G-8 leaders flank German Chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday in Heiligendamm at their annual summit. The group addressed a number of nonproliferation issues in their summit statement (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images). G-8 Cites Nonproliferation Goals By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The Group of Eight nations today hailed the progress made in combating WMD proliferation over the last five years but said more work is needed (see GSN, June 1). Five years ago, at the Kananaskis summit in Canada, G-8 leaders announced the Global Partnership against Proliferation of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, a $20 billion commitment to fund nonproliferation projects through 2012 (see GSN, July 14, 2006)...Full Story

Senators Call for Test Ban Treaty Ratification By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A U.S. Senate panel has called for ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in the current version of the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 5). ..Full Story

China Advances Nuclear Scanning at Ports China and the United States recently signed detailed plans to implement a November 2005 deal to install nuclear detection equipment at Chinese ports, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration announced Wednesday (see GSN, Nov. 28, 2005)...Full Story

	Friday, June 8, 2007

Air Cargo Still Vulnerable to Terrorism, Expert Says Adequate efforts are not being taken to prevent terrorists from sneaking weapons into the cargo holds of airplanes, a U.S. expert said Wednesday at a hearing in Canada (see GSN, Jan. 22). “We have focused so much on passengers and passenger baggage that we have failed to recognize there is a huge part of the aircraft that is loaded up with pallets of cargo. … How and where and when the cargo is screened is a huge gap, not just here in Canada but in the United States as well,” said security consultant Kathleen Sweet of the University of Connecticut. Sweet testified during an inquiry into the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, Canadian Press reported.  The detonation of an explosive in the forward cargo area killed all 329 passengers and crew, most of whom were Canadian citizens. Authorities should not anticipate that future terrorist attacks involving aircraft would be similar to the Air India bombing or the strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, Sweet said. “Terrorists aren’t stupid,” she said.  “Many of them are well educated, well-financed. … They sit around all day thinking about how they’re going to kill us in unique and new ways.” There must be consideration of whether terrorists would develop biological, chemical or radiological weapons, Sweet said in a report submitted to the inquiry. “New procedures and policies must be developed to meet these threats,” she stated.  “The Ebola virus, released in one aircraft and transported thousands of miles across an ocean, can potentially kill millions of people.” Air security recommendations made to the inquiry, CP reported, include:  additional scrutiny of maintenance personnel and other workers with access to air operations; heightening security at private air terminals close to commercial airports; and improved training for personnel charged with screening baggage and passengers (Jim Brown, Canadian Press, June 7). Back to top

G-8 Cites Nonproliferation Goals By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The Group of Eight nations today hailed the progress made in combating WMD proliferation over the last five years but said more work is needed (see GSN, June 1). Five years ago, at the Kananaskis summit in Canada, G-8 leaders announced the Global Partnership against Proliferation of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, a $20 billion commitment to fund nonproliferation projects through 2012 (see GSN, July 14, 2006). Assessing the progress of those efforts this year in Germany, G-8 nations concluded in the summit statement on nonproliferation that “more has to be done to increase the efficiency of our cooperation.” Delegates agreed to discuss a follow-up agreement to the partnership at some future date but nothing more concrete. “We remain firmly committed to completing the Kananaskis goals,” the statement reads.  “We will discuss in due course whether the partnership should be extended beyond 2012 and if so how to allocate the means for expanding its scope to address threat reduction and nonproliferation requirements worldwide.” The nonproliferation statement offered no surprises, said Jon Wolfsthal, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It reads like a fine laundry list,” he said.  The statement addresses the current pressing issues in the nonproliferation realm “but there’s nothing new here.  This doesn’t strike me a statement showing a lot of urgency.” On the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the statement reads: “We acknowledge that the nuclear nonproliferation regime faces serious challenges.” The nations reaffirmed their commitment to addressing those challenges.  The statement also expresses support for treaties banning chemical and biological weapons. On Iran, the G-8 nations stated their commitment to “resolving regional proliferation challenges by diplomatic means” and indicated they “deplore” Iran’s failure to meet U.N. demands to halt its enrichment program. If Iran continues to flout those demands, the G-8 nations said they would “support adopting further measures.” The statement also encourages an early start to negotiations on a fissile material cutoff treaty without indicating if nations would seek to give it a verification component.  