Bi-Lateral Discussions to Combat Nuclear Terrorism

Bi-Lateral Discussions and Preventing Nuclear Terrorism

While we’re thinking about terrorism…again…it might be time to look back to the June conference held in Miami to promote international communication and cooperation in preventing nuclear terrorism. At the time, I did several entries on the conference. It's time to look more closely at the bi-lateral discussions.

Dr. Vahid Majidi, head of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate said that “bilateral discussions were held during the week between the U.S. and five countries—Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Chile, and Mexico.” I’m reading this literally: bilateral U.S and Russia; U.S. and Ukraine; U.S. and Turkey; U.S. and Chile; and U.S. and Mexico.

Note that Dr. Majidi did not list the countries alphabetically. Significant? . I’ve made some observations and raised some questions about the nature of these bi-lateral arrangements.

I’m not assuming that the border issues with Mexico are solely related to discussions about nuclear terrorism. Was the emphasis on detection at the border of materials used in nuclear terrorism? About the nature of so-called Other-Than-Mexican’s? Especially those who come from countries that willingly harbor terrorists, Special Interest Aliens (SIA’s)

Chile has signed a number of international conventions relating to terrorisim; has the CDE/ Departemento de Control de Trafico Ilicito de Estupefacientes (Financial Intelligence). Islamic extremists, primarily Hizbollah, already operate in the Triborder Area (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay). Iquique may be becoming a new center for terrorists, as there is an influx of immigrants from Pakistani-Afghan border with “alleged links to Islaminc groups, including Al Quaeda.” How are we working with Chile?

Turkey had a number of incidents in trafficking in nuclear materials. It shares a border with Georgia, which has reportedly non-secure nuclear material, and with Armenia as well as Iran, Iraq and Syria. Armenia is part of the GI. Iran, Iraq and Syria are homes to terrorist organizations. (An argument could be made that Iran IS a terrorist organization…)

Did the discussion with the Ukraine involve more detailed agreements—and/or extension of the April 2005 agreement on “Detecting Illicit Shipments of Nuclear Material?

This conference was co-sponsored by the U.S. and Russia. But Russia has what’s been deemed a poorly secured stockpile of nuclear materials; it still has many warheads, some still ready-to-go, others capable of re-arming; its production of weapons-grade plutonium continues; it has relationships with countries which willingly harbor terrorist groups. Were these discussions aimed at continuing the progress of the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaties I and II as well as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR a/k/a Nunn-Lugar)? While these latter have to do with weaponry, they have implications for nuclear terrorism as well.

No answers here, just questions and more to contemplate.