International Response:  U.N.  Studies Shows Some Antiterrorism Efforts Are Ineffective

The U.N. Security Council’s travel and arms embargo on individuals linked to al-Qaeda is not stopping the global terrorist network from carrying out attacks, according to a 42-page, unpublished U.N. draft report cited in Saturday’s Washington Post.

According to the report, since the sanctions were imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, no terrorist or weapon covered by the measures has been detained or seized at an international border.

“Despite the travel ban,” the report reads, “members of the al-Qaeda network have retained a high degree of mobility and have been able to carry out and contribute to terrorist attacks in several countries around the world.”

The report indicates that a U.N. list of over 220 people and groups said to be linked to al-Qaeda contains many misspellings and errors.  Thirty-four suspects are identified by a single name, and translations from Arabic to English vary. Also, the United States and other countries have reportedly refrained from releasing certain names to the United Nations because of concerns about compromising their own investigations.

The report indicates that efforts against al-Qaeda have been successful in some areas, with a number of senior al-Qaeda members having been arrested over the last year, but that recent attacks in Casablanca, Morocco, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, show that terrorists are “still willing and able to strike at targets of their choosing.” The group that carried out the attack in Casablanca is not directly linked to al-Qaeda, but according to the report, the incident demonstrates the organization’s ability to recruit new adherents.

Terrorists still have access to millions of dollars, according to the draft. The United States and other countries, the report indicates, are unable to freeze some al-Qaeda-related assets, allowing al-Qaeda members to “acquire adequate quantities of weapons and explosives where and when they need them” (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, June 21).

Back to top

Iraq:  IAEA Team Accounts for Most of Missing Tuwaitha Material, ElBaradei Says

An International Atomic Energy Agency team investigating reports of looted radioactive materials from the Tuwaitha complex, the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program, has accounted for most of the missing material, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday (see GSN, June 20).

“The initial report is that most of the material is accounted for, but I still have to wait for the final report," ElBaradei said.

The IAEA team is expected to report their findings to the agency’s Vienna headquarters next week, ElBaradei said.

“We have a team there right now — they will come back some time next week,” ElBaradei said.  “So next week I will be in a better position to give a report on the status of the nuclear material,” he added (Reuters, June 22).

WMD Search

Meanwhile, U.S. troops Saturday raided an abandoned community hall in Baghdad and recovered documents that may contain information about Iraq’s WMD efforts, according to the Associated Press.

Acting on an intelligence tip, U.S. troops early Saturday morning raided the hall, located in Baghdad’s Azamiyah district, according to the AP.  Inside, they found two large rooms that housed cryptograph machines, secure transmission devices and binders of documents.  Some of the documents, which were marked with the seal of the Mukhabarat secret intelligence service, included manifests for the delivery of communications equipment to the Iraqi nuclear agency, AP reported.  The documents have been given to senior intelligence analysts for review.

“It’s potentially significant,” said Capt. Ryan McWilliams, a battalion intelligence officer from the 1st Armored Division who examined the recovered documents at his unit’s headquarters (Jim Krane, Associated Press/Washington Times, June 22).

Some analysts have said that two trailers recovered in Iraq by coalition forces were not intended for use as mobile biological facilities, as the United States has claimed, but may have been intended to produce hydrogen for weather balloons.

A veteran intelligence official has said he believes the trailers were intended to produce hydrogen for weather balloons routinely used by Iraqi field artillery batteries.  The trailers were not equipped with sterilization equipment, such as autoclaves, that would be needed to produce biological agents, the official said. 

The trailers also were equipped with canvas tarpaulins on the sides that appeared to be designed to be lifted to allow excess heat to escape during hydrogen production, the official said.  The tarps would allow too much dust and other contaminants to enter the trailer if it was meant to produce biological agents, the official said.

“We didn’t find what we expected to find,” the official said (Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, June 21).

Blix Speculates on Iraqi Rationales for Noncooperation

In an interview last week with the Arms Control Association in Washington, retiring chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix speculated on the possible reasons why Iraq refused to fully cooperate with U.N. inspections prior to the war.

One possible reason is that Iraq saw a value to maintaining a type of ambiguity as to whether they possessed biological weapons, Blix said.

