U.S. Response I:  Justice Officials Outline Information Sharing Plan

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Justice Department is devising a plan to make it easier for various agencies to securely share counterterrorism information, the department’s new chief information officer told a Senate panel yesterday.

The “ambitious agenda” to make counterterrorism information flow freely, safely and quickly will take time, resources and unprecedented cooperation among many agencies, Vance Hitch told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.

Although Hitch and FBI and Immigration and Naturalization Service officials acknowledged that recent attempts to share information among Justice agencies have been “limited” due to computer and cultural problems, they expressed optimism the department plan due out next month will ultimately lead to viable changes throughout the intelligence and law enforcement communities (see GSN, Feb. 12).

“I am convinced that organizational and cultural roadblocks to information sharing are being remedied … because of the sheer magnitude and complexity of the threat,” Hitch testified.  “Overcoming these barriers is a long-term effort, but progress is being made.”

Concerns about counterterrorism or counterintelligence information sharing have been heightened by the recent disclosures of convicted FBI spy Robert Hanssen — and by a recent report chaired by former FBI and CIA Director William Webster critical of how classified information is safeguarded.

“Audits of this access will be routinely conducted,” according to Robert Jordan of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, who serves as the head of the FBI's Information-Sharing Task Force.

“The need for information security must be balanced by the driving need of the criminal investigator to be able to follow any and all avenues in an investigation,” Jordan said.

Analysts Skeptical of Changes

Analysts who testified before the Senate subcommittee expressed doubt that Justice or any other department or agency involved in the war on terrorism could improve or coordinate their performance without drastic changes to their information systems — changes that will take a long time to take hold.

The INS in particular has come under severe criticism, especially after it was learned last month that the agency sent visa renewal forms to two of the hijackers killed in the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Bluntly put, even if the agency were to discover a potential threat, it is not clear that the information would make it to key law enforcement and security officials in time to prevent a tragedy,” Paul Light, director of the Brookings Institution’s Governmental Studies program, said.

“The fact is that the federal government, indeed most organizations, almost always have the information to prevent failure, but not the analysis or communication chains,” Light said. 

“That was the case in the 1980s with the HUD [Housing and Urban Development Department] scandal and the savings and loan debacle, in the 1990s with espionage at the nuclear weapons labs and taxpayer abuse at the Internal Revenue Service, and the early 2000s with the INS,” Light continued.

“We see the same problems over and over again as information gets lost, distorted, mishandled, improperly classified or misinterpreted up and down the ponderous federal hierarchy.”

Leon Panetta, who in past years has served as a lawmaker, director of the Office of Management and Budget and White House chief of staff, said that absent a clear line of authority, information sharing within the executive branch can be “haphazard at best.”

Panetta is among those who believe the Office of Homeland Security should become a separate department or agency (see GSN, April 12).

“Friction and political competition between personalities can seriously affect communications and operations,” Panetta said, referring to internal conflicts not only between but also within the various departments involved in homeland security. 

“Withholding vital information can be one of the ways people try to undermine each other,” he said.  “There is no excuse for this kind of behavior by professionals, but it is a reality.”

Despite security concerns, however, Panetta believes the more than 40 agencies involved in the war on terrorism can learn to exchange information quickly, safely and regularly.  “There is no reason why information cannot be shared with those in authority at other agencies or the White House who have the proper security credentials,” he said.

Feds Maintain Their Plan Will Work

The Justice officials who testified yesterday maintained that their efforts to improve their information technology systems — and their information sharing — will lead to changes for the better in the war on terrorism.

The Justice plan, due to be completed next month, aims to enhance information sharing and information security by utilizing new computer “systems that are secure from day one, rather than requiring continuous patches and fixes,” Hitch said.

“We also intend to strengthen the way we plan for and manage our IT investments,” Hitch said.  “Here again, progress has been made but more work is needed.”

The federal government is spending $155 million this year for “information and intelligence sharing,” with $722 million more requested in next year’s White House budget proposal, according to a Homeland Security Office spokesman.

Associate INS Commissioner for Information Resources Management Scott Hastings testified that the Office of Homeland Security and OMB are coordinating initiatives that will build better computer systems and foster greater interaction among departments and agencies.

“Technology alone cannot solve our problems,” Hastings said.  “In order to leverage our resources and maximize our capabilities, technology must be coupled with a strong intelligence and information-gathering and distribution system.  This will require seamless cooperation among the many federal agencies.”

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Pentagon Presents Plans for New Command

The U.S. Defense Department will create a new command to defend the United States and help civilian authorities respond to terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, Pentagon officials said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 6).

