IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei speaks to reporters today in Beijing (Getty Images). North Korea Ready to Heed Nuclear Deal, ElBaradei Says North Korea wants to be free of sanctions before beginning the process of denuclearization, but remains committed to the agreement reached last month during the six-party talks, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said following his trip to Pyongyang (see GSN, March 13)...Full Story

U.N. Powers Could Reveal Iran Sanctions Today Leading U.N. Security Council nations could share their proposal for new sanctions against Iran with the rest of the council today, Reuters reported (see GSN, March 13)...Full Story

Intelligence Analysts Have Misjudged Nuclear Threats Since Day One, Ex-CIA Official Says By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. intelligence community’s track record in assessing nuclear developments abroad is a spotty one and the failures go back to Soviet-watching analysts in 1949, the former CIA deputy director for arms control said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 28)...Full Story

	Wednesday, March 14, 2007

U.S. Senate Passes Homeland Security Bill The U.S. Senate yesterday approved its version of a homeland security bill, promoting a less aggressive plan for screening of incoming sea cargo than called for earlier in the House of Representatives, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 8). The legislation would enact additional antiterrorism recommendations made by the Sept. 11 commission. “This bill is a direct response to the appeals of the 9/11 commission and the 9/11 families to take constructive action,” said Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). The bill, approved by a vote of 60-38, calls for the Homeland Security Department to develop a plan that ultimately ensures that all cargo coming into U.S. ports is scanned for nuclear or radiological material. House lawmakers demanded that all cargo undergo radiation scanning within five years and that all cargo on passenger aircraft is inspected within three years. Another difference in the bills lies in the distribution of security grants to states.  The House legislation would direct more funding toward New York, California and other high-risk states, while the Senate plans distributes the money more evenly across all 50 states. “Some people think all we have is cows and sheep,” said Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas (R), who said his state receives just $10 million of the $3 billion in yearly grants. The Senate legislation would provide $3.1 billion each year in grants for first responders, with $1.3 billion directed toward urban areas considered to be at greatest risk for a terrorist attack. The bill also provides $3.3 billion over five years for emergency communications grants, demands increased scrutiny of checked luggage on passenger airplanes, and offers rail and transit security improvements, AP reported. The House and Senate approved collective bargaining rights for 45,000 airport security screeners.  That provision, if included in the two bodies’ compromise bill, could spark a presidential veto.  The White House argues that there must be no impediment to shifting personnel during a crisis. The Bush administration has also questioned the cost and practicality of increasing air and sea cargo checks. Senators rejected an amendment to the bill that would have required rerouting of trains carrying hazardous chemicals from urban areas. The House Homeland Security Committee yesterday approved an amendment to a rail security bill that would similarly prevent materials such as chlorine from passing through cities (Jim Abrams, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, March 13). “The terrorist risk here is not a theoretical one.  Every day tank cars pass through our urban centers carrying enough chlorine to kill 100,000 people in half an hour,” said Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who offered the amendment with Delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.) (Markey release, March 13). Back to top

North Korea Ready to Heed Nuclear Deal, ElBaradei Says North Korea wants to be free of sanctions before beginning the process of denuclearization, but remains committed to the agreement reached last month during the six-party talks, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said following his trip to Pyongyang (see GSN, March 13). “I think they were very clear that they are willing to implement the Feb. 13 agreement once the other parties implement their part,” he said today in Beijing. Officials in Pyongyang specifically noted the frozen funds at Macau-based Banco Delta Asia, which the United States has accused of aiding illicit North Korean financial activities, ElBaradei said. Among the first steps on the North Korean side of the agreement would be to close the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, according to Reuters.  “They said they are ready, willing and capable of doing that as soon as the financial sanctions are lifted,” ElBaradei said. So far, however, there have been no signs of preparations to close the facility, said South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon.  “There is no indication of a change in the operational condition of Yongbyon.” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, in Beijing for working group talks on the disarmament deal, said “the Macau issue will be resolved as we’ve promised.” The Treasury Department is expected to prohibit business between U.S. banks and Banco Delta Asia, which could open the door for the Macau bank to unfreeze some of the North Korean funds, Reuters reported  (Chris Buckley, Reuters/Yahoo!News, March 14). An announcement is expected this afternoon in Washington, Agence France-Presse reported (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, March 14). However, the process could last weeks, and Pyongyang could be further aggravated by its limited access limited access to the global financial system, Reuters reported.  