U.S. Response I:  Bill Would Reorganize First Responder Programs

By Jason Peckenpaugh

Government Executive

WASHINGTON — The White House and the Senate have agreed to a major shake-up of federal programs that provide anti-terrorism training to thousands of first responders in state and local governments as part of the homeland security bill now being considered by the Senate.

The reorganization, which is part of the homeland security bill passed Wednesday by the House, takes anti-terrorism training duties away from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and puts them in the Border and Transportation Security division of the Homeland Security Department.

Specifically, the deal carves out the Office of National Preparedness from FEMA and places it under the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP), which will take the lead in training and equipping thousands of first responders in the new department.  The ODP is currently in the Justice Department, but it would move to the Border and Transportation Security Division of the Homeland Security Department under the legislation.

The arrangement is a major victory for Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and other Senate appropriators, who have fought for months with the White House over the structure of federal first responder programs.  Most senators have favored keeping first responder programs at the ODP, while the Bush administration has pushed to have them put in FEMA’s Office of National Preparedness.

The White House proposed shifting ODP’s programs to the FEMA office in its fiscal 2003 budget.  It also tried to move both ODP and anti-terrorism programs at the Health and Human Services Department to FEMA in its homeland security legislation.  These proposals, however, went nowhere in the Senate, where many members believe the ODP is the logical office to distribute federal assistance to first responders.  The office has provided training programs and distributed grants for equipment to states since 1997, developing close relationships with many first responder associations in the process.

The White House agreed early last week to a proposal backed by Gregg and 38 other senators to make the domestic preparedness office the lead office for first responder assistance in the homeland security department, according to Senate staffers involved in the process.  This proposal was then added to the Homeland Security bill.

“We’re very excited that ODP will have a major role in fighting terrorism,” said a Senate staffer.

Supporters of the ODP also were pleased.  “We have a longstanding history of working with the Justice Department and ODP, and FEMA has not had a longstanding role; they’ve been new to the game,” said Dean Cooter, director of governmental affairs at the National Sheriffs Association, which receives ODP grants to provide first responder training to sheriffs.

FEMA was not involved in the final negotiations, according to Senate staffers and sources inside the agency. Officially, FEMA would not comment on the reorganization, but a FEMA official noted that the entire agency, including the Office of National Preparedness (ONP), would still be shifted to the Homeland Security Department under the arrangement.

“I wouldn’t say we’re losing ONP because it’s all under the homeland security umbrella,” the official said.

Other FEMA officials expressed concern with the proposal, which splits responsibilities for emergency preparedness across two divisions of the new department.  “It’s separating terrorism out from all other hazards,” said one official.  “To break off one piece of preparedness doesn’t make a lot of sense; it’s not what’s done at the state and local levels.”

FEMA has long advocated an “all-hazards” approach to domestic preparedness, where state and local officials use similar techniques to respond to natural disasters and acts of terrorism.  “We cannot have two different methods of responding to natural disasters and terrorism,” said ONP Director Bruce Baughman in a September interview with Government Executive.  “It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars, frankly.”

FEMA still stands to inherit some domestic preparedness programs under the House-passed bill.  The agency will absorb HHS’ Office of Emergency Preparedness, which distributed $1.1 billion in grants earlier this year to help state public health departments prepare for bioterrorism attacks.  It will also still coordinate the federal government’s response to terrorist attacks.

Gregg and other Senators did not urge that the HHS office be moved to the ODP, according to Senate staffers.

FEMA also may try to use reorganization authority provided in the homeland security legislation to retain ONP after the new department is created, according to sources inside the agency and in the Senate.

In September, Baughman said that moving all the domestic preparedness offices into FEMA would allow the agency to consolidate and streamline federal preparedness programs, making them easier to use for state and local officials.  All major first responder offices would still be in the Homeland Security Department under the House-passed bill.

The federal government has been trying to coordinate federal first responder programs since 1998, when the Justice Department created the National Domestic Preparedness Office in the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  The office has been defunct since last year and has no employees, but it never has been officially closed.  Even though it is empty, the FBI office would move to FEMA under the homeland security legislation being considered by the Senate.

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Senate to Face Another Showdown on Homeland Measure

CongressDaily

WASHINGTON — With time running out for the 107th Congress, the Senate today will take up an amendment that could make or break a popular bill to create a Homeland Security Department this year.

The Democratic amendment, proposed by Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), would strip seven controversial, special-interest provisions added to the homeland security legislation by House leaders.  The amendment could reignite a Senate-House standoff and again jeopardize the homeland security bill.