The new Northern Command will place a four-star general in charge of protecting U.S. territory — the first military position to focus on defending the United States from internal threats.  The Northern Command is scheduled to begin operating on Oct. 1, and U.S. President George W. Bush is expected to nominate Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart as the first commander.

The command will be responsible for the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and waters of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans for 500 miles from shore.  The command’s headquarters will probably be at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the new command is designed primarily to unify current military functions in North America rather than to increase responsibilities.  U.S. law restricts the military’s involvement within the United States (Esther Schrader, Los Angeles Times, April 18).

“No new missions or roles are being created here for the Department of Defense in creation of this new command,” said Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers (Thomas Ricks, Washington Post, April 18).

Responding to Terrorist Attack

One of the main goals behind the command’s creation is increasing coordination of military support following terrorist attacks, particularly involving weapons of mass destruction and natural disasters, officials said.

In most cases, civilian authorities are responsible for leading response efforts and the military would usually play only a supportive role.  Officials expect the new command to ease communication and coordination between civil authorities and the military and among military responders.

“Probably if you looked back at how the (Defense) Department responded to needs up in New York after the World Trade Center, you might find that, while not confusion, there was not good unity of effort in that case,” Myers said (Schrader, Los Angeles Times).

The command will also take over “the Joint Task Force for Civil Support that currently resides in Joint Forces Command, that is responsible to civil authorities for chemical or biological, radiological, nuclear, major conventional explosives events,” Myers said.  The new plan “takes that and moves it under North Command.”

“The Joint Forces Command will no longer have responsibilities for homeland defense.  Northern Command will take up those responsibilities, leaving the Joint Forces Command free to focus on its exceedingly important to help transform our military,” Rumsfeld said.

Supporting Civilian Authorities

Rumsfeld and Myers emphasized that civil authorities will remain in charge of most efforts to respond to domestic crises, and the military would offer only assistance.

“We have said all along — and this should not be misunderstood — there is no change to the roles or mission of the Department of Defense, which means we are in support of civil authorities,” Myers said, adding that the person in charge of responding to a WMD attack on the United States would be a state or federal civilian authority.

“In this new organizational arrangement, we will have a four-star military person who will be the Northern commander, who will be responsible for being ready to function ins a supporting role and assist all of the other elements of the federal government, as well as the state and local governments, to see that those assets and those capabilities that are distinctive and unique to the Department of Defense are in fact promptly put into play to be of assistance to deal with that crisis in City X, if and when that occurs,” Rumsfeld said.

“Today we have at least three entities responsible for the sort of things the secretary was talking about … We’re going to have one entity … That’s why we say unity of focus, unity of command,” Myers added.

“What’s different is, we have a focused capability and competence in the Northern Command that will be prepared, trained, exercised and equipped to do those kinds of things in a supporting role,” Rumsfeld said.

“We had lots of troops in Salt Lake City.  We did not take over the state … There were civil authorities in that region that asked for our assistance.  That assistance was offered up, and it was done in coordination with them in a supporting role,” he added (see GSN, Feb. 26).

The northern commander, however, would not take orders from a state or local civilian leader, such as a state governor.  The commander would only take orders from the president or defense secretary, Rumsfeld said.

The military, however, would be the first responder if terrorists struck the District of Columbia with a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon, Rumsfeld said.  The military is also in charge of defending U.S. shores.

Canada Opts Out

The Northern Command will also be responsible for coordinating military relations with Canada and Mexico (Ricks, Washington Post).

Canada, however, has decided for now to remain outside the U.S. Northern Command structure (see GSN, Jan. 30).  Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said yesterday that Canada will maintain responsibility for its own defense.

“The defense of Canada will be assured by the Canadian government and not by the American government,” he said.

Canada could join the command structure later, however.  The country is studying options for Canadian defense cooperation with the U.S. military, Canadian officials said.

“We have made it clear to them [the Americans] that once they have announced their plan, which they have done today, we will study it and determine to what extent we wish or whether it would be good for Canada to participate,” said Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham.

U.S. officials have advocated Canadian participation in North American defense, according to the Globe and Mail.

Some Canadian politicians criticized the decision to opt out of the U.S. defense structure, saying the United States would probably act to defend the entire North American continent without Canadian input.  Canada could better promote its interests by participating in a joint command where it would have a voice, said Canadian Member of Parliament Leon Benoit.

If Canada does not join the command, the United States would have to ask for assistance from Canada in certain situations, the Globe and Mail reported.  For example, U.S. officials would have to ask Canada to send its own forces to intercept a ship that U.S. officials suspect of carrying a weapon of mass destruction in Canadian waters.  If Canada joins the Northern Command, however, the command’s leaders could send Canadian ships to intercept the vessel without directly asking the Canadian government.

