Showing posts with label WMD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WMD. Show all posts

Saturday, March 30, 2013

RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUTION


Army Staff Sgt. Maliek Kearney and Army Sgt. Danielle Doucette transfer a sample of simulated nuclear fallout as Ruth Anne Sorter from the Department of Energy looks on during the Prominent Hunt exercise in Indiana that helped test the Defense Department's chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear enterprise, July 28, 2012. Research conducted by the University of Nebraska in partnership with U.S. Strategic Command is expected to identify new ways to address the threat posed by of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. Army photo by Lt. Col. Carol McClelland
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Stratcom Research Partnership Tackles WMD Threat
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb., March 29, 2013 - A new partnership between U.S. Strategic Command and the University of Nebraska is pushing the envelope to address what Air Force Gen. C. Robert Kehler, Stratcom's commander, calls one of the most pervasive threats to the United States: weapons of mass destruction.

Kehler, who's been tasked by President Barack Obama under the unified command plan to lead the Defense Department's efforts to combat WMDs, championed the first university-affiliated research center to be sponsored by a combatant command.

Stratcom entered into a five-year contract with the University of Nebraska in late September, establishing the 13th UARC within the Defense Department. All are committed to cutting-edge research in some of the most challenging areas confronting the United States, explained Evan J. Hoapili, Stratcom's deputy director of capabilities and resource integration.

"The purpose of a UARC is to focus a high-level, world-class research university on a specific, enduring, technical hard problem," Hoapili told American Forces Press Service. "The idea is to create a continuity of research and focus and generate out-of-the-box thinking to solve a problem that is vexing the department."

Stratcom selected the University of Nebraska for the coveted UARC contract, based on its existing research programs at its National Strategic Research Institute, Hoapili said. The UARC, he said, will invite the best and brightest minds to delve into nuclear forensics, ways to detect biological, chemical and nuclear threats, passive defense against weapons of mass destruction, and consequence management.

Collaborating with other research institutions, University of Nebraska researchers will explore areas ranging from new ways to identify a WMD aboard a container ship without slowing down the entire delivery network to ways to make the human body more resistant to chemical or biological agents, Hoapili said. They also will investigate faster, more effective decontamination methods in the event of an attack.

The research will extend to laws governing space, cyberspace and telecommunications -- other key areas within Stratcom's area of responsibility.

"These are big, technical problems. If you solve any one of these, it will be a huge difference for the department, and frankly, for the security of the United States," Hoapili said.

The outcome, he said, could lead to breakthroughs in areas that top the agenda, not just at Stratcom and the Defense Department, but across the U.S. interagency, particularly at the departments of Homeland Security and Energy.

A Stratcom-led executive steering committee that oversees the UARC includes representatives from several agencies. This helps synchronize counter-WMD efforts across the government and brings different perspectives, expertise and revenue sources to the challenge, Hoapili said.

"The beauty of the UARC is that it enables you to synergize the efforts across all these different departments ... into an integrated effort that is focused on the right problem set," he said. "Ultimately, what we hope to come up with are the most-efficient, cost-effective ways of detecting, eliminating and mitigating weapons of mass destruction."

But Hoapili emphasized that Stratcom's partnership with the University of Nebraska will extend long beyond the initial contract. The hope, he said, is that the UARC will spawn researchers who commit themselves to the challenge over the long term, either through government service or through research efforts that support DOD.

"These are problems that aren't going to go away, and the department recognizes that it is going to be with us for decades, if not forever" he said. "So we want to build an enduring enterprise, and to grow a cadre of researchers, professors, students and PhD candidates all focused on what is possible in dealing with the gravest threat to the United States."

Kehler told Congress earlier this month he's excited about the new partnership.

"One of my highest priorities, in addition to securing and reducing dangerous materials, is acquiring the capabilities to monitor and track lethal agents and their means of delivery, and defeating or responding to the use of these weapons," he told the House and Senate armed services committees. "The UARC will help address these challenges by providing unique access to academic perspectives and research methods not currently found anywhere in DOD to engage current and future counter-WMD challenges."

