International Response:  G-8 Pledges to Help Countries Combat Terrorism

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

EVIAN, France — The Group of Eight today agreed to increase efforts to help countries develop better capabilities to combat international terrorism.

The U.N. Security Council’s Counterterrorism Committee has outlined a number of areas for capacity-building assistance, such as counterterrorism legislation and practice, law enforcement, domestic security measures and export control measures, according to an action plan released today at the G-8 summit here.  Assistance in these areas could take the form of providing training, dispatching specialists or providing equipment as requested by other countries (see GSN, April 7).

To help countries develop improved counterterrorism capabilities, the G-8 agreed today to create a Counterterrorism Action Group.  Group members will provide funding, expertise or training facilities, and will focus their activities on the areas and countries of their expertise, according to the action plan.  The purpose of the group is to both help countries with the greatest need improve their counterterrorism capabilities and to avoid duplicating the efforts of other G-8 members, according to the plan.

The group has scheduled its first meeting July 15 and is expected to have prioritized needs and countries’ assistance requests by a second meeting scheduled for Oct. 15.

“For the peace and security of the world, it is essential for all countries, including developing countries, to enhance such [counterterrorism] capability,” the G-8 said in its action plan.

The G-8 today also agreed to further support the U.N. Counterterrorism Committee by ensuring that it is properly staffed and by outlining measures countries can take to fulfill their obligations under U.N. terrorism resolutions, particularly Security Council Resolution 1373, which was passed following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.  In addition, the G-8 members also pledged to encourage countries that are not yet members of international counterterrorism conventions to join such agreements and to urge regional organizations to do more to ensure that their members implement Resolution 1373.

The action plan calls for the G-8 to produce a report on the progress of its counterterrorism efforts in time for the group’s summit next year.

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Threat Level Lowered To Yellow

U.S. security officials have lowered the national terrorist threat level from orange to yellow, the Washington Post reported Saturday (see GSN, May 21).

Yellow represents an “elevated risk,” while orange is “high risk.”

“The U.S. intelligence community has … concluded that the number of indicators and warnings that led to raising the level have decreased and the heightened vulnerability associated with the Memorial Day holiday has passed,” Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Friday (John Mintz, Washington Post, May 31).

Back to top

International Response:  G-8 Reports “Substantial Progress” in Implementation of Global Partnership

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

EVIAN, France — The Group of Eight today released a report praising the “substantial progress” achieved in helping to secure and dispose of Russian WMD materials to prevent them from falling into terrorist hands, but also called for progress to continue (see GSN, May 30).

The G-8 effort, the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction was initiated during the G-8 summit last year in Kananaskis, Canada (see GSN, June 28, 2002).  The partnership calls for G-8 members — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and United States — to provide $20 billion over 10 years to fund nonproliferation projects, primarily in Russia.

According to a report released here today at the G-8 summit, a group of senior G-8 officials has determined that “substantial progress” has been made in translating the partnership into concrete nonproliferation projects.  “At the same time, much work remains to be done,” the report says.

The report praises progress on implementing several contentious partnership guidelines that form a framework for the negotiation of specific projects, such as tax exemption and liability issues (see GSN, May 22).  In addition, a proposal to help simplify access to project sites by reducing prior notification requirements from 45 days to 30 days is considered an “improvement” but is still contentious to some partnership members, the report says.  It adds that this proposal should continue to be evaluated over the next year.

In its report, the G-8 also praised progress made in launching new cooperation projects with Russia.  For example, new projects designed to aid in the destruction of former nuclear submarines have been launched at two Russian shipyards on Russia’s east coast, according to the report.  It also says that agreements have been reached on a program to end Russian production of weapon-grade plutonium and on the acceleration of efforts to secure Russian stockpiles of fissile materials and nuclear weapons (see GSN, May 28).  In addition, the report highlights the progress made in improving security at Russian biological research facilities and in the conversion for former WMD production sites to produce commercial products.

The report warns, however, that for all the progress made in launching cooperative projects with Russia, “sustained and broadened efforts will be needed.”

In addition, the G-8 report also calls for further outreach efforts in both new partnership members and targets.  For example, Ukraine has presented an official application to become a partnership recipient country, in addition to Russia, according to the report.  While the G-8 answered Ukraine’s request positively “in principle,” the partnership is still in its initial phase and thereby focused on projects within Russia, the report says.  The senior officials group has expressed a readiness, however, to enter into preliminary discussions with countries willing to adhere to the partnership’s guidelines, it says, adding that some G-8 members have already begun pursuing projects in other former Soviet states.

