U.S. Response:  Lawmakers Upset Over Port Security Funding Diversion

U.S. lawmakers expressed distress Tuesday about the Transportation Security Administration’s effort to divert port security funding to aviation security efforts, the Newport News Daily Press reported yesterday (see GSN, May 20).

The transportation agency, part of the U.S. Homeland Security Department, asked to move $105 million in port security funding to cover aviation security.

“I’m very concerned,” said Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), chairman of the House Transportation subcommittee that oversees the Coast Guard.  “We’re going to have to somehow revisit this,” he added.

Representatives said the move would shortchange the Coast Guard.

“I fear the Coast Guard is being stretched way too thin,” said Representative James Oberstar (D-Minn.), the senior Democrat on the House Transportation Committee.

Port security efforts are also hampered because funding has not yet been provided for the 7-month-old Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Daily Press reported.  Under that bill, the Coast Guard was ordered to conduct vulnerability assessments and security plans for 55 of the nation’s largest ports.

At a subcommittee hearing Tuesday, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thomas Collins said he was confident the assessments would be completed.

“I see no major potholes on the road to pursuing the vulnerability assessments,” he said, expressing confidence that the port security flap would be resolved soon (David Lerman, Newport News Daily Press, June 4).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Washington Wants to “Roll Back” Illicit Weapons from “Rogue” States

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States aims to “eliminate or roll back” suspected nuclear, chemical and biological weapons possessed by certain states and terrorist groups, potentially by using force, a senior Bush administration official said yesterday.

The statement was delivered even as administration officials are increasingly pressed to defend the U.S. justification for the March invasion of Iraq, where U.S.-led occupation forces have so far found no unconventional weapons.

Speaking at a House International Relations Committee hearing, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said the use of force would not necessarily be the first or only option for addressing suspected proliferation, but said it would be a consideration.

“We aim ultimately not just to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, but also to eliminate or roll back such weapons from rogue states and terrorist groups that already possess them or are close to doing so,” he said.

“While we stress peaceful and diplomatic solutions to the proliferation threat, as [U.S.] President [George W.] Bush has said repeatedly, we rule out no options.  To do so would give the proliferators the safe haven they do not deserve, and pose a risk to our innocent civilian population and those of our friends and allies,” he said.

In his prepared testimony, Bolton described Iran and North Korea as “axis of evil” countries and Libya, Syria, Cuba and Sudan as “beyond the axis of evil” countries either possessing such weapons or having a program, or “effort,” to acquire such weapons.

“The logic of adverse consequences must fall not only on the states aspiring to possess these weapons, but on the states supplying them as well,” he said.

Interdiction Plan

Bolton described a new U.S. plan, the Proliferation Security Initiative, through which the United States and allies would cooperate to interdict transfers of internationally restricted weapons and related technologies “at sea, in the air, and on land” (see GSN, June 2).

He said the United States plans to work with other countries using “a broad range of legal, diplomatic, economic, military and other tools,” and has begun working with “several close friends and allies to expand our ability to stop and seize suspected WMD transfers.”

The plan received endorsements from both Republican and Democratic committee members.

Criticism of Iraq Approach

Bolton’s comments were delivered as the administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair receive continuing criticism over the fact that no unconventional weapons have yet been found in occupied Iraq.  Several Democrats on the committee yesterday restated the criticisms.

“Like millions of Americans, I’m wondering where the hell the weapons of mass destruction are.  I think the administration faces a growing credibility gap regarding the weapons of mass destruction,” said Representative Joseph Hoeffel (D-Pa.).

Bolton said he anticipates that finding such weapons and their production means “will occur in due course.”

The invasion of Iraq and the administration’s policy of threatening force against unconventional weapons proliferators are controversial, in part, because the U.N. Security Council did not specifically authorize the Iraqi war and customary international law permits a pre-emptive attack only when there is evidence of an imminent threat.

Bolton said the “inextricable link between weapons of mass destruction capabilities and [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s regime meant that the only way ultimately that we could be secure both in ourselves and in terms of our friends and allies, that the intent of Resolution 687 be carried out, was to resort to military force.”

