Afghanistan: Brahimi Releases Transitional Plan

As the opposition Northern Alliance tightened its hold on the capital and continued to make gains across Afghanistan, top U.N. Afghanistan envoy Lakhdar Brahimi yesterday presented his plan for a political transition in the country to the Security Council. 

Brahimi told the council beginning work on an interim administration and setting up an "international security force" in Kabul are paramount because of the city's "immense symbolic value."  Diplomats told the New York Times Brahimi's plan for an urgent meeting of various Afghan groups will receive unanimous support, with one U.S. source saying Washington supports the plan "totally."

Brahimi stressed the need for a "homegrown" political solution that "enjoys the support of all the internal and external players," warning of "spoilers from the inside or outside who would disrupt its implementation."  A peacekeeping force is needed to back the political process, he said, expressing hope that an all-Afghan force could be formed eventually but resignation that a multinational presence may be needed in the interim.

The special envoy is calling for a meeting of Northern Alliance and exiled representatives -- possibly in Qatar or Afghanistan, the Times reports -- to determine a structure for the transition and feed into a subsequent council of ethnic and regional groups presided over by a unifying figure such as exiled former King Zahir Shah.  That council would form a transitional administration and plan a two-year transition, and its plan would be approved by a traditional grand council convened for the occasion (Serge Schmemann, New York Times, Nov. 14).  For Brahimi's briefing to the Security Council, click here.

A senior diplomatic source in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, told Agence France-Presse that as Organization of the Islamic Conference president, Qatar is "expected to host an Afghan conference, the holding of which is recommended by the U.N." (AFP/TF1.fr, Nov. 14, UN Wire translation).

As the Security Council's meeting opened yesterday, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told members, "A stable Afghanistan, living in peace, carrying out its international obligations and posing no threat to any of its neighbors, must be our common objective. ... To achieve it, any arrangement arrived at must reflect the will, the needs and the interests of the Afghan people and enjoy their full support" (U.N. Newservice, Nov. 13).

In a statement yesterday, Annan welcomed the fact that Afghans have been "freed from the oppressive and intolerant Taliban regime" called on opposition forces to respect international law and human rights.  He stressed the need for a quick transition to representative government and asked Brahimi to "redouble his ongoing efforts" (U.N. release, Nov. 13).

The council is slated today to consider a British-French resolution under which it would support Brahimi's efforts, call on countries to help "ensure the safety and security of areas of Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control" and endorse a "central role" for the United Nations in "supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to establish urgently" a new representative government (Evelyn Leopold, Reuters, Nov. 14).

Annan said he is sending his other Afghanistan representative, Francesc Vendrell, to take charge of U.N. operations in the country while Brahimi coordinates international efforts from abroad (Schmemann, New York Times).

Afghan Leaders, Others Eye New Government

President Burhanuddin Rabbani -- the head of Afghanistan's U.N.-recognized deposed government, of which the Northern Alliance is the military wing -- was to enter Kabul today to declare himself head of the territories now under Northern Alliance control, Rabbani's ambassador to Tajikistan, Said Ibragim Khikmat, said.  "He will lead the provinces freed from the Taliban and also head the task of freeing provinces now under the control of the Islamist militia," Khikmat said (AFP/Times of India, Nov. 14).

AFP reports that the exiled king, in a message to be broadcast today to the Afghan people, has said that he, too, will soon return.  According to AFP's translation of the text as published in La Repubblica, the king said, "Very shortly, I will return to serve my country, not as a sovereign but as a servant of Afghanistan."  A grand council, he reportedly said, will decide the country's future (AFP II/Times of India, Nov. 14).

Jumbesh-e-Milli Islami head Abdul Rashid Dostum's forces will cooperate with efforts to form a new government despite opposition to the process by some allies who say Rabbani is the legitimate president, a Dostum spokesman said yesterday (Out There News, Nov. 13).

Exiled Pashtun leader Sayed Ahmad Gailani, an ally of the exiled king and the head of the Mahaz-e-Milli-Islami movement, yesterday called on the United Nations "as quickly as possible" to "move in and lay out the organization for a transition period," adding, "If any government comes into power by force, we will only have more problems" (Dan Fesperman, Baltimore Sun, Nov. 14).

Calling for Northern Alliance restraint amid allegations its elements have committed rights abuses in the past, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte yesterday told the Security Council the international community must "support the United Nations and Ambassador Brahimi in urgent efforts to bring together as soon as possible Afghans to form an interim authority for liberated areas."

"That authority," Negroponte continued, "must be representative of and acceptable to all Afghans.  And it must be supported by all of us, and especially the countries of the region or it will not succeed.  And an international presence must be re-established as soon as possible" (U.S. State Department release, Nov. 13).

