Threat Assessment:  Iran Tops U.S. List of Terrorism Sponsors

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Iran last year remained the primary state sponsor of terrorist activity out of seven known countries that sponsor terrorism, according to a U.S. State Department report released yesterday (see GSN, May 20).

Patterns of Global Terrorism:  2001 lists Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Libya and Sudan as state sponsors of terrorism.  The list has not changed since 1993, when Sudan was added, according to a department release.

“While some of these countries appear to be reconsidering their present course, none has yet taken all the necessary actions to divest itself fully of ties to terrorism,” the report says.

No. 1:  Iran

Although Iran has expressed sympathy for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, it remained the main state sponsor of terrorism last year, according to the report.

“Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. and Ministry of Intelligence and Security continued to be involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and supported a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals,” the report says.

Iran has increased its support for militant Islamic and Palestinian groups by providing funds, training, weapons and a base of operations for organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the report says.  Iran has also provided lesser support to terrorist groups in Africa, Turkey and Central Asia, it adds.

The report also notes that while Iran has not taken any action in its “fatwa,” or death warrant for author Salman Rushdie, it has not called off the decree or canceled an offered bounty.

Some within the Iranian government would like to reduce support for terrorism, but hardliners who still control the main mechanisms of government have stopped these efforts, the report says.

“Axis of Evil” — Iraq and North Korea

Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim country that did not condemn the Sept. 11 attacks, the report says.  It has provided bases for several terrorist groups, including the Abu Nidal group and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party.  In addition, Iraq has also increased contacts with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and has acted as a host for other militant Palestinian groups, the report says.

Meanwhile, North Korea’s efforts to fight terrorism have been “disappointing,” the report says.  Although North Korea has signed the U.N. Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and has expressed support for signing five other U.N. counterterrorism conventions, it has not conducted significant measures to combat terrorism, the report says. 

North Korea has not reported any steps to block terrorist financial assets and has continued to harbor members of the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction, according to the report.  It has also not moved toward renewed dialogue with the United States to improve implementation of the 1994 Agreed Framework, which requires North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons program in exchange for two U.S.-built light-water nuclear reactors (see GSN, May 6).

“In light of President [George W.] Bush’s call to recognize the dangerous nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, this latter failure, with its implications for nuclear development and proliferation, was especially troublesome,” the report says.

Cuba

In Cuba, efforts to combat terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks have gone back and forth, according to the report.  Cuban leader Fidel Castro expressed support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism and signed all 12 U.N. counterterrorism conventions.  Castro also did not protest when the United States interned captured suspected terrorists at its naval base at Guantanamo Bay, the report said.

Havana, however, has also continued to express its support for terrorism, the report says.

“Cuba’s signature of U.N. counterterrorism conventions notwithstanding, Castro continued to view terror as a legitimate revolutionary tactic,” it says.

Cuba has provided a safe haven for members of the Basque ETA terrorist group and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and ELN rebel groups, according to the report.  Recent information has also indicated an increased possibility that Cuba had connections with the Chilean terrorist group Frente Patriotico Manuel Rodriguez, the report says.

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and Nonproliferation John Bolton recently alleged that Cuba has aided other rogue states and terrorist groups with developing biological weapons.  Cuba, however, has denied the U.S. claims (see related GSN story, today).

Syria

Syria, meanwhile, has not been directly linked to an act of terrorism since 1986, and top Syrian officials, including President Bashar al-Asad, condemned the Sept. 11 attacks, the report says.

Syria has, however, provided logistical support and acted as a base of operations for several terrorist groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, according to the report.  Syria has also allowed terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and others to operate safely out of the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon and has acted as the main transit point for weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, the report says.

Libya and Sudan

Out of the seven countries, the report describes Libya and Sudan as doing the most to move past their histories of supporting terrorism.

“Sudan and Libya seem closest to understanding what they must do to get out of the terrorism business, and each has taken measures pointing it in the right direction,” the report says.

