U.S. Response I:  Absence of Terrorist “Chatter” Leaves Threat Level Unchanged Over Holiday

U.S. officials say they have no plans to raise the nation’s terror alert level over the Fourth of July holiday because terrorist “chatter” is low and no specific threats have been made on U.S. interests at home or abroad, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, July 2).

The government also has no plans to issue private warnings to national or local law enforcement agencies as they did one year ago.  Currently, the threat level is at “yellow,” or “elevated.”

“We have no intelligence at this time that leads us to raise the threat level,” said Gordon Johndroe, chief spokesman for Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.  “We know state and local law enforcement and appropriate federal agencies will have a large presence at all the major gatherings around the country,” he added (David Johnston, New York Times, July 3).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  U.S. to Test Hazardous Material Shipment Technologies

The U.S. Transportation Department’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced yesterday the start of a field operational test designed to evaluate the costs and benefits of transportation security technologies to safeguard hazardous material shipments (see GSN, May 6).

The test is set to involve 100 trucks equipped with a variety of existing security technologies.  The test will evaluate the capabilities of technologies such as driver verification, vehicle tracking, off-route and stolen vehicle alerts and remote vehicle disabling in the event of a terrorist attack, according to a Transportation press release.  A prototype test is scheduled to occur later this month, with full-scale testing set to begin in August and to be completed by late 2004, the release said. 

“We must build on our continuous efforts to ensure the security of the more than 800,000 shipments of hazardous materials hauled on U.S. highways every day,” Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said.  “This operational test will help improve security and will help spur innovative technologies for safeguarding hazardous materials in the future,” he said (U.S. Transportation Department release, July 2).

Back to top

Iran:  United States Sanctions Chinese, North Korean Entities

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States has imposed sanctions against five Chinese entities and one North Korean entity for allegedly transferring items to Iran that could make a “material contribution” to Tehran’s WMD or ballistic missile efforts, according to a notice published today in the Federal Register (see GSN, May 29).

Under the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2002, the United States has imposed sanctions against the Chinese firms Taian Foreign Trade General Corp., Zibo Chemical Equipment Plant, Liyang Yunlong Chemical Equipment Group Co., China North Industries Corp. (Norinco) and the China Precision Machinery Import/Export Corp.  The United States also imposed sanctions against the North Korean Changgwang Sinyong Corp.  The six entities were sanctioned for activities that occurred in the first half of 2002, a U.S. State Department official told Global Security Newswire today.

The United States had previously imposed sanctions on Norinco in May for allegedly aiding Iran’s ballistic missile program — allegations that the company has denied (see GSN, May 27).  The State Department official said today’s announced sanctions were imposed on Norinco for different activities than those that triggered the previous sanctions.

In March, the Washington Times reported that the United States had decided to impose sanctions on Changgwang Sinyong for its alleged role in the sale of North Korean ballistic missiles to Pakistan (see GSN, March 31).  Last year, the United States sanctioned the North Korean company for the sale of Scud ballistic missile components to Yemen (see GSN, Aug. 23, 2002).

The new U.S. sanctions, which took effect June 26, prohibit U.S government agencies from doing any business with the six firms for the next two years.  In addition, private U.S. firms are barred from selling those companies any items that would normally require export licenses under the Export Administration Act or the Export Administration Regulations.

The sanctions are unlikely to have a substantial economic impact on the six entities, the State Department official said, adding that the sanctions do not prohibit U.S. customers from importing commercial goods from the six.  The sanctions are more likely to provide political leverage, however, because of the “embarrassment” resulting from being identified as a proliferator, the official said.

Back to top

Iraq:  Internal Intelligence Review Defends Agency Analyses

A U.S. intelligence community internal review has found that while up-to-date and reliable prewar information on Iraqi WMD efforts was often lacking, U.S. intelligence analysts did not exaggerate their findings under White House pressure, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, July 1).

U.S. intelligence analysts had some doubts about the data included in Iraq-related intelligence reports, but still generally agreed that Baghdad had active WMD programs, said Richard Kerr, a former CIA deputy director.  Kerr is the head of a team of retired intelligence officers that is reviewing the performance of the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.  The team has submitted a report of their initial findings to CIA Director George Tenet, AP reported.

Most of the U.S. information on Iraq’s WMD efforts consisted of discoveries made after the 1991 Gulf War, Kerr said.  Once U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, however, the United States was forced to rely more on information from satellite imagery, intercepted communications and human sources, he said.  While solid information from these sources was often lacking, the information that was obtained seemed to confirm conclusions that Iraq had active WMD programs, Kerr said.

