Threat Assessment:  Critics Question Basis for Bush “Axis of Evil” Charge

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Citing CIA Director George Tenet’s Wednesday congressional testimony, some national security analysts are challenging the Bush administration’s rationale for labeling Iran, Iraq and North Korea an “axis of evil.”

President George W. Bush coined the phrase in his State of the Union address last month, saying the three countries “could” someday attempt to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction and effectively marking them targets in the U.S.-led global war on terrorism.

The intelligence chief’s prepared testimony, presented annually to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, however, did not indicate the three countries have been a source of that technology for terrorists (see GSN, Feb. 7).  Nor did an unclassified bi-annual report to Congress issued by the CIA last week detailing global WMD threats.  They pointed instead to the Internet and former Soviet states.

“There isn’t any evidentiary base for the assumption that there have been massive proliferation efforts going on,” says Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA chief of counterterrorism operations.

“There may be evidence linking these states to terrorists,” said Joseph Cirincione, director of the Nonproliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  “But there is no publicly available evidence indicating that any state has given materials, designs or expertise to these terrorist groups that would help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.”

There is, of course, the possibility the United States does have such evidence but is holding it until after U.S. forces now in Afghanistan can be positioned to do something about it — to avoid alerting a regime prior to attacking.

CIA Reporting

CIA spokesman Tom Crispell said he could not comment on whether there is classified information indicating such proliferation.

“The report we do bi-annually to Congress is as far as we can go in an unclassified forum to discuss a very sensitive issue,” he said.

That report said the threat of terrorists using chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material “appears to be rising” since Sept. 11.

It said, however, that such WMD information and technology is “more widely available, especially from sources like the Internet and the former Soviet Union.”

It also warned of growing  “secondary proliferation” from maturing state-sponsored programs, such as those in India, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, but did not say whether terrorists were receiving WMD technology.

Tenet cited the Internet as a primary source of WMD technology.

“Terrorist groups worldwide have ready access to information on chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons via the Internet,” he said.

Tenet said his testimony reflected reported discoveries of information in Afghanistan indicating al-Qaeda attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Jan. 17).

Foreign Criticism

Some foreign leaders have questioned the wisdom of Bush’s formulation, warning it could discourage cooperation by those countries and weaken moderate forces in Iran (see GSN, Jan. 31).

French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine called Bush’s approach “simplistic” and “not well thought out.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw suggested Bush's comments should be “best understood by the fact that there are midterm congressional elections coming up in November.”

Less attention, however, has been paid to whether there is a factual or logical basis to the administration’s assertions that the three countries might proliferate WMD technologies to terrorists.

China was an exception.

“We believe that combat against terrorism should have concrete evidence,” said a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman last week.

China “holds that anti-terrorism campaign should not be expanded willfully,” he said.

Critics See No Evidence

Nongovernmental analysts say they have seen no such evidence.

With respect to North Korea, “there’s no evidence at all” that it provided aid to groups like al-Qaeda or others that have attacked the United States,” said Selig Harrison, a Korea expert at the Center for International Policy and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

In fact, he said, there is “no evidence North Korea has created any terrorist acts in the Korean peninsula since 1987,” when, it was widely believed, North Korea shot down a civilian jetliner.

While a connection between an Iraqi intelligence official and a key member of al-Qaeda was confirmed prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the intelligence community has not, at least yet, indicated it has found evidence of Iraqi support for the group’s terror operations (see GSN, Feb. 6).

Tenet testimony said only Iraq “has also had contacts with al-Qaeda.”

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has cautioned there should be no war on Iraq unless a clear connection is found between Baghdad and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Tenet linked Iran to support for terrorist activities, including recent “participation in the attempt to transfer arms to the Palestinian Authority.”

Tenet did not, however, describe any Iranian ties to al-Qaeda or Iranian WMD transfers to terrorists.  A North Korean connection to terrorism also was not mentioned.

Tenet’s statement suggested the apparent absence of intelligence showing countries have shared their WMD technology may result from difficulties in detecting such activity.

“As I have mentioned in years past, we face several unique challenges in trying to detect WMD acquisition by proliferant states and nonstate actors.  Their use of denial and deception tactics and their access to a tremendous amount of information in open sources about WMD production complicate our efforts,” Tenet said.

“The absence of evidence doesn’t mean that it’s not true, but it’s very difficult to sustain the argument without any evidence at all,” said Carnegie’s Cirincione. “It’s very difficult to construct your policy without any evidence this is happening.”

Questions Over Probability

The administration’s underlying reasoning for the “axis of evil” designation appears to be that a common antipathy toward the United States could lead the three countries to share more than conventional weapons with terrorists.

Bush in his State of the Union address did not provide the explanation, saying only that they  “could” share the technology.

Citing Iran, Iraq and North Korea, he said, “states like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.  By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these countries pose a grave and growing danger.  They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred” (see GSN, Jan. 30).

Tenet, though, did provide an explanation:  mutual hatred.

“Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies, but the two sides’ mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible — even though [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences,” Tenet said.

Would They Risk It?

