U.S. Response:  Homeland Security Debate Might Be Slow, Lieberman Says

The U.S. Senate’s debate on legislation to establish a homeland security department might become stuck in a “quicksand of unnecessary controversy” if the Bush administration continues to push for unprecedented management and spending flexibility, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) said in a letter to other senators last week (see GSN, Aug. 16).

While noting that most members of Congress support creating the new department, Lieberman wrote that “it would be a tragedy for us to scorch the substantial tract of common ground … and in the process fail to create the strong and accountable department of homeland security the American people deserve.”

The letter was meant to frame the impending debate as the Senate plans to consider the homeland security department bill this week, aides to Lieberman said.  The Bush administration has said it wants to create a new personnel system for the department, allowing greater flexibility in rewarding and disciplining workers.  Lieberman’s committee has created a bill, however, that would keep current civil service protections in place.  President George W. Bush has threatened to veto any bill containing such provisions.

The White House also wants the homeland security bill to allow the administration to shift limited funds from one homeland security account to another without prior congressional approval.  Such provisions would amount to an “end run” around Congress, Lieberman has said.

The Bush administration’s attempt to gain management and spending flexibility “has blurred the focus of its bill and risked dragging this common cause into a quicksand of unnecessary controversy by tacking on significant but vague new executive powers that are uncalled for and in some cases unprecedented,” the Lieberman letter says.

The planned department, however, would not be effective without the ability to reward and move employees as needed, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said last week.

“It’s going to be tough enough grafting together 22 agencies and cultures and histories and technology and human resource challenges — but if you don’t even have the tools to effect change, then one might suggest perhaps the status quo,” Ridge told the White House’s homeland security advisory council.  “If you’re not really going to change the status quo, then why create a department that you can’t effect the change within?”

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) “believes the Senate version of the bill needs significant improvement before it gets to the president,” a spokesman for the senator said (Bill Miller, Washington Post, Aug. 30).

Flight Restrictions Canceled

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has canceled a Defense Department plan to restrict non-U.S. carriers from flights over Washington and New York on Sept. 11, officials said last week.  Such restrictions would violate international agreements, the administration decided.

The restrictions would have prevented non-U.S. carriers from flying over, coming into or departing the New York area for 10 hours on Sept. 11.  The proposed restrictions would have closed three Washington-area airports to non-U.S. flights for 2 1/2 hours that day, according to the Washington Post.  Restrictions also would have applied to Shanksville, Pa., where one of the Sept. 11 hijacked aircraft crashed.

The Pentagon had requested restrictions out of concerns over its ability to defend the skies during planned commemorative ceremonies, including those that Bush was scheduled to attend, officials said.  Airlines, however, said the restrictions would have disrupted flight schedules around the world and would have been a burden to travelers for most of that week.

The Transportation Department decided to cancel the restrictions last week after complaints, the Post reported.  Officials decided that the restrictions would have violated international agreements in which countries give reciprocal privileges to each other’s flights.  Such agreements prevent the United States from treating non-U.S. airlines differently than domestic ones, officials said (Mike Allen, Washington Post, Aug. 30).

Back to top

North Korea:  Bolton Reiterates Allegations in Seoul

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton criticized North Korea last week for continuing efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and for being one of the world’s top sellers of ballistic missile technologies (see GSN, Aug. 22).

“In addition to its disturbing weapons of mass destruction activities, North Korea also is the world’s foremost peddler of ballistic missile-related equipment, components, materials and technical expertise,” Bolton said (see GSN, Aug. 23).

“President Bush’s use of the term ‘axis of evil’ to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea was more than a rhetorical flourish — it was factually correct,” Bolton said in a speech Thursday to members of the Korean-American Association in Seoul (Martin Nesirky, Reuters/Washington Post, Aug. 30).

Bolton said North Korea’s constant refusal to allow nuclear inspectors jeopardizes the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which the United States agreed to support the construction of two light-water nuclear power reactors in exchange for North Korea ceasing its own nuclear program (see GSN, Aug. 8).

“I know of no support in the United States for the proposition that the Agreed Framework has eternal life,” he said.

The United States has insisted that North Korea allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to immediately begin inspections.  North Korea, however, has said the inspections should occur years from now and has demanded U.S. compensation for delays in building the two reactors.