Even with a lack of “hard, detailed intelligence,” Kerr said, “it would have been very hard for an intelligence analyst to determine that there were no weapons of mass destruction programs.  There was a lot of information over time.”

Kerr also said that intelligence analysts often faced increased White House pressure for information that supported the idea that Iraq posed a threat to the United States.  Such pressure, however, is not unusual, he said, adding that the review found that analysts did not change their conclusions in response.

“While there was an awful lot of pressure to try to support various positions, that’s always the case,” Kerr said.  “People are going to prod the intelligence community to try to make them more precise but also to convince them they’re right,” he said.

“They were pretty consistent over a considerable period of time,” Kerr said of the intelligence analysts (John Lumpkin, Associated Press/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 3).

British Intelligence Review

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday called on critics to produce evidence to support claims that the British government exaggerated its prewar intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, June 27).

Blair denied accusations that the government added material to a September 2002 dossier to include a claim that the Iraqi military could deploy biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so. 

“If anyone has actually any evidence, let them produce it,” Blair said in response to challenges from an opposition leader in the British Parliament’s House of Commons.  “I think before any claim of that seriousness is made, at least some evidence should be produced,” he said (Jane Wardell, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 2).

A confidential letter released to the Commons’ Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which is conducting a review into the British government’s case for war with Iraq, says that Alastair Campbell, Blair’s communications director, suggested 11 changes to the September 2002 dossier, according to the London Guardian.

The letter, sent by Campbell to the committee, is expected to form an important component in the committee’s final assessment, due Monday.  In the letter, Campbell denied BBC claims that he asked that the 45-minute claim be inserted into the report.  The letter also says that six of Campbell’s proposed changes to the report were approved, four were denied and one was already being conducted, the Guardian reported.

Among Campbell’s proposed changes was a suggestion that the report say that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s two sons had, instead of “may have,” the authority to order WMD attacks.  The suggestion was rejected because there was not enough intelligence to support the stronger claim, according to the Guardian.  Also rejected was a suggestion that the report say that Iraq secured uranium.  Instead, the original claim that Iraq “sought” to secure uranium was maintained because of a lack of intelligence (Patrick Wintour, London Guardian, July 3).

Back to top

International Response:  Blix Will Chair New WMD Panel

Recently retired chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix will lead a new international commission to promote WMD nonproliferation, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, June 19).

Sweden will host and finance the new commission, which will aim to find new ways to build international cooperation for eliminating weapons of mass destruction and preventing their proliferation, according to the AP.  Blix retired from his U.N. post Monday.

“It is very gratifying that Blix has accepted the presidency.  He has unique experiences and knowledge,” said Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh.  “We must do everything to counter the threats of weapons of mass destruction,” she added.

Blix is expected to begin assembling the commission this fall and the first recommendations are expected in 2005 (Tommy Grandell, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 3).

Back to top

North Korea:  U.N. Security Council Divided Over North Korea Rebuke

China and Russia yesterday attempted to delay a U.N. Security Council condemnation of North Korea’s nuclear activities, according to the New York Times (see GSN, July 2).  

The five permanent council members discussed the issue during a meeting yesterday at U.N. headquarters in New York.  The United States, the United Kingdom and France support issuing a council statement because little progress has been made by the diplomatic efforts of China, Japan and South Korea, diplomats said.

“The Americans, British and French are all in favor of a statement” from the Security Council condemning North Korean violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a council diplomat said.  Such a statement would be “firm about all the violations, at the same time … supporting backing the diplomatic approach,” the diplomat added.

After yesterday’s meeting, Chinese representative Zhang Yishan said he believed there should be more talks among North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China and the United States.  Russian representative Gennadi Gatilov said it was “premature” to consider a Security Council rebuke.

“The Chinese have been saying:  ‘The time isn’t right’” for a Security Council statement, arguing that more time is needed for pressure by China, Japan and South Korea, a council diplomat said.  “The U.S., France and the U.K. are saying there is no contradiction between the two efforts; they can be complementary,” the diplomat said.

In addition, a senior North Korean general said earlier this week that if the United States imposed sanctions or a blockade on North Korea, it would be considered a “complete breach” of the truce that ended the 1950-1953 Korean War, the Times reported.

In a July 1 letter, a North Korean army official said Pyongyang would “immediately take strong and merciless retaliatory measures,” warning that “horrible disasters” would befall South Korea if the United States adopted such measures.

The tone of the July 1 letter, in contrast with the tone in recent North Korean communications, has led some diplomats to wonder if there is a dispute within Pyongyang over what mix of conciliations and threats should be used when dealing with the United States and the United Nations, according to the Times.

