U.S. Response:  White House Considers Vetoing Homeland Security Bill

The White House said yesterday that it would consider vetoing legislation to create a homeland security department unless the administration is given more managerial authority over workers in the new department (see GSN, July 23).

Democrats in Congress have removed the managerial flexibility the administration needs to run the proposed department, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.  Unless the White House receives the authority to promote and fire workers in the new department, President George W. Bush’s advisers will recommend that he veto the legislation, Fleischer said.

“The president remains hopeful and optimistic that these provisions can be fixed without a veto,” Fleischer said.  “But he does feel strongly about it.  He is prepared to — he will receive a recommendation from his advisers to veto this if the president’s concerns are not addressed.”

Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) said he could not believe that Bush would veto the entire homeland security department over personnel concerns.

“Our bill gives the president 90 percent of what he asked for,” Lieberman said.  “I hope this veto threat is a tactic to encourage continued negotiation.”

Lieberman’s committee yesterday voted 12-5 to approve the Senate’s version of legislation for the homeland security department.  While three Republicans voted with the committee’s nine Democrats to support the bill, Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) said many Republicans in the full Senate would oppose the legislation unless the president’s concerns are addressed.

“The way they have written this bill, it takes away all the flexibility the president needs to run a department that would respond to the terrorist threat,” Thompson said.  “I can’t vote for it the way it is now” (David Firestone, New York Times, July 26).

The Senate legislation on the homeland security department has followed the White House’s proposal for the new department in many aspects, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, July 18).  The bill transfers to the new department many of the federal agencies the administration wanted, including the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Transportation Security Administration (Miller/Eilperin, Washington Post, July 26).

House Considers Legislation

The full House of Representatives yesterday began consideration of the House version of homeland security department legislation (see GSN, July 22).  The House is scheduled to debate 26 amendments to the bill, including amendments to keep the Federal Emergency Management Agency independent from the proposed department (see GSN, July 12), to increase congressional oversight and to reiterate congressional support for the Posse Comitatus law — which prohibits the U.S. military from performing a domestic law enforcement role (Nick Anderson, Los Angeles Times, July 26).

The House version of the legislation does, however, give the White House most of the managerial control over the new department that it wanted, according to the Washington Times.  The House bill also includes the ability to transfer funds within the department and gives the administration the ability to shape the White House Homeland Security Office as it sees fit (Stephan Dinan, Washington Times, July 26).

Republicans in the House said they would support Bush.

“Remember, what we’re trying to do is create an integrated department of homeland security to make us safer,” said Representative William Thornberry (R-Texas).

While many House Democrats have said they want to support the legislation, others have said the bill is too flawed (see GSN, July 15).

“Basically, this is political cover over an operational problem,” said Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio).  “We don’t need another federal department” (Anderson, Los Angeles Times).

Back to top

Iraq:  Agents Try to Buy Centrifuges for Making Nuclear Weapons

Iraqi operatives were detected last month trying to purchase stainless-steel tubing — which is used in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons — from an unknown supplier, U.S. officials told the Washington Times (see GSN, June 20).

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that obtaining the tubing is essential to Iraq’s plans to build nuclear weapons, the Times reported today.

“We know they are trying to obtain this material but so far have not been successful,” a senior Bush administration official said.

Enriching uranium is the basis for the Iraqi nuclear program, said former Iraqi nuclear official Khidhir Hamza.  Iraq in the past tried to produce enriched uranium by using centrifuges that require stainless-steel tubing, said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

“We do know that if they were to reconstitute their nuclear program, they would need stainless-steel piping,” he said.

“This is only one sign that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program,” a Bush administration official said (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, July 26).

U.S. Debates Attack Plans

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has continued an internal debate over how to attack Iraq, and some civilian aides to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are advocating a surprise attack with 80,000 troops.

Advocates of the plan say a surprise attack is necessary because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein knows the United States wants to remove him from power and he might hit U.S. troops with chemical or biological weapons in a pre-emptive strike (see GSN, July 18).  A surprise U.S. attack could occur as soon as October, the Miami Herald reported.

