By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — More than a dozen organizations from the United States, Europe and Japan released a four-volume assessment on Monday of global efforts to secure former Soviet nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. They called on the Group of Eight economic powers to quickly organize their $20 billion pledge over the next decade to dramatically increase threat reduction programs in Russia and other former Soviet states (see GSN, June 28, 2002).
The three-year study, Protecting Against the Spread of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons, was led by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and funded by the private Nuclear Threat Initiative. It is designed to provide a roadmap for governments to help determine how best to apply their resources to achieve the G-8 objectives, including steps Russia must take to increase transparency and reduce bureaucratic roadblocks (see GSN, Oct. 11, 2002).
“Goals may be diverse, but the extent of the problem is large enough to allow countries to focus largely on their own priorities, provided that all critical threats get adequate attention,” according to the report, endorsed by 15 nongovernmental organizations. “Moreover, this diversity of approaches makes effective coordination among the contributing countries and with Russia indispensable for putting available resources to their most effective use,” the report says.
The International Community Must Do More
The first volume of the report, authored by CSIS Senior Advisers Robert Einhorn and Michele Flournoy, concludes that far more must be done to control the “grave proliferation risks” posed by remaining stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, materials and expertise, despite the $7 billion spent by the United States and $1 billion contributed by European Union countries over the last decade. It also lays out an “agenda for action.”
“The international community faces no greater challenge in the 21st century than stopping the proliferation of WMD to states and dangerous subnational groups,” the report says. “The Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction [launched by the G-8 in June] is a major step toward meeting this challenge. But without continuous, high-level attention of governments as well as the sustained support of legislatures and public opinion, the opportunities created by the G-8 summit agreement may be lost.”
The near-term goal of the G-8 effort, according to the multivolume assessment, must be to prevent terrorists from acquiring these weapons. Over the longer term, conditions must be created to enable Russia to keep its own WMD arsenal and infrastructure in order.
One short-term concern is the security of Russia’s stocks of chemical weapons, which must be destroyed by 2012 under the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
“Under the best of circumstances, destruction of Russia’s CW stocks will take a decade,” the report stipulates. “For those sites where easily transportable weapons are stored, near-term security upgrades are essential to preventing theft or diversion.”
Moreover, permanent presidential waiver authority will be required to avoid some of the congressionally mandated restrictions that have held up some of the U.S. money earmarked for chemical demilitarization projects in Russia (see GSN, Jan. 17). Congress is now considering such authority, but has not yet determined in which piece of legislation it will appear.
In the longer term, however, Russia must control its nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal without international assistance. “A true partnership will serve long-term threat reduction interests,” the report says. “Although assistance from other countries will be important for some time to come, a long-term objective will be to return this responsibility to Russia,” the report says.
The report calls for more training programs in Russia to instill what it calls a “culture of security,” as well as new assistance to Moscow and its neighbors to help plug holes in their export control regimes.
Another key way to ensure the long-term goal of Russian self-sufficiency, it adds, is to turn as much of Russia’s WMD infrastructure as possible into moneymaking enterprises. “In short, major Russian business could help facilitate the success of threat reduction assistance and serve overall Russian economic interests at the same time,” the report says.
Financial Commitments
As the G-8 works to fulfill the monetary pledges in the coming years, the report projects the need for even more funding than the $20 billion already pledged — $10 billion from the United States and $10 billion from other G-8 countries.
So far, however, countries have met only part of the $20 billion goal. The United States plans to contribute at least $1 billion a year, while the United Kingdom has pledged $750 million; Germany $1.5 billion; the EU $1 billion; and Japan $200 million. “Some other G-8 partners and non-G-8 countries may soon follow suit,” according to Einhorn and Flournoy.
Increases are a must, according to the report. The EU is one target. “Although fixed budgets until 2006 mean prospects for increased funding by the EU are limited in the near term, EU spending on threat reduction could increase substantially in the latter half of the decade,” it says.
Novel ways to identify more resources, meanwhile, must also be found, including forgiving Russian debt in return for greater threat reduction investments by Russia (see GSN, July 26, 2002). The report notes that European countries are some of Russia’s biggest creditors.
