U.S. Response:  Military Takes on Homeland Defense as Its Civilian Lead Languishes

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — While a new U.S. military command responsible for North America began operating today — codifying the Pentagon’s new role in supporting homeland defense — the Bush administration and Congress remain deadlocked over the establishment of a new civilian homeland security department to spearhead the domestic war on terrorism and the prevention of future attacks.  Administration officials had intended both the U.S. Northern Command and homeland security department to become operational today.

Both sides have all but given up on reaching a deal this year on the proposed homeland security department, and the disagreement threatens the U.S. ability to mount an adequate defense, government officials and experts said.

Northern Command Begins Operations

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz today joined Northern Command leader Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart to dedicate the new command, which will begin operations with an annual budget of $70 million and 582 employees in Colorado Springs, Colo., and other locations around the country (see GSN, May 9).

For the first time in the country’s history, a single military command will be assigned the mission of defending the continental United States and Alaska.  In addition, the new command will oversee U.S. military activities in Canada, Mexico, the Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, Puerto Rico and the oceans surrounding the United States out to 500 miles.  Hawaii will remain the responsibility of the U.S. Pacific Command.

“This is very, very much new territory, especially for the U.S. military,” Peter Verga, special assistant to the defense secretary for homeland security, said at a Heritage Foundation discussion last month.  “We haven’t operated inside the United States since the Civil War, and we like it that way.  But this is a different world, and we have prepared to do that.”

Today’s opening ceremony will also mark the merging of the U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs with the U.S. Strategic Command at Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska.  Navy Adm. James Ellis plans to head the modified Strategic Command (see GSN, June 25).

The Northern Command will not have a significant number of combat forces permanently assigned to it but will nevertheless be able to call on air, naval and ground forces to respond to a threat emanating from outside U.S. borders as well as specialized units to support recovery efforts after a domestic terrorist attack, including chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological attack.

“If it’s an external threat coming in, we will have the lead,” Eberhart said recently.  “If it’s internal, we will assist.”

Verga said the Northern Command’s most valuable contribution to domestic security, however, would be its ability to plan for worst-case scenarios.  “With regard to what we are calling the ‘high-end’ problems — the extraordinary circumstances under which we might have to operate — having a single command responsible for both the planning and execution of those activities is important,” Verga said.  A hypothetical “high-end” event, he said, would be a simultaneous detonation of nuclear weapons in multiple U.S. cities.

To meet its new responsibilities, the Northern Command will rely heavily on the National Guard.  “We can’t have a Northern Command, we can’t provide for the homeland defense … without the National Guard,” Eberhart told guard leaders in California in early September.

Still No Homeland Security Department

The Northern Command is just a small piece, however, of the homeland security puzzle.  It is beginning operations as the proposed civilian agency designed to take the lead in homeland security has fallen victim to Washington politics.

While there is little disagreement about the structure of the proposed colossal homeland security department — to include 170,000 personnel from 22 different federal agencies — the White House and congressional Democrats are locked in a struggle over workers’ rights (see GSN, Sept. 18). 

Bush wants to reserve the right to hire or transfer department employees or to deny them union rights in the name of national security, while critical lawmakers are arguing that the new department’s employees should have the same labor rights as all other federal workers.  The debate has degenerated into an election-year fight, in which the White House has accused Democrats of caring more about their union supporters than defending the United States.

As lawmakers begin debate this week on an Iraq war resolution, observers expect the homeland security department to be placed on the back burner until after Nov. 5 elections and possibly until a new Congress meets next year.

Government officials and experts have contended that the delay in coordinating the various homeland security missions into a single domestic agency will stall efforts to improve overall security.

For example, the new department would serve as a critical link between national intelligence agencies that are gauging the terrorist threat and the local and state authorities that will probably be the first responders to a terrorist attack and be in a unique position to act on new intelligence to shore up vulnerabilities.

According to Winston Wiley, the CIA’s associate director for homeland security, it will be increasingly important for nontraditional customers such as state and local officials to be provided with classified and unclassified threat information.  He said at an August homeland security conference in Philadelphia sponsored by the Government Emerging Technology Alliance that a presidential directive is being crafted to improve information sharing with state and local officials.