“The meaning is not clear, because we don’t know if the army is speaking for [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il,” a senior Asian diplomat said.  “But it is unusual to have the Army communicating with the United Nations,” the diplomat said (Barringer/Sanger, New York Times, July 3).

South Korea Presents Plan to United States, Japan

Meanwhile, South Korea yesterday presented the United States and Japan with a plan aimed at ending the nuclear crisis, according to the South Korean Yonhap news agency.

While South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck did not provide details about the plan, it is believed to contain proposed measures that both the United States and North Korea would need to implement, according to Yonhap. 

“The United States showed a favorable reaction” to the plan, Lee said after meeting with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly and Mitoji Yabunaka, director general of the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s Asian Affairs Bureau.  The three officials are expected to continue meeting today in Washington (Yonhap/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, July 3).

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Hopes IAEA Talks Will Dispel Suspicions

The head of Iran’s nuclear agency said yesterday that July 9 talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency would clear up any lingering suspicions about Tehran’s nuclear program (see GSN, July 2).

Gholamreza Aghazadeh said he had no objections to international calls for Iran to allow the IAEA to conduct tougher inspections of its nuclear sites.  He did not say, however, if Iran would agree to sign the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, which would allow the agency to conduct more intrusive monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities.  In addition, Aghazadeh also called on the IAEA to clarify Iran’s obligations.

“It is therefore vital to hold talks with the secretary general of the IAEA on transparency and we will discuss this issue,” Aghazadeh said.  “We want to clarify the IAEA’s guarantees and obligations to Iran. ... The propaganda campaign directed against Iran is incorrect and out of place.  Our activity is perfectly clear,” he said.

The IAEA has asked Iran to provide more information on two undeclared sites that an Iranian opposition group has previously alleged were intended for uranium enrichment purposes, according to Reuters (see GSN, May 27).  A diplomat refused to say if the IAEA planned to visit the two sites when an inspection team arrived in Iran next week.

Russian Aid to Iran

Meanwhile, U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin for pressuring Iran against developing nuclear weapons.  Bush said he thanked Putin during a telephone call “for keeping the pressure on the Iranian government to dismantle any notions they might have of building a nuclear weapon” (Reuters/Planet Ark, July 3).

Aghazadeh said that Russian officials assured him during a three-day visit this week to Moscow that Russia would not delay the construction of the Bushehr nuclear plant as a means of forcing Tehran to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol (see GSN, June 30).

“In talks with my Russian colleagues, I was told that the signing of the (additional IAEA) protocol will not in any way affect the building of the nuclear power station at Bushehr,” Aghazadeh said during a joint press conference in Moscow with Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev.

Rumyantsev said that Russia has called on Iran to sign the Additional Protocol, but refused to say what consequences, if any, Iran would face from Moscow if it did not do so.  “They haven’t violated anything,” he said.

Russia has said it would not begin supplying nuclear fuel to the Bushehr plant until Iran signed a separate agreement to return the spent fuel to Russia.  Rumyantsev said yesterday that such an agreement, long expected, was close to being signed and was only being delayed because of an incomplete ecological analysis of the impact the return of the spent fuel will have on Russia (Jeanne Whalen, Wall Street Journal, July 3).

Back to top

India:  Washington No Longer Urging New Delhi to Sign NPT

The United States has stopped pressuring India to adhere to the main components of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime and is expected to relax regulations on the export of dual-use goods to the country by the end of the year, Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said yesterday (see GSN, June 24).

“The U.S. is no longer asking India to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or [to adopt] fullscope safeguards” on its nuclear facilities, Sibal said after a two-day meeting of the U.S.-Indian High-Technology Cooperation Group in Washington.

Although U.S. laws restrict exports of strategic goods to non-NPT members, U.S. officials have said the laws could be relaxed without changing them, Sibal said.  Such a move is expected to occur by November, when the technology cooperation group is scheduled to meet again in New Delhi, he said.

Establishing conditions for creating a strong high-technology trade relationship between the United States and India is a “key component” of the Bush administration’s plans for improved U.S.-Indian relations, U.S. Undersecretary  of Commerce Kenneth Juster said.

“Both sides discussed changes in policy and regulation that can facilitate such trade and strengthen controls on the possible diversion of sensitive items,” Juster said (Times of India, July 3).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Hatfill Trained DIA Team While Under FBI Investigation

Former U.S. Army biologist Steven Hatfill helped train U.S. intelligence agents and special forces to search for weapons of mass destruction and helped plan security for the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan, all while coming under increased FBI scrutiny during the bureau’s investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, July 2).