Bolton said that North Korea is “overwhelmingly” responsible for the delay and should have to bear its effects.

“It’s hardly appropriate for the United States and others to compensate them for the delay they caused,” he said (Kim Ji-ho, Korea Herald, Aug. 30).

IAEA Pledges Tougher Approach

Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said it has become increasingly “frustrated” after more than 10 years of attempting to conduct inspections within North Korea and has decided to strengthen a previously “softer” approach, according to the Washington Times.

“We’ve been frustrated for 10 years,” said Piet de Klerk, the IAEA’s director of external relations and policy coordination.  “We’ve continued to talk” since North Korea withdrew from the treaty requiring it to cooperate with IAEA inspections in March 1993, “but it has been a roller coaster,” he said.

“We’ve never had a complete picture, so we are unable to give any assurances that there are no nuclear activities in North Korea,” de Klerk said.

Concerned that North Korea could still have nuclear materials from its aborted weapons program, the agency wants a full account of what has happened to even the smallest amounts of weapon-grade materials, according to the Times.

“In 1994, North Korea unloaded a 5-megawatt reactor very hastily and put the materials in cans, so we need to check the radioactivity levels,” de Klerk said.

Pyongyang, however, has consistently refused the IAEA’s demands.  While North Korea allowed the agency to inspect some documents, it did not even allow them to be copied, de Klerk said.  The IAEA has become so impatient with North Korea that when Pyongyang refused to accept some of the topics on the agenda of the last scheduled meeting between the two parties in June, the agency canceled the meeting and has yet to reschedule it (see GSN, June 25).

“We can’t spend more of our budget on a nonmember state,” de Klerk said.  “A few years ago, we were much softer and agreed to discuss less significant issues like preservation.  There is no point in that anymore” (Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, Aug, 16).

For further information, see:

Agreed Framework Text

KEDO

Back to top

Iraq:  Annan and Aziz Discuss Inspections

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz met today in Johannesburg to discuss the long-running U.N.-Iraq impasse (see GSN, Aug. 7).  Both were in South Africa attending the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

Aziz said Iraq is ready to discuss allowing U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country, but only if international officials also discuss broader Iraqi concerns.  In particular, Aziz said talks must include such subjects as lifting U.N. sanctions, restoring control of northern and southern Iraq to Baghdad and stopping U.S. threats of ending the rule of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Aziz repeated earlier invitations for a U.S. congressional delegation to visit Iraq (see GSN, Aug. 6).

“If the question of so-called weapons of mass destruction is a genuine concern by the United States, this matter could be dealt with reasonably and equitably,” he said.  Congressional leaders and the Bush administration have dismissed earlier invitations as meaningless (Associated Press/London Independent, Sept. 3).

Inspection Team Prepares to Expand

Readying for the possibility of inspections, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission is preparing to add 80 additional experts to its current staff of 200 inspectors (see GSN, June 4).  UNMOVIC officials in New York said the commission’s staff differs significantly from past inspection teams belonging to the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq.  UNSCOM inspectors were from about a dozen countries, while the UNMOVIC staff includes people from 44 countries.  UNSCOM personnel were employed by their home governments, but current inspectors are employed by UNMOVIC.

UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix is seeking a final pool of 300 inspectors to be available for three-month rotations in Iraq (London Independent, Sept. 1).

Opposition to U.S. Action Grows

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has suggested that Russia would veto any U.N. Security Council measure to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

“We hope that the question of use of force will not be put to the Security Council and, therefore, the right of veto will not be necessary,” Ivanov said yesterday following a meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri.

Russia sees no “single well-founded argument that Iraq represents a threat to U.S. national security” or any link between Iraq and international terrorism, Ivanov said.

Nevertheless, Ivanov also urged Iraq to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to resume their work.  “This is a necessary condition for the regularization of the situation and for the lifting of sanctions …. I don’t see any alternative to this,” he said (Anna Badkhen, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 3).

Other countries from a variety of regions have also been speaking up, urging the United States to avoid a unilateral military action against Iraq.

In Europe, German Defense Minister Peter Struck said Germany would withdraw its WMD response units now based in Kuwait if the United States were to attack Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 19).  Germany deployed the specialized forces to contribute to the fight against terrorism, Struck said.

