U.S. Response:  Italy Agrees to Join Container Security Initiative

Italy has agreed to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, the U.S. Customs Service announced Thursday.  The service plans to station U.S. inspectors at the Italian ports of La Spezia and Genoa, according to a Customs press release (see GSN, Nov. 6).

Officials have previously made arrangements to station U.S. inspectors at ports in China, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada (see GSN, Oct. 28; U.S. Customs Service release, Nov. 7).

For further information, see:

Fact sheet on U.S. Container Security Initiative

U.S. Customs Container Security Initiative Information

Back to top

Iraq:  Baghdad Debates U.N. Resolution

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has convened an emergency parliamentary session to consider the recently approved resolution in the United Nations to inspect Iraqi sites with suspected weapons of mass destruction, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Nov. 8).

“The National Assembly is expected to express support for Iraq’s leadership and mandate it to take the decision it deems to be in the interest of the Iraqi people,” a source close to the Iraqi Parliament said.

The Parliament is expected to criticize the new U.N. resolution, echoing official comments that it is “bad and unfair,” as a source said to the official Iraqi News Agency Saturday.  The source also said that Baghdad is “quietly studying” the resolution, indicating that Hussein might agree to it by the Nov. 15 deadline (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Nov. 11).

Arab League Urges Iraqi Support

Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo yesterday said that Iraq would probably comply with the new U.N. resolution.  After a day-long meeting, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said “no decision has been taken” on Iraq’s acceptance of the new resolution.  Arab League sources, however, said Sabri had told them that Iraq would probably comply.

In a statement, the participants of yesterday’s meeting urged Hussein to accept the new resolution as part of an effort “to solve all standing issues peacefully in preparation for the lifting of sanctions and the end of the (U.N.) embargo as well as the suffering of the Iraqi people.”

Also in the statement, the Arab League foreign ministers asserted their “absolute rejection” of military action against Iraq.  Several Arab states see the U.N. resolution as a means of avoiding war in the region, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“The U.N. resolution provides the opportunity for a peaceful settlement,” Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said.  “The resolution has pushed the phantom of war into the distance for several weeks or several months.  Our goal is to spare Iraq and the region from a military strike,” he said.

At yesterday’s meeting, Arab leaders indicated to Sabri that they would not support Iraq if it were ignore the resolution, the Times reported.

“We’re telling Iraq the Americans are really serious and this time we’re not with you,” said a senior adviser to one Arab delegation.  “If you reject the resolution, you’re on your own.  You’ve got no choice,” the source said (David Lamb, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 11).

Syria Votes Yes

Meanwhile, Syria voted to support the new U.N. resolution on Iraq because of assurances from permanent Security Council members that it would not be used as a pretext for military action, Syrian Deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad has said.  The resolution also reaffirmed the council’s primary role in dealing with Iraq and preserved Iraq’s sovereignty, he said.

Some experts said that Syria gave its support to the resolution because it feared being on the losing side of the vote.  Syria voted yes because once France, Russia and China — which had each opposed the U.S. draft — gave their support, Syria did not want to be seen as “the odd one out,” said Walid Kazziha, a professor of politics at the American University in Cairo.

“For Syria, the priority is the Israeli-Palestinian issue,” Kazziha said.  “Syria does not want to be in the U.S.’s bad books on this point” (Edith Lederer Associated Press/Jordan Times, Nov. 10).

U.S. View

U.S. officials have begun to urge Hussein to comply with the U.N. resolution, raising the threat of military action if he does not, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“If (Hussein) doesn’t comply this time, we are going to ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on CNN’s Late Edition.  “If the U.N. isn’t willing to do that, the United States, with like-minded nations, will go and disarm him forcefully.”

Under the new resolution, Hussein has until Dec. 8 to declare or surrender all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs and U.N. inspectors have a Feb. 21 deadline to report to the Security Council.  Powell indicated, however, that the United States might not wait until the February report to determine whether Iraq is complying.

“We’re not going to wait until February to see if Iraq is cooperating or not,” Powell said.  U.S. and U.N. officials “will be able to make a judgment as to cooperation very quickly, not sometime in February,” he added.

