NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks yesterday discussed U.S.-Russian legal disagreements over joint efforts to secure Russian nuclear materials and technology (U.S. Energy Department photo). U.S. Fears “Manipulation” of Russian Legal System in Joint Nuclear Security Efforts By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — “Manipulation” of the Russian legal system is among the factors behind a U.S.-Russian standoff over liability provisions in agreements on securing nuclear material in Russia, a top U.S. nuclear security official said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 22, 2003). The United States and Russia are stalemated over the scope of the liability exemption U.S. officials and contractors should receive while conducting U.S.-Russian programs to secure Russian nuclear materials and technology. Concerned about the possibility of Russian prosecution of the U.S. officials and contractors, Washington is seeking total U.S. exemption from liability...Full Story

U.S. Helps Greece Defend Against Olympic “Dirty Bomb” Attack By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — With the threat of terrorism looming over this year’s Summer Olympics in Athens, the United States is helping Greece to deploy radiation detectors in a bid to prevent a radiological attack on the summer games (see GSN, Nov. 4, 2003)...Full Story

Most 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates Oppose Yucca Mountain Project By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Most of the candidates seeking the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination oppose the U.S. Energy Department’s current plan to build a long-term nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, according to a survey released last week by a coalition of U.S. business, consumer, energy and environmental groups (see GSN, Jan. 6)...Full Story

	Wednesday, January 14, 2004

U.S. Fears “Manipulation” of Russian Legal System in Joint Nuclear Security Efforts By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — “Manipulation” of the Russian legal system is among the factors behind a U.S.-Russian standoff over liability provisions in agreements on securing nuclear material in Russia, a top U.S. nuclear security official said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 22, 2003). The United States and Russia are stalemated over the scope of the liability exemption U.S. officials and contractors should receive while conducting U.S.-Russian programs to secure Russian nuclear materials and technology. Concerned about the possibility of Russian prosecution of the U.S. officials and contractors, Washington is seeking total U.S. exemption from liability. “The Russian legal system is not yet free from manipulation,” National Nuclear Security Administration head Linton Brooks said yesterday when asked about the dispute. In a rare discussion with reporters, Brooks cited a friend imprisoned in Russia for “normal reporting” and the bankruptcy scandal around the oil and gas company Yukos, in which the company today alleged “a form of blackmail by tax authorities.” The United States is seeking to impose liability language such as that found in the 1992 cooperative threat reduction “umbrella agreement” ― which, unlike related texts, contains no exception to liability exemption in case of a deliberate act such as sabotage ― as the standard in all such agreements. Summing up the U.S. position yesterday, Brooks said, “The Russian Federation should provide indemnity against liability resulting from accidents and problems [that extends to] deliberate acts of individuals.” The key question behind U.S. concerns, according to one U.S. official familiar with the situation, is, “What’s a premeditated act?” “If something goes wrong, the Russians can say, ‘That was a premeditated act.’ … The Russians have this exception, and if something goes wrong ― you know, someone could say Chernobyl was a deliberate act,” the official said. The two officials’ remarks echoed comments last month by Brooks’ deputy for nonproliferation, Paul Longsworth, who told a Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars gathering that NNSA is concerned about the integrity of the Russian legal system. “We don’t want to subject our companies to that,” said Longsworth. The liability dispute last year allowed two 1998 agreements governing nuclear cleanup activities to lapse: the Nuclear Cities Initiative agreement and the Plutonium Science and Technology agreement. Both agreements stipulate that U.S. officials and contractors are not exempt from liability for damages and injuries arising from premeditated acts (see GSN, July 25, 2003). Washington and Moscow have agreed to continue existing projects under the Nuclear Cities Initiative agreement, but no new projects can be started (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2003). The United States allowed the two agreements to expire, said Brooks, because “we were unwilling to suggest to the Russians that we were prepared to back off this important position of principle.” Brooks expressed hope that a replacement for the NCI agreement can be reached “soon,” based on some resolution of the liability dispute. In a Dec. 2 interview for the Arms Control Association publication Arms Control Today, released today, Brooks said “soon” in the context of the liability talks with Russia means a “single-digit number of months.” He added in the same interview that claims that the Bush administration is using liability as an excuse to end programs already targeted for termination are “nonsense, just absolutely nonsense.” “Once solved,” Brooks told Arms Control Today, “we will revive, if you will, the Nuclear Cities agreement. It will be formally a new agreement, but it will be the same Nuclear Cities program, with liability solved. Once it’s resolved, we will continue plutonium disposition. So what you’re seeing is the clash of competing values. We want the programs to go forward.  