Meanwhile, the new department should be important in helping intelligence agencies provide better vulnerability assessments of U.S. infrastructure, officials said.

“Generalized threat assessments do not do anyone any good,” said James Simon, assistant director of central intelligence for administration.  Local and state authorities need specific information to match general threat information, he said.  For example, a general assessment from intelligence agencies might say that a fertilizer plant next to a railroad in Iowa is a target.  What is needed, officials said, is a specialist at the homeland security department who knows there are only one or two possibilities that match that specific profile.

Perhaps the most worrisome scenario is the need to coordinate recovery efforts following a domestic terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction.  The proposed homeland security agency would call on the military and other agencies for assistance in this regard, but would be ultimately responsible for the government’s response.

Officials said that the least work has been done in this area.  “This is serious stuff and it’s critical we get it right,” said Steve Cooper, special assistant to the president and chief information officer of the White House Office of Homeland Security, intended as the precursor to the new department.  “We do not have a good handle around bioterrorism and weapons of mass destruction.”

Moreover, he said, the government has not done a good job of communicating with the U.S. public, which he believes knows little about what the proposed department is designed to do.

Back to top

Iraq I:  U.N., Iraq Agree on Renewed Inspections

U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials agreed tentatively on inspection terms today in Vienna following two days of talks at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna (see GSN, Sept. 30).  Iraqi officials said the United Nations would send an advance team of inspectors to Iraq in two weeks.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Iraq has accepted “all the rights of inspections that are laid down” in previous U.N. resolutions.  Iraq also handed Blix four disks containing reports on Iraqi dual-use facilities, thus filling a backlog of reports not made since 1998.

Under today’s agreement, limits to the rights of U.N. inspectors to visit presidential sites in Iraq will remain in effect, as they are provided for in existing U.N. Security Council resolutions (William Kole, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 1).

During previous rounds of inspections, Iraq created logistical problems, experts said.  Inspectors’ hotel rooms were broken into, they were provided poor transportation to sites and, on a few occasions, even had food dumped on them during meals, experts said.

“Even if you’re only talking about logistics, the Iraqis can put up hurdles that make the inspectors’ lives very difficult,” said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control (Mark Landler, New York Times, Oct. 1).

Draft U.N. Resolution

Meanwhile, more details emerged today on a U.S. draft resolution to the U.N. Security Council calling for a new inspection regime in Iraq.

Included is a proposal that would give U.N. inspectors the authority to establish “no-fly” and “no-drive” zones around suspected sites with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, according to the Washington Post.  These zones could be “enforced by U.N. security forces or U.N. member states.”

The Bush administration has not yet decided whether to keep the proposal in the resolution when it is formally submitted to the U.N. Security Council, which could happen as early as Thursday, U.S. and U.N. diplomats said.  The proposal is “still very much in play,” a U.S. official said.

The resolution also says Iraq is in “material breach” of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement and would require Iraq to allow weapons scientists and other officials to leave the country to be interviewed by weapons inspectors, the Post reported.  Under the resolution, Iraq would be required to provide a list of personnel connected to suspected WMD programs.

The U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the IAEA “may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside Iraq or facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that such interviews shall occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government,” the resolution says.

The resolution would force Iraq to allow the United Nations to station security forces in key areas to safeguard inspectors, the Post reported.  It would also give U.N. Security Council members the right to recommend sites for inspection and to request permission to have their representatives be included in inspections (Washington Post, Oct. 1).

Consulting the Security Council

Although there is not yet agreement among the five permanent Security Council members, U.S. and British officials yesterday briefed the 10 elected members of the council for the second time without showing them the actual wording of the draft resolution. 

A diplomat at the meeting said the U.S. Deputy Ambassador James Cunningham told the 10 that this is the “last chance for peace” and that British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said, “Iraq will not move unless the pressure is real.” Cunningham described the resolution as “the legal basis for disarmament,” according to the diplomat, “Only through genuine disarmament can war be less likely.”  The diplomat described the draft as “a serious resolution, it’s tough, but it’s not unreasonable.”

