USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER

CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL

Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Issue No. 904, 6 May 2011

Articles & Other Documents:

Iran Turns to Zimbabwe for Help with Banned Nuclear U.S. and Dutch Governments Agree to Expand Program Cooperation to Secure Materials that could be Used in Dirty Bombs Barak to Haaretz: Iran Won't Drop Nuclear Bomb on Israel U.S. Official Warns of Bio Terror despite Bin Laden Death Israel Moving Forward with Sixth German Submarine Pakistan Warns U.S. against any Further ―Unauthorized‖ Carter Held 'Confrontational' Talks in N. Korea Raids

Bin Laden Hideout Raises Pakistan Atomic Alarm, Yemen-Based al Awlaki May Succeed Osama Examiner Says Report: Zawahiri Led the Americans to Bin Laden Factbox: Pakistan's Nuclear Capability China: Projecting India Threat and Limiting India-The Pak N-Experts Helped Qaida Build Dirty Bomb? Game Goes On

Russia May Counter U.S.-Romanian Missile Shield Deal Command System Vulnerability – Analysis – Lawmaker Exploring Pakistan‘s Nuclear Thresholds – Analysis U.S. Assures Russia on Romania Missile Base Kim Jong-il Safe from Osama's Fate, for Now Russia to Field Missile Defense-Evading ICBM by 2018 The Middle Eastern-Latin American Terrorist Connection

Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats and countermeasures. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at http://cpc.au.af.mil/ for in-depth information and specific points of contact. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

SW Radio Africa News – Zimbabwe Iran Turns to Zimbabwe for Help with Banned Nuclear Program By Tererai Karimakwenda 04 May, 2011 A relationship is reportedly developing between Iran and Zimbabwe over uranium ore, which Iran needs to further develop what is suspected to be a nuclear weapons program. According to Avi Jorisch, President of the Red Cell Intelligence Group in the United States, Iran does not have great quantities of the uranium itself and is on a global search for countries that could provide it. Jorisch said intelligence reports recently leaked by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, show that Iran has decided that Congo, Nigeria, Senegal and Zimbabwe are the countries with uranium that are most likely to provide it. And it appears Zimbabwe has been targeted as ―the most promising source‖. ―It seems like a good marriage between two regimes that are under sanctions from the West,‖ Jorisch told SW Radio Africa on Wednesday. He added that Iran and China are willing to ―play ball‖ with the Mugabe regime and are ―not terribly concerned‖ about human rights. In return Zimbabwe is mostly interested in oil and financial support from Iran. The U.S. and its allies already have strict sanctions in place against Iran due to its refusal to cooperate with the Atomic Energy Agency. But Iran has persisted with its program, claiming it is developing nuclear power and not weapons. The Mugabe regime is also under targeted restrictions by the U.S. and the European Union, due to continued human rights abuses. Jorisch explained that negotiations took place when the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Harare in April 2010 and ―expressed personal interest in Zimbabwe's uranium‖. But the uranium is not located near any traditional mining site and cannot be extracted without raising international attention. ―That could lead to further restrictions on both countries,‖ said the former US Treasury Department official. Jorisch said Iran has claimed that a contract for uranium from Zimbabwe was drawn up and signed last year. Robert Mugabe denied the reports, but stressed that Iran had the right to apply for the substance. Zimbabwe has an estimated 455,000 tons of uranium in Kanyemba, North of Harare, but does not have the resources to extract the uranium ore. Jorisch and the Red Cell Intelligence Group are recommending that Washington closely monitor the relationship between Iran and Zimbabwe, with the aim of taking punitive action should Iran secure uranium from the Mugabe regime. They also recommend action against businesses and institutions that assist Iran in its pursuit of uranium. http://www.swradioafrica.com/news040511/iran040511.htm (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Ha‘aretz Daily – Israel May 5, 2011 Barak to Haaretz: Iran Won't Drop Nuclear Bomb on Israel Though the Iranian government seems to have largely eluded the wave of revolutions in the Arab world, the defense minister thinks it too could collapse. By Gidi Weitz If Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons, it is unlikely to bomb Israel, Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Haaretz in an Independence Day interview. Barak said Israel should not spread public panic about the Iranian nuclear program − a position that seems to put him out of step with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who in recent years has repeatedly compared the Iranian push to develop a nuclear bomb to the Third Reich‘s development of increasingly sophisticated weapons. When asked whether he thinks Iran would drop a nuclear bomb on Israel, Barak said: ―Not on us and not on any other neighbor.‖ ―I don‘t think in terms of panic,‖ he said. ―What about Pakistan, some political meltdown happens there and four bombs wind up in Iran. So what? So you head for the airport? You close down the country? Just because they got a shortcut? No. We are still the most powerful in the Middle East.‖ All the same, Barak said Iranian rulers could not be relied upon to remain clearheaded. ―I don‘t think that anyone can say responsibly that these ayatollahs, if they have nuclear weapons, are something you can rely on, like the Politburo or the Pentagon,‖ he said. ―It‘s not the same thing. I don‘t think they will do anything so long as they are in complete control of their senses, but to say that somebody really knows and understands what will happen with such a leadership sitting in a bunker in Tehran and thinking that it‘s going to fall in a few days and it is capable of doing it? I don‘t know what it would do.‖ Though the Iranian government seems to have largely eluded the wave of revolutions in the Arab world, Barak said it too could collapse. ―I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of the dictatorships in the Arab world, including the Iranian one,‖ he said. Speaking of Israel‘s failure to secure the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit, despite having offered to free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, Barak said he thinks Shalit could have been freed three years ago. Commenting on his wealth, he said he was indeed a millionaire but ―not a tycoon.‖ ―I‘m no wealthier than Bibi Netanyahu or Arik Sharon,‖ he said. ―I don‘t feel that I‘m more hedonistic than Ehud Olmert, or Yitzhak Rabin, or Shimon Peres.‖ http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/barak-to-haaretz-iran-won-t-drop-nuclear-bomb-on-israel-1.359870 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Jerusalem Post – Israel Israel Moving Forward with Sixth German Submarine Dolphin-class U212 subs have improved propulsion system and can stay submerged for long periods. By YAAKOV KATZ May 6, 2011 Germany has pledged to build a new submarine for the navy, paving the way for a deal that will boost Israel‘s strategic long-arm capabilities in the face of Iran‘s continued race toward nuclear power. Talks on the deal for the Dolphin-class sub stalled last year after the Germans declined to underwrite it, as they had done with previous purchases. The vessel will cost between $500 million and $700m. The submarines are considered Israel‘s most sophisticated and strategic weapon. Israel already has three Dolphin-class subs; another two are currently under construction in Germany with expected delivery dates of 2012 and 2013. According to foreign reports, Israel‘s submarines have a second-strike capability and carry cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads. Germany donated Israel‘s first two submarines after the first Gulf War and, according to the German press, split the cost of the third with Israel. The three undersea vessels currently in the navy‘s possession employ a diesel-electric propulsion system, which requires frequent resurfacing to recharge their batteries. The new submarines – called the U212 – will be fitted with a new German technology in which the propulsion system combines a conventional diesel/lead-acid battery system and an air-independent propulsion system used for slow, silent cruising, with a fuel cell equipped with oxygen and hydrogen storage. The submarines will also incorporate specifications gleaned from Israel Navy experience. The Dolphins currently in the navy‘s fleet were tailor-made for its needs and reportedly have considerable operational capability. http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=219463 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Bangkok Post – Thailand Carter Held 'Confrontational' Talks in N. Korea May 6, 2011 By Agence France-Presse (AFP) Former US President Jimmy Carter has described his meeting last week with a top North Korean official as "negative and confrontational" and marked by condemnation of past US policy. Carter, who visited the communist state with three other ex-leaders, also criticised the North's military-first priorities in a report on the visit. The ex-leaders, from a group called The Elders, intended to ease heightened tensions between the two Koreas, assess food shortages and encourage nuclear disarmament. Carter, in a report posted on the Carter Center website, said they also hoped to persuade the North to work with the United Nations on human rights and to free an American detained since last November. The North says it will charge Eddie Jun Yong-Su with unspecified crimes against the nation. Carter confirmed earlier reports that Jun, a tractor salesman, also acts as a missionary. Carter said a meeting with nominal head of state Kim Yong-Nam was "surprisingly negative and confrontational, filled with his condemnation of historical US policy toward North Korea". The ex-president said he finally interrupted to point out that Kim "was concentrating exclusively on a negative and distorted picture of the past while we had come to look to the future with hopes of reconciling differences". But the meeting ended with no easing of tensions and Kim said Jun would not be released. The group failed to meet leader Kim Jong-Il. But they said they received a personal message from him that offered unconditional talks with the United States and South Korea including a summit with Seoul's leader. Foreign Minister Pak Ui-Chun described the North's "great need" for food aid and peace and stressed commitment to past denuclearisation accords, Carter wrote. "He made it plain, however, that NK would have to retain nuclear weapons as long as they are threatened by an antagonistic US with nuclear weapons." Carter was criticised by South Korean media for his perceived pro-Pyongyang bias. But in his report he questioned the North's priorities after visiting a large hospital with no running water except in the operating room area. "We saw no reason why a government that can develop advanced weapons cannot provide water for their hospitals," he wrote. The Elders after their trip described the North's food shortages as a crisis. Carter accused the US and South Korea of a "human rights violation" for, in his view, withholding food aid from the North for political reasons. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/235615/carter-held-confrontational-talks-in-n-korea (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Bloomberg Bin Laden Hideout Raises Pakistan Atomic Alarm, Examiner Says By Jonathan Tirone May 5, 2011 Osama Bin Laden‘s hideout inside a fortified house a mile from an elite Pakistani military academy should raise the alarm over the South Asian country‘s nuclear weapons program, atomic investigator Olli Heinonen said. The al-Qaeda leader‘s discovery and subsequent killing ―revives uncertainties on the extent to which the government is in full and effective control of the country,‖ Heinonen said late yesterday in an e-mail from Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he is a senior fellow at a Harvard University research center for international security. ―There is very little assurance that nuclear materials and facilities are fully under government control.‖ Heinonen, the International Atomic Energy Agency‘s top nuclear inspector until August 2010, led the United Nations investigation into Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan‘s sale of atomic-weapon technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. He continues tracking illicit nuclear trade and in March testified before the U.S. Congress about nuclear proliferation risks. Rather than opening up civilian reactors to full inspection in exchange for increased technology assistance, Pakistan is increasing output of nuclear-weapons material and will have the fourth-biggest atomic weapons stockpile by 2020, Heinonen said. In return for technology and security assurances, ―Pakistan would stop production of fissile material for military purposes, commit to a moratorium on nuclear testing and provide full disclosure of nuclear proliferation activities involving Iran, Libya, North Korea and Syria,‖ Heinonen said. Pakistan, which holds the IAEA‘s rotating chairmanship, has benefited from limited nuclear assistance without being asked to provide assurances that the aid wasn‘t going toward weapons. The IAEA needs to step up efforts to monitor such help, Heinonen told the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on March 18. Bin Laden met with Pakistani nuclear scientists and sought nuclear material. The terrorist leader was killed May 1 during a U.S. raid on his home in Abbottabad, an army headquarters town 50 kilometers (30 miles) from Pakistan‘s capital, Islamabad. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-05/bin-laden-hideout-raises-pakistan-atomic-alarm-examiner-says.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Reuters.com Factbox: Pakistan's Nuclear Capability ISLAMABAD, Thursday, May 5, 2011 (Reuters) - The killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on May 2 raises questions about whether he was sheltered by elements of Pakistan's security services -- sympathetic men who could also be part of the security surrounding Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Back in the 1990s, bin Laden said acquiring nuclear weapons was a "religious duty" of Muslim states and the leader of al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2009 said the group hoped to seize and use Pakistan's arsenal. "God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans," Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television. An al Qaeda assault on a nuclear facility in Pakistan would most likely be unsuccessful, given the high security surrounding sensitive sites, but worries remain that militants in the country could obtain some type of nuclear material through infiltrating the security services. Here are some facts about Pakistan's nuclear program. BACKGROUND Pakistan began a program to obtain nuclear weapons after its defeat by India in a 1971 war that led to the division of the country and the creation of Bangladesh, previously East Pakistan. The army sees its nuclear weapons as essential to offset the conventional superiority of its much bigger neighbor. India sees its nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Pakistan and China, which defeated it in a border war in 1962. NUCLEAR TESTS Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in May 1998, shortly after India did so. Both countries faced international sanctions as a result, although India has since won effective recognition as a nuclear power following an accord negotiated with the United States. Neither Pakistan nor India have signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). NUCLEAR ARSENALS Estimates vary on the size of Pakistan's and India's nuclear arsenals, although analysts suggest India has 70-120 nuclear weapons while Pakistan has 60-120. These can be delivered by aircraft, or by missiles, which both countries have been developing and testing. Analysts believe the nuclear weapons have reduced the likelihood of a conventional war between India and Pakistan. At the same time, they have opened the way to unconventional proxy wars. India accuses Pakistan of using its nuclear umbrella as a cover for what it calls cross-border terrorism by Islamist militants, a charge Pakistan rejects. DEPLOYMENT Pakistan, which has fought three full-scale wars with India, including two over the former kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, is believed to have prepared its warheads for deployment twice. The first time was in 1999 during the Kargil conflict, fought in the mountains on the Line of Control, the ceasefire line dividing Jammu and Kashmir. The second was during a military standoff between India and Pakistan in 2001/2002 which followed an attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001, blamed on Pakistan-based militants. India has a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons but has made clear if it were hit by a nuclear bomb from Pakistan it would strike back in force. Pakistan has indicated it would use its weapons if it believed its existence were threatened in a conventional war. Recent growth in its nuclear program has been seen as an attempt to develop a second strike capability. SECURITY Pakistan is believed to have worked closely with the United States to build elaborate security mechanisms to prevent Islamist militants from seizing nuclear material. The nuclear program is controlled by the army and run by the Strategic Planning Division headed by retired Lieutenant-General Khalid Kidwai. Pakistan has copied "best practice" on security from the United States, including on personnel vetting. Analysts say Pakistan is believed to have developed its own Permissive Action Link system, modeled on one used in the United States, to electronically lock nuclear weapons. It also relies on a range of other measures including physical security, separation of warheads from missiles and warheads from explosive devices. U.S. reassurances that it is confident about the security of Pakistan's weapons have underpinned views that Washington has worked closely with Pakistan on this. However, analysts also say Pakistan is likely to have kept at least some of its nuclear program secret given its concerns that an outside power might try to neutralize its nuclear weapons in the event of war. Edited by Rebecca Conway and Chris Allbritton. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/us-binladen-pakistan-nuclear-idUSTRE7442MO20110505 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Times of India – India Pak N-Experts Helped Qaida Build Dirty Bomb? By Srinivasan Laxman, Tamil News Network (TNN) May 5, 2011 Did the world's most dangerous man, Osama bin Laden, who was killed by American forces on Sunday, seek nuclear weapon know-how from Pakistan? His death has triggered a debate among a section of the Indian nuclear fraternity which includes two of its former chiefs, whether Pakistan backed al-Qaida's ambition to join the elite global nuclear club. Some time back the CIA and the British intelligence released documents to prove that the al-Qaida had built a small dirty bomb at a laboratory at Herat in Afghanisthan. Unlike a sophisticated nuclear bomb, a dirty bomb is a primitive device in which the radioactive material is packed with explosives which can spray a deadly cloud over an area. The documents also sought to establish that al-Qaida had prepared a training manual on how to use the weapon with a maximum effect. Bin Laden is even reported to have proclaimed that it was the religious duty of Muslim states to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to attack the west. In August 2001, a month before 9/11, two Pak nuke scientists, Chauduri Abdul Majeed and Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, stated to be close to the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, A Q Khan, met bin Laden at Kandahar in Afghanisthan and reportedly discussed nuclear technology. Against this background, former chairman of India's atomic energy commission (AEC), M R Srinivasan said: "Yes, there is a degree of suspicion that some information must have gone from Pakistan to al-Qaida. But, at the same time I feel Pakistan would have restricted access to nuclear materials. I recall that A Q Khan, in one of his initial interviews, had stated that he was spreading nuclear weapons technology to Muslim nations in the cause of Islam,'' Srinivasan stated. Added Srinivasan: "Despite the suspicion that some information about nuclear weapons technology must have gone from Pakistan to al-Qaida, I would still like to believe that Pakistan will not be so irresponsible as to part with all the critical know-how to al-Qaida.'' he asked. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Pak-N-experts-helped-Qaida-build-dirty- bomb/articleshow/8165045.cms (Return to Articles and Documents List)