It urges states to continue a moratorium on nuclear test explosions. “The only thing creative in here is the language,” Wolfsthal said.  “They found ways to find diplomatic linguistic solutions where they didn’t agree.” One place where that vague diplomatic language could indicate a lack of consensus is in the statement about a possible continuation of the Global Partnership beyond its current expiration date, he said. The statement is also critical of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, a cartel of industrialized nations that controls nuclear exports.  At its most recent meeting this year, the group failed to strike a deal to strengthen controls on export of enrichment and reprocessing equipment, technology of vital concern in the struggle to quell nuclear proliferation. “We regret that they did not reach a consensus on this issue by 2007 as called for [at the 2006 G-8 summit] in St. Petersburg,” the statement reads. “Should the NSG not reach consensus on appropriate criteria by 2008, we will seriously consider alternative strategies to reduce the proliferation risks associated with the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies.” While nations have a right to peaceful nuclear programs under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, some of the allowed technology  — such as Iran’s uranium enrichment plant — can be a pathway to nuclear weapons as well as nuclear power. In 2004, 2005 and 2006, the G-8 nations agreed to “not inaugurate new initiatives” involving the transfer of such technology during the following year.  Such a commitment is absent from the 2007 statement. The absence “means they couldn’t get an agreement,” Wolfsthal said. Back to top       Senators Call for Test Ban Treaty Ratification By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A U.S. Senate panel has called for ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in the current version of the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 5). The text of the preliminary bill has not been released following initial committee approval, but Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said the spending plan included a statement suggesting that the United States “should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.”  The language, which is supposed to represent the “sense of the Senate”, was inserted “with no hearings and no real discussions,” he said. The Republican-controlled Senate rejected the treaty in 1999 by a vote of 51 to 48, far short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the pact back to the president with the Senate’s advice and consent for ratification.  The treaty obligates its parties to refrain from nuclear testing, but the pact cannot take effect until 44 specific nations ratify it. Ten countries have so far refused to join the treaty, putting Washington in the company of North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel. “That was a blast from the past,” Sessions said yesterday of the bill’s language.  “You know we had a big fight over that.” Speaking at a breakfast meeting held by the National Defense University Foundation, Sessions said the call for treaty ratification is likely to be challenged when the bill moves to the full Senate for a final approval. “I don’t know that we’re going accept that language.  I suspect we’re going to have a fight over that,” he said.  “I don’t see CTBT as something we need to pass right now.” Then-President Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1996, but ran into fierce Republican political resistance and ultimately lost the battle for the treaty’s approval. The United States has, however observed a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992. This is not the first time discussion of the treaty has surfaced in the current Congress.  Earlier this year, lawmakers raised the issue in the context of the Bush administration’s push for a program to replace some nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal with a next-generation device (see GSN, May 24). The new Reliable Replacement Warheads would include technology to prevent detonation if terrorists stole any warheads, would be less likely to fail if ever used and would be easier to produce and maintain, administration officials have argued in pressing for the program. The warheads would also be able to enter the stockpile without explosive testing, a make-or-break criteria for many in Congress, including Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the House Armed Services subcommittee that oversees the deployment of nuclear weapons. In January, Tauscher appeared to link the test ban treaty and approval for the new warhead design during a speech in Washington.  Given the statements of the Bush administration and scientists at U.S. national laboratories that the RRW program would “reduce the need for live testing, then ratifying the CTBT should be a central objective of our nation,” Tauscher said while addressing the “Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century” conference, Inside the Pentagon reported. In the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill, Democrats, then in the minority, noted that they were “willing to explore the RRW concept, but do not yet embrace it.”  The program would only be worthy of support, they said, if it eliminates or reduces the need for nuclear testing and leads to ratification and entry into force of the test ban treaty. “We were disappointed that the majority could not agree that the ultimate goal of the RRW program should be to help ensure the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,” they wrote. One of the arguments against ratification of the test ban treaty, that testing might be a last resort against technical uncertainty in an aging Cold War-era stockpile, “will be removed” if the RRW program proceeds, Democratic lawmakers noted. Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) in April called on senior Bush administration officials to more strongly promote the RRW program, suggesting a new warhead deployable without explosive testing could change international opinion on the test ban treaty. “I would like to discuss with you how this could impact the administration’s decision to revisit its position on the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and if you believe that such action would guarantee that countries like India, Pakistan and North Korea would sign on [to] the treaty and would encourage China, Iran, Indonesia and Egypt to follow the U.S. action to ratify the treaty,” Domenici wrote in a letter to the secretaries of defense and state and to national security adviser Stephen Hadley. Observers, though, see little chance of  that the test ban treaty would be ratified in the remaining 18 months of the Bush White House. “I don’t think there’s any hope of it being ratified by the Senate with the current administration,” said David Culp, with the antinuclear lobbying group the Friends Committee on National Legislation.  “You’d need a new administration who vigorously supported it.” House Cuts RRW Funding The House version of the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill trimmed $20 million from the president’s $88.8 million request for RRW work within the Energy Department and cut $25 million of a $30 million request for RRW work within the Navy (see GSN, May 3). A House energy and water appropriations bill completely eliminated any money for the controversial program, calling for a re-evaluation of the U.S. post-Cold War nuclear stance before proceeding. Sessions avoided the specific funding levels set in the Senate bill for the new warhead program but said the Armed Services Committee “was generally supportive of the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which I think needs to go forward.” Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Forces Strategic Forces Subcommittee, called the Reliable Replacement Warhead logical and reiterated the administration’s assertion that it would allow the United States to further reduce its stockpile (see GSN, June 7, and GSN, May 22). He cautioned, however, against drawing the U.S. stockpile down so low that it acts as an inducement for other nations to develop nuclear weapons “in some kind of perverse way.” “We need to keep them high,” he said.  “It’s my view that we don’t need to draw down our nuclear weapons so significantly that any jack-legged country thinks they can be a peer competitor to the United States.” Back to top       China Advances Nuclear Scanning at Ports China and the United States recently signed detailed plans to implement a November 2005 deal to install nuclear detection equipment at Chinese ports, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration announced Wednesday (see GSN, Nov. 28, 2005). The cooperative effort is part of the U.S. Megaports Initiative, a program intended to prevent nuclear terrorism by screening U.S.-bound cargo for nuclear or radiological weapons at the cargo’s point of departure (see GSN, April 17). China is the largest cargo shipper in the world, according to a U.S. release, making it a desirable nation to join the initiative. “This agreement represents an important step forward in the effort to improve the security of the global maritime shipping network, and strengthens our efforts with the People's Republic of China in fighting nuclear smuggling,” said NNSA Deputy Administrator William Tobey in a press release (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration release, June 6). Back to top       Bush, Singh Discuss Bilateral Nuclear Deal U.S. and Indian leaders met today in Germany to discuss a planned nuclear trade deal that officials have had trouble finalizing, India eNews reported (see GSN, June 4). President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh talked on the sidelines of the Group of Eight’s annual summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.  In addition, U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley met with Indian national security adviser M.K. Narayanan. The deal generally calls for India to place its civilian nuclear sector under international monitoring in exchange for receiving U.S. nuclear technology and materials.  Pinning down the details, however, has proven tricky, as Indian officials have objected to some nonproliferation rules that could limit New Delhi’s nuclear activities (India eNews, June 8). Without directly backing the U.S.-Indian deal, a G-8 statement on nonproliferation today praised India’s willingness to offer some of is nuclear activities to international scrutiny. “We note the commitments India has made, and encourage India to take further steps toward integration into the mainstream of strengthening the nonproliferation regime so as to facilitate a more forthcoming approach toward nuclear cooperation to address its energy requirements, in a manner that enhances and reinforces the global nonproliferation regime,” the statement says (Group of Eight release, June 8). Back to top       New Zealand’s Nuclear Ban Enacted 20 Years Ago New Zealand officials today marked the 20th anniversary of the nation’s ban on nuclear weapons from its territory and waters, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, July 28, 2005). The 1987 Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act banned nuclear weapons from all of New Zealand.  