Since details of the draft started circulating last week, the 10 states have only made general comments on their governments’ position until the actual wording was in hand.  The 10 had their first briefing on Friday.  Greenstock said Washington and London had hoped to have the draft then, the diplomat said, but they wanted “a unified position” among the permanent five members of the council first.

The five — the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and China — are scheduled to hold another meeting today.

A normal procedure within the council, especially on contentious issues, is for the permanent five members to work out a draft resolution among themselves and after they reach agreement, present it to the 10 elected council members. But it is clear from their public statements that the divisions among the five have not yet been bridged.  This raises the possibility that a vote in the council on a final version of the draft may be weeks away.

Hans Blix, the U.N.’s chief weapons inspector, is working on a timeline that would place inspectors in Iraq by Oct. 15.  Blix is operating under the mandate of Resolution 1284, one of the resolutions the U.S.-British draft would override.  U.S. officials have said they do not want inspectors in Iraq until a new mandate is in place. (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Oct. 1)

United Kingdom Reaches Compromise

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed today to a resolution in the British Parliament calling for a U.N. mandate before launching a military strike on Iraq, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Sept. 27).  The resolution is expected to help ease concerns within Blair’s Labor Party over his support for the United States.

The resolution, which passed by a show of hands during the Labor Party’s annual conference, says that British military forces should participate in an attack on Iraq only “after the exhaustion of all other political and diplomatic means.”  The conference later voted 60 percent to 40 percent against a motion to condemn military action, according to the Post.  The two votes indicated the high amount of concern within the Labor Party over Blair’s support for military action against Iraq, party officials said.

“The party is reasonably anxious about military action and this is good,” said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.  “It’s an anxiety which I share and the prime minister shares.”

The votes also demonstrated to Blair that he might risk his political future if he were to commit British troops to an attack on Iraq without U.N. backing, some conference participants said.

“He’s got to be worried about the party, but he should be even more concerned about the country as a whole,” said Tony Benn, a former member of the Parliament.

“President [George W.] Bush is determined to go to war,” said Alice Mahon, a current member of the Parliament.  “I believe it’s a disgrace our government is the only one in the Western world willing to back him” (Washington Post, Oct. 1).

Senators Propose Alternative Resolutions

In the United States today, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and ranking Republican committee member Richard Lugar (Ind.) released an alternative to a White House resolution authorizing U.S. military action against Iraq (see related GSN story, today).

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she plans to introduce an amendment that would authorize U.S. military action only if Iraq were to fail to comply with U.N. resolutions within 30 days.  The amendment would also require Bush to certify that all diplomatic measures had failed, according to Feinstein.

The various changes and alternatives to the White House draft resolution are unlikely to be supported if brought up for consideration on their own, according to the Times.  Senate leaders have estimated that between 75 and 80 senators would probably vote for the White House draft resolution, and the House of Representatives is also likely to support it, the Times reported.  Any changes accepted by the Bush administration, however, could help reduce the number of votes and amendments against the White House draft resolution during congressional debate, according to the Times.  Congressional aides have said they want this to happen to demonstrate a united front against Iraq.

“Our goal from the outset has been to construct a resolution that helps the president attract strong bipartisan support,” Biden and Lugar said in a joint statement (David Firestone, New York Times, Oct. 1).

[EDITOR’S NOTE:  Richard Lugar is a Nuclear Threat Initiative board member.  NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

IAEA Iraq Action Team

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Pre-Emptive Attack Would Be Unprecedented, Report Says

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States has never in its history attacked another country to pre-empt a suspected attack, says a report recently released by a research arm of the Congress, apparently contradicting recent assertions by top Bush administration officials.

“The historical record indicates that the United States has never, to date, engaged in a ‘pre-emptive’ military attack against another nation,” says the report, published Sept. 18 by Congressional Research Service analyst Richard Grimmett and released online Thursday by the State Department.

In attempting to build a case for a possible war against Iraq, senior U.S. officials in the past week have argued the contrary — that there are precedents in U.S. history for pre-emptive military action.

