U.S. Response:  U.S. Company to Begin Producing New Radiation Detector

The U.S. company ORTEC is set to begin production of a handheld radiation detector developed by the U.S. Energy Department’s Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Energy Daily reported today (see GSN, March 3).

Laboratory officials yesterday signed an agreement with ORTEC representatives on commercializing the RadScout radiation detector, which laboratory officials have said is both portable and easy to use.  In addition to detecting radiation, the detector uses software to identify what materials are likely producing the radiation, according to the laboratory’s Michael Dunning.

The RadScout is primarily designed to detect gamma rays and X-rays, but it also is equipped with a small neutron detector, Dunning said.  “This will address the vast majority of radioactive materials,” he said (Energy Daily, June 20).

Back to top

Iraq:  Bush Unfazed By Criticism, Believes WMD Search Has Just Begun

Senior Bush administration officials have said U.S. President George W. Bush is unconcerned with criticism over the lack of success so far in the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction because he believes the search has just begun, USA Today reported today (see GSN, June 19).

Although coalition forces have so far come up empty-handed, there are still a large number of leads that still need to be examined, officials said.  For example, only 157 of the 578 suspect sites in Iraq have been inspected, according to USA Today.  In addition, out of 255 senior Iraqi officials who may have knowledge of Iraq’s WMD efforts, only 69 have been captured.  Only seven out of 3,152 lower-level officials are in custody.  These lower-level officials have often been more helpful than higher-ranking ones, an official said.

Despite the lack of success so far, senior Bush administration officials said they were confident weapons of mass destruction would be found.  Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein “had a decade of experience at misleading the world,” White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said (Judy Keen, USA Today, June 20).

Kenneth Pollack, research director at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, has also argued that coalition forces will eventually find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

“Where are Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction?  It’s a good question, and unfortunately we don’t yet have a good answer,” Pollack said in a commentary published today in the New York Times.  “In any event, the mystery will be solved in good time; the search for Iraq’s nonconventional weapons program has only just begun,” he said.

The fact that coalition forces have so far been unable to find banned weapons at suspect sites is “not very significant,” Pollack said, because U.S. intelligence agencies have never claimed to know exactly where the alleged weapons of mass destruction were stored.  It is also possible that such weapons, as well as precursor materials and even WMD facilities, could be hidden in places “we never would have thought to look,” Pollack said.

Pollack also discounted the idea that if Iraq had in fact possessed weapons of mass destruction, then they would have been used during the recent war.  There are a number of possible reasons why biological and chemical weapons were not used against coalition forces, including poor Iraqi preparedness, the death or severe wounding of Hussein during the start of the war and the rapid coalition advance on Baghdad, Pollack said.

The discovery of two trailers by U.S. troops that the United States has claimed were mobile biological facilities could help explain why coalition forces have so far found no WMD-filled munitions in Iraq, Pollack said (see GSN, June 16).  Instead of keeping large stockpiles of such munitions, Iraq may have decided to only maintain a WMD production capability, he said, adding that this was “the most likely scenario.”

“Chemical and biological warfare munitions, especially the crude varieties that Iraq developed during the Iran-Iraq War, are dangerous to store and handle and they deteriorate quickly.  But they can be manufactured and put in warheads relatively rapidly — meaning that there is little reason to have thousands of filled rounds sitting around where they might be found by international inspectors,” Pollack said.

“It would have been logical for Iraq to retain only some means of production, which could be hidden with relative ease and then used to churn out the munitions whenever Saddam Hussein gave the word,” he said (Kenneth Pollack, New York Times, June 20).

Tuwaitha

Meanwhile, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Wednesday denied that looting at the al-Tuwaitha complex, the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program, resulted in the loss of large amounts of radioactive materials that had been housed at the site (see GSN, June 9).

“I was told this morning that all of the material that had been accounted for prior to this attack had been accounted for, and that there were some amounts that had been spilled on the ground and need to be cleaned up, but that the vast majority of what was there is still there and accounted for,” Gen. Peter Pace told the House Armed Services Committee.

U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also told the committee that almost all radioactive material stored at the complex had been recovered.

“I think most of the material has been recovered, but there was, I think, one canister that is missing, and that’s the cause of some concern,” Wolfowitz said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency dispatched a team earlier this month to the complex to determine the extent of looting there.  Pace said the agency team was “very satisfied with the support they are getting from coalition forces” (Federal News Service transcript, June 18).