“New funding mechanisms, including multilateral ones, could lead to an increase in contributions to the Global Partnership or facilitate the fulfillment of existing pledges,” the report adds.
“As a means of encouraging its partners to exceed their $10 billion share of the $20 billion target, the United States should treat its planned contribution of $10 billion over the next decade as a floor, not a ceiling.”
“A Sensible Division of Labor”
The G-8 Senior Officials Group, established at the June 2001 summit, should serve as the coordinating mechanism of the effort, according to the report. Paramount to success will be what it calls a “sensible division of labor” in which participating countries can focus on those threat reduction projects they feel are most important and they are best suited for (see GSN, Sept. 6, 2002).
The United States should focus its energies on continuing the dismantlement of former Soviet nuclear weapons — including tactical nuclear weapons that have not yet been addressed — and other military-related projects with which it has more than a decade of experience.
“In addition to continuing the U.S. effort to help dismantle former Soviet strategic nuclear delivery systems, the United States — and the United Kingdom and France where appropriate — should assist Russia in accelerating the consolidation of its strategic and tactical nuclear weapons at a reduced number of secure storage sites,” according to the report.
While the United States tackles that problem, Europe in general should play a larger role in securing civilian sites that may house weapons materials. “In the areas of materials protection, control and accounting, a new European-sponsored program could help complete security upgrades at civilian sites currently covered by the U.S. program, allowing the United States to concentrate more on military facilities,” according to the report.
Other countries are highlighted for their areas of interest and expertise. For example, Scandinavian countries are most concerned with the environmental threat posed by Russia’s large, decommissioned fleet of nuclear submarines next door on the Kola Peninsula, according to the report.
Those countries — along with Japan, which has similar concerns in the Russian Far East — should play a primary role in destroying nuclear-powered submarines, which have not been adequately addressed over the last decade.
Germany, for its part, has widespread experience with chemical weapons destruction and is already concentrating on that task. “It also feels very strongly about nuclear safety for civilian and military facilities,” according to the report.
The United Kingdom could contribute in several areas, according to the report. “The United Kingdom is more focused on issues related to nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and biological warfare given its previous experience in all three areas,” it says.
The report concludes with a long list of threat reduction priorities in the nuclear, chemical and biological areas. They range from securing highly enriched uranium, accelerating the conversion of that uranium to reactor fuel, disposing of submarines, broadening the coverage of current biological programs, and “drastically” increasing funding for chemical weapons destruction.
However, the report makes clear that Russia and its partners must prepare for “fostering solutions sustainable by Russia.”
“Threat reduction assistance was never intended to be permanent,” the report says. “With the improving political and economic outlook in Russia and the strides programs have made in the past decade, the contributing states should now take steps that will allow them to consider selectively reducing assistance programs at the end of the decade,” according to the report.
That means that Russia “must be capable of maintaining a high level of security at remaining WMD facilities once outside assistance is reduced. Just as urgently, effective and durable threat reduction practices must be adopted in neighboring states,” the report says.
Representatives from the 10 U.N. Security Council nonpermanent members have expressed a reluctance to support military action against Iraq, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 21).
“We will still invest the maximum effort to avoid a military solution,” Bulgarian Foreign Minister Solomon Passy said in an interview with the Times yesterday.
The nonpermanent members made their views known during private meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during a meeting of Council foreign ministers Monday, according to diplomats. A number of them said that inspections are starting to pressure Iraq into disclosing any illegal weapons of mass destruction and that, without conclusive evidence of Iraq’s noncompliance, it would be hard to gain public support within their countries for an attack, according to diplomats.
Pakistan, which joined the council at the beginning of the year, needs to have a solid case against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to avoid anti-American sentiments at home, said Pakistani Foreign Minister Kurshid Mahmud Kasuri.
“We have to present this in a way that people know it is not a selective application of Security Council resolutions,” Kasuri said.
