U.S. Response I:  Senate Panel Reportedly Approves Bush Intelligence Budget Request

The U.S. Senate Special Select Committee on Intelligence last week approved the Bush administration’s fiscal 2003 intelligence budget request, which will increase U.S. intelligence spending to about $35 billion, congressional and administration sources said.

The Senate intelligence authorization bill places a high importance on developing satellite and analytical equipment that can detect weapons of mass destruction, according to the Post.  The National Reconnaissance Office, the National Intelligence Mapping Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency would be responsible for this mission, the Post reported.  The measurements and signatures intelligence capabilities would involve detecting traces of chemicals released from smokestacks that could signal WMD production, said John Pike, a satellite specialist associated with Globalsecurity.org.

The authorization bill would also require new reporting on foreign businesses believed to be involved in WMD proliferation that raise funds in U.S. capital markets.  Although most of the information required would be classified, the Senate intelligence committee requested that an unclassified version be made publicly available, according to the Post. 

The bill would instruct the CIA to provide a list of known and suspected terrorists organizations to federal, state and local officials, the Post reported. The CIA would have the authority to determine what information gets passed on to domestic agencies, intelligence officials said (see GSN, April 18). The bill would also require the CIA director to describe changes being examined to alter prohibitions on domestic satellite spying and give the CIA jurisdiction over the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center, currently run by the Treasury Department.

The funding is a $2 billion to $3 billion increase over fiscal 2002 and is in addition to the $1 billion granted after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to the Post. The House intelligence committee has not yet finished work on its version of the intelligence authorization bill, the Post reported (Pincus/Priest, Washington Post, May 15).

Back to top

International Response:  NATO and Russia Begin New Partnership

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization approved an agreement yesterday to accept Russia — essentially the country that NATO was formed to fight — into a new partnership to combat terrorism (see GSN, Feb. 1).

The agreement — which NATO member countries and Russian President Vladimir Putin plan to sign in a May 28 meeting near Rome — establishes a NATO-Russia council in which Russia will be an equal partner in discussions and actions on various issues, including fighting terrorism and preventing WMD proliferation, missile defense and military cooperation.

The new agreement, however, allows the 19 NATO members to maintain full control over which countries join the alliance and core military decisions.  The agreement includes measures to ensure Russia cannot veto NATO decisions, officials said.

“We believe we can lay the foundation for new cooperation between NATO and Moscow while fully protecting the alliance’s ability to act independently,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday.

Leaders described the agreement as a major change and the end of the Cold War.

“Together, the countries that spent four decades glowering at each other across the wall of hatred and fear now have the opportunity to transform Euro-Atlantic security for the better,” NATO Secretary General George Robertson said at the NATO meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland.

The agreement is “the funeral of the Cold War,” British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, adding that it “could make an enormous difference in the war on terrorism.”

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov called the agreement “a radically new step in our relationship.”

Powell said that the biggest point of contention between Russia and the United States currently is a disagreement over U.S. poultry imports.

“I am more worried about chickens going back and forth than missiles going back and forth,” he said.  “That is good” (Todd Purdum, New York Times, May 15).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Bush Signs Foreign Student Tracking Law

U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday signed into law border security legislation to create a system for monitoring non-U.S. students in the United States and restricting travel to the United States by people from known terrorism-sponsoring nations (see GSN, May 10).

The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act authorizes the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to create a system to monitor foreign students who enter and leave the United States, as well as their school status, according to the New York Post.  Non-U.S. students and the schools in which they are enrolled would also have to frequently provide information on the students’ class attendance, the Post reported.

The new law also prohibits people from countries on the U.S. State Department’s terrorism sponsor list from traveling to the United States unless cleared by the secretary of state and attorney general, the Post reported.

“We must know who’s coming into our country and why they’re coming,” Bush said.  “We must know what our visitors are doing and when they leave” (Brian Blomquist, New York Post, May 15).

Back to top

Iraq:  New Sanctions Mostly Welcomed

Several countries welcomed the U.N. Security Council’s decision yesterday to extend and revise sanctions against Iraq, while Syrian and Iraqi diplomats called for a complete end to sanctions (see GSN, May 14).

The United States, which led the effort to implement “smart sanctions,” said it is pleased that the council passed resolution 1409.  White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called the decision “a step forward for the Iraqi people.”  The revisions put the onus on the Iraqi regime to comply with other U.N. resolutions, the Bush administration said.