The United States has said its forces would not enter Canadian territory without Canadian permission (Jeff Sallot, Globe and Mail, April 18).

Other Changes

Northern Command’s commander will now also be the head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the organization responsible for flying air patrols over North America, Rumsfeld said.

The Pentagon has not yet decided if Northern Command will be in charge of any future national missile defense system, Rumsfeld said.

“The missile defense issue has been left for the future since we’re not in the deployment mode.  In terms of technologies that could be developed, they would be more departmentwide, and they might very well be at the request or the instance of a Northern Command commander,” he said.

The Pentagon is also considering merging Space Command and Strategic Command and plans to complete a study on the subject later this year, Myers said (Federal News Service transcript, April 17).  The Strategic Command oversees U.S. strategic nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, Defense officials have expanded the European Command to include responsibility for Russia.  During the Cold War, no single command was in charge of the Soviet Union, because officials believed the entire U.S. military needed to deal with the Soviet threat, according to the Washington Post.

The Pentagon also placed Antarctica under the umbrella of the Pacific Command to better coordinate rescue and supply missions on the southern continent (Ricks, Washington Post).

Other military commands include the Southern Command, which covers South America, and the Central Command, which covers the Middle East and Central Asia (Schrader, Los Angeles Times).

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Much Work Remains to Defeat Terrorism, Bush Says

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

The United States and its allies are making progress to defeat terrorism, but more work remains and threats still exist, said U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday in a speech at the Virginia Military Institute.

Bush cited some successes in the war on terror, which began in earnest after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.  The United States has apprehended Abu Zabaydah, a top al-Qaeda leader, gathered significant information about al-Qaeda operations from investigations in Afghanistan (see GSN, April 11) and begun efforts to reconstruct Afghanistan, he said.

Despite those successes, however, “the war against terror will be long,” Bush said.

“The battles in Afghanistan are not over,” he said, adding that U.S. and allied troops are still searching for al-Qaeda and Taliban forces.  “As the spring thaw comes, we expect cells of trained killers to try to regroup, to murder, create mayhem.”

The United States, however, is “determined. … We will stay until the mission is done,” Bush said.

Meanwhile, European countries have frozen almost $50 million in assets of suspected terrorists and are working to capture terrorists in their territory, he siad (see GSN, April 11).  The United States is also assisting Yemen, the Philippines and Georgia in efforts to defeat terrorists, he said.

“Our military and law enforcement intelligence officers are helping countries around the world in their efforts to crack down on terror within their borders,” Bush said.  “We must deny terrorists the funds they need to operate.  We must deny them safe havens to plan new horrors and indoctrinate new recruits,” Bush said.

Confronting Rogue States

The president also warned against the threat posed by certain countries that possess weapons of mass destruction — he repeated the controversial phrase “axis of evil” — and said the United States will continue attempts to build missile defenses and prevent WMD proliferation (see GSN, March 12).

“The civilized world faces a grave threat from weapons of mass destruction.  A small number of outlaw regimes today possess and are developing chemical and biological and nuclear weapons.  They're building missiles to deliver them and at the same time cultivating ties to terrorist groups,” he said.

“In their threat to peace, in their mad ambitions, in their destructive potential and in the repression of their own people, these regimes constitute an axis of evil and the world must confront them,” Bush said.

Back to top

U.S. Response III:  Colleges Oppose Restrictions on Foreign Students

U.S. College administrators are concerned the United States may require them to restrict foreign students from studying certain subjects, such as nuclear engineering, that could be applied to developing weapons of mass destruction, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, March 27).

Three associations representing colleges and research universities wrote the Bush administration this week saying the United States should control foreign students by screening visa candidates before they enter the United States rather than asking schools to apply restrictions on students after they arrive.

In October, a presidential directive ordered stricter controls on student visas and barred “certain international students from receiving education and training in sensitive areas, including areas of study with direct application to the development and use of weapons of mass destruction.”

“We are concerned that the fundamentally open character of our higher education system may make it impossible to construct a workable system for restricting certain students already present in the country from gaining access to information that is made available to other students,” the associations said this week.

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service will screen visa applicants more carefully but will also monitor what students do after they enter the United States, said Homeland Security Office spokesman Gordon Johndroe.  If students say they plan to study liberal arts and then start taking nuclear engineering courses, it would “raise a red flag,” he said, “and we’ll go and take a look at them.”

University officials, however, said it would be difficult to impossible to apply restrictions and monitor students.