Typically, the nonpermanent Council members have less effect on Council decisions than the permanent members, the Times reported. During the negotiations over the current inspections resolution, however, the United States strengthened its position against France by rounding up support from the nonpermanent members, according to the Times (see GSN, Nov. 8, 2002).
Both Passy and Kasuri pointed out that their countries’ reluctance to support military action against Iraq did not come from any support of Hussein, according to the Times. Iraq has often supported India against Pakistan in the two countries’ dispute over Kashmir, Kasuri said. Iraq also owes Bulgaria $2 billion for engineering work conducted during the 1980s and is Bulgaria’s largest foreign debtor, Passy said.
“Saddam will never return this debt,” Passy said. “We can have this money back one day with a different government in Iraq,” he added (Julia Preston, New York Times, Jan. 22).
Germany, which is set to assume the Security Council presidency next month, will not support any new U.N. resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said yesterday.
“Don’t expect Germany to approve a resolution legitimizing war, don’t expect it,” Schroeder told a rally of his Social Democratic Party.
Schroeder had previously said Germany would decide how it would vote on any new U.N. resolution once its composition became more apparent, according to the Associated Press. German Defense Minister Peter Struck said last week, however, that a vote for such a resolution was “basically not imaginable anymore” (Associated Press/New York Times, Jan. 22).
No Al-Qaeda-Iraq Ties, United Nations Says
Meanwhile, no evidence has been found of any connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, said Michael Chandler, head of the U.N. panel monitoring sanctions against the terrorist group (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2002).
“We don’t have anything yet, and no one has been able to produce anything,” Chandler said.
Hussein is the leader of what is “still quite a secular country,” different than suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden’s goals of establishing an Islamic regime, Chandler said. “Saddam doesn’t want a caliphate; he wants to be in charge,” he added.
Chandler is the chairman of a U.N. panel established last year to monitor sanctions that had been imposed in 1999 against al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime that then controlled Afghanistan, according to Agence France-Presse. The Security Council renewed the sanctions last week in a resolution that requested the panel be reappointed, AFP reported.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair told a parliamentary hearing yesterday that there is some intelligence linking al-Qaeda to some “people in Iraq.” Blair said he did not know, however, of evidence that “directly links” al-Qaeda, Iraq and terrorist operations in the United Kingdom (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Jan. 22).
Inspections
U.N. inspectors have visited at least four suspect Iraqi sites today, according to Reuters. Biological experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission visited the Technology Institute in Baghdad. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the al-Qa Qaa missile complex south of Baghdad. UNMOVIC missile inspectors visited the al-Badr missile complex in Mahmoudiya, about 30 miles south of Baghdad. All of the site’s facilities involved in the production of the Badr-2000 missile had been destroyed during previous inspections, according to Reuters.
Experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency visited the University of Basra in southern Iraq (Reuters/MSNBC.com, Jan. 22).
Yesterday, inspectors visited at least eight sites, according to a U.N. press release. Inspectors traveled again to the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area, where empty Iraqi chemical weapons had been discovered last week, to examine and tag the warheads and to seal the bunker that contained them, U.N spokesman Hiro Ueki said (see GSN, Jan. 17).
UNMOVIC missile inspectors visited al-Mutaseem and observed a static test of a solid propellant al-Fatah motor, according to the U.N. release. A second UNMOVIC missile team visited the Shahiyat Test Facility to verify that the site was still abandoned.
UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the al-Qa Qaa complex and inspected chemical production units there. UNMOVIC biological inspectors verified tagged equipment at the College of Agriculture at Baghdad University in Abu Ghraib, according to the U.N. release. A second biological team visited the Agricultural Research Center in Abu Ghraib.
Inspectors also visited a lime production facility in the northern city of Mosul, the U.N. release said. IAEA inspectors visited the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, conducted a motorized radiation survey, inspected buildings and checked sealed equipment (U.N. release, Jan. 21).