“If the danger exists that our soldiers could be involved in a conflict situation in Iraq, that would not be covered by the mandate given them,” Struck said.  “They would then be withdrawn” (Steven Erlanger, New York Times, Aug. 31).

In the Middle East, U.S. friends are expressing caution.  Qatar, home to a U.S. air base undergoing significant expansion according to recent reports, sent Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad to Baghdad last week (see GSN, Aug. 13).

“We are against any military action,” Hamad said.  “This issue should be resolved through the United Nations and diplomatic means” (Mona Ziade, Beirut Daily Star, Aug. 27).

Similarly, “Kuwait will be always working under an Arab and international umbrella and will always be dealing seriously with the current threat against Iraq which can be avoided if Baghdad adheres to the international resolutions,” Kuwaiti Information Minister Ahmad Fahd al-Ahmad al-Sabah said last month.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey also sought to avoid military confrontation.

“We have always opposed any attack against an Arab or Muslim country,” Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said recently.  “And that also means Iraq.”

“We have used every opportunity to tell our friends in the U.S. administration we are opposed to military action against Iraq,” Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said last week.

Even Iran has opposed an attack against its old enemy.  “We have suffered more than anyone else from Iraq,” Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said recently.  “But we believe intervention in other countries and imposition of the wishes on a country by a bully is much more dangerous than even the presence of the so-called misfit governments.”

Outside the Middle East, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf last week said a U.S. attack would “alienate the Muslim world” (Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, Sept. 1).

In the United States, Senator John Warner (R-Va.), ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has called on U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to testify before the committee and explain the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq.

“There appears to be a ‘gap’ in the facts possessed by the executive branch and the facts possessed by the legislative branch,” Warner wrote in a letter to the committee chairman (James Kuhnhenn, Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 29).

Back to top

International Response:  United States Targets 24 Sites to Move Fissile Material

The United States plans to remove weapon-grade nuclear materials from two dozen sites around the world in operations similar to the removal last week of materials from a site in Yugoslavia, officials said last week (see GSN, Aug. 23).

U.S. State Department officials said last week’s operation, in which U.S. and Russian experts cooperated to remove more than 100 pounds of nuclear materials from the Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences in Belgrade, was an unprecedented occurrence of international cooperation to prevent nuclear proliferation.  The operation will set the standard for future efforts, State officials said.

There are about 350 sites in 58 countries that possess highly enriched uranium, nonproliferation experts have said.  Of those sites, about two dozen have enough materials to arm a weapon.  The United States has targeted those sites, a senior State official said.

“We want to get at all of them,” the official said.  “And some of them are going to be a lot more pernicious than others.”

Officials declined to say where the sites are located, citing security reasons.  Many of the sites are located in Russia and other former Soviet republics, specialists have said.  Others are located in the Middle East and other regions of the world.  The 24 targeted sites have been given top priority because of their age and weak security, a State spokeswoman said (Robert Schlesinger, Boston Globe, Aug. 24).

Extraction Jeopardizes Research Project

Meanwhile, the extraction of nuclear materials from the Vinca Institute has damaged an international research project designed to help Yugoslavia develop a civilian nuclear power program and reduce dependence on coal, Science magazine reported this week. 

Institute researchers had planned to use 10 kilograms of the highly enriched uranium in an experiment designed to simulate conditions within a light-water nuclear reactor.  While Yugoslavia does not yet have nuclear power, scientists have been exploring the option because of uncertainties over the state of Kosovo and its coal reserves, said Nebojsa Neskovic, a member of the group of institute scientists that had planned to conduct the experiment (Richard Stone, Science, Aug. 30).

Back to top

Russia:  Atomic Ministry Engages in Shady Transactions, Critics Say

Critics have charged that Russia’s Atomic Energy Ministry, also known as Minatom, has preserved its Soviet-era clandestine culture to cover up mismanagement and to engage in business transactions that could jeopardize Russian strategic interests, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Sunday.

The ministry employs more than 600,000 people and has an annual $1 billion budget — equal to 1.5 percent of Russia’s entire budget, according to the Chronicle.  For all of its size, however, the ministry continues to act with the same level of secrecy as it did during the Cold War, keeping many actions hidden from the Russian Parliament and President Vladimir Putin, the Chronicle reported.