The European Union has decided to organize an interparliamentary conference on the partnership in November in Strasbourg, the report says, adding that the decision to hold such a conference is “fully supported” by the G-8.

Nongovernmental Experts Also Push for Continued G-8 Efforts

Speaking Saturday in Morzine, near Evian, a panel of nonproliferation experts praised the initial results of the G-8 nonproliferation efforts.

The global partnership was “urgently needed” in Russia because of the difficulties Moscow had previously had in securing nuclear materials and stockpiles of chemical weapons, said Vladimir Orlov, founding director of the PIR Center for Policy Studies in Russia.  For example, a 1994 Russian government document described the lack of physical protection, as well as poor security, at a naval facility on the northern Kola Peninsula that housed stockpiles of enriched uranium, Orlov said.  The same facility would have much better security today because of increased international assistance, made possible through the partnership, he said.

Russia itself is applying more resources to the security problem, Orlov said.  For example, Moscow has agreed to provide $2 billion over the next 10 years to the partnership, making it the second largest donor to the effort behind the United States, he said.  In addition, eight leading Russian security experts have recently presented recommendations on further implementation of the partnership to Russian President Vladimir Putin, he said. 

The concern now is whether Russia will meet its funding pledge, as well as whether it will fully meet the principles set forth in the partnership, Orlov said.  For its part, the G-8 also needs to develop a schedule for the provision of pledged funding, he said.

While in the last year there has been “more good news … than bad news” concerning the security of Russian WMD materials, such materials are still at risk, according to Orlov.  In January, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that intercepted communications from Chechen militants expressed an interest in sabotaging nuclear facilities and capturing nuclear materials, he said.

Another concern is the status of former Soviet weapons scientists, who are feared to be potential sources of information and expertise for rogue states and terrorist groups.  Despite the risk posed by such scientists, Russia has chosen to focus its initial efforts on disposing of strategic submarines and its vast chemical weapons arsenal, Orlov said. 

He nevertheless defended Moscow’s priorities, arguing that disposing of actual weapons was a sensible first step, in part because those activities would attract international attention.

The threat posed by scientists potentially aiding terrorist groups or other states may also be exaggerated, according to another expert.  Rudimentary information on making weapons of mass destruction is easily available, said Laura Holgate of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, so restricting access to WMD materials should be the primary concern.

Additional Areas

Another possible area for possible increased cooperation is the disposal of Russian general-purpose nuclear submarines, said Sverre Lodgaard, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.  Russia currently has about 100 such submarines that need to be scrapped, at a cost of millions of dollars per submarine, he said. 

Norway, which has sent a letter of intent to France regarding joining the global partnership, is soon set to enter into an agreement with Russia to aid in the disposal of two general-purpose nuclear submarines, Lodgaard said.

Lodgaard also called for a “crash program” to accelerate the blending down of stockpiles of highly enriched uranium for later use as fuel in civilian nuclear power plants.  Stockpiles of highly enriched uranium pose a greater threat than plutonium because terrorists could develop a crude nuclear device more easily with uranium, he said.

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  Bush Proposes New Initiative to Block Suspect Cargo Shipments

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

U.S President George W. Bush proposed Saturday a new international effort to help block illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technologies.

The United States has already begun contacting a number of countries, such as Poland, on the development of new legal agreements authorizing the search of planes and ships carrying suspect cargo, Bush said during a press conference in Krakow, Poland.  Legal agreements developed through the Proliferation Security Initiative would also provide authority to seize illegal shipments of WMD- or missile-related components if discovered. 

“When weapons of mass destruction or their components are in transit, we must have the means and authority to seize them,” Bush said.

The issue of the legality of stopping and seizing suspect cargo was dramatically demonstrated late last year when a joint U.S.-Spanish effort briefly seized a North Korean ship carrying at least a dozen disassembled Scud ballistic missiles to Yemen. 

Bush said he would work to continue to add new members to the initiative.  “We will extend this partnership as broadly as possible to keep the world’s most destructive weapons away from our shores and out of the hands of our common enemies,” he said.

The initiative is likely to be a topic of discussion during a one-on-one meeting between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac scheduled for today during the Group of Eight summit in Evian, France, according to Chirac spokeswoman Catharine Colonna.  While France is not opposed to consideration of the issue, one concern is the legal basis for the stopping and seizure of WMD- and missile-related technologies, Colonna said during a press conference. She added that the planned initiative could also be included in a larger nonproliferation system.