RIA Novosti – Russian Information Agency Russia May Counter U.S.-Romanian Missile Shield Deal - Lawmaker 4 May 2011 Romania and the United States should expect counter measures from Russia in response to a missile shield agreement, a senior Russian lawmaker said on Wednesday. Bucharest announced on Tuesday that it had reached an agreement with the United States to deploy a U.S. missile interceptor system at a disused Soviet airbase on its territory. "Military specialists in the United States, NATO and Romania should be absolutely aware that any measure entails counter-measures," said Konstantin Kosachev, who heads the foreign policy committee of State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament. He said the counter measures would be used with the sole purpose of protecting Russia and would not be aimed at any particular state. Moscow issued an urgent request on Tuesday for legal guarantees from the United States that its missile shield will not target Russia's strategic nuclear forces. "My personal point of view is that the ideal scenario would be for the United States to issue legal guarantees, but the Americans are unlikely to do that," Kosachev said. The head of the State Duma's defense committee, Viktor Zavarzin, said the U.S.-Romanian deal would have "a negative impact on inter-European relations and undermine the existing balance of forces and interests." "And this, in turn, will provoke an unnecessary escalation of tensions," he added. MOSCOW, May 4 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110504/163853797.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

The Moscow Times – Russia U.S. Assures Russia on Romania Missile Base 05 May 2011 Combined Reports A senior U.S. official on Wednesday urged Russia not to be alarmed by Romania's surprise announcement that it would host a U.S. missile defense site at a Soviet-built base. The Russian Foreign Ministry sharply criticized the Romanian decision to turn Deveselu, a small town in Romania's deep south, into the core of the U.S. defense system in Europe overnight, and the Kremlin asked the United States for legal guarantees that the system would not target Russia's strategic nuclear forces. "Moscow is monitoring the events very closely because, in our opinion, the prospective missile defense system may create risks for the Russian strategic nuclear deterrence forces in the future," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. But U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher said the U.S. system posed no threat to Russia. "We have good relations with Russia. We have just ratified the New START treaty, we are working together on various other issues," she told Romanian lawmakers in remarks carried by news agencies. "It is a system that will defend NATO and, if Russia chooses to work with us in a cooperative manner, the system will defend Russia, too." Tauscher is to meet with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Thursday. She and Romanian President Traian Basescu on Tuesday traveled to the abandoned Deveselu base, located some 200 kilometers southwest of Bucharest in an area known for watermelon and corn. It was built with Soviet help in 1952, when the first MiG-15s landed there. An estimated $400 million will be invested in the base, which will become operational in 2015. An average of 200 troops will be based at the site, which can host a maximum of 500, Basescu said. The base will remain under Romanian command. Moscow wasn't the only one caught off-guard by the base decision. Romanian government officials were apparently unaware of it, and there was not even a whisper in the Romanian media until Basescu announced it Tuesday night. Local officials weren't informed, or asked for their approval, until the night before. A senior State Duma deputy warned that Russia would take counter measures aimed at protecting itself, although not targeted at any particular entity. "Military specialists in the United States, NATO and Romania should be absolutely aware that any measure entails counter measures," said Konstantin Kosachyov, who heads the Duma's International Affairs Committee, RIA- Novosti reported. Basescu insisted that the agreement had serious benefits and would give Romania "the highest security level in its history." Basescu said the remote base was chosen because it fulfilled all of the 120 requirements needed to guarantee the full security of the system. The Romanian site is part two of a four-part plan that U.S. President Barack Obama's administration outlined in 2009, when it shelved a plan by the previous administration to use long-range interceptors based in Poland to counter a threat from Iran and North Korea. That plan was opposed by Russia, which worried that the system could target Russian warheads or undermine the Kremlin's deterrence strategy. The Obama administration has said its plan — designed to counter the threat of short- to medium-range missiles — would be more effective and able to counter a threat from Iran earlier. But critics have said the new plan caved in to Russian demands and have doubted whether the administration could build an effective shield in the timetable promised. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/us-assures-russia-on-romania-missile-base/436300.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Global Security Newswire Russia to Field Missile Defense-Evading ICBM by 2018 Thursday, May 5, 2011 Russia intends no later than 2018 to field an all-new ICBM with the capacity to evade missile defenses, including systems based in outer space, the Xinhua News Agency reported on Thursday (see GSN, March 18). The long-range heavy ballistic missile would be an entirely new weapon and not a copy of the existing Voevoda system, one-time Russian nuclear missile chief Viktor Yesin said. The planned fifth-generation ICBM would be designed to defeat missile defenses, while its launch facilities are also to be shielded with protective antimissile systems, Yesin said. The ICBM could be fired "within seconds" of a launch order, he added. The new ICBM, combined with the current Yars and Topol-M missiles, would establish for Russia a first-strike capability with the ability to eliminate threats posed by an opponent's antimissile systems, Yesin said (Xinhua News Agency, May 5). http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110505_7325.php (Return to Articles and Documents List)

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Press Release U.S. and Dutch Governments Agree to Expand Cooperation to Secure Materials that could be Used in Dirty Bombs May 4, 2011 WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Government of the Netherlands today announced an agreement to expand their partnership to help combat nuclear terrorism around the world. Under the agreement, signed by NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Anne Harrington and Deputy Chief of Mission of the Royal Netherlands Embassy Gerard van der Wulp, the Dutch government will contribute $500,000 to support NNSA‘s Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) program work in Kazakhstan. ―We welcome the Netherlands‘ continued partnership and generous support of our efforts to implement the unprecedented nuclear security agenda outlined by President Obama at the Nuclear Security Summit,‖ said Harrington. ―This latest contribution is evidence of our shared commitment to investing in the future of a global campaign to secure vulnerable nuclear material around the world and prevent terrorists and proliferators from acquiring dangerous radioactive materials.‖ The Netherlands is committed to guaranteeing nuclear security and combating nuclear terrorism. Our signing of this Memorandum of Understanding with the United States is a concrete illustration of the Netherlands' active participation in the Nuclear Security Summit, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the G8 Global Partnership,‖ said Deputy Chief of Mission Gerard van der Wulp. As part of its radiological security mission, NNSA‘s GTRI works with partner countries to search for radiological sources that have been abandoned or disused, remove them and place them in secure storage, and improve radiological transportation security. The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs‘ contribution will be used to support a search and secure training course for officials from the Kazakh Ministry of Industry and New Technologies to identify and secure vulnerable, radiological sources. The contribution will also support the provision of secure transportation equipment and the recovery of high-activity sources. The assistance will provide Kazakhstan with additional tools and skills to identify, secure and remove radioactive materials in the future. NNSA has developed similar partnerships with Canada, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom. The financial and in-kind contributions from international partners support NNSA‘s nonproliferation efforts around the world. Through the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, NNSA works with foreign governments to identify, secure, remove and/or facilitate the disposition of high risk vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials around the world that pose a threat to the United States and the international community. GTRI works