“It’s very hard for us, once someone is here, to say you cannot audit organic chemistry because it is a sensitive course,” said Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education.  “We don’t keep guards at the doors of classrooms to see who’s getting in and who’s not” (Diana Jean Schemo, New York Times, April 18).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Congress Considers Swapping Russian Debt for Nonproliferation

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

Lawmakers are considering two bills to allow the U.S. president to reduce, cancel or sell part of Russia’s debt to fund joint nonproliferation programs in Russia (see GSN, March 8).

A Senate-House conference committee is expected to meet in the near future to consider the Senate Security Assistance Act, which includes provisions to authorize the president to swap Russian debt for nonproliferation programs, according to an aide for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Although the companion House bill does not include a debt-swapping provision, some legislators are hoping conferees will include such provisions in the final legislation.  Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) plans to send a letter to the conference committee asking to include the debt-for-nonproliferation language in the final bill, a Tauscher staffer told GSN this week.

Meanwhile, Tauscher and Representative John McHugh (R-N.Y.) introduced a stand-alone bill March 4 in the House that contained debt-for-nonproliferation language nearly identical to the Senate provisions contained in the security assistance bill.

The House Russian Federation Debt Reduction for Nonproliferation Act is the first bipartisan nuclear nonproliferation bill in the House since U.S. President George W. Bush began his term last year, according to a press release from Tauscher and McHugh.

Cautious Encouragement

The Bush administration has said it has no official position on the Senate and House bills, and Russia has indicated caution — preferring to first consider the terms of the swap in more detail — but the idea has drawn praise from several economic and arms control analysts.

The legislation addresses several issues, including flexibility for negotiating terms with Russia, debt to non-U.S. creditors and a requirement to ensure that Russia continues to demonstrate commitment to nonproliferation.

Flexibility

The legislation would provide flexibility to the president regarding exactly how to reduce the Russian debt, according to a Tauscher aide.  The first challenge, he said, would be to reach an agreement with Russia.  Negotiations would be necessary to determine exactly how to reduce the debt and which cooperative nonproliferation programs would receive the funds.

Other Creditors

Both the Senate and House debt-for-nonproliferation bills call on the president to work with members of the Paris Club, an informal group of countries that have agreed to reschedule debts.

The United States can forgive or reduce any debt Russia owes to the United States bilaterally, said Brian Finlay of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation’s Nuclear Threat Reduction Campaign.

Much of Russia’s debt, however, is owed to creditors in the Paris Club.  The United States holds only a small percentage of total Russian debt through the Paris Club.  European countries, such as Germany and Italy, are the biggest Paris Club creditors to Russia.

The congressional legislation would encourage Paris Club members to reduce Russian debt and put the money toward nonproliferation programs.  It would require the United States to talk with other creditors to reach an agreement that each creditor “is authorized to negotiate debt exchanges with the Russian Federation covering a portion of its bilateral debt to finance the accomplishment of nonproliferation and arms reduction activities.”

Working together with the United States to shift Russian debt toward threat reduction programs is an opportunity for European states — which traditionally have been only minimally involved in such programs — to become more involved, Finlay said.  Poorly protected or unguarded weapons of mass destruction in Russia are a threat to European states as well as to the United States, he said.

Persuading Paris Club members to support nonproliferation programs using Russian debt may not be easy, however.

“Although the United States could theoretically effect a debt swap itself, in reality a swap would involve these forums [Paris Club and other creditors] because unilateral U.S. action could harm the economic interest of other creditors left holding Russian debt,” James Fuller, director of the Center for Global Security at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, wrote in the winter 2002 issue of Arms Control Today.

Certification

The legislation would also require the president to certify Russia is making progress toward halting transfers of WMD material, knowledge and technologies to countries the United States suspects sponsor terrorism.  If the president does not certify Russian attempts to control such transfers, debt swap could be suspended and Russia would have to pay back the money to the United States under normal terms, said Tauscher’s aide.

The United States and Russia have disagreed over Russian assistance to build nuclear power plants in Iran, which could potentially hold up funds under the legislation (see GSN, April 5).  The Bush administration announced earlier this month that it would not certify Russian compliance with the treaties banning chemical and biological weapons, a decision that means funds for certain cooperative threat reduction programs will be suspended.

Current law, however, does not allow the president to waive those certification requirements (see GSN, April 8).  In the past, the president has shown a belief that threat reduction programs in Russia are in U.S. national interests, said Tauscher’s aide.  The debt swap legislation would provide the president with authority to waive the certification requirement if the president believes providing the funds to nonproliferation programs is necessary for U.S. security interests.