University-affiliated laboratories have been conducting research and development for the U.S. military for the past six decades. DOD launched the first UARCs in 1996, to maintain essential engineering and technology capabilities required by the department.

"UARCs have changed the nature of their problem set. They are pushing the envelope, and I expect the same out of this one," Hoapili said. "I can't predict where it will go, but I know it is the right way to go."

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

HONORING THE FATHERS OF THE NUNN-LUGAR THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant - Construction Photos, October 2009
 

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Officials Praise Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction Program
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4, 2012 - Defense Department officials yesterday honored two men who in 1991 established a program that has become a critical part of the U.S. approach to reducing the worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta made a surprise appearance at the DOD-hosted Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Symposium, held at National Defense University here.

He joined Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, Madelyn R. Creedon, assistant secretary of defense for global strategic affairs, and Air Force Gen. C. Robert Kehler, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, all speakers at the symposium.

"I wanted to take the opportunity to come here specifically to honor and pay tribute to [former Georgia Sen.] Sam Nunn and [Indiana Sen.] Dick Lugar, two very dear friends and two of finest public servants in the history of this country," Panetta told the packed room.

"The program that bears their name has had a dramatic and enduring impact on global security," the secretary added, later awarding each man the Distinguished Public Service Award, the department's highest civilian honor.

Also during the symposium, Andrew C. Weber, assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, announced on behalf of the department the establishment of a Nunn-Lugar fellowship in partnership with the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

The first Nunn-Lugar Fellow, he said, is Anya Erokhina, a graduate in nonproliferation and terrorism from Monterey. Erokhina now works in the Office of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs.

In introductory remarks to the symposium, Creedon and Kehler spoke of the impact the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has made during its 20 years of operations.

"While there have been many successes of the CTR program, one of the most remarkable is the support it provided to three of the states of the former Soviet Union, to enable them to be nonnuclear states and parties to the [Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]," Creedon said.

The program helped the countries remove or destroy all the nuclear weapons and delivery systems they had inherited from the former Soviet Union, she added, noting several other achievements:

-- Facilitating the blend-down of Russia's weapons-grade enriched uranium so that it could be used in commercial nuclear-power reactors to produce electricity rather than weapons;

-- Identifying alternative employment opportunities for nuclear weapons scientists and former chemical and biological weapons scientists, engineers and technicians; and

-- Ensuring the security of nuclear weapons at facilities and during transport, destroying hundreds of nuclear delivery systems and thousands of chemical munitions.

The world and its security challenges continue to change, Creedon said.

"Four years ago, Senator Lugar recognized this change and worked to expand the CTR program's authority beyond the states of the former Soviet Union," she noted. The cooperative threat reduction partnerships have since expanded from 13 to more than 80 countries, she added, and the nature of the program's work has evolved.

"In addition to securing [weapons of mass destruction], the program today works to build partnership capacity in support of treaty and other international obligations and promotes global nonproliferation norms in support of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, the Global Partnership and the Proliferation Security Initiative," the assistant secretary said.

"DOD is also taking a more global and integrated approach to reducing WMD threats," Creedon added.

Working closely with the departments of State and Energy and its new regional partners, the Defense Department is putting great emphasis on sustainability and stewardship and refocusing the program to take on a wider range of biological threats, she noted, adding that international support also is growing.

"Recognizing the need to reduce the threat of WMD proliferation around the world, 24 countries from the Global Partnership have pledged $10 million over the next 10 years to support CTR's efforts," Creedon said.

Because many countries keep dangerous pathogens for peaceful, legitimate research purposes, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program works with its new partners to ensure that safety and security steps are implemented, she said.

"CTR is drawing from the lessons learned in the states of the former Soviet Union to address biological risks around the world, particularly Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia," Creedon told the audience.