“Maybe they did not mind that people say, ‘Well maybe they have something’ — a deliberate ambiguity,” Blix said.  “It’s possible — the mystique of maybe having some biological weapons, maybe they’re playing around.  That is one possibility,” he said.

Blix could not explain, however, why Iraq would have sought to maintain such an ambiguity at the risk of war.

“Now, why should such a mystique — why should they pursue that until they are occupied?  That seems a little peculiar,” Blix said.  “Maybe by the force of its own logic or by miscalculation, brinksmanship,” he said.

Another possible factor could have been Iraqi pride, Blix said.  He noted that Iraqi officials were “legalistic” about complying only with the letter of U.N. disarmament resolutions and would not provide more cooperation than absolutely required.

“There must have been a strong element of pride, and that was why when I came here from the very outset, I said we are in Iraq for effective and correct inspections.  We are not there for the purpose of humiliating them, harassing them, or provoking them,” Blix said.

Blix also said that his consideration of Iraqi national pride might have been a factor in the improved relations the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) had with Iraqi officials than its predecessor, the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM).

“There were many other elements too that we differed from UNSCOM, but this was one and I still think that pride might have been an element and, while we had lots of frictions and difficulties with them, in any case, we had I think a less difficult relation than UNSCOM had,” Blix said.  “We had, in particular, never any denial of access, and we had a good deal of cooperation when it came to setting up the infrastructure.  So did UNSCOM have cooperation, but they of course had many denials of access,” he added (Arms Control Association release, June 23). 

U.S. Intelligence Review

U.S. senators agreed to a compromise Friday on the scope of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s review of the Bush administration’s handling of prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq, according to the New York Times.

Under the compromise, Senate Republicans agreed to allow the committee to conduct a review of the intelligence, while Democrats agree not to label the procedure an “investigation.” 

In a joint statement released Friday, committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and top-ranked Democrat John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) announced a “joint commitment” to conduct a “thorough review” of intelligence.  Neither senator used the word “investigation” to describe the procedure.  The wording of the statement was carefully drafted by both senators, congressional aides said (James Risen, New York Times, June 21).

The committee is currently reviewing the “thousands and thousands of pages” of classified documents provided by the CIA, Rockefeller said on Fox News Sunday.  The review could last “for the next, I would assume, couple of months,” he said. 

So far, the Senate Intelligence Committee has held one hearing on the issue, with an additional three hearings planned, Agence France-Presse reported (Agence France-Presse, June 22).

Both Roberts and Rockefeller yesterday criticized Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) for saying that U.S. President George W. Bush misled the United States into going to war with Iraq.

“The senator is running for president,” Rockefeller said.  “And I think that Pat Roberts and I make a distinction between people who are running for president and therefore need to capture attention, and what we on the Intelligence Committee have to do, which is to get the facts and to get the intelligence, the counterintelligence and then try and decide,” he said.

Meanwhile, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who is also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, offered his own criticism yesterday of the White House’s handling of Iraq-related intelligence.

“We were misled,” Dean said on NBC’s Meet the Press.  “The question is, did the president do that on purpose or was he misled by his own intelligence people?” he added (Audrey Hudson, Washington Times, June 23).

Back to top

Libya:  Tripoli “Aggressively Pursuing” Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bolton Says

U.S Undersecretary of State John Bolton said Friday that Libya has been “aggressively pursuing” weapons of mass destruction since the suspension of U.N. sanctions against the country (see GSN, April 7).

“Since the sanctions were lifted, Libya has been able to exploit the normalization of the economy to be more aggressive in pursuing weapons of mass destruction,” Bolton said in London.  “For example, Libyan agents are trying to acquire dual-use technology.  That in itself is very worrying,” he said.

The United States has begun to investigate whether Libya has attempted to recruit Iraqi scientists who worked in former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, according to the London Independent.  The United Nations suspended sanctions against Libya after the country cooperated in the extradition of two men charged in the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland (Kim Sengupta, London Independent, June 21).

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Prepared to Negotiate Over Additional Protocol

Iran is apparently moving away from a showdown over its nuclear development and is prepared to hold talks with U.N. officials, Reuters reported today (see GSN, June 20).