“Now Iraq’s government has an opportunity to prove that it seeks the same benefits for all its citizens.  The focus controls on military relevant goods and simplified procedures for civilian goods eliminates excuses for inaction or evasion of U.N. sanctions on Iraq,” Fleischer said yesterday.

“The president believes that firm, focused controls must remain on the government of Iraq until it complies fully with its U.N. obligations,” he added (White House transcript, May 14).

Many Europeans agree that the sanctions revisions place responsibility on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to meet international obligations and spend oil revenues wisely, the New York Times reported.

“It removes Saddam’s spurious excuses for the suffering he inflicts on the Iraqi people and puts more pressure on the regime,” British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said (Somini Sengupta, New York Times, May 15).

Russian Support

Russia, which earlier had objected to the U.S. proposal to revise sanctions, praised the council for passing the resolution (see GSN, April 3).

“We note with satisfaction that the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted the resolution,” Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said, adding that Russia and the United States worked together to draft the text.

“We hope that this dialogue will lead to the return of international observers to Iraq,” he added (Russian Information Agency Novosti/European Internet Network, May 15).

The council’s next step should be to discuss “a comprehensive settlement” of the sanctions issue, including measures to eventually suspend sanctions, Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Sergey Lavrov said yesterday (Associated Press/New York Times, May 15).

Calls for Ending Sanctions

Syria, the only Arab country on the council, voted in favor of the resolution but called on the council to end sanctions.

“It’s high time to lift the sanctions,” Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations Mikhail Wehbe said (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, May 15).

The sanctions changes will not ease the delivery of humanitarian goods to Iraq — a reason the United States has cited for supporting the resolution — but will complicate Iraqis’ ability to obtain goods, Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations Mohammed al-Douri said.  The sanctions “will prevent any development of the Iraqi economy” by blocking agricultural, electrical and sanitation equipment, he said.

“This is a new harassment on the Iraqi people,” al-Douri said (Associated Press/New York Times).  Iraq is “unhappy” with the resolution and “will be happy when the Security Council decides to lift sanctions,” he said.

Meanwhile, Iraqi and U.N. officials have been meeting recently to discuss outstanding issues, particularly the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq (see GSN, May 6).  U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is expected to meet with Iraqi negotiators for a third time next month.

Will the Changes Stop WMD?

Some analysts questioned the effectiveness of the sanctions revisions, which are intended to ease the flow of civilian goods into Iraq while tightening controls on items with potential military applications (see GSN, May 7).

“It probably will make it easier for civilian goods to get expeditiously into Iraq and address the unintended consequence of punishing the Iraqi people for the behavior of the management,” said Charles Duelfer, a former U.N. inspector and an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  “But it’s hard for me to see how it makes it more difficult to smuggle in weapons or other illegal things.”

The resolution does not include commitments from Iraq’s neighbors to halt illegal oil imports, the Post reported (Lynch, Washington Post).

While the council’s unanimous vote in favor of the resolution strengthens the sanctions program politically, it will probably have little impact on attempts to force Iraq to allow U.N. inspectors to return and to give up its WMD programs, William Orme, the Los Angeles Times’ U.N. correspondent, said on PBS’s NewsHour.

“I think that there were very few seasoned U.N. professionals, or for that matter diplomats on the Security Council, who really think that the sanctions programs as such — either its new form or its current form — is likely to force Saddam Hussein” to accept inspectors, Orme said (PBS NewsHour, May 14).

“Smart Sanctions” Explained

Under the current oil-for-food sanctions program, in place since 1997, the Iraq Sanction Committee, which includes all 15 members of the Security Council, reviews most of the purchases Iraq wants to make with revenue from oil sales controlled through a U.N. account.  Any committee member can block a proposed contract.

According to the U.S. State Department, the new system, which creates a goods review list that includes items with potential military applications, has been designed to lift U.N. controls on purely civilian goods.

Once the system is in place, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Committee and the International Atomic Energy Agency are to review all proposed contracts to look for items included on the goods review list.  According to plans, the two agencies will then approve all items not the list, while items on the list will go to the sanctions committee, which will then approve or block each contract.

“All contracts for export of goods to Iraq under the Oil-for-Food program are presumed approved unless found to contain item(s) on the ‘Goods Review List,’” according to a U.S. State Department release (U.S. State Department release, May 14).

Back to top

Pakistan:  Former White House Adviser Details 1999 Nuclear Crisis

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

Against a backdrop of increased tensions between India and Pakistan, a former senior White House adviser detailed this month how the Clinton administration helped prevent a nuclear conflict in South Asia in 1999 (see GSN, May 13).

