U.S. Response I:  Customs Proposes New Cargo Security Measures

The U.S. Homeland Security Department’s Customs and Border Protection service formally proposed new regulations yesterday that would require cargo shippers to transmit advance information on shipments prior to their arrival in the United States (see GSN, July 2).

The proposed regulations establish timeframes, based on the mode of transportation, for advance information on shipments to be electronically transmitted.  The information would be processed through an automated targeting system linked to law enforcement databases to allow the Customs service to better target suspect shipments, according to a Homeland Security press release. 

Under the regulations, shipments arriving by air and courier would have to transmit information four hours prior to arrival or at the time of take-off from certain nearby areas, according to the Homeland Security release.  Shipments arriving by rail would have to transmit information two hours prior to arrival in the country, and those arriving by ship would have to transmit information 24 hours before landing at a port.

Those shipments arriving by truck would have an hour to transmit information, according to the Homeland Security release.  Those trucks certified under the Free and Secure Trade program, however, would only have a deadline of 30 minutes prior to arrival.

“These security measures developed by Customs and Border Protection are important to the protection of America and the American people,” Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said.  “Advance cargo information is essential to not only preventing instruments of terrorism from being shipped into this country, but also to speed the flow of legitimate cargo across our borders,” he said.

The proposed regulations also require that information on exports be transmitted before leaving the United States (U.S. Homeland Security Department release, July 22).  This is to allow Customs agents to inspect shipments for cash leaving the United States and to help provide security for other countries, a Customs spokesman said.

A 30-day comment period has been established for the proposed regulations.  The final version is set to be submitted Sept. 15 and will go into effect 15 days later, as called for under the Trade Act of 2002 (Hamilton/Goo, Washington Post, July 23).

For further information, see:

HSD Federal Register announcement, July 23

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Senate Rejects Homeland Security Funding Increases

Republican senators yesterday voted down a measure that would have provided $1.75 billion in additional funding for homeland security efforts (see GSN, June 30).

Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) proposed the measure to add $29.3 billion to the fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Department appropriations bill.  The additional funding, which was defeated 50-43, would have exceeded spending limits.

“Homeland security initiatives are falling behind,” Byrd said.

The proposal would have directed more funding to transit security, police, firefighters, border control, chemical plant protection and air cargo security, the Washington Post reported today.

Senator Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for homeland security, said that homeland security efforts already receive billions of dollars.

There is “no end to the list of ways we could spend additional funds on homeland security,” he added.  Democrats might attempt to use the Republican vote against homeland security funding in congressional elections, according to the Washington Post.

“The American people believe that we here in Washington are taking care of the problem,” Byrd said.  “We must not mislead them,” he added (Helen Dewar, Washington Post, July 23).

Back to top

U.S. Response III:  House Members Criticize New Intelligence Center

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday criticized the recently established Terrorist Threat Intelligence Center, saying it has only created more bureaucracy, according to the Los Angeles Times (see GSN, April 30).

“There is an unclear division of responsibility and therefore no basis of accountability,” Representative Jim Turner (D-Texas) said during a joint hearing held by the House judiciary and homeland security committees.  “The robust intelligence unit envisioned by the Homeland Security Act does not exist today,” Turner said.

Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said the center appeared to needlessly duplicate intelligence efforts.  “What this looks like is the intelligence community's jobs-forever program,” she said.

Center Director John Brennan sought to defend his agency during yesterday’s hearing, saying it was an “innovative joint venture.”

“We’ve already witnessed the force-multiplier effect of having agents from partner agencies sharing information, insight, analysis,” Brennan said.  “No single agency has the authority or capability to deal with the terrorist threat,” he said (Susannah Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times, July 23).

Back to top

U.S. Response IV:  South Africa Joins Container Security Initiative

South Africa has agreed to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, the U.S. Homeland Security Department’s Customs and Border Protection service announced last week (see GSN, June 17). 

The service plans to station U.S. inspectors at the South African port of Durban to help examine high-risk cargo containers destined for the United States, according to a Customs and Border Protection press release.  In addition, South Africa is planning to station customs personnel in the United States.

“This is an important step, it is not just historically important, it is also economically important,” Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner said.  “It is important that we stand shoulder to shoulder against a new and unusual common enemy to protect not only our citizens, but also our economic strength and well-being as well,” he said (U.S. Customs and Border Protection release, July 15).

