. offers, said Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist with the Council on Foreign Relations. “This is a tough place for them to be in,” Takeyh said. “At some point they might have to live with an Iran that has nuclear arms. They don’t want to go back to the 1980s, when the Iranians were actively trying to subvert their countries. So they have to tread softly here” (Richter/Spiegel, Los Angeles Times, May 20). Arab Gulf nations plan to send a special envoy to Iran in the next few days to discuss the nuclear standoff, AP reported. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told CNN’s “Late Edition” that he believes Iran is just a few months from acquiring the know-how to build a nuclear weapon (Tarek Issawi, Associated Press V/Yahoo!News, May 21). Four of the largest European banks have begun scaling back their activities in Iran due to U.S. pressure, the New York Times reported today. “We are seeing banks and other institutions reassessing their ties to Iran. They are asking themselves if they really want to be handling business for entities owned by a government engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism,” said U.S. Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey. The banks — UBS, Credit Suisse, ABN Amro and HSBC — have in the past six months made disclosures about the limits on their activities in Iran. It remains unclear how the curbs would affect Tehran. Some experts have said the moves are unlikely to do much damage given Iran’s oil revenues, the Times reported (Steven Weisman, New York Times II, May 22). Back to top       India, U.S. Continue to Haggle on Nuke Deal Details U.S. and Indian and officials are at odds over the schedule for implementing a pending civilian nuclear technology deal and are concerned that necessary legislation could get bogged down in the U.S. Congress, the International Herald Tribune reported Saturday (see GSN, May 17). Officials from Washington and New Delhi plan to meet this week to resolve differences over preliminary commitments on the agreement. Discrepancies also remain in competing versions of U.S. legislation, particularly regarding India’s commitment to adhere to a nuclear test moratorium, according to the Tribune. Some experts have expressed skepticism about Bush administration goals to have the legislation passed this month. “I don’t see that happening. But if it doesn’t get done within this year, then you have a new Congress, and you go back to the starting gate,” said Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. There is enough support for the plan in Congress “to pass something,” she said. “The debate is going to be over what that something is.” Indian officials have said the U.S. legislation must be approved before New Delhi can begin negotiations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group on nuclear exports and the International Atomic Energy Agency to formulate an inspections regime. Key U.S. lawmakers, however, insist that details on both those arrangements must be available before a vote is taken. A top Indian Foreign Ministry official said ensuring U.S. congressional approval remained the priority. New Delhi, however, has objected to a clause in U.S. draft legislation stipulating that U.S. cooperation could be halted if India tests a nuclear weapon. Some officials are concerned that Congress might not approve the deal before its summer break at the end of July. Lawmakers are likely to be focused on congressional elections in November when the fall session begins. “Once you get into the eve of the congressional elections, you have a new administration coming in, you get into a phase where the administration is getting close to the end phase, and there are more uncertainties,” a senior Indian official said (Gentleman/Knowlton, International Herald Tribune, May 20). India plans to brief the Nuclear Suppliers Group on the potential benefits of nuclear trade with New Delhi at the organization’s annual meeting next week in Brazil, the Indo-Asian News Service reported yesterday. New Delhi wants to persuade NSG members that relaxing export rules to facilitate nuclear trade with India, a nonsignatory to Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, would “substantially strengthen” international nonproliferation efforts. “A majority of countries are with us in the NSG. But a final nod from the NSG has to wait till the U.S. Congress clears the agreement,” said strategy expert K. Subrahmanyam. “We need to underline our impeccable record in nonproliferation and assure them that the nuclear fuel obtained from the NSG countries will not be diverted to our strategic program,” he said (Indo-Asian News Service/Economic Times, May 21). Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Ottawa is reconsidering the previous government’s plan for nuclear cooperation with India, the Globe & Mail reported Saturday (see GSN, May 22). The Liberal government announced the resumption of nuclear technology trade with India in September, but Harper on Friday suggested that his Conservative government could re-impose a moratorium due to proliferation concerns. “It’s an issue we are looking at with some degree of caution,” Harper said. The issue remains sensitive given that New Delhi used Canadian technology to assemble its first nuclear weapon in the early 1970s (Jeff Sallot, Globe & Mail, May 20). Back to top       U.S. House Panel Doubles Requested Funding for Reliable Replacement Warhead Program A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee last week doubled the White House fiscal 2007 funding request for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the San Francisco Chronicle reported (see GSN, April 26). The Energy and Water Subcommittee on Wednesday boosted financing for the project to develop new U.S. nuclear weapons and components from about $25 million to $52.7 million. Nearly half the additional amount would be contingent upon completion of a study on preparing facilities for production and maintenance of new warheads. The panel also cut at least $178 million from programs to maintain and upgrade existing warheads, further indicating its support for the RRW program, the Chronicle reported. Funding reductions included $80 million that had been intended to extend the life of the W-80 warhead. The committee designated another $100 million for planning a facility that would consolidate nuclear weapons production capabilities. Critics have argued that existing nuclear weapons should remain viable for decades, making spending on new warheads unnecessary. The Reliable Replacement Warhead program also could undercut U.S. nonproliferation efforts around the globe, they say. “They are making an error in shifting resources from a well-proven program of maintaining the stockpile to something that is not proven,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “I think this is premature and will come back to haunt them” (James Sterngold, San Francisco Chronicle, May 20). Back to top       U.S. Helps Russia Maintain Nuclear Security After funding security improvements at Russian nuclear sites, the United States is now intent on making sure those changes remain in place, U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration chief Linton Brooks said on May 11 (see GSN, March 30). “It is not nearly as glamorous and you don’t get to put lines in budgets about it, but it’s maybe more important,” Brooks said, according to Defense Daily International. Brooks said he was “personally worried” that Russia would not be able to continue funding security maintenance efforts once U.S. financial support ended. “If you look back at the Soviet period, the Russians were legendary for creating grandiose things and then not maintaining them,” he said. “The truth of the matter is, at the end of the day, it is questionable, when we go, (if) they put the resources into continuing it,” Brooks added.  Washington wants to help Moscow “put in place the mechanisms to make sure that the security improvements stay,” he said. The success of that venture would not be known for 10 years, he said. The concern is focused more on nuclear material at Russian civilian research and storage sites than on actual military armaments, Brooks said. “The truth is nobody is going to get lax at guarding nuclear weapons,” he said. The United States has pressed for more comprehensive security at civilian sites than is believed necessary by Russian officials, Brooks said. Standard Russian reluctance to grant access to nuclear sites has been exacerbated by a recent chill in relations between the two countries, he said. Russia is paying for security improvements at some production facilities rather than open them for review by the United States, Defense Daily reported. Meanwhile, there is “slow progress” in NNSA efforts to aid security efforts at Chinese civilian nuclear sites, Brooks said. “We are doing nothing on the military side, although I have no particular reason to believe that there is a significant problem there,” he said (Michael Sirak, Defense Daily International, May 19). Back to top

World Health Organization to Address Smallpox The World Health Organization’s annual assembly meeting beginning today is expected to include discussion of eliminating smallpox virus stockpiles in Russia and the United States, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Nov. 18, 2005). While some governments say the specimens are a bioterror risk, Moscow and Washington want to maintain them for research purposes, according to AFP (Patrick Baert, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 21). Back to top

CW Rocket Tube Found Cracked at Blue Grass Workers moving a rocket containing the nerve agent sarin at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky found that the weapon’s shipping and firing tube was cracked, The (Louisville) Courier-Journal reported Friday (see GSN, May 3). This was the first discovery of a cracked rocket tube at Blue Grass. There was no leak of chemical agent from the weapon, which was placed with the tube inside a special container (The Courier-Journal, May 19). Back to top