“We will definitely try to cooperate more than before with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] and give them the necessary assurances about Iran’s activities,” said Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s nuclear agency.  The United States has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, but Iran says it is only developing peaceful nuclear power technology to meet the demands of a growing population.

Aghazadeh said Iran is not necessarily opposed to signing the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, which would allow more intrusive monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear activities.

“We have never said we don’t want to sign the Additional Protocol … Our view about the protocol is positive,” he said.  “Naturally, the way we will choose is the way of cooperation and reaching an acceptable settlement for both sides,” he added (Paul Hughes, Reuters, June 22).

Aghazadeh said he wants to begin negotiations for the nuclear inspections soon, but “there are ambiguities that need to be removed” from the Additional Protocol.  Iran will “study the demands of the agency” and “wishes to commence discussions with the IAEA as soon as possible,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Washington Times, June 22).

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said that some segments of Iran’s leadership support the protocol.

“There is support inside Iran — in some parts of the government — for an additional protocol,” ElBaradei said.  “The longer there are negative doubts, the worse it is for Iran.  If I were in their shoes I’d take a peace offensive,” he added (Roula Khalaf, Financial Times, June 23).

Back to top

United States I:  Senator Criticizes Energy Department on Sandia Security

A U.S. senator has accused the U.S. Energy Department of failing to fulfill promises to investigate security problems at Sandia National Laboratories, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, March 21).

In a letter sent Friday to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) cited a long list of reports of fraud and security problems at the facility.  While the letter did not provide much detail into the exact nature of the security problems, it did mention the loss of keys “to every lock at the lab right up to the glass doors to the reactor.”

“You need to address these and other security matters at the nuclear weapons labs,” Grassley said in the letter.

“The labs are in harm’s way,” Grassley said in the letter.  “There is plenty of loud thunder.  Lightning will surely follow.  The labs are in danger of getting zapped,” he said.

In addition, Grassley also said that two investigators who raised questions about security at Sandia, Pat O’Neill and Mark Ludwig, have reported that they were transferred to work in a rodent-infested trailer, that they were reassigned to noninvestigative work and that they had their annual pay raises reduced.

National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Anson Franklin said that security at the U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories is the highest priority of both the NNSA and the energy secretary.  “We have multiple and redundant means at each facility to ensure that our secrets and materials are not at risk,” Franklin said (Matthew Wald, New York Times, June 23).

Back to top

United States II:  Energy Department to Hold Hearings on Sites for Proposed Pit Facility

The U.S. Energy Department is expected to hold public hearings this week in Amarillo, Texas, on the department’s proposed sites for a facility to produce new “pits,” or triggers, for nuclear weapons (see GSN, June 3).

One of the sites the department is considering for the Modern Pit Facility is the Pantex Plant in Texas, where nuclear warheads are assembled and dismantled, according to the Associated Press.  Other sites under consideration include the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Carlsbad site in New Mexico, the Nevada Test Site, and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

Energy officials are expected to decide by April of next year whether and where to proceed with the facility’s construction, AP reported.  Construction is slated to begin in 2011 and is expected to be completed by 2017.  The facility would then be set to begin producing new nuclear weapons triggers in 2020 and could produce between 125 to 450 triggers per year (Associated Press, June 23).

Back to top

Smallpox:  Immunization Program Falters, But Threat Remains

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The national smallpox immunization campaign has slowed to a nearly complete halt, but the threat of a smallpox terrorist attack has not been significantly diminished, according to a Republican lawmaker (see GSN, June 20).

“I don’t think there is any question that the need is still there for us to have a plan in place,” said House Select Intelligence Committee member Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who sponsored legislation in April designed to jumpstart the faltering vaccination effort.

Some public health experts agreed that the United States must continue to prepare for a possible smallpox attack.

“The threat is there … until the intelligence committee tells us it’s gone I’m unwilling to say it is gone, or decreased,” said William Bicknell, a Boston University professor and an authority on immunization planning.

In December, U.S. President George W. Bush announced the immunization campaign, which was intended to inoculate 500,000 civilian health care workers in “phase one” and another 10 million emergency workers in the second phase.  Health officials said they wanted to reach the 500,000 mark by the end of February, but only 37,000 health workers had been immunized by early June.  The campaign has not yet officially moved into phase two.