Tony Blinken, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former staffer at the National Security Council during most of the Clinton administration, said the administration’s reasoning may be more involved. 

“After Sept. 11, with the knowledge al-Qaeda was more dangerous than we thought and was spread around the world, there was a concern Iraq might think it could have its cake and eat it too,” he said.

Iraq, he said, might feel it can get away with it.

“We’ve spent the last, I don’t know how many months, trying to determine who’s behind the anthrax attacks in the United States, and we still don’t know,” he said.

With respect to Iran, “there is speculation, and if you believe some people, real evidence Iran had a hand directly [or] indirectly in several terrorist acts we’ve never been able to pin on it, including the Khobar Towers destruction in Saudi Arabia,” Blinken said.

Critics, on the other hand, argue the countries have been developing weapons of mass destruction mainly for deterrence, and the risk of proliferating their weapons or technology would greatly outweigh the benefit.

“It is very unlikely that any country, including Iraq, would actually provide a weapon of mass destruction to a group they don’t control,” said Cirincione.  “It’s against their own self-interests.  And if they needed any proof of the validity of that, all they have to do is look at what happened to the Taliban.”

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington and expert on secret foreign nuclear weapons programs, however, envisions a scenario in which Iraq might someday transfer such technology to terrorists for use against the United States.

“If the Iraqi regime was about ready to go down the tubes, would it reach out and use terrorists as a delivery vehicle?  Probably of a biological agent,” he said.  “So I think you can’t ignore that.”

Otherwise, “separate from a doomsday scenario for a regime, I don’t see any motivation for any of the regimes to do that.”

Tenet in his spoken question-and-answer session, however, seemed to suggest evidence about a WMD connection and consideration of what might be in the three countries’ interests are not considered relevant to determining whether they should be targets of the terror campaign.

“Nobody dismisses anything. Everybody's on the table, and these networks of terrorism should no longer be thought about purely in terms of the state's interests, what [states] say publicly, what their obvious interests are and how they see the benefit in hurting the United States,” he said.

A Simplistic Strategy

The administration’s axis of evil phrasing has prompted domestic and international concern the administration is attempting to lay the intellectual groundwork for a U.S. military attack on Iraq, less possibly for the other two (see GSN, Jan. 31).

Former CIA official Cannistraro believes administration hardliners may see the Sept. 11 attacks and massive public support for anti-terrorism “as an opportunity to change the strategic equation in the world.  And get rid of people who aren’t necessarily current threats to the United States, maybe threats to other countries.”

Analysts alternatively suspect the label may be diplomatic posturing, designed to scare the countries into positive action with the implied threat of force.

For instance, “the administration appears to be gearing up to press North Korea for broadening and accelerated nuclear inspections,” as provided for in the bilateral 1994 Agreed Framework, said Harrison.

“Part of it is posturing to scare them and to scare Saddam.  I think to that degree it has worked,” said Cannistraro.

The “axis of evil,” they said, lacks subtlety to be effective.

In scaring Hussein they are also scaring Russia, whose cooperation is needed for maintaining strong sanctions against Iraq, Cannistraro said.

The axis of evil designation also is problematic for lacking clear distinction between the troublesome regimes in those countries and the rest of the population, said Cannistraro, which could embolden the hardliners in Iran competing for power with moderates.

“Now they’re able to say to the moderates and the [President Mohammad] Khatami people, see, this is what your policy gets you.  Americans are the great Satan,” he said.

The designation seems so contrary to U.S. interests, Cannistraro said, that conspiracy-minded people in the Middle East and South Asia think it is actually intended to keep the Iranian hardliners in power.

“It was not a well thought out phrase, certainly a not a well thought out position.  And if it was thought out, it reflects on the quality of thought within the administration, I’m sorry to say,” he said.

Back to top

U.S. Response:  CIA, FBI Moving Closer, But Not Fast Enough

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Since Sept. 11 the CIA and FBI have been working more closely together, but the agencies remain reluctant to connect their computer systems and share data, changes that must occur to best shield the United States from terrorist attacks, high-level sources told Global Security Newswire yesterday.

Utilizing the types of high-speed supercomputers already used by private industry to conduct marketing research, the CIA and FBI need to move beyond Counterintelligence-21 — an information sharing system currently being used by the 32 federal agencies that handle classified information — and adopt a faster, much more comprehensive database, sources said.

CI-21 — in which the ‘21’ signifies “21^st Century” — is already outdated and insufficient, and should be quickly replaced by a newer, more reliable system, a prototype of which is being used by the U.S. Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., they said.

“All of the [military services] are moving in this direction because they know it’s the tool of the future,” Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) told GSN yesterday before he met with the architect of the special operations prototype, a retired 20-year CIA veteran with two doctorates in information technology.

“The only ones who don’t get it are the CIA and the FBI,” Weldon said. “That’s not acceptable in this day and time.”

“You can’t have the FBI have someone on their list that the [Immigration and Naturalization Service] can’t see,” said L. Paul Bremer, a terrorism expert who noted that five of the 19 hijackers from Sept. 11 were on various government watchdog lists but were never detected prior to the airline attacks.