Hussein “knows if he violates this resolution, military force is coming in to take him and his regime out,” Powell said (Lamb, Los Angeles Times).

U.S. War Plans

Senior U.S. military officials have said that the Bush administration has decided on an invasion plan for Iraq based on capturing most of the country quickly and isolating Baghdad, but the administration is also envisioning that Hussein will be overthrown before U.S. troops attack the city, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Oct. 29).

The Defense Department is preparing for possible protracted urban combat in and around Baghdad, according to the Post.  White House military planners believe there could be bloody skirmishes in Baghdad and in Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit even if he is overthrown, the senior military officials said.

The U.S. war plan, which is still in development, tries to consider regional sensitivities by seeking to inflict the minimum amount of damage needed to achieve U.S. goals, the Post reported.  To do so, the plan involves a relatively small U.S. force quickly launching focused attacks.  Taking into account the possibility that Iraqi resistance will be higher than expected, however, it includes deployment of enough troops — 150,000 U.S. and allied soldiers — to combat the Iraqi Republican Guard.

“The point is that if things don’t go as we hope, there will be enough forces on hand to deal with it,” said a Pentagon official who was briefed on the plan late last month.

The U.S. plan is also designed to cause Iraqis to revolt against Hussein, according to the Post.  The plans seeks to “create the conditions” needed for the Iraqis to do so, a White House official said.

“I think ultimately this is more of a revolution that’s going to happen, rather than something brought about by U.S. military power,” the official said.

To ferment a revolt, a U.S. attack on Iraq would begin with a campaign of simultaneous air strikes, ground attacks and psychological operations meant to destroy the Iraqi security police and other pro-Hussein institutions, the Post reported.

“You have to shake the regime to its core,” one defense expert said.  “You’ve got to pursue the pillars of the regime across the board,” the expert added.

If Hussein were quickly overthrown, then U.S. troops would not have to assault Baghdad, according to military planners.  “The feeling is, they’ll be successful in the first phase, and then the next phase won’t be necessary, because the regime will fall and a new regime will take over,” one planner said.

The current U.S. plan for an attack on Iraq better resembles planning for the 1989 invasion of Panama than the 1991 Gulf War, some experts have said.

“This is looking more and more like a Panama-style takedown, a special operation writ large, but with significant follow-on forces … to pacify any bypassed pockets, prevent too many reprisal killings of the Baathists and reduce any holdouts,” said Tom Donnelly, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who is co-author of a history of the invasion of Panama (Thomas Ricks, Washington Post, Nov. 10).

Iraqi Reconstruction

The Bush administration has also begun planning for a post-Hussein Iraq, envisioning deployment of thousands of U.S. troops within the country and the creation of an international civil authority, possibly headed by a U.S. official, that would control Iraq for at least two years, the Wall Street Journal reported today.

The U.S. military is expected to directly control Iraq for up to four months following the overthrow of Hussein, according to officials.  During that time, the U.S. military would work to deliver humanitarian supplies, secure Iraqi WMD stockpiles and maintain law and order.  Several thousand Iraqi exiles would be trained to serve as police to assist U.S. troops, officials said.

After a few months, military control would be replaced by a civil administration supported by U.S. troops, and possibly by an international force, according to the Journal.  According to the White House plan, Iraqi officials who were not closely attached to the Hussein regime could take an active public role as advisers, the Journal reported.

A full Iraqi-controlled government would not take control for at least two years or longer after the overthrow of Hussein, according to the Journal.  Before an Iraqi government could be created, a new constitution would have to be drafted and elections held, officials said.  Plans are still being made for possibly prosecuting regime members for war crimes, U.S. officials said (see GSN, Oct. 30).

One outstanding question is the role of Iraqi exile groups such as the Iraqi National Congress in a post-Hussein Iraq, the Journal reported.  While INC leader Ahmed Chalabi has supporters among Pentagon officials and aides to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, he is mistrusted by the U.S. State Department.

Some Pentagon officials have said the United States should support an INC-led provisional government.  If the United States were to wait until Iraqi elections to choose new leaders to support, it may have little control over who emerges, they said.