That policy has led to friction with the United States, which cannot send nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered sea craft into the zone. The United States has cut most military ties with New Zealand as a result, according to AP. Wellington’s stance continues to be a “rock in the road” to the two nations’ diplomatic relations, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said earlier this year, but one that they “can work around.” The policy has become “an important part of New Zealand’s national identity,” said Disarmament Minister Phil Goff. He said the nuclear prohibition is as important today as it was when it was enacted. “The threat to the world of nuclear weapons grows as more countries acquire possession of them,” he said on National Radio.  “We need countries that will lead the way toward not only nonproliferation — there's a variety of countries strongly pressing for nonproliferation — but also for the other side of the bargain ... for the nuclear weapon states to carry out their unequivocal commitment from (the year) 2000 to work toward elimination of nuclear weapons” (Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, June 7). Meanwhile, diplomats at a Rome nonproliferation conference yesterday also urged nuclear-armed nations to devote more energy to meeting the disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (see GSN, May 24). “The more you will have countries with nuclear weapons, the more the odds that nuclear weapons will be used either accidentally or by design,” said Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. “Either we are going to continue to work under a system of collective security that is based on ultimate reliance of nuclear weapons or we are going to make good on our commitment in 1970, under the nonproliferation treaty, that nuclear weapons should not be part of our security system," he said following a meeting with Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema.   “We are committed to move toward nuclear disarmament” (Sabina Castelfranco, Voice of America, June 7). World leaders stressed the treaty’s importance today at the annual summit of the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations. “We acknowledge that the nonproliferation regime faces serious challenges,” says a statement on nonproliferation.  “We therefore reaffirm our full commitment to the objectives and obligations of all three pillars of the NPT, and we will continue to work for its universalization.  We call on all states party to the NPT to make a construction contribution to a balanced and structured review of the treaty, which has successfully begun with the first meeting of the preparatory committee of the 2010 review conference” (see GSN, May 14). “We will undertake all efforts to achieve a positive outcome of the review process with a view to maintaining and strengthening the authority, credibility and integrity of the treaty regime,” the statement adds (Group of Eight release, June 8). Back to top       N.M. Senators Object to Los Alamos Lab Budget Cuts Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) said Wednesday he was “stunned” by budget cuts to the Los Alamos National Laboratory approved by the House Appropriations Committee, the Albuquerque Journal reported (see GSN, June 7). “I am surprised by the extent to which the House Appropriations Committee has gone out of its way to single out Los Alamos and to some extent, Sandia (National Laboratories),” Domenici said in a statement.  Both facilities are in New Mexico.  Los Alamos has earned the ire of lawmakers following a string of security and safety mishaps (see GSN, May 16). The House version of the fiscal 2008 energy and water appropriations bill drops $95.5 million that was allocated for developing a plutonium laboratory at Los Alamos.  Funding for production of the plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons would drop by $131 million, a cut of nearly 50 percent.  That work “is solely supported” by Los Alamos, according to Domenici. The legislation also slashes $50 million in funding for security improvements at sites with special nuclear material and another $50 million for a high-performance computer at the laboratory, the Journal reported. The bill cuts $600 million from the requested funding for the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.  It would provide $400 million less than what was allocated for the current fiscal year, according to Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). “These proposed cuts are serious, particularly at Los Alamos National Laboratory,” Bingaman said.  He plans to seek “to ensure that LANL and Sandia have the funding they need to protect our nation’s [nuclear] stockpile and provide the best science in the nation’s interest, while supporting the economic viability of the communities that are home to the labs.” The Senate is expected to begin work late this month on its version of the appropriations bill (Mark Oswald, Albuquerque Journal, June 7). Back to top

