U.S. Response I:  White House Allocates $100 Million, Wants New System

The White House announced a plan yesterday to distribute $100 million for domestic security measures in seven major U.S. cities and U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said that the traditional formula for distributing financial security aid to states and cities is no longer applicable, the Baltimore Sun reported (see GSN, April 4).

Seeking to alleviate the financial burden of providing extra security, the Bush administration plans to send $25 million to New York, $18 million to Washington, $12.5 million to Los Angeles, more than $11 million to Seattle, $11 million to Chicago, more than $10 million to San Francisco and almost $9 million to Houston.

Ridge said that a new system of distribution is needed, which takes into account population density, national landmarks and the threat of terrorist attacks (Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, April 9).

Congress last year approved a formula to send 0.75 percent of available homeland security funding to each state, with the rest going to states on the basis of population.  Under that formula, New York received $1.38 per person and California was given $1.33 per person while Wyoming received $9.78 for every resident, the Washington Post reported.

“The traditional formula is inappropriate today,” Ridge said.  Under the old plan “everybody got a little bit and none of it would make a difference … A catastrophic event is more likely in a densely populated area,” he added.

“New York and Washington by formula represented only 3 percent of the entire pot of money” in the old formula, said Margret Nedelkoff Kellems, Washington’s deputy mayor for public safety.  “Clearly, New York City and Washington represent more than 3 percent of the risk,” she added (John Mintz, Washington Post, April 9).

Avoiding Congressional Pork

Concerned that homeland security funding will become overly politicized, experts agreed Congress must focus on identifying security needs, Newhouse News Service reported.

“We’ve got to think long and hard and prioritize,” said Phil Anderson, a domestic security specialist for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“The greatest threat to American security is uncontrolled spending,” said Randy Larsen, director of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security.

Security officials also need to work on coordinating local responses, he said.

“After Sept. 11, I didn’t see any strategic plan at the national level, and I’ve been concerned about it ever since,” according to Larsen. 

Some lawmakers and officials said that smaller states should not be overlooked for federal funding.

“Any terrorist that sees there’s appropriate protection in large cities will look for secondary targets,” said George Burke, assistant to the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Susan Collins (R-Maine) said that smaller border states, such as hers, need adequate security as well (Chuck McCutcheon, Newhouse News Service, April 9).

Threat Level Might Drop

Ridge, meanwhile, said that the successful conflict in Iraq could spur U.S. officials to lower the national terrorist attack threat level, the Post reported.

“We certainly do have a plan to start reducing, over time, the additional security measures,” he said.

The White House might also “reduce or finally eliminate” Operation Liberty Shield, which provides another layer of security in the United States.

He said, however, that the threat of terrorist attack would most likely not diminish immediately.

“The al-Qaeda network will strike when they’re ready, regardless of whether we’re engaged with the military in Iraq,” Ridge said (Mintz, Washington Post).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Senate Republicans Considering Making Patriot Act Permanent

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has prepared a proposal that would repeal the “sunset” provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act, which expanded Washington’s power to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists, and make the legislation permanent, officials said yesterday (see GSN, July 9, 2002).

The Patriot Act allows the United States to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to personal records and other measures to track suspected terrorists, according to the New York Times.  When the act was passed by Congress in late 2001, many agreed to support it only if the provisions were made temporary.  The act’s provisions are to expire in 2005 unless Congress reauthorizes them, the Times reported.

Senate Republicans, however, have recently discussed repealing the sunset provisions and making the law permanent, officials said.  Republicans could attempt to act on the proposal this week by attaching it to another antiterrorism measure, sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), that would eliminate the need for U.S. agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is linked to a foreign country or agent.

Justice Department officials have praised the Patriot Act for helping the FBI to move quickly to disrupt terrorist activities and have said they want to see the law made permanent.

“The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don’t want that to expire on us,” a senior Justice official said.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said that, without extensive review, he “would be very strongly opposed to any repeal” of the 2005 limit.  Daschle added that he believed there would not be enough votes for the proposal to pass (Eric Lichtblau, New York Times, April 9).