Libya explicitly condemned the Sept. 11 attacks, and while maintaining low-level contacts with some terrorist groups, has tried to recast itself as a mediator in regional conflicts, the report says.  Libya’s past links to terrorism, however, have hurt its efforts to rejoin the international community, according to the report.  Two criminal trials over the past year illustrated Libya’s connections to acts of terrorism — the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland and the 1996 bombing of a West Berlin discotheque.

Several terrorist groups, including Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Egyptian al-Gama’s al-Islamiyaa, continue to use Sudan as a base of operations and still receive logistical and other support, the report says.  Nonetheless, the country has increased its counterterrorism efforts since a U.S.-Sudanese dialogue began in 2000, the report says.  The country condemned the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has increased counterterrorism activities, including investigating and arresting possible terrorist suspects.

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Rumsfeld Says Terrorists Certain to Obtain WMD

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that terrorists will inevitably acquire weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, May 21).

“Facing the facts, we have to recognize that terrorist networks have relationships with terrorist states that have weapons of mass destruction, and that they are inevitably going to get their hands on them and they would not hesitate one minute in using them,” Rumsfeld said before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.  “That’s the world we live in.”

Rumsfeld’s warning came on the heels of a number of other terrorist threat warnings recently issued by Bush administration officials, according to the Washington Post.  Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that it was ‘almost certain’ that there would be another attack.  FBI Director Robert Mueller said Monday that suicide bombings similar to those in Israel would begin in the United States.  Office of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge also said yesterday that another terrorist attack against the United States was probable.

New York Singled Out

The FBI yesterday advised New York officials that city landmarks could be the targets for an attack, the Post reported (Miller/Haughney, Washington Post, May 22).  The Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge have been named as possible targets, according to Agence France-Presse.

New York Governor George Pataki said federal, state and municipal New York officials, along with alert citizens, “are capable of responding and preventing and making sure we don’t give into the fear” (see GSN, May 20).

“We’ve had all types of threats in the last eight months and I suspect they will continue,” Pataki said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, May 22).

No Change in Alert Level

The increase in terrorist threat warnings, however, has not caused a change in the nationwide alert status, which stands at “yellow” — the third-highest level, Ridge said yesterday (see GSN, May 1). 

The new terrorist threats have been too vague to lead to an increase in the alert level, which could later damage the system’s credibility, Ridge said.  One example of an excessively vague threat is a concern that terrorists would rent apartments and place bombs in them, he said.

“It wasn’t actionable in the sense that we’re going to change a national level of awareness, but it was informational,” Ridge told the World Economic Forum at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (John Lumpkin, Associated Press/Salon.com, May 21). 

Possible Attempt to Induce “Alert Fatigue” Cited

The increase in intercepted communications between al-Qaeda operatives could be an attempt to distract U.S. counterterrorism operations and to induce “alert fatigue” based on too many issued warnings, according Stratfor, a commercial intelligence provider, the Straits Times reported today.

“It’s possible that al-Qaeda is engaging in a form of counter-counterintelligence,” Stratfor said. 

Before previous attacks, al-Qaeda operatives sent out a large amount of false information, according to the group.

“This served to divert and distract U.S. defensive countermeasures and, over time, to induce a kind of ‘alert fatigue,’” Stratfor said.

Small terrorist attacks could happen at any time, according to Stratfor.   Al-Qaeda, however, is probably not ready to conduct another attack on the scale of Sept. 11, because of the large amount of time needed to plan and coordinate such a mission, it said. 

Internal security concerns within the terrorist group could also complicate plans for another large attack, Stratfor said.

“If it is to launch another major operation ... al-Qaeda must first identify who in the organization has been compromised,” Stratfor said.  “Since the U.S. government is paranoid about the possibility of an attack occurring again without warning, al-Qaeda can count on it to broadcast any information that it intercepted” (Straits Times, May 22).

Back to top

Iraq:  Bush to Discuss Iraq with Putin, Might Offer Economic Assurances

A senior U.S. diplomat said recently that the United States might offer economic assurances to persuade Russia to support a military strike against Iraq, the Los Angeles Times reported today.

