Al-Qaeda:  Group Could be Rebuilding, Sources Say

Some intelligence sources and analysts have said that even though the United States has been able to achieve some success in combating al-Qaeda, there are signs that the terrorist group is laying low and slowly rebuilding, the Christian Science Monitor reported today (see GSN, May 2).

There are indications that al-Qaeda has continued to adapt and reorganize even while the United States works hard to eliminate it, according to the Monitor.  For example, there are signs that the group has replaced key operatives who have been captured, as well as worked to regain bases in Afghanistan and to better hide its financial networks.

In addition, there are concerns that the recent U.S. war in Iraq and the fall of former President Saddam Hussein could help create a new recruiting ground for al-Qaeda, the Monitor reported.

?The toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime could have a cataclysmic effect on the mobilization of recruits for al-Qaeda," says a European intelligence report.  ?Despite the significant successes we?ve had against them, and the pressure we?ve brought to bear, we cannot say that the al-Qaeda network has been weakened, let alone destroyed,? the report says.

Al-Qaeda?s most important connections are now with terrorist groups based in Pakistan, Southeast Asia and East Africa, the report says.  It also says that Saudi Arabia is still an important financial source to the group, and that Saudi Arabia and Yemen both provide al-Qaeda with locations to train and plan.

While al-Qaeda has suffered from having a number of top operatives captured, it has also had success in replacing the losses it has suffered, according to the European report.

?Has al-Qaeda been hurt by its losses?  Sure,? said a senior U.S. intelligence official.  ?But there?s no indication that the losses aren?t being replaced,? the official said (Faye Bowers, Christian Science Monitor, May 5).

Back to top

International Response:  G-8 Justice Officials Meet, Discuss Antiterrorism Measures

Justice and interior ministers from the Group of Eight nations met today in Paris to discuss international efforts to combat terrorism, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, May 1).

The ministers, including U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, discussed adopting new antiterrorism measures, such as those meant to aid in tracking down and freezing terrorist financial assets.  The meeting is a precursor to a G-8 summit scheduled to occur next month in Evian (John Leicester, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 5).

Back to top

Iraq:  U.S. Troops Find Heavy Looting at Baghdad Nuclear Site

A U.S. Defense Department team Saturday found that the Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility, a site associated with Iraq?s former nuclear weapons efforts, had been heavily looted, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, May 2).

The team, consisting of eight nuclear experts from the Pentagon?s Direct Support Team, said it was impossible to determine if nuclear materials were missing from the site, which stored radioactive industrial and medical wastes, as well as spent nuclear fuel.  While the materials stored at the site could not be used to produce nuclear weapons, many could be used to create ?dirty bombs,? the Post reported.  One team member said the quantities of materials discovered at the site during a survey would not suffice to build such a weapon, but other team members said they were unsure if the survey was even complete.

Iraqis claiming to be employees of the site had been entering the facility for more than two weeks before the Pentagon team conducted its survey, according to the Post.  A security detachment from the U.S. Army?s 3rd Division, which had been stationed to the guard the site, did not have an Arabic speaker present and could not confirm the Iraqis? stories.  In addition, looters had been at work inside the site since U.S. troops took control, with up to 400 looters per day at its peak, the Post reported.  Last week, U.S. forces captured more than 60 looters, but many more were able to escape.

?Looters, they see us in Bradleys or on foot,? said Capt. Blaine Kusterle.  ?They can outrun us easily because they have a 300-meter start,? he said.

Security also remains a concern at the nearby Tuwaitha complex, the main site in Iraq?s former nuclear program, according to the Post (see GSN, April 25).  The site had been previously found to be looted, but the United States does not know exactly what is missing at this site because of a dispute with the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Bush administration officials said Saturday that they expect to involve the IAEA at some point, because the radioactive materials stored at the Tuwaitha site are under the agency?s seals, which the United States is obligated to respect.  The U.S. State Department and the Pentagon are still working to create guidelines for a U.S. team to conduct a preliminary survey of the site.