Speaking on behalf of the men and women of the U.S. Strategic Command, Kehler said Nunn, Lugar and their program have made Stratcom's job easier and Americans safer.

"The era of one-size-fits-all deterrence passed with the end of the Cold War," he said. "Today, we are applying a wider range of tools, not just nuclear forces, to our deterrence challenges."

Kehler said Stratcom's most difficult challenge may be its responsibility to synchronize planning for DOD's efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction.

"This challenge is every bit as daunting as our strategic deterrence challenge, and it is here we need significant help," he said. "Fortunately, CTR is effective in helping us with both our deterrence and our combating WMD problems."

Stratcom, Kehler added, reaps the benefits of a remarkable program that secures and then eliminates the world's most dangerous weapons.

"The need to find, identify and track potential threats is a never-ending task for Strategic Command, therefore the elimination of 7,000-plus warheads, 902 ICBMs ... more than 150 bombers, close to 700 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 33 submarines -- along with some 2,700 metric tons of chemical weapons -- greatly eased our intelligence demands," the general said.

In September alone, he added, the CTR supported the disposal of four more ballistic-missile submarines and another 161-plus metric tons of chemical nerve agents.

"I can therefore devote a portion of our intelligence resources to some of the many other threats that confront us today," Kehler said, adding that the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has been and will continue to be a powerful tool in the national effort to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

STATE DEPARTMENT FACTS ABOUT THE MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME


FROM: U.S STATE DEPARTMENT                                           PHOTO:  U.S. AIR FORCE
Formed by the (then) G-7 industrialized countries in 1987, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is an informal political understanding among states that seek to limit the proliferation of missiles and related technology; it is not a treaty. Since its creation, 27 additional countries have joined the MTCR, and many other countries have adhered unilaterally to the MTCR Guidelines or otherwise control exports of MTCR Annex items.
Originally focused on restricting exports of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and related technology, the Regime expanded its scope in 1993 to cover unmanned delivery systems capable of carrying all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- chemical, biological, and nuclear. In 2002, the MTCR Partners (members) made terrorism an explicit focus of the Regime. Both of those steps were in direct support of the WMD nonproliferation objectives of the Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The MTCR seeks to limit the risks of proliferation of WMD by controlling transfers that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons. More broadly, the MTCR Guidelines (export control policies) and Annex (list of export-controlled items) have become the international standard for responsible missile-related export behavior. The MTCR and its Annex were implicitly endorsed in UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 of 2004, which affirms that the proliferation of WMD delivery means constitutes a threat to international peace and security and requires all UN Member States to establish domestic controls against such proliferation. The MTCR Annex also forms the basis of the list of missile-related items prohibited from being transferred to Iran under UNSCRs 1737 and 1929, and to North Korea under UNSCR 1718.
Over the course of the Regime’s 25-year history, the efforts of MTCR member countries have reduced the number of countries possessing missiles capable of delivering WMD, the global inventory of such missiles, and the number of countries interested in acquiring such missiles. The establishment by MTCR member and adherent countries of missile-related export controls has significantly reduced the availability to proliferators of support from the countries possessing the most and best technology. The export controls, information-sharing, and patterns of cooperation fostered by the MTCR also have resulted in the interdiction of numerous shipments of equipment intended for missile programs of concern. All of these measures have made it more difficult, time-consuming, and costly for proliferators to produce or acquire WMD capable missiles.

As it has done since 1987, the United States will continue to work through the MTCR to reduce the global missile proliferation threat by restraining the missile-related exports of an expanding number of countries and by increasing the pressure on proliferators to abandon their missile programs. The United States continues to encourage all non-member countries to support the MTCR’s efforts and to unilaterally abide by MTCR standards in the interest of international peace and security.