“If it happened in October, I wouldn’t be completely surprised,” one official said.

Some military planners and analysts have backed a plan to invade Iraq using 250,000 to 300,000 U.S. troops and massive air strikes (see GSN, July 8).  They have said the 80,000-troop plan might be disastrous.  Taking over Baghdad would require a major U.S. force, former Army special operations and CIA officer Michael Vickers said.

Bush aides are also debating whether to ask Congress to approve an invasion.  Senate Foreign Relations Committee  Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said U.S. President George W. Bush must gain congressional and public support for a military campaign or risk ending his career.  U.S. officials emphasized that Bush has not yet decided on an attack plan.

“I have specifically inquired about the prospect of an October surprise and have been told there will not be an October surprise,” Biden said.

The administration faces opposition from most Arab and European countries who have said the United States must help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before moving to attack Iraq (see GSN, April 5).

“I think a widespread assumption is, the U.S. is going to attack,” an official at the United Nations said. “There is widespread concern that this will destabilize the whole of the Middle East.”

The State Department has expressed the same concern.  “With all that’s going on, with all the uncertainty in the Middle East … it probably is not a good time,” a senior State official said.

The Bush administration has also not provided a plan for creating a post-Hussein government that would unite the country’s Shiite and Sunni Muslims and ethnic Kurds, according to the Miami Herald (see GSN, March 20; Strobel/Landay, Miami Herald, July 26).

For further information, see:

Wisconsin Project Iraq Watch

Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Status Map

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Consider Debt-for-Nonproliferation Swap, State Official Says

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States should consider swapping a portion of Russian debt for nonproliferation programs, a senior State Department official said yesterday, praising last month’s Group of Eight agreement to provide funds for nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet Union (see GSN, June 28).

In testimony before the House International Relations Committee, Undersecretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs Alan Larson, said the recent G-8 agreement to provide $20 billion over the next 10 years “will make possible substantially increased nonproliferation efforts through new and expanded multilateral and bilateral projects.”

As part of the G-8 agreement, the United States has agreed to provide half of the funds while other countries would match that amount.  Contributors plan to coordinate projects to avoid duplication and ensure broader coverage of nonproliferation needs, Larson said (see GSN, May 3).

“The initiative allows each partner the flexibility to finance and carry out projects in a manner consistent with its program priorities, national laws and budgetary procedures,” Larson said.

One option for financing more nonproliferation programs is a bilateral debt exchange, Larson said, adding that the United States does not know whether other G-8 countries plan to use that option.  The United States might agree to waive a certain amount of Soviet-era debt to the United States if Russia agrees to use those funds for programs to scrap and safeguard weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 18).

“We see debt exchange for financing nonproliferation efforts as a possible approach unique to Russia,” Larson said.  “It would use Soviet-era debt to help Russia address Soviet-era problems.”

Under such a plan, the United States and Russia would agree to a bilateral contract.

“For instance, if the U.S. and Russia agreed that a specific project would cost $50 million over three years, then the U.S. would relieve Russia of the obligation to make $50 million of debt payments over three years — a dollar-for-dollar proposition,” Larson said, adding that any agreement would include provisions for suspending or terminating the debt exchange if Russia failed to meet established benchmarks.

Russia and the United States still need to work out more details and decide whether the conditions met each country’s national interests, but Russian authorities are interested in a debt exchange approach, Larson said.

Larson emphasized that his proposal is not a form of “debt relief.”  Russia’s economy has improved in the last few years, and the country is capable of paying its debts, he said.  However, Russia faces many economic burdens and does not have enough money to carry out all its WMD responsibilities, including destroying its chemical weapons arsenal, shutting down plutonium production plants, disposing of excess fissile material, securing WMD materials and scrapping ballistic missile-launching submarines and other launch systems.