Back to top

U.S. Response III:  NRC to Address Nuclear Plant Guard Training, Fatigue Concerns

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans to issue orders soon to improve the training of security forces at U.S. nuclear power plants, commission Chairman Nils Diaz said Monday (see GSN, March 31).

The new orders will be designed to improve plant security force training and to address force fatigue, Diaz said in a statement.  The commission also plans to revise the design basis threats for nuclear power plans and category 1 fuel cycle facilities later this month, he said.  The design basis threat is the type of terrorist attack a nuclear power plant must be able to defend against.

Diaz has also reorganized his office to add an executive assistant for materials and security, according to the NRC statement.  This official will be responsible for creating “cradle-to-grave” controls on high-risk radiation sources and for material safety issues (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission release, April 7).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Weldon to Introduce New Threat Reduction Measures

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives with a reputation for opposing certain U.S. WMD threat reduction spending in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere is planning to propose legislation to create new programs for that purpose potentially worth $330 million.

Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) is planning to announce the new legislation at an event tomorrow featuring speakers from the Heritage Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Nuclear Threat Reduction Campaign.

Among other measures, the legislation — which Weldon’s spokesman Bud DeFlaviis said has not yet been finalized — would provide money to expand U.S. efforts to retrieve vulnerable nuclear materials from research reactors outside the former Soviet Union (see GSN, April 2). 

The Senate has already approved those measures, with White House support, but House Republicans, reportedly led by Weldon, last year blocked them. 

Energy, Not Defense

Weldon’s proposal is different than previous proposals, however, in that it would provide the authority to the Energy Department to help secure at-risk materials, not the Defense Department’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which has received Republican criticism.

A New York Times editorial last year identified Weldon and Representative Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) as leaders of House opposition to allowing Cooperative Threat Reduction activity to operate outside the former Soviet Union and to funding other threat reduction activities.

President Bush “ought to summon Mr. Weldon and Mr. Hunter and tell them to stop undermining programs that protect American security,” the Times editorial said last December.

DeFlaviis said today the congressman’s position had been mischaracterized.

“Congressman Weldon’s record was grossly mischaracterized by the L.A. Times and the New York Times and they gave us very little opportunity to respond and defend ourselves.  He has always held these programs in the highest regard and believes there is an immediate need to bolster these programs,” he said.

The issues, DeFlaviis said, are “something Curt’s been working on for some time and reflect a realization that a need exists.”

18 Initiatives

Weldon’s proposed bill would include 18 initiatives, most of them related to securing weapons of mass destruction in Russia and other former Soviet states.

They include:

*         $35 million to hasten closure of Russian nuclear warhead production and maintenance activities at two of four plants;

*         $60 million for securing materials in the Russia and the former Soviet Union that could be used to make radiological bombs;

*         $40 million to accelerate Russian efforts to blend down highly enriched uranium;

*         $60 million to further Energy Department efforts to help Russia and the former Soviet Union combat illicit transfers of WMD material;

*         $60 million for providing commercial jobs to Russian and other former Soviet scientists, engineers and technicians;

*         $30 million for a “Silk Road Initiative” to aid former Soviet countries participating in antiterrorism efforts; and

*         promotion of U.S.-NATO cooperation on theater ballistic missile defenses.

Russian Cooperation

When criticizing Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in the past, House Republicans have cited problems obtaining full cooperation from Russian authorities and in spending the money effectively.

Weldon’s bill would authorize the Energy Department to conduct an analysis of obstacles to effective implementation of threat reduction and nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet Union.

The bill also would require a “comprehensive” eight-year plan for securing, destroying and preventing the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons in Russia and other former Soviet states.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) has charged both the Bush and Clinton administrations with failing to assign sufficient priority to fighting WMD proliferation and has urged creating a high-level government position for overseeing and coordinating the numerous efforts (see GSN, March 13).

