SANDIA REPORTSAND95-1067 “ UC-700Unlimited Release.Printed May 1995

.

Cooperative Monitoring Workshop:Focus on the Middle East

ArianL.Pregenzer,Michael Vannoni, Kent Biringer, Pauline Dobranich

PreparedbySandia NationalLaboratoriesAlbuquerque,New Mexico 87185 end Livermore,California94550forthe UnitedStates Depanment of EnergyunderContractDE-AC04-WAL85000

Approvedfor pubiiorelease; distributionis unlimited.

---

Iz3in=

●

.

ZL7P*

*

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United StatesDepartment of Energy by Sandia Corporation.NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by anagency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Gover-nmentnor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of theircontractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty,express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for theaccuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, prod-uct, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe pr-ivately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise,does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof or any oftheir contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressedherein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Gover-nment,any agency thereof or any of their contractors.

Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduceddirectly from the best available copy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors fromCMce of Scientific and ‘lkchnical InformationPO BOX 62Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401

Atilable to the public hornNational ‘lbchnical Information ServiceUS Department of Commerce5285 Port ROyd RdSpringfield, VA 22161

NTIS price codesPrinted copy A03Microfiche copy AO1

*

SAND95-1067Unlimited ReleasePrinted May 1995

DistributionCategoryUC---7OO

Cooperative Monitoring Workshop:Focus on the Middle East

Arian L. PregenzerMichael Vannoni

Kent BiringerPauline Dobranich

Nonproliferation and Arms Control AnalysisSandia National Laboratories

Albuquerque, NM 87185-0567

AbstractSandiaNationalLaboratoriesandtheInstitutefor GlobalConflictandCooperationhostedaworkshopon the applicationof cooperativemonitoringto the MiddleEast. The workshop,heldinAlbuquerque,NewMexico, fromJuly 17 through 21,1994, was sponsoredby the U. S. DepartmentofEnergy, the Arms ControlandDisarmamentAgency,andthe U. S. Departmentof State, The meeting,whichfocusedon useof technicalmonitoringtoolsand sharingof collectedinformationto facilitateregionalagreements,includedparticipantsfromfiveregionalcountriesas wellas fromAmericanuniversities,the U. S. government,andU. S. NationalLaboratories. Someattendeespreviouslyparticipatedin meetingsof the ArmsControlandRegionalSecurityworkinggroupof the MiddleEastMultilateralPeaeeTalks. The workshopcombinedpresentations,demonstrationsand hands~nexperimentationwithmonitoringhardwareand software. An exercisewas conductedto evaluateandrecommendcooperativemonitoringoptionsfor a modelagreementbetweentwo hypotheticalemmtries.Historicalprecedentswerereviewedandthe role of environmentaland naturalresourceconflictsexplored.Theseactivitiesweresupplementedby roundtablediscussionscoveringMiddleEast securityissues,therelationshipof “nationalmeans”to cooperativemonitoring,andcooperativemonitoringof ballisticmissilesin the MiddleEast.

Cooperative Monitoring Workshop:

July 17-21, 1994Sandia National LaboratoriesCooperative Monitoring Center

Authors:Arian PregenzerMichael Vannoni

Kent BiringerPauline Dobranich

Sponsored byDepartment of Energy, International and Regional Security Division

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,Nonproliferation and Regional Arms Control Bureau

‘iiil

.-.

.

I!i!i!lCooperative Monitoring Workshop:

Focus on the Middle East

Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, New Mexico

Jtdy 17-21,1994

Workshop Summary

Abstract

!%ndia National Laboratories and the Institute for Global Conflictand Cooperation hosted a workshop on the application of cooperativemonitoring to the Middle East. The workshop, held in Albuquerque,New Mexico, from July 17 through 21, 1994, was sponsored by the U.S.Department of Energy, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, andthe State Department. The meeting, which focused on use of technicalmonitoring tools and sharing of collected information to facilitateregional agreements, included participants from five regional countries aswell as horn American universities, the U.S. govemrnenc and IJ.S.National Laboratones. Some participants previously participated inmeetings of the Arms Control and Regional Security working g~oup ofthe Middle East Multilateral Peace Talks. The workshop combinedpresentations, demonstrations and hands-on experimentation withmonitoring hardware and software. An exercise was conducted toevaluate and recommend cooperative monitoring options for a modelagreement between two hypothetical countries. Historical precedentswere reviewed and the role of environmental and natural resourceconflicts explored. These activities were supplemented by roundtablediscussions covering Middle East security issues, national means andcooperative monitoring, and coo~rative monitoring of ballistic missilesin the Middle East.

A high degree of rapport was developed among the technicalspecialists and the regional participants. The participants agreed thattechnically based monitoring has a role in the Middle East PeaceProcess and should be discussed in future working groups. Participantswere very positive about future interactions with Sandia and theCooperative Monitoring Center. Several participants emphasized thatan important benefit of the Cooperative Monitoring Center and futureregional workshops will be to create a constituency for arms controland peace within the technical community in a region. In light of the

Sandia National Laboratories 1

mimportance of education and training, virtually all participantsencouraged Sandia to host similar workshops in the Middle East.

