U.S. Response:  Security Department Plans $700 Million Antiterror Package

The U.S. Homeland Security Department yesterday announced $700 million in security aid for cities and transportation facilities across the United States, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 27).

Under the new aid plan security officials will provide funds to 29 cities and 13 ports (Jonathan Salant, Associated Press/San Bernardino Sun, May 15).  The largest recipient will be New York City, slated to receive $200 million, the New York Daily News reported today (Meek/Saul, New York Daily News, May 15).

The department’s plan sends $42 million to Washington, $30 million to Chicago, $24 million to Houston and $19 million to Los Angeles.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has called for a new system of distributing aid that relies less on population and more on threat assessments.

“We must ensure maximum benefit is derived from every security dollar,” Ridge said (Salant, Associated Press/San Bernardino Sun).

“I think that President Bush and Tom Ridge, when it came to dividing up the pie, were very fair to New York,” said U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).  “I wish the pie had been a little bigger, but in terms of the percentage we got, no one can complain,” he added.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the new system of distribution, according to his spokesman, Ed Skyler.

The $200 million award to New York City is a “clear declaration that, as the mayor has said, the old population-based funding formula was flawed and all future funding will be based on risk and threat analysis,” Skyler said (Meek/Saul, New York Daily News).

The city will receive $125 million to cover extra policing costs incurred because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the New York Post reported today.  The Homeland Security Department will also send the city $30 million to install radiological sensors, $9.4 million to secure the city’s ports, $27 million to provide transit security and $2.6 million for other local transportation agencies (Brian Blomquist, New York Post, May 15).

Back to top

Al-Qaeda:  Saudi Nationals Behind Bombings, Saudi Foreign Minister Says

A group of 15 Saudi nationals is believed to have carried out a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said yesterday (see GSN, May 14).

“The fact that the terrorism happened is an indication of shortcomings, and we have to learn from our mistakes and seek to improve our performance in this respect,” Prince Saud said.

Those responsible for the attacks “will regret what they have done because they have turned this country into one fist aimed at putting an end to this heinous wound in the body of this nation so that it won’t return,” he said (Associated Press/Salon.com, May 15).

The people responsible for this week’s bombings are believed to be part of an al-Qaeda cell whose members fought a gun battle with Saudi authorities last week before escaping, Saudi officials said.  The cell, which has up to 60 members, was formed in Saudi Arabia after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, officials said.  It is believed to be led by Khaled Jehani, who was previously based in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, they said (Jerusalem Post, May 15).

U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Robert Jordan said Washington had unsuccessfully attempted to get security increased at Western residential compounds in Riyadh prior to the bombings.

“As soon as we learned of this particular threat information, we contacted the Saudi government,” Jordan said on CBS’ The Early Show.  “We continue to work with the Saudis on this, but they did not, as of the time of this tragic event, provide the additional security we requested,” he said.

Prince Saud yesterday denied that he had received such a request.

“Each time the American embassy or any other embassy seeks the intensification of security measures, the government fulfills this request,” he said (Associated Press/Salon.com).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  House Committee Rejects Two Threat Reduction Provisions

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A House of Representatives committee yesterday rejected legislation that would allow the Defense Department to conduct nuclear threat reduction activities outside the former Soviet Union.

It is the second year in a row that the House Armed Services Committee excluded the measure from the annual defense authorization bill, even though the Bush administration supports the provision.  Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) led the opposition.

The entire $400 billion defense bill was approved by the committee yesterday.

The Senate version of the bill, approved last week by the Armed Services Committee, does contain the provision, probably leaving final resolution of the issue to a House-Senate conference (see GSN, May 9).  Last year’s conference, faced with the same disagreement, did not approve the measure.

Congress also rebuffed the Bush administration last month when it did not provide the requested authority in its supplemental defense funding bill to support the U.S.-led war in Iraq (see GSN, April 15).