Administration Reaction

The Bush administration has no formal position on whether swapping debt for nonproliferation is a good plan, said Energy Department official Linton Brooks earlier this month (see GSN, April 8).  Brooks said, however, there is a large need for cooperative threat reduction programs, and finding ways to help fund the programs is important.

Defense Department official Thomas Kuenning said Russia needs more money to meet its obligations for chemical weapons dismantlement, and there are good reasons to put money toward such programs.

Russian Reaction

There is a divergence of opinion on the idea of swapping debt for nonproliferation among Russian officials, said Russian diplomat Oleg Novikov.  Russia is interested in the subject and will follow developments closely, he said.

Russian interest in the program would probably depend on the U.S. terms, said John Williamson, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics.  For example, if the United States offered to sell some of the debt to Russia at a price close to the debt’s face value, Russia would probably not consider the deal conducive to its interests, he said.  If the United States offers a price at a significantly lower value, then Russia might see a lot of benefit to the proposal.

Support

Several economic and arms control analysts called the legislation a good idea.

“This is perhaps the most cutting edge piece of legislation that’s come through Congress since the advent of the Nunn-Lugar program,” said Finlay.  “It’s win-win. … We’re investing in our own security for the future.”

“If the Russians agree, I think it’s an excellent idea,” said Williamson.

“I think it’s a great idea,” said Joe Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Caution

Two analysts said that although nonproliferation programs are definitely in U.S. security interests, there are important problems with transparency and financial accountability, and simply providing more money will not solve those problems.

The proposed legislation requires that each program funded through the debt swap be subject to U.S. audits, but Ariel Cohen, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation said “the Russian Ministry of Defense books on nuclear threat reduction were as opaque as the Volga waters in August.”

“While there is a security imperative to drastically reduce proliferation activities which include all kinds of WMD — nuclear, chemical, radiological (a dirty bomb) and biological — these activities have to be paid for in a transparent way,” Cohen said.

He said that Russian compliance with U.S. legislation and financial accountability is important.  “After all, this is the U.S. taxpayers’ money.”

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, also said that whether the United States provides money directly or indirectly, it must be subject to auditing — a difficult task to accomplish in Russia.  While funding nonproliferation programs is important, simply providing more money will not encourage “more sober financial behavior,” he said.

Using money from debt reduction to pay for nonproliferation solves the immediate problem of how to provide more money for such programs but does not address criticism over auditing problems, Sokolski said.

Reducing or forgiving debt is still spending U.S. taxpayers’ money, he said.  “It’s just another form of free money.”

Back to top

International Response:  U.N. Disarmament Commission Cancels Session

The U.N. Disarmament Commission yesterday decided to delay its 2002 substantive session and to resume work on agenda items next year (see GSN, April 11).

The decision to delay came from “a unique combination of events and factors beyond our control,” Commission Chairman Mario Maiolini said in a U.N. press release.

The Commission will schedule the next substantive session between March 31 and April 17, 2003, and will retain the agenda the Commission had set up for the 2002 substantive session, according to the press release (U.N. release, April 17).

Back to top

United States:  Energy Department Reports Nuclear Information Releases

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Energy Department recently identified 175 documents containing 318 pages of mostly nuclear weapons-related information that it says were accidentally made publicly available by the United States in recent years, according to the declassified version of a report issued this week (see GSN, March 21).

The documents have been withdrawn from public access, and the department is planning to assess any damage to national security that may have resulted from their release.

They included information ranging from nuclear weapons design to Navy nuclear propulsion system information to decades-old information on the locations of nuclear weapons storage depots.

The documents were discovered during an ongoing department review of 2 million pages of publicly available records kept by the National Archives and Records Administration.

Congress was notified of the discoveries in a mandated, classified November 2001 report.  The Energy Department released an excised version of that report Tuesday.

The identified documents, dating from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, contained “restricted data” and “formerly restricted data.” The Energy Department report said the State and Defense departments inadvertently declassified the material from 1995 to 1998, making it available to the public through the Archives.

“The improper marking of the documents for classification level, classification category and/or downgrading may have contributed to the inadvertent release of the documents,” the report said.

Unwarranted Removal Charged

Steven Aftergood, a Federation of American Scientists intelligence analyst, however, criticized the Energy review for impeding public access to declassified information that may not deserve to be removed.

Aftergood noted the Energy report said the removed material “may” contain classified nuclear information and observed it revealed decades-old information on locations of nuclear weapons storage depots.  Such information, he wrote, might be politically sensitive, but “while formally classified, do[es] not pose a proliferation hazard.”