He said the United States was motivated because of Hussein’s “desire” to acquire unconventional weapons.

Bolton said, “it was his desire to have these weapons, his desire to conceal them from U.N. weapons inspectors, his desire to evade U.N. sanctions over more than a decade to procure the prerequisites to having weapons of mass destruction and his repeated and insistent violation of numerous Security Council resolutions that brought us to the conclusion that there was no option other than the use of military force to change the regime in Baghdad and deny them the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Bolton reiterated a statement in an earlier speech that a suspected Iraqi capacity for developing and producing unconventional weapons offered justification for a military attack (see GSN, May 23).

“It’s the weapon, it’s the delivery system, it’s the means of production, it’s the research and development, it’s the intellectual capacity, all of                         which are points on a spectrum,” he said.

“I think it’s very unlikely that we will find weapons-grade                        uranium or weapons-grade plutonium in Iraq.  But what we will find, what we know is there now, is the cadre of nuclear scientists and technicians, whom Saddam Hussein himself called his nuclear mujahadeen, who are                       the possessors of the intellectual know-how of how to construct nuclear weapons,” he said.

Representative Chris Bell (D-Texas) said the threatened use of force against proliferators could be counterproductive, potentially instigating an acceleration of the very proliferation activities it is intended to address.

“Our country’s pre-emptive actions, overwhelming military strength, and unprecedented projection of power capabilities have engendered distrust, resentment and hostile feelings in countries around the world and I’m afraid that in the interest of possessing some kind of leverage against what may be seen as overwhelming force, we have not provided a disincentive for nonproliferation, but rather an incentive,” he said.

Bolton responded, “It seems to me the lesson for the proliferators is that we don’t think that these weapons that you seek are things that you should have when they threaten us and our friends and our allies, and we are determined either to prevent you from getting them or to roll back the capacity if you have it.”

Back to top

Iraq I:  Blix Says Many Open Questions Remain on Weapons Programs

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — In his final briefing to the U.N. Security Council before his contract ends this month, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said this morning there are still many unanswered questions concerning Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and urged the council to keep the door open for the return of international inspectors (see GSN, June 3).

“The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items,” Blix said, referring to the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which he heads.  “This does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist.  They might — there remain long lists of items unaccounted for — but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for.”

Blix was presenting to the council his report, issued Monday, covering UNMOVIC activities in March, April and May.  Secretary General Kofi Annan withdrew the UNMOVIC inspectors along with all other U.N. personnel on March 18, just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Blix said that neither UNMOVIC nor its predecessor, the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, “made significant finds of weapons.  The lack of finds could be because the items were unilaterally destroyed … or effectively concealed” by the Iraqi authorities.  Blix said he hoped that “in the new environment” in Iraq “it should be possible to establish the truth we all want to know.”

The United States is now conducting all weapons inspections in Iraq and has repeatedly said U.N. inspectors will not be allowed to return.  Despite this, Blix said, “UNMOVIC remains ready to resume work in Iraq as an independent verifier or to conduct long-term monitoring, should the council so decide.”  Blix, who will retire when his contract with the United Nations expires June 30, added, “The core expertise and experience available within UNMOVIC remain a valuable asset.”

He said the “long list” of weapons and other items unaccounted for had not been reduced by the inspections so it was still necessary for Iraq to present those items or proof of their destruction. If this is not done, he said, “the international community cannot have confidence that past programs or any remaining parts of them have been terminated.”

Much attention is currently focused on two mobile laboratories the United States has found in Iraq that Washington claims were used for the production of biological or chemical weapons (see GSN, June 2).  Blix said these laboratories do not match the trucks found by UNMOVIC — and found not to be used for weapons — nor do they match photos provided by Iraq before the war, so UNMOVIC “cannot make a proper evaluation” of the new finds.

