India-Pakistan:  U.S. Action and Pakistan’s Promise Averted War

More details emerged over the last few days to explain how India and Pakistan recently backed down from the brink of war and what steps countries could take in the near future to decrease tensions in South Asia (see GSN, June 19).

Two primary factors — U.S. intervention and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s promise to permanently end militant infiltration into India’s side of the disputed Kashmir territory — enabled the nuclear-armed rivals to avert war, several analysts and officials said.  Musharraf had promised to crack down on militants, but India did not accept his commitment until U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage visited Musharraf and secured the commitment to bring about a “permanent end” to militant infiltration, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, June 10).

“If Pakistan had not agreed to end infiltration, and America had not conveyed that guarantee to India, then war would not have been averted,” Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said last week.

The deal to avoid a direct military conflict, however, came at some cost to India.  Musharraf told Armitage that India must take substantial steps to make his commitment to end infiltration “sustainable.”  The United States and other countries put pressure on India by calling for their citizens to leave the country — causing economic damage in India (see GSN, June 6).  Within a few days, India allowed Pakistani commercial flights over its territory, moved naval fleets back to homeports and prepared to name a high commissioner for Pakistan (see GSN, June 11).

What’s Next

In addition, U.S. officials including President George W. Bush told Musharraf that they would help find ways to resolve the dispute over Kashmir (see GSN, June 10).  India has continually said Kashmir is a regional issue, not a subject requiring outside intervention (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, June 22).

Vajpayee said in an interview with Newsweek that he would be willing to discuss all issues, including Kashmir, with Pakistan as long as Musharraf ends what India sees as cross-border terrorism based in Pakistan.  He said, however, that the U.S. role should be as a “facilitator” — not a “mediator” — continuing India’s insistence that the Kashmir dispute does not require a third party.

In the same Newsweek article, however, Musharraf repeated his insistence that to have long-term stability the two countries must address the Kashmir issue, and he said the United States “is the only country which can persuade India to initiate a dialogue and move towards a solution of Kashmir.  Bilateralism hasn’t worked.”

There also seemed to be some disagreement between the two leaders concerning Pakistan’s commitment to end infiltration.  Vajpayee said Musharraf has promised to dismantle militant training camps in Pakistan’s part of Kashmir, but Musharraf said he had not discussed that issue with Armitage.

Both leaders said the decrease of tensions might offer a good opportunity for a positive turning point in relations (Lally Weymouth, Newsweek, July 1).

Strong tensions still exist, however, while the United States tries to determine its future role in the region.  U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has asked his staff to think of new ways to encourage Indian-Pakistani dialogue on Kashmir with the hopes that a change in the status quo would reward Musharraf for complying with U.S. requests and help India feel that it has also gained politically, according to the Post (Kessler, Washington Post).

For further information, see:

Stimson Center Background on Kashmir

Pakistani Government

Indian Government

Back to top

Iran:  No Agreement Yet on Returning Spent Fuel to Russia

Despite official Russian statements, officials have not reached an agreement with Iran to guarantee that spent fuel from the Bushehr nuclear power plant would be returned to Russia for reprocessing, the London Guardian reported today (see GSN, March 29).

“The question of managing the spent nuclear fuel is absent in the agreement between the governments of Russia and Iran on the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant on Iranian territory.  Negotiations are taking place on the return of the spent nuclear fuel to the Russian Federation,” a confidential paper from the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry to the Kremlin said, according to the Guardian.

The ministry has claimed repeatedly that Iran would send the spent fuel back to Russia to reduce any risk of nuclear proliferation, the Guardian reported.

“We have agreed with Iran that the used fuel will be returned to Russia,” Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said earlier this month.

The internal Russian government documents, however, contradict the public statements, according to the Guardian, which did not report when the documents were written.

The United States has expressed concern that the nuclear power plant Russia is building in Iran would pose a proliferation risk (see GSN, June 7).

“It is true that a nuclear power plant can become a source of proliferation once it has accumulated a certain amount of spent nuclear fuel,” Rumyantsev said last month.

“Iran would be in possession of weapons-usable material, plutonium,” said Tobias Muenchmeyer, a nuclear expert for Greenpeace (see GSN, May 21).  “For a country like Iran, it would not be difficult to reprocess the spent fuel and isolate the plutonium.  It would be a matter of weeks, not months” (Ian Traynor, London Guardian, June 24).