For further information, see:

G-8 Statement:  Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction

U.S. Defense Department CTR Site

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Nonproliferation Programs in Russia (May 24, 2002)

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Rumsfeld Lowers Bar for Moscow Treaty Withdrawal

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States might not adhere to the terms of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty if certain missile defense programs and other new initiatives are not funded or successful, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday.

Under the pact, also called the Moscow Treaty, the United States plans to have fewer than 2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads by the end of 2012.  The treaty must be approved by both the U.S. Senate and Russian Duma, and so far has received firm, but often qualified, bipartisan Senate support (see GSN, May 24).

“Our decision to proceed with reductions as deep as the ones outlined in the Moscow Treaty is premised on decisions to invest in a number of other critical areas, programs that are funded and recommended in our 2003 budget,” Rumsfeld said in his opening statement to the committee.

He said funds would be needed for fiscal year 2003 investments, including:

*         improving intelligence collection, analysis, processing and dissemination to protect the U.S. homeland;

*         refocusing and revitalizing missile defense research and testing programs and capabilities to detect and respond to biological attack;

*         accelerating development of unmanned aerial vehicles with new combat capabilities and producing fast, precision conventional strike capabilities;

*         converting four Trident nuclear submarines into stealthy strike submarines that can carry cruise missiles and special operations forces in denied areas;

*         leveraging information technology to seamlessly connect U.S. forces in the air, at sea and on the ground;

*         protecting the U.S. information network, and

*         improving the survivability of U.S. space systems and developing a space infrastructure that assures persistent surveillance and access.

“Investments in these and many other transformational capabilities in the 2003 budget should allow the U.S. over time to reduce our reliance on nuclear weapons and enact the deep nuclear reductions contained in the treaty,” he said.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Richard Myers said additional requests for such investments also would be seen in the fiscal 2004 budget.

Asked by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) to clarify whether the United States would comply with the treaty if it were unable to deploy a missile defense system, Rumsfeld said that is an open question.

“That’s a good question, and it’s a question that’s probably not knowable until as we move along,” he said, adding that the proposed treaty changes are part of a plan to increase reliance on developing conventional weapons, command and control and missile defense capabilities for strategic purposes.

In earlier testimony, Rumsfeld and other officials had cited only a radical change in the international strategic environment such as the emergence of a peer competitor on the scale of the Soviet Union as a rationale for withdrawing from the treaty and returning the warheads from storage to their delivery platforms (see GSN, July 18).

“Political Blackmail”

John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, an organization that lobbies for arms control and reduced military spending, called Rumsfeld’s message “political blackmail” for effectively saying, “better fund these or you won’t get your reductions.”

He argued Rumsfeld’s statements are at odds with the reasoning offered by other administration officials promoting the treaty.

It “contradicts the whole pitch for the nuclear reductions, that we don’t even need a treaty since the 1,700 to 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads is all we need to defend ourselves,” Isaacs said.

Addressing the possibility of a contradiction, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Commander Don Sewell simply said, “In defense of the country, we need more than just those [warheads].  That’s only one aspect of it.”

Winslow Wheeler, a former senior defense analyst on the Senate Budget Committee, criticized the committee for not questioning Rumsfeld further on the statements.

It’s “absolutely typical of Senate Armed Services Committee oversight that they are not even paying attention to what’s being said,” he said.  “It’s not even clear that the Democrats know there’s a gauntlet on the floor.  That’s congressional oversight for you.”

A Loosely Binding Treaty

Yesterday, committee members again raised several concerns about the treaty, including its lack of a requirement to destroy any nuclear warheads or delivery vehicles, the absence of verification or monitoring provisions, the lack of a timetable for implementing treaty reductions and the unusually short withdrawal notification provision.

Levin also noted, and Rumsfeld confirmed, that the treaty provides no precise definition of what exactly would be reduced and does not use the phrase “operationally deployed.”

“As I recall, the negotiations did not insert in the treaty any precise definition.  We have indicated what we consider it to be, and there’s no question but that … the Russians will be using something roughly approximating that.”