to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological material located at civilian sites around the world. Recently, President Obama submitted to Congress his budget request for fiscal year 2012. It includes $2.5 billion in FY 2012 and $14.2 billion over the next five years to reduce the global nuclear threat by detecting, securing, safeguarding, disposing and controlling nuclear and radiological material, as well as promoting the responsible application of nuclear technology and science, highlighting the critical role NNSA and its nonproliferation programs play in implementing the President‘s nuclear security agenda. http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/05042100dutch (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Xinhua News - China U.S. Official Warns of Bio Terror despite Bin Laden Death May 5, 2011 By Matthew Rusling and Fang Yang (Xinhua ) Terror kingpin Osama bin Laden was dead already, but the threat remains that extremists could still launch biological attacks on the public, a U.S. official told Xinhua in a recent interview. "There is no doubt that al Qaida will continue to pursue attacks against us," said Ambassador Laura Kennedy, U.S. special representative for biological and toxin weapons convention issues. In spite of bin Laden's death, Kennedy said the United States must continue to remain vigilant across the spectrum of possible methods that extremists might use to wreak havoc. Among those are bio weapons, which can be constructed with little specialized knowledge and without costly facilities and infrastructure, she said. "You can develop bio agents using very simple laboratories," she said. "So you don't require a huge elaborate infrastructure, as you would to develop a nuclear weapon." "Very simple capabilities will do, that are available around the world. So indeed bio terrorism is a real threat and one that we take very seriously," she said. Ricin, for example, is a toxin derived from the readily available castor bean, and extremists have attempted to use it in the past. In the early 1990s, for example, members of the Minnesota Patriots Council acquired the substance and allegedly planned to use it against federal officials. DANGEROUS AGENTS, BUT CAN THEY BE DELIVERED? Some experts, however, said that while bio weapons may be fairly simple to construct, disbursing them is no easy task. Global intelligence company Stratfor said on its website that although it is possible for non-state actors to develop and deploy biological agents and toxins, they are more likely to employ relatively simple and proven methods of attack --such as firearms and explosives --than some exotic weapon. Moreover, manufacture of biological agents using low technology most often yields small amounts and minimally potent products. Truly weaponized biological agents produced and prepared in quantities great enough for deployment as a weapon of mass destruction require much more sophisticated labs and weaponization facilities than most non-state actors or lone wolves can ever create in their garages or storage sheds, Stratfor argued. Kennedy, however, contended that a bio attack could take many forms. It could be relatively low tech and result in a limited number of casualties. Or it could be a sophisticated operation that produces tens of thousands of deaths. But since a terrorist's objective is to terrify the public for the purpose of garnering political concessions, even an attack resulting in limited casualties could be damaging. It could, for example, have harsh economic consequences, such as those that followed the 2001 anthrax attacks, Kennedy said. Some figures showed the damage to be in the billions of U.S. dollars. AUTHORITIES FACED WITH TOUGH TASK For authorities, the challenge is how to thwart bio attacks when the materials needed for deadly biological weapons are readily available worldwide, even in high school laboratories. "There's been an explosion of knowledge and development in the bio area, so it's very hard to keep track of," Kennedy said."You may think you have a handle on it, but then new things are engineered and new techniques are developed at quite a dizzying pace." And given the massive movement of people and goods around the world, there will be a greater need to deal with pandemics and bio threats wherever they occur, she said. One of the most successful bio weapons attacks in the United States was conducted by the Bhagwan Shri Rashneesh cult in Oregon in 1984. Members put salmonella bacteria in grocery store produce and in local salad bars and restaurants. The operation left more than 700 people sick and was meant to prevent voters from getting to the polls in an election in which one of the group's followers was running. BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION Kennedy also said the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is one forum that aims to take on the issue through international cooperation on a number of fronts. The next BWC meeting is slated to take place in Geneva in December. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-05/05/c_13860041.htm (Return to Articles and Documents List)

International Business Times Pakistan Warns U.S. against any Further “Unauthorized” Raids May 5, 2011 Pakistan has warned the United States and other countries that they will face serious consequences from its military in the event they stage any more unauthorized raids like the one that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. The Pakistani Foreign Minister Salman Bashir, said "there shall not be any doubt that any repetition of such an act will have disastrous consequences. We feel that that sort of misadventure or miscalculation would result in a terrible catastrophe.‖ Speaking in the capital city of Islamabad, Bashir added: "There should be no doubt Pakistan has adequate capacity to ensure its own defense." There is apparently much anger in Pakistani political circles over the commando raid by US Navy SEALs which was carried out without the knowledge of Pakistani officials. The chief of the US Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has already admitted that he didn‘t trust Pakistani figures when planning the raid on Osama‘s compound. Rumors have abounded that Pakistan‘s intelligence authorities have been in close contact with terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda. Separately, the Pakistan military said it wants the U.S. government to reduce its military personnel in the country and also threatened to review its cooperation agreement with the Americans in the event they engineer another raid like the one that killed Osama. General Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan‘s army chief "made it very clear that any similar action violating the sovereignty will warrant a review of military, intelligence cooperation with the US,‖ according to a statement by the military. Kayani is reportedly planning a conference with his top commanders to review the situation in Pakistan following the unexpected assassination of Osama. Nonetheless, Pakistan‘s foreign ministry has condemned the assault on Osama as violation of the country's sovereignty and an "unauthorized unilateral action.‖ Meanwhile, Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said her country will remain allies with Pakistan, despite all the questions and suspicions. "It is not always an easy relationship, you know that," she said in Rome. "But, on the other hand, it is a productive one for both our countries and we are going to continue to cooperate between our governments, our militaries, our law-enforcement agencies, but most importantly between the American and Pakistani people." http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/141732/20110505/pakistan-us-osama-military-compound.htm (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Hindustan Times – India Yemen-Based al Awlaki May Succeed Osama Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) London, May 05, 2011 A Yemen-based Anwar al Awlaki is tipped to succeed al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, who was killed earlier this week in Pakistan by US Navy SEALs in a commando strike, a media report said. US-born cleric al Awlaki is dubbed the bin Laden of internet because he uses the web to spread his evil gospel. The 40-year-old called for a Mumbai-style massacre during a sting operation carried out by The Sun. He has already engineered a string of attempted outrages here and in the US, The Sun reported. Al Awlaki allegedly brainwashed 21-year-old student Roshonara Choudhry into stabbing labour MP Stephen Timms over his support for the war in Iraq. He also allegedly urged British Airways computer worker Rajib Karim, 31 - now in jail - to assist in a plot to blow up an airliner in a Lockerbie-style attack. He was also allegedly behind last year's ink bomb plot to down cargo jets. Al Awlaki preaches against vice, but has been arrested twice for using prostitutes - while married, the report says. The US-born cleric was collared in San Diego in 1996 and 1997. He was fined the first time and put on probation the second. His radicalisation started in 1993 when he visited Afghanistan during a holiday from Colorado State University, where he studied engineering. On his return, he began advocating holy war. By 1996, he was an imam (cleric) at a mosque with more than 300 followers. Al Awlaki, believed by US detectives to be "at the centre of the 9/11 story", left the US in 2002. He spent two years in Britain, becoming well-known on the extremist lecture circuit, before heading to his family's native Yemen to continue his increasingly hostile rants. He linked up with his tribe, whose motto is "We are the sparks of hell." http://www.hindustantimes.com/Yemen-based-al-Awlaki-may-succeed-Osama/Article1-693843.aspx (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Al Bawaba News – Jordan May 5, 2011 Report: Zawahiri Led the Americans to Bin Laden Al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was the one who led American forces to Osama bin Laden's compound, a Saudi newspaper reported on Thursday. It said the two al-Qaeda leaders had differences and that the courier who led the American intelligence to Bin Laden was working for Zawahiri, Al-Watan newspaper, quoting an unnamed "regional source," said The courier knew he was being followed by the US military but kept it a secret. "The Egyptian faction of Al-Qaeda is defacto running the organization now and since Bin Laden was taken ill in 2004 they have been trying to take full control," according to the paper. It also said Zawahiri's faction had persuaded Bin Laden to leave tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border and take shelter instead in Abbottabad near Islamabad, where he was shot dead by US commandos on Monday. The newspaper conveyed that after the return of the Egyptian Saif al-Adel from Iran last fall the decision to remove Bin Laden from the leadership was evident. Saif al-Adel is known for his planning and implementation skills. Meanwhile, other sources in Saudi Arabia and Egypt said Thursday that during a secret meeting held in Yemen earlier this week, the leaders of al Qaeda in the Gulf region decided that the immediate revenge of their leader's death will take place in Iraq. They plan to dispatch 10 suicide bombers to an American base there. http://www1.albawaba.com/main-headlines/report-zawahiri-led-americans-bin-laden (Return to Articles and Documents List)