Weldon’s bill would require the president to designate a senior executive branch official to coordinate the chemical and biological nonproliferation programs, and would require that official to be equipped with “sufficient authority and staffing to do the job effectively.”

Back to top

Iraq:  U.S. Forces Expand Control of Baghdad Area

U.S. troops have further expanded their control of Baghdad, capturing several sites both within the city and on its outskirts, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, April 8).

After repelling an Iraqi counterattack yesterday, U.S. forces expanded their grip of the west bank of the Tigris River, according to the Post.  U.S. Marine units also captured the Rashid air base on the eastern edge of Baghdad (Branigin/Shadid, Washington Post, April 9).  U.S. troops also captured the headquarters of the elite Special Republican Guard, which one officer described as “the Pentagon of Iraq” (Baltimore Sun, April 9).

U.S. units have moved into several sections of Baghdad, including the Shiite Muslim suburb known as Saddam City in the northeast of the capital, according to Agence France-Presse.  Saddam City residents were reported to have forced out Iraqi militia forces before the U.S. troops arrived.  Units also advanced into the Kindi district of western Baghdad, less than four miles from the city center, witnesses said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, April 9).

Even as U.S. troops expanded their control of Baghdad, Maj. Frank McClary, operations officer of the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade’s 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, said he expected pockets of resistance to remain for some time.

“Tactically-wise, it’s going to be going on for a long time,” McClary said.  “Personally, I think it’s going to be going on until we leave this country,” he said (Baltimore Sun).

U.S. special forces operating in northern Iraq have begun blocking Iraqi troops from moving south to defend the city of Tikrit, considered to be a stronghold of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the next likely target for U.S. troops, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Hussein and many in his regime, including several Republican Guard commanders, were born in Tikrit, the Journal reported.  Top officers of the Special Security Organization also live in the city, which is believed to be a likely hiding place for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (see related GSN story, today).

“Certainly, if I wanted to do inspections in Iraq, this is where I would focus to get to the bottom line of what is really in the country,” said Laith Kubba, president of the Iraq National Group, which consists of about 500 Iraqi exiles in Washington.

Many Iraqi residents hope coalition forces destroy Tikrit because of its history as a symbol of the excesses of the Hussein regime, according to the Journal.

“I would tell the people of Tikrit they have 24 hours to get out of there and then bomb the whole city to the ground, said Aziz al-Taee, chairman of the American Iraqi Council (John Fialka, Wall Street Journal, April 9).

In northern Iraq, U.S. troops and Kurdish militiamen early today captured the Maqloub mountain, about 10 miles northeast of the city of Mosul, which opens that city up for capture, a senior Kurdish official said.

“That area was heavily defended by Iraqis throughout the campaign.  From our perspective this is the most important gain of the northern front so far,” said Hoshiyar Zebari, political adviser to Kurdistan Democratic Party leader Massoud Barzani.  “Basically the city has fallen,” Zebari said (Sebastian Alison, Reuters, April 9).

CIA Report Criticizes Iraqi Opposition Leader

Meanwhile, the CIA released a report last week criticizing the head of the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmad Chalabi, saying he would not be an effective leader because many Iraqis dislike him.  U.S. aircraft flew Chalabi and several hundred supporters into Iraq recently.

The classified report, which was widely distributed within the Bush administration, said Chalabi had little support among the Iraqi population.  The report also made a similar evaluation of support levels for Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; a Shiite Muslim-majority group with a history of ties to Iran (see GSN, Aug. 9, 2002).

Some experts have questioned the accuracy of the CIA’s assessment of the often-shifting political situation in Iraq.

“I think that nobody has any idea who is popular on the ground inside Iraq,” said Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.  “People who say that they do, including agencies of the U.S. government, are saying so to further a political agenda,” she said (Eli Lake, United Press International, April 8).

Back to top

North Korea:  Security Council Makes No Progress; Envoy Says Talks Possible

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council this morning held its first meeting in almost two months on North Korea without making any progress on how to deal with the possibility of Pyongyang’s development of nuclear weapons, and no new council consultations are scheduled (see GSN, April 8).