North Korea Continues to Import Missile Components, U.S. Intelligence Report Says A U.S. intelligence report indicates that North Korea continues to import ballistic missile components even while it has adhered to a 1998 pledge to suspend missile tests, the Yonhap News Agency reported Saturday (see GSN, May 19). “North Korea is nearly self-sufficient in developing and producing ballistic missiles, yet continues to procure the required raw materials and components from various foreign sources,” says a report sent to Congress this month by the office of the national intelligence director. North Korea in 2004 stuck to its voluntary 1998 flight-test suspension, according to the report. The CIA and other intelligence services also warned that Pyongyang could potentially transfer sensitive technologies to third parties. “We remain concerned about North Korea’s potential for exporting nuclear materials or technology. At the April 2003 trilateral talks in Beijing, North Korea privately threatened to export nuclear weapons,” the report says (Yonhap News Agency, May 20). North Korea in 2004 conducted a successful test of the engine for the Taepodong 2 missile, which is believed to have a range of 3,500-6,000 kilometers, a Western source told Kyodo News. The Taepodong 2 has been ready for testing since 2005, Kyodo reported. Its development is due to be complete in 2008. The source said North Korea tested its Taepodong 1 model two years ahead of schedule.  “It is not impossible to test the second one, also two years earlier” than planned, the source said. Washington on Friday urged North Korea not to break its missile-launch moratorium. A missile test by Pyongyang would “contravene the letter and the spirit of the September 19 joint statement,” in which North Korea in principle agreed to eliminate its nuclear arsenal, said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2005; Naoko Aoki, Kyodo News, May 22). Back to top

U.S. Pushes for Missile Interceptors in Europe The Bush administration wants to deploy 10 antimissile interceptors in Europe by 2011 to defend against a potential missile attack by Iran, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, May 11). Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is expected to receive recommendations on potential sites this summer. Nations in contention include Poland and the Czech Republic (see GSN, April 10). The department has requested that Congress allocate $56 million for initial work, and the total cost of the project is estimated at $1.6 billion. The House Armed Services Committee rejected the initial expenditure, but the Senate Armed Services Committee backed the effort, the Times reported. U.S. missile interceptors installed at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California are largely meant to counter missiles potentially fired by North Korea. The Pentagon is pushing to expand that capability, said Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, head of the Missile Defense Agency. “We have a limited capacity today, and it is certainly focused against the North Koreans initially,” Obering said. “We are worried about what is happening in the Middle East. We want to make sure that we have coverage from those approaches.” The Pentagon is making improvements to a radar complex at the British Fylingdales air base, and plans to begin similar work at the U.S. Thule Air Base in Greenland (see GSN, Aug. 18, 2004). NATO is also considering its own missile defense system in Europe. Tehran has never conducted a flight test of a multistage rocket, according to the Times, and does not yet possess missiles capable of reaching the United States. “As far as we can tell, Iran is many years away from having the capability to deliver a military strike against the U.S.,” said Gary Samore, vice president of the MacArthur Foundation. “If they made a political decision to seriously pursue a space launch vehicle it would take them a decade or more to develop the capability to launch against the U.S.” Defense Department officials have said that North Korea could transfer missile technologies to Iran. “Iran understands the use of ballistic missiles to change strategic geography,” said a senior U.S. defense official. “This is a long lead-time item.  We would much rather be a couple of years early than a couple of years late.” Polish Defense Minister Radoslaw Sikorski met in Washington with Rumsfeld last week to discuss security issues. Sikorski recently announced that he had submitted questions to the Pentagon ahead of any formal talks on Poland hosting interceptor sites. The Czech Republic has avoided public discussion of the issue ahead of June parliamentary elections, according to the Times. U.S. officials also kept Russian officials informed of a recent visit by U.S. officials to Warsaw to discuss the issue, seeking to reassure Moscow that the system would not be aimed at their country. Moscow, however, has continued to oppose the idea. An antimissile site in Poland would have a “negative impact on the whole Euro-Atlantic security system,” said Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. “The choice of location for the deployment of those systems is dubious, to put it mildly” (Michael Gordon, New York Times, May 22).   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.