Constant low-intensity tensions along the Pakistani-Indian border grew hotter in the winter of 1999, Bruce Riedel, a presidential adviser on South Asia to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, wrote in a paper published by the University of Pennsylvania.

Pakistani-backed militants and army troops captured vacant Indian positions in the mountains above Kargil, on the line of control dividing the contested Kashmir territory.  The intensity of the conflict continued to increase through the spring and into the summer, and U.S. concerns about the possibility of nuclear war grew, according to Riedel.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif asked for U.S. intervention to prevent an Indian counterattack.  The United States, which traditionally supported Pakistan, insisted that it withdraw back behind the line of control.  Clinton told Sharif that otherwise, the United States would not help Pakistan, Riedel wrote.

Looming Missile Deployment

Sharif flew to Washington to meet with Clinton on July 4, 1999, and the day before the planned meetings, U.S. officials received information indicating Pakistan was preparing its nuclear weapons for potential deployment, according to Riedel.  The situation was complicated further by concerns that the civilian government had little control over the military, then commanded by current Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf (see GSN, Feb. 13).

Sharif asked Clinton to intervene, but the U.S. president said that if the world perceived the United States was acting under the threat of nuclear conflict, it would undermine U.S. ability to prevent other countries from threatening to use nuclear weapons, according to Riedel.

Therefore, Clinton insisted Pakistan must withdraw before receiving any U.S. assistance and said the United States would not offer any reward for Pakistani aggression.

When Clinton, Sharif and Riedel were alone, Clinton asked Sharif whether he knew that the Pakistani military was preparing missiles with nuclear warheads.  Sharif seemed surprised and responded that India was probably doing the same, Riedel wrote.  Sharif said he had not given the order to prepare the missiles and was worried for his life in Pakistan.

Clinton asked the prime minister if he understood the consequences of even one nuclear bomb, and Sharif said it would be a catastrophe, according to Riedel.

After several hours of talks, Sharif agreed to withdraw with the provision that Clinton would personally work to restart Indian-Pakistani talks.  Sharif returned to Pakistan, and Pakistani forces withdrew across the line of control.  In October 1999, the Musharraf-led military took control of the country and temporarily imprisoned Sharif.

Back to top

BWC:  Cuba Not Complying With Treaty, U.S. Official Charges

The United States yesterday intensified charges against Cuba when a senior Bush administration official said Cuba is not complying with the Biological Weapons Convention.  Speaking in Moscow, the official was asked whether Cuba is in “noncompliance” with the pact, and he replied, “Yes, yes.”

“Cuba has been involved in discussions with other rogue states, with Iran and Libya, in ways that we find very troubling,” the official said.

The United States did not include Cuba in a list of noncomplying states offered at the BWC Review Conference in November.  At the time, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton charged that North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria were not complying with the treaty (see GSN, November 20, 2001).

The official yesterday welcomed an offer from Cuban President Fidel Castro to open Cuban biotechnology facilities to impartial visitors.

“I think we’re going to take a close look at President Castro’s offer to let others come and take a look at his pharmaceutical and biochemical facilities,” the official said, but he questioned the value of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s recent visit (see GSN, May 14).

“With all due respect, President Carter is not a weapons inspector,” the official said (Greg Webb, GSN, May 15).

Meanwhile, U.S. officials denied Carter’s assertion that he had been told that the United States had no information relating to Cuba’s proliferation activities. 

Carter said Monday that he had asked Bush administration officials if there was any evidence that Cuba had given other countries information concerning weapons of mass destruction.  The officials told him “no,” Carter said.  White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said yesterday, however, that biological weapons were never brought up during Carter’s briefing with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

“This question of bioweaponry was not raised by President Carter or brought up by Dr. Rice,” Fleischer said.

In a speech last week, Bolton said Cuba is developing a biological weapons research program and has probably aided other rogue states in developing similar programs.  Those claims, however, were first made in March during Senate testimony by Carl Ford, assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, Fleischer said.

“This is a concern that goes back several months,” he said (Audrey Hudson, Washington Times, May 15).

Inside Cuba’s Biotechnology Laboratories

Cuba’s biotechnology centers, renowned for their work in pharmaceuticals, immunology and other biological research areas, do have the technologies needed to produce biological weapons, according to Time magazine.  Many biotechnology laboratories worldwide, however, also have the same equipment, Time reported.  Cuban leader Fidel Castro also probably would not waste the prestige that Cuban biotechnology centers have obtained in order to pursue biological weapons, according to experts on Cuba.