In January, Pyongyang announced that it was withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (see GSN, Jan. 10) after expelling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in December (see GSN, Dec. 30, 2002).  That withdrawal becomes effective tomorrow, 90 days after North Korea’s announcement, although North Korea has asserted its withdrawal took effect immediately after its January declaration. 

The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution declaring North Korea “in noncompliance” with its safeguard agreement under the NPT that ensures nuclear material is not used in military programs and referred the issue to the council (see GSN, Feb. 12).  On Feb. 20, the council turned the issue over to national experts to explore further.  Those experts have not yet reported back.  This is the first council meeting on North Korea since then. 

Speaking after today’s closed-door session, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said, “The United States attaches great importance to close consultations with Security Council members and with countries in the region.”  He added, “We haven’t taken any option off the table.”  

Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, the council president for April, said, “Members of the council expressed their concerns and the council will continue to follow-up developments.  There is nothing more to add.” 

No council delegate referred to the question of sanctions in connection with today’s meeting.  British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said yesterday, “We’re taking it quite slowly and steadily at the moment. … We’re in no rush, there is still some diplomacy on the ground.” 

Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov said this morning going into the meeting that he would “like to see the members of the council strongly reiterating their position in favor of a political solution.  Condemnations would not help.  Whatever multilateral formats might be used, they would not produce a result without a direct dialogue between the United States and North Korea.”

North Korea’s position is that the matter should be addressed bilaterally between itself and the United States.  Washington wants multilateral discussions, either through a regional meeting or through the Security Council.

Secretary General Kofi Annan’s adviser on North Korea, Maurice Strong, said at a news conference yesterday, “The positions of both [North Korea and the United States] could be accommodated … to permit them to meet in settings both multilaterally and bilaterally.”  The gap between them is narrowing “so that it should no longer be a real reason for delaying.” 

“It is something of a paradox in that both sides seem to be willing to move in the direction that the other is primarily requiring and yet they still have not been able to agree on the modalities of a meeting,” said Strong.  

Strong said the council “cannot substitute for direct negotiations, perhaps it can facilitate them.”  If the council imposes sanctions, “that will escalate the confrontational nature of this” but it would help “if the movement is in the direction of trying to create a settlement on the two main issues, which are security guarantees for the North Koreans and at the same time [commitments] that they will not move towards the development of nuclear weapons,” he said.

Annan was less specific about the makeup of any negotiations.  “The next step really is to get the parties talking and to find a format that will be acceptable to both parties and bring them to the table to talk,” he said this morning.

Strong said North Korea’s “primary concern” is what it sees as the threat to its security from the United States.  If that threat can be addressed bilaterally, he said he believed Pyongyang would be willing to discuss multilateral issues, including halting its nuclear program and rejoining the NPT.

In answer to a question about his earlier comments that war was possible as a result of the North Korea standoff, Strong said, “I simply said there is a risk of war. … The risks are there. I certainly don’t think war is inevitable or even likely, but certainly possible.”

Negroponte said the United States “has proposed a multilateral forum to discuss paths to verifiable elimination of the North Korean nuclear weapons program.”  He added, “Diplomatic contacts are taking place in the region [are] multifaceted. ... This is an issue of active diplomacy between ourselves and countries in the region.”

Negroponte said North Korea’s actions “threaten the stability of Northeast Asia.  It is not just a matter of getting the North to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.  North Korea must also accept a reliable verification regime.”

Back to top

United States:  U.S. Seeks Shortened Nuclear Test Readiness, Modified Nuclear Weapons

A top U.S. nuclear official said that a nuclear readiness study completed last year has concluded “the right posture is to be ready for a test within approximately 18 months” (see GSN, Jan. 10, 2002).

U.S. nuclear agencies currently operate under a 1993 order by then-President Bill Clinton to be able to resume nuclear testing in 24 to 36 months, Agence France-Presse reported.

