DHS Readies $3 Billion for Terrorism Preparedness

From Thursday, November 6, 2008 issue.

The U.S. Homeland Security Department yesterday announced plans to distribute more than $3 billion in terrorism and disaster preparedness grants to U.S. communities in fiscal 2009.  The latest tranche of funding would come with fewer restrictions than in past years, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, July 19, 2007).

Among a number of loosened restrictions, state and local recipients would be allowed to use 50 percent of the funds for personnel expenses, a figure previously capped at 25 percent.

The new guidelines appeared to recognize criticisms that the federal support focused too much on terrorism to the detriment of other crime-fighting activities, the Post reported.

“The economic crisis is placing a great strain on local resources, forcing officials to decide between, say, a school-lunch program and cops on the street,” said David Heyman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  “This sounds like the department being very responsive to years of deep-seated complaints from local authorities about the enormous federal funding bureaucracy.”

“There is no more room for folks from state and local government to complain. They got pretty much what they wanted,” added a congressional aide to the House Homeland Security Committee (Spencer Hsu, Washington Post, Nov. 6).

The new funding reflects an evolving readiness strategy, said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

“Several years of investment have taken us largely from capability building to performance-based planning and investment,” he said in a release.   “This year’s funding priorities are consistent with last year, and reflect a mature and disciplined grants program.  We are now in the position of being able to inform high threat urban areas of their target allocations ahead of time, which will go a long way in helping their applications” (U.S. Homeland Security Department release, Nov. 5).

Back to top

Report Warns of “Future Military Failure”

From Thursday, November 6, 2008 issue.

By Bob Brewin
Government Executive

WASHINGTON — The Defense Science Board released on Tuesday a sobering report that called for the incoming Obama administration to focus on a small but complex set of defense issues, with protection of the country against weapons of mass destruction as the top priority of the new secretary of defense (see GSN, Nov. 5).

Weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and biological armaments, imperil both the safety of the United States and its military forces, according to the report, "Defense Imperatives for New Administration."  The board urged the new defense leadership "to do everything possible to prevent the worst people from acquiring and using the worst weapons."

This must include a strongly stated and unambiguous policy of retaliation to punish any nation or group that launches a weapon of mass destruction attack against the United States, according to the report, whose lead author is Craig Fields, chairman of the Defense Science Board and former director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the late 1980s.

The new administration cannot ignore the pressing issues outlined in the report, which "could lead to future military failure," the Defense Science Board said.  "We are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, with over 180,000 military personnel and perhaps 30,000 contractors at risk. ... We cannot know how militant Islamic jihadist terrorism will develop or what it will do.  Nations of concern, both rogue states and the largest nations, are enlarging their armories.  We need to feel a sense of urgency and act accordingly."

The science board also expressed strong concerns that terrorists could obtain supplies of the cesium 135 isotope, which is widely used in medical applications such as cancer treatments, to make a radioactive “dirty bomb.”  It urged the United States to encourage medical facilities to use another form of treatment to fight cancer.

The National Research Council issued a similar report in February, which called for the federal government to promote replacing cesium chloride, which is used in medical applications, with lower risk alternatives because of the compound's potential use in dirty bombs.

The science board said the new administration must mobilize forces worldwide to deter enemies and protect allies.  But the board emphasized that the United States' military and civilian information infrastructure remains highly vulnerable to cyber attack, which could deter force projection capabilities.

Poor defense business practices undermine military capabilities as they raise costs and impede "modernization that they threaten to compromise America's technology lead and force capability," said the report, which was dated August 2008 but released on Election Day.

The report also urged the new administration to focus on nation-building, stabilizing and reconstructing countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and on thwarting terrorist threats at home and around the world.

In addition, the Defense Department and other agencies such as the Homeland Security Department must devise better operational contingency plans to respond to domestic catastrophes, whether they are natural disasters such as hurricanes or attacks carried out by terrorist groups or foreign nations, the report said.