“It would be a very good idea to bring in Iraqis as quickly as possible” once Hussein is removed from power, a Pentagon official said.  “And of all the opposition groups, the only one really interested in establishing a democracy is the INC” (Cloud/Robbins, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 11).

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.-Russia:  Senior Diplomats Meet, Discuss Security Issues

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov met in Moscow yesterday to discuss several joint security issues (see GSN, Sept. 25).

The meeting precedes a proposed U.S.-Russian summit between U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, which might occur sometime between Nov. 20 and Nov. 30, according to Interfax.  Bolton is also expected to meet with Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev before leaving “in a day or two,” said a U.S. Embassy spokesman (Agence France-Presse, Nov. 10).

Both Russia and the United States “have good prospects” to ratify to the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, Mamedov said after meeting with Bolton (see GSN, Oct. 11).

“The Russian Foreign Ministry expects [the] Russian Parliament to ratify the treaty in December,” Mamedov said.  “We would like the U.S. Congress not to lag behind,” he added (Bayev/Pyanykh, ITAR-Tass, Nov. 10).

Bolton and Mamedov noted during yesterday’s meeting that the recent approval of a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq should assist U.S.-Russian efforts to strengthen and improve international nonproliferation regimes for weapons of mass destruction, according to Interfax (see related GSN story, today; Interfax/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Nov. 10).

The two officials also discussed missile defense programs, which are a potential topic of discussion for the proposed Bush-Putin summit, Mamedov said.

A joint U.S.-Russian working group designed to achieve “transparency and cooperation” in missile defense was recently held in Geneva, Mamedov said.  “We analyzed the work of the group, and will brief our superiors and they will brief our presidents,” he said (Xinhua news agency, Nov. 10).

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

Indian Response:  New Unit to Respond to Nuclear, Biological Incidents

India is training 400 military personnel for a rapid reaction force that would respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction, Xinhua reported yesterday (see GSN, July 11).

Senior defense officials said the new units would be the “first responder in the event of a nuclear or biological attack,” according to the Press Trust of India.

Specialists at an eight-week program in the United States have already trained 13 officers who plan to serve in the unit, and seven more officers plan to complete the U.S. training before returning to prepare more officers in India.

“The unit would be highly specialized force equipped with sophisticated equipment which is being procured by the CISF [Central Industrial Security Force] from abroad,” Indian defense officials said.

Four companies taken from the security force make up the group, which should eventually grow by six more companies.  Units are to be stationed in Ghaziabad to cover northern areas, Ranchi for eastern areas, Kota for the west and Chennai for the south (Xinhua, Nov. 10).

Back to top

BWC I:  Review Conference Reconvenes; Toth Introduces Proposal

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — Lacking consensus for negotiating an enforcement protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, a proposal was introduced today for holding annual meetings of experts and diplomats until next treaty review conference in 2006 (see GSN, Nov. 7).

Tibor Toth, president of the treaty’s fifth review conference that reconvened here at the United Nations today, described his proposal as a “rescue operation” for the conference.  The review conference was suspended in December (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2001), and now faces the prospect of concluding without an enforcement protocol or final declaration.

Toth has shown “patient and constructive diplomacy” in producing a document “that represents a modest achievement for the review conference,” said U.N. Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala, speaking with Toth at a press briefing.

Toth’s proposal is designed in part to appeal to the United States, which scuttled last year’s review conference with its opposition to establishing a new treaty monitoring and verification protocol, the product of seven years of negotiations. 

The core of the proposal — annual meetings to discuss five particular issues — he said, is based on a proposal by the U.S. delegation last year as an alternative to a protocol.

“My feeling is it would be extremely difficult for the United States not to agree to these proposals, Toth said.

Concerned about a re-emergence of protocol discussions, however, U.S. officials told other states in September they would oppose any further meetings of states parties until the 2006 conference (see GSN, Sept. 6). 

Toth said he has not yet heard from the U.S. delegation regarding the proposal. He said he has asked party members to consider the proposal and reconvene tomorrow afternoon to consider whether to vote on it. 