U.S. President George W. Bush plans to discuss policies on Iraq with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a four-day summit starting tomorrow, according to the Times (see GSN, April 30).  Iraq will be on the agenda, but the presidents do not necessarily plan to discuss military action, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Monday.

“Since the president hasn’t made any decisions on what to do about the status quo in Iraq — just that the status quo is unacceptable — I think he will want to consult with Putin on exactly that point,” Rice said.

The U.S. diplomat, however, said the Bush administration is willing to assure Russia that a military strike against Iraq would not harm the Russia’s economic interests.  The official said that the United States might prefer a new Iraqi regime that would honor Iraq’s $8 billion debt to Russia and continue oil contracts with Russian companies, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“Those are things we are prepared to talk about, shall we say, in a positive spirit, if it helps us get to the common goal of denying [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein the ability to develop weapons of mass destruction,” the diplomat said.

Others, however, questioned U.S. willingness and ability to guarantee that a post-Hussein regime would pay Iraq’s debts.  Even if the United States has some control over a new regime, there is no way to be sure that it could guarantee the continuance of Russia’s oil activities, said Andrei Ryabov, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center.

The United States would be more likely to promise assistance by persuading Western holders of Russian debt to ease their terms, said John Tedstrom, a former National Security Council aide (see GSN, May 16).  Tedstrom predicted that Bush would ask for an agreement in principle to share intelligence with Russia and to secure U.S. rights to fly over Russian territory during an Iraqi conflict.

Is Russia Willing?

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said yesterday that Russia continues to oppose any U.S. military action against Iraq.  The U.S. diplomat, however, said warming Russian-U.S. relations might lead Russia away from historical support for Iraq.

“I think the Russians, if Saddam blows his last chance, are prepared to say, ‘We tried, but there is nothing more we can do,’” the official said (Daniszewski/Richter, Los Angeles Times, May 22).

U.N. and Iraqi Officials to Meet in July

Meanwhile, U.N. and Iraqi officials will begin a third round of talks concerning returning U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq and other issues in Vienna in early July, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said yesterday (see GSN, May 6).  Earlier meetings had been held in New York (Reuters/New York Times, May 21).

Back to top

India-Pakistan:  Rivals Must Not Cross Nuclear Thresholds, Analyst Says

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Without a concerted, high-level U.S. effort to ease tension between India and Pakistan, “there’s a high probability of a war in South Asia” with the potential for nuclear conflict, a U.S. analyst cautioned yesterday as Indian and Pakistani officials voiced similar warnings (see GSN, May 16).

“We really are at the 11^th hour,” Michael Krepon of the Henry L. Stimson Center told reporters yesterday, after returning from India and Kashmir last week.  “Time is running out … we’re in a very deep crisis.”

The situation intensified today as Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee told Indian troops in Kashmir to prepare to fight, according to wire reports.

“It’s now time for a decisive fight,” Vajpayee said.  “Let no one think that we’ll keep raising the limit of our tolerance.”

Concerns grew last week when gunmen killed more than 30 people on the Indian side of the line of control in the disputed Kashmir territory.  India yesterday refused to pull its troops back from the border with Pakistan, where the two countries have massed 1 million soldiers, according to Agence France-Presse.  Also yesterday, gunmen killed a leader of a Muslim separatist group in Kashmir who had opposed violence, the Associated Press reported.  No group has claimed responsibility.

Abdul Kader Jaffer, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, said yesterday that the two countries are “very close” to war.  Indian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Nirupama Rao said, “things have reached a pass where India’s sovereign interests have to be defended,” according to the AP.

Ripe for War

Krepon told reporters that South Asia has experienced an increase in the number of crises since India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998.  Each crisis has ended unsatisfactorily for one or both sides, setting the stage for the next, including the current situation, he said.

In recent months India set conditions that Pakistan must meet to avoid conflict, and Pakistan has not met those conditions, Krepon said.  In particular, India has called for Pakistan to prevent pro-separation militants from crossing the line of control into Indian-controlled territory.  India blames Pakistan for supporting the militants and helping them cross the line, and Pakistan has said it is not responsible.