“If CI-21 was doing what we want to do then we might have known about 9-11 before it happened,” Weldon claimed.  “The CI-21 argument to me is shallow.”

Good Vibrations

In recent months CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies are working more closely together than ever before, exchanging liaisons and communicating frequently, spokesmen for the two agencies said.

While the CIA and FBI spokesmen were keenly aware of widely publicized complaints that the two agencies had not been working in harmony prior to Sept. 11 — deficiencies the agencies have moved to correct — they were unaware of any moves to link their computer systems.

Analysts have long speculated that it is extremely difficult to persuade the two secretive organizations to open up and share their findings, even during times of war.  Such openness is tested by recent efforts to create a new national database that can be accessed by agencies involved in the war on terrorism, they said.

“The vibrations are positive, the movement is positive, but it’s still moving too slow,” said Weldon.  “Our battle is still getting the agencies to open and work with each other.”

“No government agency likes to share its information with other agencies, that’s just a fact of life,” according to Bremer, who co-chaired a January Heritage Foundation report, Defending the American Homeland, that deemed as ‘critical’ more information sharing between intelligence agencies. “You do have to break down some of these bureaucratic barriers, and that takes time.”

In December Weldon and Representative Dan Burton (R-Ind.) met with Tom Ridge, director of the Office of Homeland Security, to brief him on Weldon’s proposed National Operations and Analysis Hub (NOAH), a proposed supercomputer data mining system based on the military special operations’ prototype (see GSN, Dec. 6, 2001).

The military’s data-mining prototype can search a wide variety of databases — and provide profiles on terrorists or companies that participate in WMD development — that otherwise could not be obtained by CI-21 or human sources, Weldon said.

Ridge supports the development of such a comprehensive database to be used by the CIA, FBI and 30 other agencies, as shown by the $722 million earmarked for “information and intelligence sharing” in the White House fiscal 2003 budget request, according to Homeland Security Office spokesman Gordon Johndroe.  The proposed funds represent a dramatic increase over the $155 million being spent on such endeavors this year, Johndoe said.

“Everyone’s been working well together,” Johndroe said, adding that the funds are to “make sure the CIA and the FBI and all the other agencies have compatible computer systems.”

An Old Problem

Currently when intelligence agencies share information they do not provide raw data — instead they offer outside agencies their interpretations of such data, a slow, cumbersome and often incomplete process, sources said. 

“This is an old problem,” said Bremer, who served as Reagan administration ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism.  “Ideally there should be a single database” that all the intelligence agencies can use.

To make the most of their scarce resources, intelligence officials need to make their raw data available to pertinent agencies or officials, analysts have said in recent months.  There are effective ways to disperse sensitive information without revealing sensitive sources, analysts said.

The CIA, FBI and other secretive agencies such as the Defense Intelligence Agency have been reluctant to share their resources for three reasons, Bremer said.

The first is a “legitimate concern” about sharing intelligence and protecting sources, he said.  The second is money — competition for funding is sometimes fierce and “it takes a hell of a lot of money” to build new computer systems, he added.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly if serious change is going to occur, are cultural hindrances —intelligence and law enforcement agencies simply are not used to working together and openly sharing information, Bremer noted. 

NOAH, the data-mining center proposed by Weldon, would employ massive high-speed computers endowed with cutting-edge software to monitor various threats to the United States.  The hub would track and profile the capabilities and contacts of terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda and the movement of weapons of mass destruction from Russia, China and others to countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

“It’s a tool that can not only be used to identify all the bad actors, the terrorists such as al-Qaeda, it also can be used for [tracking] the proliferation problem,” Weldon said.

‘Still Holding Out’

A comprehensive system such as NOAH could enable the United States to combine its intelligence resources to identify and root out terrorist groups or countries engaged in the transfer of nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological materials, Weldon said.  Such a system would enable officials to identify and monitor the front companies and hidden bank accounts of terrorists and wayward nations, he said.

In addition to the prototype NOAH system at the Special Operations Command there is a smaller, less-capable data mining system functioning at Fort Belvoir in Virginia.  It can already tap into raw data from various intelligence agencies, but the army has little, if any, authority to distribute any of the information it obtains.

Still, it appears that CIA and FBI officials are reluctant to embrace any supercomputer databases they must share with outsiders, despite the $722 million White House officials want to offer for such purposes.

“I’m not convinced that they’re doing it yet,” Weldon said. “They’re still holding out somewhat.”

Back to top

U.S. Response:  WMD Teams Train for Emergency Response

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — If terrorists attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction, 24 National Guard WMD Civil Support Teams are ready to respond, and eight more teams are undergoing initial training or being organized, according the U.S. Defense Department.

In a crisis, a governor could call on a state’s National Guard team or request assistance from additional teams.  The teams have the ability to assess the damage and the needs of other emergency responders, instruments to detect harmful biological or chemical agents, equipment to operate in an environment contaminated with such agents and sophisticated communication systems to send secure messages to headquarters.

WMD Civil Support Teams would be one part of a large-scale response that would include several local, state and federal agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, medical workers and firefighters.  The primary responsibility of each team would be to provide advice and technical support to emergency responders already at the scene of a terrorist attack, not to take command of the situation.