The five items Toth proposes discussing annually include adopting national measures to implement the treaty, including the enactment of penal legislation; creating national mechanisms to establish and maintain the security and oversight of pathogenic microorganisms and toxins; enhancing international capabilities for responding to, investigating and mitigating the effects of possible biological weapons attacks or suspicious disease outbreaks; strengthening and broadening national and international efforts for the surveillance, detection, diagnosis and combating of infectious diseases affecting humans, animals and plants; and adopting a code of conduct for scientists.

The proposed annual discussions are intended to promote “understanding and effective action,” according to the draft document Toth circulated to treaty parties.

His proposal does not recommend any discussion of a mechanism for ensuring treaty compliance.  The Bush administration has said it is opposed to any such mechanism, citing commercial and national security concerns.

“Compliance measures are totally missing from this package,” Toth said.

Some developing countries have reportedly criticized the absence of such measures and nonaligned nations are meeting today to discuss Toth’s proposal.

The proposal has received mixed reviews from nongovernmental arms control organizations.

“Compared with the protocol we could have had, the present proposal is obviously much more limited,” said Martin Dando, professor of international security at the University of Bradford.

“It’s better than nothing … we would still have a process going forward and multilateral negotiations to help strengthen the convention, so in that sense, thank goodness for that.”

“If only this decision is adopted, the member states of the BWC will have failed to take the long-sought, stronger actions that are needed to guard against biological weapons proliferation and to ensure compliance with the global ban on biological weapons,” said Oliver Meier, an analyst with the Arms Control Association, in a statement.

Toth said member states indicated last year they were opposed to pursuing a protocol without U.S. support and continued conversations with members indicates that view has not changed.

For further information, see:

BWC Text and Associated Documents (U.S. Defense Department)

BWC State Parties (U.S. State Department)

U.N. Background on BWC

Back to top

Anthrax:  Experts Praise New FBI Investigative Tactic

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The FBI’s attempts to recreate the spores used in last year’s anthrax attacks could provide valuable clues and help the bureau focus its investigation, experts told Global Security Newswire last week (see GSN, Nov. 4).

The bureau has been working for months to reconstruct the spores, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Nov. 1, according to the Washington Post.  “We’re replicating the way or ways it might be manufactured, but it is not an easy task,” the Post quoted Mueller as saying.  “We are going into new territory in some areas,” he added.

Several experts agreed that this new tactic in the FBI’s “Amerithrax” investigation could provide information needed to better determine who might be a possible suspect.  By knowing how the spores were produced, the FBI might be able to determine how many people were needed and whether sophisticated materials and equipment were acquired and used, said Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a biologist at State University of New York who has often publicized her views on the anthrax investigation.

With the information learned through the experiments, the FBI will also be able to better educate its field agents, improving their abilities to investigate sites and conduct interviews, said Martin Hugh-Jones, an anthrax researcher at Louisiana State University.  It is “a very sensible decision,” Hugh-Jones said in a written response to questions from GSN.

Charles Pena, a senior defense policy analyst at the CATO Institute in Washington, agreed that the experiments should enable FBI investigators to learn what kind of technical expertise was needed to produce the spores.

The FBI should be able to determine whether the spores were made by “an individual in their basement” or if the spores were more sophisticated — something “you need more than high school chemistry, high school biology” to produce, Pena said.

The bureau might also be able to learn whether specialized equipment was needed — and what kind — which could then be used to determine where such equipment could be obtained and by whom, Pena said.  “This isn’t the kind of stuff you can go down to K-Mart and get,” he added.

No Solid Leads

The FBI’s decision to attempt to recreate the spores might also be a sign that investigators lack other concrete evidence, Pena said.  The bureau’s decision reflects the fact that it does not have any solid leads in the case, and instead is choosing to go back to fundamentals, he said, suggesting that this is a tactic the FBI should have considered earlier.

Pena also criticized the FBI’s apparent decision to base its investigation on a profile that a lone U.S. scientist is responsible for the attacks (see GSN, Oct. 28).  In a large-scale investigation, officials tend to follow their initial assumptions, Pena said, adding that it is often difficult to shift an investigation away from those initial assumptions.