?It?s very distressing,? said a nuclear expert with close ties to IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.  The agency ?expects measures to be taken so that the looting that took place a month ago will not continue to take place this month.  This material really should not be moved,? the expert said (Barton Gellman, Washington Post, May 3).

Iraqi Scientists

Meanwhile, several former senior Iraqi WMD scientists have recently called former U.N. inspectors within the United States to request guidance on whether they should surrender to U.S. forces and how they should do so, inspectors said.

The scientists, who include two former senior nuclear weapons scientists, have said they can provide documents and other information to assist in the investigation into Iraq?s efforts to obtain WMD-related equipment and materials from Germany and other countries, according to the Los Angeles Times.

U.S.-operated radio in Iraq has urged scientists to come forward, pledging that ?anyone who provides information regarding weapons programs will be treated with respect and dignity.?  Some leading Iraqi scientists, however, remain unconvinced that they will be treated well by U.S. forces, according to former U.N. inspectors.

?They want some kind of assurance that they won?t be detained,? said David Albright, a former inspector who said he has received calls from several Iraqi nuclear scientists.

Albright said that all of the scientists he has talked to have said that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ended his nuclear weapons program after the 1991 Gulf War and that no one knew if Iraq had maintained other WMD programs.  It is unclear if the scientists were telling the truth or just looking to make some kind of deal with the United States, Albright said, adding that he had told the scientists to come forward.

?They come from a society where if you?re going to be detained, that means something different than it does to us,? Albright added.  ?It really does scare them,? he said (Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times, May 5).

U.S. Officials Confident Banned Weapons Will be Found

U.S. President George W. Bush has expressed confidence that the United States will find evidence of Iraqi WMD efforts, saying it was only a ?matter of time? before U.S. forces do so.

?Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,? Bush said.  ?It?s well known,? he said (BBC News, May 4).

Other senior White House officials yesterday expressed a similar confidence, according to Agence France-Presse. 

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. forces would be able to find evidence of Iraqi WMD with the aid of Iraqi prisoners, especially lower-level officials.

?We?re going to have to find people not at the very senior level, who are vulnerable, obviously, if they?re in custody, but it will be people down below who had been involved in one way or another,? Rumsfeld said.

U.S. Secretary of Sate Colin Powell said that while U.S. troops will probably not find an actual Iraqi nuclear weapon, they would find evidence of Iraq?s nuclear weapons program.

?We haven?t found any evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq as a result of what we have been able to see thus far.  But a program is more than just a weapon,? Powell said.  ?We didn?t think he had a weapon.  But he kept in place the infrastructure, and he never lost the infrastructure or the brain power assembled in a way to use that infrastructure, if he was ever given a chance to do so,? he said (Agence France-Presse, May 5).

Back to top

North Korea I:  United Front Needed On North Korea

By Lee Michael Katz

National Journal

Winston Lord has high-level experience in deciphering the mysteries of North Korea and the nuances of Asian diplomacy.  Lord served in the 1980s as U.S. ambassador to China and in the 1990s as assistant secretary of state in charge of China and Korea policy.  He was intimately involved in negotiating the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, which was intended to limit Pyongyang's nuclear program in exchange for U.S. aid.

Veteran diplomatic correspondent Lee Michael Katz interviewed Lord on April 28.  In the following excerpts, Lord puts some context around the recent three-way nuclear talks in Beijing, which included the United States, North Korea, and China.  He also talks about South Korea's fears, China's balancing act, Japan's changing military posture, and the merits of a potential pre-emptive U.S strike on North Korea.

National Journal: Did Kim Jong Il's North Korean regime seek to threaten the United States by saying in the Beijing talks that it possessed nuclear weapons?

Winston Lord: Just because North Korea says it, doesn't mean it's true.  You never can be sure about what is bluster and what is fact.  It's consistent with their traditional policy in negotiations to inject a sense of urgency to extract further concessions.