For further information, see:
UNMOVIC
IAEA Iraq Action Team
U.N. Resolution 1441
Experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have conducted hundreds of inspections in Iraq since resuming the post-Gulf War inspection regime Nov. 27. More than 100 inspectors are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ reported activities.
| Date | Site | Activity | | Jan. 22 | Technology Institute in Baghdad | See GSN, Jan. 22. | | Al-Qa Qaa | | Al-Badr missile complex | | University of Basra | | Jan. 21 | Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area | Inspectors examined and tagged empty chemical warheads discovered last week and sealed the bunker at the site that contained them (see GSN, Jan. 22). | | Al-Mutaseem | UNMOVIC missile inspectors observed a static test of a solid propellant al-Fatah motor (see GSN, Jan. 22). | | Shahiyat Test Facility | UNMOVIC missile inspectors verified that the site was still abandoned (see GSN, Jan. 22). | | Al-Qa Qaa | UNMOVIC chemical experts inspected chemical production units (see GSN, Jan. 22). | | College of Agriculture at Baghdad University in Abu Ghraib | UNMOVIC biological inspectors verified tagged equipment at the site (see GSN, Jan. 22). | | Agricultural Research Center in Abu Ghraib | See GSN, Jan. 22. | | Lime production facility in the northern city of Mosul | | Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center | IAEA inspectors conducted a motorized radiation survey, inspected buildings and checked sealed equipment (see GSN, Jan. 22). | | Jan. 19 | Department of engineering at Baghdad University | IAEA inspectors visited the faculty’s laboratories and asked about research the faculty was conducting (Baghdad Iraqi Satellite Channel Television, Jan. 19, in FBIS-NES, Jan. 19). | | Jan. 18 | Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area | Inspectors conducted an additional analysis on a chemical warhead found at the site last week (U.N. release, Jan. 18). | | Al-Numan General Company | Inspectors assessed the site’s current activities (U.N. release, Jan. 18). | | Al-Qa Qaa | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors surveyed the site using multi-frequency electromagnetic detectors (U.N. release, Jan. 18). | | Microbiology Department of Kufa University’s College of Medicine in Kufato | (U.N. release, Jan. 18). | | Kufa University’s College of Science in Kufato | | Biology Department of Kufa University’s College of Education for Women in Kufato | | State Company for Foodstuff Trading | UNMOVIC biological inspectors inspected quality control laboratories and two declared mobile laboratories at the site (U.N. release, Jan. 18). | | Textile factory in the northern city of Mosul | (U.N. release, Jan. 18). | | University of Baghdad’s College of Science | | University of Baghdad’s College of Education | | Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center | IAEA inspectors conducted a motorized survey (U.N. release, Jan. 18). | | Jan. 17 | General Establishment for Extractional Operations in the northern city of Mosul | See U.N. release, Jan. 18. | | Fallujah 1, northwest of Baghdad | See GSN, Jan. 17. | | Fallujah 2, northwest of Baghdad | | Al-Saweira, about 30 miles south of Baghdad | | Jan. 10-16 | See GSN, Jan. 17. | |
 |
A North Korean official has said Pyongyang is weeks away from reactivating a nuclear power plant that can produce plutonium, AFX News reported today (see GSN, Jan. 21).
“Within a few weeks, the nuclear power plant will be able to produce electricity. We are stepping up its preparations,” said Sin Yong Song, an official at the North Korean Ministry of Power and Coal Industries.
Sin said the plant would only be used to produce electricity.
“We declared through a government statement that we have no intention to build nuclear weapons even if we withdrew from the [Nuclear] Nonproliferation Treaty,” he added (AFX News, Jan. 22).
“If the United States abandons its hostile policy and refrains from nuclear threat,” North Korea might allow the United States to verify that Pyongyang is not developing nuclear weapons, according to the state-owned Korean Central News Agency.
An extensive North Korean report on the withdrawal from the NPT, described by KCNA, says that a nonaggression treaty is “the only realistic way of fundamentally solving the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.”
If the United States first provides an assurance of nonaggression, by signing a treaty, then Pyongyang will follow suit, the report says (Korean Central News Agency/BBC Monitoring, Jan. 22).