Hatfill, who has been the public focus of the FBI’s anthrax investigation, helped train an elite Defense Intelligence Agency team on how to search for biological weapons, assisted secret projects conducted by the U.S. Army’s Delta Force unit and participated in at least one U.S. State Department meeting on embassy security in postwar Afghanistan, according to documents and interviews with U.S. officials and Hatfill associates.  In addition, Hatfill received letters of praise for his work from the DIA and the State Department, according to the Post.

In March 2002, Hatfill led a training session for the DIA’s Chemical and Biological Intelligence Support Team at Camp Dawson, W.Va., said agency spokesman Don Black.  The DIA was preparing agents to be sent to Afghanistan and was also training them for possible deployment to Iraq and other countries to search for biological and chemical weapons, the Post reported. 

For Hatfill to be involved in the training program, the DIA had to call on its training contractor Science Applications International Corp. to allow him to participate, even though he had recently lost his security clearance, Black said.  While SAIC had fired Hatfill shortly before the training session began, it agreed to allow him to volunteer after the DIA’s request, a Hatfill associate said.

For Hatfill’s work with the DIA, division leader Esteban Rodriguez sent a letter of commendation on his behalf to SAIC, the Post reported.  The May 1, 2002, letter said Hatfill “consistently displayed unsurpassed technical expertise, unique resourcefulness, total dedication and consummate professionalism.  I wish to express my most sincere gratitude to this ultimate biological weapons expert.”

Hatfill’s work for the Pentagon, done while the FBI investigation into the anthrax attacks intensified, caused tensions between the two agencies, sources close to the investigation said. 

Hatfill spokesman Pat Clawson said yesterday that he could not discuss aspects of Hatfill’s work for the government because it is classified.  Many U.S. agencies, however, see Hatfill as a pre-eminent biological weapons expert, Clawson said.

“If the facts were known, most Americans would be deeply grateful to Dr. Hatfill for his service to our nation,” Clawson said.  “Steve Hatfill knows nothing about the anthrax attacks.  He is a loyal American and patriot who loves his country,” he said (Marilyn Thompson, Washington Post, July 3).

Back to top

U.S. Plans I:  Alaska Test Bed Construction Is on Schedule

Construction of a missile defense test bed at Fort Greely, Alaska — a planned component in the U.S. Ground-based Missile Defense System — is proceeding on schedule for a planned fiscal 2004 deployment, U.S. Missile Defense Agency officials said this week (see GSN, April 18).

The MDA began work at the site in mid-June 2002, and since then 80,000 square feet have been under construction, including 11 new buildings and renovations of an additional 25 buildings, agency spokesman Rick Lehner said.  All of the building construction is expected to be completed by spring of next year, according to Defense Daily.

“All of the construction activities are on schedule and making good progress,” Lehner said.

The current plans for the GMD system call for the MDA to initially place six missile interceptors at the Fort Greely site, Defense Daily reported.  The agency is also asking for funding to field up to 10 additional interceptors at the site in 2005. 

Construction of the first missile interceptor silo at Fort Greely is expected to be completed by the end of this month, with all six planned silos set to be constructed by February 2004, Lehner said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, July 3).

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  Pentagon Slows Space-Based Interceptor Development

Financial and technical constraints have led the U.S. Missile Defense Agency to delay the space-based component of its boost-phase interceptor program, Aerospace Daily reported today (see GSN, Jan. 22).

That program, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program, has pursued two parallel tracks to develop technologies to shoot down enemy missiles in their boost phase.  Technical difficulties, however, have caused the agency to slow the space-based track while maintaining the ground- and sea-based effort.

“There are some major technology challenges that we need to deal with before we can begin developing a space-based capability that we could affordably deploy in operationally meaningful numbers,” Defense Department officials said.

In addition to the technical problems, the program is suffering budgetary cuts as House and Senate authorizers have cut $150 million and $70 million respectively from the agency’s $301 million request for the program for fiscal 2004 (see GSN, May 8).

Agency officials had hoped to begin the development phase of the space-based test bed in fiscal 2005 but now estimate that the phase will be delayed for two years.

The Pentagon originally planned to prevent a single contractor from receiving both the space- and ground-based development contracts, but now that the two tracks are no longer proceeding in parallel, the ban has been lifted.

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman received eight-month, $10 million concept design contracts in March for the ground-based component, and the agency expects to select a single contractor in the beginning of fiscal 2004 to develop the system (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, July 3).

Back to top