“It’s not a new doctrine.  It’s been around for as long as warfare has been around,” Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing Thursday.  “I can give you example after example in our own history of pre-emptive actions,” he said, citing the U.S. action in 1989 to arrest Panamanian President Manuel Noriega and cruise missile attacks ordered by former U.S. President Bill Clinton against a suspected chemical weapons facility in Sudan (see GSN, Sept. 27).

At a press briefing the same day, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld contended that the U.S. blockade ordered by former President John F. Kennedy during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis offers an example of pre-emptive military action.

“In my view, establishing what he called a quarantine, what the world thought of as a blockade, and preventing, if you will, the Soviet Union from placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, that was certainly self-defense, it was certainly anticipatory self-defense, it was certainly preventative, and we were very close to a crisis of historic proportion,” Rumsfeld said.  “And I think it’s not unfair or inaccurate to say that he … engaged in pre-emption.”

Questions of Definition

The CRS analysis argues that none of those actions constitutes pre-emption, though it does not specifically address the cruise missile attacks ordered by Clinton.  It defines pre-emptive use of military force as that taken against another country to “prevent or mitigate a presumed military attack or use of force by that nation against the United States.”

While the United States did attack Spanish forces prior to an attack from them during the 1898 Spanish-American War, the report says, the principal U.S. goal for action “was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its political independence.”

A case using “a less stringent definition” of a pre-emptive attack might be made for U.S. action during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the report says, but it rejects that, saying the blockade did not constitute an attack.  The missile crisis, the report says, represented “a threat situation which some may argue had elements more parallel to those presented by Iraq today — but it was resolved without a ‘pre-emptive’ military attack by the United States.”  Pre-emptive force then was contemplated, but ultimately not used, the report says.

In other cases — such as World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the 1990-91 Gulf War and the Bosnian and Kosovo operations in the 1990s — U.S. military action occurred in response to attack and was not pre-emptive in nature, the report says.

U.S. military interventions in Latin America, specifically in the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983 and Panama, the report says, were based on concerns that U.S. citizens or other U.S. interests were being harmed by the political instability in those countries at the time of the interventions, the report says.  Those were not pre-emptive actions, it says, because those countries were not expected to attack the United States militarily.

The United States has attempted covert action, the report says, to prevent foreign groups or figures from gaining or maintaining political power, citing Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954 and Cuba in 1961.  It adds, however, that none of those instances qualify as pre-emptive acts because the sizes of U.S. forces were much smaller than a major conventional military operation.  “It seems more appropriate to view U.S. ‘covert actions’ as adjuncts to more extensive U.S. military actions,” it says.

An Expanded Definition

In their statements, Rumsfeld and Powell appear to be making a case for a more expansive definition than that used in the CRS study.  For example, Kennedy in 1962 “decided to engage in pre-emptive action, preventative action, anticipatory self defense, self defense, call it what you wish,” Rumsfeld said Friday.

According to customary international law dating to the mid-19^th century, pre-emptive force is allowed if a threat is deemed imminent and overwhelming, for instance, if armies are seen massing on a border.  The administration released a major national security strategy document last month arguing for pre-emptive action, calling for a reinterpretation of the customary law in order to address challenges posed by attackers using weapons of mass destruction, which might not exhibit tangible signs of an attack (See GSN, Sept. 20).

Search for Consensus

The question of definitions and precedents for pre-emptive action has potential implications for the Bush administration’s case for attacking Iraq to remove the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and eliminate the threat posed by the country’s weapons of mass destruction.

The administration has been struggling to persuade three permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to authorize force against Iraq if it continues to defy previous Security Council resolutions.  Meanwhile, administration officials have been attempting to build a case under customary international law by asserting a new understanding of that law, according to Frederic Kirgis, a law professor at the Washington and Lee University.

“They are essentially trying to say that there are precedents for this and that since we got away with it, I don’t think Rumsfeld would put it that way, we created law already and it would authorize us to do what we’re trying to do now,” he said.

The administration has encountered opposition from U.S. senators of both major political parties and from foreign governments.  Administration officials are going to the trouble to obtain justification under international law, Kirgis said, because, “We have to get along with the rest of the world.  We have to have other governments on our side if we want to be effective with terrorism, and for international diplomacy.  So there are pressures to comply,” he said.

