U.S. Response I:  Report Gives U.S. Poor Marks For Homeland Security

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A Democratic think tank yesterday gave the Bush administration a “D” for its overall efforts to improve homeland security following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In what Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall called “the most comprehensive assessment to date of the Bush administration’s handling of this new national security challenge,” institute researchers said the administration has largely failed to make progress on improving intelligence (“D”), state and local security measures (“D-”), border control (“D”), facilities protection (“D+”) and bioterrorism preparedness (“C”).

The authors also faulted the administration on “defending civil liberties and privacy” (“C-”) and on “managing the improvement of homeland security” (“D+”).

The report is the second in less than a month from a major think tank questioning the administration’s post-Sept. 11 response to the terrorism threat.  A Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored team said June 29 in a report that Washington is underfunding local emergency response and is generally ill-prepared for a new catastrophic attack against the United States, particularly one involving weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, June 30).

“To put it in the Texas vernacular that this administration loves so much, the administration is ‘big hat’ and ‘no cattle’ when it comes to bolstering our homeland defenses,” Marshall said yesterday at a panel discussion launching the report here.

The senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Select Committee, Jim Turner, called the report “a wake-up call for the nation.”

“Unfortunately, we have failed as a nation to fully mobilize our resources in a way to protect this nation and make it safe from a terrorist attack,” Turner said.

Several speakers at yesterday’s discussion stressed the need for a national comprehensive threat and vulnerability assessment to be conducted so that homeland security funding can be need-based, rather than “formula-based,” as critics say is now the case.

Other frequent themes in the report include the color-coded terror alert system, which Turner called “farcical” (see GSN, July 2); the Bush administration’s willingness to spend liberally on defense and tax cuts, which panel members said contrasts with a relative lack of resources for homeland security programs (see GSN, July 23); friction between what state and local governments see as their pressing needs in defending against a terrorist attack and Washington’s priorities for those governments; and an alleged general lack of will and leadership on the part of the administration to strengthen homeland security.

On the relationship between homeland security and national security, former National Security Council terrorism expert Rand Beers said “offense” and “defense” must be seen as “part of the same spectrum.”  He called for “not neglecting each successive fallback line.”

PPI Vice President Robert Atkinson was particularly critical of the administration’s failure to pursue the integration of terrorist watch lists.  Atkinson said “administration insiders” have told him the project is a straightforward technical task that could be completed within a month if the “will” was present.

The panelists also stressed that the fact that no major terrorist attack has occurred in the United States since the September 2001 attacks — cited by some officials as evidence of the administration’s effective action — should not be a source of complacency.  Several cited the time gap between the 1993 and 2001 World Trade Center attacks as evidence that terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda are methodical and strike when they choose.

According to John Cohen, a leader of the institute’s homeland security task force, some recent studies indicate that “not only is al-Qaeda not on the run, but they’re actually more active than ever” on a worldwide scale.

The administration’s only “A” on the report card came in the area of nuclear plant security (see GSN, May 13).  PPI technology analyst Shane Ham said the United States has made some improvements in the field since 2001, but he said security before the attacks was already adequate.  Although armed intruders could penetrate a plant’s outer perimeter, he said, it is not likely they would be able to create a catastrophic release of nuclear material.

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Patriot Act Has Improved Intelligence Sharing, Mueller Says

The U.S.A. Patriot Act has helped to improve the FBI’s effectiveness in combating terrorism by aiding intelligence sharing “within law enforcement and intelligence communities,” FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday (see GSN, May 9).

Previously, FBI agents were “walled off” from participating in intelligence investigations by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Mueller said.  The Patriot Act weakened FISA restrictions though, and while FBI agents must still demonstrate probable cause to conduct secret surveillance, the “resulting free flow of information and coordination between law enforcement and intelligence has expanded our ability to use all appropriate resources to prevent terrorism,” Mueller said.

Mueller also addressed the issue of the impact of the Patriot Act upon civil liberties.

“We are making every effort to effectively balance our obligation to protect Americans from terrorism with our obligation to protect their civil liberties,” Mueller said (Guy Taylor, Washington Times, July 24).

Back to top

Iraq I:  Detention of Iraqi Scientists, Officials, Raises Human Rights Concerns

The continued detention of Iraqi scientists and officials by coalition forces in an attempt to gain evidence on Iraqi WMD efforts has begun to raise human rights concerns, the London Observer reported Sunday (see GSN, July 18).