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Pentagon Report Outlines Chemical, Biological Defense Needs and Solutions

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A range of new vaccines, real-time multiagent detection systems, safer decontamination solutions and less burdensome protective clothing are among the numerous measures sought by the U.S. military to better protect U.S. forces against chemical and biological warfare threats.

The various needs — and the solutions planned to address them — were outlined in the annual report of the Defense Department’s Chemical and Biological Defense Program provided to Congress in April and released to the public last month.

To develop improved chemical and biological defense technologies, the Pentagon this year requested more than $1.1 billion to research, develop and acquire chemical and biological defenses in fiscal 2004, up $35 million from the previous year’s request.

At a March congressional hearing, the senior Pentagon official overseeing the effort said U.S. forces are becoming better prepared for operating in chemical and biological warfare environments, but conceded that there are shortcomings.

“I believe that the forward-deployed troops are the best protected that they can be,” said Dale Klein, assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense.

Nevertheless, “we wish we had better standoff detectors, we wish we had better antibiotics, we wish … we knew what was coming so that we could detect to prevent rather than detect to treat,” he said.

Michael Powers, a senior fellow at the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute here who recently completed a review of U.S. biological defense activities, similarly said there are two particular weaknesses in U.S. biological defense capabilities in particular, both on the prevention side: detection and vaccine availability.

The detection weakness is of particular concern because the military’s approach to chemical and biological defense focuses on preventing contamination.  Post-exposure treatment is a less preferable option, as it would inevitably require removing soldiers from the battlefield.

“Their emphasis is really on preventing exposure rather than preventing disease,” he said.

Detection Capabilities

The report specifically says there is a need for battlefield chemical and biological detection systems that are able to detect and identify in real time all known chemical and biological agents.

“Current technologies require a high level of logistical support and lack discrimination in biological standoff detection,” it said.  “Real-time detection of biological agents is currently unavailable and is unlikely in the near- to mid-term, though investment efforts are reducing detection times.”

Detection devices are needed for a range of entities, from ships to vehicles to soldiers, according to the report. 

Soldier Protection Systems

Insufficient detection systems, Powers said, hinder soldier contamination avoidance efforts because soldiers may not have enough time to don their protective equipment.

“What you want to do is provide ample warning that an agent could be moving through your area so you could don your gas mask,” he said.

The recent Pentagon report says efforts are underway to develop protective clothing that is longer lasting and less burdensome to the soldier in terms of weight and heat.

“Individual protection equipment must also provide protection against emerging threats, such as novel agents or toxic chemicals,” it says, suggesting that the challenge will be difficult and complex.  “Integral respiratory protection requires tradeoffs between physiological performance parameters such as pulmonary function, field of regard, speech intelligibility and anthropometric sizing against constraints of cost, size/weight, protection time and interfacing with other equipment.”

A breakthrough could be pending, according to the report, as a new mask now in the final stages of testing is expected to offer increased protection, improved comfort and usability.

Funding also is directed toward technologies to reduce the weight, volume, cost and deployability of chemical- and biological-safe shelters and to integrate skin and respiratory protection systems into major weapons systems.

That, too, can be a challenge, as protection is sought for incorporation into major land, sea, and air weapons systems — for instance, within the Army’s Comanche, Crusader, Bradley, Breacher, Heavy Assault Bridge, Future Scout and Cavalry systems.

Decontamination Systems

More efficient, less destructive decontamination systems also are needed, the report says.

“Existing systems are effective against a wide variety of threat agents, yet are slow and labor intensive and present logistical, environmental, material and safety burdens,” it says.

According to the report, existing systems are inadequate for decontaminating electronic equipment or for a large area, such as a port or airfield.  The military is searching for decontaminants that are not water-based or corrosive, can be used on equipment to neutralize a wide range of agents, pose no “unacceptable” health hazards and require reduced manpower and logistics to implement.

Medical Defense

Another major biological defense weakness, said Powers, is the availability of vaccines for the many possible biological weapons threats. 

The nature of the science and technology, he said, forces the Defense Department to develop specific vaccines for a broad array of potential threat agents, often after a lengthy testing processes for safety.

The military currently lacks Food and Drug Administration-licensed vaccines for a number of biological weapons threats.  Work is underway to develop and license vaccines for Q fever, tularemia and smallpox.  There are options, however, for the development and licensing of 10 other vaccines, the report says.

In the next two years, the military expects to have licensed a paste for reducing chemical agent exposure to skin and a pretreatment for protection against soman, a nerve agent.  It also aims to produce a new system for identifying and diagnosing biological agent exposure, licensing the antibiotic cyprofloxacin for treating anthrax and approving a shorter dosing schedule for administering anthrax vaccine, the report said.