Burr sponsored a bill to compensate those sickened by the potentially harmful vaccine, a long unresolved issue that was keeping volunteers away from the program (see GSN, May 1).  Bush signed the bill into law last month, and lawmakers were hopeful for a swell in volunteers, but a quick end to the war in Iraq took momentum away from the effort, according to some officials.

The threat of a smallpox attack goes beyond Iraq, according to Bicknell and Kenneth Bloem, a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies.  In a soon-to-be-released paper from the CATO Institute, the two say that health officials should not allow the vaccination campaign to die.

“The smallpox risk has never been thought to be limited to the [Saddam] Hussein regime … as was true before the Iraq war, the decision regarding post-Iraq smallpox risk is for the intelligence community to assess, not for medical and public health personnel,” the paper says.

Last week, the New York Times reported that only 100 volunteers, nationwide, are receiving the vaccine each week and Burr said the program had stumbled out of the gates and had never recovered.

“Clearly we are not going to have the pool that we first thought we would,” Burr said.

Faced with low numbers of immunized health workers, Bicknell and Bloem called on the Bush administration to rejuvenate the campaign.  They also recommended the establishment of an advisory panel “to assure that bioterrorism response plans are adequate,” according to their report.

Burr said the United States must explore new technologies to improve biological defenses.

“We need to continue to look at alternatives that allow us to address an attack in a timely fashion, I don’t want us to look at the vaccination program as the only method to prepare for an attack,” he said.

Burr offered strong support for Project Bioshield — a $6 billion, 10-year effort to stockpile medicines and technologies to respond to a bioterrorist attack.  He said that the effort, proposed by Bush in his January State of the Union address, could advance promising new efforts.  The bill is currently in the House of Representatives (see GSN, May 23).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Washington Postal Facility Set to Reopen By Late November

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Brentwood Road postal facility here, which was contaminated during the 2001 anthrax attacks and has since been the focus of a major decontamination effort, is expected to resume full operations by the end of November, a U.S. Postal Service spokesman told Global Security Newswire today (see GSN, March 5).

Preliminary tests conducted in early March indicated that decontamination of the Brentwood Road facility had been a success.  An Environmental Clearance Committee — consisting of scientific experts from a number of agencies, including the Washington Health Department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration — then reviewed the results and declared the facility to be clean, Postal Service spokesman Bob Anderson said.

The Postal Service is now in the process of renovating the facility in preparation for resuming full operation, which postal officials have set for “the holidays” — meaning by the end of November, Anderson said.  The decontamination process, which involved filling the facility with chlorine dioxide gas to kill lingering anthrax spores, resulted in the creation of salt and water byproducts that caused some corrosion that needs to be cleaned, he said. 

The renovation work is being performed by contractors and former Brentwood Road employees working as volunteers, Anderson said, adding that the former employees working at the site are “enthusiastic and ready to get back to work.”  Community meetings are set to be held once the facility is fully operational to address lingering concerns, Anderson said, noting that no such meetings have yet been scheduled.

Back to top

United States:  Congressman Resists Safety Upgrade at Anniston Incinerator

A congressional measure that seeks to improve agent detection equipment at U.S. chemical weapons sites is being opposed by an Alabama congressman whose district includes the Anniston Army Depot, the Birmingham News reported Saturday (see GSN, June 2).

A “sense of the Senate” provision in its version of the 2004 defense authorization bill recommends that the U.S. Army update agent detection technology at all chemical weapon sites from “inefficient and outdated” to “newer and advanced” systems.  House Republican Mike Rogers said he opposes the recommendation, however, because he does not believe the existing equipment is outdated, according to the News.

Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ken.) has sought the support of senators and representatives from states or districts with chemical weapons sites to keep the language in the final bill.  Senators Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) support the measure.

“Congressman Rogers believes that there is no problem with further research looking at different technologies for this or any other system, but he is uncomfortable with insinuating that the present system is inadequate or unsafe for the workforce,” said Rogers’ Chief of Staff Rob Jesmer.

In addition, Anniston depot officials are against any measure to change systems, because the depot’s chemical weapons incinerator is close to beginning operation, said Anniston incinerator spokesman Mike Abrams.