Until the day before they withdrew from Iraq, the U.N. inspectors were destroying al-Samoud 2 missiles that Blix had determined were illegal according to Security Council resolutions.  He said 25 of the 75 missiles remained intact, as did half of the declared warheads and 98 percent of the missile engines.  He said there had not been time to determine if a second missile system, the al-Fatah, violated Security Council resolutions.

Looking beyond Iraq, Blix reminded the council of the “strong commitment among nations … to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — to terrorists as well as to states — and to eventually achieve the elimination of these weapons.”

Back to top

Iraq II: Cheney’s CIA Visits May Have Influenced Reports, Analysts Say

Over the last year, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and his most senior aide made a number of trips to the CIA to question analysts examining Iraq’s suspected WMD programs — trips that created an environment that led some agency officials to feel they were being pressured to create analyses that supported White House policy objectives, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, June 4).

While not entirely unheard of, visits to CIA headquarters by a vice president are unusual, according to intelligence officials.  The exact number of trips Cheney made to the CIA has not been disclosed, but one agency official described them as “multiple.”

Because Cheney was one of the leading White House advocates of military action in Iraq by claiming it possessed weapons of mass destruction, the visits by him and his chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, “sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here,” a senior CIA official said.

Other CIA officials said, however, they were not bothered by Cheney’s visits, and some CIA officials even welcomed them, according to the Post.

A spokeswoman for Cheney yesterday refused to comment on the issue.

“The vice president values the hard work of the intelligence community, but his office has a practice of declining to comment on the specifics of his intelligence briefings,” said spokeswoman Cathie Martin (Pincus/Priest, Washington Post, June 5).

Yesterday, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith held a rare press briefing to counter charges that senior civilian policy makers had politicized intelligence on Iraq to support the case for war, according to the New York Times.

Feith said he had created a small intelligence team within his office shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to investigate possible connections between terrorist groups and other countries, such as Iraq.  Some intelligence analysts, however, have said Feith’s team provided an alternative, hard-line view on Iraq-related intelligence that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used during briefings with President George W. Bush.

“This suggestion that we said to them, ‘This is what we’re looking for.  Go find it,’ is precisely the inaccuracy that we are here to rebut,” Feith said.  “I know of nobody who pressured anybody,” he added (Eric Schmitt, New York Times, June 5).

Truth Will Be Revealed Soon, Bush Says

Bush said today that the United States would “reveal the truth” about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

“We’re going to look.  We’ll reveal the truth,” Bush said.  “But one thing is certain:  No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because the Iraqi regime is no more,” he added (Associated Press/New York Times, June 5).

Blair Faces Increasing Criticism

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing increasing criticism over British intelligence that claimed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Iain Duncan Smith, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, said “nobody believes a word now that the prime minister is saying.”

“The whole credibility of his [Blair’s] government rests on clearing up these charges,” Smith added.

More than 70 lawmakers in the British Parliament’s House of Commons from Blair’s Labor Party have signed a petition demanding that Blair publish his evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.  One Labor Party lawmaker, Malcolm Savidge, said the issue was “potentially more serious than Watergate.”

In addition, a Commons committee Tuesday approved an investigation into the matter.  Blair said yesterday that he would cooperate with the investigation (Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, June 5).

One of the most controversial claims of British intelligence, that the Iraqi military had the ability to deploy biological or chemical weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so, was based on information provided by a senior Iraqi military officer, according to the Associated Press.

The 45-minute claim was included in a dossier released by London last year prior to the war.  Officials in two departments described the source as having provided reliable information for years, AP reported (Michael McDonough, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 5).

Back to top

International Response:  G-8 Leaders Decry Use of Force

Leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations meeting in France this week said they were not considering the use of force against suspected nuclear transgressors North Korea and Iran, the Associated Press reported Tuesday (see GSN, June 3).

North Korea says it has developed nuclear weapons, but other countries are skeptical, while Iran says that it is not developing such weapons — although the United States insists that it is.

A G-8 declaration mentioned “other measures” that might be used to dissuade the development of nuclear weapons — language that many observers believe to mean military action.