“The fact that we may have had nuclear weapons in Japan or Greece or elsewhere 30 to 50 years ago is hardly a threat to national security today,” Aftergood said in an interview.

“The reason this is a difficult policy issue is not all of that information is of that benign character,” he said, noting nuclear weapons design information has been found in this and previous reviews that warrants removal from public access.

The congressionally mandated reports were required after it was discovered in the 1990s that a large number of nuclear weapons documents were either unmarked or mislabeled and as a result were declassified and made available through the public archives, Aftergood said.

More selective targeting of information, enabling much less money and time to be spent on combing through documents, would be a better policy, he said.

According to the unclassified report, the retracted documents contained information on such subjects as the mass or dimensions of fissile materials, pits or nuclear assembly systems; high explosives for nuclear weapons; boosting systems; other nuclear weapon design, function, uses or configurations, or nuclear test information; and Navy nuclear propulsion systems.

Such information concerns the early generations of nuclear weapons the country developed in the 1950s and may be of use abroad, the report said.

“Potential adversaries, emerging proliferant nations and terrorist groups aggressively target U.S. nuclear weapon information. Information regarding older nuclear weapons is of significant value since it is often technically less sophisticated. These designs would be most readily used by a would-be nuclear proliferant to obtain its first nuclear weapon,” according to the report.

Khidhir Hamza, former director of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, has said copies of declassified U.S. Manhattan Project reports provided an early blueprint for Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

The formerly restricted documents also contained information on nuclear weapons stockpile quantities, storage locations, costs, yields and delivery system accuracy, the report said.

That information “could assist potential adversaries in assessing the strengths of the U.S. nuclear arsenal” and some of its release could violate international agreements and harm diplomatic ties with foreign host countries, the report said.

The information on Navy nuclear propulsion, the report said, could help other countries develop better propulsion systems for their surface ships and submarines.

The British Defense Ministry earlier this week recalled publicly available documents with detailed information on constructing the first British nuclear bomb, British officials said (see GSN, April 16).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Handwriting Analysis Refines Investigation Profile

A handwriting analyst has said the person responsible for last fall’s anthrax attacks is a white, middle-aged man with a bipolar disorder and a martyr complex and who suffers from sexual dysfunction, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, April 10).

“At this point, the FBI investigation has been focused on people who have had access to anthrax,” said Mark Smith, a handwriting analyst who is familiar with the letters included in the anthrax attacks.  “Taking into account the possibility that these characteristics are inherent in the makeup of the perpetrator could greatly reduce the size of the investigation.”

The FBI requested Smith’s assistance soon after last fall’s anthrax attacks, he said.  The FBI did not comment on Smith’s handwriting analysis of the anthrax letters, according to the Times.

The uniform and pronounced curving of the writing in the anthrax letters indicates that the person who wrote them likely has bipolar disorder, Smith said.

“(The sender) probably wrote these letters on a manic high, triggered by the Sept. 11 attacks,” he said.

The style of the writing also indicates that the person behind the attacks could suffer from some form of sexual dysfunction, according to Smith.

“Anything below the baseline, such as the loops in the letters ‘y’ and ‘g,’ traditionally gives insight into sexual characteristics,” he said.  “In the case of the anthrax letters, there’s nothing below the baseline. … It means there is nothing happening in the sexual zone of the writing, which leads me to believe the anthrax sender is sexually dysfunctional.”

The use of block letters could indicate the age of the letter sender because it is a style taught to children from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s, Smith said.  The use of all capital letters indicates the sender was trying to demonstrate a sense of power, which is connected with a martyr complex, he added.

Investigators have to be cautious when analyzing the handwriting used in the anthrax letters, however, because there was an obvious attempt to disguise the writing, said handwriting analyst Roger Rubin.

“It’s very difficult to pierce the veil of personality when somebody could be trying to disguise themselves,” Rubin said.  “It’s like looking at a mask on a person’s face and analyzing the mask instead of the person underneath it” (Guy Taylor, Washington Times, March 18).

Back to top

German Response:  Army Increases Biological Defense Spending

The German army plans to triple funds for counterbioterrorism research, increasing its staff studying potential biological weapons agents from 20 to 60 people, Reuters reported earlier this month (see GSN, Oct. 19, 2001).

The army said the research would be only to develop protection against diseases rather than to develop biological weapons, according to Reuters.

New ways to detect biological weapons would be helpful, but developing vaccines for the general population is a waste of money, said Jan van Aken, director of the Sunshine Project Germany.

“Vaccination to protect the general public is really a waste of time and money,” he said.  “By the time everyone was vaccinated against, say, anthrax, the whole world would know about it, and those planning the attack would use a different disease.”