Concepcion Campa, director of the Finlay Institute in Cuba, denied any allegation that Cuban laboratories are conducting covert biological weapons research.   The institute has developed vaccines for diseases such as tetanus and hepatitis, Time reported.  In the late 1990s, pharmaceutical company Smith-Kline purchased meningitis vaccine produced by the institute to help fight an outbreak of the disease in the United States, according to Time.

Cuba’s biotechnology facilities are suffering from a lack of funding that makes developing biological weapons a waste of revenue, Campa said.

“You see all this equipment we’ve imported, even for things as simple as conserving the low temperatures we need?  If it breaks, because we can’t buy replacement parts from the (nearby) U.S., it costs us three times as much as it should for us to fix it,” Campa said.  “Our philosophy is not to produce vaccines purely for profit, but still, why would we bother with biological weapons when there is so much more revenue in selling vaccines to companies like Smith-Kline?”

Castro yesterday said any “neutral and impartial” inspectors from any country could come and inspect Cuban biotechnology centers (Padgett/Mascarenas, Time, May 14).

On Monday, Carter visited a Cuban biotechnology center and said he believes Havana’s assertion that the center is not being used to develop weapons technology to share with other nations, according to the Washington Times.

U.S. Senator George Allen (R-Va.), however, said he is disappointed Carter accepted “at face value the assurances of Communist Cuban officials there that the facility is engaged solely in medical and humanitarian pursuits” (Hudson, Washington Times).

Back to top

Anthrax:  United States Requests Dismissal of Vaccine Lawsuit

The Bush administration yesterday asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit over the military’s plan to require anthrax vaccinations for members of the armed forces (see GSN, April 2).

U.S. Air Force Capt. John Buck and former Maj. Sonnie Bates claim the anthrax vaccine should be declared experimental because the Food and Drug Administration has never specifically approved the regimen used to administer the vaccine as a protection against inhalational anthrax, according to the Associated Press.  A 1999 executive order signed by former President Bill Clinton allows military personnel to refuse experimental drugs except in the case of a national emergency.  Bates and Buck were both disciplined for refusing to take the anthrax vaccine, AP reported.

The two sides disagree over whether the Defense and Health and Human Services departments are immune from the suit and over the plaintiffs’ standing.

Federal Judge Reggie Walton questioned Bates’ and Buck’s case, saying that the agencies are more prepared than a court to determine whether a drug is experimental, according to AP.  He did not, however, rule on the government request and said he hoped to have a decision ready by next week (Ken Guggenheim, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, May 14).

Back to top

Uzbekistan:  U.S. Team Arrives on Vozrozhdeniya

U.S. military ecological experts have arrived on Vozrozhdeniya peninsula in the Aral Sea to begin cleaning up abandoned biological weapons agents there, the Czech Republic-based Transitions reported last week (see GSN, May 2).

The U.S. team arrived on the peninsula to begin analyzing the threat posed by agents left behind by the former Soviet Union, according to Transitions.  A joint U.S.-Uzbek cleanup program is scheduled to begin today.

Vozrozhdeniya was once home to the largest Soviet biological weapons testing facility.  In 1988, the Soviet Union buried hundreds of containers filled with anthrax on the peninsula — then an island — and used the area to test biological weapons until 1991, Transitions reported.

The team is only decontaminating the Uzbek-controlled area, which covers 75 percent of the peninsula.  Kazakhstan, which controls the remainder, has said it will seek international aid to conduct similar activities (Transitions, May 7).

Back to top

United States:  Oregon Panel Recommends Umatilla Incinerator Tests

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber yesterday received a recommendation to allow the U.S. Army to conduct test burns in a chemical weapons incinerator at the Umatilla Chemical Depot (see GSN, April 29).

A 20-member review panel voted unanimously to recommend that Kitzhaber give the Army permission to conduct test burns scheduled for May 25, according to the Associated Press.  Testers plan to use substitute chemicals to determine the effectiveness of the incinerator and its pollution abatement systems.  The Umatilla depot currently houses 1,000 bunkers of mustard gas and sarin and VX nerve agents, AP reported.

Kitzhaber, who will make the final decision on the tests, has said he would not agree to them unless emergency preparations are in place, according to AP.  The Army also needs to fulfill several requirements laid out by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.  The Army must install a system to provide department staff located near the depot with 24-hour remote monitoring of depot operations, AP reported.  The system will be installed by the end of the week, the Army said.