The transition to 18-month readiness will take about three years, according to Linton Brooks, acting head of the National Nuclear Security Administration (Maxim Kniazkov, Agence France-Presse/The Australian, April 9).

Earth Penetrating Weapons

Officials last month delivered a study on the potential for modifying existing U.S. nuclear weapons to strike at deeply buried targets, according to Brooks.  The delivery of the paper allows the nuclear agency to use $15 million to conduct cost and feasibility studies this month, the Washington Post reported.

Scientists at two nuclear weapons laboratories would research the possibility of hardening existing nuclear weapons and attaching delayed fuses so the weapons can burrow deeper into the ground before detonating, according to the Post.

Brooks told Congress that $6 million would be used to examine future nuclear weapons concepts “which someday may be needed.”

Scientists plan to research a weapon to be used “against a particular set of biological agents where a large burst of radiation could be used to kill such bugs,” Brooks said.

He also told Congress that the existing 9-year-old ban on developing a low-yield nuclear warhead has had “a chilling effect” on nuclear research and is “an artificial intellectual restraint” (see GSN, March 7).

Senators Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) objected to Brooks’ desire to repeal that ban, the Post reported.  Reed said that developing new nuclear weapons would undermine U.S. nonproliferation efforts (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, April 9).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Duma to Resume Moscow Treaty Ratification This Spring

The Russian legislature plans to resume its consideration of the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty soon, senior Russian lawmakers said yesterday (see GSN, April 4).

Russian President Vladimir Putin called on lawmakers over the weekend to approve the treaty, despite the “unfavorable background” created by the U.S.-led war in Iraq.  Senior Russian legislators said yesterday that they would resume their treaty deliberations this spring, saying the pact corresponds with Russia’s national interests.

“Ratification must not be dragged out,” despite the war, said retired Gen. Andrei Nikolayev, head of the defense affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament.  Sergei Mironov, the speaker of the upper house of the Russian Parliament, agreed that the treaty must be ratified “as quickly as possible.”

Some Russian lawmakers, however, appear to link the treaty’s ratification prospects with Russia’s potential involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq once the war is over, according to the Associated Press.

The Duma will take up ratification “as soon as the situation regarding the post-conflict settlement in Iraq is normalized,” said Dmitry Rogozin, head of the Duma’s international affairs committee (Associated Press/Russia Journal, April 8).

For further information, see:

U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)

Bush Announces Moscow Treaty

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Moscow Treaty

Back to top

U.S Response:  U.S. Plan Would Fund Local Health Department Hirings

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials plan to fund local health departments that cannot afford to hire bioterrorism workers, the Health and Human Services Department said late last month (see GSN, April 8).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and Services Administration “will continue to focus on the education and training needed to prepare for and respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies.  For state and local health departments that do not have sufficient fiscal resources at this time for hiring, an effort is being made to advance necessary funding,” said a March 27 letter from health officials to government auditors.

The funding would come from fiscal 2003 budgets, according to the letter.  CDC officials could not immediately say how much money was going toward the effort.

Health officials sent the letter in response to a General Accounting Office report that sampled the bioterrorism defenses of seven cities and concluded that readiness levels were widely varied.

In the letter, health officials also said they intend to release guidelines this year to “reinforce our emphasis on coordination of planning on a regional level” to improve bioterrorism defenses.

The Health Resources and Services Administration is also providing $28 million to train medical workers for a biological attack, health officials said.

Back to top

Iraq:  United States Continues to Test Suspect Chemicals, Munitions

U.S. military experts are continuing to test suspicious substances found at captured Iraqi sites to determine if they are chemical weapons agents, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, April 8).

There has been no official confirmation of reports that U.S. troops found rockets filled with sarin and mustard gas, said Army Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, deputy director for operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Testing is still being conducted on substances recovered from other Iraqi sites, including an agricultural compound.