While the treaty requires no warhead elimination, Pentagon officials have said they expect to destroy some of the downloaded warheads in the future.  Secretary of State Colin Powell this month said the total number of U.S. warheads might be cut to 4,600, a figure which Rumsfeld dismissed at a later hearing.

Rumsfeld said at the hearing yesterday that the Pentagon is not planning on settling on a figure for exactly how many warheads it will keep and how many it will destroy.

“It’s not something that we’ll decide.  It will not be a fixed number.  It’s very likely it will be a number that over the 10-years of the treaty will change,” he said, citing a need to resolve questions about stockpile safety and reliability.

Extending START Not Appropriate

Rumsfeld said the treaty needs no verification measures because “neither side should have an interest in evading the terms of the treaty, since it codifies unilaterally announced reductions and give[s] both sides broad flexibility in implementing those reductions.”

Rumsfeld also said he does not believe it is necessary for the START I verification mechanism, which expires in 2009, to be extended to help verify the Moscow Treaty.

“From my standpoint, it doesn’t seem to me that it would be necessarily appropriate.  I think that times are changing and there may very well be various ways to achieve the kinds of transparency that would be appropriate between our two countries.”

Symbolic of New Relationship

At the hearing, additional key senators expressed support for the treaty, making it appear certain that the Senate will approve it.  Levin said the treaty is more important for its symbolism of better relations with Russia than for anything else.

“The importance of this treaty is not so much what it does or doesn’t do, but rather the possibilities that it may hold out for the future.  It is one step in a continual process of improving the U.S.-Russia relationship and improving U.S. security,” he said.

Isaacs believes Democrats, while skeptical about the treaty, simply do not want to appear anything but bipartisan on most foreign affairs and defense issues.

The way many see it, the treaty “doesn’t accomplish much, doesn’t do much damage and is not a big political issue, so Congress will let it slide through,” he said.

Unresolved Issues

Levin said there were several U.S.-Russian arms control issues that remain unresolved and said he hoped the treaty would lead to future agreements in those areas.

“Can this treaty provide an opportunity for the United States to make real reductions in nuclear weapons — not just the number of weapons deployed, but the total number of nuclear weapons?” he said.  “Can this treaty provide an opportunity for the United States to rethink its nuclear weapons employment policy so that nuclear weapons are seen as weapons of last resort?  Can this treaty provide an opportunity to establish new multilateral approaches to dealing with and reducing weapons of mass destruction?”

U.S. officials have earlier said they do not expect to negotiate any further formal arms control agreements with Russia (see GSN, May 16).

Further Republican Endorsements

Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) also raised several concerns, but said, “I certainly commend you on the direction it’s going, and I think it’s a great breakthrough — what you have negotiated.”

The ranking member of the committee, Senator John Warner (R-Va.), praised the treaty as “the right agreement at the right time.”  He called the scale of the treaty’s requirements “the most dramatic in strategic weapons history and in the history of arms control agreements.”

Nelson and Levin both urged U.S. officials to negotiate an arrangement to destroy downloaded warheads, to reduce the risk that the warheads or their components might be stolen.

“The Russians apparently wanted to destroy weapons, not store them.  We’re the ones who decided that they should be stored, not destroyed, as I understand the discussions,” said Levin.  Nelson concluded that eliminating the Russian warheads “is of enormous concern to a number of the members of this body.”

Back to top

South Asia:  Powell to Try to Build Trust, Find Resolution

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is scheduled to travel to India tomorrow and Pakistan Monday in an effort to increase stability in the region and find ways for the two nuclear rivals to build trust, the Christian Science Monitor reported today (see GSN, July 23).

Powell’s trip comes a few weeks after other top U.S. officials visited the region to help pull the countries back from the brink of war (see GSN, June 24).

“There’s a recognition that the ad hoc, fire-brigade approach to the conflict can’t hold,” a Pakistani diplomat in Washington said (see GSN, July 2).

“I don’t know how likely it is Powell can reach any breakthroughs now.  But it is extremely important he try to take this beyond crisis management,” said Karl Inderfurth, former assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration.