Training

Each team includes 22 full-time National Guard members with specialized training.  Each team consists of six sections:  command, operations, communications, logistics, medical and survey.  The teams are required to receive Defense Department certification, and 24 teams have met that requirement (see GSN, Jan. 30).

Each team member receives 600 hours of individual specialized training in addition to common skills training and professional education.  Organizations involved in training the teams include the Justice Department, FBI, Environmental Protection Agency, FEMA, National Fire Academy, Energy Department, U.S. Army Chemical School, U.S. Army Medical Department, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases and U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defense.

The teams also participate in exercises with first responders and state and local organizations.

Real-Life Training:  Anthrax Attacks

The Florida team received real-life training last October after the first anthrax attack hit the American Media building.  Palm Beach County emergency management officials asked 12 members of the team for assistance after the second anthrax case was identified, according to the National Guard (see GSN, Oct. 9, 2001).

“We were down there primarily to track what was going on, and the director of emergency management for Palm Beach County requested we stay on board for about a week to respond to more serious and suspect incidents,” said Maj. William Spengler, the team’s commander, according to a National Guard press release.

“We’re not first responders,” Spengler said.  “We’re next level — the state level — as a state response force when the first response community is overwhelmed.”

Congressional Authorization

Congress authorized the first 10 teams in fiscal 1999, followed by 17 teams authorized in fiscal 2000.  Congress authorized five new teams in fiscal 2001.

Back to top

Iraq:  U.S.-Russia Sanctions Talks Have Some Success

The United States said there was some success yesterday in talks with Russia on revising U.N. sanctions against Iraq.  U.S. and Russian officials met in Geneva Wednesday and Thursday to negotiate a plan for “smart sanctions” — allowing greater access to civilian goods while tightening controls on goods with potential military uses (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“We cleared away a number of questions and are studying each other’s responses to several others,” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State John Wolf.  “There are no substantial areas of disagreement,” he added.

U.S. and Russian delegates will meet again in mid-March for a third time since the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution in November to extend the oil-for-food program until the end of May (see GSN, Nov. 30, 2001).

Iraq opposes the plan to revise sanctions, saying it will not improve its humanitarian situation (see GSN, Jan. 14).  Meanwhile, the country has stepped up diplomatic efforts, including an offer to discuss issues with the United Nations without preconditions (see GSN, Feb. 6).

Russian officials did not provide any immediate comment after the meetings ended yesterday.

U.S. Increases Pressure on Iraq

The U.S.-Russia talks occurred amid increased U.S. pressure on Iraq.  U.S President George W. Bush last week said Iraq is part of an “axis of evil,” combined with Iran and North Korea (see GSN, Jan. 31).  Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday that Iraq is working to develop nuclear weapons.  Powell said the United States would consider all possible options to deal with the Iraqi threat (Reuters/Jordan Times, Feb. 8-9).

U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) said he supports the Bush administration’s determination to remove the threat that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses to the United States.

“I feel very strongly that Iraq under Saddam is a clear and present danger to the United States,” Lieberman said.  “The ‘how’ and ‘when’ is appropriate to leave to the president and the military,” he said.  “But the ‘whether’ should be beyond doubt.”

Lieberman said he does not agree, however, with Bush’s attempt to lump Iraq, Iran and North Korea together (see GSN, Feb. 4).

“The term ‘axis of evil’ is a brilliant term rhetorically, but in fact they are not an axis, in the sense of connection,” he said.  “I can imagine better relations both with Iran and North Korea, but I can’t with Iraq or Saddam.  They require different kinds of policies” (Financial Times, Feb. 8).

Assessing Iraqi WMD and Military Capability

If the United States attacks Iraq, the Iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass destruction would be a wild card, the Associated Press reported.  U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and could use them against U.S. forces or Israel (see GSN, Jan. 31).  Iraq has greatly improved its ability to hide WMD equipment, U.S. defense officials said (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2001).

Despite the possible WMD threat, the Iraqi military is only 40 percent as large as it was before the 1991 Gulf War, when it was the world’s fourth largest military.  Its conventional equipment is mostly Cold War-era and could be in poor condition, partly due to U.N. sanctions that block many military sales to Iraq.

“They have had no significant military modernization for a decade,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq does still have 350,000 to 400,000 soldiers, short-range ballistic missiles and modern air defenses, although U.S. fighter planes often bomb Iraq’s air defenses in no-fly zones.

Iraq “remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition groups and threatening Iraq’s neighbors,” CIA Director George Tenet said this week (see GSN, Feb. 7). 

War Against Iraq Would be Different from the Afghanistan Campaign

Given Iraqi military capabilities, the United States would not be able to overthrow Hussein using the same strategy that the United States and its allies used in Afghanistan, which relied on Afghan opposition groups and small numbers of special forces, U.S. officials said.

Iraqi rebel forces lack the strength to seriously fight the Iraqi military without U.S. ground troops, experts said.  Many experts and U.S. officials consider the Iraqi National Congress, one of the main opposition groups, unreliable.