The MTCR currently has 34 members: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

PROLIFERATION THREAT AND COUNTER-PROLIFERATION


FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
The Proliferation Threat and Counter-proliferation: Why It Matters for the GCC
Remarks Vann Van Diepen
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation Key Note Address, U.S. Gulf Cooperation Council Workshop
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
April 12, 2012
Introduction
Good Morning, Dr. Saeed Al Shamsi, Consul General Siberell, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
I would like to extend my thanks to the Government of the United Arab Emirates for co-hosting with the United States this Gulf Cooperation Council Counterproliferation Workshop. It is a pleasure for me to be back in Dubai.

I am particularly pleased to be here with all of you today, and gratified that we have representatives from all the GCC countries. I think that is an indication of the importance your governments have placed on countering the threat of proliferation -- as well as an indication of the value you have placed on working together on this issue, with each other, and with the United States.

I want to take a few minutes to set the stage for the conference by outlining in broad strategic terms the threat that proliferation poses to international peace and security, to the stability of this region, and to all of the countries gathered here.

I then want to briefly discuss why it is so important for GCC countries to work to counter this proliferation threat, not only nationally, but in cooperation with each other and in cooperation with other friendly countries such as the United States.

I will then briefly note how the rest of the workshop will focus in on the broad spectrum of interlocking measures that each of us can use to combat, impede, and ultimately thwart proliferation – and by so doing improve the national security and economic viability of all of our countries.

Proliferation: The Strategic Threat
The international community has long recognized the threat that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons – and their delivery systems pose to global and regional security. And all of us are fully aware of the fact that this threat is posed not only by countries of concern, but by terrorists.

The use of WMD – especially against cities -- would have horrendous physical, psychological, and economic consequences, and could even threaten the maintenance of civil order in the countries where it is used. Even the presence of WMD in countries of concern:
can lead those countries to threaten their neighbors in order to extract political and economic concessions;
it can embolden those countries to engage in conventional aggression or terrorism against their neighbors; and
it risks promoting arms races where neighboring states decide they must acquire WMD of their own, potentially resulting in an expanding spiral of insecurity and instability.
And you are all well aware this threat is not just theoretical. It exists in the real world, and it affects this region as well as others. For example...

Iran has been acquiring, developing, and deploying for over 20 years ballistic missiles that are inherently capable of delivering WMD, missiles with ranges that easily cover all the GCC countries and even southeastern Europe. It is actively pursuing yet longer-range systems that can cover Western Europe and beyond.
Iran is violating its United Nations (UN) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations by continuing to enrich uranium, in the process clearly demonstrating the technical capability to produce highly enriched uranium for use in nuclear weapons.
The IAEA has formally reported that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device, some of which may be ongoing, and that these past activities included some related to the development of a nuclear payload for a ballistic missile.
There is mounting evidence that Iran did not declare and has not destroyed all aspects of its offensive chemical weapons program under the Chemical Weapons Convention – which raises questions about it declarations concerning biological weapons (BW) as well.

North Korea openly admits to developing and having tested nuclear weapons. It deploys WMD-capable ballistic missiles able to threaten its neighbors, has tried to flight-test missiles able to reach the United States, and sells missiles and missile technology to any country willing to pay – including to countries in the Middle East. North Korea also is widely believed to have substantial CW and BW programs.

Syria, too, has a large CW program and ballistic missiles capable of targeting the entire region. It has been researching biological weapons, and attempted unsuccessfully to conceal construction of a nuclear reactor that had no logical purpose other than the production of plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

Beyond these examples of nation-state proliferation, it is clear that Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are interested in acquiring WMD. Terrorists – both groups and individuals – can operate in any country, and can engage in attacks against any country. CW and BW in particular can be developed using technology available worldwide. Terrorists actually have used sarin nerve gas and anthrax bioweapons.

Why Counterproliferation Matters
It is very clear from these examples that all of our countries face a direct security threat from the potential for countries of concern or terrorists to use WMD directly against us. We also face the threat of political and economic instability caused by the use of WMD against others, as well as from the mere possession of WMD by countries of concern and terrorists.