India “has had it” with Pakistan and the continuing infiltration of militants, such as the gunmen in last week’s attack, Krepon said, citing conversations he had with Indian leaders.  Violence across the line of control will in the future “be a two-way street,” he said.

If the two countries fight a conventional war, the conflict will not follow past trends, Krepon predicted.

“If a war happens, it’s going to be a different kind of war than previous wars,” he said.  India will not wait for Pakistan to “deliver the first blow,” he said.

If the two rivals go to war, India will no longer respect the line of control and will seek to destroy the “infrastructure” of terrorism — such as militants’ camps and training grounds — on the Pakistani side of the line, Krepon said.  India probably would also strike against those who assist terrorism, he said.  India has repeatedly stated that it holds the Pakistani government responsible for ending infiltration.

Nuclear “Red Lines”

If India and Pakistan go to war, much will depend on India’s war aims and the country’s ability to balance its goal of punishing Pakistan for supporting militants without escalating beyond nuclear thresholds, Krepon said (see GSN, Feb. 19).  He said that most Indian leaders told him they are confident they know the thresholds — the “red lines” — that might trigger nuclear war.  When he asked what those red lines were, however, each leader had a different response, he said.

For example, every leader said that attacking a Pakistani city would be crossing a red line, but there was disagreement over whether surrounding a city but not attacking it would lead to a nuclear response.  Seizing and holding territory Pakistan highly values could lead to nuclear conflict — depending on where and how deep Indian operations would be, the Indian officials said.

There would be many unpredictable elements in a South Asian war, Krepon said, adding that most analysts believe nuclear weapons would be on an increased level of readiness.  According the Pakistani newspaper the Nation, Pakistan has recently installed 750-kilometer range Shaheen missiles in certain areas and told world leaders that it reserves the right to use all options to protect its territory (see GSN, May 21).

Fighting a conventional war is possible, but both rivals must be on the same “wavelength” concerning escalation, Krepon said (see GSN, May 15).

Neither India nor Pakistan, however, would control the dynamics of the situation or have full command over escalation, said Brig. Gen. Feroz Khan, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs Division of the Pakistani Joint Services Headquarters.  The situation is dangerous, he said.

India cannot guarantee that Pakistan would accept certain setbacks without feeling impelled to escalate the conflict, George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told Global Security Newswire earlier this year.

U.S. Involvement

Even if a Pakistani-Indian war avoided nuclear conflict, it would have other negative consequences, Krepon said.

For example, Pakistani or Indian leadership might change, and the war would probably affect the “extremely fluid” situation in Kashmir, Krepon said.  A war would hurt U.S. operations in Afghanistan, Khan said, adding that Indian actions — potentially opening another front for Pakistan — could harm Pakistan’s ability to assist the U.S. war on terrorism.

The United States must therefore increase its efforts to de-escalate South Asian tensions and prevent a war, Krepon said.  The United States must initiate “very concentrated, very high-level,” face-to-face meetings, Krepon said.

The United States is in a unique position and, with very active involvement, could “jumpstart” a de-escalation process, Khan said (see GSN, March 18).

Many U.S. officials have expressed concern about the situation.  U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “We should be worried” and spoke to Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf Friday, the New York Times reported.  U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca recently visited the region and was there during the recent attack in Kashmir.

State spokesman Richard Boucher, who said Monday that the United States is “strongly concerned,” called on the two countries to resolve their disputes through dialogue.  The United States remains “deeply engaged with Indian and Pakistani leaders,” he said.

“We’ve had regular, high-level visits and visitors with people from these two countries,” he said, adding that U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage plans to visit India and Pakistan.  The State Department has not released the dates of Armitage’s trip, but the South Asian media has reported that he will arrive the first week in June.

Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is scheduled to go to the region next week, according to the London Times.

“This is a crisis the world cannot ignore,” he said.

Is It Enough?

Making phone calls and sending assistant secretaries of state, however, are insufficient responses, Krepon said.  To avoid war, the United States must send top officials to the region to make strong efforts to calm the situation.