Back to top

Iraq:  White House Adviser Takes Responsibility for African Uranium Claim

U.S. deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley took responsibility yesterday for allowing U.S. President George W. Bush’s January State of the Union address to include the now-disputed claim that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Africa, according to the New York Times (see GSN, July 22).

Hadley said the CIA had sent him two memorandums in October 2002 saying that intelligence on Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium in Africa was weak.  Hadley also said that while he received the memos before Bush gave a speech on Iraq in October, he did not remember them when the African uranium issue came up during the preparation of the State of the Union.  The two CIA memos were discovered within the last three days, Hadley said.

“I should have asked that the 16 words be taken out” of the State of the Union address, Hadley said.  “I failed in that responsibility,” he added (Sanger/Miller, New York Times, July 23).

The first CIA memo, dated Oct. 5 and addressed to Hadley, Bush’s main speechwriter Michael Gerson and other White House officials, objected to a line in a draft of Bush’s October speech that said Iraq “has been caught attempting to purchase” uranium in Africa, according to the Washington Post.  The memo said that the amount of uranium in the alleged purchase was in dispute and that it was disputed that uranium “can be acquired from the source.”

A CIA memo the next day, addressed to Hadley and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, said there was “weakness in the evidence” to support the claim and that the alleged purchase “was not particularly significant,” Hadley said.

White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said that while Bush is “obviously not pleased” with the controversy that has arisen over the State of the Union, he “accepts the explanation” offered by his aides.  Bush also has “the highest level of confidence” in his staff, Bartlett said (Milbank/Pincus, Washington Post, July 23).

Iraqi Militias Beware

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday said Iraqi militia groups should not “welcome” the controversy over the intelligence-handling issue in the United States and the United Kingdom.

“To the extent that they believe (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair and President Bush have been weakened in some way, I think that gives them certainly something they would welcome,” Powell said in an interview with the Washington Times.  “But they are deceiving themselves if they welcomed it for very long because I think this will all pass in due course.  People will see that what President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and other members of the coalition did was right,” he said.

Powell also said he expected the controversy over Bush’s State of the Union to “fade into insignificance” as more evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the crimes of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime come to light.

“As more graves are opened, as more mass killings are made known and as Mr. (David) Kay (the former United Nations weapons inspector heading the U.S. search) completes his work in Iraq searching for the evidence needed to make clear to everybody that we knew what we were talking about with respect to weapons of mass destruction, I think this issue of what was in the State of the Union address will fade into insignificance,” Powell said (Fran Coombs, Washington Times, July 23).

Hussein’s Sons Killed

Hussein’s sons Uday and Qusay were killed yesterday during a U.S. military operation in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq said (see GSN, April 8).

U.S. forces raided a mansion in Mosul yesterday after receiving a tip from an informer Monday night that Hussein’s sons were there, said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.  Four U.S. soldiers were wounded in the attack, according to the Washington Post.

“We are certain that Uday and Qusay were killed today,” said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.  The bodies were “in a condition where you could identify them,” and were confirmed to be Hussein’s sons by “multiple sources,” he said (Sullivan/Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, July 23).

Back to top

International Response:  United States Prepared to Intercept Illicit Shipping

As part of an 11-nation coalition intended primarily to curb North Korean WMD exports, the United States is now prepared to act quickly to clamp down on WMD-related shipments on the high seas, USA Today reported today (see GSN, July 11).

Joining the United States in the so-called Proliferation Security Initiative are Poland, Japan, Australia, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Bulgaria and Spain.

“We’re ready to rock and roll right now,” said a State Department official.  “All we need is actionable intelligence,” he added (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, July 23).

Participating countries would use their own domestic laws to intercept illicit shipments, Asahi Shimbun reported.  The proposal was brought forward during a Proliferation Security Initiative meeting this month in Brisbane, Australia (Asahi Shimbun, July 23).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Legal Issues Threaten Nonproliferation Programs

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A U.S.-Russian legal dispute is threatening to end two nonproliferation agreements intended to help convert Russian nuclear weapons materials and facilities into peaceful uses.  U.S. officials say the dispute centers around protecting U.S. personnel working in Russia, but critics say the Bush administration policy could end these and other cooperative programs.

One agreement is set to expire tomorrow, and the other will probably run out in September unless Moscow grants sweeping liability protections to U.S. workers and companies operating in Russia.