South Asia Analysis Group – India OPINION/Analysis May 3, 2011 China: Projecting India Threat and Limiting India-The Game Goes On By Bhaskar Roy In a short article in the Chinese Communist Party‘s (CCP)‘s mouthpiece, the People‘s Daily (April 26), Ms. Li Hongmei tried to encapsulate India‘s nuclear policy and sought to damn it as a possible rising threat. The article objected to the US policy of opposing Iran and North Korea for violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but supporting India, which has not signed the NPT, as an emerging nuclear power trying to break into the 5-power nuclear club. The article was notable for its chagrin saying that after its 1998 nuclear tests India‘s motivation to overtake China and becoming a leading regional and global power was accentuated, and projected itself as the world‘s No.3 military power. The conclusion of the article was even more striking. It said the deteriorating Middle East situation was playing to India‘s advantage, and as the problem exacerbates, the US focus will shift there and help India to become a (de jure) nuclear weapons state. Considering this, it said India is likely to resume its nuclear tests. The article called on China and all other neighbours (of India) to ―sharpen their vigilance on India‘s every maneuver‖. The People‘s Daily said the article was Ms. Li Hongmei's personal opinion and did not represent the views of the newspaper. The Chinese propaganda machinery must realize that the international community and especially China watchers in India, cannot be deceived. Li Hongmei is the editor of the People‘s Daily on-line edition, a very high position in the CCP‘s propaganda apparatus. The People‘s Daily or any of the top official media publications like the Guangming Daily and The China Daily do not carry personal opinions. Opinions in such publications are for a particular purpose-- either ordered or cleared at the politburo level mostly. From her earlier articles, it appears that Li Hongmei represents a hard line faction, and has been highly critical of even Russia in the past on oil trade issues. India has been her regular target. This article raises two pertinent questions. How does China expect the Indian media not to react negatively in the face of such Chinese semi-officials' denigration of India? Secondly, how does the Chinese leadership substantiate their propaganda department's continuing efforts to portray India as a threat to the region including China? Does President Hu Jintao has an answer or an explanation? Pakistan‘s recent testing of the Hatf-9 tactical nuclear missile (60 kms. range) for battle field use has drawn little but positive response from China. This one weapon can drastically drive the India-Pakistan military equation to a new critical point. It appears China is promoting exactly that. Making all efforts to limit India‘s peaceful rise and gaining international influence is nothing new for China. It set up Pakistan as a stand alone nuclear weapons country to counter India, and now Pakistan is becoming a nuclear threat to the international community in more ways than one. It continued to sell arms to North-East Indian insurgents though its avowed position since the early 1980s was, that all such links had ceased. The list goes on. It is a fact that India did not respond to China adequately in the 1950s to resolve the boundary issue. But would it have worked if Pandit Nehru responded to Premier Zhou Enlai‘s proposal in 1960? Because by 1959, China had already encroached into Indian territory of Aksai Chin in the western sector. Then 1962 happened and relations plummeted ever since. Five decades later things could have been ironed out. Unfortunately, China‘s strategic appreciation of India changed sharply from the 1960s. It saw India as a future competitor for Asia‘s leadership, and an Indo-Soviet axis to counter China. The first major breakthrough in bilateral relations came in December, 1998 when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi visited China. This came after some unfriendly Chinese military moves in the Eastern sector (Arunachal Pradesh) borders. Credit for this break through must also go to China‘s paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, who believed in setting aside disputes even to the next generation or after and building on common points of agreement. Deng wanted a stable environment for the country‘s development. It is in the post-Deng era that a new China has emerged – overbearing, aggressive and even threatening to its neighbours. The year 2010 was particularly remarkable in that sense. From the early 1990s, Beijing adopted a two- track policy vis-à-vis India. On the one hand, attention was paid to bilateral trade which really took off from 2002, and has reached around $60 billion, becoming India‘s second biggest trade partner. Yet the balance remains highly in China‘s favour. A qualitative analysis of the trade suggests China‘s import is concentrated on raw materials especially iron ore, and exports comprise mainly of cheap, low grade consumer products. On the other hand, Indian exporters find it difficult to break into the Chinese market in pharmaceuticals and other areas. The Chinese leaders continue to assure that they will do something about it, but nothing has happened and not likely to in the near future.

China and India are also working together on common areas like climate change and BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India- China-South Africa) for example, but China has its own priorities for using this group. Beijing needs support for its highly damaging environmental pollution on the argument of being a developing country. It sees BRICS as a group to be used to counter the west on variety of economic and related issues. Where does the India-China relationship go from here? While signaling to keep the boundary stable, as reflected during the recent BRICS summit in Hainan (China), Beijing remains steadfast in blocking India in vital international issues. There are periodic hopes in India that China is softening its opposition against India‘s entry into an expanded United Nations Security Council (UNSC), but they get dashed soon enough. Sometimes, the Chinese unofficially send a message that because of Japan‘s candidacy for an expanded UNSC seat China is unable to support India‘s candidacy. Such excuses are patently rubbish. China has directed all its missions across the world to counter India‘s efforts. It has worked from the time the UN expansion question arose to try and convince the African countries against UNSC expansion and India‘s candidacy. It‘s ally, Pakistan, is working in the Italy led ―Coffee club‖ to do the same. Nepal and Sri Lanka have been persuaded to act similarly. The fact is China will do its utmost to keep India out of the international high table. The Chinese are beginning to argue that the other four Perm-5 members have been silent on the issue of giving veto powers to India. That is immaterial. The crux is China opposes India‘s elevation. Given this, India must remain alert that China‘s strategic objective-- to keep India down as a second rate power-- is a top foreign policy priority. New Delhi must take countervailing steps, but engagement with China must continue. This has its own advantages as engagement is a door to interface. Realism is the watchword for India. New Delhi must build its own constituency across the globe. The author is an eminent China analyst with many years of experience. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers45/paper4466.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Eurasia Review – Spain OPINION/Analysis Command System Vulnerability – Analysis By M Shakir Bacha May 4, 2011 The survivability of the command is the survivability of the strategic arsenals of the state. Command is linked with the capabilities; any harm to both can harm national strategy. Command system vulnerability is serious enough to warrant more concern than it has received, specially the concern over strategic weapons and systems. There are three areas of vulnerability to command systems. Firstly, fragile command and control systems, Computers and communication channels (C3I) which are vulnerable areas and can be used against the state. Secondly rationality of decision, mature command system will always go for rationale choice and will visualize the consequential phenomenal changes. There might me retaliatory provoking form the other states to go for irrational decision. Thirdly, failure of command and control in violence and crises risks a serious confusion of the scale of war operations. Command systems usually cannot be quantified and physical disruption cannot be calculated frequently. The importance of assumption on a surprise nuclear attack being explicit about it is the assessment of strategic forces. Importance of command systems procedures as well as physical characteristics can change the nuclear war scenario. Targeting the nuclear arsenals of other state is straight forward but it‗s a complicated task. Inadequate intelligence complicates the targeting tasks because command centres are open ended list with enormous number of targets. There could be missiles silos, bomber bases, and submarines bases which can be targeted accordingly but all are interdependent. State can‗t not afford a single un-attacked weapon and become a victim of that. There are eight factors which are important in many ways; 1. The degree of confidence and pre-calculated results, 2. Safe and secure command, 3. Survivability in case of any surprise attack, 4. Knowledge of the command channels of the adversary (detail of the targets, technical characteristic of command centres), 5. Capacity of the enemy forces 6. Will of the state to penetrate deeply in enemy‗s territory e.g. Soviet willingness to deserve damage to the United States and its allies. 