Pyongyang Might Test Missiles
If the nuclear crisis is brought in front of the U.N. Security Council, North Korea will restart its ballistic missile testing, a diplomatic source said today (see GSN, Jan. 13).
“The North would lift its self-imposed moratorium on missile launches if and when the issue is referred to the Security Council,” said a source with close links to Pyongyang. A test launch would follow shortly, the source added.
“Pyongyang will never cave in to threats and will respond with an even harder line,” the source said (MSNBC.com, Jan. 22).
A senior South Korean official called on the United States to delay taking the crisis to the Security Council.
“We are focusing all of our efforts to solve this problem by dialogue and by peaceful means,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Cho Chang-beom. “We’re not at the stage when we should be discussing sanctions. That point is far, far down the road,” Cho said.
Cho was scheduled to meet today with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported (Michael Zielenziger, Knight Ridder/Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 22).
The International Atomic Energy Agency yesterday announced an indefinite postponement of a meeting of its Board of Governors. That board could send the issue to the Security Council but the IAEA will wait to see how North Korea responds to a Russian proposal to abandon its nuclear plans for security promises and humanitarian aid, Bloomberg.com reported.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Il reportedly described the Russian plan as “good” (Bill Varner, Bloomberg.com, Jan. 22).
Seoul Pushes Nuclear Issue in Talks
Meanwhile, in talks between North and South Korea, Seoul pushed for a nuclear-free peninsula, according to MSNBC.com.
“We made it clear that inter-Korean relations could be hurt unless the nuclear issue is not resolved promptly,” South Korean delegate Rhee Bong-jo said today. “North Korea stressed that it has no intention of making nuclear weapons,” Rhee added.
South Korea’s lead delegate, Jeong Se-hyun, demanded that North Korea abandon its nuclear efforts and rejoin the nonproliferation treaty, Rhee said (MSNBC.com, Jan. 22).
The South Korean delegation reportedly blocked attempts by the North Korean delegates to circumvent the nuclear issue.
“Through this round of talks, we aim to persuade the North to take more concrete steps” to resolve the nuclear standoff, Rhee said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Jan. 22).
Roh Prepared to Offer “Grand Vision”
South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun is prepared to offer extensive economic cooperation to Pyongyang in exchange for extensive reforms and relinquishment of nuclear efforts, the Financial Times reported.
“If North Korea responds to the outside world and abandons its nuclear program, South Korea will reward them beyond their expectations,” said Chung Don-gyoung, an aide to Roh. “Mr. Roh’s grand vision is to make North and South Korea into a single economic community,” Chung added (Andrew Ward, Financial Times, Jan. 22).
For further information, see:
Agreed Framework Text
KEDO
NPT Text
States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)
U.N. Background on NPT
|
 |
The United States plans today to establish the initial stages of a national network of air monitors to detect a terrorist attack with airborne chemical or biological agents, the New York Times reported (see GSN, Jan. 9).
Washington plans to use the Environmental Protection Agency’s air quality monitoring stations and adapt them to detect dangerous pathogens, according to the Times. The systems would not protect people from a germ attack, but would allow doctors and emergency medical personnel to reach an area and treat those injured in a shorter time, according to officials.
The first monitors in the system, known as Bio-Watch, will be placed in New York City, the Times reported. Officials have not revealed how many monitoring stations will be used.
“We will ramp up to other cities and areas of concentrated populations very quickly,” an official said. “Within a matter of days, we will be able to tell in almost any major urban area whether a large release of a dangerous pathogen has occurred, what was released, and where and when it occurred,” the official added (Judith Miller, New York Times, Jan. 22).
If a monitoring station detects a suspicious substance, samples will be taken from the monitors and transferred to a laboratory associated with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Officials should have results within 24 hours and possibly as quickly as 12 hours, the Associated Press reported. The newly adapted system is designed to work with patient surveillance systems that search for suspicious symptoms, according to AP (Laura Meckler, Associated Press, Jan. 22).
The Bush administration is deploying the monitors as the United States prepares for a possible war with Iraq and in the wake of chemical weapons related arrests in the United Kingdom, but officials insist that the move is not tied to a specific threat.