The Energy Department announced yesterday that it will not renew the 1998 Nuclear Cities Initiative agreement unless Russia accepts changes to the agreement, which is due to expire Sept. 22.  Under the program, the United States has supported scaling back activities in Russia’s nuclear weapon research and production sites and converting some remaining facilities to peaceful purposes.  According to the Energy Department’s Web site, the initiative “is the only U.S. government program whose primary aim is to help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons complex.”

Yesterday’s announcement, however, said that U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has informed his Russian counterpart, Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, that the NCI agreement will not be renewed “until the Russian government approves legal provisions intended to protect American workers and companies working on projects in Russia.”

Abraham expressed hope that Russia will accept new liability language in time for the agreement to be renewed in September, but he said that if the agreement lapses, the two countries should nevertheless be able to continue existing projects.  In such a case, Abraham said, “We look forward to reinstating the NCI agreement once broader issues of liability protection have been settled.”

The announcement came only one day after U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Bryan Wilkes said the NCI program “is not being canceled; it is not being stopped.”

“We fully support the program. … The secretary is not canceling the program,” Wilkes said Monday.

Plutonium Science and Technology Agreement Runs Out Tomorrow

The Energy Department’s announcement yesterday may signal not only that the NCI program is in jeopardy, but also that other threat reduction efforts are threatened, as the Bush administration makes a priority of obtaining broad liability protections in all such agreements, according to congressional and nongovernmental organization observers.

Immediately threatened is another 1998 U.S.-Russian initiative, known as the Plutonium Science and Technology agreement, that is set to expire tomorrow.  The agreement provides for U.S.-Russian scientific and technical collaboration related to the withdrawal of plutonium from nuclear military programs.

Aspects of the Plutonium Science and Technology agreement are also covered by the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition agreement, and activities carried out under the auspices of the 1998 agreement could conceivably continue under the 2000 text, according to Leonard Spector, who directs the Washington office of the Monterey Institute of International Studies’ Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

A planned liability protocol to the 2000 agreement has yet to be negotiated, while the language of the older plutonium agreement contains liability language similar to that of the NCI agreement — language that the Bush administration has consistently sought to replace with provisions such as those in the 1992 Cooperative Threat Reduction “umbrella agreement,” Spector said.

Among other differences, the 1998 texts would exempt Russia from liability in cases of “premeditated” actions causing damage or injury, while the 1992 language contains no such references, leaving it entirely up to Russia to deal with all liability issues arising under activities governed by the agreement.

House Members Write Bush

Writing ahead of the Energy Department’s announcement on the NCI agreement, six Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives wrote U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday to express “deep concern that the United States is contemplating the possible nonrenewal of two key U.S.-Russian nonproliferation agreements that provide the legal basis for important cooperative threat reduction efforts with Russia.”

Referring to the Plutonium Science and Technology agreement, the representatives — Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), John Spratt (D-S.C.), Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chet Edwards (D-Texas) and Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) — said they “understand that the administration may be prepared to allow” the agreement to lapse tomorrow.

“Beyond the national security and nonproliferation concerns of allowing the plutonium disposition program in Russia to stall or terminate,” the six lawmakers added, “there might also be significant negative domestic impacts on the activities associated with the plutonium disposition activities in the U.S.  The U.S. plutonium disposition effort is a multibillion-dollar program that is designed to operate in tandem with the Russian plutonium disposal activities, and support for the effort could falter if the Russian program stalls.”

Duma Endorsement Sought for Broad Liability Provisions

Spector said the Bush administration is consistently championing what it sees as the “tried-and-true, clean approach of the CTR agreement.”

“Whether or not that is the good approach is not the issue any longer.  The government has decided that that is the approach that they want,” he said.

According to Spector, the U.S. Defense Department views the liability language in the 1992 text as “perfection.”  The Russian Duma, however, has never ratified the 1992 agreement or a later extension of the agreement, and it has been applied only provisionally.  Meanwhile, some agreements signed in recent years — including bilateral arrangements between Germany and Russia and the 12-country Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Program for Russia (see GSN, May 22) — do not match the 1992 umbrella agreement’s broad liability provisions.

In light of these developments, the desire to see the Duma ratify the liability provisions of the 1992 text is the key to U.S. insistence on similar language in the 1998 texts, according to Spector, who cited hopes the Russian legislature could ratify the umbrella agreement soon despite the fact that it is unlikely to sit for more than two months over the rest of this year.

“The Americans think that once the Duma acts” on the 1992 agreement, Spector said, “the Russian objections will die off.”  Even critics of the Bush administration’s approach, he said, agree that Duma action on the older text would “kind of cut the Gordian knot,” allowing the United States to hold up the 1992 agreement as a model of what the Duma is willing to ratify in the hope that such language can become the standard for agreements such as the plutonium disposition protocol.

