California Stands to Lose Federal Security Grants

The state of California is at risk of losing $239 million in federal homeland security and bioterrorism grants that have gone unspent in recent years, the San Francisco Chronicle reported today (see GSN, Aug. 16).

Since 2001, California has received $954 million from the federal government for homeland security and $386 million for bioterrorism preparedness.  The funding is largely directed to local first responder agencies.

A state audit found that 78 percent of bioterrorism money has been spent, but that only 42 percent of the homeland security funding has been put to use.

“The state’s organizational structure for ensuring emergency preparedness is not streamlined or well defined,” the report states.

Grants totaling $239 million expire on Dec. 31 if the federal government does not give the state an extension.

The state Homeland Security Office, created in 2003, only last year became involved in distributing grants, the Chronicle reported.

“After we took over the grant process last year, we’ve made great strides in ensuring the funds are spent as quickly as possible but also on critical homeland security priorities,” said office spokesman Chris Bertelli (Greg Lucas, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 13).

Back to top

U.S. Buys More Smallpox Vaccine

British drug maker Acambis has received a $30 million deal to supply 10 million new doses of its ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine for the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile, the company announced yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 6).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ordered the doses under an existing supply contract, under which Acambis has already supplied 182.5 million doses.

Acambis plans to supply the doses from its existing inventory this year (Acambis release/Market Wire, Sept. 12).

Back to top

Impossible to Secure all Targets, Chertoff Says

Attempting to secure all potential terrorism targets would drive the United States toward bankruptcy, one of the aims of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 6).

Bin Laden in a 2004 video discussed “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy,” the New York Times reported.

“He understood that one tool he had in waging war against the United States was to drive us crazy, into bankruptcy, trying to defend ourselves against every conceivable threat,” Chertoff told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.  “We have to be realistic about what we expect and what we do.  We do have limits, and we do have choices to make.”

Billions of dollars are already needed to finish installing seaport radiation detection equipment, erect barriers at borders, secure railroads and deploy explosives detectors at airports.

Spending is also planned on inspecting all individually delivered cargo packages at airports. 

The Homeland Security Department in coming weeks is expected to unveil new security regulations for trains used to transport dangerous chemicals.  Rules could address the construction of railcars and how long they are allowed to stay at one location, the Times reported (see GSN, Aug. 16).

But there must be limits, Chertoff said.  For example, it is not presently possible to screen all U.S.-bound cargo at foreign ports with X-ray machines and radiation scanners.

Senator Frank Lautenberg (R-N.J.) had argued for such an effort.

“If we inspected one out of 20 people going into the White House for tours, or coming into this place, would we feel secure?” Lautenberg said.  “I don’t think so.”

Said Chertoff:  “I put my daughter in my car.  If I wanted my daughter to be 100 percent safe, I’d put a five-mile-an-hour speed cap on the car.”

However, “that’s more safety than we can afford,” he said.

Richard Falkenrath, New York City deputy police commissioner for counterterrorism, questioned the priority in federal spending.  The emphasis has been too much on screening cargo rather than on protecting ships or ferries from small boats laden with explosives, he said.  Homeland Security is also spending $9 on security for every airplane passenger, but only half a cent per mass transit passenger.

“There’s something wrong with this,” Falkenrath said.  “Terrorists are attacking the subway system worldwide” (Eric Lipton, New York Times, Sept. 13).

Back to top

U.S. Port Security Legislation Endangered

Democratic additions to a port security bill being considered by the U.S. Senate could undo efforts to pass the legislation, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Sept. 8).

The new provisions “will kill the bill,” said Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).  “We have a bipartisan bill to start with. … All these amendments are just coming out of the sewer right now.  There’s just too many of them, and they’re just nothing but attempts to block this bill.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) countered that his additions would increase security for trains, buses and chemical plants, improve U.S. intelligence efforts in foreign nations, and implement Sept. 11 commission recommendations that have yet to be put into place.

“Let’s see if they’ll vote against this,” Reid said.

The $835 million bill includes funding to install radiation detectors at the 22 largest U.S. ports sensors.

The original bill has value, Reid said.  “But why don’t we try to improve that?  And that’s my point.  Try to improve it.  That’s all I’m trying to do.”

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) set Thursday as the deadline for a vote on the legislation, AP reported.