There also is a concern about setting a precedent for other governments to act pre-emptively, Kirgis said.  Some Russian analysts have suggested that pre-emptive action against Iraq, despite a lack of public evidence that the country is planning an imminent and overwhelming attack, could provide justification for Russian action in the republic of Georgia.

Israel is said to have used pre-emptive force twice, one approved by much of the international community and one rejected.  The U.N. Security Council and General Assembly rejected proposals to condemn Israel for launching a pre-emptive attack in 1967 on Egypt and other Arab countries after Egyptian forces were moved toward Israel.  The Security Council unanimously condemned Israel after it bombed a partially built Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

Back to top

Iraq II:  Leading U.S. Senators Propose Modified Resolution

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Two senior U.S. senators today released an alternative resolution to the one proposed by the White House to authorize force against Iraq (see GSN, Sept. 20).

The proposed resolution, drafted by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) and senior Republican committee member Richard Lugar (Ind.), would authorize the use of force, but it differs from the administration’s resolution in several ways.

In particular, it would authorize the use of force specifically on Iraq, as opposed to the entire Middle East region as requested by U.S. President George W. Bush.

The alternative resolution specifies that force would be allowed in the event that Iraq continues to defy U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 and prevents the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction.  The White House version would allow for the use of force, for instance, if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein continues to defy U.N. resolutions on human rights violations and fails to return detainees and property seized during the Gulf War.

Further, the Biden-Lugar proposal requires that the Bush administration either obtain a U.N. resolution authorizing force or a presidential determination that the Iraqi threat is so grave it requires the use of force.  It says specifically that force may be used if it is determined “that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary despite the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution.”

The resolution also says that force can be used “in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.”  The right of self-defense already is guaranteed under the U.N. charter.

The Bush administration’s proposal was introduced as a resolution last week by Senators Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

“Our goal from the outset has been to construct a resolution that helps the president attract strong bipartisan support in Congress,” said Biden and Lugar in a statement released today.  “We believe our proposal best comports with the president’s stated objectives.”

[EDITOR’S NOTE:  Richard Lugar is a Nuclear Threat Initiative board member.  NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]

Back to top

U.S. Export Controls:  Commerce Accuses Sun Microsystems of Illegal Sales

The U.S. Commerce Department has accused Sun Microsystems Inc., which makes high-performance computing hardware, of violating export regulations in sales to Egypt and China, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2001).

Sun — which is based in Santa Clara, Calif., and relies on overseas sales for more than half of its revenue — disclosed the allegations in an annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The 1998 sale to Egypt involved improper notification, said Sun spokesman Andy Lark.  The 1997 sale to China took place through a Hong Kong reseller, according to the Times (Joseph Menn, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 1).

The Commerce Department’s Office of Export Enforcement sent letters in February 2002 to Sun and two subsidiaries, accusing them of violating export control regulations, according to the SEC filing.  The department has given Sun until Nov. 1 to respond to the letters, and U.S. officials have also told Sun that more charges will probably be added.

Sun, which is in settlement discussions with authorities, could be subject to fines or denial of export privileges, according to the filing.  The evidence does not support denial of export privileges, Sun said, and a fine would not have a “material adverse effect” on the company (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission release).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Duma Committees Debate Reductions Treaty

Russian lawmakers are meeting today to discuss the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in closed door debates in the State Duma committees on international affairs and defense (see GSN, Sept. 19).  Analysts in Russia believe the Duma might ratify the Moscow Treaty before winter, ITAR-Tass reported (ITAR-Tass, Oct. 1).

For further information, see:

U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)

Bush Announces Moscow Treaty

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Moscow Treaty

Back to top

United States:  Boeing Abandons Non-U.S. Sales Effort for Bomber

Australia and the United Kingdom have rejected an informal effort by U.S. defense contractor Boeing to resell U.S. Air Force B-1B long-range bombers, Aerospace Daily reported today (see GSN, June 24).  As a result, Boeing will not attempt to sell the aircraft to any additional countries, according to a company official.