Both situations could add complications to efforts to realize the denuclearization agreement. It will take time for North Korea to re-establish relations with the U.N. nuclear watchdog and to allow its inspectors back into the country for the first time since 2002, Western diplomats said (Buckley, Reuters). ElBaradei was not able to meet with lead North Korean nuclear negotiator Kim Kye Gwan during his visit, the Associated Press reported. Agency officials were told that Kim “was busy preparing for the six-party talks,” which are due to resume Monday in Beijing, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.  ElBaradei met with several other officials, including the chairman of the North Korean atomic energy authority (Audra Ang, Associated Press/Red Orbit, March 14). Hill today expressed no worries that the missed meeting might be a sign of trouble in carrying out the terms of the nuclear accord, Agence France-Presse reported. “I don’t think so,” he said.  “Kim Kye Gwan was busy with six-party talks. … (North Korea) receiving Mr. ElBaradei is a good sign” (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, March 14). Back to top       U.N. Powers Could Reveal Iran Sanctions Today Leading U.N. Security Council nations could share their proposal for new sanctions against Iran with the rest of the council today, Reuters reported (see GSN, March 13). The five permanent members and Germany have nearly completed a draft resolution to punish Iran for its refusal to freeze its nuclear program. “There are no difficulties.  There are just one or two issues to resolve,” British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said yesterday. The almost-daily talks among the six nations have begun to make other council members feel ignored, so they have asked to see a draft resolution “whether it is agreed or not,” said council president Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo of South Africa. “It is coming to a point where it marginalizes the rest of the members [if the six nations] continue to discuss this endlessly among themselves,” Kumalo said. The six have reached agreement on the major features of the resolution, but some have sought additional clarifications, Reuters reported. China, for example, has asked for more details on a new group of individuals and institutions that would have their assets frozen. “Many of us, including China, are not sure about all those entities because the objective is to target the nuclear and (ballistic) missile activities” said Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya.  “But now with so many names, we don't know whether they are linked to these activities or not” (Evelyn Leopold, Reuters I, March 14). The issue was “one of the trickiest issues that we're still discussing,” confirmed acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff, who said the new targets included companies controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (Edith Lederer, Associated Press I/FoxNews.com, March 13). Some diplomats said they believed the remaining differences could be resolved in time to bring the resolution to a council vote this weekend, according to Reuters (Leopold, Reuters I). Meanwhile, Iran has not formally asked for an opportunity for its president to address the Security Council, a move reported earlier this week by an Iranian spokesman. The spokesman said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wished to defend Iran’s nuclear ambitions in a speech to the council. By yesterday, however, Iran had not requested a U.S. visa for Ahmadinejad to visit U.N. headquarters in New York, according to a State Department spokesman (Reuters II/New York Times, March 13). Nor had an official request been received by the council from Iranian envoy Mohammad Javad Zarif, said council president Kumalo. “For us it will only become an issue when we receive a letter from him and he (Zarif) had not yet received instructions to write a letter that I would then present to the other members for consideration of what to do,” Kumalo said (Reuters III, March 13). Bushehr Dispute In Iran, the nation’s top nuclear negotiator warned yesterday that Russia’s decision to delay fueling a nuclear power reactor at Bushehr would only strengthen Tehran’s resolve to develop its own uranium enrichment and fuel production capability. Russian officials announced this week that that project would be placed on hold until a financial dispute could be resolved.  Russia has accused Iran of missing two monthly payments on the reactor project, a charge Iranian officials have dismissed as without merit, AP reported. The Russian decision “shows that there is no such thing as a guarantee to deliver nuclear fuel,” negotiator Ali Larijani said yesterday. Such promises are a key component of international efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its domestic uranium enrichment program (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press II/Moscow Times, March 14). Back to top       Intelligence Analysts Have Misjudged Nuclear Threats Since Day One, Ex-CIA Official Says By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. intelligence community’s track record in assessing nuclear developments abroad is a spotty one and the failures go back to Soviet-watching analysts in 1949, the former CIA deputy director for arms control said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 28). “The intelligence community will always fall well short of perfection,” Torrey Froscher said during a discussion here at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Froscher, who once managed the agency’s weapons proliferation analysis, said predictions and estimates have been hampered by analysts’ reluctance to rethink assumptions and inadequate amounts of good data to analyze. The case of prewar Iraq is “obviously the poster child for the limitations of intelligence,” Froscher said. Prior to the first Gulf War, U.S. intelligence underestimated the level of Saddam Hussein’s unconventional weapons programs.  