The money is sought by the administration for use in securing nuclear weapon-grade materials believed to be located at reactors and research facilities in numerous countries around the world.  Last fall, the U.S. government, lacking the authorized funds, was forced to use privately donated money in an operation to remove 100 pounds of highly enriched uranium from a reactor in Yugoslavia (see GSN, Aug. 23, 2002).

Hunter has repeatedly criticized the Pentagon’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program for alleged waste and expanding missions.

“Department of Defense funding for CTR should remain focused on the former Soviet Union, where 99 percent of the world’s potentially loose weapons of mass destruction are stored.  The Energy and State Departments should address problems elsewhere, as those institutions are better suited to traditional foreign aid,” Hunter wrote in a March 16 commentary in USA Today.

Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the committee, has introduced a separate bill this year that would authorize Energy Department nonproliferation funds for securing weapon-grade materials outside the former Soviet Union (see GSN, April 9).

Last year, Weldon — who was not present during the vote on the measure yesterday — reportedly joined Hunter in leading opposition to the authorization of threat reduction funds for that purpose.

At a markup of the bill yesterday, Hunter also led opposition to an amendment that would have restored $29 million to the bill as requested by the Pentagon for its program for supporting the destruction of Russian chemical weapons.

In addition, the House defense bill, unlike the Senate version, lacks a Bush administration-sought provision for a waiver authorizing funding for Russian chemical weapons destruction in 2004 by the Russian chemical weapons demilitarization program at Shchuchye.  The waiver would allow the destruction to continue in the event that Russia does not meet six conditions required in another U.S. law (see GSN, Jan. 15).

Back to top

Iraq:  Scientists Continue to Deny Iraq Developed Banned Weapons

Both captured Iraqi WMD scientists and those who are still not in coalition custody are still denying that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, saying such weapons were destroyed years ago, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, May 14).

Two Iraqi scientists — Dagher Mahmoud, a former Iraqi deputy minister, and Alaa al-Sayeed, who was involved with Iraq’s VX program — met twice last week with U.S. intelligence officials and once with British intelligence officials, according to AP.  At all three meetings Mahmoud and al-Sayeed denied that Iraq had recently been trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

“They asked who was working on these activities — which companies were involved, what did we have before 1991, what did we do afterward,” Mahmoud said of the interrogations by U.S. intelligence officials.  “We told them that for many years no one has been working on these matters.  They asked if there were more documents that we didn’t submit to the U.N., but we told them nothing more was kept,” he said.

U.S. officials have previously said that Iraqi scientists could be lying about their country’s WMD efforts to protect themselves.  Al-Sayeed denied such allegations, however, saying that not only were Iraqi scientists motivated to cooperate, but that they also told the former U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq that they were willing to do so.

Mahmoud said that he and nine others from the Iraqi Military-Industrial Complex met last week with U.S. officials involved in Iraq’s reconstruction after sending several letters to retired Gen. Jay Garner, who was replaced this week as the U.S. civil administrator for Iraq.  “We sent a letter to Mr. Jay Garner saying that we want to talk and want to know what they plan to do with us,” al-Sayeed said.

John Kincannon, a spokesman with the Office of Reconstruction, refused to comment on what he called “private mail.”

“But I’d suggest that, if we’re meeting with him, we’re obviously aware of his concerns,” Kincannon said (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 14).

Sanctions

Meanwhile, the United States plans to call for a vote next week on a U.N. resolution to lift sanctions against Iraq, officials said yesterday.

The United States is willing to consider amendments in the text of the resolution, U.S. officials said, adding that they were optimistic that negotiations would end in the next few days.

“We think we should be able to get the support to pass the resolution with amendments to the text,” an official said.

The United States might be moving closer to the French position on the sanctions — a temporary suspension, U.N. diplomats said.  A potential sticking point may be the length of the suspension, they said.

The United States is confident that it will obtain enough support within the Security Council despite the veto ability held by Russia and France, which both opposed the recent war in Iraq, U.S. officials said.  U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell met yesterday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to gain Russian support, according to the Washington Times.