Former British Cabinet Official Alleges Secret Bush-Blair Plot

Former British International Development Secretary Claire Short said Tuesday that senior British government and intelligence officials had told her that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had made a secret pact with Bush last summer to invade Iraq by March (see GSN, June 18).

“Three extremely senior people in the Whitehall system said to me very clearly and specifically that the target date was mid-February,” Short said yesterday before the British Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, which is investigating Blair’s decision to go to war with Iraq.

Blair told Bush that “we will be with you” without setting conditions, Short said.

Blair’s office denied Short’s allegations, saying Blair had worked as hard as possible to obtain support within the U.N. Security Council for a second resolution on Iraq that might have avoided war (Patrick Wintour, London Guardian, June 18).

Bush Misled U.S. Public, Senator Says

U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has accused Bush of “misleading every one of us” when he led the United States into war with Iraq, according to the London Independent.

Bush justified the need for war on at least two pieces of false information — that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger and that Iraq had drones capable of launching biological attacks, Kerry said.  Bush also broke a promise to seek international support for military action, he said.

“He misled every one of us,” Kerry said.  “That’s one reason why I’m running to be president of the United States,” he said.

While it is too early to fully determine if the war was justified, a congressional investigation into the prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is needed, Kerry said.

“I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America’s credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied, he lied to me personally,” Kerry said (Rupert Cornwell, London Independent, June 20).

Back to top

South Africa:  Basson Likely to File Lawsuit for Military Reinstatement

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Wouter Basson, the former head of apartheid-era South Africa’s “Project Coast” biological and chemical weapons program, appears set to file a lawsuit seeking reinstatement in the South African military, a researcher at the University of Cape Town told Global Security Newswire Wednesday (see GSN, June 9).

Basson, who has been dubbed “Dr. Death” by the media for his involvement in Project Coast, was discharged from the South African National Defense Force, along with more than 20 other senior officials, during a 1992 purge, according to the book Secrets and Lies: Wouter Basson and South Africa’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Program.

In October 1999, Basson became a defendant in what would become one of the longest and most expensive trials in South Africa’s history on 46 charges stemming from his involvement in Project Coast, including charges of murder and attempted murder.  Last year, Basson was found not guilty on all counts (see GSN, April 11, 2002).  While prosecutors sought a retrial, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal earlier this month refused their request.

Soon after the prosecutors’ request for a retrial was rejected, Basson began making public statements indicating his desire to be reinstated into the military, according to South African media reports.  He is currently employed as a cardiologist at a private Cape Town hospital.

In an interview last week with South Africa’s e tv network, Basson strongly indicated that he would file a lawsuit seeking reinstatement, according to Chandre Gould, a researcher with the Center for Conflict Resolution at the University of Cape Town.

During the interview, according to Gould, Basson said he had affidavits from former military commanders that said he would have been promoted to the position of military surgeon general if he had not been discharged.  Basson also said that if he had remained in the military, by now he would have been its highest-ranking officer, and therefore would be eligible for the position of head of the defense force.  Gould argued against this, however, saying the head of the Army was usually chosen to be the overall commander of the military.

When asked by the interviewer why he did not gracefully retire, Basson replied that he had “unfinished business,” Gould said.

Basson was quoted by News24 earlier this month as saying he would accept a military posting “anywhere, as long as I can achieve my seniority.”  Basson was also quoted as saying that he had likely “outgrown” the military medical service, where he previously served.

The South African National Defense Force did not reply to requests for comment on Basson’s possible reinstatement.

Gould said she suspected that Basson was attempting to seek financial compensation from the defense force on the basis that his 1992 discharge was unfair.  She added that she did not believe the military was likely to either reinstate Basson or pay him because of concerns that the more than 60 other people who were dismissed at the same time would file similar claims.

Psychological motivations could also be behind Basson’s desire for reinstatement, said Jeffrey Bale, a senior research associate at the Monterey Institute of International Studies Center for Nonproliferation Studies.  Basson probably views reinstatement as an opportunity for vindication after his criminal trial, as well as a sign that his career and reputation is fully restored, Bale said.

“I’m convinced that the psychological symbolism of it is more important to him … since he will then be in a position to laugh at the expense [of] his former adversaries,” Bale said.

Back to top

International Response:  European Union Calls on Iran, North Korea to Abide by Obligations

The European Union today called on Iran and North Korea to abide by their international obligations regarding their nuclear programs (see GSN, June 16).

In a draft statement, the EU called on North Korea “to visibly, verifiably and irreversibly dismantle its nuclear programs” and to fully comply with international nonproliferation treaties. 