“If this is a homeland security bill, let’s keep it homeland security-related, and let’s take out all this terrible special-interest legislation that has nothing to do with homeland security,” Daschle said.

It was unclear as the second week of the lame-duck session began whether Daschle had the votes to approve the amendment.  Daschle said late last week:  “I think we have every Democrat.  The question is whether we’ll have some courageous Republicans.”  A Daschle spokeswoman said Democrats are “very hopeful” that it will pass.

If senators approve the amendment, the House could be forced to return to Washington to work out differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation.  However, House Republicans said last week that they would not return to Capitol Hill until the 108th Congress convenes in January — meaning the bill would die.

Instead, Republicans challenged Senate Democrats to reject the amendment and approve the House version of the bill.  “We’ve done our business, the Senate needs to do theirs,” said a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).

With the House reluctant to return, Senate Republicans said approval of the Daschle amendment would block the homeland bill.

The Daschle spokeswoman said a vote on the amendment could come tonight, perhaps followed immediately by a vote on final passage.  However, time frames could change in the chamber’s fluid and politically charged climate.

Back to top

Iraq I:  Advance U.N. Inspectors Arrive

The first U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq today to begin preparations for a new round of weapons inspections as mandated under a new U.N. resolution (see GSN, Nov. 15).

“A new chapter of inspection” has begun, Ewen Buchanan, chief spokesman for the inspection team, said before the team left Cyprus for Iraq.

The team is prepared to meet the challenge of making sure Iraq complies with the new resolution, said Hans Blix, head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).  He added that he hoped Iraq would not try to hide anything.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said yesterday that there was agreement on the need for “intrusive verifications — that means we would go everywhere, we will use every means at our disposal to make sure that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction.”

Inspectors plan to interview certain Iraqis in locations out of the country for their own safety if they might know vital information on WMD programs, ElBaradei said (see GSN, Nov. 15).  He added, however, “if people do not want to talk, we obviously will not be able to force them to talk” (Bassem Mroue, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Nov. 18).

Schedule

The next step in the inspections process is scheduled for Nov. 20, when IAEA technicians are to travel to Baghdad to being preparing for nuclear inspections (see GSN, Nov. 14).  IAEA and UNMOVIC inspectors are set to arrive in Baghdad Nov. 25, with limited inspections to begin shortly thereafter.  Iraq has until Dec. 8 to submit a declaration of its WMD programs to the IAEA, UNMOVIC and the U.N. Security Council (IAEA release, Nov. 15).

UNMOVIC and the IAEA must begin operations within Iraq by Dec. 23, which both agencies are expected to meet easily, according to Agence France-Presse.  The two agencies are supposed to update the Security Council on the progress of the inspections by Feb. 21, AFP reported.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA have within 60 days of beginning operations to outline “the key disarmament tasks” that Iraq must undertake.  Such a program would require Security Council approval.  Once inspections are underway and the remote monitoring system is in operation, Blix and ElBaradei are to report to the Security Council every 120 days (Agence France-Presse, Nov. 18).

Effective Inspections

In his last news conference before leaving for Iraq, Blix said Friday that the first inspectors should begin their work on Nov. 27, less than two weeks before Iraq is required to report to the Security Council on its weapons programs.  The 60-day countdown for the inspectors to report to the council will then begin, he said.  If Iraqi officials fail to fully reveal weapons programs by Dec. 8, the council might find Iraq in material breach of Resolution 1441, according to the text of the ruling.

“This is one of the most important moments we foresee,” Blix said.  “We have a great many questions,” Blix said.

Under repeated questioning, Blix refused to give any specifics as to what would constitute a “material breach,” according to the resolution, that could trigger military action against Iraq.

“We do not judge whether something constitutes a material breach,” he said.  “We will report factually on what has happened, and then it is for the Security Council to assess whether it constitutes a material breach … and it is for the council to decide what they will do about it.  One should not run to the conclusion that now there will be armed action,” he added.

“You need to nuance it,” Blix said, illustrating with an example using flat tires.  One flat tire on an Iraqi vehicle accompanying inspectors may mean nothing, but “four flat tires on the way out, delaying us much more, then it may be a different thing,” he said.  “What this points to is that you may have to take into account whether you can read an intention into something,” he added.

In response to Arab League and Iraqi demands that Arabs be included on the inspection teams, Blix said only that Jordanians have applied for posts.

“We have not had nominations,” he said.  UNMOVIC’s roster consists mostly of people from the United States, followed by France and Russia, he said, adding that he expects more Arab applications for the next training course in January (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Nov. 18).