The Defense Science Board forecasted a grim scenario if an attack larger than Sept. 11 occurs or if the United States is hit by a natural disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina and the government's response is slow and ineffective.  The consequences, the science board predicted, would be a breakdown of civil order, leading to riots, vigilante actions and gang violence.

The new administration should reform "cumbersome business practices" within defense, which could cause a gradual long-term degradation of U.S. forces, "in effect a self-inflicted wound," the report said.  The Defense Science Board said a slow acquisition process limits ability of defense to take advantage of cutting-edge technology developed in the United States, and more agile adversaries can acquire technology quicker.

The Pentagon needs to adapt the best practices of the commercial sector to its missions and have an authoritative business plan that enforces discipline in the allocations of resources by mission purpose: what is to be done, with what resources and by when.

The Defense Department can no longer afford to perform its wide range of missions alone, the report said, and will have to work with other agencies and private sector partners at home and abroad.  Stabilization and reconstruction missions in foreign countries demand not only military skills to ensure public safety, but civilian skills needed to understand local cultures, histories and language, the report said.

Back to top

U.K. Rejects Students for Allegedly Seeking WMD

From Monday, November 3, 2008 issue.

British counterterrorism officials have turned away as many as 100 international students in the last year on suspicion that they were seeking chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear-weapon ingredients and know-how in the nation’s laboratories, the London Guardian reported yesterday (see GSN, July 22).

Under the Academic Technology Approval Scheme, a new system of background checks instituted in November 2007, the British intelligence agencies MI5 and MI6 prohibited applicants from studying in the United Kingdom with their authority “to stop the spread of knowledge and skills that could be used in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery,” according to a British Foreign Office spokesman.

“There is empirical evidence of a problem with postgraduate students becoming weapons proliferators,” the official added.  Some of the students likely came from Iran, Pakistan and other “countries of concern,” the Guardian reported.

MI5 previously said that al-Qaeda was seeking to enlist laboratory staffers who worked with lethal biological agents and other WMD materials. Michael Stephens, security chief for an organization of high-security British research facilities, said the group takes biological material protection “extremely seriously.”

It remained uncertain how many potential weapon proliferators could be working in the United Kingdom, the Guardian reported.  Rihab Taha, a former Iraqi biological weapons scientist also known as “Dr. Germ,” studied plant toxins at East Anglia University in Norwich (see GSN, March 14, 2006).

The new vetting system is working effectively, said a representative for Universities U.K., an organization of vice chancellors.  “It is important to protect the U.K. from people who may wish to use technology and materials here inappropriately,” the spokesman said.

The vetting program would impact only a small fraction of students who apply for postgraduate studies, the Foreign Office said.

In the United States, a proposed bill would prevent scientists born outside the country from working with deadly biological agents; British officials consider such a proposal unreasonable, the Guardian reported (Mark Townsend, London Guardian, Nov. 2).

Back to top

International Crises Await Obama

From Thursday, November 6, 2008 issue.

Upon his January inauguration, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama would inherit the leadership of a nation threatened by terror groups and political instability in nuclear-armed states, the McClatchy News Service reported (see GSN, Nov. 5).

"President Obama will be a wartime president from day one, and he will have to make immediate decisions and come to grips with immediate national security priorities," Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote yesterday.

Richard Haass, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, added that whether or not international leaders immediately challenge the next president, "the one thing I'm sure of is, events will test him. …  There will be coups. … There will be genocide. … There will be terrorism."

Obama is expected today to receive his first President’s Daily Brief, a confidential document authored by the country’s intelligence services, a high-level intelligence official said (Strobel/Linday, McClatchy News Service/Yahoo!News, Nov. 5).

In a letter sent late on Tuesday, National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell said the president-elect’s advisers would probably establish a temporary liaison group at his office, the Washington Post reported today.  "We are prepared to brief the team on the (intelligence community's) capabilities as well as on significant intelligence issues," the note states.