The statement, set to be presented to EU leaders later today, also said that Iran must be “fully transparent … in all its nuclear activities” and urged Tehran to sign an Additional Protocol to its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement “so as to restore much-need confidence.”

“We keep on saying to Iran that they have to sign the Additional Protocol and to comply with the IAEA,” EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said (Agence France-Presse, June 20).

In addition, the statement describes weapons of mass destruction as “the single-most important threat to peace and security,” adding that “the most frightening scenario” is one of terrorists obtaining such weapons (Stephen Castle, London Independent, June 20).

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Says Nuclear Development Will Continue

Responding to an International Atomic Energy Agency statement asking Iran to show restraint in its nuclear program, Tehran said yesterday that it would continue with scheduled plans to add nuclear materials to a uranium enrichment plant (see GSN, June 19).

The 35-member IAEA board of governors yesterday appealed to Iran to hold off from putting nuclear material into the enrichment facility “as a confidence-building measure.”

Iran’s IAEA representative, Ali Akbar Salehi, said the nuclear development would continue and that Iran would not accept additional inspections of its facilities.

“Iran is already being fully cooperative.  We are happy that the board did not yield to pressure to adopt a resolution (condemning Iran),” he said.  “The U.S. is probably not very happy with the outcome because they wanted a resolution and they were not able to get (it) … The reason the resolution failed is that everyone knew there were political motivations behind it,” he said (Financial Times, June 20).

Salehi said Iran was opposed to allowing more intrusive international monitoring of its nuclear activities, but he reiterated that Iran would cooperate with existing IAEA activities in the country.

“We cannot bind ourselves to doing more than we are already committed to,” Salehi said.  “The process of cooperation with the IAEA will go on unhindered,” he added (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, June 19).

The U.S. representative to the IAEA, Kenneth Brill, said the statement released yesterday by the board of governors sent a message of concern to Iran.

“I’m very satisfied with the outcome,” Brill said.  “We have an important message from the board that supports the U.S. position and concern about the Iranian program,” he said (Richard Bernstein, New York Times, June 20).

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday the agency needs more information about Iran’s nuclear development efforts.  He also repeated his appeal for Iran to adopt the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, which would allow more intrusive inspections of nuclear facilities by IAEA officials.

“The jury is still out,” ElBaradei said.  “We still have a lot of work to do and we will be hopefully in a much better position to make a judgment by September or earlier if we can,” he added (IAEA release, June 19).

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Iran is close to signing the Additional Protocol, Agence France-Presse reported today.

“According to information that we have in hand, the leadership of Iran is ready to join all protocols, to all demands of the IAEA, concerning control of (Iran’s) nuclear program,” he said.  “We will build our relations with any country — including Iran — based on their openness in relation to the IAEA,” Putin added (Agence France-Presse, June 20).

The president of TVEL, the Russian nuclear fuel producer that is slated to supply nuclear material to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, said that the deal is contingent on Iran’s compliance with the IAEA.

“No fuel will be supplied until Iran’s entire nuclear industry is put under IAEA monitoring,” said Alexander Nyago (Interfax, June 18 in FBIS-SOV, June 18).

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami reportedly telephoned Putin to assure him that Iran was not developing or procuring nuclear weapons technology (Financial Times).

Bolton Says Military Action Possible

The United States has the right to use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons but the thought is “far from our minds,” U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton told BBC today.

U.S. President George W. Bush “has repeatedly said that all options are on the table.  But that (military action) is not only not our preference, it is far from our minds,” Bolton said.

He added, however, that a military strike “has to be an option” and said that Iran is “pursuing multiple routes to nuclear weapons, and we need to get that stopped” (Agence France-Presse, June 20).

Back to top

North Korea:  Washington Pushes for Security Council Condemnation

The United States has prepared a draft document that it hopes will push the U.N. Security Council to censure North Korea for developing nuclear weapons, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, June 19).

John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, discussed the draft with Russian, British and French diplomats Wednesday.  Negroponte met separately with Chinese diplomats yesterday, according to AP.

China has opposed any Security Council action on North Korea, and it reiterated that stance Wednesday.

In the draft, which would take the form of a statement from the council, Washington criticizes North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs “and the actions the regime has taken since last October when it acknowledged it was pursuing a uranium enrichment program.”

“The council calls upon the D.P.R.K. to immediately and completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable and irreversible manner, and come into full compliance with its obligations” under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Although Negroponte refused to discuss the negotiations over the draft, he said “we will certainly continue to pursue” the effort (Associated Press/USA Today, June 20).