U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday issued a joint statement in Washington expressing "continued support for the people of Afghanistan in their effort to establish a government that can bring peace and stability to Afghanistan" (U.S. State Department release II, Nov. 13).

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said yesterday at the U.N. General Assembly that the "Afghan people should decide on their country's future according to the democratic principle of 'one man, one vote'" (Islamic Republic News Agency, Nov. 14).  Interior Minister Abdol Vahed Musavi-Lari echoed Kharazi's words today, saying peace in Afghanistan depends on the establishment of a broad-based government.  "There is a need to work with the United Nations to help facilitate such political process, and in this direction, the role of Iran and Pakistan was very important and crucial" (IRNA II, Nov. 14).

British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday called for a U.N. presence in Afghanistan "as soon as possible" (Associated Press/ABCNews.com, Nov. 13).  Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen told the Security Council the world body should "coordinate a concerted international effort to assist the people of Afghanistan in establishing a broad-based and multiethnic government," calling also for reconstruction aid (Deaglan de Breadun, Irish Times, Nov. 14).

Pakistan Opposes Northern Alliance Kabul Entry, Wants Peacekeeping Force

Pakistani authorities are troubled by the Northern Alliance's entry into Kabul and want an international peacekeeping force in the Afghan capital, the Washington Post reports.

"With the Northern Alliance takeover of Kabul, our worst nightmare has come true," a senior Pakistani military official said.  "At least for the time being, the United States military power has handed Afghanistan to Pakistan's worst enemies in that country."

Speaking in Istanbul, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said, "It is very important that there ought to be a United Nations force ... to prevent ethnic fighting" and "the atrocities of the past."  Musharraf said Pakistan and other Muslim countries could "play a role" in such a force (Constable/Khan, Washington Post, Nov. 14).

Gailani also called for a U.N. peacekeeping force (Out There News II, Nov. 13).

Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman Wahid Supriyadi said today that Indonesian troops could participate in Afghan peacekeeping "as long as the force is under a U.N. umbrella" (Slobodan Lekic, AP/South China Morning Post, Nov. 14).

Washington, though, may not endorse a U.N. force for Kabul, U.S. officials told the Washington Times yesterday.  One senior State Department source said the United States "has never been hot on" the idea of U.N. forces in the country and that "the chief thrust" now is to set up a new government (Barber/Pisik, Washington Times, Nov. 14).

U.N. Confirms Killings of Taliban Fighters

The United Nations yesterday confirmed that Northern Alliance troops killed more than 100 Taliban soldiers who tried to hide in a Mazar-e-Sharif school and that hundreds of other people were killed during the battle for the northern Afghan city.  U.N. spokeswoman Stephanie Bunker called the Taliban soldiers "young recruits" and said they were killed Saturday, or a day after the city was taken.

World Food Program spokeswoman Christiane Berthiaume added that the city is seeing "pillaging as well as civilian kidnappings, armed men out of control and fighting in the streets" (Greg Myre, AP/Yahoo! News, Nov. 13).

During a press conference with Putin yesterday, Bush said the United States will do everything it can to induce the Northern Alliance to respect human rights (AFP/Cyberpresse.ca, Nov. 13, UN Wire translation).

For a U.N. release on yesterday's meeting of the world body's Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee, during which speakers discussed human rights and Afghanistan, click here.

U.S., Northern Alliance Focus on Kandahar

With Kabul and other major cities having fallen to the Northern Alliance and Jalalabad reportedly under the control of a former mujahideen group, the focus of the war is now on the southern Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, CNN.com reports.  A senior U.S. official said the city could fall soon, but CNN.com reports that Taliban support there is still strong (CNN.com, Nov. 14).

U.S. special forces are now in Kabul and in southern Afghanistan, U.S. Defense Department officials said (Matt Kelley, AP/Yahoo! News, Nov. 14).  U.K. forces are on standby for possible duty in Kabul or elsewhere, the British Defense Ministry said today (CNN.com II, Nov. 14).

A U.S. missile reportedly hit Qatari television network al-Jazeera's Kabul office, injuring no one (AP/Baltimore Sun, Nov. 14).

Taliban Territory Seen Shrinking Rapidly

With Afghans possibly revolting in some areas and the United States continuing to bomb, the Taliban now controls only about 20 percent of Afghanistan, Northern Alliance Interior Minister Yunus Qanooni said today (Michael Christie, Reuters/Yahoo! News, Nov. 14).  Taliban Supreme Leader Mohamed Omar called on his troops to "regroup, resist and fight."

"I order you to completely obey your commanders and not to go hither and thither," Omar said.  "Any person who goes hither and thither is like a slaughtered chicken which falls and dies" (Sydney Morning Herald, Nov. 14).

Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef has reportedly left Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, for Kandahar (Out There News III, Nov. 13).