Krepon also said Pakistan could remove the militant camps and training grounds on Pakistani territory as a way to prevent war, since militant infiltration is the No. 1 issue that India cites as a threat to its security.

If a war occurs, the United States should first focus on controlling escalation, Krepon said.  The United States would also have to protect U.S. forces in the region and develop initiatives to prevent another war and end the cycle of crisis in South Asia, he said.

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Arms Reduction Treaty Ready for Signature

A treaty to cut the U.S. and Russian operational nuclear arsenals by two-thirds is ready for signatures and will probably receive Russian parliamentary approval, while a declaration on missile defense is still undergoing negotiation, the Associated Press reported today.

U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin are expected to sign the nuclear reductions treaty this week during a summit in Russia (see GSN, May 14).

“The text … is fully ready for signing,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said of the nuclear arms agreement today after meetings between U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov (Angela Charlton, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, May 22).

Despite opposition from the Communist Party and some other Russian nationalists, the Russian Parliament is expected to approve the deal (see GSN, May 20).

“There are no doubts that any treaty signed by the president will be easily approved,” said Alexei Arbatov, deputy head of the Parliament’s defense affairs committee (Vladimir Isachenov, Associated Press/Washington Post, May 21).

Some details remain to be worked out concerning a joint declaration on how the two countries can cooperate on missile defense, a senior White House official said (see GSN, May 16).

“We are still talking about the language in the joint declaration,” the official said (CNN, May 21).

Back to top

International Response:  Nuclear Suppliers Group Ends Plenary Meeting

The Nuclear Suppliers Group called last week for discussions with nonmember countries that have nuclear programs and might be nuclear suppliers.

The 40-nation group, which uses export controls to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, held its 2002 plenary meeting in Prague May 16-17.

At the meeting, members welcomed Kazakhstan as the newest participating country and called for discussions with Israel, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mexico and Pakistan.  The group should work with those countries to strengthen nuclear nonproliferation efforts and apply export controls, members said, according to a press release.

The members also called on countries that have not yet agreed to more comprehensive nuclear safeguards with International Atomic Energy Agency to do so.

They agreed to continue developing the group’s contribution to preventing nuclear terrorism and to find new ways to increase information-sharing capabilities among members.

The group plans to meet again next May in South Korea (NSG press release, May 21).

Russia and other Nuclear Suppliers Group countries plan to begin dialogue with Israel to strengthen international nonproliferation cooperation, the Russian Foreign Ministry said (Interfax news agency/BBC Monitoring, May 21).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Test Results Conflict at IMF Headquarters

A preliminary anthrax test conducted on a batch of mail at the International Monetary Fund in Washington has come back positive, the IMF said yesterday (see GSN, May 21).

A second field test on the mail indicated there was no anthrax, and the IMF is now waiting for results from a third test, according to the Associated Press.

Physicians have administered antibiotics to 100 IMF employees and four workers at the World Bank, also in Washington, officials said yesterday.  Officials have told 1,200 World Bank employees to stay home for a second day after a preliminary anthrax test there also came back positive (Associated Press/New York Times, May 22).

New Policies

U.S. health officials said they are planning to create a national protocol for responding to preliminary anthrax test results to prevent panic and needless prescription of antibiotics, the Washington Post reported.

Complaints from Washington health officials prompted the protocol, according to the Post.  The IMF and World Bank did not inform local authorities before closing facilities and prescribing antibiotics.

Because anthrax field tests like those used by the IMF and World Bank are often unreliable, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Public Health Preparedness will create national guidelines, said Director Jerry Hauer.

“By and large, what they’ve done is created a lot of unnecessary anxiety,” Hauer said on the field tests.

Larry Siegel, senior physician at the Washington Health Department, said the IMF and World Bank responses — and their failure to notify officials — angered him.

“I’m outraged that we were not notified that these agencies had an event they were concerned about relative to anthrax,” Siegel said.  “The District requires that any evidence of an infectious reportable disease be reported to the Health Department.  They did not do that with an incident they thought was potentially dangerous to the public health.”