CIA Director Michael Hayden wrote in a memorandum to staffers that his agency now serves “two sets of customers,” Obama and President George W. Bush.  “Through expanded access, greater than what he had in his briefings as a candidate or as a senator, he will see the full range of capabilities we deploy for the United States,” he said (Kornblut/Cho, Washington Post, Nov. 6).

As president, Obama is expected to contend with North Korea, where the health of leader Kim Jong Il has cast uncertainty on efforts to denuclearize the country (see related GSN story, today), with Iran, which has refused to halt nuclear activities that could aid nuclear weapons development (see GSN, Nov. 3), and with al-Qaeda, which maintains a solid base along the Afghan-Pakistani border (see GSN, Oct. 28; Strobel/Linday, McClatchy).

He would also grapple with a resurgent Taliban, which has gathered strength in Afghanistan and allied with tribal militants in nuclear-armed Pakistan, the Associated Press reported.

"We're on our way to failure in Afghanistan and the consequences of losing are tremendous," said Paddy Ashdown, former secretary general of NATO.  "It means Pakistan falling and nuclear weapons getting into the hands of an Islamist government and the widening of the regional conflict and Afghanistan reverting to a playground for al-Qaeda."

Ashdown called on Obama to organize an international peace symposium early in his presidency with leaders from Iran, China and other nations.

“There will be a honeymoon because the world is longing for a U.S. president to give them a reason to love the United States again," Ashdown said.  "If he makes some bold moves, he can really take advantage of it" (Gregory Katz, Associated Press/Google News, Nov. 6).

According to the Americas editor for Jane’s Information Group, financial instability will probably limit Obama’s ability to dramatically shift the nation’s foreign policy, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday.

"Despite his accent during the election campaign on delivering change, Obama's foreign policy in practice is likely to be constrained by the effects of economic downturn and ongoing long-term commitments inherited from the Bush administration," Robert Munks said.  "The major difference from Republican foreign policy is therefore likely to be in presentation rather than substance.”

"On many ‘big ticket' issues there will be broad continuity, such as drawdown from Iraq, increased engagement in Afghanistan, the containment of Iran's putative nuclear weapons ambitions and cautious engagement with Beijing based primarily on trade.

"Countries where specific but nuanced policy shifts could be seen include Cuba, Colombia, Pakistan, Russia and Syria, and at the strategic level there is likely to be an increased focus on energy independence and environmental issues as factors affecting national security," Munks said (Agence France-Presse I/Khaleej Times, Nov. 5).

Arab League chief Amr Moussa yesterday urged Obama to base his Middle East policy on "honest brokership."

"We cannot talk about a Middle East free from nuclear weapons which applies to all but one,” he said, referring to Israel’s widely presumed possession of nuclear weapons.  “It's not serious, the policy of all but one has to come to an end" (Agence France-Presse II/Zawya, Nov. 5).

Meanwhile, Israel noted concern about Obama’s stated willingness to negotiate with Iran over its disputed nuclear efforts, Reuters reported.  Tehran insists its nuclear program is strictly peaceful, a position doubted by Jerusalem and the West.

"We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue — in a situation where you have brought sanctions, and you then shift to dialogue — is liable to be interpreted as weakness," Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Israeli radio when questioned on Obama’s Middle East positions.

Questioned on whether would endorse any U.S. talks with Iran, she said:  “The answer is no” (Jeffrey Heller, Reuters I, Nov. 6).

Iran yesterday said it would not tolerate U.S. incursions into Iranian airspace, a warning that one Iranian political figure said was directed more at Obama than the U.S. military presence in Iraq

"Recently it has been seen that American army helicopters were flying a small distance from Iraq's border with Iran and, because of the closeness to the border, the danger of them violating Iran's border is possible," state radio reported, referring to an Iranian army statement.  "Iran's armed forces will respond to any violation” (Parisa Hafezi, Reuters II, Nov. 5).