One area of contention is the ministry’s involvement in the Russian effort to build a nuclear power plant in Iran (see GSN, July 25).  The agency sees the project, estimated to cost $840 million, more as a business venture and disregards its potential ability to aid Iran’s nuclear weapons program, according to a Russian scientist who is a frequent visitor to the Bushehr site.

“Yes, Iran will get their weapons-grade plutonium and build a bomb.  Everybody knows that,” the scientist said.  “So what?  We are making money today.”

In 1995, Alexi Yablokov, a senior adviser to then-President Boris Yeltsin, discovered that the ministry had set up a secret deal to provide Iran with a breeder reactor and other equipment to help produce weapon-grade plutonium, according to the Chronicle.  When Yablokov told Yeltsin about the deal, officials publicly called it off.  Yablokov and others have said, however, that the ministry continues to make such secret arrangements.

The Russian scientist who has visited the Bushehr project also said that the ministry has stolen large sums of money thorough money-laundering schemes, covert transfers and illegal transactions.  The scientist refused to provide more details, saying, “Why would I do that?  I don’t want to lose my cut of the pie.”

In January, Russia’s Accounting Chamber issued a report that said $270 million in U.S. and European aid to clean up and secure Russian radioactive waste sites has disappeared.  The ministry was responsible for the aid, and the report alleged that the ministry had used the funds for obscure research projects without providing records.  A spokesman said last week that the ministry needs up to 45 days to answer any questions regarding the aid.

The ministry’s secretive nature has no place in the open form of government that Russia is trying to develop, some critics have said.  In July, a group of legislators presented Putin with a plan for massive changes in the agency’s structure, including placing it under the control of three other government bodies and removing secrecy around its civilian programs, the Chronicle reported.  During a recent meeting with parliamentary leaders, Putin said he is “worried” about some of the ministry’s activities, legislator Sergei Mitrokhin said.

Some defenders have said, however, that the ministry’s clandestine nature has probably helped prevent unchecked proliferation of Russian nuclear weapons following the collapse of the Soviet Union (see GSN, Aug. 23).

“Had it not been for Minatom, [Russian] nuclear scientists would have been selling nuclear bombs all over the place in the early 1990s,” said Alexander Pikayev, an arms control expert at the Moscow office of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Anna Badkhen, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 1).

Back to top

U.S. Testing:  Subcritical Testing Continues With 18^th Experiment

U.S. scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory last week successfully conducted the subcritical test ‘Mario’ at the Nevada Test Site (see GSN, Aug. 16).  A small amount of plutonium was detonated in an underground chamber Thursday at the test site, which did not cause a nuclear chain reaction, said National Nuclear Security Administration officials.  The test was the 18^th U.S. subcritical experiment (Las Vegas Review-Journal, Aug. 30).

Back to top

China:  ICBM Launched in Test Last Week

China test-launched an intercontinental ballistic missile Wednesday, ITAR-Tass reported.  In a combat training exercise, military officials launched the missile more than 3,000 kilometers, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.  Russian monitors followed the missile to a landing point in the Taklamakan Desert, according to ITAR-Tass (ITAR-Tass, Aug. 28 in FBIS-SOV, Aug. 28).

Back to top

Anthrax:  FBI Re-Enters American Media Inc. Headquarters

FBI agents have re-entered the former headquarters of American Media Inc. in Florida — the workplace of the first two people to contract anthrax last year — to look for new clues in the attacks, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, April 23).

Teams of investigators entered the building at 9 a.m. yesterday and planned to work throughout the day, said John Florence, a spokesman for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“The primary goal today is to complete the initial sampling of the third floor and we’ll also be working on the first and second floor collecting evidence,” Florence said yesterday.

Agents expect to continue to collect evidence until Friday, Florence said.  The investigation will continue until Sept. 11, the deadline that agents set in the warrant for searching the building.  Investigators hope to recover spores from the building and compare them to those sent to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), according to AP.  Investigators also hope to find the letter or package used to mail the spores to the building (Associated Press/Miami Herald, Sept. 3).

Hatfill Continues Defense

Meanwhile, the attorney for Steven Hatfill, the former U.S. Army biologist who has become the public focus of the FBI’s investigation into last fall’s anthrax attacks, said last week that the bureau has requested blood and handwriting samples from him, according to the Washington Times (see GSN, Aug. 16).

Ironically, “Hatfill is the one who had to tell them the kind of [blood] test that they need to be doing,” Hatfill’s attorney, Victor Glasberg, said last week.