“Everybody wants to go back to their constituents and say they’ve done something to make us more secure,” said David Heyman, homeland security director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  “If something gets done, everybody benefits.  But if nothing gets done, Democrats will benefit because if you look at the polls, people believe Congress isn’t doing its job, and voters want change” (Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, Sept. 13).

Back to top

India Deal Could Spur New Nuclear States, Former U.S. Official Says

By Jon Fox, Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The pending U.S.-Indian civil nuclear agreement could create a global environment in which Washington’s friends and allies feel emboldened to “go nuclear,” a former leading U.S. nonproliferation official said yesterday (see GSN, July 27).

Robert Einhorn, assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation during the Clinton administration, said he is less troubled by the deal’s potential implications for ongoing efforts to defuse the Iranian and North Korean nuclear crises than how nations closely allied with the United States might react.

Nations such as Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt might regard the bilateral agreement as a signal that Washington would ultimately — if reluctantly — accept their entrance into the group of nuclear-armed nations, said Einhorn, now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“Many countries contemplating the nuclear option will assume that they will be accepted into the nuclear club,” he said at the Center for National Policy.  “It may be months or years that they’re in the dog house,” but eventually relations would normalize.

A potential U.S. reaction “has been a critical factor in persuading a lot of countries around the world in deciding that it just wasn’t worth it for them to go nuclear,” Einhorn said.  “I think the deal will lower the perceived costs of a country going nuclear in the future”

India, which is not a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, first tested a nuclear device in 1974.  A series of tests in 1998 prompted Pakistan, India’s regional foe, to tests its own nuclear weapons. 

The proposed cooperation pact first announced by U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July 2005 would reverse decades of U.S. policy prohibiting trade in nuclear technology with nations outside the treaty.

The Bush administration, which has pushed aggressively for the pact, has argued the deal represents a net gain for the global nonproliferation regime.  All current and planned Indian civilian nuclear sites would be opened to monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Military sites would remain closed to inspections.

Decades after conjuring its nuclear program into existence, India has demonstrated its commitment to not transferring sensitive technology and deserves some recognition as a nuclear state, according to administration officials.

In exchange for its cooperation, India could receive U.S. nuclear fuel and technology. 

Critics have argued that offering New Delhi nuclear fuel for civilian energy production would allow it to use its domestic supply of uranium solely for military purposes.  The deal might enable India to boost its annual production rate of nuclear warheads from between five and 10 to as many as 50 warheads annually, according to a former Indian intelligence official (see GSN, June 23). 

Einhorn suggested that number could be as high as 70 but said it is by no means clear to what extent fissile material production would be increased under the deal.

While not paramount among his concerns, Einhorn said the pact also offers Iran a rhetorical toehold from which to assail U.S. nonproliferation policy as selective and discriminatory.  Unlike India, Iran is a NPT signatory but Washington has persistently charged that Tehran has nuclear weapon ambitions.  Tehran claims its uranium enrichment research is for reactor fuel and purely peaceful.

“The deal sends a signal to the international community that the U.S. approach to nonproliferation is selective and self-serving,” Einhorn said.  “If the U.S. can bend the rules for its special friends, why can’t countries like Russia and China bend the rules for their special friends?”

Washington has not offered a similar deal to any other non-NPT state, including Pakistan.  Islamabad is reportedly negotiating its own deal to purchase six nuclear reactors from China in parallel with the India deal (see GSN, Aug. 17).

Einhorn cautioned that while the nonproliferation benefits of the U.S.-Indian agreement are thin, “I think the risks are very substantial.”

“The Indian government got essentially all that it wanted,” including no restrictions on its military nuclear program, he said.  “I think the United States fared much less well in that negotiation.”

Many of the benefits of the pact touted by administration officials are “long term and speculative,” Einhorn said, including India’s potential support for the U.S. stand on Iran.

“The idea that this deal is going to buy a strategic partnership that is going to have an impact on issues like Iran is illusory,” he said.  “It should be clear that India will choose its own independent path and often that path is going to be in conflict with the United States.”

The U.S. House of Representatives in July approved enabling legislation for the agreement.  The Senate could vote on its own version of the bill before 2007, but it is unclear if the bill will move to the Senate floor before Congress breaks in October or if it would be considered during a lame-duck session after the November midterm elections.  Lawmakers later would have to approve the actual deal.