“It would set us back an incredible amount of time we otherwise could be using to effectively reducing the present risk ... of continued storage of the weapons,” Abrams said.  “The best way to serve the community is to operate this facility now and not be delayed for any reason,” he said (Mary Orndorff, Birmingham News, June 21).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Critics Say Administration Misled Congress on Missile Defense Deployment Order

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — By exploiting nuances in terminology, missile defense critics say, the Bush administration misled Congress this year to help win approval of President George W. Bush’s missile defense plans.

The charge is based on official administration documents, statements by spokesmen and congressional testimony indicating that Bush ordered the Pentagon last December to “field,” rather than “deploy,” initial land- and sea-based missile defenses by October 2004.

Two key Democratic senators who cooperated on authorizing the program said they were assured by administration officials the system would be declared “fielded’ and not “deployed’ until the missile interceptors are proven to work under realistic conditions through operational testing.

Days after gaining key House and Senate committee approval for the initiative, however, the White House on May 20 issued a policy statement declaring its intention to “deploy” the systems by the deadline.  In addition, a recently leaked copy of the Dec. 16, 2002 order, “National Security Presidential Directive 23,” showed that Bush had directed the Pentagon to “deploy” the systems all along.

The leaked directive and current use of the term “deploy” have provoked criticism from some missile defense analysts.

“It’s clear to me that they’re trying to slip something past the Congress and the American people,” said Joseph Cirincione, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“There is certainly some deception going on,” said Lisbeth Gronlund, a missile defense analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“This is surprising since in testimony as recently as last month [Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald] Kadish described it as both an ‘initial defensive capability’ and a ‘test bed,’” Philip Coyle, former assistant secretary of defense and director of operational test and evaluation, said last month.

Pentagon spokesmen now say no distinction in terminology was intended.

“Fielding is deployment, deployment is fielding.  It’s just whatever word you choose to use,” said Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner.

“If they [White House officials] call it a deployment, it’s called a deployment … to me it’s one in the same,” he said.

A review of hearing testimony does show a mixed record on official statements.

Senate Concerns

Use of the term “field” rather than “deploy” was and remains important to two senior lawmakers in particular, who point to a 1983 law requiring the Pentagon to operationally test major weapons systems before deploying them. 

“Any decision to deploy missile defense prior to conducting operational testing would be contrary to current law, fiscally irresponsible, and would also call into serious question the effectiveness of the defense,” Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an April statement.

“I urge the Defense Department to conduct realistic operational testing on the 2004 missile defense systems as early as possible, prior to asserting that the systems are deployed and proven,” said fellow committee member Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

The term “field,” experts say, implies a status short of a deployment, reflecting the fact that the system would not be completely developed and tested by the time the first interceptor missiles entered service and would remain part of the testing infrastructure.

The Pentagon’s top testing official, Thomas Christie, in his most recent annual report to Congress concluded – and other officials have not disputed – that major components of the land-based interceptor system will not be deployed or fielded by the deadline, nor will the whole system be sufficiently developed to begin operationally testing by October 2004.

“This is a test bed, first and foremost,” Christie wrote.

He drew a similar conclusion with the sea-based system:  “There are significant capabilities yet to be demonstrated before the engagement conditions can be considered operationally realistic.”

Senate Democrats want to ensure the ordered system will be operationally tested, Gronlund said.  Furthermore, they want to avoid setting a precedent for the future, she said.

“They don’t want this to be a precedent for actually deploying something without testing.  They don’t want to cross that line,” she said.

The president would like the system declared deployed, rather than just fielded and available in an emergency, for political purposes, she said.

Bush wants to say before the next election, “this is it, I said I would build a missile defense system and here it is,” Gronlund said.

Deployment implies the system is “up and working, that we’ve really got something,” she said.

The White House, in its fact sheet released last month, said Bush’s order was justified by a the current security environment and the state of the missile defense technologies.

“In light of the changed security environment and progress made to date in our development efforts, the United States plans to begin deployment of a set of missile defense capabilities in 2004,” it said.

Pentagon Insisted on “Fielding”

The Pentagon first characterized Bush’s order as a fielding in a press release and statements by officials announcing the order on Dec. 17, the day after the president signed it. 

While declaring deployment a goal, the Pentagon’s press release announcing the decision said, “the president has directed the Department of Defense to begin fielding initial missile defense capabilities in 2004-2005.”