Citing U.S. officials, AP reports that the Taliban retreat may produce clues to the whereabouts of suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden and members of his al-Qaeda network (John Lumpkin, AP/Yahoo! News, Nov. 14).  A Taliban diplomat said yesterday that bin Laden and Omar are safe in hiding in southern Afghanistan (Out There News IV, Nov. 13).  Reuters, though, reports that bin Laden is in danger amid reported revolts in the southern part of the country.  "The chances of him being betrayed, sold out or whatever are extremely high," Afghanistan expert Ahmed Rashid told the news agency (Andrew Marshall, Reuters, Nov. 14).

Northern Alliance Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah said bin Laden and Omar should be tried as war criminals if caught.  "Of course, they have both committed crimes against the Afghanistan people.  Many innocent civilians have been killed," Abdullah said.  "We therefore consider them as war criminals, and they must be brought to justice" (Reuters, Nov. 14).

Back to top

Iraq: U.S. Should Focus on Inspections, Report Says

Renewing robust inspections to detect and prevent Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction—particularly nuclear and biological weapons—should be a top priority for the United States and the U.N. Security Council, said a Monterey Institute of International Studies report released last week. 

Iraq would pose a serious threat to Middle East stability and U.S. security if it gained nuclear ability or developed numerous intermediate-range missiles weaponized with biological or chemical agents.  Preventing such a scenario should take precedence over other possible U.S. goals, the report said, such as enhancing sanctions or overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.  Iraq’s weapons capability will remain uncertain until inspections begin again, the report said.

“Iraq must either give up its prohibited programs and accept intrusive inspections or face a harsh military reaction,” the report said.

David Albright and Kevin O’Neill, the report’s authors, advocate a proposal by former International Atomic Energy Agency Action Team Leader Gary Dillon to move away from U.N. Security Council resolution 1284 and revert back to Security Council resolution 687.  Resolution 687, adopted in 1991, required Iraq to destroy all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons-related assets and longer-range missiles before the international community would lift economic sanctions.  Resolution 1284—adopted in December 1999 after weapons inspectors had left Iraq—established the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) as a successor to the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM), lifted the cap on oil exports Iraq could use to pay for imports under the oil-for-food program and allowed for 120-day renewable suspensions of sanctions once inspection and verification systems were established and Iraq complied with tasks to fulfill its disarmament obligations under resolution 687.

Dillon, however, believed that Iraq did not see any way to regain control of oil revenue under resolution 1284, so it refused to comply with any of the inspection requirements, according to Albright and O’Neill.  Reverting to resolution 687, however, would provide incentive for Iraq to allow inspections because it could gain control of oil revenues once it complied with instructions related to weapons of mass destruction.  Albright and O’Neill believed that under Dillon’s proposal, Iraq would likely invite inspectors to return, and the inspectors would later report to the Security Council about Iraq’s compliance.  If the Security Council believed Iraq had complied with resolution 687, it would lift the oil embargo and sanctions on exporting civil goods to Iraq.  The council would also continue prohibitions against Iraq’s possession of and ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and certain missiles. 

Albright and O’Neill proposed the Security Council commit itself to taking “all necessary actions, including military” to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction ability if inspectors discover Iraq has failed to comply with Security Council demands.  The United States would be far more likely to gain international support for military action if proof existed Iraq had defied the Security Council, the report said. 

Problems With Sanctions, Containment and Overthrowing Hussein

Albright and O’Neill said the sanctions imposed on Iraq since the Gulf War have failed to force Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions, and international support for the sanctions has decreased to the point that, as U.S. President George W. Bush said, they are as porous as “Swiss cheese.”  The authors noted that an imperfect containment policy may be the only way to deal with Iraq under the present circumstances but sanctions and containment would not prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction.  “One must recognize that sanctions alone cannot prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons, nor can sanctions lead to a workable strategy if Iraq succeeds in acquiring such weapons,” the report said. 

The Bush administration’s plan regarding Iraq has been to restructure sanctions to decrease the negative impact on Iraqi civilians, tighten sanctions on military items and reinvigorate support for the sanctions, according to the report.  This plan faces several important obstacles, the authors said, particularly opposition from Russia. 

The authors said the Bush plan also would not likely lead to a quick resumption of inspections.  Dillon’s proposal could work better because it would provide Iraq with the incentive of controlling its oil revenues to allow inspectors to return, the report said.  The authors said that developing weapons of mass destruction is not very expensive, and Saddam Hussein has gained sufficient funds from illicit oil sales, so controlling official Iraqi oil expenditures would not necessarily halt unconventional weapons programs.  “Preventing Iraq from rearming conventionally is more effectively accomplished by robust, and internationally supported, military sanctions than controls on oil revenues,” the report said. 