Van Aken also called on the army to conduct its research openly and allow civilians to do the work.  “It’s awkward having the army do this work.  If this was being done by Iraq or Iran, they would have been bombed to bits by now” (Hannah Cleaver, Reuters/Yahoo.com, April 5).

Back to top

OPCW:  Bustani Says His Leadership Days Are Numbered

Director General Jose Bustani of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons does not expect to retain his position, he said in an interview yesterday.

A special session of Chemical Weapons Convention Sunday is expected to vote him out of office, according to the Brazilian newspaper Jornal do Brasil (see GSN, April 10).  To call the special session, the United States persuaded 48 of the OPCW’s 145 member states to request the meeting, including most of the European Union, Japan and Latin America.

To oust Bustani, two-thirds of the OPCW’s member states must vote for the U.S. proposal to remove him from office (Rodrigo Rosa, Jornal do Brasil, April 18, GSN translation).

Bustani’s chances of retaining his office are decreasing on a daily basis, according to another Brazilian news service.  Countries that previously abstained from voting against Bustani in a no-confidence vote — including Eastern European countries, France and some Latin American countries — are now considering joining the United States on Sunday.

Brazilian Foreign Affairs Minister Celso Lafer said, however, that it is not yet a lost cause, as it is unclear how African and Asian countries will vote (O Globo Online, April 18, GSN translation).

Earlier this week, Lafer said the Brazil had done everything it could to support Bustani.  Its support centers on “multilateralism,” and the OPCW head does not “represent the Brazilian government,” Lafer said.

“From the beginning,” Lafer said, Brazil believed that the issue of Bustani’s tenure at OPCW should be handled on a multilateral and not a bilateral basis. 

“Defending him, we are not defending a person, but multilateralism.”  Lafer added, however, that Bustani’s “personality” has made things more difficult and that his impeachment is virtually irreversible (Luiz Orlando Carneiro, Jornal do Brasil, April 17).

Bustani refused to comment on Lafer’s comments, instead saying that Brazilian “President Fernando Henrique [Cardoso] has always given me complete support”(Rosa, Jornal do Brasil).

In other OPCW news, Brazil paid its contribution to the organization this week, bringing to 66 the number of countries that have paid full dues this year.  More than 79 states, including the United States, have not yet met their contributions, leaving 60 percent outstanding (OPCW release, April 16).

Back to top

U.S. Plans I:  Senators Criticize Proposed Study of Nuclear Interceptors

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Two U.S. senators, Democrat Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Republican Ted Stevens (Alaska), yesterday expressed strong opposition to Pentagon consideration of using nuclear weapons in space as part of the national missile defense system under development (see GSN, April 11).

The Washington Post reported April 11 that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had encouraged a Defense Science Board task force to explore the idea of using nuclear weapons to destroy WMD warheads in space after launch by enemy ICBMs.

“I find that just absolutely inexplicable, how we would even explore the use of nuclear-tipped interceptors with what they might do [with] radiological fallout to people and to countries,” Feinstein said.

Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish told a hearing of the Senate and House appropriations defense subcommittees “we have no part of our program that involves nuclear-tipped interceptors.”  He added, however, “people do think about those types of things across a broad range dealing with missile defense.”

Feinstein and Stevens are members of the Senate panel.

“I hope whoever thought about it in the secretary of defense’s office is soon in a think tank,” Stevens, the committee’s senior Republican and one of the Senate’s leading national missile defense advocates, said.

“That has alarmed my people to no end, absolutely no end,” he said.  “And I’d fire the guy.  I’m serious.  We should not have people thinking out loud on the job and speculating as to future possibilities when in reality we are trying to get us a missile defense system.”

“It obviously makes me mad,” said Stevens, who noted Congress had not appropriated any funds or authorized any nuclear interceptors.

A senior committee aide said there is a concern that even a Defense Science Board study of the idea without first obtaining bipartisan congressional support could put Democratic support for the Bush administration’s missile defense agenda at risk.

“There ought to be consultation with the Congress before we do anything in this area,” the aide said. The Pentagon should not pursue the idea “unless there is consensus.”

To do otherwise could put at risk “that fragile coalition that’s kept the president’s program moving forward.”

The task force would consider the idea in a review of alternatives to the current direct impact, hit-to-kill approach after it completes another study this summer, an official said in the Post story.

Critics have charged the ground-based ballistic missile defense system under development by the Pentagon will not work because its hit-to-kill interceptor could be easily fooled by simple countermeasures.