Australia and the United Kingdom were put off by “a perception of high operating cost,” the official said.

Last year the Pentagon decided to retire more than 30 B-1Bs to a base in Arizona while refitting the remaining 60 (see GSN, Aug. 12; Stephen Trimble, Aerospace Daily, Oct. 1).

Back to top

International Response:  Central Asian Negotiators Complete Draft Treaty

Representatives from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan agreed last week to the text of a Central Asian nuclear weapon-free zone treaty (see GSN, Sept. 4).  Treaty talks in Uzbekistan ran Sept. 25-27, completing five years of work on the agreement.  Negotiators were hopeful that the treaty would be signed quickly (U.N. release, Sept. 30).

Back to top

CTBT:  Samoa Ratifies Treaty

Samoa ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Friday (see GSN, Sept. 30).  The country hosts one auxiliary seismological station that contributes to the treaty’s International Monitoring System.  To date, 166 nations have signed the treaty and 96 have ratified it, including 31 of the 44 nations whose ratifications are necessary for the treaty to enter into force (CTBT Organization Web site, Oct. 1).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  BWC Protocol, Proposed Alternatives Both Fall Short

By Anne Marie Pecha
Global Security Newswire

Inspectors would not have had a “fighting chance” to enforce the Biological Weapons Convention under the draft monitoring protocol that the United States rejected last year, but U.S.-proposed alternatives to the protocol also fall short, industry experts wrote in a report released last month (see GSN, Sept. 19).

Written by 11 industry researchers and executives and published by the Stimson Center, Compliance Through Science:  U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry Experts on a Strengthened Bioweapons Nonproliferation Regime examines the Bush administration’s alternative proposals and offers further suggestions for monitoring and implementing the convention.

According to the report, the Bush administration has proposed two avenues for enforcing the convention — international monitoring plus domestic laws and practices.  Because the monitoring proposals have focused on voluntary inspections, they lack substance, the experts wrote.  Additionally, because the proposals regarding domestic regulations have emphasized national autonomy over international standards, they would probably lead to an “uneven patchwork” of practices that would be difficult “to harmonize,” they wrote.

Monitoring

Bush administration officials have said the U.N. secretary general should maintain responsibility for investigating suspicious biological facilities and incidents.  The industry experts, however, rejected the idea, saying that it has failed many times in the past.

“Industry experts could find little merit in leaving the capability to investigate suspicious disease outbreaks in the hands of the very body that failed to do anything to explore the … charges of BWC violations voiced over the last quarter century,” they wrote.

The Bush administration has also proposed requesting individual governments to voluntarily open sites of concern to inspection, but in such a scenario a violator could hide violations from inspectors and governments could politically misuse the threat of inspections against competing facilities, according to the report.

International officials should agree on detailed monitoring strategies and techniques to “detect and sort out inconsistencies” between practice and stated purpose at manufacturing plants and research laboratories, the experts wrote.  Also, U.S. officials should comply with a 1999 congressional mandate for a cost-benefit analysis based on trial inspections at U.S. facilities that explore various strategies and techniques.

Laws and Practices

The Bush administration has suggested several ways in which countries should unilaterally improve the Biological Weapons Convention.  The suggestions include strengthening procedures to survey disease outbreaks, oversee genetic engineering research, enhance safety for biological researchers, criminalize offensive biological weapons research, secure dangerous pathogens and develop codes of conduct for researchers that work with such organisms, according to the report.  Although none of these suggestions is harmful, alone they would fail to meet the goals of the treaty because they provide no international standards, the experts wrote.

“Many governments will enact measures that fall short of worthwhile standards either unintentionally, because they cannot decipher the existing discrepant regulatory concepts, or intentionally, because they seek to perpetuate illicit activies,” they wrote.

Countries should support disease surveillance through the World Health Organization and negotiate an international treaty to criminalize biological weapons, the report says.  Countries should also adopt standardized safety, security and oversight rules and procedures for relevant biological materials and areas of research, the authors said (see GSN, Sept. 27).  International officials should establish a list of pathogens and toxins that should be subject to controls.