United States vs. United Nations

The United States and the United Nations disagree over how aggressively inspectors should conduct their operations within Iraq, U.N and U.S. officials said.  The Bush administration has called for the strictest possible inspections, while Blix has called for a more measured approach, according to the Washington Post.

U.S. President George W. Bush has said that a “zero-tolerance” approach should be taken in regard to Iraq, meaning that even minor infractions of the new U.N. resolution could lead to potential military action.  Blix, along with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and some Security Council members, have said Iraq will only be held accountable for serious violations of the resolution.

“The U.S. does seem ... to have a lower threshold than others may have” to justify military action, Annan said last week before meeting with Bush.  “I think the discussion in the council made it clear we should be looking for something serious and meaningful, and not for excuses to do something,” he added (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, Nov. 17).

U.S. War Plans

The United States is prepared to wait for Iraq’s response to U.N. inspections before going to the Security Council for a debate on possible military action, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 11).

“It seems to me that what will happen is a pattern of behavior will evolve and then people will make judgments with respect to it,” he said (Mroue, Associated Press).

The White House, however, has begun taking several diplomatic and military steps to prepare for an attack on Iraq, U.S. and allied officials said.  Such steps, which could take up to months to complete, include formalizing the roles of U.S. allies in an attack, discouraging Iraq’s neighbors from conducting their own actions and deciding whether to obtain Security Council approval for a strike, according to the New York Times.

The United States is seeking to accomplish two goals by beginning preparations for an attack, the Times reported.  One is to present a credible threat of force to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, which could cause him to comply with the resolution.  The second is to be ready for military action before the summer heat begins next year.

Some progress has already been made, U.S. officials said.  Several Central Asian and Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait and Qatar, have given informal assurances of basing and overflight rights, according to the Times.  Those assurances, however, still need to be formalized.  Rumsfeld is expected to meet with U.S. allies this week during the NATO summit in Prague to discuss how allied troops could be replace U.S. forces stationed in Europe and the United States that would be moved to the Middle East.

The United States has also begun amassing tanks and heavy equipment for more than 30,000 soldiers stationed in several Middle Eastern countries and on nearby ships, the Times reported.  Additional heavy equipment for Army and Marine divisions will probably arrive in the region in three to four weeks.

A portion of a total U.S. force of about 250,000 troops needed to begin an attack on Iraq could be in position within 30 days of a presidential order to do so, senior U.S. military officials said.

“We’re making preparations every day,” U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Friday.  “I don’t want to start saying exactly when we’re at peak readiness, but it would be a terrible mistake for anyone to underestimate our ability to act if needed.”

The United States has also begun convincing key Iraqi neighbors such as Turkey and Iran, of the need for restraint, according to the Times.  In exchange, Turkey has called on the United States to provide assurance that Iraq’s Kurdish population, located predominately in the northern part of the country, will not try to form its own state.  In order to help reduce Turkish concerns, the Pentagon is planning to send U.S. troops to protect oil fields around the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, the Times reported.

Washington has also begun attempting to convince Iran to stay out of any conflict with Iraq because of concerns that Tehran could attempt to incite Iraq’s Shiite majority, which belongs to the same branch of Islam as most Iranians, to capture Baghdad or to form its own country (see GSN, Aug. 9).  In exchange for its cooperation, however, Iran wants the United States to release billions of dollars of assets frozen after the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, according to the Times.  Iran also wants assurances of U.S. assistance for Iraqi refugees who might enter Iran in the event of war.

Iran’s attempts to negotiate with the Untied States were evident when Javad Zarif, Iran’s U.N. ambassador, tried to gain permission to meet with members of the U.S. Congress, the Times reported.  The U.S. State Department, which must approve Zarif’s travels beyond New York, refused to grant him permission to stay overnight, and he canceled the trip.

“I think sooner or later we will have better relations with Iran,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday.  “We stay in touch with people who might be on the same side of this as us, but I don’t want to give the impression there is a great rapprochement about to take place with respect to Iran” (Dao/Schmitt, New York Times, Nov. 18).

Iraqi Mobile Biological Laboratories

In Iraq, U.S. officials are concerned about finding and destroying mobile biological weapons laboratories, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 14).

U.S. officials have said they are unsure how many such laboratories exist or what they look like, although they have pictures of what appear to be laboratories housed in 18-wheel tractor-trailers, according to the Times.  Iraq might use several different types of vehicles to confuse pursuers, experts said.