Back to top

Air Force Opens Nuclear Policy Office at Pentagon

From Tuesday, November 4, 2008 issue.

The U.S. Air Force on Saturday opened a new office at its Pentagon headquarters to oversee and integrate the service’s nuclear weapons policy (see GSN, Oct. 27).

Maj. Gen. Donald Alston, who recently directed a task force aimed at “reinvigorating” the service’s nuclear enterprise, has been named assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration and will lead the Air Staff office, according to a release issued yesterday.

The initiative is one of many the service is undertaking following a string of operational and management lapses in its nuclear sector, including a mistaken shipment of weapons parts to Taiwan and the accidental transfer of nuclear-armed cruise missiles between two U.S. bases.  Last week, the Air Force disclosed that a fire had occurred at one of its nuclear weapons silos (see GSN, Oct. 31).

One of Alston’s first tasks will be to help create a new Air Force Global Strike Command, which is to take charge of the service’s nuclear weapons operations by next September (Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire, Nov. 4).

Back to top

Strategic Arms Funds Tilt Conventional in 2009

From Friday, November 7, 2008 issue.

By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — With the U.S. Congress having eliminated funds for a Bush administration proposal to develop a new nuclear warhead for the second year in a row, the focus of the strategic arms budget for fiscal 2009 has largely turned to conventional weaponry (see GSN, Sept. 15).

The trend might just sit well with President-elect Barack Obama, who said last year that, if voted into the White House, he would “take the lead to work for a world in which the roles and risks of nuclear weapons can be reduced and ultimately eliminated.”

The impending rise of long-range conventional arms comes principally in the form of two futuristic efforts:  an Air Force “Conventional Strike Missile” and an Army “Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.”  These are the leading candidates to become “prompt global strike” weapons, which defense leaders envision as a partial alternative to nuclear arms under limited circumstances (see GSN, Oct. 29).

For the new fiscal year, Congress has appropriated nearly $82 million to develop prompt strike weapons, while zeroing a requested $33 million in Defense and Energy department funds for design work on a Reliable Replacement Warhead to upgrade the nuclear stockpile.

"A nuclear weapon is still a viable part of our inventory, but ... one size does not fit all," Gen. James Cartwright — at the time the top U.S. strategic commander — told a Senate Armed Services panel in March 2006.  "What we'd like to do is ... field a [conventional] weapon that will give us a broader and potentially more appropriate choice for the nation."

For the emerging conventional mission, the Defense Department seeks the capacity to attack targets anywhere around the world within 60 minutes of a launch order.  Commanders have said such a capability could be crucial if the nation were confronted by a serious but fleeting threat, such as a terrorist leader pinpointed at a safe house or a weapon of mass destruction being readied for firing by a rogue nation. 

Currently, the only U.S. weapons with sufficient range and speed to undertake the mission are nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.  As a U.S. president would be unlikely to launch a nuclear weapon against such targets, conventional ballistic missiles should be developed that might be used more readily, defense leaders have argued (see GSN, May 28).

“In light of the appropriately extreme reluctance to use nuclear weapons, conventional prompt global strike could be of particular value in some important scenarios in that it would eliminate the dilemma of having to choose between responding to a sudden threat either by using nuclear weapons or by not responding at all,” stated an August report by a National Academy of Sciences panel (see GSN, Aug. 15).

Focus on the Army and Air Force efforts has grown this year following congressional moves to shelve a Navy concept for modifying submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Lawmakers have refused to fund a plan to equip 24 Trident D-5 missiles with conventional warheads, the Pentagon’s initial blueprint for prompt global strike.  Opponents of the Navy project argued that Russia or other nuclear powers might mistake the conventional Trident’s launch as a nuclear salvo and unleash a devastating response (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2007).