The Pentagon this year also began more aggressively exploring use of miniature kill vehicles, up to 40 of which might be launched by a single interceptor missile, to better deal with such countermeasures as decoys (see GSN, April 10).

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  Possible Chemical Weapons Found at Missile Defense Site

After discovering barrels of what might be dangerous chemicals, the U.S. Army halted ground-clearing work last week at an Alaskan site designated for part of the ground-based missile defense system, the Army said last Friday (see GSN, March 5).

Workers at Fort Greely, a former chemical and biological weapons test site, discovered up to 20 barrels labeled “U.S. CWS” — for the U.S. Chemical Warfare Service, which was disbanded in 1946.  More barrels might be buried at the site, the Army said.

Work for the missile defense system has been halted until officials determine what materials the barrels contain, said Army spokesman Chuck Canterbury (Reuters/Council for a Livable World, April 12).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  Yucca Mountain Veto Faces Tough House, Berkley Says

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Opponents of a planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada face a difficult fight in the U.S. House of Representatives, Representative Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) told Global Security Newswire Monday (see GSN, April 8).

The House Energy and Commerce Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee held the first congressional hearing today to evaluate the Energy Department’s recommendation to use Yucca mountain as the U.S. high-level nuclear waste repository

Berkley would not say how many representatives had agreed to vote against the recently introduced resolution that would override the veto of Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn.  She said, however, that the goal is to get as many votes as possible in the House to prevent a “steamrolling” when the Senate takes up the issue.

Yucca Mountain opponents in the House have used the issue of the safety of spent nuclear fuel shipments to Yucca Mountain to help gain support for Guinn’s veto, Berkley said.  Many of the representatives that have expressed opposition to Yucca Mountain come from districts along planned waste shipment routes, she said.  Representatives who choose to vote to overturn the veto, however, will have to answer to their constituents in the event of a shipment accident in their district, Berkley said.

Berkley praised the efforts of her staff to educate staff members of other lawmakers about Yucca Mountain.  The anti-Yucca Mountain lobbying effort, however, suffers badly in comparison with the work of the nuclear energy industry, which has had more time and money to gain support for the plan, she said (see GSN, April 2).

“It’s not a level playing field,” Berkley said on the differences between the pro- and anti-Yucca Mountain lobbying efforts.  “[It’s like] trying to unring a bell that’s been ringing for 20 years.”

Swift Push, Show of Strength

It would be incredibly difficult to defeat the Guinn veto override resolution through procedural means because the House leadership is solidly in favor of Yucca Mountain, Berkley said, adding that House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) does not “have the best interest of the people of Nevada in mind.”

While praising the House Democratic leadership for supporting Nevada against Yucca Mountain, Berkley said she wishes more Republicans would also join the opposition.  She harshly criticized the recently formed Nuclear Fuel Safety Caucus, made up of 15 pro-Yucca Mountain representatives.  The caucus is “an insult to every person I represent,” she said (see GSN, April 11).

Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) Tuesday said he expects to move the veto override resolution to the full committee by next week.  The resolution is expected to quickly move out of the committee and then to the House floor no later than early May for a full vote, he said.

“We expect when we [go before the entire House] to get over 300 members of Congress to say that the override should go forward,” Barton said during a congressional news conference.

By moving the override resolution quickly through the House, Yucca Mountain supporters will represent a show of strength for the Senate, where there are several senators ready to request a full vote on the resolution, he said.

“It only takes a majority vote, 51 senators,” Barton said (see GSN, March 29).  “And we feel very comfortable that we’ve got a significant number larger than 50 that’ll vote for it, but the strategy is for us to move first in the House.”

A Barton spokeswoman said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is expected to bring the override resolution to the Senate floor before the Memorial Day recess, according to CongressDaily.  The resolution will be referred to committee for at least 60 days before any further action is taken, Senator John Ensign (R-Nev.) said, according to CongressDaily.

No Concessions

Even with the odds stacked against Yucca Mountain opponents in Congress, there are no plans for Nevada to concede support for the Yucca Mountain plan in exchange for federal benefits to the state, Berkley said.  Guinn was right when he said there is nothing the federal government could offer the state to compensate for potential disaster from a Yucca Mountain repository, she said.

“How could I live with myself knowing future generations of Nevadans could be damaged?” she said.

Even if the House does override Guinn’s veto and approves Yucca Mountain as the site of a nuclear waste repository, the fight will not end, Berkley said, calling Yucca Mountain “a defining issue for Nevada.”

“There will be civil disobedience in the streets when that first shipment [arrives],” she said.  “People will lay across railroad tracks to prevent the shipments.”

Back to top