The United States has informed Japan, South Korea and other partners about its effort to gain Security Council condemnation of North Korea’s actions.

Traveling to a meeting of Asian and Pacific states this week, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “we will make judgments in the weeks ahead as to whether we want the U.N. to take any action” (Kyodo News Agency, June 19).

North Korea, meanwhile, said again this week that it plans to develop a nuclear deterrent to a U.S. invasion.

“The D.P.R.K. will put further spurs to increasing its nuclear deterrent force for self-defense as a just self-defense measure to cope with the U.S. strategy to isolate and stifle the D.P.R.K.,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency reported Wednesday (Korean Central News Agency, June 18 in FBIS-EAS, June 18).

Back to top

NPT:  Former Officials Say Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Battered

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The 1968 treaty banning nuclear weapons from all but five countries continues to be battered by insufficient compliance, the holdout of key nations and outright cheating, two former senior U.S. diplomats said Wednesday.  The situation is threatening the fragile consensus upon which the treaty was built, they said.

To be effective, “the NPT must continue to be taken seriously by all of its members … and that means the nuclear weapons states, including the United States, need to be serious about their own NPT obligations,” former Undersecretary of State John Holum said in prepared remarks presented to a bipartisan congressional task force on nonproliferation issues.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty needs stronger safeguards and more rigorous enforcement, he said.  It is also challenged by risks posed by nonmember nuclear aspirants and from the failure of nuclear weapons states “to negotiate in good faith toward disarmament,” Holum said.

Although treaty parties agreed to a permanent extension to the treaty in 1995, that “clearly did not end the nonproliferation struggle,” he said.

The Basic Bargain

Thomas Graham, former general counsel of the defunct Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, said the treaty was made possible through a “basic bargain” between the nuclear states at that time and the rest of the world.  The former would agree to share peaceful nuclear technology and gradually move toward nuclear disarmament, and the latter would renounce efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

Graham offered a snapshot of what the world might look like without the treaty.

Had the treaty not existed, he said in prepared remarks, “there could be as many as 50 nuclear weapons states today.”  He cited a recent International Atomic Energy Agency estimate that 60 to 70 states around the world currently have the capability to build nuclear weapons.

“In such a world, every conflict would carry with it the risk of going nuclear, it would be impossible to keep nuclear weapons out of the hand of terrorists because they would be so numerous and so widespread and indeed civilization as we know it would hang in the balance every day,” he said.

Half of the Bargain

Graham said the bargain was not being sufficiently honored by the nuclear weapons states, citing the United States in particular.

While 183 nations have signed on to refrain from nuclear arms, he said, “we have to face the fact that the nuclear weapons states have not fully lived up to their half of the NPT basic bargain.”

He cited four issues on which non-nuclear treaty parties had expected progress:

*         entry into force of the nuclear test ban treaty, which the Bush administration has rejected;

*         deep reductions in nuclear weapons;

*         a treaty terminating the production of fissile material; and

*         a legally binding agreement for nuclear states to refrain from using nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states.

Graham noted that the nuclear powers in 1995 had recommitted to those goals in exchange for an agreement on a permanent extension to the treaty. 

On the fourth point, he cited a Bush administration policy in particular.

“The United States, in its recent Nuclear Posture Review, indicated it did not believe itself bound by these assurances in that five states that were then NPT non-nuclear weapons states (Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea) were singled out as possible targets of U.S. nuclear weapons,” he said.

Holum criticized the administration for its interest in possibly developing new low-yield nuclear weapons and for abandoning the START II Treaty and other disarmament goals by instead signing the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty last year.

That treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty, codified “low-hanging fruit” agreed to in 1997, he said, but it “actually slows the pace of [nuclear arms] reductions, and will leave higher numbers available at the end.”  It also requires no destruction of warheads or delivery platforms, he said.

“As you evaluate these programs, I invite you to measure their security rationale against the risks they pose to the NPT regime and the global consensus on nuclear nonproliferation,” he said.

Administration’s Different View

Bush administration officials have also expressed an interest in a strong NPT and suggested it is in jeopardy, but have argued the threat is weakened by insufficiently rigid enforcement and not by a lack of progress in nuclear disarmament.

The treaty is “dangerously out of balance,” said Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation John Wolf at a preparatory meeting for the 2005 NPT review conference in April (see GSN, April 28).

“Without strict enforcement, the international confidence that has underpinned the treaty will dissolve, and the basis for peaceful sharing of nuclear technology will be destroyed,” he said.