In addition to the relaxation of U.S. export laws, the pending agreement requires India to strike an inspections agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group must also reach a consensus to alter its rules to permit sales of technology and fuel to India.  Current NSG guidelines bar the United States and other members from selling nuclear equipment and fuel to nations that do not open all their facilities to international safeguards.

Back to top

U.S. Says Iran Has Not Offered Enrichment Freeze

The United States yesterday questioned the accuracy of reports that Iran had offered to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Sept. 12).

“I’m afraid that whoever was the source of those stories didn’t seem to have an accurate read of the situation,” said State Department spokesman Tom Casey.

“To the best of my knowledge, there’s been no Iranian proposal (and) there’s been no change in the Iranian position, meaning they have not agreed to suspend uranium enrichment activities for any length of time,” he said.

He said top diplomats from the world powers discussed the issue yesterday by telephone.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she planned to meet with her counterparts from the other powers — China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom — at the U.N. General Assembly meeting next week (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, Sept. 12).

China and Russia yesterday refused to sign on to U.S.-backed language for a joint statement criticizing Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors meeting, the Associated Press reported.

“There was too much talk of the Security Council and sanctions, and the Russians and Chinese were unwilling to go along,” one diplomat told AP (George Jahn, Associated Press, Sept. 13).

U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA Gregory Schulte today urged the agency board to endorse sanctions against Iran.

“Given Iran’s history of deception, lack of transparency, provocative behavior, and disregard for its international obligations, we must take further steps to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,” he said in a statement (U.S. State Department release, Sept. 13).

Diplomats said Iran’s reported offer — though unofficial and tentative — to consider a nuclear moratorium appears to have divided the world powers over imposing sanctions.  Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani reportedly made the offer during talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana over the weekend.

However, Tehran has only indicated willingness to freeze enrichment temporarily once talks with the world powers begin, officials told AP.

Schulte praised “the open channel” Solana established with Tehran, but added that no formal freeze offer had been made.

“We would like very much to hear ... that Iran is suspending,” Schulte said.  “But in the meantime, the intention is to move forward with the (Security Council) sanctions package” (Jahn, Associated Press).

Solana has scheduled additional talks with Larijani for tomorrow, AFP reported.

Finland, which holds the EU rotating presidency, is today expected to press Iran to suspend enrichment not as “a voluntary confidence-building measure, but as an international obligation,” according to a statement.  The European powers plan to issue a separate statement urging Iran to freeze enrichment, diplomats said (Agence France-Presse II/Middle East Times, Sept. 13).

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are expected to discuss the standoff today in London, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse III, Sept. 13).

Back to top

Complications Seen for U.S.-Indian Nuclear Deal

The planned U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear technology sharing deal faces delays in Washington and other complications, Reuters reported today (see GSN, Sept. 8).

While the House of Representatives in July approved enabling legislation for the agreement, the Senate has yet to vote on its version of the bill (see GSN, July 27).  Leaders are scheduled to meet today in hopes of scheduling a vote on the deal during the current legislative session.

“It’s unlikely to get done.  We have limited legislative days left and much to do,” a congressional aide said.

Failure to vote on the agreement this year would leave the decision to the new Congress in 2007.

“There is strong bipartisan support for the legislation but their calendar is complicated,” a senior U.S. official said.

Even with a Senate vote, differences between the bills would have to be ironed out in a conference committee, and the final legislation approved again by both legislative bodies.

A measure currently attached to the Senate bill would require Washington to allow expanded inspections of U.S. civilian nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Reuters reported.  Republican senators feel the attachment could give the U.N. nuclear watchdog excessive access to those facilities.

Meanwhile, nonproliferation experts in a letter to senators yesterday called for additional amendments to prevent India from using U.S. nuclear technology to boost its nuclear weapons program.

“U.S. legislators should not perceive this agreement as a fait accompli and they still have a chance to address the deal’s more egregious flaws,” said Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association (Carol Giacomo, Reuters/Yahoo!News, Sept. 13).

The 17 signatories say the Senate bill should include notification that India has halted fissile material production for nuclear weapons, Agence France-Presse reported.  It should also require yearly certification that the deal is not supporting New Delhi’s weapons program, they said.

Measures should be added prohibiting any U.S. nuclear support to India should New Delhi violate commitments made in the initial July 2005 agreement between the two countries, the experts said (P. Parameswaran, Agence France-Presse/Sunday Times, Sept. 13).