“This interpretation, my dear sir, seems to me to be extremely daring,” said French President Jacques Chirac.  “There was never any question of using force against anybody, in any area,” Chirac added.

Leaders also pushed for a peaceful solution to the North Korean crisis.

“What is the solution for a situation like North Korea?  We don’t have the solution,” said Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien.  “The best course is always diplomacy, the United Nations and international organizations.  But you’re dealing with a government there that is not well known by anybody and not very well understood,” he added (John Leicester, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 3).

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi agreed with Chretien.

“We shall pursue through and through peaceful and diplomatic solutions to the North Korean problem,” he said.  “I think that was agreed upon last evening,” he added (John Tagliabue, New York Times, June 4).

Back to top

North Korea:  Hu Says North Korea Interested in Multilateral Talks

During a meeting Sunday, Chinese President Hu Jintao told U.S. President George W. Bush that North Korea is willing to participate in multilateral talks to defuse the nuclear standoff on the Korean Peninsula, Kyodo News Agency reported today (see GSN, June 4).

North Korea has long said it wants one-on-one talks with the United States, while Washington has insisted on a multilateral format.

Hu and Bush met during the Group of Eight summit in Evian, France.  Hu told Bush that North Korea wants “some sort of bilateral contacts as the price for a multilateral meeting,” according to a Bush administration official.

“If it means the North Koreans sitting at a table with two or three or four other parties, look us in the eye and say what’s on their mind, if you want to consider that a bilateral contact, then, sure, that will happen,” according to the official (Kyodo News Agency, June 5).

U.S. Plans to Consolidate

The United States will move a key military facility out of Seoul by the end of the year, United Press International reported today.  The 37,000 U.S. military personnel in South Korea are stationed in roughly 100 bases throughout the country.  As part of the developing plan, all U.S. forces will be consolidated into three large bases south of Seoul, according to Seoul’s Assistant Defense Minister for Policy Cha Young-koo.

U.S. defense officials also plan to move 15,000 U.S. military personnel away from the North Korean border in a two-stage plan that will unfold over several years, according to UPI (Jong-Heon Lee, United Press International, June 5).

U.S. Will Not Pay, Bolton Says

Meanwhile, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said yesterday that Washington will not pay for North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

“We continue to insist that North Korea must terminate its nuclear weapons program completely, verifiably and irreversibly,” Bolton said.  “And there will be no inducements to get them to do so,” he added.

Bolton said that paying North Korea would encourage other countries around the world to develop nuclear weapons.

“We are not going to pay for the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — a program the North should never have begun in the first place,” he said.

Bolton added, however, that “assistance would be provided to North Korea” if Pyongyang “addresses concerns about its WMD and missile program and exports, as well as other issues, including its conventional force disposition, narcotics trafficking, human rights and its continued sponsorship of terrorism outside its borders” (Agence France-Presse, June 5).

Defector Says South Korean Officials Used Intimidation Tactics

A North Korean defector claims in a Wall Street Journal commentary that South Korean officials intimidated his wife after he testified to a U.S. congressional committee on Pyongyang’s weapons programs (see GSN, May 21).

Using the pseudonym Bok Koo Lee, the defector wrote that South Korean officials have been pressuring him not to divulge information since he arrived in South Korea four years ago.

“It soon became obvious that they feared my testimony because it might jeopardize South Korea’s ‘sunshine policy,’ which seeks to keep the North’s repressive regime in power in order to avoid the economic consequences to the South were it to collapse,” Bok wrote.

Bok alleged that North Korean agents were in Iraq during the first Gulf War on “an operational war basis for Saddam Hussein.”  He wrote that he had traveled to Iran to test launch a missile equipped with a new guidance system.

Bok also wrote that 90 percent of electronic and guidance material for North Korean missiles comes from Japanese exports.  Implicating a tentative U.S. ally, Bok wrote that 60 Russian scientists work in North Korea to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

South Korean officials stopped harassing Bok’s wife after several U.S. lawmakers intervened, according to Bok.