Another proposal favored by some U.S. analysts is to renew efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein.  The report said a coup would be unlikely to change Iraqi attitudes and could result in a more dangerous leader.

Why Inspections Work

Some critics have questioned the efficacy of inspections, but Albright and O’Neill advocated “the most robust inspections,” adding that the international community is more likely to combat Iraqi noncompliance with inspections than it would combat Iraqi opposition to sanctions. 

The authors say the history of inspections proved their worth.  “While ongoing monitoring and verification activities were in place, the action team’s continuous presence in Iraq made it difficult for Iraq to coherently and systematically resume its nuclear weapons work,” the report said, adding that UNSCOM also had many successes, although both inspections groups left Iraq with a number of unanswered questions about Iraq’s weapons programs.  The absence of inspectors working in the country “severely limits the ability to understand Iraqi activities,” the report said. 

Inspectors were able to achieve some success in Iraq because they were backed by a united Security Council and had popular support from the international community and because Iraq faced a “plausible threat” of military action if “the inspections did not go well,” the report said, quoting Robert Gallucci, former UNSCOM deputy executive director. 

Remove LEU

The Security Council should also remove existing uranium stocks from Iraq, especially the country’s low-enriched uranium, the report said.  Iraq possesses about 1.7 metric tons of LEU and several hundred metric tons of natural uranium, which it could convert into highly-enriched uranium to produce weapons if Iraq successfully developed the necessary enrichment technology. 

The report suggests the Security Council could compensate Iraq for uranium removal with extra funds in the U.N. oil-for-food escrow account.  The IAEA should immediately apply “remotely verified seals to reduce the time needed to detect a possible diversion of this material [for weapons-use] from a year to weeks or even a few days” until the uranium is removed, the authors said (Albright/O’Neill, Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter 2001). 

Back to top

Pakistan: Army Drills for WMD

The Pakistani army yesterday conducted its first major exercises to test its response to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, according to a Pakistani military release.  The exercises, named the Winter Collective Training Program, tested skills including decontaminating weapons, machinery and uniforms (New Delhi PTI news agency/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Nov. 13).  The exercises were held at Kharian, near the India border (India Statesman, Nov. 14).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia: U.S. Pledges to Reduce Arsenal

The United States will reduce its deployed strategic nuclear warheads to one-third of their current level in the next decade, President George W. Bush announced yesterday at a White House press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin.  The two leaders began a three-day summit yesterday.

"The current levels of our nuclear forces do not reflect today's strategic realities.  I have informed President Putin that the United States will reduce our operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to a level between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next decade, a level fully consistent with American security," Bush said.

Putin reciprocated by promising to "respond in kind" (Associated Press/New York Times, Nov. 14). 

"Russia declares and reiterates its readiness to make considerable reductions in strategic arms," Putin said last night.  "We no longer have to intimidate each other to reach agreements" (David Sanger, New York Times, Nov. 14).

Chances For a Treaty Unclear

Putin repeated his desire "to present all our agreements in a treaty form, including the issues of verification and control," but Bush said "we don't need arms control negotiations to reduce our weaponry."

"My attitude is, here's what we can live with, and so I've announced the level that we'll stick by.  And to me, that's how you approach a relationship that is changed and different," Bush said.

Bush indicated a willingness to sign some agreement, but did not elaborate. "I looked the man in the eye and shook his hand, and if we need to write it down on a piece of paper, I'll be glad to do that.  But that's what our government is going to do over the next 10 years" (AP/New York Times).

Putin told reporters after the press conference "the world is far from having international relations based solely on trust," adding "that is why it so important today to rely on the existing foundation of treaties and agreements in the arms control and disarmament areas" (Sanger, New York Times).

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov concurred.  "To make it more reliable, we need to put it down in a treaty," he said.  "It doesn't mean we distrust anyone.  Just the opposite.  It would consolidate and boost our relations" (Barry Schweid, AP/Yahoo! News, Nov. 14).

1993 Treaty Left Behind

The Bush announcement apparently leaves behind the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1993 but never entered into force, that would have banned the deployment of land-based MIRVed ICBMs, missiles that carry multiple warheads.

"It means abandoning one of the most hard-fought gains for U.S. national security," said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  "Multiple warhead missiles are dangerous weapons and will remain in the Russian arsenal long after Putin is gone."

The Bush move will also change the rules for counting nuclear warheads.  Under the START agreements, warheads deployed on submarines and bombers being overhauled still counted as deployed weapons, but the Bush administration will no longer count those weapons, according to the New York Times (Michael Gordon, New York Times, Nov. 14).

Back to top

CTBT: Conferees Criticize Absent U.S.

By Greg Seigle

Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS—A U.N. conference on the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ended yesterday with countries that support the accord calling on a moratorium on nuclear testing—a request that is likely to be ignored by key countries, including the United States.