The FBI should be able to quickly determine whether Hatfill’s handwriting matches that on the letters mailed during last fall’s attacks, Glasberg said.  If the FBI does not make its handwriting analysis publicly available within “about five days,” then Hatfill will submit samples to a private handwriting analyst who has offered to examine them, Glasberg said Aug. 27.

Last week, Hatfill said he would submit to a blood test to determine whether he has been recently exposed to anthrax or vaccinated against the disease.

The FBI has declined to confirm whether it requested the blood and handwriting samples.

“Any handwriting samples and results of any scientific or forensic examinations are evidence, which we don’t discuss,” said spoksman Chris Murray (Guy Taylor, Washington Times, Aug. 28).

Meanwhile, Hatfill released documents Aug. 25 indicating he was busy working long hours in Virginia on the days investigators believed the anthrax letters were mailed from New Jersey, according to the Baltimore Sun (see GSN, Aug. 14).

A time sheet from Science Applications International Corp., where Hatfill worked until March, said that during the periods when the letters were probably mailed — Sept. 17-18 and Oct. 8-9 — Hatfill worked 14, 13.5, 13 and 11.25 hours respectively, the Sun reported.  Hatfill agreed, however, that he still would have had time to drive to New Jersey overnight, mail the letters, and return in time for work the next day.

“I have little to say about nonsense of this sort,” he said.  “I was living and working in the [Washington,] D.C. area the entire time when the anthrax letters were mailed.”

During an Aug. 25 press conference, Hatfill criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for publicly labeling him as a “person of interest” in the FBI’s “Amerithrax” investigation.  Glasberg released copies of formal misconduct complaints he has filed with the Justice Department against Ashcroft’s comments and the FBI’s handling of the case (see GSN, Aug. 13).

“This assassination of my character appears to be part of a government-run effort to show the American people that it is proceeding vigorously and successfully with the anthrax investigation,” Hatfill said.  “I want to look my fellow Americans directly in the eye and declare to them, ‘I am not the anthrax killer.’”

Hatfill said, however, that he expects to be charged with some crime unrelated to the anthrax attacks because investigators want to save their reputations and to “justify their massive financial expenditure arising out of their pursuit of me.”

“Remember, please, that you heard this from me first,” Hatfill said, declining to specify the crime with which he might be charged.

During the press conference, Hatfill also criticized New York Times commentator Nicholas Kristof.  Kristof has written several columns on the FBI’s investigation into a “Mr. Z,” who he identified as Hatfill in his most recent column on the topic (see GSN, July 12).  Kristof has also written that Hatfill has failed three polygraph tests since January.

Hatfill called the claim “a total lie,” saying the FBI has only given him one polygraph test, which he has been told he had passed.

Hatfill spokesman Patrick Clawson said Kristof did not seek comment from Hatfill or his attorneys before making allegations against him.  Kristof is guilty of “journalism malpractice at its worst,” Clawson said.

“You can quote me as saying I stand by the columns,” Kristof said (Scott Shane, Baltimore Sun, Aug. 26).

For further information, see:

CDC Frequently Asked Questions About Anthrax

FBI Amerithrax Investigation

Journal of the American Medical Association Background on Anthrax

GSN Anthrax Attack Chronology (Dec. 12, 2001)

Back to top

Smallpox:  Immunity Might Last Longer

Researchers at the University of North Carolina have found additional evidence that immunity conferred by the smallpox vaccine might last longer than previously believed, the New York Times reported last week (see GSN, Aug. 7).

The study involved blood samples from 14 individuals — 13 of whom had been vaccinated one to 35 years earlier and one who had never been vaccinated against smallpox.  The researchers, who reported their findings last week in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine, took a type of white blood cell from each sample and exposed the cells to vaccinia virus, which is related to smallpox.

The degree to which the white blood cells responded to the virus roughly indicated the level of immunity in each participant, the researchers said.  The samples from all 13 of the vaccinated participants indicated robust immune responses, they said.

Jeffrey Frelinger, who conducted the study with Lawal Garba, said data on the durability of smallpox vaccine are lacking.  Frelinger said that he was surprised to learn how durable the vaccine is, but his study only involved cells in a laboratory setting and it is still unknown what would happen in the event of an actual smallpox outbreak.