7. Will the states afford attacks or they have to come on negotiating table after having suffered from initial attacks. 8. The goal and objective of attack enemy command centre. The command systems are imaginable to attack because of the natural tendency of the targeting plans and command systems could easily be attacked or prelude to attack. The US command system is vulnerable in an operational context as follows: The U.S. is surrounded by sea so the communication to the missiles submarines is less reliable than the other legs of the triad. It would be difficult to assess submarines according to their own needs and according to abstract technical standards. It would be difficult to judge how submarines must communicate to survive. The submarines might be cut off from higher authority throwing their role in doubt as the ultimate guarantor of second strike capability. In case of war the submarines would know immediately that the very low frequency broadcast has been interrupted but they will not know why and what‗s the broadcast exactly for. Submarines launched ballistic missiles are unable to participate in limited nuclear ad hoc strike this is the drawback of submarine and for the states surrounded by sea having strong naval forces particularly submarines. Launch under attack has very small surviving fraction if under attack. The deficit must be made up from missiles that would be destroying if they rode out adversary attack. The general features of LUA are the data which would be appeared in command centres-the decision will be bounded at the back. The intervening time range will be very less (0-15 minutes).the decision to attack will done at the time when there will be maximum disruption in command system. LAU can be succeeded if the adversary focus on other targets and exclude some targets. Bombers operations are complex because they have to stay in air for more time, fueling issues, communications channels disruption, miss understanding in command chains. Once in air they might be diverted from the original plan which can cause pressure and command channels may harm the situation. In military there is a proper chain of command .if the president has the codes that can be transferred through the chain of command from higher commanders to the field commanders. The president may issue orders from alternate position and place. For the survivability the Sate might have distribute permissive action links codes to custodial or commanders at the time when nuclear weapons are released from the storage point to the commanders. The commander in command system must make special effort to collect the relevant data how and when to attack. Number of emerging weapons could adapt a command system attack. Arms control would have less vulnerability of fixed command system targets. Assessing the command system vulnerability is a difficult task in India Pakistan case but geographically closed to each other, less warning time, sense of responsibility among two states are the factor which make both states dependent. The writer is Analyst on strategic and nuclear studies. http://www.eurasiareview.com/command-system-vulnerability-analysis-04052011/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Eurasia Review – Spain OPINION/Analysis Exploring Pakistan’s Nuclear Thresholds – Analysis By Khan A. Sufyan May 5, 2011 Recent testing of short range ballistic and cruise missiles by Pakistan has initiated a debate in India regarding possible use of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons by Pakistan and the strategic instability it has caused. Pakistan‘s declared nuclear format clearly indicates deterrence against conventional as well as nuclear threat. To provide credibility to such deterrence a full spectrum response capability is essential which also devolves around the principle difference between the use of tactical nuclear weapons and tactical use of nuclear weapons. Contrarily, the Indians state that their nuclear capability principally acts as deterrence against the use of nuclear weapons by any adversary. This clearly indicates that against Pakistan they intend to fight a conventional war using their superior conventional forces. An attempt to acquire anti-ballistic missile defence capability is also indicative of such intent. Various Indian Defence Ministers and Chiefs of Army Staffs, on different occasions have stated that all wars fought between India and Pakistan were limited in nature and that limited wars are possible in future also, under a nuclear overhang. It has been further qualified that the limited war would be fought for attainment of shallow objectives, while remaining short of Pakistan‘s nuclear thresholds. Accurate identification of an adversary‘s nuclear thresholds is indeed a difficult proposition. Though the nuclear policies and various strategies guiding nuclear responses have relatively been well profiled by various nuclear weapon states, the thresholds however, have never been made public in the manner. More often than not, this ambiguity is deliberately left in order to cause uncertainty in adversary‘s decision making calculus. This may force imposition of restrictions as to how deep or shallow the objectives of attacking forces may have to be. In India – Pakistan nuclear environment as well, such circumspection has apparently added to the deterrence value and may dictate the duration, thrusts and locations in the application of forces. An examination of Pakistan‘s possible nuclear thresholds will be in order to see if the Indian doctrine of conventional war under nuclear overhang is at all valid. A Pre-emptive Response Threshold (PRT) may be evoked against Indian actions that may be premeditated, pre- emptive, incautious and accidental or events spiraling out of control. These strikes may invariably be launched on Indian territory and may take the form of nuclear strike on Indian armed forces, cities and economic and communication centers. The response may even be undertaken due to preparatory engagement of targets inside Pakistani territory, threatening strategic and forward assembly of Indian troops, on escalation of nuclear alert status or even an accidental or rogue firing of Indian nuclear missiles. An Early Response Threshold (ERT) may result in a nuclear retaliation during the early stages of Indian offensive after the international border has been crossed. Early nuclear response may be resorted to when sensitive locations (important towns/cities etc close to the international border) of psycho-social and communication/economic importance are threatened or captured. It could also be the combined resultant affect of an existential extreme political and economic situation, exacerbation of which is blamed on India and may be undertaken by a government under intense public pressure. In a Delayed Response Threshold (DRT) the nuclear strikes may be undertaken only after saturation of the conventional response. Evoking of such a response may vary according to the peculiar geographical lay of international border or contiguity of various sensitive locations to the international border and may even take the form of certain imaginary lines drawn on the map. Finally, the Accumulative Response Threshold (ART) may be evoked if India initiates a graduated application of force. In such a scenario, a naval coercion gradually escalated to blockade coupled with graduated conventional selective air and ground strikes on economic targets, communication infrastructure, politically sensitive locations and military targets are undertaken. The accumulative destructive effect of such conventional strikes may evoke either an early or a delayed nuclear response depending on the summative effect of destruction that has taken place. These thresholds highlight the fact that even limited wars which Indian defence intelligentsia believes in, are fraught with the threat of nuclear response even before the attacking forces attempt to cross the international border. The decision to initiate war therefore, even limited, must carefully factor in the nuclear response during the early stages of mobilization. The Indian stated position that their nuclear warfare preparations are against China which would automatically take care of Pakistan‘s nuclear threat, has indirectly infused a sense of inconsequentiality of Pakistan‘s nuclear capability and has forced Pakistan to improve her nuclear response. This has led to stability – instability paradox for which only the Indians are responsible and not Pakistan. With China factored in by the Indians, the bilateral India-Pakistan discussions on any nuclear restraint regime may not be helpful towards amenable regional environment. Therefore, inclusion of China in a regional strategic stability can produce the desired results. Khan A. Sufyan is a security analyst on South Asia and has advised government, semi-government and private organizations and institutions on national and international security issues, as well as participating in number of national and international seminars and presented papers on various regional and global security issues. http://www.eurasiareview.com/exploring-pakistans-nuclear-thresholds-analysis-05052011/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Asia Times Online – Hong Kong