There is a very good chance they do have one or two nuclear weapons.  That's been our suspicion for several years.  Their motives for declaring they have nukes now could be to deter us from military pressure, figuring we wouldn't want to take on a country with nuclear weapons.  They may have drawn lessons from Saddam Hussein.  Namely, it's better to have nukes before you go up against the United States.

NJ: Does North Korea fear being the next U.S. military target?

Lord: That is clearly their allegation.  It serves useful bargaining purposes to rally their people against an external threat.  There is a good chance they genuinely fear us, given the paranoid nature of their regime.

They cite [U.S.] President [George W.] Bush's listing them as one of the ?axis of evil? ? and they see that we've gone after one of those three.  Incidentally, they have suggested they now don't want to commit to future inspections of their nuclear capability because they saw this was a prelude to an attack on Iraq.

You've got to always remember that whatever North Koreans say today, they could change tomorrow.  Indeed, they're going to have to change if we're ever to have a deal, because they cheated on the last agreement, under the Clinton administration, and the United States will rightfully insist on even more-intrusive inspections and verification in any further deal.

NJ: Weren't you worried they'd cheat when the deal was made in 1994?

Lord: We never had any illusions about dangers.  We had no good choices.  We couldn't ignore North Korea's being on the threshold of developing nuclear weapons.  A military strike raised the risk of a war that we would win, but only after perhaps a million South Korean and American casualties.

So we chose to negotiate an agreement that froze the North Korean nuclear programs and called for their future dismantlement.  The North Koreans cheated on that agreement well before the Bush administration ever took office.  That deal was the best option at the time, but ?Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.?  We must not go down the same road of the early 1990s.

NJ: Members of the Bush administration say they're in this mess because of the Clinton administration.  Are they right?

Lord: The current members of the Bush administration never offered an alternative in the early 1990s.  They just complained about the agreement.  Without that agreement, North Korea today could have dozens of nuclear weapons instead of the maximum of one or two they do have.

NJ: North Korea says it just offered a "bold new" deal, apparently to scrap not only its nuclear program, but its ballistic missile testing and missile exports, too.

Is that possible?

Lord: They have suggested something like this before.  We would have to cover not only the nuclear dimensions, but also the missile programs.  They've tested a three-stage missile, which we think could reach Hawaii, and they're on their way toward developing something that could reach the West Coast.

Obviously, we should try to end up with this kind of deal, but it will be possible only in a multilateral context, namely the involvement of other key players.  Pressure by the U.S. alone will not suffice, because China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia are needed to make isolation and sanctions effective.  Incentives by the U.S. alone will not tempt North Korea.

Can you imagine the U.S. Congress saying, ?OK, we can give some aid to Kim Jong Il??  The only aid we give is humanitarian aid, and I would question even that unless we're absolutely sure it reaches the people, as opposed to the military.

NJ: As a former ambassador, how do you see the Chinese role in hosting these talks?

Lord: From what I've learned both publicly and privately, the Chinese have been much more helpful in recent weeks.  Having said that, and having stoutly supported the administration on a multilateral approach, I was frankly unhappy with the Beijing trilateral format.

It looked to me like a fig leaf for essentially bilateral talks between the United States and North Korea, with the Chinese acting essentially as conveners.  I would have held out, however difficult it might have been, for the inclusion of the Japanese and South Koreans, if not the Russians.

NJ: In its recent talks with South Korea, North Korea insisted that Seoul has no role to play in the nuclear talks.  What is the effect of that?

Lord: It's demoralizing for the South Koreans to be left out, even though the new regime there is partly to blame.  After 50 years of telling us not to deal with North Koreans directly, the South Koreans in the last couple of years have pushed us to talk to them bilaterally.  So they shouldn't be surprised when the North Koreans continue to treat them like a puppet regime and say they will only deal with us on these security questions.

NJ: What does it mean for the upcoming summit between President Bush and South Korea's president, Roh Moo Hyun?

Lord: It's crucial we show a united front.  And the South Korean president, as he has begun to, must make the case for the American security alliance and troop presence, rather than stirring up anti-Americanism, which he did during his campaign.