It then overestimated the same programs in the walkup to the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 (see GSN, March 12). “Though the errors were in opposite directions the critical factor arguably in each case was the same:  the absence of enough concrete specific information to dislodge strongly held preconceptions,” he said. The intelligence community was getting it wrong as early as 1949 as the United States sought to determine when the Soviet Union would go nuclear and challenge its status as the only atomic-armed nation, Froscher said. The best U.S. estimates suggested the first Soviet nuclear test would occur no sooner than a year later, and was most likely four years away.  Instead, the Soviets detonated an atomic weapon in August of that year. “Why were they so far off?” he asked. Analysts were both struggling with a paucity of information, what Froscher called “limited tidbits from various sources,” and their own belief that the Soviet Union would not have enough uranium ore for some time to test a weapon. The Soviet Union had a limited indigenous supply of high-grade uranium ore, and the United States and the United Kingdom were both engaged in an attempt to corner the global market on the material — essentially shutting the Soviets out. “This was a highly secret effort and it wasn’t widely known,” he said.  Still, the analysts were aware of the effort and probably let the assumption that it was working affect their judgments, Froscher said.  “Today we might say these analysts were hampered by their preconceptions or mindset about how the Soviets might proceed.” The U.S. intelligence community stumbled again when China conducted its first nuclear test in 1964.  The estimate of the test’s timing was pretty good, “but all the specific assessments that underlay that assessment were wrong,” Froscher said. Analysts believed China would detonate a plutonium device because the communist nation was not ready to perform uranium enrichment, he said. Also, both the United States and the Soviet Union had first tested a plutonium weapon. They were wrong, and China tested a uranium device.  The U.S. analysts had misjudged the progress of the Chinese enrichment facility, Froscher said.  “Why were they so wrong?” He did note intelligence successes in helping persuade Libya to give up its nuclear program (see GSN, July 27, 2006) and providing information about the nuclear black market associated with Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan (see GSN, March 2). Froscher declined to answer questions about any current issues related to U.S. assessments of foreign weapons programs.  U.S. officials currently peg Iran as being three to eight years away from possessing a nuclear weapon, and recent comments from a U.S. intelligence official downgraded U.S. confidence in the continued existence of a North Korean uranium-based weapon program. Allegations of the North Korean uranium program led to the collapse of the Clinton-era Agreed Framework in 2002.  North Korea then restarted operations at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor. What Froscher would say about U.S. assessments is that analysts are forced to make estimates and judgments with the information they have. “It’s a balancing act,” he said.   “From the analysts’ perspective you can’t afford to soft pedal a warning because you’re concerned what the impact might be on policy.  But on the other hand you want to make sure all the possible alternative explanations of a particular piece of information are understood as well.” Back to top       Congo Uranium Smuggling Suspects Released Authorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo have released two officials suspected of illegally selling uranium, the BBC reported today (see GSN, March 9). Atomic energy commission chief Fortunat Lumu and an aide were held for three days.  They are still suspected of involvement in an international uranium smuggling ring, said Scientific Research Minister Sylvanus Mushi. A prosecutor said last week that an “important quantity” of uranium had been removed from a nuclear energy plant in Kinshasa. Mushi said he was disappointed that the officials had been released. “This was a great disappointment, because we haven’t yet uncovered everything there is to uncover,” he told Reuters. Mushi’s predecessor said the officials had been conducting a legitimate uranium sale, BBC reported (BBC News, March 14). Back to top       NASA Says Nuclear Weapons Best Bet Against Asteroid By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — In a nod to Hollywood screenwriters of the late 1990s, NASA scientists this month said nuclear weapons would indeed be the most effective way to swat away an asteroid barreling toward Earth (see GSN, March 7, 2005). In a report submitted to Congress, NASA nuclear bombs beat out non-nuclear methods considered as the best way to divert a space object, threatening to send humankind the way of the dinosaurs. The threat of a planet-killing asteroid striking the Earth comes around about once every million years, according Don Yeomans, manager of NASA’s near-earth object program. None of the estimated 1,000 asteroids large enough to destroy Earth have been found to be headed this way, but that does not mean the problem should be totally ignored, Yeomans said. While it not worth staying up nights over, he said, “it’s something that’s worth a certain amount of resources for insurance.  It’s one of the few natural disasters that could reset the clock.” A major asteroid strike is also one of the few natural disasters that could be prevented if there were enough notice, he suggested. Smaller asteroids could pose a lesser threat, but none has been identified as directly endangering the Earth.  