OPINION May 5, 2011 Kim Jong-il Safe from Osama's Fate, for Now By Sunny Lee BEIJING - Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is gone. Will Kim Jong-il be next? South Korean media outlets are toying with the idea, as they do whenever a major dictator or terrorist is killed. This time the calls are reaching a fever pitch, however, reflecting rising public anger in the South towards North Korea's persistent provocations. An editorial in the South Korean news outlet Dailian blared on Tuesday, "Why can't we do to Kim Jong-il, as [the US did] to Bin Laden? ... Just as the US killed Bin Laden for the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, we should retaliate with the death of Kim Jong-il for the attacks on the warship Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island." "Americans hunt down a terrorist for a crime done as far back as 10 years ago ... We should learn the American way of implementing justice," the conservative columnist Cho Yong-hwan wrote in Allinkorea.net. Another well-known conservative writer, Cho Kap-je, argued: "South Koreans who felt good about the killing of Bin Laden should feel ashamed of not being able to kill Kim Jong-il, who has done much worse things to [South Koreans]." Bin Laden was killed on Monday after US special forces raided a compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan, but South Korean analysts doubt a similar operation could be used to take out Kim in Pyongyang. "Even though Bin Laden and Kim Jong-il are both headaches to the US, they are different," said Kim Keun-sik, a professor of North Korean Studies at Kyungnam University in Seoul. "Bin Laden literally attacked American soil and killed some 3,000 Americans. Although Kim Jong-il has developed weapons of mass destruction, he has not used them." "America has long had the ability to get rid of Kim Jong-il," said Tong Kim, a former US State Department official who now teaches at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of Johns Hopkins University. "However, there is no clear cause for the US to go ahead and kill him." Unlike Bin Laden, Kim Jong-il was never declared an enemy of the American people. Also unlike Bin Laden's al- Qaeda, North Korea is no longer on the US blacklist of entities that sponsor terrorism. Besides, the US cannot disregard China's support for its old East Asian ally. "China clearly opposes America solving the [North Korean] issue through military means. This has been China's consistent posture," said Wang Fan, a security analyst at China's Foreign Affairs University. For the US, Kim is bad, but not bad enough. His country is a threat, but not an immediate one - even though it is believed to own eight-to-12 nuclear weapons. While in 1994 the countries came to the brink of war over US president Bill Clinton's plans to bomb the Yongbyon nuclear plant and drag the North's nuke program in front of the United Nations, the US has since had other priorities. For South Koreans, still reeling from two fatal attacks last year, it is a different matter. In March, the warship Cheonan was sunk, killing 46, while in November Yeonpyeong Island was shelled, killing four - Pyongyang still denies involvement in the sinking. In a fresh provocation, Pyongyang last month launched a massive cyber attack that paralyzed the computer network of a South Korean bank for weeks. Seoul said the attack was carried by the same intelligence unit that sank the Cheonan. The series of attacks has polarized South Korean public opinion against the North, and the death of Bin Laden has emboldened hardliners seeking revenge. The South is an important US ally in Asia, they say, so why can't America hunt down Kim Jong-il? Analysts agree that the US has the capacity and to go after Kim Jong-il, but lacks the will unless be becomes a more significant threat. "If the US considers it's time to remove North Korean leader or smash its regime, it could happen any time. The US remains the only world superpower and is capable of doing anything," said Sunny Lee (not related to this writer), director of the Institute for Korea-US Political Development, a Washington-based think tank. The question then is: what is the US "threshold" for doing so? Kim, the professor at Kyungnam University, said the US threshold would be breached if "Kim Jong-il persists in not giving up nukes and the US determines no further negotiation is possible, or when Kim Jong-il threatens the US with nuclear weapons," only then, says Kim, would the US consider a surgical air strike on a certain residence in North Korea. Baek Seung-joo, a senior analyst on North Korea at the state-affiliated Korea Institute for Defense Analyses in Seoul, believes the recent bombing of Libyan leader Mummar Gaddafi's residence delivered a more potent warning to Kim Jong-il than the killing of Bin Laden. "The surgical strike on Gaddafi's residence in which his youngest son died must have made the North Korean leadership feel frightened about US power," said Baek. Kim is currently grooming his youngest son, Kim Jong-eun, to eventually take power. Sunny Lee is a Seoul-born columnist and journalist; he has degrees from the US and China. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/ME05Dg01.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) – Philadelphia, PA OPINION/E-Notes The Middle Eastern-Latin American Terrorist Connection By Vanessa Neumann May 2011 Vanessa Neumann is an Associate of the University Seminar on Latin America at the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University. A native Venezuelan, Dr. Neumann has worked as a journalist in Caracas, London and the United States. She is Editor-at-Large of Diplomat, a London-based magazine to the diplomatic community and a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard on Latin American politics. In a global triangulation that would excite any conspiracy buff, the globalization of terrorism now links Colombian FARC with Hezbollah, Iran with Russia, elected governments with violent insurgencies, uranium with AK-103s, and cocaine with oil. At the center of it all, is Latin America—especially the countries under the influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. The most publicized (and publicly contested) connection between Hugo Chávez and the Colombian narcoterrorist organization Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) was revealed after the March 2008 Colombian raid on the FARC camp in Devía, inside Ecuador, where a laptop was discovered that apparently belonged to Luis Edgar Devía Silva (aka, ―Raúl Reyes‖), head of FARC‘s International Committee (COMINTER). The Colombian government under then-President Álvaro Uribe announced that Interpol had certified the authenticity of the contents of the computer disks, whose files traced over US$ 200 million funneled to the FARC through the Venezuelan state- owned, and completely Chávez-dominated, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). On May 10th, 2011, the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) will publish one of its strategic dossiers based on a study of the computer disks entitled The FARC Files: Venezuela, Ecuador and the Secret Archives of ‗Raúl Reyes‘ that purports to elucidate the organization‘s development and internationalization. According to some already leaked documents, Venezuelan General Hugo Carvajal and other members of the armed forces were in direct contact with and lending financial support to the late FARC leader Antonio Marín, aka ―Tirofijo‖ (―Sure Shot‖) and ―Manuel Marulanda.‖ Of the fact that the FARC enjoys at least ideological support from the governments of Ecuador and Venezuela, there can be no doubt: Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa have both argued that the FARC should not be considered a terrorist organization. While support of the insurgents next door is certainly nothing new, Venezuelan military and terror alliances are spanning the globe and expanding at a worrying rate for all, especially US interests in the region. As I wrote in The Weekly Standard last October[1], Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Russian President Dimitry Medvedev jointly announced that they had reached an agreement for Russia to build two 1200-megawatt nuclear reactors in Venezuela. Also part of the deal was the latest installment of $6.6 billion of conventional weapons purchases since 2005: ninety-two T-72 and T-90 tanks that will replace the aging French MX-30s, ten Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 planes, two Il-78MK refueling aircraft, as well as five S-300 missile systems. Iran had also sought the S-300 but Medvedev banned the sale for fear of violating U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, concerning sanctions on Iran. The S-300 missiles and their attendant Smerch multiple rocket launchers are considered far more powerful than the Tor M-1 missile systems that both Venezuela and Iran have previously purchased in the past five years. Caracas has also confirmed plans to purchase up to 10 Mi-28NE attack helicopters on top of the 10 Mi-35M helicopters purchased in the past half-decade. That is an awful lot of weaponry for a country that has not fought a war since its independence from Spain in 1821. While Chávez has said that he is arming his citizen militias, known as Bolivarian Circles, rumor has it that the weapons may also be going to agents and fighters from the Colombian FARC, the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah and Cuban security and intelligence services, whose numbers, according to many think tanks and U.S. security sources, have swelled in Venezuela. Interpol has confirmed evidence that Venezuela has funneled well over $300 million to the FARC and has built an ammunition plant to supply AK-103s, the FARC weapon of choice. That is only one piece of the puzzle; the other is Iran, where Venezuelan money has also been flowing. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly call each other ―brothers‖ and last year signed 11 memoranda of understanding for, among other initiatives, joint oil and gas exploration, as well as the construction of tanker ships and petrochemical plants. Chávez‘s assistance to the Islamic Republic in circumventing U.N. sanctions has got the attention of the new Republican leadership of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Connie Mack (both R-FL) have said they intend to launch a money-laundering investigation into the Venezuelan state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). In July 2010, the EU ordered the seizure of all the assets of the Venezuelan International Development Bank, an affiliate of the Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI), one of 34 Iranian entities implicated in the development of nuclear or ballistic technology and sanctioned by the Treasury Department. In the meantime, Tehran and Caracas have announced that PDVSA will be investing $780 million in the South Pars gas field in southern Iran. Uranium, sought by both Iran and Russia, is a key aspect of the two countries‘ strategic relationship: Iran is reportedly helping Venezuela find and refine its estimated 50,000 tons of uranium reserves. So, on one side Venezuela is funding and arming the FARC; on the other it is purchasing nuclear reactors and weapons from the Russians; on yet another, it is sending money to Iran and helping it find and enrich uranium. And then there is Hezbollah, Iran‘s Lebanon-based asset. Reports that Venezuela has provided Hezbollah operatives with Venezuelan national identity cards are so rife, they were raised in the July 27, 2010, Senate hearing for the recently nominated U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, Larry Palmer. When Palmer answered that he believed the reports, Chávez refused to accept him as ambassador in Venezuela. Meanwhile, Iran Air, the self-proclaimed ―airline of the Islamic Republic of Iran,‖ operates a Tehran- Caracas flight commonly referred to as ―Aeroterror‖ by intelligence officials for allegedly facilitating the access of terrorist suspects to South America. The Venezuelan government shields passenger lists from Interpol on that flight. Iran, meanwhile, has developed significant relationships elsewhere in Latin America – most prominently with Chávez‘s allies and fellow Bolivarian Revolutionaries: Bolivian President Evo Morales, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. In December 2008 the EDBI offered to deposit $120 million in the Ecuadorean Central Bank to fund bilateral trade, and Iran and Ecuador have signed a $30 million deal to conduct joint mining projects in Ecuador through the Chemical-Geotechnical-Metallurgical Research Center in Ecuador. Even as that deal carefully avoids mentioning uranium, the IAEA‘s March 2009 plans to help Ecuador explore its vast uranium reserves were largely intended to highlight and preclude Iranian involvement. In February 2010 the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force, a multilateral organization that combats money laundering and terrorist financing, placed Ecuador on a list of countries that failed to comply with its regulations. Middle Eastern terrorism, however, is not new to Latin America and has been on the US Army‘s radar for many years. [2] Latin America‘s Tri-Border Area (TBA), bounded by Puerto Iguazu, Argentina; Ciudad del Este, Paraguay; and Foz do Iguacu, Brazil, has long been an ideal breeding ground for terrorist groups. The TBA, South America's busiest contraband and smuggling center, is home to a large, active Arab and Muslim community consisting of a Shi'a majority, a Sunni minority, and a small population of Christians who emigrated from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinian territories about 50 years ago. Most of these Arab immigrants are involved in commerce in Ciudad del Este but live in Foz do Iguacu on the Brazilian side of the Iguacu River. In 2005, six million Muslims were estimated to inhabit Latin American cities. However, ungoverned areas, primarily in the Amazon regions of Suriname, Guyana, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil, present easily exploitable terrain over which to move people and material. The Free Trade Zones of Iquique, Chile; Maicao, Colombia; and Colón, Panama, can generate undetected financial and logistical support for terrorist groups. Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru offer cocaine as a lucrative source of income. In addition, Cuba and Venezuela have cooperative agreements with Syria, Libya, and Iran. Argentine officials believe Hezbollah is still active in the TBA. They attribute the detonation of a car bomb outside Israel‘s embassy in Buenos Aires on 17 March 1992 to Hezbollah extremists. Officials also maintain that with Iran‘s assistance, Hezbollah carried out a car-bomb attack on the main building of the Jewish Community Center (AMIA) in Buenos Aires on 18 July 1994 in protest of the Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement that year. Today, one of the masterminds of those attacks, the Iranian citizen and Shia Muslim teacher, Mohsen Rabbani, remains not only at large, but extremely active in recruiting young Brazilians, according to reports in Brazilian magazine Veja. [3] ―Now based in Iran, he continues to play a significant role in the spread of extremism in Latin America,‖ prosecutor Alberto Nisman, head of the special unit of the Argentine prosecutors charged with investigating the attacks, said to VEJA. The enticement of Brazilians for courses abroad has been monitored for four years by the Federal Police and the ABIN, the government‘s secret service. One hundred eighty kilometers away from Recife, in rural Pernambuco, the city of Belo Jardim remains the most active center for the recruitment of extremists in Latin America. [4] Along with the recruits in Belo Jardim, youth from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico also travel to Iran for religious instruction under Rabbani. The Federal Police has information that Rabbani has been to Brazil several times in recent years. In one of those visits, almost three years ago, he boarded the Iran Air flight from Tehran to Caracas, Venezuela and then from there, entered Brazil illegally. So while ungovernability through either government weakness (or lack of will) to exert controls over immigration and the flows of money, drugs and weapons has always been an issue, it is the new government complicity that makes it all the more dangerous. Even ahead of the IISS dossier‘s publication, the most shocking revelations into the global interconnectedness of Latin American governments and Middle Eastern terrorist groups have come from Walid Makled, Venezuela‘s latter-day Pablo Escobar, who was arrested on August 19, 2010 in Cúcuta, a town on the Venezuelan-Colombian border. A Venezuelan of Syrian descent known variously as ―El Turco‖ (―The Turk‖) or ―El Arabe‖ (―The Arab‖), he is allegedly responsible for smuggling 10 tons of cocaine a month into the US and Europe – a full 10% of the world‘s supply and 60% of Europe‘s supply. His massive infrastructure and distribution network make this entirely plausible, as well as entirely implausible the Venezuelan government did not know. Makled owned Venezuela‘s biggest airline, Aeropostal, huge warehouses in Venezuela‘s biggest port, Puerto Cabello, and bought enormous quantities of urea (used in cocaine processing) from a government-owned chemical company. Indeed since his arrest and incarceration in the Colombian prison La Picota, Makled has given numerous interviews to various media outlets, in which he has claimed that he paid more than a million dollars a month to various high- ranking Venezuelan government officials who were his partners in trafficking FARC cocaine – amongst the named: Venezuelan Minister of the Interior and also Minister of Justice, Tarek El Aissami, the General-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Unified Command, General Henry Rangel Silva, and the Director of Military Intelligence, General Hugo Carvajal. Although the US had issued an arrest warrant and subjected him to sanctions under the Kingpin Act, Makled is being extradited to Venezuela, not the US. While the US dithered on Colombia‘s offer of extradition to the US, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez requested Makled‘s extradition to Venezuela, where he is (in the ultimate ironic twist) wanted for cocaine trafficking and at least two murders. When asked on camera by a Univisión television reporter whether he had any relation to the FARC, he answered: ―That is what I would say to the American prosecutor.‖ Asked directly whether he knew of Hezbollah operations in Venezuela, he answered: "In Venezuela? Of course! That which I understand is that they work in Venezuela. [Hezbollah] make money and all of that money they send to the Middle East." [5] Makled‘s extradition to Venezuela rather than the US is thus a terrible loss for both the United States‘s Global War on Terror (GWOT) and the world‘s intelligence communities: in Venezuela‘s heavily politicized judicial system Makled will never receive a fair trial and any testimony he might give will certainly be concealed. The problem now is that Latin American support for terrorism has growing state support—and this should worry everyone. Notes 1. [Text] http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hugo-ch-vezs-military-buildup-and-iranian-ties_511234.html 2. [Text] http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume3/january_2005/1_05_4.html 3. [Text] http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/reinaldo/geral/brasil-vigia-suspeitos-de-elo-com-extremistas-no-ira/ http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/reinaldo/geral/quantos-sao-os-aneis-que-separam-o-pt-dos-terroristas- islamicos-que-atuam-no-brasil/ http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/reinaldo/geral/acordem-senhores- congressistas-ja-o-governo-nao-da-bola-terrorista-alicia-homens-pobres-do-interior-do-brasil-para-fazer- %E2%80%9Ccurso-de-religiao%E2%80%9D-no-ira/ 4. [Text] http://interamericansecuritywatch.com/2011/04/20/the-terrorist- %E2%80%9Cprofessor%E2%80%9D/ 5. [Text] http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/15355-venezuela-houses-farc-and-hezbollah-drug- lord.html http://www.fpri.org/enotes/201105.neumann.latinamericanterrorist.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)