Senators Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) and Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) stepped in and stopped the intimidation, “for the moment,” he wrote (Bok Ku Lee, Wall Street Journal, June 5).

Back to top

Iran:  Officials Disagree Over Russian Conditions for Nuclear Aid

Contradicting recent statements from Western officials, senior Russian officials denied yesterday that they would condition Russian nuclear aid to Iran on Tehran’s acceptance of more intrusive international monitoring, according to reports (see GSN, June 4).

The confusion occurred at the same time the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that its inspectors would begin a one-week visit to Iran Saturday to follow up on their February visit (see GSN, Feb. 24).  This new inspection comes just days before IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei is scheduled to brief the agency’s board of governors on his assessment of Iran’s nuclear activities.  The briefing is scheduled for June 16, but board members are due to receive advance copies next week (Yuri Kozlov, ITAR-Tass, June 5).

Yesterday, Russian officials said they planned to supply Tehran with uranium fuel for a nuclear power plant currently under construction, even if Iran does not sign the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement.  The protocol would allow the IAEA to conduct more intrusive inspections and monitoring activity in Iran.

The Russian remarks contradicted statements remarks made yesterday by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.  Speaking before Parliament following the Group of Eight summit, Blair said Russian President Vladimir Putin had “made it clear” that until Iran signed the protocol, “Russia would suspend its exports of nuclear fuel to Iran” (see GSN, June 3; Michael Wines, New York Times, June 5).

Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, however, said yesterday, “There is no link” (Agence France-Presse, June 5). 

He said Russia would begin supplying nuclear fuel to Iran as soon as Tehran signed an agreement promising to return the spent fuel to Russia.  “We are at a technical stage of issuing an additional agreement with Iran on the return of supplied nuclear fuel after it has been used for a required period of time,” he said.

“After that, there will be no obstacles to supplies of fresh nuclear fuel to Iran,” Rumyantsev added.

Iran is urging Russia to accelerate the construction of the Bushehr nuclear reactor, Rumyantsev said yesterday.  A storage site for nuclear fuel, complete with “many layers of physical protection,” has been completed and fuel deliveries could begin as soon as February, he said (Wines, New York Times).

Future construction efforts at the Bushehr plant, however, could hinge on Iran’s acceptance of the Additional Protocol, according to Putin’s top economic advisor Andrei Illarionov.

Iran’s signature of the Additional Protocol would be “the best way to remove all questions and suspicions,” Illarionov said.  “When the IAEA concludes that Iran does not have any military nuclear program, Russia will be able to restore normal times with this country,” he added (Peter Baker, Washington Post, June 5).

U.S. Attack on Iran Would Be “Suicide,” Ayatollah Says

Meanwhile, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said yesterday that a U.S. attack on Iran would be “suicide” (see GSN, June 3).

“The American threats are not new.  They have threatened us since the beginning of the Islamic revolution,” Khamenei said.  “They know that militarily attacking Iran and the Iranian nation would mean suicide for the aggressor,” he said (Business Recorder, June 5).

Back to top

Russia:  U.S. Missile Defenses Could Scuttle Moscow Treaty, Russian Lawmaker Says

The U.S. development of a national missile defense system could lead Russia to withdraw from the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which just entered into force this week, a senior Russian lawmaker said Tuesday (see GSN, June 2).

If the United States develops a missile defense system that “substantially affects our security,” Russia’s response could include a withdrawal from the Moscow Treaty, said Army Gen. Andrei Nikolayev, chairman of the State Duma’s defense committee.  “The ratification law makes provision for this,” Nikolayev said (ITAR-Tass, June 3 in FBIS-SOV, June 3).

Back to top

United States:  Former Air Force Chief of Staff Approves of Nuclear Weapons Commission

A former U.S. Air Force chief of staff yesterday endorsed the creation of a national commission to develop an overall strategy for the U.S. nuclear arsenal, according to Aerospace Daily.