“We know they’re there,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said.  “We don’t know 100 percent what’s in them,” the official added (see GSN, Nov. 12).

The official compared the task of searching for the mobile biological weapons laboratories with the search last month for a white truck believed to be used by a sniper in the Washington area.

“Look how many white vans were stopped here in D.C. looking for a sniper,” the official said.  “There are a lot of trucks (in Iraq), a lot of trailers ... I think it’s going to be real hard to find them,” the official added.

If the confusion resulting from a U.S. attack were to enable a group such as al-Qaeda to obtain biological agents, the situation could become “the greatest proliferation disaster in history,” said Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council official.

Even if all of the mobile biological facilities are discovered, there is debate about the best way to handle them, according to the Times.  While the laboratories could be destroyed, such a course of action could also result in the dispersal of any freeze-dried biological agents inside, an official said.

“Without knowing what’s in it, you’d be ill-advised to just bomb it,” the official said.  “If you drop a 500-pound bomb on a truck, even if it’s a ‘smart’ bomb, you may be releasing some real bad stuff on a community,” the official added (Richter/Miller, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 17).

Improved Detection Equipment

U.N. inspectors now have at their disposal a wide range of WMD detection equipment — ranging from more portable sample-collection devices to ground-penetrating radar systems that can detect electrical equipment up to 100 feet below the ground — that will make them better equipped than they were in 1998, developers said.

Combined with an improved remote monitoring system, the new detection equipment has enabled U.N. inspectors to better detect illicit WMD materials, even if a site has been thoroughly cleaned before they arrive, the London Guardian reported.

“It’s a matter of time and of retaining custody of the sample,” said John Carrico of Smiths Detection.  “These technologies have been improved to get down to very trace levels,” he said.

Inspectors have said, however, that improved detection equipment cannot substitute for “human factors,” such as intelligence and training.

“You guys are putting way too much emphasis on the technology,” said Mark Gwozdecky, IAEA senior spokesman.  “The most important aspect that the inspector has is his human intelligence, and the sixth sense that comes after you’ve developed some experience and judgment” (Oliver Burkeman, London Guardian, Nov. 18).

Iraq Increases Nuclear Efforts

Meanwhile, Iraq has increased its efforts over the last few months to illegally purchase weapon-grade uranium, according to David Kay, former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq.

“They’ve been on a much more active campaign to buy enough material to build at least one or two bombs,” Kay said.

There have been reports of Iraqi agents traveling to former Soviet states such as Ukraine as well as to other Middle Eastern countries, China and South Africa to attempt to purchase nuclear materials, Kay said.  “They were traveling with bags of money,” he said of the Iraqi agents (Hamilton/Lathem, New York Post, Nov. 18).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

IAEA Iraq Action Team

Back to top

International Response:  Nonproliferation Regimes Lack Bite, Officials Say

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Although weapons control regimes are central to nonproliferation goals, they must be strengthened to remain significant, a senior U.N. official and a senior U.S. diplomat agreed Friday.

Countries must increase enforcement and funding to keep such regimes healthy, according to the officials, U.N. Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John Wolf, who spoke at a nonproliferation conference sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

It is striking that the messages from the United States and the United Nations overlap extensively, according to Institute for Defense Analyses researcher and George Washington University professor Brad Roberts, who sat on a conference panel with Wolf and Dhanapala.  Most observers expected the officials’ speeches to be sharply at odds on regime issues, Roberts said.

Enforcement

Poor local enforcement plagues international weapons agreements, Dhanapala said.

“All regimes are weak in the area of enforcement,” he said.  There is a “lack of congruency between treaty obligations and domestic laws and policies.”  He described the problem as one ”that is especially apparent with respect to export controls and nuclear weapons governance,” he added.

The United States supports some nonproliferation efforts, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime, but the world often fails to react when countries violate international agreements and nonproliferation controls, Wolf said.

“We see them [regimes] as one, but not the only tool,” he said.  “While strong regimes are necessary, they are hardly sufficient.  Rigorous enforcement is absolutely necessary,” he added.

Regimes will not work if member countries do not respond strongly to violations, according to Wolf.

“What’s missing in today’s international debates is some sense of outrage,” Wolf said.  Instead, nonproliferation dialogue focuses on fine points of the language and structure of agreements, he added.

Funding

A shortage of funding also handicaps nonproliferation regimes, Dhanapala said.

There is a “lack of investment in research and development to support disarmament goals in contrast to the ample funds available for maintaining nuclear stockpiles and undertaking research on new weapons,” he said.