Anthrax vaccination currently requires a primary series of six doses given over 18 months, with an annual booster to maintain immunity.

“The protocol makes it difficult to complete before deployment of forces or to ensure that mobile forces, once deployed, are administered the proper regimen,” it said.

Work also is underway to assess the effectiveness of current medical countermeasures on nontraditional chemical and biological agents and to assess the effects of low dose exposure to chemical agents on soldiers.

Powers says the military is much more prepared to deal with the chemical threat than the biological threat.”

“Longstanding programs within the Chemical Corps, a lot of the training and education programs that have been underway for several years if not decades have really focused on the chemical weapons threat, or dealing with the biological threat in sort of the context of a hazardous materials response,” Powers said, noting that the military is much more prepared to deal with a chemical threat than a biological one.

“What DOD I think has come to realize in the past couple of years … is a sort of gradual shift to recognize the difference in both the threat and necessary response for chemical and biological weapons and a recognition of the important role played by the public health and the medical care providers within DOD in dealing with the biological weapons challenge,” he added.

Back to top

Iraq I:  Scientist Says Saddam Hid Weapons Programs Near Commercial Facilities

An Iraqi scientist has told Bush administration officials that Saddam Hussein placed the country’s chemical and biological weapons programs close to commercial facilities in an effort to produce the weapons on a moment’s notice, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN , May 29).

Positioning the alleged WMD programs near commercial facilities also helped to keep them under wraps, the scientist said.  In a May 7 White House document made available to the Post, the scientist describes Iraq as having “carefully embedded its (weapons of mass destruction) infrastructure in dual-use facilities” so the weapons could be made quickly in the event of an attack.

According to the Post, the commercial facilities also made legitimate products such as pesticides, but “such sites also could employ ‘just in time’ manufacturing and delivery systems to reduce the need for stockpiles,” the document noted.

Administration officials have pointed toward the recent discovery of two trailers in Iraq that could have been used to concoct biological weapons.  The trailers — one captured by Kurdish forces near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and turned over to U.S. troops in late April and a second discovered by U.S. troops at the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development and Engineering site in Mosul in early May — have long been suspected of being mobile biological production plants (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, June 2).

The United States is ramping up efforts to find weapons of mass destruction, sending in the Iraq Survey Group, which will consist of 1,300 to 1,400 personnel.  The team will be led by Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, who is scheduled to arrive in Baghdad today.

“This will be a deliberate process and it will be a long-term effort.  We will be using all sources to put together pieces of an incredibly complex jigsaw puzzle,” Dayton said (Politi/Alden, Financial Times, May 31).

Some Looted Barrels Recovered

U.S. officials, meanwhile, are busy recovering barrels that were used to store nuclear material that were looted from Iraqi government facilities.

U.S. forces are paying $3 for barrels that originally contained uranium and were being used by civilians for storing food and washing clothes, Reuters reported.

“We recovered 100 barrels, but we do not know how many more are out there,” said Lt. Col. Brent Bredehoft, head of the U.S. unit searching for the radioactive material (Reuters/Sydney Morning Herald, June 2).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Coalition Nations Defend Assessment of Iraqi Weapons

Today and over the weekend, top U.S. and British officials defended their prewar intelligence estimates of Iraq’s WMD capabilities, according to reports.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair today supported British intelligence assessments on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that were released prior to the recent war.

“I stand absolutely, 100 percent” behind the intelligence information, Blair said this afternoon at a press conference held during the Group of Eight’s summit in Evian, France (Mike Nartker, GSN, June 2).

Yesterday, Blair said he had seen new evidence of Iraq’s WMD arsenal “which is not yet public,” adding that he had “no doubt at all” that Iraq possessed illegal weapons (Sparrow/Brogan, London Telegraph, June 2).

Recently, there has been increasing criticism of information contained in a British dossier released last year on the threat posed by Iraqi biological and chemical weapons.  For example, the dossier said the Iraqi military could deploy such weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so — a claim some of Blair’s critics have called exaggerated.

Blair denied that any British intelligence had been “doctored” prior to release, saying that the British Parliament’s Joint Intelligence Committee had first cleared such information.  Blair also denied recent allegations made by former Cabinet member Claire Short that he and U.S. President George W. Bush made a secret agreement last year to invade Iraq. 