There is “no credible evidence that al-Qaeda has acquired biological weapons, or any weapon of mass destruction at this time,” a senior official said.
The system was tested at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah and in national laboratories and officials said that the monitors will almost certainly detect an intentional release of biological or chemical warfare agents.
“Obviously, the larger the release, the greater the probability that the agent will be detected,” said an official. “But given the coverage provided by the EPA system, even a small release, depending on which way the wind was blowing and other meteorological conditions, is likely to be picked up,” the official added (Judith Miller, New York Times).
The Bush administration is expected to announce the new system today, AP reported.
The Homeland Security Department will head the new program which is slated to cost $1 million to upgrade each EPA monitoring system and another $1 million annually per city to run the system, according to AP (Meckler, Associated Press, Jan. 22).
The U.S. biotechnology company Avant Immunotherapeutics has been awarded a contract to develop an oral vaccine for the U.S. military that will defend against both anthrax and plague, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2002).
The new vaccine will be based on a cholera vaccine currently going through clinical trials that technicians will genetically modify, said Una Ryan, Avant’s chief executive officer. The company hopes the new vaccine will provide immunity against anthrax and plague within days, rather than the weeks needed for the current anthrax vaccine, she said. There is currently no plague vaccine being produced, the Times reported.
The Avant vaccine is likely to take between five and 10 years to develop, said Terry Irgens, president of the DynPort Vaccine Company, which awarded the contract to Avant. The contract is worth about $3 million at its onset and could increase to about $8 million within two years, he said (Andrew Pollack, New York Times, Jan. 22)
For further information, see:
CDC Frequently Asked Questions About Anthrax
Journal of the American Medical Association Background on Anthrax
Journal of the American Medical Association Background on Plague
CDC Basic Information
Texas Tech University professor Thomas Butler, who allegedly falsely reported that plague samples were missing from his university laboratory, was released from jail yesterday after posting a $100,000 bond (see GSN, Jan. 17).
Butler, who has been charged with making a false statement to a U.S. agent, has been held in custody since last week after admitting he destroyed the samples, according to court documents. Under the conditions for posting bond, Butler had to surrender his passport, abide by a curfew, not travel outside of Lubbock County, Texas, and be electronically monitored (Associated Press/Austin American-Statesman, Jan. 21).
U.S. authorities searched Butler’s home Friday, according to the Amarillo Globe-News. Agents searched for financial records, travel records concerning any trips inside or outside the country since 2001 and documents related to the transportation or possession of biological and chemical agents, according to the Globe-News. During the search, authorities recovered computer disks belonging to Butler, his wife and two children, said Butler’s attorney Floyd Holder.
“I think we would generally refer to it as a fishing expedition,” Holder said, referring to the search.
Texas Tech University has placed Butler on paid leave from his position as chief of the university medical school’s Infectious Diseases Division, changed the locks on the laboratory where he worked, blocked him from computer access and barred him from campus, the Globe-News reported. University officials said they were confused by his actions.
“That remains a mystery to most of us, what his motive might have been,” said Glen Provost, vice president of health safety at the university’s Health Sciences Center. “I just can’t figure it out,” he added (Amarillo Globe-News, Jan. 18).
New Laboratory Regulations to Begin Next Month
Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department is set to begin providing security-risk assessments next month for anyone with access to restricted biological agents, according to CNN.com (see GSN, Dec. 12, 2002). The assessment will require a background check for anyone with access to a laboratory that contains such agents.
The assessments are required under new legislation scheduled to take effect Feb. 13, CNN.com reported. The legislation also requires anyone possessing a restricted biological agent to register with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Anyone found to be illegally possessing or transporting restricted agents could face a fine up to $250,000 and up to five years in prison, said CDC public relations officer David Daigle.
The CDC’s Select Agent Program has been expanded to manage the new responsibilities, Daigle said. The CDC and the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will oversee the new regulations (Bryan Long, CNN.com, Jan. 21).