Gen. Kevin Chilton, now the top U.S. commander for strategic combat, recently acknowledged Capitol Hill concerns, mandating that the Air Force take over the lead for prompt global strike weapons (see GSN, Sept. 3).  Both the Air Force and Army missiles are being designed as new, ground-based weapons that would not have look-alike nuclear variants, potentially making them less likely to be misconstrued as atomic arms during a crisis.

The notional weapons would initially boost like missiles and then glide to their targets at hypersonic speeds.  Both are imagined as being maneuverable, a feature that could help avoid violating the airspace of third-party nations en route to their targets, proponents say.

Beginning in fiscal 2008, Congress consolidated $100 million in prompt global strike funds across the military services into a single, defense-wide account.  The multiservice funding pot allows the defense secretary’s office to parcel out money for strike technology projects to the services, in consultation with Capitol Hill (see GSN, April 3).

Lawmakers also chose to appropriate some funds for prompt global strike technologies directly to the services, outside of the defense-wide account, including more than $40 million for the Army’s hypersonic weapon (see GSN, Nov. 8, 2007).

The fiscal 2009 appropriations bill again funded prompt global strike via the pan-service account — and included a few more twists.

This year, neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations committees voted on a fiscal 2009 defense appropriations bill and lawmakers never met in a formal conference.  Only the respective defense appropriations subcommittees marked up their bills, according to congressional aides.

After committee leaders met behind closed doors this summer, the two chambers in late September passed a reconciled defense appropriations bill.  They appended the $487.7 billion in defense appropriations to a continuing resolution that combines funding measures for a number of agencies.

The enacted legislation included $74.6 million for the defense-wide account for prompt global strike in fiscal 2009, which began Oct. 1.  The conference figure matches the earlier Senate version of the appropriations bill, which cut $43 million from President George W. Bush’s $117.6 million request for the program.

Defense officials had told Congress the $43 million would have been spent on a Navy concept for a Medium-Lift Re-entry Body, described as a scaled-up version of designs for the controversial Trident modification program (see GSN, March 20).  The funds also would have gone toward a related Navy “Life Extension Test Bed-2” flight demonstration in 2009.

Critics said funding this alternative weapon would have renewed concerns about the “ambiguity” of ballistic missile launches from nuclear weapons-carrying submarines.

The House version of the 2009 bill, ultimately rejected in the reconciled bill, fully funded the president’s defense-wide prompt global strike request.  It also separately added a total of $9 million to Air Force and Army coffers for the services’ respective missile development projects (see GSN, Sept. 9). 

However, in similar fashion, the final House-Senate bill not only provided funds for defense-wide prompt global strike via its $74.6 million appropriation, but included additional funds for the mission outside the joint funding pot, in Army- and Air Force-specific line items.

For the Army, the conference bill appropriated an extra $2.4 million to help prepare a demonstration of Advanced Hypersonic Weapon technologies.  The Army this fiscal year expects to begin testing technology components that could contribute either toward its own weapon development effort or toward the Air Force project.

The increase was a congressional earmark sponsored by Republicans from Mississippi and Alabama, home to the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command. 

In addition, the legislation stated that “not less than one-fourth” of the $74.6 million in the prompt global strike defense-wide account — nearly $19 million — must “be available” for the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.  The combined total affords the Army more than $21 million for developing the weapon in fiscal 2009.

With the Army leadership’s funding priorities focused more on current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the service has never requested funds for the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.

For the Air Force, the appropriations legislation included an additional $4.8 million, to be spent on a Conventional Strike Missile “mission integration demonstration.”  That service hopes to perform a first flight test of a “weaponized” Conventional Strike Missile “payload delivery vehicle” in 2010, according to Defense Department documents.

Representative Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) sponsored the Air Force earmark, according to the appropriations report.

Even some of those who were critical of the now-shelved Navy prompt global strike concepts harbor reservations about the more politically popular Air Force and Army weapons.

Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists said he worries that the mission for conventional prompt global strike weapons could easily expand beyond limited scenarios.  U.S. intelligence might only rarely offer sufficient confidence about the nature and location of such critical targets in the short time frames discussed, said Kristensen, director of his organization’s Nuclear Information Project.

If based on less-than-perfect intelligence, a broader use of quick-strike weapons could increase unintended civilian casualties — perhaps of the kind seen recently as a result of U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan — and potentially intensify backlash against U.S. policies or presence around the globe, Kristensen said.

In “principle,” he said, “you’d be crazy not to” launch a prompt global strike attack under the urgent circumstances defense leaders describe for the mission.  However, Kristensen sees a slippery slope in which the weapons’ high value could make them deceptively attractive tools under a wider set of scenarios.

“It’s just really hard to separate the urgency and the honest requirement [for a limited tool] from the hype associated with this antiterrorism mission,” he said.

Regardless of which systems are ultimately embraced for prompt global strike, the NAS review recommended that the Defense Department analyze, prior to deployment, “the potential for inappropriate, mistaken or accidental use; the implications for nuclear deterrence and crisis stability (including ‘ambiguity’ considerations); the impact of overflight and debris; and the implications for arms control and associated agreements.”

The defense authorization conference bill, also enacted in late September, said the Pentagon must undertake a review of prompt global strike policies, in consultation with the State Department, to be submitted to Congress by Sept. 1, 2009. 

The report is to offer recommendations on how to mitigate the risk that such technology might be “misconstrued as a nuclear weapon or delivery system,” according to the authorization legislation.  The document must also include “an assessment of the intelligence needed to support the use of any [prompt global strike] concept.”

The defense secretary is also required to submit a separate report to Congress by April 1, 2009, describing the prompt global strike technologies to be developed during the fiscal year and how they might be used in combat.

The legislation also directs the Pentagon to submit a report on these strike technologies along with the fiscal 2010 budget request.

Meanwhile, the administration’s most closely watched nuclear weapons effort took another significant hit.

For the new fiscal year, House and Senate lawmakers denied the Navy’s entire $23 million request for integration work on the Reliable Replacement Warhead.  The Bush administration has argued that the United States should build the new warhead to boost the reliability, safety, security and maintainability of today’s nuclear stockpile.

This summer, the House and Senate also nixed $10 million in 2009 Energy Department appropriations for an RRW study (see GSN, July 10).

Lawmakers have repeatedly argued that funding a new nuclear warhead could undercut U.S. efforts to eliminate the development of atomic weapons abroad, particularly in regard to North Korea and Iran.  Congress has said it might consider allowing the development of a replacement warhead only after the executive branch has shown how it would fit into an overarching nuclear weapons strategy.

Obama’s administration is expected to conduct such a strategy assessment, called a “Nuclear Posture Review,” beginning next year.  As a candidate, Obama said he would not support "a premature decision to produce the RRW,” but he left open the possibility that his administration would pursue its development.

Congress did support a $10 million Navy request to begin conceptual design work on a new nuclear weapons-carrying vessel to replace today’s fleet of 18 Ohio-class submarines (see GSN, April 24).  The request to kick off the program was submitted without fanfare under the heading of an “Underwater Launch Missile System.”

Fourteen vessels in the current fleet, the so-called “SSBNs,” are capable of launching Trident D-5 nuclear-armed missiles.  The remaining four boats, dubbed “SSGNs,” carry conventional cruise missiles and special operations forces.

The defense authorization bill also called on the president to submit a report about “nuclear weapons worldwide” that details “each country’s nuclear weapons arsenal and [includes] an assessment of the various risks associated with nuclear weapons deemed to be attractive to terrorists, states, and other nonstate actors.”

The submission must also recommend “mechanisms and procedures to improve the security of such weapons, monitor and track such weapons, and identify options to transparently and verifiably dismantle and dispose of such weapons.”  Lawmakers said the unclassified report, due in one year, could include a “classified annex” in which sensitive data or issues might be discussed.