Back to top

United States I:  Energy Plans Many Precautions for Plutonium Transports

More details have emerged about planned plutonium shipments from the U.S. Energy Department’s Rocky Flats former nuclear weapons plant in Colorado to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported yesterday (see GSN, June 19).

According to information from court testimony, government documents and nuclear experts, it is expected that up to 225 containers of plutonium will be transported to Savannah River per month, according to the Journal-Constitution.  Vans of armed guards will protect the shipments.

The plutonium will be transported in both metal and powder forms, said Savannah River program manager for plutonium Allen Gunter.  It is expected to be shipped in containers loaded onto 18-wheel trucks, which will be identical to other tractor-trailers on the road, according to the Journal-Constitution.  The plutonium trailers will be equipped with a sticky foam that would be released in the event of a terrorist attack, immobilizing the cargo and anyone inside, said experts who monitor weapons shipments.

For the most part, the U.S. Energy Department has remained secretive about the shipments.

“We are being told nothing,” said Morton Brilliant, spokesman for South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges.

Energy is expected to use interstate highways as the main shipping route, the Journal-Constitution reported.  The transports will stop if necessary but only at government complexes, the department said.  They will not travel in dangerous weather and will only travel at speeds of 55 miles per hour, according to the Journal-Constitution.  A national communications center in New Mexico will track the plutonium shipments via satellite, Energy spokesman Joe Davis said.

The shipments might have begun as early as Saturday, the Journal-Constitution reported.  A federal court order prevented Hodges’ attempts to block the shipments.  While an appeals court has denied an emergency injunction against the shipments, the court plans to hear arguments on the case July 10, according to the Journal-Constitution (Charles Seabrook, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 23).

Back to top

United States II:  Air Force Debates Whether to Reduce B-1B Role

The U.S. Air Force is in the midst of a debate over whether to continue to use the B-1B bomber for offensive missions or to reduce it to a standoff role, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported today (see GSN, April 5).

Some B-1B supporters are concerned that relegating the bomber to a standoff role could be a step toward total withdrawal from service, according to Aviation Week.  The B-1B is considered vulnerable to budget cuts because the B-52 bomber is already dedicated to a standoff role and can operate at lower cost than the B-1B.

B-1B supporters have said the debate over the bomber comes at a bad time since it performed well in the war in Afghanistan, Aviation Week reported.  It dropped 4,000 guided bombs and had a mission capable rate of nearly 90 percent.

No decision has yet been made on whether to change the B-1B’s mission, although missions are reviewed for all bombers in the U.S. Air Force annually, said Brig. Gen. Jay Jabour, Air Force program executive officer for fighters and bombers.

One factor in the decision on whether to change the role of the B-1B is the success of planned electronic warfare upgrades, according to Aviation Week.  The upgrades focus on the development of the ALE-55 fiber-optic towed decoy system, which is used to confuse radio-guided missiles, Aviation Week reported.  It has been more difficult than previously thought to deploy the decoy and tow it behind the aircraft, which has caused engineers to attempt to improve the decoy’s durability on the B-1B and other military fighters and bombers.

B-1B crews want to use a towed-decoy system to defend against future air defense threats, especially since the usefulness of towed-decoy systems was demonstrated during the air campaign in Kosovo, according to Aviation Week.  Delays in developing the ALE-55 have led to increased costs, which is one of the main reasons the Air Force is unsure about continuing the plan, Aviation Week reported.

The Air Force has created a proposal to continue to use the ALE-50 system and to upgrade the B-1B’s onboard electronic jamming system.  The B-1B’s jamming system, however, will be out of date by 2010, which will force the Air Force to either upgrade the B-1B or limit its use, a system expert said (Robert Wall, Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 24).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Plum Island Facility Considering Controversial Upgrade

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Agriculture Department appears to be quietly considering a controversial upgrade to an island-based animal disease research facility just off Long Island, N.Y.  The upgrade would allow the department to work with infectious animal diseases posing the greatest risk to humans.

The decision could pit the department’s desire for constructing such a facility, which it currently lacks, against safety concerns of local residents on or near some of the nation’s most expensive real estate.

The decision could be ultimately bumped up to the White House.  Previous attempts to fund an upgrade by Congress and the Clinton administration were resisted by New York legislators responding to local pressure and there are signs the Bush administration would face similar pressures. 