Powell said yesterday that the United States and Russia still have “outstanding issues” to settle on the resolution, which Russia has opposed.  Russia has said U.N. inspectors must first return to Iraq to verify it no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction before sanctions could be lifted (Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, May 15).

Putin said yesterday that, despite the conflicts over Iraq, the United States and Russia have been able to maintain “the basic foundation” of their relationship.

“We have had a lot of arguments but we have successfully overcome our differences and succeeded in maintaining the basic foundation of our bilateral relationship,” Putin said (Straits Times, May 15).

U.S. diplomats have said they expect Russia to abstain from the vote on the resolution, which would also give the United States and Great Britain wide latitude to run Iraq and use its considerable oil revenue for at least a year (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, May 15).

Back to top

North Korea I:  Roh, Bush Say They Will Not Accept Nuclear North Korea

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and U.S. President George W. Bush say they will not accept a nuclear North Korea, MSNBC.com reported yesterday (see GSN, May 14).

“President Roh and President Bush reaffirmed that they will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea,” said a joint statement issued after White House discussions between the two leaders.  “They noted with serious concern North Korea’s statements about reprocessing, possession of nuclear weapons and its threat to demonstrate or transfer those weapons,” it added.

The statement said that the two leaders were committed to a peaceful resolution to the North Korean nuclear crisis but it added that “increased threats to peace and stability on the peninsula would require consideration of further steps” (Reuters/MSNBC.com, May 14).

Roh and Bush did not detail how they intend to defuse the nuclear standoff, Agence France-Presse reported.  However, Bush did give a nod to Roh’s strong push for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

“I assured the president we will continue to work to achieve a peaceful solution,” Bush said.

The discussions also focused on the common desire for a multilateral solution to the crisis.

“The idea is to get a coalition together, speak with one voice to let the North Koreans know that there is only one door they can go through, and that is to give up their nukes,” said a senior U.S. official after the talks (Stephen Collinson, Agence France-Presse/Philippines Daily News, May 14).

During a brief press conference following the talks, the presidents praised each other and said they would work together closely.

“When I left Korea, I had both concerns and hopes in my mind.  Now, after having talked to President Bush, I have gotten rid of all my concerns, and now I return to Korea only with hopes in my mind,” Roh said (White House transcript, May 14).

Back to top

North Korea II:  Council Can Pressure Pyongyang Without Sanctions, Experts Say

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.N. Security Council does not need to sanction or penalize North Korea to affect on Pyongyang’s leadership, according to experts who gathered last week in Washington to discuss the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula (see GSN, May 14).

By simply convening the Security Council to discuss the situation without threatening to take action, the United States could bring international pressure to bear on North Korea and turn the crisis into a multilateral confrontation, said Lawrence Scheinman, a former U.S. State Department official now with the Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington.

North Korea held a contentious round of talks with the U.S. and Chinese diplomats last month in Beijing and U.S. officials have said that if talks fail the issue should be sent to the Security Council (see GSN, April 24).

If the crisis reaches the Security Council, it is, “in a sense, sending a message,” said Scheinman.  Bringing other nations into the equation — something Washington has pushed for and Pyongyang has resisted — could increase the pressure on North Korea, according to Scheinman.  North Korean officials insist that their confrontation is with the United States alone and is strongly opposed to a multilateral solution to the issue.

Scheinman said it is unlikely the council would agree to take action on North Korea because of China’s continued resistance, but a council discussion “can have a big effect.  It has to be in the back of the minds of the North Koreans.”

“Political Advantage”

The United States could also gain political advantage by taking the crisis to the United Nations, according to Robert Gallucci, the top negotiator in the 1994 nuclear talks between Washington and Pyongyang who now serves as dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

“I can imagine there being a political advantage at some point in going to the United Nations — taking the North Korea situation to the United Nations — because I believe the administration is correct:  This is not a bilateral issue only between the United States and North Korea,” said Gallucci.