Wolf said the United States “remains firmly committed to its obligations under the NPT,” and cited the Moscow Treaty and “other U.S. actions” as evidence of the United States moving to “promote the goal of nuclear disarmament.”

“Disarmament continues, and in fact took a significant step forward with the signing of the Moscow Treaty,” he said. 

“In two decades, the United States will have eliminated or decommissioned three-quarters of its strategic arsenal.  We have also given up whole classes of tactical nuclear weapons, and we have withdrawn remaining stocks from almost every overseas site,” Wolf said.

Back to top

Russia:  Moscow to Maintain All Aspects of Nuclear Triad, Defense Official Says

A senior Russian military official has said Russia plans to maintain all three aspects of its nuclear triad — air-, ground- and sea-based nuclear weapons — for the foreseeable future, Interfax reported yesterday.

“Russia will definitely keep its nuclear triad by the date set for the fulfillment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, and in the following years,” said Col. Yuri Baluyevsky, first deputy chief of the Russian General Staff.

Baluyevsky also said he believed Russia would fulfill its Moscow Treaty obligations by the 2012 deadline (see GSN, June 5).  “We will definitely fulfill this document,” he said (Interfax/CDI Russia Weekly, June 19).

For further information, see:

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

Back to top

Smallpox:  Panel Warns Against Expanding Immunizations

An influential health advisory board yesterday cautioned against expanding the national smallpox immunization campaign to millions of emergency workers, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, June 19).

Meeting yesterday in Atlanta, officials from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — which counsels the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine issues — said it would be “unwise to expand beyond its current, pre-event smallpox vaccination recommendations.”

The move comes as many health officials are saying that the immunization program has effectively stopped well short of U.S. President George W. Bush’s goals, the Post reported.  In December, Bush said he wanted 500,000 civilian health care workers immunized by the end of February and another 10 million emergency workers immunized by this summer.  Approximately 37,000 civilian health workers have been immunized to date.

The committee cited “new and unanticipated safety concerns” in cautioning against expanding the program.  During the civilian and military immunization campaigns, an unexpected number of people experienced cardiac difficulties, particularly tissue swelling in and around the heart.

The CDC is reviewing the program at the six-month mark, according to Joseph Henderson, the top bioterrorism official there.

Henderson said that focusing completely on vaccinations “is not a practical approach right now,” but maintained that the centers are “committed to the president’s decision.”

CDC Director Julie Gerberding said U.S. health officials would review the committee recommendation, but it was doubtful that immunizations would stop.

“The more people we have vaccinated, the better off we’ll be, and the fact that we have almost 40,000 people vaccinated is, I think, a tremendous step forward compared to where we were just six months ago,” Gerberding said.  “So we’ve made enormous progress, but we have more to do,” she added (Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, June 20).

The committee said the heart inflammation issue needed further exploration before inoculations can continue.

“The committee has believed from the beginning that we need to put safety above and beyond any other issue,” said John Modlin, committee chairman and professor at Dartmouth Medical School.  “This will allow us to buy some time, and to perhaps better understand both sides of the equation,” he added (Catherine Shoichet, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 20).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Pentagon Officials Blame Test Failure on Misfiring Control Jets

U.S. Defense Department officials have said the failure of a solid-fuel guidance system was responsible for a missile interceptor failing to hit its target during a sea-based missile defense test conducted earlier this week, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 19).

The solid divert and attitude control (DAC) system used to control the interceptor’s kinetic warhead stopped functioning, resulting in the missed intercept, officials familiar with the test said.  The system uses solid-fuel jets to guide the interceptor’s warhead.

The U.S. Navy, which helped develop the interceptor, was previously urged to use a liquid-fuel system, but rejected the idea because liquid fuel is more difficult to store onboard a ship than solid fuel, missile defense officials said.

“The Navy insisted on a DAC with solid fuel, but the technology makes it more difficult for it to burn and stop, and burn again,” a missile defense official said.

In this week’s test, one of the solid fuel “cells” failed to ignite, according to the Times.

“The Navy is demonstrating an inability to get the DAC to work right,” the official said.  “They keep saying they think it’s ready, but it’s not.  They have got to figure out how to fix it,” the official added.

A spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency said, however, that it is still too early to determine why the test failed.

“We’ll certainly analyze the performance of the solid divert and attitude control system (SDACS), along with the performance of every other component from which we received data during the test,” MDA spokesman Rick Lehner said in a statement (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, June 20).

Back to top