The United States increased its International Atomic Energy Agency funding by $14 million from 1997 to 2002 and the international community must also financially support nonproliferation goals, Wolf said.

“Will countries just pay lip service to IAEA’s mounting responsibilities or will they provide it with muscle to get the job done?” he asked.  “We’ve started a major initiative … starting with a real increase in IAEA’s regular budget for safeguards,” he added.

Nonproliferation regimes will not succeed if they are not supported by a broad spectrum of countries, according to Dhanapala.

“If the treaty-based regimes are to achieve their full potential, they will require stronger support from all nations, from the most powerful — who have the financial [and] political … means — to the smallest,” he said.

Back to top

Al-Qaeda:  Terrorists Made Chemical, Biological Agents, U.S. Says

U.S. intelligence officials are “100 percent certain” that Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist network developed chemical and biological agents and conducted experiments with them prior to U.S. military action in Afghanistan last year, Newsweek magazine reported this week (see GSN, Oct. 22).

Al-Qaeda operatives also acquired a small amount of radiological material that could be intended for use in a “dirty bomb.”  It is not clear, however, whether the terrorist organization had built such a device, according to Newsweek.

Abu Zubaydah, an al-Qaeda leader held by the United States, told intelligence officials that U.S. newspapers provide the group with ideas for terrorist attacks, according to a classified U.S. intelligence report.  A newspaper report provided the inspiration for attempts to build a dirty bomb, he said (Newsweek, Nov. 25).

Meanwhile, an imprisoned Tunisian man told a Belgian radio journalist that he had planned to attack a U.S. Air Force base in eastern Belgium that reportedly stores nuclear warheads.

The interview with Nizar Trabelsi marks the first report of a specific plot to attack a nuclear installation in Europe.  Belgian and NATO officials have not said whether the base holds nuclear weapons, an accusation made by experts and nuclear activists.

Trabelsi said he had intended to drive explosives into a bunker that holds nuclear weapons (Straits Times, Nov. 17).

Back to top

Iraq II:  “Dusty” Weapons Powder Proliferates Across Border

Iraq last month imported as much as 25 metric tons of colloidal silicon dioxide, a powder that, according to U.S. intelligence documents, might be used to make “dusty” chemical weapons that can penetrate protective military clothing (see GSN, Nov. 6).

U.N. officials approved the powder — sold under the brand name Aerosil by German chemical company Degussa AG — because it has legitimate commercial uses, the Associated Press reported.  Nevertheless, its grains are small enough — 12 nanometers wide — to fit in microscopic openings in protective suits.

Analysts and experts are concerned by the developments, AP reported.

Iraq produced dusty weapons in the 1980s that could penetrate protective suits, according to a declassified report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which recommended covering suits with rain ponchos to reduce exposure.  In 1989 Iraqi President Saddam Hussein directed Samarra Drugs Industry — the importer of the Aerosil — to produce chemical and biological weapons, according to Richard Spertzel, a former head U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq.

“Do you know how much (dusty agent) a kilogram of that stuff makes?  A couple cubic feet,” Spertzel said.  “This gives me another thing to worry about,” he added (Associated Press/Boston Globe, Matt Kelly, Nov. 18).

Back to top

Iran: Covert Nuclear Weapons Program Will Continue, Experts Predict

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Iran’s current security outlook makes it highly unlikely that the country will forego clandestine efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and the Bush administration’s increasingly hard line toward Tehran makes a deal to rein in its nuclear ambitions less likely than in the past, several experts said last week (see GSN, Oct. 22).

Iran’s military and security services deeply believe that the country cannot count on outside assistance in a time of crisis, Iran experts told a nonproliferation conference sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

With growing uncertainty about some of its immediate neighbors, Tehran will continue to pursue a nuclear deterrent that it sees as the only guarantee of security, they said.

“They need a country-protecting” weapon, said Patrick Clawson, director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

To the immediate west, archenemy Iraq may soon be in the crosshairs of a U.S.-led military assault to topple Saddam Hussein’s government, but if the United States is successful, the resulting situation might elicit multiple security risks for Iran — including a long-term American military presence next door and a new Baghdad regime closely allied with Washington.

Iraq is “quite worried about being next” on the U.S. hit list, said Gary Samore, senior fellow for nonproliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.  The possible U.S. invasion of Iraq, however, could also serve to strengthen more moderate elements within Iran who are calling for caution, he said.