We want adequate liability protection. Particular agreements turned out to be the ones that happened to expire in 2003.” Dispute Holding Up Plutonium Disposition Facility Construction A “more serious” situation, Brooks said yesterday, involves the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition agreement, which contains no liability provisions at all. The 2000 agreement was to have provided the basis for design and construction of plutonium disposition facilities first explored under the aegis of the 1998 Plutonium Science and Technology agreement. Brooks said yesterday that it would be “impossible” to build a Russian plutonium disposition facility unless liability was worked out under the 2000 text. He expressed hope that an agreement can be reached “soon” but voiced resignation that “a little bit of patience” is often necessary when dealing with Russia. The 2000 agreement was reached with the understanding on both sides that a liability protocol would be worked out later, but U.S.-Russian differences over liability have so far prevented agreement on such a protocol. “The 2000 agreement is not finished in the sense that there needs to be a liability protocol before it’s done. … Here we are down to the point where we want to start the basic design work for the industrial facilities, and the relevant agreement … is not finished yet,” said the U.S. official familiar with the situation. Back to top       Rumsfeld Denies That Iraq Was Immediate Target of Bush Administration U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday denied recent allegations by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that the Bush administration had begun planning to depose former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein soon after taking office, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Jan. 12). According to a new book on O’Neill’s term in the Bush administration, the White House began planning to remove Hussein in its first National Security Council meeting, held on Jan. 30, 2001. During a Pentagon press briefing yesterday, however, Rumsfeld said that a policy of “regime change” in Iraq had been inherited from the Clinton administration and that the Bush administration had been concerned about Iraqi attempts to shoot down planes operating in the no-fly-zones in the northern and southern sections of the country. “All I know is that when we arrived, the policy of the United States government, since 1998, has been regime change in Iraq. … As secretary of defense, asking pilots to go forth in Iraq, in the north, in the south on a daily basis and put their lives at risk … is not a happy prospect. And clearly, it was something that this president had to address, did address,” Rumsfeld said (Loeb/Milbank, Washington Post, Jan. 14). Back to top       Despite Developments in Iran and Libya, Israel Has Received Little Pressure to Alter WMD Policy A senior diplomatic official has said that, despite recent nonproliferation developments in the Middle East, Israel has not come under serious pressure to alter its own WMD policies, the Jerusalem Post reported today (see GSN, Dec. 30, 2003). After Libya agreed last month to dismantle its WMD efforts, the subject of Israel doing the same has increasingly come up during diplomatic talks, the official said, but the matter is only raised “in conversation” and that no serious pressure has been applied. According to the diplomatic official, it is too soon for Israel to decide whether Libya’s decision, along with Iran’s decision to open its nuclear activities to greater international scrutiny, will change Israel’s strategic policy. The fact that both Iran and Libya conducted their nuclear efforts in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a strong argument for Israel to not change its policies until there is more fundamental change in the Middle East, the official said (Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 14).   Back to top

Pakistan Continues Nuclear Scientist’s Six-Week Detention The continued detention of Pakistani nuclear scientist Mohammed Farooq has raised concern among family members and Pakistani opposition lawmakers that Farooq will be blamed for recent allegations of Pakistani nuclear proliferation, the Los Angles Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 6). Pakistani military intelligence agents took Farooq into custody on Dec. 1, soon after news reports came out that Pakistan might have provided Iran with nuclear weapons technology, according to the Times. On the day after Farooq’s arrest, his wife was allow to visit him briefly at an office of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency in Rawalpindi, outside of Islamabad. The next day, Farooq warned his family not to go to court seeking information on him, the Times reported. In the past six weeks Farooq’s family has had no contact