The intention of the three-day conference was to push the treaty into force, but the meetings were hampered from the start because they were boycotted by nuclear powers essential to its success—the United States, India and Israel.

Officials said the pact, which aims to verify a ban on nuclear testing with stringent inspections, must have U.S. support in order to take effect. But U.S. President George W. Bush and the Republican half of the U.S. Senate does not support the treaty, claiming the inspections are too intrusive and that testing of the country’s 6,000 deployed nuclear warheads is needed to keep them operational.

One by one, high-level delegates from 104 countries, including 44 foreign ministers, chided the United States for refusing to back the treaty, which five years ago was signed by former President Bill Clinton but then rejected by the Senate in 1999.

“Countries should join together to urge [the United States] to change its erroneous position on the CTBT,” said Chinese U.N. Ambassador Shen Guofang.

Beijing has yet to ratify the treaty and says China’s move is unlikely unless Washington endorses it first. Pakistan, another country that has not approved the treaty but attended the conference, said it would not budge until India does.

The repeated demands by various nations for the United States to endorse the treaty are “a sign of close interest and a recognition that this is a very important treaty,” said Jayantha Dhanapala, the U.N.’s undersecretary general for disarmament affairs.

According to its charter the treaty cannot become law until it is signed and ratified by the 44 countries that, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, possess nuclear research and power reactors. Prior to this week’s meetings here, 13 of those countries had not ratified the treaty, including four countries with actual nuclear weapons: China, the United States, Israel and India.

By the end of the conference delegates from four of the 13 abstaining countries—Algeria, Indonesia, Colombia and Vietnam—said their legislative bodies are expected to soon ratify the treaty. Libya also expressed its intention to adhere to the CTBT, according to a U.N. release.

A total of 161 countries have signed the accord and 87 have ratified it, with Ecuador, Nauru and Singapore having done so the past week.

Representatives from some countries expressed dismay that the United States would snub the meetings at a time it is trying to build a global anti-terrorism coalition.

“The stand against terrorism should also include a stand against nuclear weapons,” Goran Svilanovic, the foreign minister of Yugoslavia, told conferees. “We must work to strengthen our stand against proliferation, particularly of weapons of mass destruction.”

Back to top

CTBT: U.S. Senate Has Power to Act, Aide Says

By Greg Seigle

Global Security Newswire

Despite common belief in Washington and elsewhere, the U.S. Senate does not need the White House to re-submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in order to vote on it again, according to current and former congressional officials.

Although recent reports including one in Monday’s Washington Post indicated that the Senate could not take up the 1996 treaty without an initiative by President George W. Bush, the Democrat-controlled legislature can call the accord for a vote when it sees fit, current and former congressional officials told GSN yesterday.

“President Bush can’t even get it back from the Senate even if he wants it,” said a senior aide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which oversees the fledgling pact signed by former President Bill Clinton five years ago. “It is available for action anytime.”

Once the Senate votes on a treaty—as it did with the test ban agreement two years ago, defeating it by 19 votes—the treaty can be voted on countless times, no matter how often it fails to garner the 67 votes needed to take effect, the officials said. The treaty can reach the floor either through the committee or if requested by the Senate as a whole, they said.

“We will continue holding onto it even if it were defeated 90-10 unless there is a provision in [such a] resolution that says it goes back to the White House,” the Senate aide said.

Because Democrats hold a 50-49-1 majority in the Senate—they’ve clung to the narrow edge since last year when Senator Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) left the Republican Party and registered as an independent—they control the destiny of any future Senate votes on the CTBT while Democrats.

But the Senate is unlikely to vote on the treaty again until it has more support, officials said. While there are some Republicans who may break party lines on this issue—Senator Lincoln Chaffee (R-R.I.) has been mentioned as a potential convert—the fact remains that many Republicans loathe the CTBT and appear unlikely to budge. Treaty supporters do not want to vote on the measure until it has a chance of passing.

“It would be feckless to proceed at this point,” the Senate aide conceded.

Even though Clinton culled international support for the accord, which calls for stringent outside monitoring of the 44 countries with active nuclear programs, Republican lawmakers have long opposed the pact—and successfully stalled its ratification. In October 1999 the then-Republican-held Senate rejected the treaty 51-48.

“We’re going to need about 17 [more] votes,” said Randy Rydell, a senior official with the U.N. Department for Disarmament Affairs who was a longtime aide to former Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio).

U.S. President George W. Bush, like many Republican Senators, does not support the accord. Administration officials believe that the on-site inspections are too intrusive, and they say the ban on nuclear testing called for in the treaty would harm maintenance of the current U.S. arsenal of about 6,000 nuclear warheads.