Nevertheless, other regional realities support the argument that Iran, predominantly made up of Shia Muslims, feels increasingly threatened from several directions.  Sunni Muslim Afghanistan and Pakistan to the east are both considered security threats to Tehran.  Growing U.S. influence in Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan’s long history of meddling with Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, will contribute to a growing Iranian sense of insecurity.

The uncertainty does not stop there from Iran’s perspective.  To the northwest is Turkey, whose close military and security ties with nuclear-armed Israel are viewed as being directed at Tehran, according to Clawson.

Should Iran be threatened, however, isolated Tehran has little confidence that other countries, such as ally Russia, or international institutions such as the United Nations, would come to its aid.  Clawson believes this view is grounded in the 1980-89 Iran-Iraq War, in which Baghdad initiated hostilities and the international community failed to respond.

Iran believes that “when Iraq invaded, the world yawned,” Clawson said.  “That’s a fair analylsis of what happened.”

Combined with Iran’s comparative military inferiority in the region — its conventional forces are considered weak — that sentiment makes “arms self-sufficiency” a key tenet of national security, Clawson said.

Having a nuclear capability, however, could dramatically change the security outlook, Iran is said to believe, according to the experts.

The focus of suspected nuclear weapons efforts remains Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor, which the United States has pressed Russia repeatedly to cease providing assistance to.  The most recent negotiations ended without an agreement in June amid revelations that Moscow has a long-term plan to provide at least five more nuclear reactors to Iran.

The U.S.-Russian negotiations centered on “grandfathering” the Bushehr reactor in return for Russian commitment not to build any more and agreement to dispose of the Bushehr reactor fuel so it cannot be used to build nuclear weapons (see GSN, Oct. 11).

There is a  “hard line by Bush now,” said Rose Gottemoeller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  She said low-level negotiations are continuing, but it is unlikely the Bush Administration would strike an agreement on Bushehr alone without agreement between Washington, Moscow and Tehran on larger issues.

The “motive for this plant is … purely and simply to acquire nuclear weapons,” said Clawson.

Samore agreed that it is a “guise for acquiring capabilities to allow it to develop nuclear weapons.”

But Samore is not as sanguine about the possibility of reaching some agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear future.  “I’m optimistic we will see progress in that area.”

He added, however, that Tehran could try to have it both ways, agreeing to expand monitoring of its civilian nuclear facilities, while also continuing covert weapons efforts.  Iran could still develop nukes “under the guise of a civilian program,” he said.

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Radio Claims Weapon Possession

South Korean officials said today that they doubt the veracity of a report, broadcast yesterday on a North Korean radio station, that the North possesses nuclear weapons (see GSN, Oct. 17).

“In coping with mounting nuclear threats from the U.S. imperialists, we have come to have powerful military countermeasures, including nuclear weapons, in order to defend our sovereignty and right to existence,” said an unattributed statement on the Pyongyang Broadcasting Station (Pyongyang Broadcasting Station/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Nov. 17).

South Korean officials said today that they are skeptical of the statement.  It is still unknown whether it represents a true change in North Korea’s official nuclear weapons policy, which has been to neither confirm nor deny possession of nuclear weapons, the officials said (see GSN, Nov. 15).

“It’s too early to say whether North Korea’s official position on its nuclear issue has changed,” said Choi Young-joon, a chief analyst at South Korea’s Unification Ministry.  “In North Korea, such a report should follow an official government statement or policy announcement or comments by a top official,” he said.

South Korea’s Yonhap news agency attempted to play down the significance of the Pyongyang Broadcasting Station’s statement, saying it was meant primarily for a South Korean audience.  No other North Korean news agency, including the English-language Korean Central News Agency, has carried the statement, according to Yonhap (Paul Shin, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Nov. 18).

Bush Affirms Peaceful Intentions

Meanwhile, in a speech praising the recent decision by international officials to stop sending fuel oil aid to North Korea, U.S. President George W. Bush Friday dismissed claims of U.S. aggression against Pyongyang (see GSN, Nov. 15).

“As I made clear during my visit to South Korea in February, the United States has no intention of invading North Korea.  This remains the case today,” Bush said.  “The United States seeks friendship with the people of North Korea,” he added (U.S. State Department release, Nov. 15).

For further information, see:

Agreed Framework Text

KEDO

Back to top

Smallpox:  Germany Has Immunization Plan, 100 Million Vaccine Doses

Germany has 100 million doses of smallpox vaccine on hand and German officials have prepared an emergency plan to quickly immunize the population in case of a biological attack, according to the German weekly magazine Focus, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 24).

The plan calls for 500,000 firefighters and 800,000 clinical workers to quickly distribute the vaccine to the country’s 82 million residents (Agence France-Presse, Nov. 17).