In addition, however, the national and economic security of all of our countries is undermined by proliferators’ efforts to acquire WMD and their delivery systems, and the ability to make them, by misusing the territories, economies, and institutions of our countries. Proliferators do so in four key ways.

First, proliferators seek to acquire items for their WMD and missile programs directly from our countries – not just the United States, but increasingly from the other countries in this room as your economies and technology levels develop.
Second, in order to disguise their actual intention to use the items in proliferation programs, proliferators pretend that reputable countries such as yours are the destination for items they buy in third countries. Proliferators do this by:
1. falsely listing countries such as yours as end-users in export paperwork;
2. by diverting to their countries items imported into y countries such as yours from elsewhere; and
3. by having brokers and front companies – often, small import/export companies -- based in countries such as yours purchase the goods from third countries on the proliferant country’s behalf.

For example, a multi-million dollar procurement network has been using a series of companies in a third country to procure steel and aluminum alloys for use in a proliferant ballistic missile program.

Third, proliferators seek to move through countries such as yours goods they have purchased elsewhere for use in their WMD and missile programs, by misusing the common commercial practices of transit and transshipment to camouflage illicit activities. Indeed, proliferators have singled out transshipment hubs such as those in this region as a critical part of their efforts to evade the global framework of trade controls.
For example, in 2009 a UN Member State inspecting a cargo ship passing through its busy transshipment port on the way elsewhere discovered anti-tank ammunition and other munitions. The ship's manifest revealed the weapons were actually on their way to another country in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions.
Nor are proliferant transits and transshipments only by sea. Last year, during a routine check, authorities in another UN Member State discovered weapons aboard a cargo aircraft traveling through its airspace from a neighboring country to a country of concern.
Just a few weeks ago, a UN Member State discovered two independent truck shipments, one with missile-related items and one with CW-related items, moving through its territory from one neighbor to a country of concern.
Fourth, proliferators seek to use banks or middlemen in countries such as yours to pay for the items they need for their WMD and missile programs.
For example, a Chinese citizen who procures items for proliferation programs in another country used front companies and false names to route payments through New York bank accounts to sell graphite to a proliferant ballistic missile program.
Increasingly, proliferators are applying several of these approaches simultaneously.
For example, a proliferator with Canadian citizenship imported from the United States pressure transducers, dual-use items that can be used in uranium enrichment.
Since enrichment is not something that happens in Canada, that part of the transfer did not raise suspicions, as the proliferator intended.
But the proliferator then exported the items from Canada to a proliferation program by falsifying the description and cost of the shipment, and routing it via a third country.

In all of these cases, proliferators are misusing our territories and economies against our will -- using stealth, lies, and manipulation to obtain support for WMD and missile programs that directly threaten our security. These same actions by proliferators also:
subvert legitimate trade,
call into question the good reputations of our companies and ports, and
thus undermine the confidence needed for legitimate trade to grow.
This directly inhibits our countries’ economic prosperity, not just our national security. And the proliferators are not standing still. They are increasingly adaptive and creative:
seeking alternative suppliers, such as overseas distributors;
using front companies, cut-outs, and brokers to facilitate and conceal diversion;
falsifying documentation, end-users, and end-uses; and
using circuitous shipping routes and multiple transshipment points to obscure the actual destination of their shipments.

In addition, proliferators are increasingly interested in procuring items not on multilateral control lists. Proliferators use these non-listed items, which also have legitimate commercial applications, to help produce WMD and missiles, either directly or to substitute for items on the multilateral lists.

Counterproliferation Cooperation is the Answer
I hope I have clearly demonstrated the importance of the issue to all of our countries, and the magnitude of the challenge we face. The threats posed by, and activities of, proliferators are global in scope – and they bear heavily on this region as well.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the answer to countering and reducing this threat also is global in scope, and requires work in this region as well. Fortunately, the international community has developed effective methods against the proliferation threat that our countries and other responsible countries can bring to bear. Analyzing and discussing these various methods, how they work, and how to implement them will be the focus of the bulk of this workshop.