The FBI might now be asking, “If we start from zero, where would we go?” Pena said.

Research into how the anthrax spores were produced might help dissuade the bureau away from the lone U.S. scientist profile, said Richard Spertzel, chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq from 1994 to 1998.

“If it gets them [the FBI] off the kick that it can be easily and cheaply made, it will be helpful,” Spertzel said in a written response to GSN.

The FBI’s acknowledged months of research into recreating the spores should be an indication that they were probably difficult to produce, Spertzel said.  He added that this high level of difficulty should also convince the bureau to shift the focus of its investigation away from Steven Hatfill, the former U.S. Army biologist who has been the public focus of the FBI investigation (see GSN, Oct. 23).

If the FBI were to determine through its research that the spores were coated with a silica compound and created with the use of a spray dryer — expensive and specialized equipment — it might narrow the field of suspects toward a state-run program such as Iraq, Spertzel said.

BWC

While the FBI has not publicly provided technical details of its anthrax-manufacturing research, such as whether it is using or producing live anthrax, experts agreed that the work probably does not violate the Biological Weapons Convention.  The convention prohibits signatories from producing biological weapons agents except in small quantities for defensive purposes.

Attempt to reverse-engineer the spores would not violate the BWC as long as the quantities of anthrax used are small, Spertzel said.

“Such ‘small quantities’ are acceptable for defensive purposes and investigating a crime would certainly fall into that category,” he said in a written response to questions from GSN.

The FBI might not even need to use actual anthrax in its research, Rosenberg said, noting that simulants would probably be as effective.  If the FBI is using live anthrax, however, it should explain the necessity for doing so, she said.

“I don’t see any point in secrecy on this,” Rosenberg said in a written response to GSN.  “It just adds to doubts about [the FBI’s] competence in pursuing this case,” she added.

For further information, see:

FBI Amerithrax Investigation

GSN Anthrax Attack Chronology (Dec. 12, 2001)

BWC Text and Associated Documents (U.S. Defense Department)

Back to top

BWC II:  Nongovernmental Groups Launch Alternative Treaty Compliance Network

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — Facing no prospect that Biological Weapons Convention states will approve an inspections mechanism for verifying compliance any time soon, a group of organizations here today announced the launch of a nongovernmental network for gathering information and reporting on biotechnological activities worldwide.

The organization was conceived as a way for civil organizations to “step into the breach” created when BWC parties failed to create a treaty enforcement mechanism last year, Chandre Gould, a researcher with the Center for Conflict Resolution at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, told a press conference here.

The press conference coincided with resumption of the treaty’s fifth review conference today (see related GSN story, today).

The Geneva-based Bioweapons Prevention Project is composed of eight prominent arms control groups from Europe, the United States and South Africa. One of its two principal goals is to produce an annual report called the Bioweapons Monitor, describing global offensive biological weapons activities and developments in the biotechnology field that could be used in violation of the treaty.

To help accomplish this, the organization hopes, like the Nobel Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines, to build a vast network of groups to gather and report information from countries around the world.

Information will be collected from publicly available documents, such as annual reports BWC members are required to produce detailing compliance with the treaty and other open-source materials.  

Some participating organizations have begun looking for support from the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, according to Malcolm Dando, of the University of Bradford’s Peace Studies Department.

Participating organizations may also use government contacts worldwide to elicit information on programs that may not already be available.

Participants also hope that vast network will help build momentum for global treaty compliance.

The organizations will both “feed into the process of information gathering and analysis and on the other hand strengthen civil society’s understanding about the nature of biological weapons,” said Gould.

It will help “strengthen the norm against using disease as a weapon,” she said.

The project this afternoon received support from U.N. Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala.

“This is a very timely and significant initiative,” he said. 

While member states missed an opportunity last year in failing to negotiate a protocol, Dhanapala said, “civil society and nongovernmental organizations are not going to accept any more missed opportunities.”