Because smallpox outbreaks in the past have occurred among vaccinated people, experts have known that the immunity against the disease can weaken over time, according to the Times.  Over the years, researchers have come up with contradictory findings, said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health.

Health experts used to recommend smallpox vaccination every three years for travelers visiting infected areas.

“It would be foolhardy to rely on any vaccination more than three years old as solid protection,” said J. Donald Millar, a former head of the smallpox eradication program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Lawrence Altman, New York Times, Aug. 29).

For further information, see:

CDC Smallpox Information

Journal of the American Medical Association Background on Smallpox

Back to top

United States:  Three Weapon Facilities Suffer Setbacks

Chemical weapons facilities in Oregon, a Pacific island and Utah have experienced security and safety lapses this month as well as a setback in a whistleblower lawsuit, according to reports.

A laboratory worker at the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon recently left the site with a vial of diluted sarin in his pocket, and no one discovered the error for two hours, the Associated Press reported last week (see GSN, Aug. 19).

Umatilla officials did not realize that the vial was missing until the 5 p.m. shift change, said Army spokeswoman Mary Binder.  “Two supervisors changing shifts counted the samples and noticed one missing,” she said.

By the time officials noticed error, the worker was returning to the depot with the vial, which is used to test the depot’s air monitoring system, Binder said.  There was never a threat to the public, she added.

Even with no public health hazard, Army officials “take this very seriously,” Binder said.  The Army plans to immediately make changes to “track [agent] more closely,” she said (Associated Press, Aug. 27).

VX Released at Pacific Island Incinerator

At the chemical weapons incinerator on Johnston Atoll in the South Pacific, VX nerve agent escaped earlier this month at levels 45 times the service’s permitted limit, InsideDefense.com reported last week.

On Aug. 12, workers at the Johnston Atoll incinerator were processing secondary waste sludge when an alarm sounded indicating the presence of a chemical agent.  The waste had already been in the incinerator for 2 1/2 hours and monitored in an airlock room for more than 20 minutes, according to InsideDefense.com.  The alarm sounded soon after workers moved the waste from the airlock room, and once it sounded, workers returned the waste to the airlock room and then to the incinerator, the Army document says.

Tests indicated that the waste contained agent at 45 times the allowed limit for VX in a solid, the document says.  The VX might have still been present in the waste because of its hardened state, according to the document.

“This thick, hardened state, similar to the consistency of bricks, may have caused portions of the sludge to go through the furnace unburned,” the Army document says.

Since the alarm went off while the waste container was out of the airlock room, it “is probable that trace amounts of VX were released into the environment before the container was returned to the discharge airlock,” the document says, adding that the amount released probably would not threaten the environment (Lara Beaven, InsideDefense.com, Aug. 27).

Whistleblower Wins Judgment Against Army

At Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, a whistleblower who raised safety concerns has won a $1.5 million judgment against the Army over personnel actions the service took against him, the Federal Times reported last week.

David Hall, a civilian chemist at Dugway, filed a complaint against the Army for harassment and for forcing him to retire after he made claims about improper handling of hazardous materials at the site.

Hall said the ruling, issued by a U.S. Labor Department administrative judge, “cleared me of all the character assassination that the Army had done for years, and that really was important.”

The Army plans to appeal the ruling, Dugway spokeswoman Paula Nicholson said.

“Despite the judge’s ruling, we still believe that the actions taken by leadership at Dugway regarding Dr. Hall were lawful and appropriate,” Nicholson said.  “We have initiated a petition for review regarding the judgment” (Deborah Funk, Federal Times, Aug. 26).

Back to top

China:  New Export Control Regulations Are Significant, Experts Say

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — China’s recently released regulations on missile export controls are a significant step in addressing international proliferation concerns, but a “wait-and-see” approach is needed to determine their effectiveness, experts told Global Security Newswire last week (see GSN, June 14).

Under the regulations, which have gone into effect, Chinese companies wishing to export ballistic missiles or missile-related items and technologies included on a control list must first apply for a license from the Chinese government.  The receiving party must guarantee to China that the items will only be used for their stated end use and will not be retransferred to another party without Chinese consent.  The regulations, published last week in China’s state-owned People’s Daily newspaper, also call for penalties and criminal charges against businesses that export missile-related items without a license.