Short-Range Missile Tests Not Likely to Harm North Korea Nuclear Talks, Experts Say The test-firing of two North Korean short-range missiles yesterday is not expected to deter efforts to press Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons program, Reuters reported(see GSN, June 7). “I don’t give significant weight to this,” said Kim Sung-han, an analyst at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security in South Korea. The nations involved in the six-party talks have little choice but to continue ahead with diplomacy intended to persuade North Korea to meet its commitments under a Feb. 13 denuclearization deal, he said.  Pyongyang is first waiting to collect $25 million, which it says must be transferred from Banco Delta Asia in Macau to another institution.  There have yet been no takers for the money. “The money might as well have been inside the Yongbyon reactor,” said Peter Beck of the International Crisis Group. “North Korea will drag out the bank issue, maybe go back to talks, maybe make some concessions and maybe freeze Yongbyon.  But ultimately they really don’t want to abandon nuclear weapons, so they will continue to add conditions and stall,” said North Korea expert Zhang Liangui of the Central Party School in Beijing.” “Perhaps another U.N. Security Council resolution and other action” might be needed to press Pyongyang into serious movement on the matter, he said.  “Otherwise, I think we will just be treading water like now.  Sooner or later, then, they will use another nuclear test to get everyone’s attention and demonstrate that they’re a nuclear power” (Jonathan Thatcher, Reuters, June 8). A senior South Korean official today described the missile launches as a  “routine missile test (North Korea) conducts every year,” the Associated Press reported. “I do not believe it will increase tensions on the Korean Peninsula,” said Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung (Associated Press/New York Times, June 8). Back to top

Putin Raises Questions With Missile Defense Offer There are reasons to question the viability of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer to drop his opposition to U.S. missile defenses in Europe in exchange for changes to the plan, experts told the Associated Press yesterday (see GSN, June 7). “It’s a Russian attempt to appear not to be intransigent over the issue,” said David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists.  “But I think it’s not going to satisfy people in the United States.” “I think it’s a win for us,” said Riki Ellison, president of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance.  “We’re not going to take the deal, but it is a counteroffer — Putin has moved from threats to making a counteroffer.” Russia has been loudly critical of Bush administration plans to place 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic.  Putin yesterday at the Group of Eight summit in Germany proposed that Washington use a radar base in Azerbaijan and hold off on deployment of the interceptors, AP reported. While the radar location in northern Azerbaijan is good, the United States is likely to want its own technology there rather than sharing information from an existing radar system, Ellison said.  The present radar is an early warning system, less precise than the U.S. X-band radar hopes to use in the Czech Republic, said U.S. Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner. There were also concerns about Putin’s suggestion to hold off on deploying interceptors in favor of sea-based missiles that could be used to bring down incoming missiles. “His view is, radar cooperation is fine; the decision about deploying interceptors is premature,” said U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley.  “And once these [missile] capabilities emerge in Iran or any other state, there will be time to develop and deploy interceptors.” “Our concern, of course, is that in order to have defensive systems in place, it takes time,” he added.  “These are long lead-time items, and it would take time to get them deployed” (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 7). The proposal is also likely to require more trust than now found between Russia and the United States, one expert told the New York Times. “For that kind of cooperation, to be treated seriously by the United States and NATO, they would have to have more trust than people really do now toward the Russian military,” said Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations.  “The question is, can you one day have the Russians acting in such a way as to advertise their lack of trust in the United States, and the next day insist that the United States trust them?” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, June 8). Azerbaijan said it was willing to consider the proposal, Agence France-Presse reported. “Azerbaijan is ready for such negotiations. … This will being more stability to the region, where the situation will become more predictable,” said Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov (Agence France-Presse I, June 8). Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek also spoke positively of the offer, AFP reported. “The most important thing is his (Putin’s) will to seek agreement,” he said in a prepared statement. The offer came like “a bolt out of the blue,” said Defense Minister Vlasta Parkanova. “We have always said that antimissile defense is not targeted at Russia.  From this Putin offer it appears that he has understood this,” she said (Agence France-Presse II, June 7). A NATO official said that alliance chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was concerned that the proposed radar site in Azerbaijan might be too close to nations that could fire long-range missiles, AFP reported. “It’s a bit early to judge if an Azeri radar could do, and could be the answer to the threats,” Scheffer said today.  “I think it’s a bit close to the ‘rogue states’ we are discussing,” Scheffer said during a security conference in Brussels (Agence France-Presse III/Yahoo!News, June 8).   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.