NJ: Everyone assumes that China and Russia don't want North Korea to go nuclear, but is that correct?  Might they actually like to see the powerful United States embarrassed over North Korea?

Lord: Not on this issue.  China is concerned about America's overwhelming power as demonstrated in Afghanistan and now in Iraq.  But this issue of the Korean Peninsula is too radioactive for the Chinese.  The Chinese are totally schizophrenic on this.

They clearly don't want renewed conflict perhaps dragging them into a war against us, as in the 1950s.  They don't want a nuclear North Korea because of concerns around their border ? they already have problems with India and Pakistan.  They're worried this will induce other countries, particularly Japan, to go after the nuclear option, or missile defense.  China always acts in its self-interest, and it is to prevent a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia.

NJ: Does China want North Korea to reform slowly, instead of collapsing or provoking a U.S. attack?

Lord: China doesn't want a collapse in North Korea, with hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring over its border, or the prospect of a united peninsula under U.S.-South Korean control.

China's preferred outcome continues to be for North Korea to undergo the reforms China has made to open up trade and investment and move toward a more privatized economy ? while maintaining tight political control.

NJ: Does Japan also believe in South Korea's ?sunshine policy? of gradually warming ties with the North?  Would anything so outrage Japan that it would also take a hard line on North Korea?

Lord: Japan tried its own version of a sunshine policy when Prime Minister [Junichiro] Koizumi went to Pyongyang.  Since then, things have turned sour.  What would outrage Japan would be further testing of missiles that could hit Japan.

When North Korea did this a few years ago, it had a profound impact on Japan.

Most extraordinary, the Japanese defense minister has raised the prospect of pre-emptive Japanese strikes against North Korea if Japan felt threatened.  For good old pacifist Japan to be making those comments shows the impact North Korean actions are having in Tokyo.

NJ: Would Kim Jong Il ever open the repressive society founded by his dictator father?

Lord: There's no question Kim Jong Il was competing with Saddam Hussein to have the worst regime in the world.  It's the most opaque, unpredictable, paranoid regime.  As we look back on the last several decades, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao get the gold medals for ugly regimes, and Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and Kim ? father and son ? get the silver medals.

Like all dictators, Kim will be nervous about opening up his society and losing control of his people, who have been walled off from the international community and truth.  If he does not, he could lose control anyway because of severe economic dislocation.

NJ: Saddam Hussein was quickly ousted with military action.  Should we do the same thing with Kim Jong Il?

Lord: We should never take the military option off the table, and the administration has not done so.  That is needed for diplomatic and negotiating leverage and might well be required as a final resort.  Leaving aside whether North Korea has nuclear weapons for retaliation, there are huge dangers with the military option.  We can't be sure a surgical strike would eliminate all North Korean nuclear facilities, and it would be violently opposed by the South Koreans.

I believe that current American military estimates of casualties before we could win are in the million-person range, mostly South Koreans, but also American forces.

NJ: What are the prospects for America's seeking U.N. sanctions against North Korea?

Lord: It's a good idea, and I think the prospects are lousy.  I would certainly explore this option, but I'm pessimistic the Chinese or the South Koreans would go along.  The Chinese are generally opposed to sanctions and international pressures.

NJ: What is the best way to get North Korea to change for the long term, not just on this short-term nuclear crisis?

Lord: Iraq took a military invasion, and that is not an option anybody wants to pursue.  International isolation and sanctions squeezing the regime and bringing it down would be my preferred outcome, but it's not feasible at this point, and you cannot have it as a stated goal.  We don't want to be in the habit of proposing regime changes all around the world, no matter how ugly the regimes are.

The other problem is of sequencing.  We cannot agree to simultaneity or we'll be engaged in endless distortion, delay, and bribery while the North Korean nuclear and missile programs go forward.  On the other hand, we can't expect a unilateral North Korean surrender in negotiations.  So the North Koreans would have to go first, but knowing they would get a positive response.  They would also know that if they refused to follow this route, they would face increasing strangulation.