An unrelated atomic-weapons provision contained in the fiscal 2009 appropriations report prohibits the Defense Department from fitting its emerging missile defense system with nuclear-armed interceptors.

Back to top

U.S. Proposes Nuclear Warhead Limits to Russia

From Friday, November 7, 2008 issue.

The United States has submitted a new proposal to Russia to revise the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that is set to expire in 13 months, the Wall Street Journal reported today.  A senior U.S. official said yesterday he would travel to Moscow this month to discuss the issue (see GSN, Oct. 20).

The 1991 pact allows the two nations to each deploy no more than 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads and a maximum of 1,600 delivery vehicles.  The U.S. proposal submitted last month offers an additional cap to the total number of warheads each side can field, acting Undersecretary of State John Rood told reporters yesterday.

Russia has expressed interest in expanding the scope of the treaty to include some conventional weapons, according to the Journal.

With a little more than two months remaining in President George W. Bush’s term, Rood acknowledged that the strategic talks would have to be continued by President-elect Barack Obama.  Still, Rood hoped to get the “ball rolling” (Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7).

Back to top

Mozambique Ratifies Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

From Thursday, November 6, 2008 issue.

Mozambique on Tuesday ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, becoming the 146th nation to fully adopt the pact banning all nuclear explosions, the treaty’s implementing body announced today (see GSN, Sept. 25).

Mozambique also ratified the African Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone Treaty this year (see GSN, March 27).

While 180 nations have signed the testing treaty, it cannot enter into force without ratification by 44 specific nations.  Nine holdouts remain:  China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States (Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization release, Nov. 6).

Back to top

North Korea Prepares for New U.S. President

From Friday, November 7, 2008 issue.

North Korea said yesterday it is prepared for whatever stance that U.S. President-elect Barack Obama takes in relations with the nuclear-armed Stalinist state, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Nov. 6).

"We have dealt with various U.S. administrations, including an administration that sought dialogue with us and an administration that attempted to isolate and contain us," nuclear negotiator Ri Gun said during a trip to New York.  "Whatever U.S. administration comes forward, we are ready to deal with that administration's policy" on Pyongyang.

"We will have dialogue if (the U.S.) seeks dialogue.  If it seeks isolation, we will stand against it,” Ri said later.

The envoy from Pyongyang met yesterday with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the Bush administration’s top negotiator at the six-nation talks on North Korea’s nuclear program, along with State Department official Sung Kim, special envoy to the diplomatic effort.

North Korea agreed last year to dismantle its nuclear sector in exchange for economic, diplomatic and security concessions from China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States.  The process has appeared near collapse at times but presently seems to be moving forward.

The New York meetings addressed future moves toward nuclear dismantlement, AP reported.  The talks were “substantive, detailed and we look forward to continuing to keep in touch,” Ri said.

“We all agree (in) the exchange of views what we have to do more, and what is the next thing,” he added (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press/Washington Post, Nov. 7).

The six nations could conduct their next full round of talks early next month, Kyodo News reported.  Negotiations had been anticipated this month but might be delayed by other multinational events, said South Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan.

“We can’t rule out the possibility the six-party talks are to be held in early December,” Yu said.  Participating nations hope to produce a written document setting out details of verification of North Korean nuclear activities as part of the denuclearization process (Kyodo News, Nov. 7).

Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak agreed during a telephone conversation yesterday to cooperate in seeking an end to the North Korean nuclear matter, AP reported (Chang, Associated Press).

Obama has said he is ready to conduct “aggressive, sustained and direct diplomacy” with Pyongyang, the Yonhap News Agency reported.

