Terrorism Intelligence Not Effectively Shared, GAO Says

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Almost two years after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a broad spectrum of U.S. security officials said that information on terrorist threats is still not being shared effectively, according to a General Accounting Office survey (see GSN, Aug. 14).

“No level of government perceived the process as effective, particularly when sharing information with federal agencies.  Information on threats, methods and techniques of terrorists is not routinely shared; and the information that is shared is not perceived as timely, accurate or relevant,” the report says.

The survey reveals that officials at all levels were dissatisfied with the amount of intelligence they are receiving.  Almost every city surveyed said that they needed information on the movement of known terrorists, but only 15 percent of respondents said that they received this intelligence.

A congressional report issued in July criticized intelligence efforts prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including interagency cooperation and information sharing.  The Homeland Security Department has also been criticized for its color-coded terrorism alert program.  Local officials have said that the alert system does not provide any detailed information to organize effective antiterrorist measures.

The GAO said, however, that the department is working on several initiatives to enhance information sharing.  In a July response to the GAO, a senior homeland security official agreed that keeping state and local agencies informed is a “priority.”

“Not surprisingly, however, after just five months in operation, the department is still formulating internal and external interfaces and protocols on many aspects of the complex issue of information sharing,” wrote Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Gordon England.

According to England, federal officials are in the process of “providing secure telephones to the governors and security clearances to the homeland security advisors in every state.”

In the absence of an effective, national information system, some states and agencies are developing their own ad hoc solutions, according to the report.  California, for example, has established its own statewide antiterrorist information center to disseminate intelligence to local authorities.

Back to top

U.S. Companies Say New Customs Proposal Would Increase Costs, Delays

Cargo companies have complained that a proposal to require advance notification of shipments entering the United States would lead to long delays at U.S. borders and higher costs for consumers, Scripps Howard News Service reported yesterday (see GSN, July 23).

In July, the U.S. Homeland Security Department’s Customs and Border Protection Bureau proposed new regulations that would establish timeframes for transmitting advance information on cargo shipments.  Under the proposal, shipments arriving by truck would have to transmit information 30 to 60 minutes before arriving in the United States, those arriving by train would have to transmit information two hours before arrival and those arriving by air would have to do so four hours before arrival.  Air shipments originating in destinations close to the United States would have to transmit information before takeoff.

Customs and Border Protection, which is set to issue final regulations Oct. 1, has received more than 120 comments on the proposal, according to Scripps Howard.  Many of the comments have complained that the bureau has underestimated the costs of the new regulations.  In addition, the American Trucking Association expressed concern that a bureau automated filing system would not be created by next spring as expected (James Brosnan, Scripps Howard News Service, Sept. 1).

Back to top

Suspected Iraqi Aircraft Not Designed for Use in WMD Attacks, U.S. Analysts Say

U.S. weapons experts working in Iraq have concluded that Iraqi unmanned aerial vehicles were not designed for conducting biological or chemical weapons attacks, contrary to claims made by the Bush administration prior to the war, the Associated Press reported last week (see GSN, Aug. 22).

Senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, had warned that Iraqi UAVs were intended to deliver weapons of mass destruction and cautioned that even U.S. territory was at risk.

However, reports are now emerging that prior to the war, U.S. Air Force intelligence analysts and analysts from the Missile Defense Agency said they believed the UAVs did not pose a threat to either Iraq’s neighbors or the United States, U.S. officials and weapons experts said.  There was also little evidence that Iraq’s UAV program was connected with its suspected biological weapons program, said Air Force Intelligence Analysis Agency Director Bob Boyd.  The Iraqi drones were also believed to be too small to carry weapons, he said.  

“We didn’t see there was a very large chance they (UAVs) would be used to attack the continental United States,” Boyd said.  “We didn’t see them as a big threat to the homeland,” he said.

Evidence found in July by U.S. weapons experts in Iraq support the views of the Air Force and MDA analysts, according to two U.S. scientists involved in the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

“We just looked at the UAVs and said, ‘There’s nothing here.  There’s no room to put anything in here,’” one of the scientists said (Linzer/Lumpkin, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Aug. 24).

Blair Says He Would Have Resigned Over Intelligence Dispute

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said last week that he would have resigned if there were any truth to the allegations that his government exaggerated prewar intelligence on Iraq, according to Reuters (see GSN, Aug. 21).

“This was an allegation that we had behaved in a way which ... if true would have merited my resignation,” Blair said

In testimony before a parliamentary inquiry, Blair denied that his government had exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq in a dossier released in September 2002.  Blair also said, however, that his government had been under public pressure to justify going to war, adding that he wanted the dossier to make “the best case we could have.”