“Allowing governments to set their own arbitrary standards” is not “a constructive step forward,” the authors wrote.  In fact, the United States “needs to get its own house in better order,” they added.  For example, privately funded institutions in the United States are not required to adhere to certain guidelines from the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, the report says.  Additionally, basic training in biological safety and research practices has diminished at U.S. academic facilities in recent decades, according to the experts.

Consequences

Finally, to enforce the Biological Weapons Convention, officials should establish standard penalties for violating it, the report says.  The threat of violators losing jobs, grants or licenses might help prevent some potential violators from making “only a minimal effort to abide by the regulations,” the experts wrote.

Overall, to implement all of the suggested measures for monitoring and strengthening the treaty, officials should create an international body “to coordinate, promote and administer” activities, the experts wrote.

“Singly, research oversight, biosafety and biosecurity enhancement measures will not go far in thwarting nations or terrorists from engaging in wayward research, experiencing leaks at covert weapons facilities or gaining access to dangerous pathogens,” the report says.  “Collectively, however, global adoption of … guidelines … would raise the bar, hampering the ability of aspiring proliferators to achieve an offensive weapons capability.”

Back to top

Anthrax:  British Rapid Reaction Troops Volunteer for Anthrax Vaccine

The United Kingdom has inoculated as many as 14,000 elite military personnel with the anthrax vaccine in the last three months, the London Times reported today (see GSN, July 19).

Since the country’s voluntary immunization program was expanded in June, 46 percent of the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces has received the vaccination.  The joint forces — which include personnel from the Royal Navy, Army and Air Force — would be the first British troops sent to Iraq for a conflict there (Michael Evans, London Times, Oct. 1).

Back to top

Russia:  Shchuchye Disposal Plant Runs Out of U.S. Funds

Construction of a Russian chemical weapons disposal plant located near the city of Shchuchye could come to a halt if the U.S. Defense Department does not receive congressional approval to provide more funding, USA Today reported today (see GSN, Aug. 23).

The Pentagon plans to begin canceling Shchuchye construction contracts this month because it has run out of funds for the project today, the start of fiscal 2003, officials said.   The Pentagon has requested $126 million for construction at Shchuchye.  To maintain the project, it needs at least $35 million in funding blocked by Congress, according to USA Today.

“If we don’t get this money, we’re going to have to start taking down the (contracting) teams we’ve assembled,” said Thomas Kuenning, chief of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (see GSN, April 3).

Congress approved the $35 million for the Shchuchye project in its fiscal 2002 budget, but legislators set certain conditions that are blocking the Pentagon from using the funds.  The conditions include six criteria, such as providing an inventory of its chemical weapons stockpile, that Russia must meet before funds are released (see GSN, March 20).

Opponents of the Shchuchye project “are using these criteria as a stick to hit the Russians,” said Michael Moodie, president of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in Washington.  “Their feeling is, ‘If we’re going to have these assistance programs, we’re going to make it as hard as we can for the Russians.’”

The Bush administration has asked Congress for the authority to overturn the criteria, USA Today reported (see GSN, Aug. 1).  Congress might approve a limited short-term waiver this year, Representative Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said.

“A blanket waiver removes some of the leverage we have to make sure Russia complies with the intended purposes for these funds,” Thornberry said (see GSN, July 19).  “The bigger issue is how big is the problem and if we spend this much money, how much of a dent will it make?”

Waiver opponents have said Russia has not provided an accurate account of its chemical weapons arsenal and has not provided the United States with enough access to chemical weapons sites.  Nuclear Threat Initiative Chief Executive Officer Sam Nunn has said, however, that waiver opponents have misplaced their focus.

“They want a confession, and what we need is a solution,” Nunn said, adding Russia has shown “good faith” so far in its chemical weapons disposal program.

Russian officials have said the hold on promised U.S. funds is unnecessary.  Russia has increased its own contribution to its chemical weapons disposal program and has replaced ineffective military managers with civilians, they said.

“We are fulfilling all of our obligations,” said Nikolai Plate, of the Russian State Commission on Chemical Disarmament.  “The U.S. promised this money, and they should give it to us and come see that we will use it to destroy the weapons” (Peter Eisler, USA Today, Oct. 1).