“Early in the Obama administration, I expect Washington will make a high-level statement that the U.S. is prepared to normalize relations with Pyongyang and sign a peace treaty ending the Korean War, but only after North Korea has completely eliminated its nuclear weapons and dismantled its nuclear facilities,” said Gary Samore, vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Pyongyang might see the Obama administration as more akin to the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who offered light-water reactors to North Korea under the Agreed Framework intended to end Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions.  The Bush administration took a far harder stand on the regime, until the later stages of its term in the White House.

“For North Korea, eight years of waiting is over.  North Korea views Obama’s election as an opportunity to eliminate mistrust and hostile policies between the two sides,” said researcher Kim Seong-bae of the Seoul-based Institute for National Security Strategy.  “North Korea and the U.S. will have more direct negotiations.”

Obama might offer a “big deal” to Pyongyang, possibly including light-water reactors, in order to bring the nuclear standoff to a close, Kim said.

“I don’t think Obama’s election will automatically lead to a deal,” he said.  “It would take several months to form a new diplomatic team and have consultations with related nations on the North Korean issue.”

The new president is not likely to offer too much to North Korea, Samore said.

“I expect it to basically continue the current strategy to disarm North Korea through ‘action for action’ incremental steps under the auspices of the six-party talks,” he said by e-mail.

“Assuming that the disablement of the Yongbyon facilities and verification of North Korea’s plutonium declaration is completed (or almost finished) by the time Obama takes office at the end of January, the next important step will be declaration and verification of North Korea’s secret [uranium] enrichment program and proliferation activities,” according to Samore (Yonhap News Agency, Nov. 7).

The Obama administration might develop a program for North Korea similar to the Cooperative Threat Reduction effort used to secure and eliminate unconventional weapons and materials in former Soviet states, the Korea Times reported.

The U.S. Energy Department is expected to seek $300 million for a Cooperative Threat Reduction in North Korea initiative, Obama adviser Frank Jannuzzi said in October.

“Obama visited the sites where CTR was implemented in Europe and Jannuzzi is interested in CTR, so it’s possible that the new U.S. government may consider the initiative as part of North Korea policy after Obama takes office early next year,” said defense analyst Kim Chang-su of the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis.

A CTR program in North Korea would cost between $200 million and $500 million, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  Washington has paid roughly $7 billion for the existing program (Korea Times, Nov. 6).

Back to top

Audit Raises Concerns Over British Nuclear Plans

From Wednesday, November 5, 2008 issue.

British government auditors this week expressed concern, but not alarm, that plans to replace the nation’s nuclear-armed submarine fleet could face delays and budget overruns (see GSN, March 15, 2007).

Leaders have announced plans to replace the British fleet of four ballistic missile submarines by 2024 and to consider modernizing the missiles and warheads the vessels carry.

In a report issued Monday, the National Audit Office said, “there remain a number of major areas of uncertainty in the budget,” currently estimated at $24 billion to $32 billion.

Design and development decisions need to be made rapidly to keep the schedule, according to the audit, and strategies must be developed to induce suppliers, some of them monopolies, to deliver on time.

“There are considerable challenges in ensuring that the [defense] department’s suppliers perform effectively and that the new submarines are delivered on time and at an acceptable cost,” the report’s summary says.  “The department has, however, made good progress in establishing program management arrangements, coordinating all aspects of the future deterrent capability and engaging industry and other government departments (National Audit Office release, Nov. 3).

Back to top

Strike on Iran Debated in Washington

From Monday, November 3, 2008 issue.

U.S. lawmakers, think tanks and independent experts of various political backgrounds are weighing the need for military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as well as new diplomatic alternatives aimed halting disputed elements of the country’s atomic program, according to a New York Times commentary today (see GSN, Oct. 31).

The United States suspects that Iran’s atomic efforts are geared toward weapons development, but Tehran insists that its nuclear work is strictly aimed at civilian energy development.

The incoming presidential administration “might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat,” warns a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

The analysis examines measures such as a blockade that would prevent Iran from receiving gasoline, but adds that “a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort.”

Use of military force “is an element of any true option,” although it should only be employed wit