The IMF and World Bank did not take into account the effects their responses would have on Washington and employees at other institutions, Siegel said.

“When they do things like this, it has public health implications that go far beyond their little isolated island of concern,” he said.

The 1,200 World Bank employees who stayed home yesterday were advised to do so because the building’s air-conditioning system was shut down to prevent any spores from being circulated, said World Bank spokeswoman Caroline Anstey.  World Bank officials are not worried about potential anthrax contamination, and it was suggested employees stay home, but they were not ordered to do so, she added.

Complaints by Washington health officials are misplaced, Anstey said.

“It’s only four people,” she said, referring to the number placed on antibiotics.  “We can be attacked for doing too little or attacked for doing too much.  I think it’s better to be attacked for doing too much.  It would be irresponsible to simply do nothing” (Avram Goldstein, Washington Post, May 22).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Congress Prepares to Strengthen Bioterrorism Defenses

House and Senate negotiators agreed yesterday to details of a bill to strengthen U.S. defenses against bioterrorism.

The House of Representatives might vote on the bill as early as today, and the Senate will probably follow this week or shortly after the Memorial Day weekend, according to the Washington Post.  Both houses are expected to pass the legislation, and U.S. President George W. Bush is expected to approve it.

Earlier House and Senate versions of the bill would have provided $3 billion annually to fight bioterrorism, but the final version — which reconciles differences between the House and Senate — only mentions “such sums as necessary” to pay for programs, a Senate aide said.

Overall, the legislation would implement new measures to speed drug approvals and provide more money for research, preparedness and food safety.

One provision of the bill would enhance and create stockpiles of vaccines and drugs to protect against biological and chemical agents.

The legislation would expand a program that allows pharmaceutical companies to pay fees to the Food and Drug Administration to speed up reviews of applications to approve new drugs (see GSN, April 17).  Drug companies have supported the fees because the program allows them to move products to market faster.  Some critics have said the fees make the FDA more dependent on the drug industry

The bill would also increase funding for research on prevention and treatment (Helen Dewar, Washington Post, May 22).  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would receive $300 million to upgrade its laboratories and equipment.

Researchers working with potentially lethal biological and chemical agents would be required to register with the federal government, and many noncitizens would be barred from having access to about 35 dangerous microbes, according to the New York Times.

Another provision in the bill would grant states $1.5 billion to prepare for biological attack.  Hospitals would receive up to $520 million to prepare for medical emergencies such as bioterrorism.

Finally, the bill’s food safety provisions allow for the largest expansion of government control over the food industry in more than six decades, legislators said (see GSN, May 6).

It would require food manufacturers and processors to register with the government, require importers to notify authorities of incoming shipments, increase imported food inspections and allow the FDA to block shipments without a court order if the goods might endanger public health.  Additionally, federal agents tracing sources of tainted foods would have new powers to inspect company records (Robert Pear, New York Times, May 22).

Back to top

Cuba:  Iran Denies That Havana Aided in Weapons Programs

Iran yesterday denied U.S. claims that Cuba has assisted Iran in developing biological weapons (see GSN, May 15).

“I fully reject the allegations made by State Undersecretary John Bolton,” said Seyed Salehi, Iranian ambassador to Cuba.

Under a 1998 agreement, Cuba has given Iran the technology needed to vaccinate large numbers of Iranian children against hepatitis B, Salehi said.  The agreement also provides Iran with a wide range of pharmaceuticals, including interferon for hepatitis, AIDS and cancer, he said.

Even though Iran could have worked with commercial pharmaceutical companies to obtain some of the vaccines, it chose to work with Cuba because both countries are part of the Group of 77 developing nations, Salehi said (Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, May 22).

Back to top

Mexico:  Stolen Cyanide Not Likely to Enter United States, Official Says

A senior Mexican law enforcement official has said it is almost impossible that a shipment of cyanide stolen two weeks ago has entered the United States, the Mexico City Reforma reported Monday (see GSN, May 17).