Let me briefly outline the tools and solutions that we will be discussing together.
We will start at the global and multilateral level, briefly examining the international authorities and control regimes that provide foundational sources and legal bases for combating proliferation. We also look forward in that segment to hearing more about the GCC Customs Union.

We then will move to a discussion of national level solutions, where we want to analyze the core elements of strategic trade controls and share experiences.
I noted earlier the challenge of proliferators seeking items not on, or below the thresholds of, the multilateral regime control lists, and their misuse of transshipment – both techniques proliferators commonly use against this region. So the next segment in the workshop will focus on catch-all controls and transshipment best practices.
Then the session on combating proliferation financing will highlight tools to prevent proliferators from misusing your banking systems to facilitate illicit trade.

Finally, we want to make you aware of some of the resources that are available to you to help build capacity in your countries to fight proliferation, and to implement these various tools.

And at the end of our second day together, we will have a “table top” exercise that will give us an opportunity to interact, directly and dynamically, to see how all the tools we’ve been discussing fit together in the real world. I hope this will help us develop some new ideas about how to work together and assist each other.

In conclusion, let me suggest that a recurring theme of this workshop is that the central element of effectively countering proliferation is cooperation:
cooperation between different ministries within each country, and between government and industry;
cooperation between neighbors within a region; and
cooperation with friends and trading partners from outside the region and with the broad international community.

Just as proliferators use networks to procure goods and services, we need to be a network of nonproliferators, employing best practices, and creating a layered, mutually reinforcing defense strategy against proliferation and its associated procurement efforts. All of the countries here today have a key role to play in this network. And I am quite sure that our workshop will promote the cooperation and collaboration needed to combat the proliferation threat that endangers the security and prosperity of us all.
Thank you.



U.S. OFFICIAL REMARKS ON WHY COUNTER-PROLIFERATION MATTERS FOR GCC


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The Proliferation Threat and Counterproliferation: Why It Matters for the GCC
Remarks Vann Van Diepen
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation Key Note Address, U.S. Gulf Cooperation Council Workshop
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
April 12, 2012
Introduction
Good Morning, Dr. Saeed Al Shamsi, Consul General Siberell, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
I would like to extend my thanks to the Government of the United Arab Emirates for co-hosting with the United States this Gulf Cooperation Council Counterproliferation Workshop. It is a pleasure for me to be back in Dubai.
I am particularly pleased to be here with all of you today, and gratified that we have representatives from all the GCC countries. I think that is an indication of the importance your governments have placed on countering the threat of proliferation -- as well as an indication of the value you have placed on working together on this issue, with each other, and with the United States.

I want to take a few minutes to set the stage for the conference by outlining in broad strategic terms the threat that proliferation poses to international peace and security, to the stability of this region, and to all of the countries gathered here.
I then want to briefly discuss why it is so important for GCC countries to work to counter this proliferation threat, not only nationally, but in cooperation with each other and in cooperation with other friendly countries such as the United States.
I will then briefly note how the rest of the workshop will focus in on the broad spectrum of interlocking measures that each of us can use to combat, impede, and ultimately thwart proliferation – and by so doing improve the national security and economic viability of all of our countries.