Environmental Quality officials also need to finish a review of engineering reports that certify the Umatilla incinerator was built to specification, according to AP.  The department had wanted 60 days to complete the review, but the last report was not submitted until last week, said Wayne Thomas, department administrator for the chemical demilitarization program.  It will be difficult to complete the review before May 25, he said (Associated Press, May 15).

Back to top

Iran:  Report Says Iran Is Producing Shahab-3

According to a Turkish intelligence report, Iran tested its Shahab-3 missile last month and plans to produce at least 150 such missiles, which have a 1,300-kilometer range, the Jerusalem Post reported today (see GSN, Feb. 7).

Yiftah Shapir, editor of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies’ Middle East Military Balance, questioned the Turkish report’s validity.

Israeli officials have estimated that Iran has an arsenal of at least 20 Shahab-3 missiles (Demir/O’Sullivan, Jerusalem Post, May 15).  U.S. and Israeli officials said in October (see GSN, Oct. 10, 2001) that Iran had begun serial production of the missile (Andrew Koch, Jane’s Defense Weekly, Oct. 10).

Shapir said it is feasible Iran could start production.  The report said Turkey and Israel would be the Shahab-3’s primary targets in a conflict and should prepare countermeasures, but Shapir said the information does not mean the countries face an increased threat.

“We knew the capability was there and this was coming, but we believe that the missiles are meant as a deterrent.  You don’t have to expect a missile falling on our heads tomorrow morning.  States don’t do that,” Shapir said, adding that Iran has other enemies — for example, Iraq.

The Turkish report also said Iran is preparing to test the 2,000-kilometer-range Shahab-4 (Demir/O’Sullivan, Jerusalem Post).

Back to top

United States:  Recent PAC-3 Test Unsuccessful, U.S. Army Now Says

Contrary to prior reports, an operational test last month of a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile did not result in a successful intercept, the U.S. Army said Monday (see GSN, April 29).

The Army had previously said that the PAC-3 operational test had destroyed a Patriot missile used as a target, according to Defense Daily.  Further analysis, however, showed that the target had not been destroyed during the test, the Army said.

“Subsequent analysis indicates that the PAC-3 made contact with the target but failed to destroy it,” the Army said in a statement.  “Since the warhead wasn’t destroyed, it won’t be counted as a successful intercept” (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, May 14).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Work on Alaska Site to Begin in June

U.S. Missile Defense Agency Director Lt.-Gen. Ronald Kadish has said work on underground missile interceptor silos at a site in Alaska is expected to begin June 14, the day after the United States officially withdraws from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, April 30).

In an attempt to make the site ready by 2004 in the event of an emergency, builders will construct five interceptor silos and affiliated communications systems at Fort Greely over the summer, according to AP.  Fort Greely is primarily intended for use as a land-based missile interceptor test site, AP reported.

The U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty will also allow a greater range of technologies in missile defense tests and in components of a missile defense system, Kadish said in an AP interview yesterday.  One example is the planned use of ship-based Aegis radar in a missile intercept test scheduled for late July.

The use of the Aegis radar “was specifically prohibited by the treaty, so it’s never been done before,” Kadish said.

The U.S. military is also expected to increase research on several technologies that were previously restricted by the ABM Treaty, including space-based lasers and missile interceptors, he said.

“We’re going to start working in earnest over the next five to seven years,” Kadish said (Associated Press/New York Times, May 15).

Additional Test Sites

The MDA has begun environmental impact studies at two sites to examine their suitability for launching missile interceptors and targets in tests for the ground-based midcourse defense program, agency officials said last week.

The agency is examining expanding tests at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to include launching interceptors, an agency official said (see GSN, April 8).  Currently, only targets are launched from the base, the official said.  The agency is also examining using Kodiak Island off the coast of Alaska as a launch site for both interceptors and targets, the official said.  The environmental studies will probably be completed by the fall, according to Defense Daily.

Kadish has said there are benefits of using Vandenberg and Kodiak as flight test sites to collect expanded information on the performance of interceptors and other ground-based midcourse defense system components, Defense Daily reported.  Expanded testing at the two sites, however, would not begin immediately, an agency official said.

“The earliest you could launch missiles from either of the locations would be after 2004, if the environmental process allows that to occur,” the official said.

Agency officials have also begun choosing parameters — such as decoys — for the next interceptor test, according to Defense Daily.  In the last test, the agency launched an interceptor prototype against a target and three balloon decoys (see GSN, March 20).  The next target scenario could be similar or changed to use different decoys, the official said, adding that testers will not make a decision until a mission readiness review at the end of May (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, May 10).

Back to top