The founding project members include the British American Security Information Council, the Center for Conflict Resolution in South Africa, the University of Bradford’s Peace Studies Department, the Federation of American Scientists, the Program for Strategic and International Security Studies at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Switzerland, the Sussex Program at the University of Sussex, the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility in Germany and the Verification Research, Training and Information Center in the United Kingdom.

Back to top

Russia I:  Theater Gas Was Probably Powerful Narcotic, Experts Say

The gas used in the Oct. 26 Moscow theater raid — said by Russia to be fentanyl — more likely was a fentanyl derivative called carfentanil, a powerful narcotic usually used to subdue large animals, the Washington Post reported Saturday (see GSN, Oct. 30).

Carfentanil is 8,000 times as powerful as morphine, is relatively safe to use and would disperse easily in a large space.

“It was the safest drug that you could have used in this fashion and hope to have high percentage of survivors,” said Theodore Stanley, a University of Utah professor of anesthesiology.  “The fact that carfentanil is 100 times more potent than fentanyl makes it 100 times easier to use than fentanyl — and that makes it a logical choice,” he added.

Tests conducted on two German hostages who survived the raid suggest the aerosol that Russian commandos pumped through the theater’s ventilation system might also have included halothane, a traditional anesthetic (see GSN, Oct. 28).  Those same tests failed to detect fentanyl.  Carfentanil would not be detected in a test for fentanyl, according to the Post.

If halothone was included in the aerosol, the mixture could have been much more dangerous and the effect of the antidote that emergency crews had on hand could have been negated, the Post reported.  Fentanyl comes in a solid form, however, and Russian officials may have used halothane to make the substance easier to disperse.

“It takes a staggering amount of fentanyl to subdue a patient,” said David Drover, an anesthesiologist at Stanford University.  “To actually fill a room, even a small room, would have taken a swimming pool-full.  No way,” he added.

While many Moscow doctors reported symptoms consistent with an opioid overdose, several patients did not have trouble breathing and presented confusing symptoms, according to Yuri Goldfarb, chief toxicologist at Sklifosovski emergency hospital.

“In general, I can conclude a number of symptoms were different than a classic opiate overdose,” Goldfarb said (Brown, Baker, Washington Post, Nov. 9).

Meanwhile, Russian hospitals have so far discharged 622 freed hostages and currently continue to treat 39 people, including one child and one foreigner, the Russian Information Agency Novosti reported today (see GSN, Nov. 8; RIA Novosti, Nov. 11).

Back to top

Russia II:  Moscow Holds Weapons Disposal Conference

U.S. and European experts are expected to discuss difficulties in funding Russia’s chemical weapons disposal efforts during a Russian Red Cross-sponsored conference scheduled to begin today in Moscow (see GSN, Oct. 31). 

One-third of the funds for Russia’s chemical weapons destruction program come from international aid, according to ITAR-Tass.  Russia has complained, however, that such aid has not been regularly provided as promised.

“All the participants in the arrangements should supply the stipulated amounts of funds to reprocess chemical weapons stockpiles and to keep up with the schedule of funds allocations,” the Red Cross said in a press release (Anatoly Yurkin, ITAR-Tass, Nov. 10).

Russia plans to increase funding for its chemical weapons destruction program, but still needs foreign aid, Sergey Kiriyenko, chairman of the Russian state commission on chemical disarmament, said yesterday.  Russia plans to allocate $190 million for chemical weapons disposal next year, up from $16 million this year, he said (ITAR-Tass/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Nov. 10).

Zinovy Pak, general director of the Russian Ammunition Agency, said today that Russia plans to destroy its chemical weapons in several stages with an end date of 2012 (see GSN, Oct. 15).  Russia plans to have 2 percent of its weapons stockpiles destroyed by 2007, 45 percent by 2009 and the remainder destroyed by 2012, he said (RosBusinessConsulting, Nov. 11).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Pentagon Looks to Blimps for Missile Defense

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency has announced a search for contractors to build an airship that would float for months at an altitude of 70,000 feet, carry up to 4,000 pounds and help defend against ballistic and cruise missiles (see GSN, Oct. 28).

Pentagon officials have said that airships could play a vital role in defending the United States, possibly providing an early warning system against ballistic missile attacks, the Los Angeles Times reported today.