The International Committee of the Red Cross has called on the United States to clarify the status of 36 Iraqi scientists and officials in custody, the Observer reported.  There has been no word on where these Iraqis are being detained, nor have journalists been allowed to see them.  Some of the scientists and officials are suspected of being imprisoned in solitary confinement or in tents near the U.S. base at the Baghdad airport, according to the Observer.

The wife of Amer al-Saadi, the former Iraqi liaison to U.N. inspectors, said it has been “more than three months” since her husband turned himself in to coalition forces for questioning.

“I don’t want to aggravate the Americans or make them feel provoked, but I’ve had no official notification of why he is being held or what charges he’s facing,” Helma al-Saadi said (Jonathan Steele, London Observer, July 20).

Senior Spanish Official Says No Proof of Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

Meanwhile, Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said yesterday that, while it was presumed before the war that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, there had been “no proof.”

“There was a presumption that there was a nuclear program going on,” Palacio said in an interview with the Washington Times.  “There were no evidences, no proof, but yes, a pervasive idea that they were, that [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein was in a way or other involved in a nuclear program,” she said (Sharon Behn, Washington Times, July 24).

Hussein Regime Not Coming Back, Bush Says

U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday that the deaths of Hussein’s sons Qusay and Uday during a U.S. military raid Tuesday would send a signal to Iraqis that Hussein’s regime “will not be coming back” (see GSN, July 23).

“Saddam Hussein’s sons were responsible for torture, maiming and murder of countless Iraqis,” Bush said.  “Now more than ever all Iraqis can know that the former regime is gone and will not be coming back,” he said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday also welcomed the news of the deaths of Hussein’s two sons, saying it was a “great day for the new Iraq.”

“These two particular people were at the head of a regime that wasn’t just a threat because of its weapons program, but was also responsible for the torture and killing of thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis,” Blair said (Spiegel/Clover, Financial Times, July 23).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Democrats Demand to Know Why Niger and African Uranium Claims Were Made Public

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Three leading Democratic members of Congress this week called on the Bush administration to further explain how now-disputed claims that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger and other countries in Africa came to be included in administration documents (see GSN, July 23).

Earlier this week, Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, called on the U.S. State Department to explain why the Niger uranium claim was included in a December 2002 department fact sheet on Iraq’s WMD efforts.

In addition, Senators Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Carl Levin (Mich.), the top Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, respectively, called on U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday to explain how the overall African uranium claim came to be included in a Jan. 20 report to Congress.

Niger Uranium Claim

In a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell dated July 21, Waxman asked for further explanation as to how the Niger uranium claim came to be specifically mentioned in a Dec. 19, 2002, fact sheet that was issued in response to a declaration of WMD-related information Iraq submitted to U.N. weapons inspectors earlier that month.  The fact sheet, which listed a number of alleged omissions from the Iraqi declaration, had only one charge under its “Nuclear Weapons” heading — that Iraq had failed to account for its attempts to purchase uranium from Niger.

“The declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger,” the fact sheet said.  “Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?” it added.

However, the Niger uranium claim became discredited in March when International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei publicly announced that documents offered to support the allegation were, in fact, forgeries.

In his letter to Powell, Waxman said he first raised the issue in a March 17 letter to U.S. President George W. Bush, in which he asked if the CIA had any role in the preparation of the fact sheet.  On April 29, Waxman received a reply from Paul Kelly, assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, who said that Bush had asked State to reply on his behalf.  In his letter, Kelly said the fact sheet was “a product developed jointly by the CIA and the State Department.”

Both State’s own intelligence service and the CIA, however, had doubts about the Niger uranium claim.  For example, an October 2002 national intelligence estimate on Iraq’s WMD programs prepared by the CIA included a footnote that said that State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research considered the claims that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from anywhere in Africa to be “highly dubious.” 

“I believe that understanding how the State Department Fact Sheet was crafted — despite the objections of CIA and State Department intelligence experts — will provide crucial insights into controversy over the president’s State of the Union address,” Waxman said, referring to the ongoing controversy over the inclusion of the now-disputed claim in Bush’s January address.

Waxman said in his letter that there has been “speculation both inside and outside” of State that Undersecretary of State John Bolton was responsible for the inclusion of the African claim into the State of the Union.  Waxman called on Powell to either confirm or deny Bolton’s role and his level of involvement, if any. 

Waxman also asked Powell to name the CIA officials responsible for approving the inclusion of the Niger reference into the fact sheet, as suggested by Kelly’s April 29 letter.  In addition, Waxman asked for details of any communications between State and White House or National Security Council officials regarding the inclusion of the claim.