The Plum Island Animal Disease Center currently has a Biosafety Level 3 standard, enabling the laboratory to research and diagnose some of the most dangerous animal diseases in the world, such as foot-and-mouth disease, Rinderpest, and African swine fever.

A Biosafety Level 4 facility would enable the department to work with diseases posing the highest risk to humans such as anthrax, screwworm, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as “mad cow disease.”

Jesse Garcia, chief of staff for Republican Representative Felix Grucci, who has Plum Island in his district, said the White House has assured his boss the center “will not be upgraded to a Biosafety 4 facility.  That has been advised to us.  Its mission will stay the same.”

“The White House has been very receptive throughout the past 18 months about his concerns for that facility,” he said, noting that the Bush administration called for no changes to Plum Island in its recent proposal for creating a homeland security department.

The administration has made assurances “that no matter what appropriations level or what department Plum Island facilities will finally end up in, Agriculture or homeland defense, it will stay as a Biosafety 3 facility,” he said.

David Huxsoll, interim director of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, however, said in a phone interview Friday the upgrade remains a consideration.

“As you probably know, that’s something that has been discussed.  At this point in time, no decision has been made.  That’s about all I can say at this point in time,” Huxsoll said. “We don’t have authority at that point in time to pursue that.”

Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman alluded to the possibility during April Senate testimony, saying the department was prepared to spend $23 million for Plum Island “pending the outcome of a broad independent review of the needs and options for this work, including the needs for Biosecurity Level 4 facilities.”

The department has contracted with Science Applications International Corp. for a report, which will address whether the department needs such a facility, for which a panel of experts from around the country met last week for two days.  The consensus was that one is needed, according to a participant.

The panel did not address whether Plum Island is the most suitable location, the person said.

The department has otherwise refused to comment on the matter, including on whether it is considering upgrading the facility, or has ruled that out.

“These all are questions that are in reference to security matters and we can’t give you any comment at this time,” an Agriculture representative on homeland security matters said.

Previous Resistance

During the Clinton administration, the department had sought to obtain $24 million in funding specifically to begin upgrading the facility from Biosafety Level 3 to Level 4, the highest security classification.

The Plum Island facility is two miles offshore and the only U.S. facility designated to study certain highly infectious foreign animal diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease.

The Clinton administration abandoned the idea in 2000, however, responding to protests from New York legislators. Local residents had expressed concern about possible terrorist attacks and road accidents while hazardous materials are transported to the laboratory on the main highway along the north side of the island.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, New York Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton reportedly beat back another attempt to approve money for a biosafety upgrade, contained in legislation proposed by Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-N.C.), by successfully encouraging Roberts to remove the language. 

In addition, Schumer and Clinton last November called for a full and immediate security review of the island.

“When you have a facility just off the coast of Long Island that handles lethal and rare animal diseases, you just can’t take chances,” Schumer said.

This month, President George W. Bush signed a major bioterrorism defense bill past by Congress in May that provides $100 million, reportedly added by Clinton, specifically for “renovation, updating, and expansion of the Biosafety Level 3” Plum Island facility (see GSN, June 12).

Senator Clinton applauded the measure, saying it would “keep Plum Island, off the coast of New York, at its current biosecurity level and to modernize and improve the security of the facilities.”

The $23 million referred to by Veneman was approved this year as part of the Defense Department Appropriations Act for 2002 for “planning and design” at Plum Island.

A Quieter Approach

Since Sept. 11, the department has been undergoing a nationwide lab security review intended to produce recommendations on improving security at the country’s five Biosafety Level 3 laboratories.

At Plum Island’s current Level 3 facility, lab workers can be exposed to animals being studied, but must strip down and shower before returning to street clothes.  Air leaving the lab is filtered and all materials and sewage leaving the lab are decontaminated to remove any viruses.

For a Level 4 facility, employees entering special areas must wear one-piece, pressurized suits ventilated with life-support systems to avoid exposure to potentially fatal diseases.  In addition, specially engineered, sealed facilities and elaborate safety equipment are required to prevent dangerous germs from escaping the facility.

There are now only four Level 4 labs in the country, located at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., a small facility at Georgia State University in Atlanta and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md.

In a series of meetings with local communities 1999, Agriculture officials encountered some anger and skepticism as they sought to assure residents about the security precautions associated with the upgrade.

The Clinton administration’s approach to considering an upgrade “just didn’t happen right, didn’t move down the pike the way it was supposed to have,” a department source said.