Statistically, an asteroid on the order of 140 meters in diameter could be expected to hit Earth about once every 5,000 years, Yeomans said. Should an actual threat develop, the NASA study team found that a nuclear “standoff” explosion — one in which the bomb was not detonated on the surface of the celestial object but rather nearby to deflect it — was between 10 and 100 times more effective than any non-nuclear option examined. Some of the non-nuclear possibilities scientists took a hard look at included simply ramming a massive object into the asteroid to convey sufficient kinetic energy to change its course, using a large mirror to focus solar energy on the object and “boil off” material, or actually using rockets to shove the asteroid into another orbit, like a tugboat pushing a barge. Some of the other nuclear techniques researched might be more efficient, scientists found, but they would run the risk of breaking the target into pieces.  That would mean not one but possibly many chunks of space rock hurtling toward Earth. Those options, which the study noted had higher development costs and carried higher operational risks, included rigging a nuclear device to detonate on impact with a space object, landing a bomb on the surface and timing it to detonate at the optimal moment or digging into an object to create a sub-surface explosion. A sub-surface explosion would be 10 to 100 times more efficient that just blowing up a device nearby, the study found.  The NASA researchers also described another benefit to the nuclear methods:  because of the massive amount of energy delivered by atomic devices, scientists would need to know the least amount of detailed information about the object threatening Earth. Knowing only the orbit and estimated mass of the asteroid or comet, missions could be planned to push the object off course by increments.  If the first nuclear device was not enough, scientists could plan follow-up missions. The study also examined deploying conventional explosives but found they simply would not work “against most threats.” If a significantly sized object were to threaten Earth — according to NASA scientists, one just 100 meters in diameter could result in an explosion equivalent to the release of 50 million tons of dynamite on impact — actually using nuclear devices in space would likely take some international coordination, the study team pointed out. A 1967 international treaty governing the use of outer space prohibits states from putting objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other type of weapon of mass destruction into space. NASA is engaged in a roughly $4 million a year space survey to identify “near-Earth objects” greater than 1 kilometer in diameter.  So far, researchers have identified and tracked slightly more than 700 such objects. In December 2004, scientists discovered the asteroid Apophis — an object about 300 meters long and traveling at 12,000 mph — and initially thought there was a roughly 3 percent chance of a collision with Earth in 2029. More precise calculations later led researchers to conclude that there was in fact no real threat of an impact in 2029.  In 2036, when the asteroid makes a second pass by Earth, there is a one in 45,000 chance of a direct hit. A 2005 bill sponsored by Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) directed NASA to find even smaller objects — those as small as 140 meters in diameter.  NASA scientists estimate there could be as many as 100,000 of these football-stadium size rocks swirling around close to Earth. Known as the George E. Brown Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act, the bill mandated that NASA research possible methods to deflect an Earth-bound asteroid.  Rohrabacher has for years been one of Congress’s most vocal proponents of protecting Earth from a collision with a space object. Back to top       Blair Pushes Nuclear Upgrade In the face of a skeptical Parliament, British Prime Minister Tony Blair today called for an immediate decision on beginning replacement of the Trident nuclear weapon system, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 13). “I think it’s right we take a decision now to begin work on replacing the Trident nuclear submarines,” he said during a session of the House of Commons. “I think that it is essential for our security in an uncertain world.  I believe it is important that we recognize that although it is impossible to predict the future, the one thing … that is certain, is the unpredictability of it,” Blair added.  “For that reason, I think it is sensible we take this decision today” (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, March 14). Sixty-two lawmakers from the Labor Party yesterday called for additional time to debate the matter, the London Daily Telegraph reported (George Jones, The Daily Telegraph, March 14). Blair’s plans calls for spending as much as $39 billion to replace the four Vanguard-class submarines that carry Trident nuclear-tipped missiles.  The submarines are scheduled for decommissioning around 2024, Reuters reported. Opponents have argued that the Soviet Union’s demise has eliminated the need for a nuclear deterrent, and that replacing the existing system would send the wrong message to nations such as North Korea and Iran that are known or suspected to be developing nuclear weapons.  Funds would be better used for conventional forces, they say. “Our decision could well be the hinge point between real impetus toward stopping proliferation or a trigger leading to a cascade of further proliferation,” said Labor Party lawmaker Michael Meacher. Despite opposition from his own party, three members of which have resigned their positions with the government in protest, Blair is expected to garner sufficient support from the opposition Conservative Party to push the proposal through (Reuters/New York Times, March 14). Back to top       U.S. Denies Nuclear Power Aid for Libya The United States yesterday denied that it has any current plans to help Libya build nuclear power reactors, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 13). The State Department announcement followed reports that Libyan officials were preparing to ask for U.S. aid in developing nuclear power and related facilities. “There’s no discussion of this, there’s no agreement being worked out and there are no plans to do so right now,” said State Department spokesman Tom Casey.  “At a future date, we’d be open to discussions about this, but now is not the time that I think either of us deems appropriate for that.” Casey acknowledged, however, that the two nations were having some nuclear talks. “We are in discussions with the Libyans regarding a project to help them develop a nuclear medicine center, and that is the only thing you could use the word ‘nuclear’ in relation to past agreements,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 13). Back to top

Aberdeen CW Disposal Site Ready to Close The U.S. Army is ready to formally close its chemical weapons destruction facility at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, officials announced Monday (see GSN, Oct. 31, 2006). The site destroyed 1,623 tons of mustard agent and now the destruction facilities have been removed and demolished as well, a release reported. “Today marks a significant achievement in the global chemical weapons disarmament effort,” said Dale Ormond, acting director of the Army Chemical Materials Agency.  “It is a model for all the other facilities that will follow suit” (U.S. Army release, March 13). Back to top

NATO Needs Voice in U.S. Decision to Deploy Missile Defenses in Europe, German Leader Says German Chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday called for the United States to submit to NATO its plans for deploying missile defense interceptors in Europe, the International Herald Tribune reported (see GSN, March 13). Merkel is scheduled to meet tomorrow with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose government has regularly slammed the U.S. plan and indicated that it could lead Moscow to abandon the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (see GSN, Feb. 16).  She plans to meet Friday with Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who is considering the U.S. request to deploy 10 missile interceptors in his country. “We, and I, will say that in Poland we would prefer a solution within NATO and also an open discussion with Russia,” Merkel told ZDF public radio. A NATO spokesman said, though, that the alliance is not seeking a role in U.S. missile defense talks with Poland and the Czech Republic, which could become home to a radar base. “NATO must first agree on the threats and, to the extent possible, a common approach,” said spokesman James Appathurai.  “NATO is in no way engaging in these bilateral talks.” Washington is working directly with Warsaw and Prague to avoid becoming stuck on lengthy talks within NATO, alliance diplomats said. “The U.S. does not want endless delays, nor does Poland or the Czech Republic,” said a senior NATO official. More U.S. transparency on its plans is needed, however, said former Polish defense minister Radoslaw Sikorski. Washington tried “mightily and with some success” to raise the issue in NATO, said Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried.  However, “we have met with resistance from some of [the] same countries whose politicians say we should do more at NATO.” “I think it is a first-class idea for NATO to do a lot on this issue,” he said, “but that doesn’t mean you can’t do things bilaterally and then to them complementarily” (Judy Dempsey, International Herald Tribune, March 13). Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko yesterday offered support for deployment of U.S. missile defenses in Europe, Interfax reported. “It will be in the interests of peaceful coexistence if each state is protected, if we possess means of defense,” he said (Interfax, March 13). U.S. Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, head of the Missile Defense Agency, today continued talks with Ukrainian officials regarding “aspects of the U.S. missile defense program including proposed missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic,” the U.S. Embassy in Kiev said. While Ukraine has been mentioned as another possible host for a U.S. installation, that presently does not appear to be on the table, Agence France-Presse reported. Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych has spoken against the plan (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, March 13). Obering is also meeting with German and French officials this week, Reuters reported. “One of the things Obering is trying to do is calm down the hysteria about this issue,” a U.S. official said.  “This project is not at all aimed at Russia and isn’t going to cause a new arms race” (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters/Yahoo!News, March 14). Back to top       U.S. Missile Defense Radar Hits Testing Milestone Defense contractor Raytheon has finished calibrating a key radar component of the U.S. missile defense system in Alaska, United Press International reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 9). The X-band radar, the most powerful radar in the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, is intended to track enemy warheads in space and guide U.S. missile interceptors. By completing the calibration portion of its testing, the radar can now move to its “final performance verification testing” phase, according to a Raytheon statement. “The radar will help identify the hostile warhead from the decoys and countermeasures, providing additional capability for interceptor missiles to protect the U.S. and its friends and allies from ballistic missile attacks,” the statement said (Martin Sieff, United Press International, March 13).   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.