State has yet to reply to the letter, Waxman’s press secretary Karen Lightfoot told Global Security Newswire Tuesday, but said one is expected.

State Attempts to Explain

State spokesman Richard Boucher attempted last week to explain how the fact sheet was prepared, saying the department’s Public Affairs Bureau used both classified and unclassified information prepared by other department’s bureaus, “including information that had been cleared and was consistent with” the CIA’s October national intelligence estimate  There were reports that Iraq had dispatched agents to other countries to purchase uranium, which was not addressed in the declaration, Boucher said, adding that the purpose of the fact sheet was to call on Iraq to account for such deficiencies.

“If we’re getting reports and others are getting reports that Iraq is trying to procure uranium, it’s really for the Iraqis to explain at that point in their declaration that they didn’t explain anything with, rather than for us to have to explain at that stage,” Boucher said.  “So I think that we probably would have put something in there about Iraq’s attempts to acquire uranium,” he said.

Boucher did indicate, however, that the specific mention of Niger in the fact sheet might have been a mistake.

“I probably would not have mentioned Niger or might have even worded it differently,” Boucher said.

Lightfoot, however, dismissed Boucher’s explanation, saying State was “trying to tamp it [the issue] down and make it go away.”

White House Report to Congress

Meanwhile, Kennedy and Levin announced yesterday that they had sent a letter to Bush calling on him to explain how the now-disputed claim that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Africa came to be included in a Jan. 20 report to Congress that was required under the congressional resolution that authorized military action against Iraq.

So far two Bush administration officials — CIA Director George Tenet and deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley — have taken responsibility for the inclusion of the African uranium claim into Bush’s State of the Union address, which the president gave soon after the report on Iraq’s WMD programs was submitted to Congress.  Kennedy said, however, that it was up to Bush himself to take responsibility and explain how the claim came to be included in both the report and the State of the Union.

“The buck does not stop with CIA Director George Tenet, and it does not stop with deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley,” Kennedy said during a joint press conference with Levin at the U.S. Capitol.  “The buck stops with the president,” he said.

Kennedy and Levin’s letter calls on Bush to provide copies of all memos from the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies regarding the issue.  Hadley said Tuesday that he had received two memos from the CIA in October 2002 saying that intelligence on Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium in Africa was weak, according to reports. 

Both Kennedy and Levin said they also supported the idea of Bush holding a press conference to clarify how the African uranium claim came to be included into both texts. 

Kennedy said an inquiry is needed into whether the Bush administration politicized intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war, Kennedy said.

“Congress and the American people have the right to know whether intelligence was politicized to justify the decision by the president of the United States to send the American troops to war.  This statement that he sent to Congress is really the issue of war and peace, life and death,” Kennedy said.

“What we are asking for is, when he makes the statements for the reason of sending American troops into war, we want to know what the basis of his statements … that are included in this report are based upon,” Kennedy said.  “And the American people ought to know that as well,” he said.

“Everybody Makes Mistakes,” Clinton Says

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton Tuesday night issued a surprising defense of the inclusion of the Africa uranium claim into the State of the Union, saying, “everybody makes mistakes.”

“I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying ‘we probably shouldn’t have said that,’” Clinton was quoted yesterday by CNN.com as saying during a telephone interview with CNN’s Larry King.

“You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president,” Clinton said.  “I mean, you can’t make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile.  The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now.  That’s what I think,” he said.

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Might Declare Nuclear Capabilities by Sept. 9

If the United States does not move forward with negotiations by Sept. 9, North Korea will declare itself a nuclear weapons state, the Singapore Straits Times reported (see GSN, July 22).

“North Korea will move on to possess nuclear weapons and declare itself a nuclear state if the U.S. fails to respond to its proposals before Sept. 9,” the 55th anniversary of the country’s creation, said a diplomatic source in Tokyo.

China is currently attempting to revive talks between Washington and Pyongyang.

“If the U.S. refuses to strike a deal in one way or another, North Korea could go nuclear,” said another diplomatic official in Tokyo.  “This is what China worries about the most, and China as a mediator will lose face,” the official added.

An official linked to North Korea, however, dismissed the Sept. 9 deadline.

“Our country, for its part, has vowed to have a deterrent force unless the U.S. changes its attitude … our country will go ahead with its schedule, irrespective of Sept. 9,” the official said (Singapore Straits Times, July 24).