Blair said that he continued to support the dossier.  “We described the intelligence in a way that was perfectly justified,” he said (Evans/McBride, Reuters, Aug. 28).

Back to top

Fractious North Korea Nuclear Talks End With No Public Progress

Six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear crisis ended Friday with a senior Chinese official blaming the lack of progress on the United States.  The talks were marked by North Korea announcing that it intends to test a nuclear weapon, according to reports (see GSN, Aug. 22).

“America’s policy toward the D.P.R.K. — that is the main problem we are facing,” said Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Beijing’s chief delegate at the talks.  “We want [the] U.S. to make clear its position,” Wang said (Joseph Kahn, New York Times, Sept. 2).

North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Yong Il said Wednesday that North Korea intends to test a nuclear weapon, according to the Associated Press.  He also accused Japanese and Russian officials of lying at the behest of the United States (Yuri Kageyama, Associated Press/Washington Post, Aug. 28).

During the negotiations — which included China, Japan, Russia, the United States, North Korea and South Korea — Pyongyang reportedly offered to abandon it nuclear weapons production and open its facilities to inspectors in exchange for a U.S. nonaggression treaty, financial assistance and energy aid (Xinhua News Agency, Sept. 2).

During the talks, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly met informally with North Korean diplomat Kim, Reuters reported (Rhoads/Kitano, Reuters, Aug. 27).

Days before the meeting began, a top U.S. State Department expert on North Korea resigned.  Jack Pritchard, the U.S. special envoy for negotiations with North Korea, was recently criticized by Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) for not delivering a hawkish message in his dealing with Pyongyang (Christopher Marquis, New York Times, Aug. 26).

The talks concluded Friday, and at that point Chinese officials said all the participating nations had agreed on the need for future meetings.  Within 24 hours, however, North Korea announced that it had no need for future talks (Kahn, New York Times).

Today, North Korea altered its approach and said it has “not yet changed our firm will to resolve the nuclear problem between the D.P.R.K. and the United States through dialogue” (Sang-hun Choe, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Sept. 2).

Back to top

IAEA Report on Iranian Nuclear Activities Bolsters U.S. Claims

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

In a report that could pose some tough choices for the White House, the U.N. nuclear inspection agency last week said it had found evidence that Iran might be closer to producing nuclear weapons than was previously thought (see GSN, Aug. 20).

The International Atomic Energy Agency said that environmental samples taken from the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz revealed traces of enriched uranium, which could be used to build a nuclear bomb (see GSN, July 18).  The Washington Post reported last week that U.N. officials suspect Pakistan of secretly helping Iran develop its nuclear facilities.

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi last week confirmed the enriched uranium discovery, but denied that Iran had conducted any enrichment activity.

“The components that we have imported from outside [have] been contaminated,” he said (see GSN, Aug. 18).

President Bush said in June that the international community “will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon” by Tehran.  The question is, how will Bush back up his rhetoric if the IAEA concludes that Iran has indeed violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?

In June, the IAEA released an initial report that documented several new nuclear research facilities in Iran and raised questions about whether Iran’s nuclear efforts are designed purely for the peaceful production of energy, as Tehran asserts.  The new report will be formally presented next week to the IAEA’s Board of Governors, which is then expected to decide whether Iran’s growing nuclear program is in violation of the nonproliferation treaty.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei and other inspectors have traveled to Iran in recent months, and ElBaradei has said he will be “in a much better position to make a judgment” about Iran’s nuclear ambitions by next week.

“I think they’ve come across some pretty damning evidence,” James Phillips, an Iran expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said earlier this month after rumors of the enriched uranium surfaced.  If the IAEA concludes that Iran is in violation of the treaty, the Bush administration will have to consider its options, including the use of force.  “It is a tough decision to consider military action,” Phillips said.  “It has to be considered — perhaps not publicly, but I’m sure it’s being considered privately.”

The United States has invaded both of Iran’s neighbors in the past two years, and Tehran must know that Bush’s strong words are not to be taken lightly.  In his July press conference, the president stressed that “all options remain on the table” in regard to Iran.  But he said he preferred a multilateral approach for convincing the Iranians that “the development of a nuclear weapon is not in their interests.”  Bush concluded by saying, “I really believe that we can solve this issue peacefully.”

Most experts dismiss the idea of a U.S. invasion of Iran; the country is larger than Alaska and has a population of 70 million, three times the size of Iraq’s.  But a strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear activities is a possibility.  Iran’s military — hopelessly overmatched — would probably not retaliate against U.S. forces, according to experts.