China’s new export control list is divided into two sections — Part I, which concerns the direct export of ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles — and Part II, which concerns missile-related items and technologies.  This approach is similar to that of the Missile Technology Control Regime control list, according to Richard Speier, a former Pentagon official who served on the U.S. negotiating team for the MTCR.  While the MTCR control list also has an explicit refusal of the transfer of complete ballistic missile production facilities, the Chinese list does not have this prohibition, Speier said.

A number of arms proliferation experts praised China for releasing the regulations and control list.  Robert Einhorn, former U.S. assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, said the Chinese regulations were “quite significant.”  The regulations will give China the necessary tools to carry out a responsible policy toward missile-related exports, Einhorn said, adding that China now needed to make a political decision to act responsibly.

By issuing the new regulations, China is trying to send a message that it is not an “egregious proliferator,” said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst at the Council for a Livable World.  The new regulations can be seen as a response to past U.S. calls for clarification of the Chinese export control system, LaMontagne said. 

The new regulations also help address concerns by a number of countries, including the United States, over the transparency of China’s export control system, said Richard Bush, director of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution.  China had previously said it had such a system, but until now, “who knew what it was?” Bush asked.  The regulations also give other countries a standard with which to compare China’s performance, he said.

Peter Scoblic, editor of Arms Control Today at the Arms Control Association, said the new regulations are a positive development, praising their specificity.  By implementing the new regulations, China will be able to keep a pledge it made in November 2000 to curb missile exports, Scoblic said (see GSN, Jan. 31).

Effectiveness

While praising China for issuing the new missile export control regulations, the experts said Beijing’s past behavior casts some doubt on their effectiveness (see GSN, July 12). 

China’s history of cooperation on nonproliferation issues is one of “one step forward, two steps back,” LaMontagne said.  China’s cooperation has often been linked to U.S. policies, LaMontagne said, and U.S. actions, such as increased support for Taiwan, could lead to a retraction of the regulations.

A “wait-and-see” approach is needed in order to determine the effectiveness of the new regulations, Scoblic said.  China has previously broken pledges to curb missile proliferation, he said.  LaMontagne agreed, saying that evidence of Chinese transfers of missile-related technologies could still come to light.

Bush agreed that the enforcement of the new regulations remains a major issue.  The White House does not see the new regulations as a “magic cure” for concerns over China’s proliferation, but as “one more therapy,” he said.

Einhorn, however, said some of China’s past proliferation problems could be traced to a lack of an export control system.  Despite China’s past behavior, there is hope that the issuing of the new regulations will lead to better enforcement, Einhorn said. 

There are similarities between China’s recent attempts to control missile-related exports and past moves to curb nuclear weapons-related exports, according to Einhorn.  China had an irresponsible policy toward nuclear weapon-related exports until Beijing made pledge to enact a more visible control system, Einhorn said.  Once that pledge was made, China’s behavior improved.

Quid Pro Quo

China’s decision to issue the new regulations could be an attempt to create a more favorable climate for a U.S.-Chinese summit next month in Washington, Einhorn said, finding it significant, that China issued the new regulations without a “quid pro quo” from the United States. 

China, is expected to come to the October summit with some goals, possibly including the lifting of sanctions on a number of Chinese companies and on the launching of commercial satellites onboard Chinese rockets, which is seen as being potentially profitable, Bush said (see GSN, July 25).  The United States, however, will want some things in return for an end to the sanctions, such as China’s punishing of companies for past behavior, he said.  The United States will probably wait to see China’s track record of enforcing the new controls before it responds with any gestures of its own, Einhorn said.

Other Agreements

In a statement accompanying the missile export control regulations, a spokesman said China is ready to participate in international discussions concerning nonproliferation.

“China will continue to take an active part in the international cooperation in nonproliferation, and is ready to conduct in-depth exchange and consultation with all parties concerned and actively participate in multilateral discussions and cooperation in this regard,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said in a press statement.

Even with the new regulations, however, it is unlikely that China will choose to join the MTCR, experts said.  China has previously been unwilling to join the regime because it played no role in its creation, Bush said, adding that the new regulations could be a unilateral attempt to achieve the same ends. 

Einhorn, however, said that China could be indicating a new willingness to join the MTCR by issuing the regulations.  When China enacted a nuclear-weapons export control system, it also decided to join the Zangger Committee, an export control system designed to help the implementation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Einhorn said.  The committee is the only international export control regime to which China belongs.