North Korea claimed that it is doing its best to avoid a conflict.

“The D.P.R.K. has made unremitting efforts to prevent the outbreak of war and safeguard peace on the Korean Peninsula,” said Yang Hyong Sop, a senior North Korean lawmaker.  “But the United States has turned down the D.P.R.K. proposal for signing a nonaggression treaty,” he added (News24.com, July 24).

The United States also played down the Sept. 9 cutoff.

“I’ve just seen press reports on that.  It’s purely speculative at this point,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher (Yonhap News Agency/BBC Monitoring, July 24).

U.S. officials are also expecting that another round of talks with China and North Korea would make progress in the standoff.

James Kelly, assistant U.S. secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific, “will read the same talking points he read in Beijing in April; the North Koreans will do the same and that will be it,” said a senior U.S. official (Nicholas Kralev, Singapore Straits Times, July 24).

Japan, meanwhile, might resume normalization talks with North Korea if Pyongyang accepts multilateral talks to defuse the nuclear crisis, Yonhap News Agency reported (Yonhap News Agency/BBC Monitoring II, July 24).

No Decision on Reactors

South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Jae-sup said today that no decision had been made on continuing the construction of two nuclear reactors in North Korea.  The construction has been delayed by the nuclear standoff (Yonhap News Agency/BBC Monitoring III, July 24).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  No Verification Measures Planned For Moscow Treaty

The Bush administration plans to rely on START and the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to verify Russian compliance with the Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty, Assistant Secretary of State Paula DeSutter said this week (see GSN, June 5).

The Bush administration sees the treaty as a complete document, and therefore no additional verification measures are needed, said DeSutter, head of the State Department’s Verification and Compliance Bureau. 

The bureau plans to examine what measures START and the CTR program will provide over the next two years, but “we are basically satisfied,” said Karin Look, DeSutter’s deputy who was involved in the treaty negotiations.  If the bureau had been concerned about a lack of verification measures, “we would have pressed in the context of the negotiations and the ratification hearings to have something more in the treaty,” Look said (Thomas Duffy, Inside the Pentagon, July 24).

At the time the treaty was signed in May 2002, Bush administration officials indicated that the United States and Russia would negotiate follow-on measures to the treaty (see GSN, May 24, 2002).

“The verification stuff, all of that is going to go into the implementation agreement.  These are essentially the details, the nitty-gritty and it’s being worked on, but it’s not done.  It may take a little while,” National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton said when the treaty was signed (Greg Webb, GSN, July 24).

The treaty calls for the creation of a Bilateral Implementation Commission, which may meet for the first time by the end of summer, according to Inside the Pentagon.  Currently, the commission is not expected to do more than keep Washington and Moscow informed about the pace of each other’s disarmament, DeSutter said.

“At the end of the day the MT [Moscow Treaty] has two obligations, one is to have the BIC meet and the other is to have both sides down to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads by 2012,” Look said.

Look also said, however, that other U.S. agencies, as well as Russia itself, may still press for additional verification measures for the treaty.

“Now will the Russians agree with us?  I don’t know,” Look said.  “Will there be other parts of the U.S. government that thinks there is something needed?  I don’t know,” she said (Duffy, Inside the Pentagon).

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Dismisses European Union Threats

Iranian officials have dismissed European threats of trade penalties if Tehran refuses to allow intrusive inspections of its nuclear activities, the Associated Press reported this week (see GSN, July 22).

“Imposing preconditions or using threatening language is totally unacceptable,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Tuesday (Associated Press/Newsday, July 22).

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami cancelled a visit to Belgium, possibly in response to the demands from the European Union (Agence France-Presse, July 24).

Iran Holds Al-Qaeda Leaders

Iran said yesterday that it is has senior al-Qaeda leaders in custody, the Washington Times reported.

“The statements would appear to confirm what we and others believe to be a significant al-Qaeda presence in Iran, to include members of its senior leadership,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday.

U.S. officials demanded that Iran transfer the prisoners to U.S. custody (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, July 24).

Back to top

Russia:  Moscow Destroys SS-18 ICBM Silo

Russia has destroyed an SS-18 ICBM silo at the Kartaly missile base in the Chelyabinsk region, ITAR-Tass reported Tuesday (see GSN, May 29). 

Six of the missiles were removed from the silo and taken away for destruction as called for under START, according to ITAR-Tass.  All six of the base’s missile silos are scheduled to be destroyed by the end of the year (ITAR-Tass, July 22 in FBIS-SOV, July 22).