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Set Reductions Needed, Say Experts

U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin should take full advantage of their good relations to lock in large-scale reductions in both countries’ nuclear arsenals, wrote Joseph Cirincione and Jon Wolfsthal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (see GSN, Nov. 8). In a column in Arms Control Today, the authors reflected on international security strategies relevant to this week’s summit in Crawford, Texas (see GSN, Nov. 13).

The Bush administration’s claim that a new framework is needed for U.S.-Russian relations—a framework based on “informal or political understandings,” rather than formal arms control agreements—does not take into account a worst-case scenario, according to Cirincione and Wolfsthal.  “It is simply prudent to take account of worst-case scenarios when … planning nuclear policy,” they wrote.

If the current situation did change, Russia could revert to more competitive and confrontational policies, according to the authors.  Although Russia could not rebuild its forces to Soviet levels, “it could greatly increase the number of weapons it otherwise would likely deploy at the end of the decade and take other steps to complicate U.S. national security objectives,” Cirincione and Wolfsthal wrote.

The Bush administration may argue that Russia and the United States are no longer enemies, the authors wrote, and that U.S. nuclear forces should be deployed as necessary without consideration of what Russia does with its arsenal. “In reality, however, the nuclear arsenals of both countries do affect one another,” they said.  U.S. deployments of nuclear weapons will be a major factor in Russia’s decisions on how to size its own force, Cirincione and Wolfsthal wrote.

The security concerns of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are another reason for locking in reductions on both sides (see GSN, Nov. 13), according to the authors.  If Russia did revert to a more confrontational policy and deployed more nuclear weapons it would be forced to maintain more reserve warheads and materials, which would further increase security concerns, Cirincione and Wolfsthal wrote.  “Only dismantling and permanently disposing of the materials will eliminate this threat” (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace analysis, Nov. 13).  

Back to top

Germany: Nuclear Waste Arrives in Gorleben

Six containers of nuclear waste arrived at a storage site at Gorleben, Germany, amid protests from the country’s anti-nuclear lobby today (see GSN, Nov. 8).  The containers were moved by rail from Dannenberg, Germany, today, completing a journey from a reprocessing plant in northwestern France. 

The shipment’s journey to Gorleben was accompanied by three days of protests.  About 15,000 German police sealed off roads, guarded the shipment and removed the remaining few hundred demonstrators today.  Germany has been re-examining the safety of transporting nuclear material since the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.  Police said they had detained about 300 people, and about 93 received treatment for injuries resulting from conflict with the police.  The number of protesters was less than expected, according to police and protesters.

Shipments to Gorleben have been marked by confrontation between protesters and police in the past.  A shipment last March cost about $22.5 million to protect, and police estimated the cost for today’s shipment would be similar (Philip Blenkinsop, Reuters, Nov. 14).

“There were no notable incidents on the final stretch.  It all went as we had planned,” said German police spokesman Thomas Kuhn.

Today’s shipment was the fifth to Gorleben of nuclear waste that Germany sent to reprocessing plants in France or Britain.  Shipments were halted in 1997 for four years due to radioactive leaks.  Opponents said the containers holding the nuclear waste and the old salt mine above which the containers are held were unsafe (Stephen Graham, Associated Press, Nov. 14). 

Back to top

South Africa: Developing Nuclear Reactors

South Africa is working to develop miniature nuclear reactors to expand its nuclear technology capacity, South African Minister of Minerals and Energy Affairs Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka said yesterday at an International Atomic Energy Agency conference. 

Eskom, South Africa’s state-owned electric utility, is developing 110-megawatt pebble bed modular nuclear reactors in cooperation with British Nuclear Fuels and the U.S. company Exelon.  South Africa expects construction of the first reactor to begin next year.  Selling the reactors to other countries could earn South Africa over $1.9 billion a year; the United States, Britain, China, Indonesia, Morocco, Egypt and Tunisia are all interested in the reactors, according to today’s Financial Times.

Meanwhile, Victor Motha, a technician at a Nuclear Corporation of South Africa laboratory, died this week after inhaling a poisonous gas, according to the Times.

South Africa developed its nuclear capacity during its apartheid era and has since dismantled its nuclear weapons production program (James Lamont, Financial Times, Nov. 14).

Back to top

Russia:  Destroys Last Warhead from Ukraine

Russia destroyed the last of 1,500 nuclear warheads from Soviet-era Ukraine in October, according to an announcement yesterday from Russian President Vladimir Putin (Agence France-Presse, Nov. 13).

Putin said that the destruction fulfilled certain provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, observed one of the basic provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and finalized Ukraine’s decision to be free of nuclear weapons.  “I would like to specially point out that the absolute safety of nuclear warheads was ensured on all stages of the operation, unprecedented by its scope and complexity,” he said (ITAR-Tass, Nov. 13).