Back to top

Russia:  Putin Plans to Appoint Siege Investigator

Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to appoint an official to resolve remaining questions about the theater hostage standoff that ended Oct. 26 with the use of an incapacitating gas, Yabloko party leader Grigory Yavlinsky said Friday (see GSN, Nov. 11).

The Russian Duma has rejected two proposals to establish an investigative commission on the theater siege and the special forces assault, which left 128 hostages and almost 50 Chechen militants dead, according to Russian officials.

“I spoke to the president, and the president agreed that there need to be official answers to the key questions.  And he said he will appoint an official representative to give these answers,” Yavlinsky said (Sarah Karush, Associated Press/Moscow Times, Nov. 18).

Back to top

International Response:  India to Reject Missile Code of Conduct

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — India Friday said it would not participate in a proposed international code of conduct to halt ballistic missile proliferation, citing concerns that the code does not exempt peaceful uses of missile technology (see GSN, Nov. 14).

“India is not going to subscribe to the International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation,” Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Shri Navtej Sarna said at a press briefing.

India opposes the code because it does not do enough to distinguish between the development of ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles, Sarna said.  “We find it difficult to accept ... the implied questioning of the right to peaceful uses of space technology,” he said.

India has also determined that the code is not flexible enough to accommodate its “core concerns,” and that it is too similar to existing nonproliferation regimes, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime, to which India does not belong, Sarna said.

“These regimes have proved ineffective in preventing acquisition of ballistic missile technology or nuclear weapon development through clandestine transfers and linkages,” Sarna said.  “Deterioration in India’s security environment has taken place despite their existence,” he added.

Even though India will not participate in the code, Indian officials still remain committed to working with other countries to reduce missile proliferation, Sarna said.

“We remain predisposed to work with like-minded countries towards a more inclusive, balanced and equitable approach to deal with the threat posed by proliferation of ballistic missiles,” Sarna said.  “This position of India on the ICOC [missile code of conduct] will in no way detract from its resolve to pursue responsible and cooperative policies to curb proliferation of ballistic missile technology,” he added.

India is the second country of possible proliferation concern to reject the code in as many weeks.  Last week China announced that it would not participate (see GSN, Nov. 12).  The code is set to be signed in a ceremony at The Hague later this month.

For further information, see:

Draft International Code of Conduct (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)

Missile Technology Control Regime (U.S. State Department)

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Renews Threat to Restart Testing

North Korea today reiterated threats to end its self-imposed moratorium, saying it would restart ballistic missile testing if Japan continues to develop a missile defense system with the United States (see GSN, Nov. 5).

“This move of the Japanese bellicose forces to step up the joint MD [missile defense] under the pretext of the ‘missile threat’ from the D.P.R.K. compels it to heighten the vigilance against them,” the official North Korean Rodong Sinmun newspaper said (see GSN, Nov. 12).  “This also prompts the D.P.R.K. to take a corresponding measure as it is a new dangerous move to attack and stifle the D.P.R.K. by force of arms,” the newspaper said (Agence France-Presse, Nov. 18).

Last week, North Korea threatened to resume missile tests if Japan did not make amends for alleged abuses committed during its colonial rule of Korea from 1910 to 1945, according to the Associated Press.  North Korea also made a similar threat earlier this month (Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Nov. 18).

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  “Dirty Bomb” Attack Is 40 Percent Probability, Expert Says

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — There is a 10 to 40 percent chance that terrorists will conduct a successful attack with a crude “dirty bomb” in the next five to 10 years, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said Friday (see GSN, Nov. 15).

Albright outlined the likelihood of a variety of nuclear terrorism scenarios during a panel discussion at a nonproliferation conference held by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  The chances of terrorists conducting a successful attack on a nuclear power plant, detonating a more sophisticated radiological weapon or a crude nuclear weapon within the next 10 years range from 1 to 10 percent, he said (see GSN, Oct. 30).  While these percentages are low, they indicate that there is still a possibility of nuclear terrorism, which officials need to take seriously, Albright added.

There are also fears terrorists could construct a plutonium-based nuclear weapon, Albright said.  While the chance of a successful attack using such a weapon is low — no more than 5 percent — it still poses a potential risk, he said.  Even though a crude plutonium-based weapon might achieve an explosive yield of only a few hundred tons or a few kilotons — which would be a failure by U.S. standards — that could be sufficient for terrorist aims, Albright said.