It would be appropriate to involve other countries in the crisis because North Korea is “a threat to the United States, to Japan, South Korea and the international community … it is appropriate for the administration to wish to multilateralize this,” he added.

However, Washington may not be able to wait for broad-based diplomacy to take effect, said Gallucci, who supports direct negotiations.

“I don’t know that I would wait for that.  I think it’s a desirable objective, but I see a certain urgency to the current situation,” he said.

Back to top

United States:  MOX Plant Design Resolves Some Safety Issues, More Remain, NRC Says

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced earlier this month that an Energy Department contractor hired to build a plutonium processing facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina still has a number of safety issues to address before construction can begin (see GSN, Dec. 6, 2002).

The U.S. company Duke Cogema Stone & Webster has not yet met all of the safety requirements for the construction of the mixed oxide fuel production plant to provide “reasonable assurance” of protection against natural disasters and accidents, the NRC said in a revised safety report prepared last month.  The report lists 19 safety issues, such as fire and chemical safety concerns, that the company must still address before the NRC will authorize construction of the MOX plant, which will work to reduce stockpiles of weapon-grade plutonium by converting it for use as fuel in civilian nuclear power plants. 

The revised NRC report represents a snapshot of the process to date and is based on information received since April 30, 2002, when the commission issued a draft safety report on Duke Cogema’s initial construction request (see GSN, May 9, 2002).  Since then, Duke Cogema has resolved 40 out of 59 safety items that had been raised in the 2002 report, the commission said in a press statement.

The NRC plans to issue a final revised safety report and to make a decision on Duke Cogema’s construction request by Sept. 30, commission spokesman David McIntyre told Global Security Newswire.  NRC and Duke Cogema representatives are scheduled to meet at the commission’s headquarters in Rockville, Md., May 28-30 and June 2-6 to discuss the remaining unresolved safety issues, he said.

Back to top

Russia:  Official Proposes Converting Missile Submarines to Oil Tankers

A Russian regional governor has proposed that Russian nuclear submarines be converted into oil tankers, Reuters reported today.

Anatoly Yefremov, governor of the Archangelsk region, has said that Russian Typhoon-class submarines could carry about 10,000 tons of oil if their missile launch rooms were converted into storage tanks (see GSN, July 16, 2002).  A conventional oil tanker can carry about 280,000 tons, according to Reuters.

“We see it as very economic and realistic to use atomic submarines for transporting oil and gas,” Yefremov said.

Environmentalists, however, have rejected the idea, saying it is too expensive and dangerous.

“The consequences of an accident with a nuclear submarine filled with oil would be much more dramatic than a normal oil tanker,” said Nils Boehmer, a nuclear scientist who works for Norwegian environmental group Bellona.  “It could be very difficult to go in and clean up any spill because of radiation from the reactors,” he said (Reuters/Environmental News Network, May 15).

Russia Completes Scrapping of Ballistic Missile Submarine

Meanwhile, Russia has finished scrapping a Delta-1 ballistic missile submarine at the Zvezdochka shipyard, a spokeswoman for the shipyard said Tuesday (see GSN, Jan. 7).  The section of the submarine containing its nuclear reactors will now be taken to a base in the Arctic region for temporary storage, the spokeswoman said.  The scrapping of the submarine was funded through the U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction program (ITAR-Tass, May 13 in FBIS-SOV, May 13).

Back to top

Iran:  Russian Officials Negotiating Return of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Russian officials are still negotiating an agreement to guarantee the return of spent nuclear fuel from Iran, Interfax reported Tuesday (see GSN, March 20).

Officials from the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry and TVEL, the company that is providing nuclear fuel to Iran, were negotiating the contract, TVEL President Alexander Nyago said Tuesday.

The company cannot sign contracts on the return of the spent fuel until Russian lawmakers pass regulations on the issue, Interfax reported.