Back to top

South Asia:  India, Pakistan Prepare for Possible Talks

India and Pakistan began over the weekend to prepare for possible talks to resolve their Kashmir dispute ? a move Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee proposed last week (see GSN, May 2).

Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said Saturday a formal invitation had been sent to Vajpayee to visit Islamabad for talks (Nirmala George, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 3).  

Vajpayee, however, declined the invitation yesterday, saying ?careful groundwork? was still needed.

?The prime minister emphasized the need for careful preparation,? India?s official spokesman said.  ?We have repeatedly expressed the need to create a conducive atmosphere, which requires an end to cross-border terrorism and dismantling of its infrastructure,? he said (Edward Luce, Financial Times, May 4).

Jamali has called on his country?s political parties to begin developing a joint strategy for the proposed talks with India, BBC News reported today.

Jamali has invited Pakistani political leaders to Islamabad to decide on Pakistan?s position for the proposed talks.  Jamali has also indicated he is prepared to announce new measures designed to improve relations with India prior to any meeting, according to BBC News (BBC News, May 5).

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the military and the intelligence service all support Pakistan?s new efforts to seek peace with India, Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri said.

?As foreign minister of Pakistan, I am privy to many meetings,? Kasuri said.  ?The present process has the complete backing of President Musharraf.  He is very much on board,? he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 4).

Musharraf himself said yesterday that Pakistan and India could mutually disarm themselves of nuclear weapons if their Kashmir dispute could be resolved.

?We have been saying that if there is no problem to our security, Pakistan and India can move to mutual reduction of forces and have a no-war pact ? this has been our stand,? Musharraf said (DAWN, May 5).

The United States has praised India and Pakistan?s decision to hold talks, according to the Associated Press.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha to praise the talks, a Sinha spokesman said Saturday.  Powell also praised the decision to hold talks during a conversation Saturday with Jamali, AP reported.

Powell ?assured the prime minister that the United States would continue to make efforts to promote better understanding between India and Pakistan enabling the resumption of dialogue leading to peaceful resolution of problems between the two countries,? the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said in a statement (George, Associated Press).

Kasuri has praised the United States for playing a ?very positive role? in the two countries? decision to hold talks over Kashmir.

?The U.S. is an honest broker.  There is no doubt the U.S. and Europe want this issue settled,? Kasuri said in an interview with the Indian magazine Outlook.  ?The U.S. has been very active in the last year.  Suffice it to say that the U.S has played a very positive role,? he said (Agence France-Presse).

Back to top

North Korea II:  Bush Looks to Contain North Korean Nuclear Weapons

As Pyongyang threatens to develop nuclear weapons, U.S. President George W. Bush is shifting his focus toward preventing North Korean proliferation of nuclear material or devices, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, May 2).

James Kelly, the top U.S. negotiator with North Korea, briefed Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard during a Saturday meeting at Bush?s ranch in Crawford, Texas.

?The president said that the central worry is not what they?ve got, but where it goes,? said an official familiar with the Crawford talks.  ?He?s very pragmatic about it, and the reality is that we probably won?t know the extent of what they are producing.  So the whole focus is to keep the plutonium from going further,? the official added.

Bush?s new focus could signal an acceptance that preventing North Korean nuclear development might be impossible.

Some experts question, however, the feasibility of preventing North Korean proliferation.

?It?s a fantasy to think you can put a hermetic seal around North Korea and keep them from getting a grapefruit-size piece of plutonium out of the country,? said Ashton Carter, a Harvard University professor who was involved in Korean issues during the Clinton administration.  ?To allow North Korea to go nuclear is a major defeat for U.S. security,? he added.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, during an appearance on NBC?s Meet the Press, said that the United States is still pushing North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

?Everybody has now made it clear to North Korea that they will not find any assistance coming to them from the region in terms of economic development,? Powell said.  ?Unless they abandon their nuclear weapons programs,? he added.

A U.S. official familiar with Bush?s North Korea strategy agreed that economic aid is a key factor in pressuring Pyongyang, the Times reported.  North Korea is attempting to rile Washington with a variety of vague nuclear threats and announcements, the official said.