The men believed to be responsible for the theft have moved into the center of Mexico and have not headed for the North, said Mexican State Ministerial Police Director Federico Perez Luna.  The Ministerial Police is working with state law enforcement officials and the Mexican Attorney General’s Office to search for the still-missing 76 drums of cyanide, Perez Luna said (Javier Peralta, Mexico City Reforma, May 20, in FBIS-LAT, May 20).

Back to top

ABM Treaty:  Some Europeans Withdraw Criticism

Some European leaders have retreated from their earlier criticism of the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  When U.S. President George W. Bush visited Europe a year ago, European leaders expressed serious concern that plans to develop a missile defense system and a U.S. withdrawal from the treaty with Russia would lead to a nuclear arms race.  Some of those leaders now say Bush’s decision to nullify the treaty might have been correct (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2001).

Rather than increased tensions and an arms race, U.S.-Russian relations have improved, according to the Washington Post, and both presidents are expected to sign a nuclear arms reduction treaty this week (see related GSN story, today).

“We were worried a year ago that Bush’s position would create a terrible confrontation,” a senior German diplomat said.  “Maybe we underestimated Putin’s creativeness and farsightedness.”

Bush supporters say his administration understood that the old paradigm of East versus West has changed.  “What keeps Russia and the United States from going to war today is not the number of nuclear weapons that they have on either side or the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty or some outdated notion of strategic stability,” U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said.  “It’s that they have nothing to go to war about.”

Some analysts who have criticized the treaty withdrawal, however, stood by their previous statements.  Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said he supports his earlier statement that U.S. missile defense development and the treaty’s demise would “set off a dangerous action-reaction cycle, involving the United States, Russia and China.”

“The potential for dangerous action-reaction remains, especially because the Bush administration has failed to lock in verifiable reductions of Russia’s nuclear forces,” he said (Dana Milbank, Washington Post, May 22).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  Yucca Shipments Need More Planning, Expert Says

The planned long-term nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada should be put on hold until researchers can better examine how to ship waste to the site, former National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Jim Hall said yesterday (see GSN, May 17).

Before the repository is established, officials should create a national transportation plan for waste shipments and engineers should improve testing of the shipping casks themselves, Hull said.

“One of the things that immediately got my attention after (the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks) is the potential of each one of these casks to be a dirty bomb,” Hall said.

Hull now acts as a paid consultant for Nevada, which opposes the Yucca Mountain plan, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The U.S. Energy Department and the nuclear energy industry, however, have said there are no reasons for any further delay in the Yucca Mountain plan.  Shipments to the repository would not begin until 2010 at the earliest, when the facility is scheduled to be operational, Energy Department and nuclear industry representatives said.

“The opponents of Yucca Mountain paid for that opinion (by Hall), and I’m sure they are happy with it,” said Energy spokesman Joe Davis.  “Maybe they should pay somebody now to read the law and regulations governing repository selection and transportation of nuclear waste.”

Energy, the Transportation Department, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and state agencies will spend the next several years before the repository is scheduled to open developing a waste shipment transportation plan, Davis said (Jeff Nesmith, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 22).

Senate Scene

Meanwhile, Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) have been quietly working behind the scenes to convince other senators to remain at least publicly undecided on whether they will support the Yucca Mountain plan, according to CongressDaily.

The Senate is expected to vote in July on a resolution that would override Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn’s veto of the Yucca Mountain site.  The House of Representatives has already passed an identical resolution (see GSN, May 9).

In the last few months, Reid and Ensign have met with almost every other senator to outline their argument against the Yucca Mountain plan, CongressDaily reported.  Through their efforts, the two have persuaded many senators to at least refrain from declaring how they plan to vote, according to CongressDaily.

“We’ve gotten a lot of people into the undecided category,” Ensign said.

So far, 32 senators have said they are undecided on the Yucca Mountain repository issue, according to a CongressDaily survey.  Many of those 32 senators, however, have previously supported similar legislation.  Of the remaining senators, 48 support the plan and 19 oppose it, according to the survey (Brody Mullins, CongressDaily, May 22).

Back to top