with him. This month, Farooq’s wife filed a petition seeking information on her husband’s continued detainment, with a judge expected to hear the case tomorrow, according to the Times. In addition, opposition lawmakers in Pakistan have called on President Pervez Musharraf to allow parliament to investigate the allegations of possible nuclear proliferation. “Inquiries under Musharraf have lost their credibility,” said Senator Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. “The judiciary has been subverted. It should be an inquiry by parliament so that the scientists are not scapegoated,” Babar said (Paul Watson, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 14). Back to top       NNSA Chief Defends Nuclear Weapons Research A top U.S. nuclear official yesterday defended U.S. President George W. Bush’s push to allow research on new nuclear weapons and said the effort would not lead to the development of new nuclear weapons or a new arms race, the Baltimore Sun reported (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2003). National Nuclear Security Administration leader Linton Brooks said that last year’s congressional repeal of a 1992 ban on research into low-yield nuclear weapons would help keep the current stockpile effective. His remarks were intended in part to deflect criticism generated last month in response to a memo Brooks sent to the directors of U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, the Sun reported. In that memo, Brooks applauded the research ban’s repeal and said, “We should not fail to take advantage of this opportunity.” Yesterday, Brooks said the United States was not seeking to design and develop new types of nuclear weapons, but rather was trying to ensure the existing stockpile. “Research and development is about looking at a variety of things, including improving safety and security of existing designs, making existing designs more robust in the absence of testing,” Brooks said.  “I am not uncomfortable looking other nations in the eye and saying what is absolutely true: The United States is a strong supporter of nonproliferation,” he added. Bush administration critics, however, have said that renewed U.S. nuclear weapons research will undermine nonproliferation efforts. “It’s like telling your kids not to smoke when you have a two-pack-a-day habit,” said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Laura Sullivan, Baltimore Sun, Jan. 14). Back to top       Pakistani Nuclear Proliferation Charges Raises Policy Concerns The recent allegations that Pakistan, considered to be a major U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, provided nuclear weapons technology to several countries of concern raises new difficulties in U.S. policy toward Islamabad, the Associated Press reported today (see related GSN story, today). Some experts have said that the continued allegations of Pakistani nuclear proliferation hurts U.S. President George W. Bush, who has said that a top priority of his administration is nonproliferation, according to AP. They want the White House to apply greater pressure on Pakistan to prevent such activities. “These activities were tightly held, state-run activities,” said Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. “The idea that they would be shared with countries of this sort, without the knowledge of people senior in the government, strikes me as very unlikely,” he said. Other experts said, though, that too much U.S. pressure on Pakistan could result in decreased cooperation from Islamabad in antiterrorism efforts. “How do you stop Pakistan? No one has found a way,” said former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright. “We have this set of conflicting priorities. The United States is reluctant to crack down too hard,” he added (Matt Kelley, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Jan. 14). Back to top       Chinese Diplomat Visits Washington to Push North Korea Talks A senior Chinese Foreign Ministry official met with top U.S. diplomats yesterday in Washington to discuss the prospect of restarting six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear standoff, CNN.com reported (see GSN, Jan. 13). Previous talks to defuse the crisis have included China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea and the United States. Yesterday’s talks were “useful” and China is looking to restart the nuclear negotiations “as soon as possible,” said Fu Ying, China’s director general for Asian affairs at the Foreign Ministry. “We look forward to fruitful discussions at the next round of six-party talks in the spirit of mutual respect and consultations on equal footing,” she added. In Washington, Fu met with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly. A senior U.S. State Department official said, however, that the round of multilateral talks are not imminent. “I don’t sense a breakthrough ready to be announced,” the official said. “I don’t think she’s here bringing a message from the North Koreans that we are ready to go,” the official added (Elise Labott, CNN.com, Jan. 13). Back to top