Back to top

Anthrax:  “Modern” Spores Used in Attacks, Officials Say

Senior U.S. officials have said the anthrax used in last fall’s attacks was fresh and made within the last two years, the New York Times reported yesterday (see GSN, June 13).

The FBI was able to determine the age of the spores through the use of a type of radiocarbon dating, officials said.  Federal investigators believe the recent production date of the anthrax used in the attacks means that the person responsible prepared the spores alone and could produce more for further attacks, according to the Times.

“It’s modern,” an official said.  “It was grown, and therefore it can be grown again and again.”

The dating has added evidence to a theory in the “Amerithrax” investigation that the person responsible for the attacks has a direct connection to a microbiology laboratory and might have used relatively new equipment to prepare the spores, the Times reported.

“We’re still looking for someone who fits the criteria of training, knowledge, education, experience and skill,” an official said.

Investigators have said they think the person responsible, if caught, would fit into the profile created by the FBI (see GSN, June 4).  Bureau scientists have said the person responsible for the attacks is a solitary male with scientific knowledge who has a grudge against society, according to the Times.  According to the profile, the person responsible also probably feels comfortable in the Trenton, N.J. area, where the letters sent with the spores were postmarked, the Times reported.  Investigators still do not know whether the person is from the United States or abroad.

Officials have said, however, that there is still no distinct suspect in the investigation.  Investigators have created a list of about 50 potential suspects that changes periodically as new suspects are either added or removed, according to the Times.

Investigators have also examined the biopesticide industry, which has created a list of about 80 people that are still under investigation, the Times reported.  An investigation into the biopharmaceutical industry has created a list of about 200 possible subjects, while research facilities with anthrax stocks account for another list of about 50 people under question.

“It’s astounding that they haven’t been able to narrow the field,” said Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists.  “There aren’t that many people that could have been involved” (Johnston/Broad, New York Times, June 23).

Members of Congress Weigh In

Some members of Congress have become frustrated at the lack of progress in the investigation (see GSN, June 5).

“The anthrax killer is out there,” Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said yesterday.  “We need to nab this person.”

Officials need to spend more effort on finding the person responsible for the anthrax attacks and on capturing al-Qaeda operatives rather than on reorganizing themselves, Boxer said (see GSN, June 21).

“These are things we must do,” she said.  “I have to say we just need a renewed effort to keep our eye on both of these things.”

Other members of Congress have expressed more support for the investigation, saying that because it involves factors such as complex science, fast results should not be expected.

“Eventually we will know these things,” said House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).  “But we must be diligent, thorough, persistent and patient” (Associated Press/New York Times, June 23).

For further information, see:

CDC Frequently Asked Questions on Anthrax

FBI Amerithrax Investigation

Journal of the American Medical Association Background

GSN Anthrax Attack Chronology (Dec. 12, 2001)

Back to top

Uzbekistan:  Base Is Not Contaminated, U.S. Army Says

Initial tests showing the presence of chemical agents at the Khanabad military base in Uzbekistan were incorrect, a U.S. Army official said yesterday (see GSN, June 18).

“There is no chemical threat,” Col. Roger King said during a briefing at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

The Army Biological Chemical Command has completed intensive testing at the air base near Karshi in Uzbekistan and found no trace of chemical or biological weapons, King said.  The tests primarily found organic compounds, he added.  Lumber used in some of the base’s facilities could have led to earlier false positive results, King said, because some compounds that are used to treat lumber are similar to those in chemical weapons.

“Some of the compounds do share commonalities with some of the base compounds of chemical munitions, but again the detailed analysis shows no presence of chemical or biological munitions,” he said (Reuters/New York Times, June 23).

Officials are satisfied that there is no chemical threat to U.S. soldiers stationed at the base, King said.  It is still unknown whether, or when, troops will be allowed to return to the areas of the base where the traces were detected, he said (Associated Press/Yahoo.com, June 23).

Back to top

European Response:  Delegates to Create European Response System

International organizations and European members of the World Health Organization are creating a European system for responding to possible chemical weapons attacks, the Environment News Service reported Friday.

The WHO and other U.N. agencies met in Copenhagen earlier this month to hear testimony from experts in counterterrorism, poison control, emergency preparedness and national surveillance.  Delegates agreed to continue discussions through a permanent forum, and experts are now working to create an international scale to identify the severity of any chemical incident.