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group, Inc.]

Back to top

First Committee:  U.N. General Assembly Begins Annual Disarmament Debate

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — With world attention focusing on eliminating Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, speakers at the opening day of the General Assembly’s disarmament committee yesterday said disarmament is the responsibility of all states.

“Some 30,000 nuclear weapons reportedly remain in stockpiles around the world, annual military expenditures are rapidly approaching the $1 trillion level with no ceiling in sight,” Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala told the committee.  “We continue to see references to strategic doctrines that call for the use of nuclear weapons — including doctrines that do not exclude pre-emptive use of such weapons even against non-nuclear-weapons states.”

Ambassador Mary Whelan of Ireland said, “Emerging approaches to the broader role of nuclear weapons, including the development of new types of nuclear weapons and new rationalisations for their use, give urgency to our concerns.”

Whelan was speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, a group of seven countries  — Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, Sweden, New Zealand and South Africa — which since 1997 has been promoting multilateral disarmament measures aiming for a nuclear weapon-free world.

“It is the firm belief of the NAC that the horrific events which took place one year ago in this city have underlined the importance of the multilateral approach to disarmament,” said Whelan.  “These events and the possibility that terrorists could make use of weapons of mass destruction have highlighted the importance of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  These attacks have been a wake-up call.  It is time to take the necessary collective action in relation to nuclear disarmament.”

The disarmament committee is one of six committees of the General Assembly.  Every year, the committee meets to debate arms control and disarmament issues and vote on resolutions outlining countries’ priorities in the field.

Whelan said her coalition would introduce two draft resolutions this session.  One draft calls on nuclear weapon states to focus on several immediate steps to cut the number of nuclear weapons and reduce the possibility of their use.  The second draft deals with reductions in tactical nuclear weapons.

The only significant development in nuclear arms control this year has been the strategic arms treaty between the United States and Russia, and it received only qualified support in the United Nations.  While welcoming the treaty, Dhanapala also implied this was not true disarmament.  The treaty, he said, “has inspired new hopes that this progress may one day spill over into the realms of actual disarmament, transparency, and verification, while progressively incorporating new disarmament commitments from other states that possess such weapons.”

A ministerial statement by the coalition called the treaty  “a positive step,” but also “stressed that reductions in the deployment and operational status of nuclear weapons can not be a substitute for irreversible cuts in, and the total elimination of, these weapons.”

Malaysia’s Ambassador Hasmy Agam said he was concerned over “the lack of real progress in nuclear disarmament over the past year” and an international climate “characterized by the steady erosion of the multilateral process.”

“Thousands of nuclear weapons continue to be stockpiled in the arsenals of the nuclear powers, while progress in the negotiations on nuclear disarmament remain negligible,” Hasmy said, calling the U.S. withdrawal from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty “a serious challenge to the validity and viability of multilateral disarmament diplomacy.”

Dhanapala called the new attention on inspections in Iraq “another challenge.  It is gratifying to witness the outpouring of international support for the integrity of United Nations Security Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq and the need for full compliance with those resolutions.  As a general principle, all disarmament obligations should indeed be rigorously enforced — compliance is an absolutely vital issue for the effectiveness and credibility of disarmament activities.”

In a year that has seen several high-profile development conferences, Dhanapala raised an issue the conferences did not:  the link between disarmament and development.  “Despite its other achievements, the recent World Summit in Johannesburg on Sustainable Development, for example, missed an extraordinary opportunity to address this issue,” he said. 

“Though the Summit’s Implementation Plan referred to peace and security as ‘essential’ for sustainable development, it took no account of this year’s global military expenditure, now estimated at over $850 billion. Yet according to the [U.N. Development Program’s] latest Human Development Report, all of the Millennium Development Goals could be met if official development assistance were increased by about $50 billion — just a fraction of current military spending — and sustained at that level. Are we so trapped in a weapon-based security syndrome that we have forgotten how disarmament serves development goals?” Dhanapala said.

For more on the disarmament committee’s debate, click here.

Back to top