Spector and the Fridtjof Nansen Institute’s Douglas Brubaker wrote an article in the Monterey Institute’s Nonproliferation Review supporting reform of liability provisions in nuclear nonproliferation assistance agreements with Russia.  Spector, a former assistant deputy administrator in the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, said yesterday that he opposes terminating the NCI program but supports the principle of liability reform in the interest of facilitating future nonproliferation assistance to Russia.

“Whatever the next agreement is going to be, this is a humongously difficult headache every single agreement.  And if you could get one of them locked in and endorsed, it would really streamline all future work,” Spector said.

Spector and Brubaker argued in their article that none of the existing liability language models for cooperative threat reduction agreements sufficiently addresses the question of victim compensation.  While Russia may be fully liable under umbrella agreement-style provisions, they said, Moscow is unlikely to be in a position to actually pay out compensation.

The two researchers advocated two approaches to resolving the compensation problem.  In the first approach, Russia would be liable for a certain amount of compensation, the cost of which could be covered by insurance taken out by Moscow for the purpose, and donor countries involved in nonproliferation aid programs in Russia would pay the rest of the compensation under a pooling system.  The second approach envisions a bond issue in which bondholders would stand to make money on their investment unless a catastrophic accident occurred — in which case their money could be used to compensate victims.

In announcing its stance on the NCI liability language yesterday, the Energy Department cited agreements reached last year at the Group of Eight summit in Canada, where the world’s leading industrialized countries and Russia launched the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction.  The department indicated it would seek the same liability protections in a wide variety of other agreements.

Critics Assail Focus on Liability Language

Critics said the administration’s liability focus could lead to a broader series of moves to shrink or end threat reduction programs.

“It’s entirely possible this is going to be a chain reaction over these issues of liability,” Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council Executive Director Kenneth Luongo said.

Luongo, who initially wrote top Bush administration officials July 2 to plead in favor of keeping both programs, said yesterday in a statement, “Allowing these agreements to expire is wrong and unnecessary at this time.  It sends a terrible signal about the importance of securing the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction on Earth as rapidly as possible.”

“This issue has been debated in the dark, without any public involvement,” he said, adding that an “impression is being left that arguments will be used to kill programs and not debate them publicly.”

“At a time when the president is running around the country talking about the intersection of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism,” Luongo said, terminating NCI activities “doesn’t make any sense.”

“The point is, this is a terrible decision from a policy perspective,” Luongo said.  “If this was a new agreement … that’s a separate issue than, ‘These agreements have been in operation for five years and, in some cases, 10 years, and now we think the liability provisions are inadequate.’  Well, you have to show why they’re inadequate,” he added.

Rose Gottemoeller, senior associate for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said allowing NCI to lapse not only would concern the U.S. Energy Department and the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry, but also could damage U.S.-Russian relations more broadly at a crucial moment.

“It is a bigger issue than a DOE-Minatom issue,” Gottemoeller said.

For further information, see:

Nuclear Cities Initiative Web site

NTI history of Russian plutonium disposition efforts

Back to top

United States:  Los Alamos Director Pledges to “Drain the Swamp”

Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Pete Nanos yesterday said he would “drain the swamp” at the facility to address security and management concerns, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, July 22).

After a number of reviews investigating mismanagement and security concerns, Nanos said that only “several bad apples” were discovered.  In an address to laboratory employees, Nanos outlined his priorities for the laboratory, focusing on safety, national security, science and business management, AP reported.

“The future is in our hands,” Nanos said.  “I’m very bullish about this,” he added (Leslie Hoffman, Associated Press, July 23).

Back to top

Iran:  Officials Expect Nuclear Experts to Explain Additional Protocol

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said yesterday that he expects experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit Tehran to discuss the Additional Protocol, which would allow intrusive inspections of Iran’s nuclear activities (see GSN, July 22).

“We have asked the IAEA to send legal experts to Iran to brief us on aspects of the protocol … We hope in the next days they will arrive in Iran,” Kharrazi said.  “We will prepare a document for our leaders to decide whether Iran will join,” he added (Reuters/Washington Times, July 23).

Back to top

CTBT:  Cyprus Ratifies Treaty

Cyprus ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty July 18, bringing the total number of treaty ratifiers to 104, according to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (see GSN, July 17).