Back to top

Anthrax: More at U.S. State Dept. Mail Facility

Investigators are searching a State Department offsite mail facility for a possible anthrax-tainted letter in storage there (see GSN, Oct. 26), government officials said yesterday.  Traces of anthrax were found in several locations throughout the Sterling, Virginia, facility, according to the Washington Post.

Out of 55 samples taken from the Sterling facility, eight came back positive, said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.  Two mail-sorting machines each had one positive test, while a third sorting machine had three positives.  The relatively high-levels of contamination at the facility might mean an anthrax-tainted letter directly passed through the facility, Boucher said.  “It’s not the only way you can put this together, but it’s certainly the one that seems most probable to us,” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Jeffrey Koplan said yesterday.

Investigators are going through bags upon bags of mail that were sealed and set aside when the Sterling facility was closed in October, after a worker was hospitalized with what later was diagnosed as inhalation anthrax, officials said.  If a letter was found, it would be the fourth piece of mail containing anthrax spores.  “We presume that … if the letter had reached its intended recipient, that it would have been reported by now, either as a white powder letter or somebody getting sick,” Boucher said.  “So because it has been three weeks, we have to assume that we stopped it … we have to presume that we will be able to find whatever it is as we go through the mail in our system” (Weiss/Pianin, Washington Post, Nov. 14).

The CDC said it believed that the Sterling worker’s inhalation anthrax had to be caused by direct exposure to an anthrax-tainted letter, instead of just traces of anthrax left on a letter that had come into contact with a tainted one.  “We have said for quite a while that one of the potential explanations for the inhalation anthrax case was that there was an unrecognized additional letter that went through that system,” said CDC epidemiologist Stephen Ostroff (Barbara Isaacs, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 14).

Other Washington Anthrax Developments

There were reports yesterday of a fake anthrax letter found on the desk of a U.S. Capitol Police officer, according to the Washington Times.  The officer has been suspended and accused of leaving the fake letter, with a powdery substance, at his post at the Cannon House of Representatives Office Building.  “He’s been accused of this, and he’s suspended without pay, but he hasn’t been charged with anything yet,” said Jim Forbes, a spokesman for U.S. House Administration Committee Chairman Bob Ney (R-Ohio).

The powder found with the letter was not hazardous, but the Capitol Police was taking the situation very seriously, said spokesman Lt. Dan Nichols.  If convicted of a hoax, the officer could face up to five years in prison and up to $3 million in fines (Guy Taylor, Washington Times, Nov. 14).    

Eight mail facilities at Howard University were cleaned yesterday after traces of anthrax had previously been found in the university’s main mailroom (see GSN, Nov. 13), according to university officials.  Separate follow-up testing of the eight facilities are ongoing, and results are due back by Saturday.  Howard’s campus still remains open, Howard spokeswoman Sheila Harvey said (CNN.com, Nov. 13).

Anthrax Investigation Continues

The FBI’s leading theory in the anthrax investigation is that the recent incidents are the work of one or more extremists living in the United States (see GSN, Nov. 1), instead of foreign terrorists, Office of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said yesterday. 

“I think, early on in the discussion about weaponized anthrax, there was a feeling this could have very well been a foreign country or a terrorist state,” Ridge said.  “I think now, based on all of the analysis that they’ve done with this, that they can no longer exclude the possibility of a sophisticated microbiologist with equipment available in this country” (Weiss/Pianin, Washington Post).

FBI agents, accompanied by hazardous materials teams, executed search warrants today at the homes of two Pakistani men in Chester, Pennsylvania, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. 

FBI spokeswoman Linda Vizi did not say if officials thought anthrax or other chemical or biological agents might be in the houses.  “This is a young investigation, a new investigation,” Vizi said.  “We do not know where it’s going to take us.”  Although FBI agents were seen moving about the houses without protective clothing, a Hazmat team did later enter one of the houses, the Inquirer reported (Ralph Vigoda, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 14).

Washington Anthrax Victim’s Family Files Lawsuit

The son of a Washington postal worker who died from inhalation anthrax (see GSN, Oct. 23) has filed suit against Kaiser Permanente in Maryland.  The suit charges that Kaiser Permanente’s doctors failed to recognize and treat Thomas Morris’s anthrax symptoms, according the Wall Street Journal.

Morris went to the Kaiser facility on Oct. 18, complaining of chest constriction, difficulty in breathing and aches, according to the suit.  Morris told the doctor he thought he might have been exposed to anthrax at work because a woman at the postal facility where he worked came upon an envelope filled with powder, according to the suit, which charges that Morris’s doctor sent him home with directions to take Tylenol.

Kaiser plans to “vigorously defend against the lawsuit,” said spokeswoman Susan Whyte.  Two Washington postal workers who survived bouts of inhalation anthrax had been treated by Kaiser doctors as well, Whyte said (Barbara Martinez, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 14). 