During his address today, Blair called for patience in assessing the results of the coalition’s search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  An international survey group is set to begin its work in Iraq this week, and the results will be released upon completion, Blair said (see related GSN story, today).  He refused to comment directly, however, on whether an independent inquiry of the disputed intelligence information will be conducted.

“Have a little patience,”  Blair said (Nartker, GSN).

Bush Claims Smoking Gun

Late last week, U.S. President George W. Bush told a Polish television station that the discovery of two Iraqi mobile laboratories meant the United States has “found the weapons of mass destruction,” the Washington Post reported yesterday (see GSN, May 29).

Officials did not find any illegal or dangerous biological agents in the two trailers, but the vehicles did contain laboratory equipment.  The threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was the major reason Bush cited for invading and occupying Iraq, but U.S. forces have yet to find any illicit weapons or biological agents that could be used to build weapons of mass destruction.

“We found the weapons of mass destruction,” Bush said.  “We found biological laboratories.  You remember when [U.S. Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons.  They’re illegal.  They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two.  And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on.  But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they wrong.  We found them,” he added.

U.S. officials have been shifting away from the prewar claims that Iraq had large WMD stocks and posed a direct threat to the United States, the Post reported.

“Just because they found two mobile labs, to say that’s evidence of weapons of mass destruction is absurd,” said Kristian Denny, a spokeswoman for Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.) (Dana Milbank, Washington Post, June 1).

Tenet Defends CIA Analysis

In the face of growing criticism, CIA Director George Tenet Friday defended his agency’s analysis of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities, the Post reported (see GSN, May 30).

Tenet is sending Congress “all the statements made by the administration on weapons of mass destruction and the underlying intelligence that supported those statements,” according to Senator John Warner (R-Va.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Warner said that he might support an investigation of the intelligence that supported the U.S. invasion.  Warner said, however, that his actions should not be construed as criticism of the agency or Bush’s decision to invade.

Democratic lawmakers were more critical.

“If we don’t find these weapons of mass destruction, it will represent a serious intelligence failure or the manipulation of that intelligence to keep the American people in the dark,” according to Graham.

Representative Jane Harmon (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the House intelligence committee, said that she is concerned about weapons of mass destruction that have not been found and might be in the hands of U.S. enemies.

If weapons of mass destruction are buried in Iraq, “someone knows where that is, Saddam Hussein and his sons may still be alive, and the major moral underpinning of our war, to prevent him from using (weapons of mass destruction) against American interests and Iraqi citizens, may still be out there,” Harmon said (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, June 2).

Powell Was Frustrated at Holes in Allegations, Report Says

Before the invasion, the Bush administration was seriously divided over the merits of the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, according to U.S. News and World Report.

On Feb. 1, 24 U.S. officials reportedly met to review Secretary Powell’s pending speech to the United Nations, in which he would allege an extensive Iraqi WMD program.

Powell reportedly became frustrated with holes in the U.S. allegations.

“I’m not reading this,” Powell reportedly said after throwing some pages of the speech in the air.  “This is bull----,” he added.

In the speech he presented to the United Nations, Powell excluded some allegations that did not stand up to a close examination, according to U.S. News and World Report.

Lower ranking officials were also distressed.

“The policy decisions weren’t matching the reports we were reading every day,” said a U.S. intelligence official (U.S. News and World Report, June 9).

Greg Thielmann, a recently retired State Department intelligence analyst who was directly involved in reviewing intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, said that “there is a lot of sorrow and anger at the way intelligence was misused,” according to Newsweek (Newsweek, June 9).

Back to top

U.S. Response III:  Washington Deploys Sensors to Map Wind Currents

U.S. scientists have installed wind strength and direction sensors in the Washington, D.C., area to reduce the consequences of a potential chemical, biological or radioactive terrorist attack, the Washington Post reported today.

The system, called DCNet, consists so far of 30-foot aluminum weather towers erected near sensitive sites in the area, including the U.S. Capitol, the White House, tourist spots and highways.  The sensors are designed to forecast how urban “wind fields” might disperse fallout from a weapon of mass destruction, according to the Post.  The sensors will sample the wind 10 times per second, and data will be downloaded to experts every 15 minutes.

“The Washington exercise is seen as a prototype of what could eventually be a nationwide program,” said Bruce Hicks, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s air resources laboratory, which created the $500,000 network.  “The system now in place offers this area an unparalleled capability to plan for possible attacks and to respond if one were to occur,” he added.

A sister program, called SensorNet, has been launched by the U.S. Energy Department, the Post reported.  This $3 million program has added gamma-radiation detectors to the towers to test their feasibility in detecting a radiological terrorist attack.