“We are very excited about high-altitude airships,” Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts Sue Payton said.

Missile Defense Agency planners, who have set a February due date for proposed airship designs, have already begun speaking with two major U.S. defense contractors about prospective plans.  Defense officials have said they expect defense industry giants Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon as well as smaller companies to compete for the three-year contract to build a prototype airship.  Officials said they hope to award the contract in March, possibly to more than one firm.  The Pentagon is working to build an operational airship by 2010, according to the Times.

Defense officials recently told industry representatives of a possible scenario in which 10 airships would line the coasts of the United States to detect and track ballistic and cruise missiles.  In the scenario, the airships would carry 40-foot radars, and eventually would also carry lasers to shoot down incoming missiles.  In meetings with defense contractors, defense officials also discussed monitoring terrorist activity on the ground, the Times reported (Peter Pae, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 11).

The proposed airship, which could watch over an area with a 1,200-kilometer diameter, has the backing of the U.S. Northern Command, Aviation Week reported today.  The Missile Defense Agency has said it wants to conduct a first flight of the blimp in 2005, and officials are working toward a missile defense capability by 2006.  The airship will most likely begin operating with infrared, electro-optical and communications payloads, but Gary Payton, director of the agency’s advanced technology office, said he wants to eventually incorporate laser radar as well (Robert Wall, Aviation Week, Nov. 11).

Back to top

Israel:  U.S., Israel Successfully Test Latest Patriot Missile

U.S. and Israeli military personnel last week successfully tested the latest iteration of the Patriot Advanced Capability missile, Israel’s Ma’ariv reported (see GSN, Nov. 8).

Units from both countries that are conducting joint exercises in Israel fired two Patriot missiles Nov. 6.  The Israeli Defense Forces said that the test, which had been planned well in advance, was successful (Binder/Binder, Ma’ariv, Nov. 7).

A complex software upgrade has improved links between Patriot missiles and radars, senior Israeli air force sources said.

The United States and Israel plan on conducting a joint missile test in January 2003 in Israel unless the United States has attacked Iraq, the Beirut Daily Star reported Saturday (Beirut Daily Star, Nov. 9).

Meanwhile, Israeli Brig. Gen. Yosef Kastel, the chairman of the Security Committee of the Center for Local Government, told a committee of the Knesset that the country’s air raid shelters are either in a state of disrepair or unusable.

He also addressed biological warfare, saying, “the protection the Home Front Command can provide will not stand up to an extended biological attack” (Binder/Binder, Ma’ariv).

Back to top

Japan:  Regional Concerns Boost Tokyo’s Interest in Defense System

Concerns over North Korea’s missile development efforts and suspected nuclear weapons program have increased Japanese interest in developing a missile defense system, Japanese officials and analysts have said, according to today’s New York Times (see GSN, Nov. 8).

“The impact of the news from North Korea has been strong,” Masashi Nishihara, president of the National Defense Academy, Japan’s interservice military college, said Friday.  “North Korea has reversed its positions.  That justifies us to move forward to develop missile defense and to eventually deploy it,” Nishihara added.

Japan has already been researching missile defense technologies that the United States hopes to put to use in 2008, the Times reported.  Because of concerns over possibly antagonizing China, however, Japanese officials had planned to delay deciding until 2004 whether to join the United States in field trials.

Shigeru Ishiba, head of the Japanese Defense Agency, has urged that Japan increase its missile defense efforts with the United States.

“We should exert efforts to get the program to leave the research phase as soon as possible,” Ishiba told a Japanese Parliament committee last week.

The Japanese media has reported that the United States has begun to deploy missile surveillance units in Japan and that Washington is expected to pressure Tokyo into developing a missile defense system, the Times reported.

U.S. Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith, however, said that Japan does not need to be pressured.

“You don’t have to pressure Japan for Japanese to realize that Japan is facing a serious threat of missile attack,” Feith said.  “There are missile arcs that one could draw that clearly cover Japan.  That’s what makes the missile threat very serious,” he added (James Brooke, New York Times, Nov. 11).

Back to top