Mail at Tainted New Jersey Facility to be Sanitized

Mail kept at the anthrax-tainted Hamilton postal facility, outside of Trenton, New Jersey, will be irradiated this week to kill any bacteria, postal officials said yesterday.  The Hamilton center remains closed and mail is being diverted to other facilities, according to the Associated Press (Lori Hinnant, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 14).

Anthrax Derails SATs

U.S. high school students will get the chance to retake the SATs or receive a refund, because of delays in scoring tests due to the anthrax scare, the College Board, which administers the tests, said yesterday.

Mail delays may have held up nearly 8,000 out of 550,000 exams, the College Board said.  Students may retake the test free of charge on Dec. 1, the next scheduled test date, College Board spokesman John Hamill said.  Several makeup tests are planned for December (Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 14).

A Fine Boxcar of Fish … Or Is It?

Interpol detectives in Europe and South America searched Monday for the person responsible for a note in a railway car of powdered fish arriving in Russia that said it was delivered “with regards from bin Laden,” according to ITAR-Tass. 

Workers unloading the car in Kaliningrad found the note, halted work and sent part of the powdered fish for testing, ITAR-Tass reported (European Internet Network, Nov. 13).  

Back to top

International Response: U.S. and Russia Cooperate

U.S and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin agreed to cooperate against the emerging threat of terrorists using biological weapons, according to a joint statement released by the White House today. 

“At Shanghai, we resolved to enhance cooperation in combating new terrorist threats, including those involving weapons of mass destruction,” Bush and Putin said in the statement.

The two countries agreed to work together on countering the threat of bioterrorism and on related health measures, such as prevention and treatment. The United States and Russia also confirmed their strong commitment to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and agreed to work together to enhance the security of biological materials and expertise that could be used by terrorists (White House release, Nov. 13).

Several U.S. Cabinet Departments, such as the departments of State, Defense and Health and Human Services, have programs with Russia to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons, according to a White House fact sheet.  Those programs aim to increase security for biological warfare materials, dismantle infrastructure that is not needed for peaceful biological research efforts and collaborate research on biodefenses (White House release, Nov. 13).

Back to top

Smallpox: Russians Develop Vaccine Pill

Several Russian scientists plan to begin tests on a tablet form of a smallpox vaccine—instead of an injection form—next year, said Anatoliy Vorobev of the Moscow Medical Academy, Interfax reported Saturday.

Vorobev added that he believed all Russians should be vaccinated against smallpox to prevent disaster if terrorists released the virus on an unprotected population, although he acknowledged the vaccine could have serious side effects, including death.

Meanwhile, Russian Health Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Zharov said nationwide vaccination is out of the question, according to Interfax (Interfax, Nov. 10 in FBIS-SOV, Nov. 13).

Back to top

ABM Treaty: No Progress Yet at Summit

U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin have made little progress on the issues of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and missile defense during their summit meeting, according to reports yesterday.  The two leaders planned to continue the summit today at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. 

“We have different points of view on the ABM Treaty,” Bush said in a news conference with Putin yesterday.

“On the issues of missile defense, the position of Russia remains unchanged, and we agree to continue dialogue and consultations on this,” Putin said (Associated Press/New York Times, Nov. 13).  

Bush may have an opportunity to haggle with Russia when he goes to Moscow in January, according to the Associated Press.  “Let’s look together at what tests you need,” Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said.  “If such tests don’t violate the treaty, why discard it?  We don’t think the ABM Treaty is outdated” (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Washington Post, Nov. 14).

Back to top

ABM Treaty: Senators Urge Withdrawal

Nine U.S. senators wrote to U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday asking him to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  The senators expressed concern that Bush might reach a mutual agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to conduct missile defense tests that would otherwise violate the treaty.

The Republican senators—Trent Lott (Miss.), Jesse Helms (N.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Don Nickles (Okla.), Bob Smith (N.H.), Larry Craig (Idaho), Jim Inhofe (Okla.), Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Rick Santorum (Pa.)—cautioned that false or misleading media reports about the president’s intentions regarding the treaty “could create serious misunderstandings and even, perhaps, miscalculations” among “friends and foes abroad.”

“We are concerned that recent news stories distort your position by reporting that your administration intends to reach an agreement with Russia that would permit full testing of our missile defense program while leaving the ABM Treaty intact,” the senators wrote (italics in original).

The senators urged Bush to withdraw from the treaty, writing that they have worked hard for many years to promote missile defense programs. They affirmed, however, that “the United States cannot deploy missile defenses unless and until it fully extricates itself from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The treaty does not permit violations by mutual consent; and we all know the United States cannot test what we need to without arguably violating its terms” (italics in orginal) (Senate Foreign Relations Committee Republican release, Nov. 13).

Back to top