U.S. intelligence agencies, however, do not yet know enough about Iran’s nuclear facilities to make such a strike effective, according to Corey Hinderstein, a senior analyst at the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.  Hinderstein said she would be “very surprised” if Bush allowed a strike without a comprehensive knowledge of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.  And that may take some time to acquire.

Although U.S. officials do not know the location of every Iranian nuclear facility, they have developed a picture of a broad and multipronged nuclear effort, including Iran’s efforts to mine and enrich uranium.

Confusing the situation further, Iran has also built a plant to produce heavy water, which can be used to allow unenriched uranium to fuel a nuclear reactor.  The plutonium byproduct from a heavy-water reactor can be reprocessed for use in a nuclear weapon.

Currently, the European Union and the United Nations are urging Iran to sign the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, allowing inspectors to conduct more intrusive monitoring of the country’s nuclear activities.  Tehran has so far resisted, but the concerted international pressure has forced Iranian officials to at least consider the pact.

That is good news, but only half the story, according to Amin Tarzi, a longtime Iran analyst who now works with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.  “The bad news,” he said, “is that if Iran really wants to make nuclear weapons, signing the Additional Protocol does not mean much.”

According to experts, Iran can continue to develop dual-use nuclear technologies that can be used for peaceful or bomb-making purposes, yet still be in compliance with the treaty.  And “if they decide to pursue a weapons capability, they would be able to do so very quickly,” Hinderstein said.

Iran could be stalling on the Additional Protocol simply as a way to keep U.N. inspectors at bay.  “They are basically buying time,” Tarzi said.  “They may actually sign the Additional Protocol.  They will do their bargaining — I always call it the carpet-bazaar mentality.  They will bargain and bargain and bargain.”

Phillips said the debate over the Additional Protocol is merely an attempt to “forestall concerted international pressure.  I think they’re fully committed to obtaining a weapon.”

Although experts agree that Iran might be playing a political game while building a nuclear arsenal, they also agree that Washington has no clear path to prevent that outcome.  Said Hinderstein, “I don’t think the United States, frankly, has a lot of options.”

Back to top

New Indian Nuclear Command Holds First Meeting

The Indian Nuclear Command Authority held its first meeting yesterday to make decisions to “consolidate India’s nuclear deterrence,” a New Delhi statement said (see GSN, Jan. 6).

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee led the meeting of the authority, which was created in January as part of India’s efforts to formalize its nuclear command and control structure.  During the meeting, a number of decisions were made to “further development and management of the [nuclear] program, the statement said (Agence France-Presse, Sept. 1).

A number of topics related to India’s nuclear arsenal were discussed during yesterday’s meeting, including alternate chains of command for retaliatory nuclear attacks, the transfer of nuclear delivery systems to the Strategic Forces Command and the development of a nuclear triad, sources said (Rajat Pandit, Times of India, Sept. 2).

Back to top

CTBT Entry Into Force Conference Begins Tomorrow

The 2003 Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive nuclear Test Ban Treaty is scheduled to begin tomorrow in Vienna, according to a CTBT Organization release (see GSN, Aug. 13).

The conference, scheduled to be held through Friday, is expected to “renew global awareness of the treaty and encourage states who have not already done so to sign or ratify it,” the organization said.  Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja is expected to be chosen as conference president, according to the release.  The conference is also expected to receive a progress report by Mexico on cooperation among countries to facilitate the treaty’s entry into force as well as discussions between treaty signatories and ratifiers.

Article XIV of the treaty allows parties to convene a formal conference on ways to help the treaty take effect.  To date, 168 countries have signed the CTBT and 104 have ratified it, but 44 specific countries are required to ratify the pact before it can enter into force and only 32 have done so.  This week’s conference is the third conference to be held since the treaty was opened for signature in 1996 (see GSN, Nov.14, 2001; CTBT Organization release, Aug. 29).

Back to top

U.S. Plant Preparing to Produce Replacement Warhead Components

The Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., is preparing to begin production of replacement components for W-76 nuclear warheads deployed on Trident missile systems, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 11).

The W-76 warhead life-extension program is expected to begin in about a year, with the first delivery of components set for 2007, plant general manager Dennis Ruddy said.  Y-12 is now developing processes and reactivating systems used when the warheads were originally produced, AP reported. 

The number of warheads that will be replaced in the U.S. arsenal has not yet been determined, officials said. 

Several decisions remain to be made on the life-extension programs, such as which components of the warhead to reuse, Ruddy said.

“One of the desires is to have the capability to remake parts, but to the extent that we can to harvest them out of weapons as they’re recycled,” Ruddy said.  “It’s like taking good tires off an old car and putting them on the new one,” he said (Associated Press, Sept. 1).