“The talks are expected to produce appropriate agreements,” Nyago said.  “The fuel will be stored by federal state enterprises, which may be privatized in the future,” he added (Interfax, May 13 in FBIS-SOV, May 13).

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Is Actively Producing Weapons, Opposition Group Says

An Iranian opposition group has said Iran is producing weaponized anthrax and has begun research into at least five additional biological weapons agents, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, April 10).

The anthrax weapons are the first results of a program that began in 2001 in an attempt to triple the size of Iran’s biological weapons program, according to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, citing sources inside Tehran.  The council is the political arm of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, which the United States has listed as a terrorist group, according to the Post.

“We can say with certainty that the Iranian regime now has the capability of mass production of biological material for weapons use,” Alireza Jafarzadeh, the council’s U.S. representative, said in an interview with the Post.

Details of Iran’s increased biological efforts are contained in a document entitled the “Comprehensive National Microbial Defense Plan,” which was approved by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council in 2001, Jafarzadeh said.  The plan details a program to triple Iran’s biological weapons production capability by the end of this year and divides responsibilities for the effort among several research facilities connected with the Iranian military or Revolutionary Guard, the Post reported.

In addition to anthrax, Iran has also begun weaponizing aflatoxin, typhus, smallpox, plague and cholera, Jafarzadeh said.  Iran has also recruited scientists from several countries, such as North Korea, China, Russia and India, to aid the program, he said.

“The report about smallpox was very carefully assessed and verified,” Jafarzadeh said.

A single director coordinates the efforts of five Iranian agencies involved in the program and reports directly to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, council officials said.  Even though Iran had previously depended on foreign suppliers for advanced equipment, it can now produce almost all necessary equipment indigenously, officials said (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, May 15).

Back to top

United States:  Anniston Officials Find Leaking Chemical Rockets

U.S. officials discovered three rockets leaking GB nerve agent Monday at the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, the Anniston Star reported (see GSN, March 3).

The nerve agent did not escape from the weapons’ metal storage tubes, according to Army spokeswoman Cathy Coleman, adding that the workers who discovered the problem were conducting a routine examination for “leakers.”

The storage facility where the leaking weapons were found is “where most of our leaking rockets come from,” Coleman said.

Officials also discovered a leaky rocket in February.  Approximately 860 leaking munitions have been discovered at the plant since 1982, the Star reported.  The depot holds 2,254 tons of GB nerve agent.

Meanwhile, officials at a chemical destruction facility in Aberdeen, Md. discovered traces of mustard agent near a storage container that had been drained, the Star reported.

“There were no injuries, there was no danger to anyone outside the building,” said Jeff Lindblad, a spokesman for the Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal Facility.

Nine workers who were in the area when the traces were discovered donned protective gear and left the area.

“You’re talking about a very low level,” Lindblad said (Sara Clemence, Anniston Star, May 14).

Back to top

European Plans:  Russia, NATO Agree on Missile Defense Cooperation

Russian and NATO officials agreed Tuesday to cooperate on the first phase of a theater missile defense system, ITAR-Tass reported (see GSN, April 11).

The missile defense effort is a “pilot project,” according to NATO Secretary General George Robertson.  Officials agreed to the program during a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council in Moscow, according to ITAR-Tass.

All 20 countries at the meeting said they would provide financial support for the program, Robertson said (ITAR-Tass, May 13 in FBIS-SOV, May 13).

Russia should participate in the missile defense system on an equal footing with NATO countries, according to Konstantin Kosachyov, deputy chairman of the Duma International Affairs Committee.

“Russia should do its best to obtain the status of an equal partner in the development of the new missile defense system in cooperation with NATO in order to avoid unpleasant surprises in the future,” Kosachyov said.  “Now it is necessary to agree who and how will take part in the project in the respect of technologies and financing,” he added (ITAR-Tass II, May 13 in FBIS-SOV, May 13).

Back to top