The U.S. House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations is scheduled to hold a hearing today to examine technologies that model the spread of airborne biological, chemical and radiological agents.

“In the Cold War, we plotted the course of ballistic missiles,” said Chairman Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) in a press release last week.  “In the war against weapons of mass destruction, we need to be able to predict the path of toxic clouds across new battlefields abroad and here at home,” he added (Spencer Hsu, Washington Post, June 2).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Moscow Treaty Enters Into Force

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

The U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty entered into force yesterday when U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin exchanged instruments of ratification during a meeting in St. Petersburg.

Also known as the Moscow Treaty, the pact calls for the United States and Russia to deploy no more than 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads each by the end of 2012.  The U.S. Senate approved the treaty in March (see GSN, March 7), and Russia’s legislature completed its approval process last week (see GSN, May 28).

“Today we mark an important achievement in the relations between the United States and Russia,” Bush said yesterday during a press conference at the Konstantin Palace in St. Petersburg before heading to Evian, France, for a meeting of the Group of Eight.  “This treaty reflects the new strategic relationship that is emerging between our nations,” he said.

The United States and Russia now plan to create a bilateral implementation committee for the treaty, Putin said.  He also said he and Bush have developed instructions to help further a dialogue between the two countries in “all areas of our comprehensive agenda.”

One area of increased future cooperation is in missile defense efforts, Bush said, adding that missile defense is “essential to the security of both our nations.”    

“We will intensify efforts to confront the global threats of terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, that threaten our peoples and freedom-loving peoples around the world,” Bush and Putin said in a joint statement.

In Russia, the lower house of the Russian Parliament, the State Duma, delayed consideration of the Moscow Treaty’s ratification to register its disagreement with U.S. policy regarding Iraq.  Putin yesterday denied, however, that U.S.-Russian relations had been irreparably damaged by the Iraq crisis, adding that the treaty reaffirms the “strategic partnership” being developed between the two countries.

“We are aware of the questions being raised as to whether the relations between the United States and Russia will withstand the test of time,” Putin said.  “Today, we reiterated … our resolve to continue with our strategic partnership for the benefit of our nations and the entire world.  I must say that the fundamentals between the United States and Russia turned out to be stronger than the forces and events that tested it,” he added.

The diplomatic dispute that arose between the United States and France during the Iraq crisis was likely to be a topic of discussion between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac during a brief one-on-one meeting the two leaders scheduled for today in Evian, Chirac spokeswoman Catharine Colonna said yesterday.

During the meeting, Chirac would likely reiterate French rationales for opposing the war in Iraq during the U.N. Security Council debate on the issue that has contributed to tensions that have lasted into the present, Colonna said.  She added, however, that any discussions on Iraq would likely focus on future efforts to rebuild the country.

Back to top

North Korea:  U.S. Lawmakers Say North Korea Admits Reprocessing Nuclear Fuel Rods

North Korea claims to have nearly completed reprocessing 8,000 rods of spent nuclear fuel — the first step toward creating multiple nuclear weapons — according to U.S. lawmakers who recently visited North Korea (see GSN, May 30).

“They admitted to currently having nuclear capability and weapons.  They admitted to having just about completed the reprocessing of 8,000 rods,” said Representative Curt Weldon (Pa.), the second-ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Weldon said the United States must take action soon to deal with North Korea.

“It’s got to be short because the nuclear time is ticking in the North as they develop weapons,” Weldon said (Seo Hyun-jin, Korea Herald, June 3).

The delegation — also composed of Representatives Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) and Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas) — met with North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-Sun, Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-Gwan and the chairman of the North Korean assembly, Choe Thae-Bok (Korea Times, Seo Soo-min, June 2).

Chinese President Hu Jintao told U.S. President George W. Bush that North Korea has backed off earlier demands that U.S. diplomats meet Pyongyang’s representatives in direct talks to resolve the nuclear standoff, USA Today reported (Judy Keen, USA Today, June 2).

Following a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, Bush called on North Korea to abandon its nuclear aspirations.

“We strongly urge North Korea to visibly, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantle its nuclear weapons program,” Bush said.  “The United States and Russia are determined to meet the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them,” he added (Financial Times, June 1).

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Conditions More Nuclear Oversight on End to Sanctions

Iran said Friday that it would only be willing to accept more stringent nuclear oversight if economic sanctions were lifted (see GSN, May 30).

“If sanctions are lifted and we are allowed access to nuclear technology, we are fully prepared to sign any new additional protocol,” Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Friday.  U.N. officials have been pushing Tehran to adopt the Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would increase the agency’s power to inspect and monitor Iranian nuclear activities.