For further information, see:
Journal of the American Medical Association Background on Plague
CDC Basic Information
|
 |
Several Czech soldiers seized an opportunity to leave Kuwait Monday with their defense minister, the New York Times reported today. While speaking to a Czech chemical warfare defense unit at Camp Doha in Kuwait Monday, Czech Defense Minister Jaroslav Tvrdik offered to take soldiers who do not want to go to war back to Prague, according to the York (see GSN, Jan. 9).
“The threat of war with neighboring Iraq and the imminent danger that weapons of mass destruction could be used has put a great deal of pressure on people,” said Col. Jan Weiser, the unit’s commander.
Of the 250-member Czech unit, seven soldiers reportedly jumped at the offer and left with Tvrdik on his plane, the Times reported. Twenty more are expected to depart shortly, according to Col. Viliam Palan, Czech Defense Ministry spokesman (Peter Green, New York Times, Jan. 22).
“Defense Minister (Jaroslav) Tvrdik told us that whoever feels uneasy about this mission may leave by the end of January. It is a slightly unusual procedure, but this is an exceptionally demanding engagement,” said Miroslav Matis, the commander of the Czech logistics unit at Camp Doha.
The Czech soldiers have been in Kuwait since September 2002 and were originally scheduled to be there for six months.
“We have information that suggests we may be here until June,” Matis said (CTK I/Ceske Noviny, Jan. 20).
Tvrdik’s offer was “standard” and the Army already has volunteers to take the place of the departing soldiers, Palan said.
“The minister met with the soldiers at Doha and there were questions that this was a very stressful situation, especially for those who had left their families home,” he added.
There was criticism and surprise from some quarters, according to the Times.
“Czech soldiers crumble, head for home,” said a headline in the daily newspaper Lidove Noviny.
“Mr. Tvrdik has been under strong pressure lately,” said Petr Necas, an opposition member of the Czech Parliament and a defense expert. “Maybe this is the reason for his strange declarations,” he added (Green, New York Times, Jan. 22).
Tvrdik also announced a pay raise for the deployed chemical defense personnel, according to soldiers.
“Tvrdik told us that each of us would receive an additional $300 per month. We’ll see how that will work out,” said Maj. Igor Mihulka (CTK I/Ceske Noviny, Jan. 20).
Tvrdik said yesterday that he wants to raise the chemical defense unit’s pay even higher if a conflict erupts with Iraq.
“If a war started, their bonus would rise by $800 on average,” Tvrdik said (CTK II/Ceske Noviny, Jan. 22).
In its first month of operation, a Russian chemical weapons disposal facility located in Gorny, in the Saratov region, has destroyed several dozen tons of chemical weapons agents, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Jan. 2).
The exact amount of agent that has been destroyed varied according to reports. Sergey Kiriyenko, chairman of the Russian state commission on chemical disarmament, said today that more than 60 metric tons had been destroyed, AP reported (Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Jan. 22). The Russian news agency ITAR-Tass reported Monday that about 50 metric tons had been destroyed.
There are about 1,160 metric tons of chemical weapons agents stored at the Gorny facility, according to the Russian Munitions Agency (ITAR-Tass, Jan. 20 in FBIS-SOV, Jan. 20). The facility expects to destroy about 400 tons of agent by April, Kiriyenko said, adding that it had been working nonstop since opening (Associated Press/Moscow Times, Jan. 22).
Meanwhile, a Russian official has praised Russian-British cooperation to dispose of chemical weapons as “very positive,” according to ITAR-Tass (ITAR-Tass II, Jan. 20 in FBIS-SOV, Jan. 20).
|
 |
Pyongyang is using North Korean businesses based in China to acquire ballistic missile technologies and components, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 13).
“North Korea also has continued procurement of raw materials and components for its ballistic missile programs from various foreign sources, especially through North Korean firms based in China,” the CIA said in a recent report presented to Congress (see GSN, Jan. 8)
The CIA report did not identify the North Korean companies operating in China. U.S officials, however, have said several of them are official North Korean trading firms. North Korea has established such firms in Shanghai and Hong Kong, according to the Times. In addition, a North Korean trading company in Macau is operated by the North Korean military and is used for covert weapons purchases, the Times reported.