The United States would also need allied support for a military campaign, according to Reuters.  Turkey and Saudi Arabia, two of the most important strategic allies against Iraq, might not support such a campaign under present circumstances (see GSN, Jan. 7), according to the Associated Press (John Lumpkin, Associated Press, Feb. 8).

Back to top

Russia:  NTI Donates Nonproliferation Funds

The Nuclear Threat Initiative, headed by Ted Turner and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, today announced it would donate $6 million to launch several nonproliferation programs in Russia.

“Russia has enormous technical and scientific expertise, and Russia and the United States must join together in a global effort to secure weapons materials and weapons know-how,” Nunn said in a press release.

The NTI donations include:

*         $1 million to an existing Russian loan program designed to create civilian jobs for former Soviet nuclear weapons scientists in the nuclear city of Sarov (see GSN, Jan. 2);

*         $500,000 to create a U.S.-Russian working group to design strategies to better prevent WMD proliferation;

*         $100,000 to hold a technical workshop on nuclear nonproliferation in Moscow;

*         $1.3 million to aid former Soviet biological weapons scientists in developing a new brucellosis vaccine (see GSN, Nov. 26, 2001);

*         $250,000 to a study that employs former Soviet biological weapons scientists in examining the feasibility of launching commercial manufacturing of hepatitis vaccine in Russia (see GSN, Nov. 19, 2001);

*         $80,000 to help up to 20 Russian biological research scientists attend international scientific conferences;

*         more than $700,000 to develop an arms control curriculum to be taught at a Russian and a U.S. university; and

*         $1 million to aid the development of the Shchuchye chemical weapons disposal plant in Russia (see related GSN, story, today).  This donation is conditioned on the availability of matching funds (Nuclear Threat Initiative release, Feb. 8).

[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

North Korea:  Ready for U.S. Talks, Official Says

North Korea is prepared to resume talks with the United States at any time, despite U.S. President George W. Bush’s harsh rhetoric during his State of the Union address, North Korea’s U.N. representative said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 4).

If the United States is willing to talk with North Korea as equals and without prior conditions, “there will be no problem at all,” even with Bush’s comments placing North Korea into an “axis of evil” along with Iran and Iraq, said representative Pak Gil Yon (see GSN, Feb. 4).

“As we always say, a nice word will be answered with a nice word,” Pak said. U.S. preconditions for any talks, however, are “not acceptable at all,” he said.

Last week, Bush appeared to lay out preconditions by telling North Korea to pull back some of its military forces from the border with South Korea and to stop exporting weapons, according to Reuters (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“We would be more than happy to enter into a dialogue with them if that be the case,” Bush said.

This week, however, U.S. State Secretary Colin Powell said the United States has no preconditions for talks with North Korea.

“We are prepared to talk to the North Koreans any time, any place, anywhere, under any set of conditions and with no previously set agenda,” Powell said during testimony before the House International Relations Committee.  “Let’s start talking” (Irwin Arieff, Reuters/Yahoo.com, Feb. 7).

Back to top

India-Pakistan:  Russia and U.S. Say South Asia is Risking Nuclear War

The risk of a nuclear war between Pakistan and India is high, Russian Deputy Premier Ilya Klebanov said yesterday in New Delhi, the Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported.  Klebanov was agreeing with a statement by U.S. CIA Director George Tenet, according to Dawn.

Klebanov said India should not consider nuclear war as an option, and he urged Pakistan to deal with India’s concern about Pakistani-backed terrorism (see GSN, Feb. 4).

“I absolutely agree when India tells Pakistan that something needs to be done at the ground level against terrorists.  Pakistan needs to punish them, and, if necessary, hand them over to India,” he said.  “Russia appreciates the restraint shown by India so far but at the same time feels that recourse of military action not the only solution.”

Klebanov was in India to discuss a major arms agreement between Russia and India (see related GSN story, today).  His comments resembled those of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (see GSN, Jan. 28) who earlier asked India and Pakistan to refrain from inflammatory remarks, Dawn reported (Dawn, Feb. 8).

CIA Concerned About Nuclear War in South Asia

Tenet said Wednesday that tensions between India and Pakistan might result in nuclear war, although diplomacy has helped (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“Both India and Pakistan are publicly downplaying the risks of nuclear conflict in the current crisis.  We are deeply concerned, however, that a conventional war, once begun could escalate into a nuclear confrontation, and here is a place where diplomacy and American engagement has made an enormous difference,” he said.

“If India were to conduct large-scale offensive operations into Pakistani Kashmir, Pakistan might retaliate with strikes of its own in the belief that its nuclear deterrent would limit the scope of an Indian nuclear counterattack (see GSN, Jan. 17),” Tenet said (Sridhar Krishnaswami, The Hindu, Feb. 7).

Indian Reacts

Indian Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pramod Mahajan asked why India was under international pressure to be patient with Pakistan while the United States and Israel did not show patience in dealing with their own terrorist problems (Dawn, Feb. 8).

Back to top

India:  Officials to Sign Military Sales Deal With Russia

India and Russia are expected to sign a military protocol today that could include agreements for India to purchase an aircraft carrier and to lease two Russian nuclear submarines and two TU-22 long-range strategic bombers.