For further information, see:

Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Export Control of Missiles and Missile-related Items and Technologies (People’s Daily)

U.S. State Department MTCR Summary

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Defense Panel Recommends Focus on Two Systems

A U.S. Defense Department advisory panel has recommended that the Bush administration concentrate development of a national missile defense system on two programs, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Aug. 22).

The recommendation, issued last month by the Defense Science Board, said that enough is already known to make some decisions concerning which missile defense systems would be effective.  Making those choices now, the board said, would increase prospects for deploying an effective system in a timely manner.

“The program needs to get away from the relative comfort of having a wide-open horizon with no defined architecture,” said a source summarizing the group’s findings.  “It needs to focus on a much narrower set of initial capabilities in order to get something that’s worth fielding.”

The board endorsed two of the missile defense programs currently under development, according to the Post.  One is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program, which uses land-based interceptors to destroy missiles while they fly through space (see GSN, Aug. 21).  The other is a system of ship-based interceptors that would destroy missiles during boost and ascent phases, the Post reported.

The ship-based system has strong support among some Republican members of Congress and missile defense advocacy groups, according to the Post.  Supporters have said that the U.S. Navy’s fleet of 61 ships equipped with Aegis radar could provide a system platform in only a few years at a much lower cost than a land-based system.  The board said, however, that while it supports a ship-based system, the system could not be developed quickly or easily.  For a ship-based system to work, the board said, developers would have to design a new interceptor to replace the Navy’s current one — the Standard Missile 3 (see GSN, Aug. 22).

Officials have not yet briefed President George W. Bush and other administration officials on the board’s recommendation, according to the Post.  Experts have presented a summary of the panel’s findings, however, to defense officials including Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, head of the Missile Defense Agency.  Analysts believe the board’s findings reflect some of Kadish’s thoughts on missile defense, the Post reported.

The Bush administration’s open-ended approach to developing a national missile defense system, which has involved as many as eight different systems, has come under intense criticism, according to the Post.  Democrats in Congress have said the administration has been irresponsible in not detailing a specific approach for which analysts can evaluate costs.

Defense contractors also have voiced criticism.

“We are at the point where additional definition is needed,” said an executive with a major missile defense contractor.  “We could continue the ‘let 1,000 flowers bloom’ philosophy, but the government needs to decide what it wants to deploy and assign resources accordingly” (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, Sept. 3).

For further information, see:

MDA Basics of Missile Defense

MDA Midcourse Defense Segment

Sea-Based Midcourse

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  Al-Qaeda Trained Padilla, United States Reasserts

Contrary to a recent report, several intelligence sources have confirmed that suspected U.S. terrorist Jose Padilla collaborated with al-Qaeda operatives to plan a “dirty bomb” attack on the United States, the Washington Post reported Wednesday (see GSN, Aug 14).

“Multiple intelligence sources separately confirmed Padilla’s involvement in planning future terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda against United States citizens, as well as his specific objective of detonating a radiological dispersal device within the United States,” U.S. officials said in documents submitted Aug. 27 to federal court in New York.

Padilla, a U.S. citizen, met and trained with al-Qaeda leaders several times during the last two years, learning how to wire explosive devices and then returning to the United States to “explore and advance” attacks, according to the documents.

One of Padilla’s attorneys, Donna Newman, questioned the validity of the intelligence reports.

“My only reaction is, ‘What is the source?’” she said.  “Is it written on the bathroom wall?  Is it firsthand knowledge, secondhand knowledge, third, fourth?”

U.S. officials have submitted no supporting evidence, but they said the reports come from at least three non-U.S. sources including captured al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, according to the Post (Steve Fainaru, Washington Post, Aug. 28).

Some intelligence reports have indicated that Padilla’s relationship with al-Qaeda is trivial and have said that the group had no detailed plans for a radiological weapons attack, according to the Associated Press.

Certain informants might be trying to mislead U.S. agents, one U.S. official wrote in one of the submitted documents.  Some “confidential sources have not been completely candid,” the official wrote.  One source has recanted certain information and officials are treating another informant with “various types of drugs to treat medical conditions,” according to the document (Christopher Newton, Associated Press/Chicago Tribune, Aug. 28).

Back to top