Bush?s answer is ?you?re hungry, and you can?t eat plutonium,? according to the official (David Sanger, New York Times, May 5).

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to rule out military action during a television appearance Sunday.

?The United States government ? has never really leapt up and ruled things out.  It?s not a helpful thing,? he said on Fox News Sunday (United Press International, May 4).

North Korea, meanwhile, expressed frustration with the lack of an official U.S. response to its proposal to scrap nuclear and missile programs in exchange for steep economic and diplomatic concessions.

?If the U.S. does not positively respond to the D.P.R.K.?s bold proposal, it will be held accountable for scuttling all efforts for dialogue and seriously straining the situation,? according to North Korea?s state-run newspaper, Rodong Sinmun (Associated Press/MSNBC.com, May 5).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Senior U.S., Russian Officials to Discuss Moscow Treaty Ratification

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton met today with Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev and Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov in Moscow to discuss arms control and nonproliferation issues (see GSN, April 10). 

During the meeting, the officials were expected to discuss prospects for the ratification of the Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty, according to the Associated Press.  U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin could exchange the treaty?s instruments of ratification during a meeting in St. Petersburg scheduled for later this month, a senior Bush administration official said (Associated Press, May 5).

Meanwhile, the lower house of the Russian Parliament could begin debating the treaty?s ratification next week, a senior Russian lawmaker said today (see GSN, April 9).  Dmitry Rogozin, head of the State Duma?s foreign affairs committee, said he would propose May 16 as the date to begin the debate (Agence France-Presse, May 5).

Back to top

Iran:  Washington Pushes Moscow to End Iranian Nuclear Cooperation

A top U.S. nonproliferation official attempted during Moscow talks today to discourage Russia from further nuclear cooperation with Iran, Reuters reports (see GSN, May 2).

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton met with Russian officials, including Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev.  The United States has consistently accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, and U.S. officials are frustrated with Russian cooperation on an allegedly civilian Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

?Although an Iranian nuclear weapons capability may be years down the road, time moves quickly and they may have a lot of activity going on that we don?t know about,? said a senior U.S. official in Moscow.

Russia has previously said Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, but Rumyantsev said in March that Moscow could not determine if Tehran had nuclear weapons aspirations.

?The Russian view before was that there is no Iranian clandestine nuclear weapons program, but I think that view has changed,? the U.S. official said (Reuters/New York Times, May 5).

Rumyantsev and Bolton said today that there is not yet any reason or evidence to cite Iran for violating its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency.  A Russian atomic ministry official acknowledged, however, that ?some issues remain outstanding? (Agarkov/Pshenichnikova, ITAR-Tass, May 5).

Back to top

United States:  Pentagon Officials, Arms Control Experts Advocate Using Conventional Weapons Against Buried Targets

Some U.S. Defense Department officials and arms control advocates have called for using conventional weapons to destroy deeply buried targets, eliminating the need for new ?bunker-busting? nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, April 25).

Among those advocating using conventional weapons, instead of nuclear warheads, to destroy deeply buried targets is Adm. James Ellis Jr., head of the U.S. Strategic Command, according to the Post.  Ellis has said he wants to reduce dependence on nuclear weapons by using conventional guided munitions to destroy buried targets.  If such weapons cannot penetrate to where bunkers might be located, then U.S. troops can attack the sites to render their entrances and exits unusable, he said.  Ellis has also said he wants to employ U.S. Special Forces to guide conventional air attacks on bunker sites.

?This innovative approach will enable (Strategic Command) to deliberately and adaptively plan and rapidly deliver limited-duration, non-nuclear combat power anywhere in the world,? Ellis told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee last month.

Some arms control advocates have said that guided conventional weapons would be more effective than nuclear warheads against buried targets because a nuclear weapon could not penetrate the ground far enough without destroying itself or creating huge amounts of fallout.  For example, a nuclear bomb or missile warhead could only penetrate the ground to a depth of 50 feet, according to nuclear physicist Sidney Drell.  To be effective, a more than 100-kiloton weapon would be needed to destroy a target buried 1,000 feet underground.