Back to top

China Opposes North Korea Talks Without Pyongyang

China said yesterday it would not support a U.S. proposal for a 10-nation meeting at the United Nations on North Korea’s WMD efforts that would exclude representatives from Pyongyang, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Sept. 12).

“To talk about North Korea without the North Koreans there definitely, I think you’re not trying to find a way out but to create more problems,” said China’s U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya.

Wang criticized both the United States and North Korea for placing conditions on resuming six-nation nuclear disarmament talks.

“North Korea should have no conditions and come back to the six-party talks, but the Americans, I think, should also show some flexibility,” he said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press I, Sept. 13).

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and U.S. President George W. Bush are scheduled to meet tomorrow in Washington, AP reported. 

“North Korean policy has been foundering, in part because North Korea sees the huge gap between Seoul and Washington and drives right through it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.  “Narrowing that gap at least a little, or preventing it from getting wider, is the beginning of success” (Foster Klug, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, Sept. 13).

North Korea today criticized the United States for conducting a subcritical nuclear test on Aug. 30, AP reported (see GSN, Sept. 6).

“The subcritical nuclear test is a dangerous maneuver aimed at further modernizing and developing new nuclear weapons and for the purpose of mounting a pre-emptive nuclear strike against other countries,” the official Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary.

“The U.S. is perfecting a nuclear war plan after listing our and other countries as targets for its pre-emptive nuclear attack,” it said (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press III, Sept. 13).

Back to top

Expert Says U.S. Interceptor Test Undermines Effectiveness of China’s Nuclear Arsenal

An international security expert said that last week’s test of a U.S. ground-based missile interceptor was a significant step toward neutralizing China’s nuclear arsenal, United Press International reported (see GSN, Sept. 5).

The U.S. missile defense system “is already sufficient to have neutralized China’s force of 24 DF-5” ICBMs, wrote StrategyPage.com analyst Harold Hutchison on Sept. 5.

“With the increased level of uncertainty about the success of the attack, China would very well decide not to launch the attack in the first place,” he added.

Hutchison said the U.S. ballistic missile defense system is expected by the end of 2009 to have deployed at least 38 ground-based interceptors, providing the United States with “more interceptors than the combined Chinese ICBM and SLBM (submarine-launched ballistic missile) force” (Martin Sieff, United Press International, Sept. 12).

Back to top

Russia Stands By New Missile Despite Test Failure

The failed flight test of a Russian Bulava strategic missile last week will not alter Moscow’s plan to develop and deploy the weapon, Vedomosti reported Monday (see GSN, Sept. 8).

One minute into the Thursday flight, the submarine-launched missile deviated from its trajectory while in the lower atmosphere and crashed into the sea, a spokesman for the Russian Navy Staff announced Friday.

Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the system would be completed on schedule.

“In a number of areas of this program, there is a need for thorough analysis and timely measures to ensure that a group of submarines is in place on schedule,” Ivanov said.  He added that Bulava-equipped submarines would become “the chief combat nucleus of Russia’s nuclear forces” after 2018.

However, experts have questioned whether that deadline would be met, according to Vedomosti (Alexei Nikolsky, Vedomosti, Sept. 11).

Back to top

Ton Container Cleanout Building Demolition Begins

Demolition began Monday of a building once used at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland for cleaning and decontaminating bulk containers that had been drained of mustard agent (see GSN, Aug. 8).

The Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal Facility finished elimination of mustard agent stored at the site in March 2005, one year ahead of schedule.

The Ton Container Cleanout building is expected to be fully demolished within a few months, according to a press release from the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency.  Workers are then scheduled to clean and destroy the Process Neutralization Building, which was used to drain mustard containers and neutralize the substance.  All closure field work is scheduled to be finished by summer 2007.

“We are proud that our closure efforts are proceeding safely ahead of schedule,” acting disposal facility site project manager Brian O’Donnell said in the release.  “The contract, Bechtel, has done an outstanding job bringing us one step closer to becoming the first continental United States chemical demilitarization site to close its doors” (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Sept. 11).

Back to top

Polish PM to Discuss Missile Defense in Washington

Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski is expected to discuss potential U.S. missile defense installations in Poland with U.S. President George W. Bush while in Washington today, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Aug. 21).

Leszek Jesien, an aide to the prime minister, said the meetings with Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would not result in a final decision on the matter (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Sept. 13).

Back to top