Pyongyang has extensive knowledge of the activities of North Korean firms based in China, said Chuck Downs, a former U.S. government specialist on North Korea. “On the Chinese side, that may not be the case,” he said (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, Jan. 22).
|
 |
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency has announced plans to launch up to five satellites by fiscal 2009 in an effort to build a space-based missile interceptor test bed, Aerospace Daily reported today (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2002).
The test bed would be designed to shoot down missiles in their boost phase, according to the agency.
Officials plan to hold an industry briefing in December and contractors will be able to compete for a concept design in fiscal 2004, an agency official said yesterday.
The agency’s plans call for “small quantities” of satellites to be put into orbit every two to three years after the initial launching. Currently, the agency does not plan to develop the space-based capability beyond the test bed stage.
Last week, MDA officials released a request for proposals to develop a ground-based boost-phase interceptor, Aerospace Daily reported. The agency has said it will select a contractor to develop a prototype for the interceptor by the first quarter of fiscal 2004 and officials want a mobile ground-based capability by 2009 (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, Jan. 22).
The Bush administration could skirt congressional requirements when deploying missile interceptors in Alaska and California in the next few years, Inside Missile Defense reported today (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2002).
Under U.S. law, full-rate production of major defense acquisition programs cannot begin until they first successfully complete operational testing, according to Inside Missile Defense. The Missile Defense Agency, however, has structured its plans in a way that those testing laws might not apply, according to Inside Missile Defense.
Instead of formally deploying the missile interceptors, the agency is only expanding the capability of the test bed, which includes the U.S. Army’s Fort Greely base in Alaska and the Air Force’s Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and it is still a research and development effort, an agency spokesman said.
“The test bed is still a research, development and testing effort that is using an evolutionary, capability-based acquisition approach to improve the capabilities of the initial missile defense technology,” the agency spokesman said. “MDA is not seeking a waiver from operational testing,” the spokesman added.
If the test bed is made operational, it should have little effect on testing capability, the MDA spokesman said. “Interceptors will still be in the silos for monitoring; command, control and communications apparatus and procedures will continue; emplacement and maintenance training and procedures will take place,” the spokesman said.
MDA Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish told a Senate subcommittee in March 2002, however, that if the test bed were made operational, the agency would lose some of its missile defense testing capability “because you wouldn’t be able to do much more testing.”
There are two legal definitions of a “major defense system,” which would be required to successfully pass operational testing, according to Inside Missile Defense. The first is a designation as such by the defense secretary. The second definition is that a system is considered to be a major defense program if the “total expenditures for research, development, test and evaluations” are estimated to be more than $115 million in 1999 constant dollars. The MDA’s fiscal 2003 budget, which has been submitted to Congress, estimates the costs for the ground-based defense system and test-bed upgrades at more than $2 billion, Inside Missile Defense reported (see GSN, Jan. 6)
The Bush administration does not believe it needs changes to the law in order to deploy a limited missile defense system, according to Inside Missile Defense.
“This is not a deployment as was defined during the previous administration,” the MDA spokesman said. “MDA was already developing a missile defense test bed and now we will be adding capability to the test bed,” the spokesman added.
Technical Hurdles
Meanwhile, the lack of a reliable operational booster to carry an exoatmospheric kill vehicle toward an incoming enemy ballistic missile could delay any deployment, according to Inside Missile Defense (see GSN, Jan. 7). Kadish said last month that he was displeased with the booster development program. If tests scheduled for this spring and summer go poorly, the deployment schedule could be affected, he said.
“I mean, we can’t use an interceptor that doesn’t fly right,” Kadish said (Thomas Duffy, Inside Missile Defense, Jan. 22).
For further information, see:
MDA Basics of Missile Defense
MDA Missile Defense System
MDA Boost Defense Segment
MDA Midcourse Defense Segment
MDA Terminal Defense Segment
|
 |
| |
Back to top