“For the other potential chemical and biological finds, we know that, in fact, there were some positive field tests (indicating chemical arms), but they were mixed,” McChrystal said.  “There were some positive and negative (test results) is my understanding.  And, in fact, we have taken samples out to get definitive testing.  So at this point, it is something we’re looking at closely, but no hard finding,” he said (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, April 9).

Samples taken from suspicious liquids found in drums at the captured agricultural compound have been sent to the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland for further identification, defense officials said yesterday.

Testing at Aberdeen is expected to take 72 hours to produce a final result, according to the Baltimore Sun.  Initial field tests produced a high positive result for the presence of weapons agents, a defense official said.

“It warrants doing the second test,” the official said.  “The samples are going to … Aberdeen,” the official added (Tom Bowman, Baltimore Sun, April 9).

U.S. troops have begun searching miles of tunnels running under Baghdad and the surrounding area where Iraqi President Saddam Hussein might have hidden weapons of mass destruction, according to the Associated Press.

“For the type of regime we’re dealing with, the tunnels represent an ideal spot to conceal weapons and serve as a hideout and in some cases an escape route,” said U.S. Central Command spokesman Lt. Mark Kitchens.

Yesterday, about 150 soldiers from the Army’s 101st Airborne Division’s 3rd Battalion, 3rd Brigade, searched a 12-room complex inside a cave near the airport outside of Baghdad, AP reported.  Inside they found signs of recent abandonment by Iraqi forces, but no soldiers or weapons, AP reported.

“We’re going to have to try to figure out where they go,” brigade commander Lt. Col. Lee Fetterman said.  “There’s no telling,” he added (Robert Tanner, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, April 9).

The German magazine Stern is preparing to report tomorrow that a handbook was found at a camp of the militant Islamic group Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq that details chemical and biological weapons experiments, according to Agence France-Presse.  Stern reporters found the three-volume handbook, which details successful experiments conducted using ricin and various cyanide compounds, AFP reported.  It also contains information on failed experiments to produce mustard gas and VX (Agence France-Presse, April 9).

ElBaradei Asserts Continuing U.N. Role

U.N. inspectors should be allowed to verify any weapons of mass destruction discovered in Iraq, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said.  “Any test results would have to be verified by the United Nations weapons inspectors to generate the required credibility,” he said (Reuters/Washington Post, April 9).

WMD Existence May Not Matter to Public Opinion

Meanwhile, whether or not the United States finds any evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it might not have an effect on public opinion domestically or internationally, according to experts.

In the United States, polls show that most people approve of the war and no longer consider finding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as essential to its success, according to the Christian Science Monitor.  The results are reversed, however, in most other countries, where opposition to the war has grown to a point where even the discovery of banned weapons would do little to change it, the Monitor reported.

Suspicions of U.S. motives for the war in Iraq have reached a point in many countries where the discovery of weapons of mass destruction would probably be questioned, experts said.

“Even if large amounts of these weapons were found, I could imagine the public in Germany and around Europe questioning whether the finds were true or simply planted evidence,” said Jens Van Scherpenberg, a security expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

The discovery, or lack thereof, of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction could have a more significant impact on public support during the reconstruction phase, according to experts.

“At this point, (finding weapons of mass destruction) is not essential to the public’s continuing support,” said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.  “But it probably would be essential to a retrospective confidence that the war was necessary once we get into the more difficult postwar phase,” he said (Marlantes/LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor, April 9).

Back to top

Pakistan:  Islamabad Charges India With Proliferation

Pakistan yesterday accused India of being a missile proliferator and called on other countries to block India’s efforts to develop more advanced ballistic missiles (see GSN, April 7).

“We have stated before that India is the proliferator in this region.  India is the one which is proliferating the missile program,” Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman, Aziz Ahmed Khan said.  “It is better that the international community give attention to it and prevent India from this relentless pursuit of more and more weapons,” he said.

Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said his country would react “appropriately” to a planned test by India of its Agni 3 long-range, nuclear-capable ballistic missile, indicating that Pakistan would conduct a missile test of its own, The Hindu reported (B. Muralidhar Reddy, The Hindu, April 9).

Back to top