The commission, included in a version of the fiscal 2004 defense authorization bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, would help to “focus attention” on nuclear weapons programs, which require long-term planning, said retired Gen. Larry Welch (see GSN, May 23).  The Senate version of the bill, however, does not contain a similar proposal (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, June 5).

Back to top

Belgium:  Authorities Find Letters Containing Nerve Gas Component

Officials have discovered 10 letters containing a nerve gas component sent to a number of targets in Belgium, including the U.S. and British Embassies in Brussels, the Belgian federal prosecutor said yesterday.

The letters contained phenarsazine chloride, which is used in nerve gas, and hydrazine, used in rocket propellant, the Belgian Health Ministry said, adding that both chemicals are also found in pesticides.  The letters only contained small amounts of the chemicals, but two postal workers were hospitalized after being exposed to the letters, which were found at postal facilities, according to Reuters.

Belgian police believe the letters all came from a single source within the country, said Lieve Pellens, spokeswoman for the federal prosecutor’s office (Reuters/Washington Post, June 5).

Back to top

Russia:  United Kingdom to Increase Aid for Weapons Disposal Efforts

The United Kingdom plans to increase the amount of financial aid it will provide to Russia next year for chemical weapons disposal efforts, British Ambassador to Russia Roderick Lyne said Tuesday (see GSN, June 4). 

The United Kingdom has pledged to provide about $750 million over 10 years to help fund Russian nonproliferation projects through the Group of Eight’s Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction program (see GSN, June 2; Interfax, June 3 in FBIS-SOV, June 3).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Senators Use Report to Criticize Missile Defense

Citing a critical government report released today, Democratic Senators Carl Levin (Mich.) and Jack Reed (R.I.) condemned U.S. President George W. Bush’s plan to field a national missile defense system by next year (see GSN, June 4).

“The GAO [General Accounting Office] report provides a troubling picture of a system without direction,” Reed said.  “The president’s decision to deploy an untested national missile defense system still seems to be motivated more by politics than effective military strategy,” he added.

Senate Democrats do not have the votes to block the missile defense plan, so they have instead focused on including language in the defense authorization bill that demands performance criteria and assessments, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, May 23; Bradley Graham, Washington Post, June 5).

“Fielding such an unproven system may pick up political points with some people, but it won’t contribute to the defense or security of our country,” Levin said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, June 5).

The GAO report, requested by Levin and Reed, criticized the Missile Defense Agency for rushing the program.

“Giving up this approach opens the door to greater cost and performance risks,” the GAO report says.  “While doing so may help meet the president’s deadline, it also increases the potential some elements may not work as intended,” the report adds.

The agency disagreed and said it was confident that a working system would be in place by October 2004.

“We are highly confident that we will field an effective, reliable defense of our 50 states by fall of 2004,” the agency said.  “This confidence comes from the outstanding technical success we have achieved in our development and test program,” the agency added.

The GAO did praise the agency for adopting “practices that offer the best opportunity to develop a complex weapon system successfully.”

Specifically, the plan to implement the missile defense system in stages, gradually increasing capability, is similar to commercial business practice and has experienced success, according to the report.

The report faulted the agency, however, for not identifying a total cost at the start of the project.

“Such an estimate would help decision makers in evaluating which technologies to include because they offer the best capability for the funds invested,” the report says.

The GAO also faulted the Defense Department for not allocating funds in its plan for spending through 2009.  Officials told the GAO that the funds were not allocated because the missile agency is not assuming political leaders will decide to develop the system and put it into operation (General Accounting Office report, June 5).

Back to top

Japan:  Tokyo Plans Two-Layered Missile Defense System

Japan plans to build a two-layered missile defense system using Patriot Advanced Capability 3 and SM-3 missiles, the Asahi Shimbun reported today (see GSN, April 17).

The Japanese Defense Agency will ask for the missiles in the fiscal 2004 budget, the newspaper reported.  Japan has been investigating a missile defense system largely because of the threat posed by North Korea (Xinhua News Agency, June 5).

Back to top