Proliferation: The Strategic Threat
The international community has long recognized the threat that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons – and their delivery systems pose to global and regional security. And all of us are fully aware of the fact that this threat is posed not only by countries of concern, but by terrorists.
The use of WMD – especially against cities -- would have horrendous physical, psychological, and economic consequences, and could even threaten the maintenance of civil order in the countries where it is used. Even the presence of WMD in countries of concern:
can lead those countries to threaten their neighbors in order to extract political and economic concessions;
it can embolden those countries to engage in conventional aggression or terrorism against their neighbors; and
it risks promoting arms races where neighboring states decide they must acquire WMD of their own, potentially resulting in an expanding spiral of insecurity and instability.
And you are all well aware this threat is not just theoretical. It exists in the real world, and it affects this region as well as others. For example...
Iran has been acquiring, developing, and deploying for over 20 years ballistic missiles that are inherently capable of delivering WMD, missiles with ranges that easily cover all the GCC countries and even southeastern Europe. It is actively pursuing yet longer-range systems that can cover Western Europe and beyond.
Iran is violating its United Nations (UN) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations by continuing to enrich uranium, in the process clearly demonstrating the technical capability to produce highly enriched uranium for use in nuclear weapons.
The IAEA has formally reported that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device, some of which may be ongoing, and that these past activities included some related to the development of a nuclear payload for a ballistic missile.
There is mounting evidence that Iran did not declare and has not destroyed all aspects of its offensive chemical weapons program under the Chemical Weapons Convention – which raises questions about it declarations concerning biological weapons (BW) as well.

North Korea openly admits to developing and having tested nuclear weapons. It deploys WMD-capable ballistic missiles able to threaten its neighbors, has tried to flight-test missiles able to reach the United States, and sells missiles and missile technology to any country willing to pay – including to countries in the Middle East. North Korea also is widely believed to have substantial CW and BW programs.
Syria, too, has a large CW program and ballistic missiles capable of targeting the entire region. It has been researching biological weapons, and attempted unsuccessfully to conceal construction of a nuclear reactor that had no logical purpose other than the production of plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

Beyond these examples of nation-state proliferation, it is clear that Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are interested in acquiring WMD. Terrorists – both groups and individuals – can operate in any country, and can engage in attacks against any country. CW and BW in particular can be developed using technology available worldwide. Terrorists actually have used sarin nerve gas and anthrax bioweapons.

Why Counterproliferation Matters
It is very clear from these examples that all of our countries face a direct security threat from the potential for countries of concern or terrorists to use WMD directly against us. We also face the threat of political and economic instability caused by the use of WMD against others, as well as from the mere possession of WMD by countries of concern and terrorists.

In addition, however, the national and economic security of all of our countries is undermined by proliferators’ efforts to acquire WMD and their delivery systems, and the ability to make them, by misusing the territories, economies, and institutions of our countries. Proliferators do so in four key ways.
First, proliferators seek to acquire items for their WMD and missile programs directly from our countries – not just the United States, but increasingly from the other countries in this room as your economies and technology levels develop.
Second, in order to disguise their actual intention to use the items in proliferation programs, proliferators pretend that reputable countries such as yours are the destination for items they buy in third countries. Proliferators do this by:
1. falsely listing countries such as yours as end-users in export paperwork;
2. by diverting to their countries items imported into y countries such as yours from elsewhere; and
3. by having brokers and front companies – often, small import/export companies -- based in countries such as yours purchase the goods from third countries on the proliferant country’s behalf.

For example, a multi-million dollar procurement network has been using a series of companies in a third country to procure steel and aluminum alloys for use in a proliferant ballistic missile program.

Third, proliferators seek to move through countries such as yours goods they have purchased elsewhere for use in their WMD and missile programs, by misusing the common commercial practices of transit and transshipment to camouflage illicit activities. Indeed, proliferators have singled out transshipment hubs such as those in this region as a critical part of their efforts to evade the global framework of trade controls.
For example, in 2009 a UN Member State inspecting a cargo ship passing through its busy transshipment port on the way elsewhere discovered anti-tank ammunition and other munitions. The ship's manifest revealed the weapons were actually on their way to another country in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions.

Nor are proliferant transits and transshipments only by sea. Last year, during a routine check, authorities in another UN Member State discovered weapons aboard a cargo aircraft traveling through its airspace from a neighboring country to a country of concern.
Just a few weeks ago, a UN Member State discovered two independent truck shipments, one with missile-related items and one with CW-related items, moving through its territory from one neighbor to a country of concern.
Fourth, proliferators seek to use banks or middlemen in countries such as yours to pay for the items they need for their WMD and missile programs.
For example, a Chinese citizen who procures items for proliferation programs in another country used front companies and false names to route payments through New York bank accounts to sell graphite to a proliferant ballistic missile program.