Cyprus is not one of the 44 nations that must ratify the treaty before it can enter into force.  Of those 44 nations, 32 have ratified the treaty (CTBT Organization release, July 23).

Back to top

U.S.-South Korea:  Washington and Seoul Collaborate on Biological Defense

The United States and South Korea have established a joint panel to address the threat of biological and chemical weapons attacks, Yonhap News Agency reported today (see GSN, July 17).

The agreement on the effort was signed by South Korean Health and Welfare Minister Kim Hwa-joong and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson (Yonhap News Agency/Asia Pulse, July 23).

Other joint public health initiatives will also be covered by the agreement, according to the HHS.

“As we jointly tackle enhanced infectious disease research, we’ll be doing more than just strengthening our own ties — we’ll be creating a healthier global community,” Thompson said (Health and Human Services release, July 22).

Back to top

Iran:  Shahab 3 Ballistic Missile Enters Into Service

Iran’s Shahab 3 long-range ballistic missile has formally entered into service, a Russian general said Monday (see GSN, July 8).

Three of the missiles have been transferred to Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, said Maj. Gen. Viktor Ryabchuk.  The liquid-fueled Shahab 3, based on a North Korean ballistic missile, can be fired from a mobile launching pad, making detection more difficult, according to experts (ITAR-Tass, July 21 in FBIS-SOV, July 21).

As many as 20 Shahab 3 missiles may enter into service by 2005, Anton Khlopkov, deputy director of the Russian Center for Political Research, said Monday (ITAR-Tass II, July 21 in FBIS-SOV, July 21).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Defense Officials Develop Plan to Use Airborne Laser

U.S. Air Combat Command officials have completed a preliminary plan for how to use the Airborne Laser missile defense system in combat once it is fully developed, Inside Missile Defense reported today (see GSN, July 15).

The plan remains tentative, however, because the Defense Department has not determined how many ABL aircraft will be built, according to Lt. Col. Rick Nefzger, the chief of the system’s special management organization at Air Combat Command.

The laser system is a Boeing 747-400 aircraft that will operate with four lasers designed to shoot down an enemy missile in its boost phase.  The Missile Defense Agency is set to spend $3.5 billion on the program between fiscal 2004 and fiscal 2009.

“The original idea was seven aircraft,” Nefzger said.  “But right now I don’t know how many aircraft we are going to get because no one has told me what they really want us to do.  Do you want one orbit?  Do you want two orbits?  Do you want one 24-hour orbit or do you want two 24-hour orbits?” he asked (Thomas Duffy, Inside Missile Defense I, July 23).

Contingency Plan Involves Chemical Dump

Officials at Edwards Air Force base in California, where the system will be tested, are considering ejecting dangerous chemicals from the laser system if the plane’s landing is jeopardized.

“During nominal test conditions the ABL system will launch out of Edwards, perform flight tests and return to base with remaining chemicals onboard,” base officials said.  “However, if an in-flight emergency arose that required jettison of chemicals in order to avoid a safety incident, the ABL would do so prior to landing at a divert base other than Edwards,” they added.

The chemicals would be dumped over the California desert, Inside Missile Defense reported (Thomas Duffy, Inside Missile Defense II, July 23).

Back to top

Food Safety:  U.S. Announces New Research Funding

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced today $5 million in research funding to develop new technologies to improve the safety and security of the U.S. food supply against a terrorist attack (see GSN, July 16).

The funding will be distributed to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for food security research purposes, according to a Health and Human Services press release.  For example, the funding will go toward research to develop new technologies to assess food contamination with biological, chemical and radiological agents.

“We will continue to maximize our efforts to give Americans the most protection possible from deliberate or accidental food risks,” FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan said.  “That includes not only using the best ideas that science has to offer, but seeking out still better ideas and methods,” he said.

In addition, Health and Human Services released a report today describing the department’s progress in improving food security.  For example, the FDA has quintupled the number of inspections conducted on food imports since fiscal 2001 — from 12,000 to 62,000 so far this year.  The FDA has also more than doubled the number of ports of entry where agency inspectors are stationed — from 40 to 90.

“Americans need to feel secure that the food they eat is safe and healthy,” Thompson said.  “We are investing unprecedented time, energy and resources to make sure the food that goes from our nation’s ports and food facilities to our families’ dinner tables is safe.  While we have made significant improvements over the last two years, we are building on our success by working harder to enhance security, including many more food inspections at our borders,” he said (U.S. Health and Human Services release, July 23).

Back to top