Back to top

Correction

In a story yesterday on a legal dispute threatening two U.S.-Russian nonproliferation agreements, Global Security Newswire mischaracterized the views of Kenneth Luongo, executive director of the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council.  In that story, some critics charged the Bush administration with using a dispute over liability protections in the U.S.-Russian agreements as an excuse to end the cooperative programs.  That view should not have been ascribed to Luongo.

Back to top

Anthrax:  U.S. Postal Service Installs New Detection System at Baltimore Facility

The U.S. Postal Service has installed a new anthrax detection system at its Baltimore mail processing center, the Baltimore Sun reported yesterday (see GSN, July 14).

The system, which is currently being tested at postal facilities in 15 cities, works by testing the air surrounding mail-handling equipment for anthrax spores.  If spores are detected, the system automatically sends an e-mail to designated officials who then will use fire alarms to alert workers, according to the Sun.

The postal service has entered into a $175 million contract with Northrop Grumman to install the new detection system in all 283 U.S. mail processing centers next year (Scott Shane, Baltimore Sun, July 23).

Back to top

United States:  Pentagon Set to Begin Destroying Anniston Stockpile

The U.S. Defense Department is scheduled to begin destroying chemical weapons at Alabama’s Anniston Army Depot soon, possibly as early as the end of July, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, July 9).

Local residents are concerned about a possible accident, and about $140 million has been spent to protect the community.

“If something happens I think we’ll pretty much be dead,” said Anniston child care worker Beverly Carlisle.  “I just don’t feel safe,” she added (Jay Reeves, Associated Press/Columbia State, July 24).

Back to top

Taiwan:  Taipei Formally Requests PAC-3 Missile Defense Batteries

Taiwanese officials have formally asked to purchase three Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile defense batteries from the United States, according to Jane’s Missiles and Rockets as reported today by Agence France-Presse (see GSN, July 8).

The U.S. Defense Department is reviewing the request and is likely to recommend that U.S. lawmakers approve the sale, Jane’s reported.

“Taiwan is moving forward on missile defense, including PAC-3 and EWR (early warning radar),” a U.S. government official said (Agence France-Presse, July 24).

Back to top

U.S. Plans I:  Northrop Grumman Refutes Airborne Laser Criticism

U.S. defense contractor Northrop Grumman has criticized a recent report issued by the American Physical Society that claims the Airborne Laser system would be ineffective at destroying enemy ballistic missiles during their boost phase, the Abilene Reporter-News reported today (see GSN, July 15).

Northrop Grumman Vice President of Missile Defense Patrick Caruana said some of the challenges facing the ABL system are inherent to any first-time weapons program.  Both Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency plan to examine the APS report, he said.

Bill Ehrie, former commander of Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, said he believed the U.S. Air Force would have already considered the effectiveness of the ABL as a boost-phase defense system.

“I’d like to know how so late in the game they could come up with this conclusion,” said Ehrie, who has not seen the APS report.  “It would seem strange that this issue hadn’t already been considered by the Air Force, given the length of time they’ve been in development with ABL,” he said (Tara Copp, Abilene Reporter-News, July 24).

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  Cities Lobby to Become X-Band Radar Base

Some U.S. cities that border the Pacific Ocean are lobbying the Defense Department to station a floating missile-defense radar near their communities, the Seattle Times reported yesterday (see GSN, June 19).

The Sea-Based Test X-Band Radar would be part of the developing national missile-defense system.  The Defense Department is considering positioning the radar platform in the Marshall Islands; Adak, Alaska; Valdez, Alaska; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Ventura, Calif.; Oxnard, Calif.; or Everett, Wash.

Adak Mayor Chuck Luck traveled to Washington Tuesday to promote his island community as a good home for the radar, while Everett Mayor Frank Anderson has vigorously opposed it, noting that the radar could rise 25-stories above the sea.

“We could have shook hands and said, ‘Everett doesn’t want it — give it to us,’” Luck said.  “We’re a struggling city.  We’re trying to build our economy and our tax base,” he added.

Meanwhile, Ventura and Valdez officials have also lobbied for the radar platform.

“They are talking about putting this monstrosity literally in our downtown,” Anderson said.  “If there are places that want it, why don’t they take Everett off the list?  We’d be happy to help them get it,” he added (Rachel Tuinstra, Seattle Times, July 23).

Back to top