The submarine lease would affect the region’s strategic balance because Pakistan has no similar vessels and China’s nuclear submarines are outdated, according to Agence France-Presse.

The protocol is expected to follow negotiations between Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov and Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes (see related GSN story, today).  Although the protocol is focused on acquisitions, it is also expected to lead the countries toward joint development and production of military goods.

“Russia is willing to go beyond the sale and lease of high-tech weapons,” Klebanov said Wednesday.  If Russia and India sign the protocol, India would pay more than $3 billion for the Russian equipment and technology (Agence France-Presse/Times of India, Feb. 8).

Analysts said the protocol would send a message to Pakistan that India would take a tough stance on Kashmir, CNN reported (see GSN, Feb. 4).  The new procurements would probably not be deployed in the current Pakistan-India standoff, however, because the military transfers would take time if the two countries sign the deal (CNN, Feb. 8).

Back to top

Iran:  Nuclear Weapon Likely in Five Years, Israel Says

Iran could have a nuclear weapon in less than five years, Israeli officials said yesterday, differing from U.S. intelligence reports that it would take nearly 10 years (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“By the year 2005 they will be ready to produce to the world for the first time an Iranian nuclear bomb,” said Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer.  “Some of us think it could come earlier.”

Eliezer made his comments during his visit to the United States this week.  Eliezer and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have tried to convince U.S. President George W. Bush that Iran remains the principal threat in the Middle East, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Asked if Israel would try to destroy Iran’s developing nuclear capability through air strikes, such as it did to Iraq in the 1980s, Eliezer said, “I don’t think there is a need to use weaponry … there are ways, diplomatic ways, economic ways” to convince Iran (see GSN, Feb. 6).

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei yesterday said Iran would not launch attacks against the United States or other countries in the Middle East, but he warned of a severe response if Iran was attacked.

“The Iranian nation will not initiate an attack because we believe that seeking hegemony is as bad as accepting it,” Khamenei said.  “Whoever threatens the interests of the Iranian nation or attacks this nation, the answer of the Iranian nation will be harsh and make them regret.”

Which is Worse:  Iran or Iraq?

Israel is ready to support any U.S. attacks on Iraq, but Israel’s main benefit in such a case would be the effect on Iran, Eliezer said.

“To get into Iraq means to get in between Syria and Iran,” he said.  “This can be a very good move” (John Diamond, Chicago Tribune, Feb. 8).

It is Iran, however, not Iraq that remains the biggest threat in the Middle East, Eliezer said.

“Today everybody is busy with Iraq,” he said.  “Iraq is a problem.  But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq.”

Iraq has become less of a threat due to a decade of U.N. sanctions and isolation, Israeli officials said (see related GSN story, today).  They added, however, that they are concerned that Iraq might retaliate against a U.S. attack by using biological or chemical weapons against Israel.

“I think we are going to be one of the first targets,” Eliezer said (Alan Sipress, Washington Post/Boston Globe, Feb. 7).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Despite Budget Cuts, CDC “Up to Challenge” of Bioterrorism, Official Says

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Despite cuts to its bioterrorism budget at a time when other agencies are reaping record amounts, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is improving its ability to respond to biological weapons attack, a CDC official said yesterday.

Even though White House officials want to cut $661 million in fiscal 2003 from the $2.3 billion bioterrorism budget CDC received this year, the CDC still expects to be heavily relied upon in any future biological outbreaks, CDC spokesman Llelwyn Grant told Global Security Newswire yesterday.

“We’re up to the challenge,” Grant said in response to recent criticism that the CDC is poorly prepared to prevent or react to acts of terrorism involving deadly biological or chemical agents.

This week Tara O’Toole, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies, accused the CDC of an “absolutely terrible” handling of the anthrax incidents last fall that infected 18 people, killing five of them (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“We now understand a lot more [about biological diseases] and we are working closely with state and local authorities” to prepare them for any outbreaks, Grant said.

“In the event that we do have another incident involving anthrax or some other biological agent, we are prepared to protect the American public,” Grant continued.  “We are moving in the right direction to provide public health support.”

O’Toole, however, said the CDC is “not big enough” to be responsible for public safety, and called for the federal government to create a new information network outside of the CDC.  Because CDC officials were “completely consumed by ongoing operations” during the anthrax epidemic, O’Toole said, the CDC could only improve if it includes outside bioterrorism experts in its preparation for and response to future attacks.

Better Communications Needed

Currently the CDC operates 81 different surveillance systems across the country, “none of which talk to each other,” O’Toole said.  “The CDC Web site crashed at least twice during the anthrax [incidents],” she added, leaving government and academic experts “out of the loop.”

Grant said the CDC’s surveillance systems are fine, and that the fiscal 2003 budget proposed by President George W. Bush earmarks $940 million for state and local capacities — the same amount given this year.

“We’re in the process of improving our state and local capabilities,” Grant said, declining specific examples.

“We’re looking to do a lot of enhancements to our emergency operations and communication abilities.  We’re doing everything we can,” Grant continued.  “We have a pretty in-depth Web site in which we post all the latest and greatest information.”