Kharrazi also suggested that Washington could help Iran’s nuclear development, even though U.S. officials have criticized Russian nuclear assistance to Iran and accused Tehran of secretly developing nuclear weapons.

“Russia has helped us a lot to build the Bushehr nuclear power plant to produce electricity,” Kharrazi said, referring to the joint nuclear project in southern Iran.  “Western countries can also participate in tenders we are planning to offer for the construction of more nuclear plants,” he added (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press/London Guardian, June 1).

An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obliges Washington to assist Tehran with peaceful nuclear development.

“The question of sanctions has to be resolved first.  We will not sign any other international accord while the West does not respect its obligations outlined by the NPT, and does not help us with (peaceful) nuclear technology as the NPT obliges them to,” said spokesman Hamid Asefi (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, June 2).

Russian officials echoed the invitation.

“There is enough room for everyone,” said Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev.  Iran is planning to build five more nuclear reactors and the United States is welcome to take part, he said.

“We have made this proposal to our American colleagues several times during discussions on the expert level, and they have been saying they need to think about it,” according to Rumyantsev (Beirut Daily Star, June 1).

The IAEA, meanwhile, said that it is not yet clear if Iran’s expanding nuclear program is intended to develop nuclear weapons.

“Building these facilities does not automatically mean this is a weapons program, because they can have peaceful applications in a nuclear program dedicated to producing electricity,” said IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei (Reuters/Washington Post, May 31).

Back to top

United States:  Canceling B-1 Bomber Retirement Could Cost $1 Billion

Recalling 23 B-1B Lancer bombers from the brink of retirement may add more than $1 billion to the U.S. Air Force’s budget through 2009, Aerospace Daily reported today (see GSN, May 8).

Under a plan pushed by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld two years ago, 32 of the 92 bombers were slated for retirement.  Since that time, however, congressional armed services committees have approved proposals to keep 23 of the retired airplanes in circulation, according to Aerospace Daily.

“This is our last chance to halt the retirement of B-1s, since many are scheduled to be sent to Arizona by the end of this fiscal year,” Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said, noting that Rumsfeld’s decision to cut back on the number of bombers was made before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Under the proposals made by Congress, more than $20 million has been set aside in fiscal 2004 to reconstitute the 23 B-1s to operational status, Aerospace Daily reported.  Air Force officials, however, claim that they will need an additional $1 billion over the next six years to maintain a fleet of 83 bombers.  It’s “funding that is simply not available,” an Air Force spokesman said.

“In general, the Air Force believes our decision to consolidate the B-1 fleet down to 60 fully mission-capable aircraft resulted in significant improvements in overall fleet combat capability, and for the first time a robust, fully funded modernization program,” the spokesman said (Stephen Trimble, Aerospace Daily, June 2).

Back to top

United States:  Anniston Incineration May Begin Before All Safety Measures Are in Place

Four top-priority public safety measures may not be in place when the U.S. Army begins destroying a stockpile of chemical weapons in Alabama this summer, the Birmingham News reported Saturday  (see GSN, March 3).

Of greatest concern to local officials is the Army’s plan to begin burning the weapons at the Anniston Army Depot in July before construction begins on improved school ventilation systems to keep children safe in the event of an accident, according to the News.

More than 2,200 tons of chemical munitions stored at the depot are slated for disposal under the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Army officials are currently awaiting final approval from state environmental regulators before the incineration begins, the News reported.

Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) in January told Army officials he would oppose the opening of the incinerator unless four safety requirements were met: protecting nearby schools; assisting residents with special needs, such as the disabled; equipping the Army to activate warning sirens instead of having to call county officials first; and updating the emergency response plan to take into account the greater danger posed by lower levels of toxins, the News reported.

Although the Army plans appear to defy Shelby’s requests, the five-page proposed agreement notes that the ventilation systems will be intact by the time students return to class this fall.  The other three safety issues outlined by Shelby will “proceed concurrently with full agent destruction operations,” according to the agreement.

“Initiation of these reforms is a step forward; however, I will hold my judgment until I know where we are in terms of the initiation of these necessary safety requirements and the Army’s timetable for implementation,” Shelby said, adding that there was room for compromise (Mary Orndorff, Birmingham News, May 31).

Back to top

U.S.-Canada:  Chretien Supports Missile Defense Involvement

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien has thrown his country’s support behind a U.S. plan to develop a missile defense shield, Canada’s National Post reported Saturday (see GSN, May 30).