“We do not know when or if there will be a chemical attack, but we know, from our experience in handling other crises involving chemical accidents, that preparation saves time and saves lives,” said Roberto Bertollini, technical support director of the WHO European office.

Significant chemical incidents occur every month, according to Environment News Service.  There were 704 chemical incidents in the United Kingdom over the last six-month period for which figures exist, and three of those affected more than 50 people (Environment News Service, June 24).

For further information, see:

CDC List of Chemical Agents

Federation of American Scientists Information on Chemical Weapons

World Health Organization

Back to top

United States:  Umatilla Delays Chemical Weapons Destruction

The U.S. Army plans to delay incinerating chemical weapons at the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon until May 2003 due to problems with the emissions monitoring system, the Associated Press reported Friday (see GSN, June 13).

Under an international treaty, the United States was supposed to begin destroying the weapons — including VX, sarin and mustard gas — in February 2003.  They are now scheduled to be destroyed by 2008.

Problems with the monitoring system have delayed test burns, which were originally set for May 25 and now are scheduled for July 24, according to Don Barclay, project manager for the Army’s chemical demilitarization program (Associated Press, June 21).

For further information, see:

CDC List of Chemical Agents

Federation of American Scientists Information on Chemical Weapons

CWC Text

Pentagon Executive Summary

Back to top

Israel:  Military Wants UAVs to Destroy Missile Launchers

Israel is continuing to develop an unmanned aircraft capable of identifying and destroying an enemy’s ballistic missile launcher, Aviation Week and Space Technology reported today (see GSN, Dec. 17).

The project’s goal is to create a multilayered missile defense system for Israel and to augment the Arrow missile defense system, which focuses on destroying enemy missiles in the terminal stage, Cabinet minister Dan Meridor said.

Israeli planners originally wanted the unmanned aircraft to shoot down a ballistic missile shortly after launch but decided that goal was too technically difficult, so they focused on destroying the launcher.  Experts expect the aircraft to be relatively large and carry weapons and sensors, including an infrared system to detect missile launches and air-to-surface missiles, according to Aviation Week.

Israeli officials tried to persuade the U.S. military to participate in the project, but the United States showed little interest in destroying launchers, focusing its resources on other forms of missile defense, Aviation Week reported.  Israel still plans to pursue the project but U.S. involvement would speed up development, said retired Brig. Gen. Kuti Mor, deputy director general for policy planning in the Israeli Defense Ministry.  Without U.S. assistance, Israel will need at least five years to bring the project to operational status, Mor said (Wall/Fulghum, Aviation Week and Space Technology, June 24).

For further information, see:

MDA Terminal Defense Segment

Federation of American Scientists Background

MDA Basics of Missile Defense

MDA Boost Defense Segment

Back to top

ABM Treaty:  House Republicans Express Support for ABM Withdrawal

U.S. Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) introduced a resolution to the House of Representatives earlier this month declaring support for the U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and for establishing “a robust layered missile defense system” (see GSN, June 13).

“The way we can and must defend our homeland is through the development of a layered missile defense system — a layered system that would violate the terms of the ABM Treaty,” Young said (see GSN, Nov. 14, 2001).  “Clearly, the day has come to withdraw from this dated and ineffective document that was created more than 30 years ago, during a different time and under different conditions than those that face our national security today” (Young release, June 13).

Nine other House Republicans also sponsored the resolution, which was referred to the Armed Services and International Relations committees (Aerospace Daily, June 18).

For further information, see:

ABM Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)

U.S. Fact Sheet on Withdrawal from ABM Treaty

U.S. Defense Department Executive Summary

Back to top

Uranium:  Egypt Is Mining Sinai Peninsula, Report Says

According to Western intelligence sources, China is helping Egypt mine and process uranium from the Sinai Peninsula, the German daily newspaper Die Welt reported Saturday.  In January Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak signed an agreement with China on the peaceful use of nuclear power, according to the daily.

The arrangement might suggest that Egypt is considering building nuclear weapons, Die Welt reported.  From the Egyptian point of view, according to Die Welt, the most important part of the agreement is cooperation on producing uranium hexafluoride, which can be processed into enriched uranium.

Egyptian officials have denied that the country is seeking nuclear weapons, and the International Atomic Energy Agency also has said it knows nothing about any such developments, Die Welt reported (Jacques Schuster, Die Welt, June 22, Global Security Newswire translation).

Back to top