Back to top

Biological Weapons a “Priority” for Osama bin Laden, Taliban Source Says

A ranking Taliban source has said that terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden has made the use of biological weapons in a future terrorist attack a “priority,” Newsweek reported today (see GSN, Aug. 21).

In April, bin Laden held a meeting in Afghanistan that included representatives from the Taliban, senior al-Qaeda operatives and leaders from Islamic militant groups based in the disputed Russian region of Chechnya and Uzbekistan, according to a former Taliban deputy foreign minister.  During the meeting, bin Laden said he was working on “serious projects,” including attacks with biological weapons, a ranking Taliban source said.

“His priority is to use biological weapons,” the source said of bin Laden.

Al-Qaeda currently possesses biological weapons, the source said, adding that only transportation and launch problems remain to be solved. 

“Osama’s next step will be unbelievable,” the source said.

U.S. forces in Afghanistan still do not know precisely where bin Laden is hiding, according to a U.S. Army spokesman.

“We don’t know where he is,” said Col. Rodney Davis, spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.  “And frankly, it’s not about him.  We’ll continue to focus on killing, capturing and denying sanctuary to any anti-coalition forces, whether they are influenced by bin Laden or not,” Davis said.

Some U.S. officials suspect that the war on terrorism has severely damaged bin Laden’s ability to communicate with his followers, reducing his involvement to a symbolic role.

“Bin Laden’s operational role is not as important as it was to al-Qaeda and the Taliban,” a senior U.S. diplomat in the Afghan capital of Kabul said.  “But symbolically he is still very important,” the diplomat added (Yousafzai/Moreau, Newsweek, Sept. 2).

Back to top

Hatfill Sues U.S. Justice Department Over Anthrax Investigation

Former U.S. Army biologist Steven Hatfill, who has been the public focus of the FBI’s investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, filed a lawsuit last week accusing the U.S. Justice Department of violating his constitutional rights, according to the New York Times (see GSN, July 3).

In his lawsuit, Hatfill accused Attorney General John Ashcroft and other Justice officials of ruining his life and of violating his privacy by publicly releasing information about him to hide the lack of progress in the anthrax investigation, the Times reported.  By identifying Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the investigation, Justice has destroyed his reputation and made him “not only unemployed, but as a practical matter unemployable,” the lawsuit says, calling for unspecified monetary damages from Ashcroft, Justice, the FBI and others.

The Justice Department refused to comment on Hatfill’s lawsuit, according to a department spokesman.  The spokesman said, however, that departmental counsel found in January that Ashcroft had not engaged in professional misconduct or violated Justice rules by publicly identifying Hatfill as a “person of interest” (Judith Miller, New York Times, Aug. 27).

Back to top

Leaks Stall First Effort to Accelerate Chemical Destruction at Anniston

Safety equipment that detected sarin leaks stopped the U.S. Army’s first effort to accelerate the destruction of chemical weapons agents stored at the Anniston depot in Alabama, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Aug. 18).

Workers at the incinerator destroyed about 530 gallons of bulk sarin gas Sunday and are scheduled to burn the remaining 270 gallons later this month, an Army spokesman said yesterday. 

The entire stock was originally scheduled to be destroyed Sunday, but two leaks were detected, and a sarin leak from two weeks ago was confirmed yesterday, according to AP.

“In no way would I characterize it as any failure or any problem,” Army spokesman Mike Abrams said.  “This is what we have characterized as a shakedown period.  There’s no pressure on us to do any specific production,” he added (Associated Press/Raleigh News and Observer, Sept. 2).

Back to top

Japanese Officials Submit Formal Request for Missile Defense Funding

Japanese defense officials Friday requested $1.2 billion to provide Patriot missile defense protection for Tokyo, Asahi Shimbun reported today (see GSN, Aug. 22).

The Japanese Defense Agency also requested $463.4 million to fit the destroyer Kongo with an Aegis Standard Missile 3 system.  Tokyo wants to equip four Aegis destroyers with the Standard Missile over a four-year period (Asahi Shimbun, Sept. 2).

The United States, meanwhile, is considering bringing Japan under its ballistic missile defense umbrella, scheduled to begin operations in 2004.

Washington might station a warship off the coast of Japan to provide missile defense coverage until Tokyo can develop its own technologies, according to a Japanese news report (Gary Schaefer, Associated Press, Sept. 2).

Officials in Tokyo are debating a move that would allow a Japanese prime minister to issue a defense mobilization order, which would be needed to authorize defense forces to engage incoming ballistic missiles.  Under the existing Self-Defense Forces Law, the prime minister must obtain approval from the Security Council of Japan and the cabinet before issuing the order (Yomiuri Shimbun, Aug. 25).

Back to top