Libya Joins Chemical Weapons Convention Libya submitted its instrument of accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention Jan. 6 (see GSN, Jan. 13). The move follows recent agreements by Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi to abandon his country’s WMD programs. Libya will become the 159th party to the treaty when its ratification takes effect on Feb. 5 (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons release, Jan. 14). Back to top       Defense Department Backs Off Chemical Disposal Acceleration The U.S. Defense Department might not be able to follow through on plans to accelerate the destruction of chemical weapons at its Pueblo, Colo., and Blue Grass, Ky., depots InsideDefense.com reported yesterday. “While we directed accelerated destruction of the Pueblo chemical weapon stockpile, current information indicates the emerging design concept is not executable,” according to a Dec. 22, 2003, letter from Dale Klein, assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Defense on nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs (see GSN, Nov. 5, 2003). “Consequently, we are conducting an analysis to evaluate and select an optimal design concept that is safe, affordable and technically viable,” he added. Defense officials have been investigating alternative methods for disposing of chemical weapons stockpiles in an effort to avoid using a controversial incineration process. Congress has mandated that the Pentagon ensure that any alternative technique for disposing chemical weapons be as safe, effective and cost-efficient as incineration. The real issue behind the delay is the high cost of nonincineration techniques, according to Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, a watchdog organization. Williams said that the Defense Department’s Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program has been so successful in pushing the program forward, it has run out of funding in some areas. “It now appears they may be penalized for doing such a good job and making such precedent-setting achievements in the mission,” he said (Suzanne Yohannan, InsideDefense.com, Jan. 13). Back to top

Pentagon Budgets $450 Million More to Primary Missile Defense Program The U.S. Defense Department has added $450 million to the Ground-base Midcourse Defense program budget for fiscal 2005, Defense Daily reported today (see GSN, Jan. 13). The Missile Defense Agency’s total request is not expected to become public until after the Bush administration submits its budget request to Congress on Feb. 2. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz added $300 million to the budget in a classified Dec. 30 document, according to Defense Daily. That document, Program Decision Memorandum III, is the “foundation document” for future changes to the missile defense program, a Pentagon source said. Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim added another $150 million to the system’s fiscal 2005 budget in a program budget decision signed Jan. 6. At least $150 million of the new funding will go toward Block 2006, which seeks to integrate ground and space sensors into the overall command and control architecture. As the name suggests, the Pentagon is looking to field that effort in 2006. The remaining money will not go to cover a financial shortfall, but will be used to expand the program, according to a Pentagon source (Amy Butler, Defense Daily, Jan. 14). Back to top

U.S. Helps Greece Defend Against Olympic “Dirty Bomb” Attack By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — With the threat of terrorism looming over this year’s Summer Olympics in Athens, the United States is helping Greece to deploy radiation detectors in a bid to prevent a radiological attack on the summer games (see GSN, Nov. 4, 2003). The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration and Greece are installing fixed radiation detectors at seven locations, focusing on border crossings, NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks told reporters yesterday. Portable detectors will be used at other locations. Brooks said the detectors are similar to those used in the U.S. Energy Department’s Second Line of Defense Program, designed to help Russia and other key countries detect trafficked nuclear material (see GSN, Aug. 7, 2002). After Greece asked the International Atomic Energy Agency for help in heading off a potential “dirty bomb” attack, the U.N. agency in turn requested U.S. assistance with the project. Besides installing detectors, NNSA is giving the IAEA $500,000 for equipment to be used at Olympic venues. NNSA is training Greek personnel to use and maintain the detection equipment, and is securing several sealed radiological sources in Greece. Brooks said NNSA is also in talks with Greece about providing technical assistance in the area of “emergency response systems.” Since the September 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, Brooks said, “It’s become clear that there’s another threat [besides the proliferation of nuclear weapon material], and that threat is radiological dispersal devices.” NNSA activities abroad previously focused almost exclusively on fissionable materials. Brooks told reporters the United States would have assisted Greece in detection efforts anyway but that the operation has been moved up because of the Olympics, slated to take place in August. “If you just simply look at where Greece is, you’ll see that it’s an interesting transshipment point,” he said. Greece’s next major pre-Olympic WMD exercise is scheduled for Feb. 6-8 and is to involve police, the military, health services and other agencies. Representatives of the Olympic Security Advisory Group ― composed of