Grant refuted O’Toole’s assertions that the CDC did not include outside input during the anthrax crisis, saying the center held regular satellite and Internet conferences in which almost half a million specialists participated.  O’Toole, one of the leading bioterrorism scholars in the country, said the conference calls she participated in were “last minute” and “chaotic.”

Grant said the $940 million being spent on state and local authorities this year is being used to further “build up their capacity” to prepare and respond to any biological attacks.

“Given the science and technology we had at the time [of the anthrax outbreaks],” Grant said, “we have evolved.”

Budget Cuts

The White House budget proposal for next year seeks to pump $6 billion into bioterrorism preparation, but while many government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health would come out big winners, the CDC would actually lose almost one-third of its bioterrorism funding.  NIH is earmarked to receive more than $1.7 billion for research and development.

Grant blamed the cuts on the fact that this year the CDC is receiving $757 million to boost the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, a reserve of vaccines and antidotes (see GSN, Jan. 29).

“This is a one-time infusion,” Grant said.  “In 2003 there’s no need for that buildup.”

A close examination of the proposed budget for CDC next year, however, reveals widespread cuts in key areas.

For example, the CDC is expected to have $57 million chopped from its chronic disease prevention and health promotion departments.  The CDC is also slated to lose $31 million for public health improvement, $28 million for occupational safety and health and $20 million for emergency recovery.

Furthermore, the CDC is due to have $10 million reduced from its infectious disease control programs — and lose $186 million from its building and facilities coffers.

“If I was to say things are perfect, I’d be false,” Grant said. “In hindsight, perhaps we would have approached [the anthrax outbreaks] differently.”

Back to top

Anthrax:  “Amerithrax” Investigation Too Broad, Experts Say

Some bioterrorism experts have said the FBI needs to narrow the scope of its anthrax attacks investigation, rather than expanding the search as it has done in recent weeks, Salon.com reported today (see GSN, Feb. 7).

In the past several weeks, the FBI has distributed thousands of flyers throughout central New Jersey — where the tainted letters were postmarked — in an effort to drum up new leads in the case (see GSN, Jan. 24).  The FBI also subpoenaed all anthrax-related documents from several universities and requested the e-mail addresses of the 40,000 members of the American Society of Microbiology (ASM), according to Salon (see GSN, Jan. 30).

“As we understand, it’s not just microbiology needed to create the anthrax that was in the letters,” said an ASM spokesman.  “You need the microbiology skills to grow it, but to process it, you need a totally different set of skills.”

Based on what is known about the anthrax used in the attacks, the FBI should be able to significantly narrow down its list of suspects, other experts said.

“Given what’s been reported about the nature and quality of the anthrax material in the Daschle and Leahy letters, that the material itself almost certainly originated in the U.S. biological weapons program, they ought to be able to narrow the investigation to a fairly limited number of facilities,” said Elisa Harris, former director of nonproliferation issues at the National Security Council.

“That number is certainly less than 20,” she said.  “So I find it puzzling that the FBI has approached all 40,000 members of the American Society of Microbiologists.  I don’t understand why they seem to be casting the net so widely.”

The FBI said it is trying to conduct a thorough and complete investigation into the anthrax attacks.

“We are continuing to investigate the source of the anthrax, and who might be responsible for sending it,” an FBI spokesman said.  “That investigation is very thorough and very exhaustive and we have not ruled anything out.  We have pursued thousands of leads.”

Instead, the FBI might be intentionally stalling the investigation into the U.S. weapons laboratory connection, said Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a microbiologist at New York State University and the author of a paper for the Federation of American Scientists which outlines who she thinks is responsible (see GSN, Jan. 25).

“For more than three months now the FBI has known that the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks is American,” Rosenberg wrote in a letter to Salon.  “This conclusion must have been based on the perpetrator’s evident connection to the U.S. biodefense program.”

“This guy knows too much and knows things the U.S. isn’t very anxious to publicize,” Rosenberg said.  “Therefore, they don’t want to get too close.”

Other experts, however, have said it is unlikely there is a governmental conspiracy at work.  The real problem could be simple incompetence, they said.

“Barbara [Hatch Rosenberg] says the FBI’s been told to look for things, and they haven’t,” said Milton Leitenberg of the University of Maryland.  “I don’t know.  I think they the FBI are doing a half-assed job of it myself.  But maybe other people would have done as bad a job, who knows?” (Laura Rozen, Salon.com, Feb. 8).

Back to top

Russia:  U.S. Disposal Aid Will Be Released, Official Says

A Russian senior official Wednesday said he hopes a final agreement on U.S. funding for Russian chemical weapons disposal efforts could be worked out before U.S. President George W. Bush’s visit to Moscow in May (see GSN, Feb. 6).

Earlier this week, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Russia has met the criteria needed to receive $50 million for a disposal plant in Shchuchye.  The United States has agreed to give Russia $620 million more to help aid the destruction of Russian chemical weapons, according to Reuters.

“In principle, we have now agreed on the political level that this problem is no more,” said Sergei Kiriyenko, chairman of the Russian state commission for chemical disarmament, but “we still need work at the expert level.”

A U.S. delegation of experts from the State and Defense departments are expected to visit Russia at the end of this month to work out the final details, Kiriyenko said (David Ljunggren, Reuters/Moscow Times, Feb. 8).

Back to top

International Response:  Missile Control Talks Begin in Paris

More than 70 countries are discussing ballistic missile control in a two-day round of talks that began in Paris yesterday, according to BBC News.

The purpose of the meeting is to create a code of conduct with regard to ballistic missiles that would make it more difficult for countries to buy missiles and missile technology from rogue state exporters (see GSN, Feb. 7).

Under the proposed agreement, each country would annually declare its ballistic missile policy and list its missile launchers, according to BBC News.  Participant countries would also be encouraged to give notification of missile tests and to allow international observers at launch sites.

Negotiations on the proposed code of conduct could take years, officials said.  “This is still a very early stage,” one delegate said (BBC News, Feb. 7).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  Nevada Asks Bush to Back Away From Yucca Mountain

Top Nevada elected officials yesterday met with U.S. President George W. Bush in an effort to persuade him not to approve Yucca Mountain as the site for a permanent nuclear waste repository (see GSN, Feb. 6).

“I could not read [Bush] one way or another,” said Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn after the meeting.

U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is expected to formally recommend the Yucca Mountain site to Bush as early as tomorrow, according to the Las-Vegas Review Journal (see GSN, Jan. 11).  Bush, in turn, might agree to the site as soon as the beginning of next week, the Review-Journal reported.

Guinn said he might have been able to place some doubts in Bush’s mind about the suitability of Yucca Mountain and might have been able to delay any approval of the plan.

“I didn’t get the impression he was going to make his decision tomorrow or Saturday or Sunday or Monday,” Guinn said.  “Knowing him on a personal basis and knowing how he makes his decisions, we’re going to have some consideration out of this meeting today.  I just felt that.”

Senator John Ensign (R-Nev.), also present at yesterday’s meeting, said he too felt that Bush was unsure about the Yucca Mountain plan.

“I don’t think the people under him have any doubts in their mind, but I think the president has doubts in his mind,” Ensign said.  “He was getting one side, and all of a sudden today he hears another side.  And he seemed genuinely interested, and he was going to take his time and go through the issues and make sure he was making the best decision he felt.”

If Bush formally approves the Yucca Mountain plan, Guinn would have 60 days to register a veto, according to the Review-Journal.  Then, any decision on Yucca Mountain would go to Congress, where a simple majority in both houses would be needed to override Guinn’s veto.

Not In/Through My Backyard

Other Nevada officials yesterday also continued their battle against the Yucca Mountain plan, the Review-Journal reported.

Nevada Lieutenant Governor Lorraine Hunt distributed maps of possible nuclear waste transport routes to Yucca Mountain at a conference of lieutenant governors in Washington (see GSN, Feb. 4).  Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman also distributed route maps at a mayor’s conference last month, according to the Review-Journal.

“We can sit and argue all day, with our measly small [congressional] delegation, but we don’t have the votes, and if we can educate other states we may create a [not in my backyard] mentality,” Hunt said (Steve Tetreault, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Feb. 8).

Missouri state officials are also concerned about potential waste shipments through their state en route to Yucca Mountain, according to the Associated Press.

“We feel it is extremely likely that if Yucca Mountain is up and operating that it will entail use of [Interstate Route 70] for many of these cross-country shipments,” said Dru Buntin of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.  “The folks that live along these particular routes ought to be aware and ought to have some input in the decision.”

The U.S. Energy Department has not yet told Missouri officials how many waste shipments would pass through St. Louis on I-70, the AP reported.

“They haven’t told us how many shipments it’s going to be, and I don’t think that’s by accident,” Buntin said.

An Energy Department spokesman said it was too soon to talk about any potential waste shipments to Yucca Mountain.

“We can do this safely,” said Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis.  “In fact, we would only transport it if we can do it safely, and we believe we can” (Associated Press, Feb. 8).

Back to top

Food Safety:  Sandia Works to Apply Technologies to Food Safety

The U.S. Energy Department’s Sandia National Laboratories is researching ways to apply technology to increase food safety and assist producers, an industry newsletter reported this week (see GSN, Jan. 10).

Sandia and Kansas State University are researching how to use a decontamination formula to neutralize chemicals and biological warfare agents that could contaminate food-processing equipment, such as meat cutters’ equipment.  Researchers are trying to make the formula into a nontoxic foam to kill pathogens on hard surfaces.

Another potentially useful technology is the Rapid Syndrome Validation Project, a reporting system that health care professionals use to identify natural or intentionally caused diseases.  Scientists are researching using RSVP to monitor disease outbreaks among animals.

Sandia has other technologies, such as sensors, that could detect contamination in imported food.

Other Sandia-developed technologies will likely be used in agriculture in the future, said Darryl Drayer, head of Sandia’s agricultural security and food safety program.

“The field is wide open for opportunities to use our technologies,” Drayer said.  “We have to explore all the options to see which technologies are applicable” (Medical Letter on the CDC and FDA, Feb. 10).

Back to top