“Both sides need to recognize that the current stalemate poses a threat not just for the region’s stability,” Inderfurth said, “but to Pakistan’s future and India’s aspirations to be a world leader.”

Powell has said he wants to discuss a broader agenda beyond security issues, and he is expected to tell India that the United States has concerns about India’s plan to buy the Arrow missile defense system from Israel (see GSN, July 23).

Relationships Uncertain

Powell’s attempts to encourage de-escalation and long-term resolution to the conflict might be complicated by Indian and Pakistani skepticism over the U.S. relationship with the other country.

“Each side distrusts the U.S.’s relationship with the other,” said Radha Kumar, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations.

India is concerned that the United States might overlook Pakistan’s flaws as long as Musharraf cooperates with the U.S. campaign against terrorism, according to the Monitor.

“India sees the U.S. tied to Pakistan now because of the fight with terrorism and fears the U.S. is turning a blind eye to its failings,” Kumar said.

At the same time, Pakistan is concerned that the United States is moving toward accepting India’s depiction of itself as a democracy defending against terrorists (Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor, July 26).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Postal Service to Test Brentwood Facility Fumigation Equipment

The U.S. Postal Service is preparing to conduct a small-scale test Monday of the equipment that fumigators plan to use to clean the anthrax-contaminated Brentwood Road postal facility in Washington (see GSN, June 11).

Testers plan to set up a tent over three mail processing machines inside the facility, including the machine that handled the anthrax-filled letters sent to members of Congress last fall, according to the Washington Post.  They then plan to pump five pounds of chlorine dioxide gas into the tent, said Washington Health Department Senior Deputy Director Theodore Gordon.  Cleaning the entire facility will probably require 2,000 pounds of gas, officials said.

Cleaning crews successfully used chlorine dioxide gas to decontaminate the Hart Senate Office Building, which was also affected by last fall’s anthrax attacks (see GSN, Feb. 7).  Monday’s scheduled test should determine whether fumigation equipment would be able to decontaminate the entire Brentwood facility in a single application, Gordon said.  It would be the largest fumigation project ever attempted, he added.

There will be no one inside the Brentwood facility during the test and technicians will place air monitors outside, Gordon said.  Crews will seal the facility to prevent the gas from escaping, and even if some does escape, the amount that will be used during the test is too small to pose a health risk, he said.

“If gas is released, ultraviolet rays [from the sun] would cause it to break down very rapidly,” Gordon said.

The test is expected to last about 24 hours, said Thomas Day, Postal Service vice president of engineering.  Analysts will gather samples from the mail processing equipment inside the tent 10 days after the test is completed, and it will probably take 20 to 30 days to analyze the samples, according to the Post.  If the test is determined to be successful, the Postal Service is expected to begin fumigating the entire facility soon thereafter (Monte Reel, Washington Post, July 26).

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Human Bombers’ Fragments Could Be Infectious

Israel has begun vaccinating surviving victims of suicide bombing attacks against hepatitis B due to concern that bone fragments from the bombers might transmit contagious diseases, New Scientist reported Wednesday (see GSN, June 6).

In the body of one survivor, Israeli doctor Itzhak Braverman and his medical team discovered bone fragments that they believe came from a suicide bomber.  The bone fragments tested positive for hepatitis B.

“This is possibly the first report of human bone fragments acting as foreign bodies in a blast injury,” Braverman said.  “All survivors of these attacks in Israel are now vaccinated for hepatitis B.” 

He suggested that bone fragments embedded in attack victims should be routinely tested.  Theoretically, bone fragments might also spread other diseases including HIV, dengue fever, syphilis and Creutz-Jakob Disease, according to New Scientist (Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist, July 24).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Senators Endorse Better Chemical Plant Security

The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted unanimously yesterday to approve a bill that would increase security at U.S. chemical plants (see GSN, June 13).

The bill would require the United States to create safety standards and to identify chemical plants that are vulnerable to terrorist attack, according to the Washington Post.  Chemical plant operators would then have 18 months to certify compliance with the new standards.