Australia, France, Germany, Israel, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States ― will observe. Back to top       Most 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates Oppose Yucca Mountain Project By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Most of the candidates seeking the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination oppose the U.S. Energy Department’s current plan to build a long-term nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, according to a survey released last week by a coalition of U.S. business, consumer, energy and environmental groups (see GSN, Jan. 6). The survey, conducted by the Sustainable Energy Coalition, sought the views of eight candidates on a wide variety of environmental and energy issues. The candidates questioned for the survey were Gen. Wesley Clark, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, Senator John Edwards (N.C.), Representative Dick Gephardt (Mo.), Senator John Kerry (Mass.), Representative Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Senator Joseph Lieberman (Conn.) and former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Ill.). The Energy Department plans to open the Yucca Mountain repository by the end of the decade and to house spent nuclear fuel from U.S. civilian nuclear power plants. The project has come under criticism in part, however, because of concerns over the security of spent fuel shipments to the site to possible terrorist attacks. According to the survey, four of eight surveyed candidates — Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich and Lieberman — oppose the project outright.  “It is unacceptable to risk the health and livelihood of the local population and environment for an irresponsible solution to our waste problem. Furthermore, the transportation of this dangerous waste presents risks that are unnecessary at this time,” Kucinich’s response said. During the 2002 legislative debate over the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act, which overturned Nevada’s veto of the selection of Yucca Mountain as the site for the planned repository, all four lawmakers opposed the act. It was passed, however, by an overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives and by a voice vote in the Senate. “As I said when I cast my vote against Yucca Mountain, we need to deal with nuclear waste, but our first rule should be to do no harm. I cannot conclude that about Yucca Mountain,” Lieberman’s survey response said. Clark, Dean and Moseley-Braun, though, offered more tentative opposition to the Yucca Mountain project in their survey responses. Both Clark’s and Dean’s responses base their opposition to the current Yucca Mountain project on the need for further study on the suitability of the site. “Unlike the Bush administration’s approach, I believe that sound science — not politics — must be the basis for the final decision about the potential suitability of Yucca Mountain as the nation’s first high-level nuclear waste repository. We are not there yet,” said Clark’s response. “Governor Dean will not send nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain unless and until it is proven to be a scientifically viable solution, something that has not occurred yet,” Dean’s response said. Moseley-Braun’s response said that she did not support the Yucca Mountain project “in its present state.” Of the eight candidates surveyed, only Edwards said he supported the Yucca Mountain project. Edwards’ response, though, did not outline his position on the project and calls to his presidential campaign headquarters for further comment were not returned.  While the election of a Democratic candidate who opposed the Yucca Mountain project as president could have an affect as to whether the plan moves forward, Nevada has not taken such a possibility into account in its strategy to combat the project, Bob Loux, executive director of the state’s Agency for Nuclear Projects, told Global Security Newswire yesterday.  Instead, Nevada is now focusing its efforts to derail the project in the legal arena, Loux said (see GSN, Dec. 9, 2003). Oral arguments are scheduled for today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Nevada’s legal challenges to the Yucca Mountain project. The case consolidates several major lawsuits filed by Nevada against the project, including lawsuits against various U.S agencies and a constitutional challenge, Loux said, adding that he was “optimistic” over the state’s chances for victory. A decision in the case is not expected until this summer, Loux said, adding that the loser is expected to appeal the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Associated Press reported today, though, that the Energy Department has said that it will continue to prepare to file a licensing application to the NRC for the Yucca Mountain repository despite the court case. The department is expected to file its application by the end of the year. While the stances of the various Democratic candidates on the Yucca Mountain project may have little effect on Nevada’s fight against the repository, it may help their chances in winning the state in this year’s presidential election, Loux said. He said that Bush’s decision to approve the selection of the Yucca Mountain site has hurt his standing in Nevada. Bush won Nevada by only 4 percentage points in the 2000 presidential election over former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.