The chance of what many would consider the worst-case scenario — terrorists obtaining and detonating an intact nuclear warhead — is less than 1 percent, Albright said.  Even though the chances of a successful sophisticated nuclear or radiological terrorism attack are relatively low, the high consequences of such an attack should lead to the United States making its prevention the highest priority, he said.

Terrorist Motivation and Attempts

Fears of nuclear terrorism are justified because terrorist groups have demonstrated a motivation to conduct such attacks, Albright said.  For example, there is evidence that al-Qaeda was “very determined” to obtain a nuclear capability, he said (see GSN, Sept. 3).

Al-Qaeda has tried to develop a self-sufficient weapons production capability, Albright said, noting the organization’s efforts to develop high explosives.  Several documents have shown that al-Qaeda was successful on theoretical and experimental levels in developing such weapons and that the organization was teaching its operatives how to enter a country and develop high explosives from scratch, he said.  This self-sufficient philosophy, however, could do more harm than good regarding nuclear terrorism, because such devices are too sophisticated to be produced through decentralized efforts, Albright said.

There is also evidence that al-Qaeda attempted to establish a “quasi-state [nuclear] program” in Afghanistan with the aid of the Taliban, Albright said.  The organization was aware that it needed outside help in developing a nuclear capability and looked primarily to Pakistan for assistance, he said. 

By the summer of 2001, several Pakistani scientists involved in projects inside Afghanistan were being approached by al-Qaeda, often done with the knowledge of the Taliban, Albright said.  Al-Qaeda also used the Taliban regime to help aid in the foreign procurement of necessary components, since a government entity was a more legitimate recipient of dual-use items, he added.  

If al-Qaeda had been able to stay in Afghanistan undisturbed, they probably would have successfully produced at least a crude nuclear weapon, Albright said.  Even after being disrupted by the U.S.-led war on terrorism in Afghanistan, however, the organization might still be attempting to develop a nuclear capability.  The identities and locations of many who were involved in al-Qaeda’s nuclear and radiological efforts within Afghanistan are still unknown, Albright said, noting increasing concerns that the organization might be regrouping and relaunching a recruitment effort.

Reducing the Risk

During the panel discussion, two other experts presented a number of recommendations to reduce the threat of radiological and nuclear terrorism.  Charles Ferguson, a scientist-in-residence at the Monterey Institute of International Studies Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said a strategic plan is needed to organize the plethora of recommendations made over the last several years.  Such a system would help officials determine how to best allocate finite resources and help identify appropriate preventive, enforcement and response measures for both the short and long term, Ferguson said, noting the need of a “defense-in-depth” approach.

While there is a large amount of data on the various aspects of nuclear terrorism, in-depth information is still lacking on the motivations of terrorist groups to conduct such attacks, Ferguson said.  Since the United States can probably do little to convince terrorist organizations to not conduct such attacks, however, more should be done where there can be a demonstrable effect — improving the security of radioactive materials, he said.

Richard Garwin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, outlined a series of recommendations that were included in a 2001 paper on nuclear terrorism presented to a session of The International Seminars On Planetary Emergencies.  The United States and other members of the international community should work to reduce the number of potential terrorists and to improve the security of potential targets, such as radioactive material storage sites, to discourage attacks upon them, Garwin said.  Trusted-person databases and biometric-based identification systems should also be introduced to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to sensitive areas at nuclear sites and aircraft standards should be modified to prevent hijackings and Sept. 11-type attacks on such sites, he said (see GSN, Nov. 12).

Garwin also recommended that public education systems and contingency plans be in place in order to prevent panic in the event of a radiological attack.  Such plans should prevent people from leaving the area in a panic when there is no significant hazard in remaining in place for a week or more, he said.  In order to reduce the consequences of an act of nuclear terrorism, absolute radiation protection limits, such as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards, should be replaced by a more market-based approach, Garwin said.  For example, a full disclosure and inspection would detail the possible increased cancer risk of a home in a radiation-contaminated area, which could then be sold at a market price to people who would be older and be less likely to have children, and thereby suffer less effect.

“Recall that 20 percent of us will die from cancer,” Garwin said in his presentation.  “Life is too short for the individual to worry about an additional 1 percent probability in the remote case of terrorist attack, although it is an important topic in public health”

In order to implement the recommendations made by experts, the United States needs to create a technical organization to evaluate the possible terrorist threat, identify potential solutions and evaluate capabilities at any time, Garwin said.  Such a technical organization should be modeled after the Manhattan Project — the World War II-era U.S. project to develop the first nuclear weapon, he said.

Back to top