Committee Chairman James Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Senator Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), the main authors of the legislation, made several changes to increase support for the bill, the Post reported.  They dropped regulations covering hazardous chemical shipments and reduced criminal penalties for plants that did not meet security standards, according to the Post.  Additionally, the legislation will only cover security at 15,000 chemical plants instead of 40,000 sites covered by an earlier version.

Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) said the chemical plant security bill might be added as an amendment to the homeland security department legislation currently under debate (see related GSN story, today).

“I don’t want the homeland security bill to become a Christmas tree for people to keep attaching things to,” Lieberman said.  “On the other hand, this certainly seems relevant to the goals of (the homeland security) bill” (Eric Pianin, Washington Post, July 26).

Committee Approves Nuclear Plant Security Changes

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee also approved by a voice vote a bill that would increase security at U.S. nuclear power plants (Mike Nartker, GSN, July 26).  The bill would require the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review security plans for all U.S. nuclear plants and would allow plant security forces to carry automatic weapons (see GSN, June 6).  It also would give nuclear plant security guards authority to arrest terrorist suspects (Pianin, Washington Post).

Back to top

CWC:  OPCW Appoints New Director General

Argentine Rogelio Pfirter yesterday became director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons following his formal approval by a conference of parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (see GSN, July 24).

“We wish to open a new chapter,” Pfirter said in a press release.  Before assuming his new post, he served as Argentina’s ambassador to the OPCW, the institution responsible for implementing the chemical weapons treaty. 

“First, one of my top priorities will be to ensure appropriate funding in 2003.  The destruction of chemical weapons and their production facilities must be completed as soon as possible” (OPCW release, July 25).

Pfirter said he plans to work with the United States and other treaty parties to address concerns about how to carry out the convention, according to the New York Times (see GSN, April 4).  Pfirter said his first meeting as director general was with Donald Mahley, the U.S. ambassador to the OPCW.  The two “were on the same wavelength” in regard to improving the organization’s financial status, Pfirter said (Judith Miller, New York Times, July 26).

The United States, which led the efforts to remove Pfirter’s predecessor, Jose Bustani, expressed its support for Pfirter yesterday (see GSN, March 22).

“He has an outstanding record on nonproliferation and we believe he will do an excellent job in leading the OPCW to carry out its essential role in the overall global effort against weapons of mass destruction,” U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in a press statement (U.S. State Department release, July 25).

For further information, see:

CWC Text

OPCW Main Page

CWC Parties

Pentagon Executive Summary of CWC

Back to top

India:  Agni 1 Needs One Final Test, Defense Minister Says

India’s short-range Agni 1 ballistic missile needs only one more test before production can begin, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes said Wednesday (see GSN, June 11).

The development of the 700-kilometer-range Agni 1 is finished and “the government proposes to go ahead with one more test of the missile before its induction,” Fernandes told the Indian Parliament.  The missile will be inducted into the Indian Army once serial production begins, which is expected to be by the end of the year, a senior Indian Defense Ministry official said.

Aerospace Daily reported that India’s 2,000-kilometer-range Agni 2 is already in serial production at Bharat Dynamics in Hyderabad (see GSN, March 15).  In addition, a 3,000-kilomter-range Agni 3 and an Agni 4 ICBM remain in development (Bulbul Singh, Aerospace Daily, July 26).

Back to top

Poland:  Warsaw Wants Central Europe’s Missile Defense Radar Site

As part of a cooperative U.S.-European missile defense system, Poland wants the main missile defense radar for Central Europe to be built within its borders, Gazeta Wyborcza reported today (see GSN, July 23).

The United States and Poland have decided to create a commission to determine the level of Poland’s involvement in any cooperative missile defense system, according to the Gazeta.  Poland was one of the first countries to support U.S. development of a missile defense system, Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski said during a recent trip to the United States (Gazeta Wyborcza/Polish News Bulletin, July 26).

Back to top