Increasingly, proliferators are applying several of these approaches simultaneously.
For example, a proliferator with Canadian citizenship imported from the United States pressure transducers, dual-use items that can be used in uranium enrichment.
Since enrichment is not something that happens in Canada, that part of the transfer did not raise suspicions, as the proliferator intended.

But the proliferator then exported the items from Canada to a proliferation program by falsifying the description and cost of the shipment, and routing it via a third country.
In all of these cases, proliferators are misusing our territories and economies against our will -- using stealth, lies, and manipulation to obtain support for WMD and missile programs that directly threaten our security. These same actions by proliferators also:
subvert legitimate trade,
call into question the good reputations of our companies and ports, and
thus undermine the confidence needed for legitimate trade to grow.
This directly inhibits our countries’ economic prosperity, not just our national security. And the proliferators are not standing still. They are increasingly adaptive and creative:
seeking alternative suppliers, such as overseas distributors;
using front companies, cut-outs, and brokers to facilitate and conceal diversion;
falsifying documentation, end-users, and end-uses; and
using circuitous shipping routes and multiple transshipment points to obscure the actual destination of their shipments.
In addition, proliferators are increasingly interested in procuring items not on multilateral control lists. Proliferators use these non-listed items, which also have legitimate commercial applications, to help produce WMD and missiles, either directly or to substitute for items on the multilateral lists.

Counterproliferation Cooperation is the Answer
I hope I have clearly demonstrated the importance of the issue to all of our countries, and the magnitude of the challenge we face. The threats posed by, and activities of, proliferators are global in scope – and they bear heavily on this region as well.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the answer to countering and reducing this threat also is global in scope, and requires work in this region as well. Fortunately, the international community has developed effective methods against the proliferation threat that our countries and other responsible countries can bring to bear. Analyzing and discussing these various methods, how they work, and how to implement them will be the focus of the bulk of this workshop.

Let me briefly outline the tools and solutions that we will be discussing together.
We will start at the global and multilateral level, briefly examining the international authorities and control regimes that provide foundational sources and legal bases for combating proliferation. We also look forward in that segment to hearing more about the GCC Customs Union.

We then will move to a discussion of national level solutions, where we want to analyze the core elements of strategic trade controls and share experiences.
I noted earlier the challenge of proliferators seeking items not on, or below the thresholds of, the multilateral regime control lists, and their misuse of transshipment – both techniques proliferators commonly use against this region. So the next segment in the workshop will focus on catch-all controls and transshipment best practices.
Then the session on combating proliferation financing will highlight tools to prevent proliferators from misusing your banking systems to facilitate illicit trade.
Finally, we want to make you aware of some of the resources that are available to you to help build capacity in your countries to fight proliferation, and to implement these various tools.

And at the end of our second day together, we will have a “table top” exercise that will give us an opportunity to interact, directly and dynamically, to see how all the tools we’ve been discussing fit together in the real world. I hope this will help us develop some new ideas about how to work together and assist each other.

In conclusion, let me suggest that a recurring theme of this workshop is that the central element of effectively countering proliferation is cooperation:
cooperation between different ministries within each country, and between government and industry;
cooperation between neighbors within a region; and
cooperation with friends and trading partners from outside the region and with the broad international community.

Just as proliferators use networks to procure goods and services, we need to be a network of nonproliferators, employing best practices, and creating a layered, mutually reinforcing defense strategy against proliferation and its associated procurement efforts. All of the countries here today have a key role to play in this network. And I am quite sure that our workshop will promote the cooperation and collaboration needed to combat the proliferation threat that endangers the security and prosperity of us all.

Thank you.

Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed