Threat Assessment:  Drug Cartel Tactics Could Be Used to Smuggle WMD, Official Says

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Connections between terrorist groups and drug smugglers concern the United States not only because drug cartels often fund terrorist groups but also because their smuggling techniques might be used to sneak weapons of mass destruction into the country, a U.S. official told Global Security Newswire yesterday.

“There are any number of ways anything can be smuggled into the United States,” said Dean Boyd, a Customs Service spokesman, referring to the thousands of 40-foot shipping containers that enter the country every day (see GSN, Jan. 18).

“Every one of those trucks, trains and ships that comes in provides a window of opportunity for the bad guys,” Boyd said.  “We’ve got to be alert to the possibility” that drug smuggling tactics could be used to bring “nuclear bombs, ‘dirty bombs’” or other WMD materials into the country.

While WMD materials are much more difficult to obtain than illegal drugs, the same methods for smuggling them can be used, various officials and analysts told GSN.

“The safest way to smuggle WMD into the United States is to put it in a bale of marijuana,” said Arnaud de Borchgrave, director of the Global Organized Crime Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  “It seems to me that the safest way to smuggle WMD into the United States would be using one of the 16 million cargo containers that enter the country each year.”

Last week a suspected Mexican drug lord was arrested after authorities discovered a handmade tunnel running underneath the U.S.-Mexican border near San Diego.  The tunnel was equipped with a trolley that could transport heavy loads underneath the border within minutes — a system that could be used to carry a nuclear or radiological bomb, analysts said.

“If you’ve got a ‘dirty bomb,’ you’ve still got to conceal it once you bring it out of the tunnel,” de Borchgrave said.  “The best way to do that would be to put it into a container and then put the container on the back of a truck.  From there you could take it almost anywhere, and no one would notice.”

Boyd said drug runners are usually willing to lose a load, to throw the contraband overboard, if they suspect U.S. officials have detected them.  “Terrorists won’t be so willing to get rid of the weapons grade uranium they worked so hard to obtain,” Boyd said.

The Customs Service has been training border guards in other countries, primarily former Soviet states and friendly central Asian nations, hoping to stem the flow of any illegal WMD materials, Boyd said.

“Instead of waiting for WMD to come here, when it would be too late, we’re trying to get to the source,” Boyd said.

Ties Between Terrorists and Smugglers a Concern

Other officials testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information, focusing on “narco-terrorism” — the financial connection between terrorist groups and drug cartels.

While the officials who testified did not directly mention weapons of mass destruction, they expressed trepidation that terrorists and drug smugglers often aid each other.

“Links between terrorist organizations and drug traffickers take many forms, ranging from facilitation — protection, transportation and taxation — to direct trafficking by the terrorist organization itself,” said Rand Beers, assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement. 

“Traffickers and terrorists have similar logistical needs in terms of material and the covert movement of goods, people and money,” Beers continued.  “Drug traffickers benefit from the terrorists’ military skills, weapons supply and access to clandestine organizations.  Terrorists gain a source of revenue and expertise in illicit transfer and laundering of proceeds from illicit transactions.”

Asa Hutchinson, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, testified that there is a definite nexus between terrorists groups and drug cartels.

“While the DEA does not specifically target terrorists, we will target and track down drug traffickers and drug trafficking organizations involved in terrorist acts,” including smuggling, Hutchinson said.

Breaking Up the Connections

Officials testified that terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda are well-connected to drug smugglers, leading others to speculate that they could easily use these contacts or expertise to bring nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical materials into the country.

“The likelihood that terrorists would use drug smuggling techniques to get weapons of mass destruction into the United States doesn’t seem very likely due to the difficulty of getting weapons grade materials, but it’s not a possibility we’re overlooking,” said Boyd, the Customs spokesman.

The DEA is preparing to launch Operation Containment, a proposed initiative that includes opening a DEA office in Kabul and expanding existing offices in Asian and European cities, said Hutchinson, the DEA administrator.  The goal of Operation Containment is to take advantage of the DEA’s growing “communications intercept and intelligence capabilities in support of agencies conducting counterterrorism investigations in America,” he said.

“The DEA has directed enforcement and intelligence assets to identify, investigate and dismantle all organizations, including terrorist groups, engaged in the drug trafficking trade,” Hutchinson testified.  “The degree to which terrorist organizations utilize drug profits to finance their horrific activities is of paramount concern to the DEA.”

U.S. President George W. Bush’s fiscal 2003 budget proposal includes $35 million and 73 positions requested in the attorney general’s counterterrorism fund to enhance DEA’s communications intercept and intelligence capabilities in support of agencies conducting counterterrorism in the United States and overseas, Hutchinson testified. 

Those funds would be used to assign 12 special agents and 33 intelligence analysts geared to combat smuggling, Hutchinson said.  An additional $7.7 million and slots for 45 new agents are also included in the FBI’s budget request to reimburse DEA for its counterterrorism support, he added.

Back to top

North Korea:  U.S., North Korean Officials Meet in New York

North Korean and U.S. diplomats met Wednesday in New York under a barrage of harsh rhetoric from Pyongyang (see GSN, Feb. 22).

Jack Pritchard, U.S. State Department envoy on North Korea policy, met with Pak Gil Yon, North Korea’s envoy to the United Nations, said a top U.S. State Department official.

“We had a useful meeting.  Both sides pledged to continue their discussions from time to time,” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly.

U.S. officials are unsure as to how to interpret the rhetoric and tone of recent statements from North Korea, Kelly said.

“Some of the statements emanating from Pyongyang have been fairly strong but not easily interpreted, and we are not sure what they meant,” he said (Stephen Collinson, Agence France-Presse, March 15).

North Korea yesterday threatened it would “take a substantial countermeasure” in response to recently released reports that it was on a U.S. list of countries considered as possible nuclear targets (see GSN, March 11).

“Under the present situation, where nuclear lunatics have taken office in the White House, we are compelled to examine all agreements with the U.S.,” said the North Korean Foreign Ministry in a statement.

One of the main agreements North Korea threatened to re-examine is the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which North Korea has agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program in exchange for two modern nuclear power reactors.

“The U.S. gave specific assurances … in the Agreed Framework that it would not use nuclear weapons against (North Korea) or threaten (North Korea) with them,” the North Korean Foreign Ministry said.

“In case the U.S. plan for a nuclear attack on (North Korea) turns out to be true, (North Korea) will have no option but to take a substantial countermeasure against it, not bound to any (North Korean)-U.S. agreement,” the ministry said (Andrew Ward, Financial Times, March 15).

Back to top

International Response:  Eight Countries Plan Test of Terrorist Attack

Health officials from eight countries yesterday agreed to conduct an international exercise to test responses to a possible terrorist attack using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons (see GSN, March 6).

The eight countries — Great Britain, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Mexico — agreed at a London meeting to model and test government responses for several simulated terrorist attacks.

“They would discuss, for example, if something happened in Paris what action would be necessary in Washington, and what we can do with people traveling from country to country, what are the real risks, what are the contingencies already in place on air flights and so on,” said David Harper, chief scientist for the British government (Nigel Morris, London Independent, March 15).

The eight countries also have started work on a standard international scale to rate potential terrorist WMD attacks in terms of the risks they pose to public health.

No details on the planned tests have been released.  The United Kingdom will host the next meeting of the group to create a model for the test, and Canada will put together a steering committee to plan it, according to the Calgary Herald.

Even though the risk from a bioterrorism attack is small, international cooperation still needs to be improved, said the gathered health officials.

“I think that since Sept. 11 we have been working very hard to ensure that we are in a position to provide Canadians with the assurance that health security is a key concern for this government,” said Canadian Health Minister Anne McLellan.  “We take this issue seriously” (Calgary Herald, March 15).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Nuclear Reduction Talks to Continue Next Week

U.S. and Russian officials will meet in Geneva next week to continue talks on cutting their nuclear arsenals, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said today on his way back to Moscow after meeting with U.S. officials in Washington (see GSN, March 14).

The next round of talks, on March 21 and 22, will continue discussions from several meetings begun in January to create an arms reduction agreement.

At meetings held in Moscow in February, the two sides exchanged draft accords for cutting nuclear weapons, Ivanov said (see GSN, Feb 20).

“There are differences between Moscow and Washington on the text of the future accord, but I would not say that we are at an impasse,” Ivanov said.  The main disagreement is over whether to store or destroy nuclear warheads taken off operational status (Agence France-Presse, March 15).

Ivanov said he “would not forecast whether the document will be signed or not during the Russian-American summit in May,” ITAR-Tass reported, according to BBC Monitoring (BBC Monitoring, March 15).

Back to top

United States I:  Energy Spends $10 Million to Study “Bunker Busters”

U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said yesterday that his department will spend $10 million to study whether existing nuclear weapons can be modified to destroy underground bunkers (see GSN, March 14).

“This is a modification of a weapon … not the development of a new warhead,” Abraham told the Senate Armed Services Committee.  He added that the Defense Department is also examining whether there are new ways that conventional weapons could be used to attack bunkers and other reinforced targets.

No work is being done “at this point” on developing a low-yield nuclear weapon, Abraham said, even though there have been reports that the Nuclear Posture Review supports making such warheads (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, March 15).

Back to top

United States II:  Develop Smaller Nukes, Two Analysts Say

The Bush administration is correct to consider using nuclear weapons to combat rogue states with other weapons of mass destruction, two defense analysts wrote in today’s Washington Post (see GSN, March 14).

“The reality is that nuclear weapons have a useful role to play in deterring or defeating the use of certain weapons of mass destruction,” wrote Richard Sokolsky and Eugene Rumer of the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies.

Countries hostile to the United States are developing weapons of mass destruction hidden in underground sites, and their leaders might not be deterred by “traditional threats of massive nuclear retaliation,” the authors wrote.

The United States could threaten to use its large, Cold War-era nuclear weapons against a state that attacks with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but rogue states might not take the threat seriously due to the huge loss of life it would cause.

Therefore, developing smaller nuclear weapons that could destroy weapons of mass destruction hidden in underground bunkers or other specific targets, as the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review reportedly suggests, would act as a more serious deterrent, Sokolsky and Rumer wrote (see GSN, March 11).

The authors presented a scenario in which thousands of U.S. citizens die from a biological attack and the United States knows a particular country is responsible and is planning more attacks.  Also in the scenario, the United States could only destroy its enemy’s biological weapons with nuclear weapons.

“Under these conditions, why shouldn’t the president have the option of limiting further American deaths?” the authors wrote.

Some critics of the Nuclear Posture Review have said that by suggesting the use of nuclear weapons to respond to chemical or biological attacks, the review changes traditional U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons only when national survival is on the line.

Sokolsky and Rumer say such criticism misrepresents historical U.S. policy.  Although the United States said in 1978 that it would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, senior officials have said over the past decade that the United States could use nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological — as well as nuclear — attacks.

During the Cold War, NATO policy called on members to use nuclear weapons to deter or defeat a conventional attack from members of the Warsaw Pact, the authors wrote.

Developing smaller, more tactical nuclear weapons and threatening to use them in retaliation for biological or chemical attacks would not increase nuclear proliferation, the authors wrote.  U.S. nuclear policy has little effect on decisions by Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan and India to pursue nuclear programs, the authors wrote (Sokolsky/Rumer, Washington Post, March 15).

Back to top

CTBT:  San Marino Ratifies Treaty

San Marino ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on Tuesday (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2001).  To date, 165 nations have signed the accord and 90 have ratified it, including 31 of the 44 nations whose ratifications are required for the treaty to enter into force (CTBO release, March 14).

This year is the fifth anniversary of the Provisional Technical Secretariat of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO).  The secretariat provides CTBT member states with technical, legal, administrative and other support services (CTBTO release, March 15).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  NIAID Releases Details on New Bioterrorism Research

The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases yesterday released details on its plans to expand bioterrorism research (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The NIAID, part of the National Institutes of Health, plans to expand research in six categories:

*         Microbial biology, including research on the genetic structure of various biological weapons agents;

*         Human immunology, to better develop vaccines and diagnostic tests;

*         New vaccine development, with an Ebola vaccine and new anthrax vaccines ready to begin clinical trials;

*         New treatments, such as the anti-AIDS drug cidofovir, which might be effective against smallpox;

*         Faster diagnostic tests; and

*         New research tools, including more high-containment facilities and better animal models of diseases caused by biological weapons agents.

The NIAID plans to focus its research on diseases such as anthrax, smallpox and plague and to create short-, intermediate-, and long-term countermeasures for each agent, according to the institute.

“Research is a vital element of bioterrorism defense,” said Tommy Thompson, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees the National Institutes of Health.  “The NIAID Counter-Bioterrosim Research Agenda describes the highest priorities of an accelerated program to expand research on bioterrorism agents … to protect the public” (NIAID release, March 14).

Back to top

United States:  Decision Approaches on Pueblo Mustard Gas Disposal

The U.S. Defense Department is expected to decide this month how it will destroy mustard gas stored at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported today (see GSN, Feb. 5).

Officials are considering four disposal methods for the agents at the depot, according to the Gazette.

Two of the methods use incineration.  In one, liquid agents are incinerated directly, and in the other, liquids are frozen before incineration.  The other two methods use neutralization, in which the mustard agent is mixed with water and broken down into harmless chemicals.  One neutralization method uses bacteria to break down the agent, while the other uses heat and pressure.

Incineration is a safe way to dispose of the mustard gas agent, said Bob Kennemer, site manager for the Pueblo Chemical Depot Community Outreach Office.

“The biggest concern is what’s the end product.  What comes out the end of the stack?” Kennemer said.  “Is it going to hurt me, my family and contaminate the environment and livestock?”

“I’m confident the technologies are safe and meet federal air standards, but there will be emissions,” he said.  “There’s no magic box with nasty things going in one end and flowers coming out the other.”

Colorado state and local officials, however, support neutralization methods.  Neutralization is a safer and simpler process than incineration, said Ross Vincent, a senior policy adviser for the Sierra Club.

“The problem with burning it is that’s precisely the condition that is created when the weapons explode on the battlefield,” Vincent said (Tom Ragan, Colorado Springs Gazette, March 15).

Back to top

India:  Agni-II Production Begins

India has begun producing its Agni-II ballistic missile and introducing it into its armed forces, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 30).

The Indian Defense Research and Development Organization has been working on design and development of the Agni-II leading to its production, Fernandes told the lower house of the Indian Parliament (PTI/BBC Monitoring, March 14).

Back to top

U.S. Plans I:  Pentagon Plans to Test Interceptor Tonight

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

The United States plans tonight to conduct the most complex missile defense test to date, amid criticism that the enhanced test is still unrealistic (see GSN, Feb. 28).  The test is the eighth in a series of flight tests to develop the ground-based, mid-course interceptor system, three of which have resulted in successful interceptions, according to the Pentagon.

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is scheduled to launch the target warhead on a modified Minuteman II ICBM from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. EST, according to a Defense Department release.  Shortly thereafter, the agency will also launch a prototype midcourse interceptor from the Kwajalein Atoll test site in the Pacific Ocean.

In a move to increase the test’s complexity, the ICBM will deploy a mock warhead with three balloon decoys — one large balloon and two small ones.  Previous intercept tests involved only one balloon decoy.

The test enhancements, however, have not overcome assertions that the anti-missile system will remain unproven in a real-life situations.  A Union of Concerned Scientists report by David Wright and Lisbeth Gronlund says the types of decoys the MDA will use tonight are unlikely to increase the difficulty of discriminating between the warhead and the decoys.

Similar to previous decoys, the decoys in tonight’s test will have infrared signals different from the mock warhead, and the interceptor system will have prior data on characteristics of the decoys and warheads, the UCS said.

In a real-life situation, however, the U.S. defense system would not have detailed prior knowledge of an enemy’s decoys, and the decoys would probably be designed to closely resemble a warhead, UCS said.  Therefore, the two additional decoys tonight will not test the system’s ability to function in a realistic situation, according to the UCS.

Too Big, Too Small — Not Just Right

The large balloon in tonight’s test will have an infrared signal larger than the warhead, and the small balloons will have signals smaller than the warhead, UCS said.  Therefore, the kill vehicle should be able to easily distinguish between the balloons and warhead.  Tonight’s test will not use medium-sized balloons that would more closely resemble a warhead, according to UCS.

Tonight’s test will also have prior information about the time of day and the missile’s trajectory.  The amount of sunlight or darkness during a missile flight affects the appearance of the warhead and decoys, so the data used in tonight’s test might be valid only for missile intercept attempts conducted under the same circumstances of time of day and trajectory, UCS said.

Sixth Intercept Test

Tonight’s test is the eighth in the series of Integrated Flight Tests, although it is only the sixth test to actually attempt an intercept.  The first two tests were “fly-by” tests to gather information on the system’s sensors.  Three of the five previous intercept attempts resulted in successful intercepts.

Tonight’s test will involve an integrated system test with all system elements, such as the space-based missile warning sensor, ground-based early warning radar, X-Band radar at Kwajalein Atoll and the command and control system at both the atoll and the Joint National Integration Facility in Colorado.  The Defense Department noted that the various elements of the system are all in a developmental phase.

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  Israeli Arrow Might Join U.S. Missile Defense Systems

The United States might consider integrating the joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow missile defense system into U.S. programs, Missile Defense Agency Director Ronald Kadish said Wednesday (see GSN, March 8).

Although the United States has no plans to use the Arrow in U.S. defenses, in the future the system could supplement programs such as the Patriot Advanced Capability missile, Kadish told a Senate Armed Services Committee subcommittee.

The Arrow system was designed specifically to defend Israel against short-range threats, according to Defense Daily.  The United States, which has jointly funded the Arrow program with Israel, has spent almost $1 billion on the system, and the Bush administration requested another $60 million in its fiscal 2003 budget proposal (see GSN, Feb. 15).

Senator John Warner (R-Va.) encouraged the Pentagon to evaluate acquiring Arrow for U.S. defenses.  “I think it’s worthy of that consideration,” he said.

The Missile Defense Agency has conducted tests involving the Arrow and PAC-3 systems, but it would have to consider cost and technical issues before deciding to procure the Arrow system, Kadish said.  “We’ll look at this closer as time goes on,” he added.

Israel Proposes More Cooperation

Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer proposed last month in meetings with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the United States and Israel should expand cooperation on the Arrow program.  Israel wants to expand cooperation for another five or six years, Defense Daily reported.

Boeing Building Arrow Parts

The Bush administration supports an agreement, signed in January by the U.S. defense contractor Boeing and Israel Aircraft Industries, in which Boeing plans to build parts of the Arrow missile, U.S. Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition Pete Aldridge told the senators (see GSN, Feb. 1) (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, March 14).

Back to top

Food Safety:  Bush Administration Proposes $146 Million

The Bush administration has proposed to spend $146 million for protecting food in fiscal 2003, Restaurants and Institutions reported today (see GSN, Feb. 27).

“This budget proposal will provide important resources to help strengthen our homeland security efforts,” said Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman.  “The protection of our food supply is critical.  We must continue to invest in food safety … programs to ensure America’s consumers (that our) food and agriculture systems are strong.”

The funding increase for food safety programs is part of the administration’s proposed fiscal 2003 budget for the U.S. Agriculture Department, in which administration officials proposed to spend 11 percent more than in fiscal 2002.  The increase would allocate $905 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, $28 million more than in fiscal 2002.

Besides providing the additional funding for FSIS, the budget proposal also includes the following increases in food safety spending:

*         $48 million for animal health monitoring;

*         $19 million for the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection program;

*         $12 million for expanded technical services within the Animal Plant Health Inspections Services (APHIS);

*         $34 million to reduce food-borne illnesses through new research on animal and plant diseases; and

*         $5 million to increase the ability of APHIS to monitor disease outbreaks in foreign countries (Allison Perlik, Restaurants and Institutions, March 15).

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge Tuesday said the administration is examining combining the two federal agencies responsible for food inspections (see GSN, Nov. 26, 2001).

“We have to see whether the system that has developed over the past two decades is the one we need in the future,” Ridge said.

Currently, the Agriculture Department and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration handle food inspection programs.  The FDA is responsible for inspecting almost all food except for meat and poultry, but it has a much smaller staff and less legal authority than the Agriculture Department, according to the Associated Press.

“One of the questions we need to answer is … whether or not we want multiple agencies dealing with food safety requirements,” Ridge said, adding that food industry officials would be involved in the process.

Any merger of food safety inspection agencies now would be “very disruptive” to the food industry, said Kelly Johnston, executive vice president of government affairs for the National Food Processors Association (Phillip Brasher, Associated Press, March 14).

Back to top