A White House release also used the term and Pentagon press officials at the time rejected the word deploy as a descriptor.

“We’re talking about initial capabilities now,” said Pentagon Public Affairs Officer Cheryl Irwin in a phone interview the day after the announcement.

Pressed to say whether it would be a deployment, she said, the military will “begin fielding initial missile defense capabilities.”

The Missile Defense Agency’s Web site fact sheet on the ordered activity also used the term field and stresses the system’s developmental nature.

Missile Defense Agency spokesman Chris Taylor said in a February e-mail, “We felt ‘fielding an initial capability’ was a more accurate description than deployment.”

Congressional Testimony

Since Bush’s order, senior administration officials often used the term “field” to describe the ordered activity, perhaps most significantly before Levin and Reed’s committee, where authorization was needed and the most vocal critics were found.

In particular, at a March 18 hearing there, Kadish, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Thomas Christie, and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy J.D. Crouch all chose that terminology.

“Last December the president directed the Department of Defense to field an initial set of missile defense capabilities because of our technical progress and our total lack of missile defenses against intermediate- and long-range missiles,” Kadish said in his prepared remarks.

Crouch in his first sentence referenced “the president’s recent decision to begin fielding missile defense capabilities.”

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics E. C. “Pete” Aldridge, Jr. differed with his colleagues in his prepared testimony.

“As you are aware, on December 19th, 2002, President Bush made the decision to deploy a limited Missile Defense capability beginning in 2004,” he said.

In questioning, though, Aldridge took a step back:

“The terminology ‘deployed’ bothers me … the word ‘deployed’ has a connotation that goes far beyond the construction of a test bed,” he said.

Aldridge suggested the “fielded” systems primarily would be part of the Missile Defense Agency’s development and testing infrastructure, while also available for operations.

The Pentagon was pursuing “the construction of a test bed which will be augmented with some limited operational capability,” he said.

Assurances Taken

Reed said administration statements that day, and previously, assured him that the system would be fielded and not declared deployed until it is operationally tested.

“In December 2002, President Bush issued a statement announcing his intention to ‘proceed with fielding an initial set of missile defense capabilities’ in 2004,” the senator in a statement.

“During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on ballistic missile defense held on March 18, 2003, Department of Defense officials, including the Pentagon’s acquisition chief, the director of the Missile Defense Agency, and the director of operational test and evaluation all told the committee that the missile defenses to be fielded in 2004 will be used to conduct more realistic operational tests,” he said.

Levin similarly, in April, said the three officials “all testified that the national missile defense system President Bush intends to say is ‘fielded’ in 2004 will be used to conduct realistic operational tests, and that the Defense Department did not intend to waive the requirement for operational testing of missile defenses.  I have not heard that they have changed their plans.”

The two Democrats, two of the administration’s most outspoken skeptics in Congress, on May 14 joined the majority Republicans to approve authorizing language to “field” the system contained in the 2004 defense authorization bill.  House and Senate delegations are expected to meet soon on the bill to reconcile bill differences.

In the House Armed Services committee, senior Democrats have not insisted on the distinction in terms, treating authorization of Bush’s order as an exception to the law.  In a statement on May 14, Representatives John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said they received Republican agreement that operational testing would be completed before future deployments.

Policy to ‘Deploy’ Indicated

On May 20, The White House issued a policy statement declaring its intention to “deploy” the systems by the deadline.

Later in the month, a leaked copy of Bush’s security directive was published on the Web that said twice the Pentagon would “deploy” the system.

“The United States plans to begin deployment of a set of missile defense capabilities in 2004.”

“The Defense Department shall begin to execute the approach proposed by the secretary of defense and shall proceed with plans to deploy a set of initial missile defense capabilities beginning in 2004,” it said.

Pentagon spokesmen now say no particular distinction has been intended, that the two words have been used interchangeably.

Pentagon spokeswoman Irwin wrote in an e-mail, “DOD and MDA (and it’s predecessor organizations) have used the words ‘deployed’ and ‘fielded’ interchangeably and both denote operational availability.”

In fact, some administration officials did previously say in congressional testimony Bush had ordered a deployment.  Two, in particular, were the military officials who will be responsible for operating the land-based system once it’s up and running: Army Space and Missile Defense Command Director Lt. Gen. Joseph Cosumano in March testimony and National Guard Bureau Chief Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum.

Others, such as U.S. Navy Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Vice Admiral John Nathman in March 27 testimony, and Kadish, did not.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in Feb. 13 testimony, was the most senior official to state deployment.

“We increased missile defense by $1.5 billion, including increased funds for research and development of promising new technologies, and to deploy a small number of interceptors beginning in 2004,” he said.

Rumsfeld under questioning, though, acknowledged the significance of the terms, calling “deployment” and “test bed” “hot button words,” while insisting a test bed with only a “minimal deployment” capability was intended.

His comments — and controversial administration-backed legislative language that some senators said would have waived the operational testing requirement for Bush’s ordered system — sparked criticism in the hearing.

“Your budget request seeks a waiver of the operational testing requirements to enable you to implement your plans to deploy a national missile defense system in 2004.  How do you justify bypassing operational testing requirements?” Levin said.

The administration officials before Levin in March denied that was the intent of the controversial language but said they accepted its removal from the bill.

Officials, including Irwin most recently, have said the administration intends to put the system through operational testing at some point after it is in the field.

Choice of Terms

Critics suspect officials tried to sell Congress on the idea of deployment, and while encountering resistance, tailored their message to make the authorization more palatable.

“My guess is there is a combination of deception and confusion, and some people are willing to muddy the waters for political purposes,” Gronlund said.

Furthermore, she said officials used varying terms for their own reasons.

“Different people have a vested interest in using one term or another,” she said.

“I think there is an interest on the part of the Missile Defense Agency and the Pentagon to call it fielding, because they have to be somewhat honest with Congress … and, then the White House clearly has an interest,” she said.

Cirincione says the Democrats were outright misled on the administration’s intentions.

“The administration laid down a smokescreen to prevent congressional objections to actually deploying a weapons system that hasn’t been tested.  And when they clearly got Congress’ OK for this, they pulled back the curtain and revealed that this is a deployment after all, establishing now the precedent of deploying the system without testing it.”

“I think the Pentagon has used whatever label is most politically convenient at the time for them,” said Arms Control Association analyst Wade Boese.

He praised the administration for skill at using language to set the course of a debate, saying, “Then that’s how people talk about it from then on.  I think this administration deserves credit for that, they are very good at getting their message across.”

Back to top

Japan:  Tokyo Allows Ballistic Missile Intercepts Over Japan

In a new interpretation of Japan’s Constitution, the Japanese Defense Agency said the country is allowed to intercept ballistic missiles that fly over its territory, including those that might not be targeting Japan, the Japan Times reported today (see GSN, June 13).

Officials at the Defense Agency said yesterday that intercepting a missile over Japan would not violate the constitution’s ban on collective defense.  If Japan implements a missile defense system, it cannot be used to help defend another country, the Japan Times reported.  However, a missile flying over Japan could accidentally fall short and hit the country, justifying an intercept (Japan Times, June 23).

Japan has decided to put fiscal 2004 money toward a two-layered missile defense system, the Daily Yomiuri reported today.  The plan would involve Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missiles and Standard Missile 3 missiles, according to Japanese officials.

The system — seen by some Japanese officials as the only effective means to respond to the threat of North Korean ballistic missiles — still faces legal and technical hurdles, according to the Daily Yomiuri (Michio Hayashi, Daily Yomiuri, June 23).

Back to top

Arab Plans:  Gulf States Plan Regional Missile Defense

The United Arab Emirates and some of its neighbors are planning to buy missile defense systems and integrate them into a regional missile defense shield, Defense News reported today (see GSN, April 24).

The six-member Gulf Cooperation Council will determine the requirements for a missile defense system by the end of the year, according to Maj. Gen. Khaled al-Bu Ainain, commander of the United Arab Emirates’ Air Force and Air Defense Command.

“If gulf states went with a series of Patriot missiles, it would be easy later on to integrate them in one regional defense system,” said Susan Baumgarten, president of Raytheon, which produces the Patriot missile.

The GCC includes the U.A.E., Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  Kuwait and Saudi Arabia already have Patriot missiles, according to Defense News (Riad Kahwaji, Defense News, June 23).

Back to top