Drell has said that a new pilot hole weapons system project currently being developed by the Sandia National Laboratories could be a more effective option.  In this program, one detonation creates a hole above a target, and then guided munitions are directed at the same hole, he said.

?You have successive explosions, and you can increase the depth to which you penetrate,? Drell said (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, May 4).

Back to top

Russia:  Tokyo, Moscow to Begin Scrapping Nuclear Submarines

Japan and Russia are expected to begin scrapping and removing nuclear materials from more than 40 decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines off Russia?s eastern coast this summer, officials said Saturday (see GSN, Jan. 22).

The two countries are expected to sign an agreement on the dismantling effort later this month, the officials said.  The project, expected to take about a year, is set to begin in August after radioactive wastes and spent fuels are removed from the 41 submarines, the officials said (Daily Yomiuri, May 5).

Back to top

Syria:  Powell Warns Syria, Washington is Watching

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, meeting with top officials in Damascus Saturday, said yesterday that the United States is closely watching Syria, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, May 2; Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, May 5).

U.S. President George W. Bush and other top U.S. officials have accused Syria of developing chemical weapons, harboring members of the deposed Iraqi leadership and supporting terrorist groups.

?I think that we believe there are chemical weapons in Syria,? Bush said April 13 (see GSN, April 14).

Two days later, immediately before announcing his trip to Damascus, Powell said that the United States is ?concerned about Syria?s development of [chemical] weapons.  We are concerned about Syria?s continuing support of terrorist organizations? (Global Security Newswire, May 5).

Syrian President Bashar Assad understands there will be ?consequences? if Syria does not comply with U.S. demands, Powell said yesterday.

?It?s performance that we?ll be looking at in the days and weeks and months ahead,? Powell said of Assad.  ?We had a good, candid exchange of views, and there are no illusions in his mind as to what we are looking for from Syria,? he added.

Pentagon adviser Newt Gingrich had sharply criticized Powell?s visit to Damascus, calling it ?ludicrous? and alleging that the State Department is ?broken.?

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rebuked that criticism and said Bush decided on the Syria visit.

?If you don?t like the decision (to go to Syria), don?t blame the secretary, blame the president.  He?s the one who made the decision.  I happen to agree with it,? Rumsfeld said (DeYoung, Washington Post).

Powell also dismissed Gingrich?s comments.

?Mr. Gingrich was taking a broad swipe and shot at the policies of the United States,? Powell said, adding, ?he missed the State Department and hit the president? (CNN.com, May 4).

Back to top

United States:  Bush, Putin to Discuss Missile Defense Cooperation

Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush will discuss potential missile defense cooperation during talks this month at St. Petersburg?s 300th anniversary celebration, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, April 10).

The discussion is set to take place in the context of the nuclear weapon-reducing Moscow Treaty, signed by both countries but ratified by neither, according to AP.

?It is a very serious issue that, we think, will be a very important channel for further interaction and strategic military partnership between Russia and the United States,? Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said yesterday.

Weaponizing Space

Yury Koptev, the head of the Russian Aviation and Space Agency, said that Washington wants to militarize space, and that effort could spur Russian action.

?This is a destabilizing factor,? Koptev said.  ?If such programs are developed, our doctrine and plans will have to be reviewed in order to deal with the potential threat,? he added (Associated Press/Moscow Times, May 5).

Back to top

U.S.-Canada:  Canada Expects Missile Defense Debris

If a U.S. missile defense shield worked successfully against an incoming threat, Canada would play the role of ?debris acceptance,? the Ottawa Citizen reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2002).

The Canadian Defense Department noted the possibility of debris hitting Canada in a report written last year.

?Even without participation (in missile defense) we are still involved (with) ?debris acceptance,?? according to the report.

Canada has yet to make an official decision on participation in the U.S. national missile defense program, but Defense Minister John McCallum recently said that missile defense ?may be a good idea for Canada? (David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen, May 4).

Back to top