Ottawa approved negotiations Thursday with U.S. defense officials on missile defense cooperation.

“We are starting discussions because it is the defense of our cities.  The Americans do want to defend effectively New York, Boston, Washington, Chicago and Seattle.  Physically they have to stop the missiles before they get to Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal,” Chretien said.  However, he said he remained opposed to the weaponization of space.

“We are talking at this time about the defense from missiles.  It is not the weaponization of space.  It is establishing a defense system to protect North America,” he said.  “There will not be a program in which we will participate if it is to be the weaponization of the space,” he added (Fife/Alberts, National Post, May 31).

A recently released report from the Canadian Defense Science Advisory Board recommends Ottawa become involved in the missile defense effort.  The study was completed last August but was not made public until recently.

“This would be prudent given the threat to our forces and could position Canada much more strongly for continental missile defense in the future,” the advisory board’s report says (Canadian Press, June 1).

Back to top

European Plans:  NATO Panel Approves Missile Defense Study Requirements

NATO’s Military Committee last week approved a document detailing what officials want to see in a missile defense feasibility study to be conducted later this year (see GSN, May 15).

The classified military operational requirement was approved May 27 in remarkably short time, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported this week.  The contract for the study should be issued in October, Jane’s reported.

“There has been goodwill, accommodation and flexibility all round, and in a compressed timescale,” according to a NATO armaments official.  “The point of the new feasibility study is to inform a (future deployment) decision, not to presume it.  It is an options analysis to form a baseline from which that decision will be made — how and whether to go beyond TMD [theater missile defense],” he added (Luke Hill, Jane’s Defense Weekly, June 4).

Back to top

Israel:  U.S. Congress Cautions Against Arrow Missile Exports

Congress has warned Israel not to export the Arrow missile defense system without prior approval from Washington, Defense Week reported today (see GSN, Jan. 21).

The Arrow system was developed jointly by the United States and Israel, where it is currently deployed.  Washington paid most of the development costs for the system and also contributes to production costs, according to Defense Week (see GSN, Feb. 12).

In a new report, the House Armed Services Committee said, “The committee has reservations about recent interest shown by Israel in the sale of Arrow to third parties.  In the more general context of international cooperative missile defense programs, the committee has concerns regarding how such sales comport with the obligations of the United States under international treaties and agreements, the possibility of technology transfers that might assist foreign offensive missile programs and the rights of the United States to share in revenue generated through third party sales.”

The Senate Armed Services committee also complained about the potential Israeli export of a U.S.-funded program.

“The committee notes that the Department of Defense provided two-thirds of the funding for the development of the Arrow system and continues to provide funding for Arrow production, and that the Arrow system embodies U.S.-developed technologies,” according to a report from the Senate committee.  “The committee notes that any sale of the Arrow ballistic missile defense system to third parties should take place only after approval by the U.S. government, pursuant to the requirements of existing law,” the report says.

Exporting the Arrow might be prohibited by the Missile Technology Control Regime, but U.S. defense contractor Boeing ships Arrow parts to Israel for final assembly to avoid MTCR restrictions, Defense Week reported.  U.S. President George W. Bush has supported loosening the MTCR to allow for the proliferation of missile defense technologies (see GSN, May 21; John Donnelly, Defense Week, June 2).

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  G-8 Plans Action on Securing Radioactive Materials

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

EVIAN, France — The Group of Eight today released an action plan designed to improve the security of radioactive sources that could be used by terrorists to create “dirty bombs” worldwide.

The G-8 leaders here expressed support for an International Atomic Energy Agency effort to improve the safety and security of radioactive sources (see GSN, March 14).  To help those efforts, the G-8 has agreed to consider helping the IAEA in the event of a radiological accident or act of terrorism, and possibly to aid IAEA preventive measures.

G-8 members have also begun aiding countries considered the most vulnerable to radioactive material theft to securely manage all radioactive sources on their territory, including searching for and securing uncontrolled sources, according to the action plan. 

The G-8 today also pledged to begin a long-term review of measures to prevent the theft of radioactive sources.  Two measures being considered, according to the action plan, include political commitments by countries to uphold the principles of safe and secure radioactive material management and the identification of the most effective measures identified by the IAEA.  These measures could include the creation of national registers for radioactive sources, national legislation to punish the theft of such sources and national physical protection measures, the action plan says.

The G-8 praised the success of the March International Conference on Security of Radioactive Sources in Vienna, and supported a French proposal to hold a similar conference in France in the first half of 2005.

Back to top