2 Soda Nationoi .bbomtones

I!i!EilCooperative Monitoring Workshop:

Focus on the Middle East

INTRODUCTION

&ndia National Laboratories and the Institute for Global Conflictand Cooperation (IGCC) of the University of California conducted the“Cooperative Monitoring Workshop: Focus on the Middle East” fromJuly 17 through 21, 1994. The purpose of the workshop was to assemblea select group of Middle East arms control expats and technicalspecialists and explore how cooperative monitoring could facilitateregional security efforts in the Middle East. The workshop was primarilysponsored by the International and Regional Security Division of theDepartment of Energy (DOE). The Arms Control and DisarmamentAgency (ACDA) and the Department of State also provided guidanceand support. Members of the academic, military, and governmentcommunities from Israel, Egypt, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait attended theworkshop. Also present were academics from several Americanuniversities and DOE and ACDA officials. Some participants hadpreviously participated in formal and informal, or “track 2,” meetings ofthe Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) working group of theMiddle East Multilateral Peace Talks. There were last-minutecancellations from Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Syria. Theworkshop agenda is included in the addendum to this paper.

The four-day workshop was the first visit by foreign experts toSandia’s new Cooperative Monitoring Center (CMC). The goal of theCMC is to provide a neutral forum where international and regionalrepresentatives can meet to share the extensive U.S. experience inmonitoring and verification and explore ways that technology canfacilitate regional confidence building in areas such as arms control,resource management, and environmental monitoring. The CMCpromotes communication between political and technical experts andprovides visitors with hands-on experience with monitoring hardware,software, data processing, and data integration capabilities for a varietyof applications, including arms control and environmental monitoring.

The idea for the workshop evolved as a result of Sandiacontributions to three earlier unofficial, “track two,” Middle East peaceprocess meetings hosted by the IGCC. At the most recent of theseworkshops, at Delphi, Greece, in January 1994, Sandia verificiitionexperts made presentations on the role of technology in facilitating

Sa.ndiaNationalLaboratories 3

regional security in the Middle Eastand described our vision of aCooperative Monitoring Center.Participants responded positively toSandia’s presentations andexpressed interest in a specializedworkshop.

Sandia experts at the Julyworkshop included specialists insensor hardware, softwaredevelopment, vulnerabilityassessment, and policy analysis.During the planning stages for theworkshop, we had extensive contactwith U.S., Jordanian and Israeliparticipants in the official peaceprocess and determined that border

A Technology Development Room in security and ballistic missile controlthe Cooperative Monitorhg Center issues in the Middle East would be

the most fruitful focus areas.

4 Sandia National Laboratories

mWORKSHOP SUMMARY

Introduction to the Concept of Transparency andCooperative Monitoring

The workshop began with a series of presentations defining theconcept of cooperative monitoring. We used a systems analysisapproach to identify and evaluate options for facilitating the solution ofregional problems with cooperative monitoring. “Cooperativemonitoring scenarios” are key to this process. In our approach, a genericcoopemtive monitoring scenario is independent of a particular region andconsists of five major components:

1. Identification of a regional problem and goal for cooperation,such as:

■

■

■

■

■

conventional arms control

nuclear arms control

missile control

natural resource management

environmental monitoring

2. A hypothetical agreement among two or more parties

3. Definition of monitoring objectives to assure that the agreementis being upheld

4. Identification of relevant observable items or actions

5. Identification of a range of technically based cooperati vemonitoring options.

We used generic scenarios to serve as examples of broadlyapplicable cooperative monitoring situations. Fundamental tc~ourapproach is that many options exist for each step in the process ofselecting monitoring techniques for regional confidence building. Inparticular, we discussed degrees of intrusiveness for technicalmonitoring, stressing that the appropriate level of intrusiveness for aparticular agreement will be determined by many factors, including thespecial sensitivities of the countries involved. We also emphiisized theimportance of achieving a proper mix of technical and human presence,as well as agreed-upon procedures for dealing with anomalies, aselements in a successful cooperative monitoring regime.

Sondia National Lubomtones 5

As a specific and timely example of U.S. efforts in the area ofnuclear transparency, a DOE staff member summarized theU.S./Russian initiative to provide transparency of weapondismantlement activities at sensitive production facilities. The processfocuses on inspection of plutonium stockpiles and consists of severalsteps: (1) site familiarization, (2) demonstration of monitoringmethods, (3) exercises using agreed measures, and (4) establishment ofan agreement for a full-scale monitoring program. We felt that thepresentation might provide information that potentially would be usefulin future regional discussions. This presentation provoked a discussionthat set the stage for the afternoon session dealing with Middle Eastsecurity issues.

Round Table Discussion on Middle East SecurityIssues

We devoted the afternoon of the first day to a round tablediscussion of Middle East security issues, focusing on bordermonitoring and missile control. The discussion was led by a MiddleEast specialist from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Sincethe remainder of the week would be devoted to proposals of technicalmonitoring options for these issues, the round table was intended toestablish a common understanding of their relevance in the MiddleEast.

The participants considered most of the borders of Israel to befairly well-defined. However, there are areas where the fear of attackon both sides of the border, either by neighboring countries (the GolanHeights) or by non-governmental third parties (the Lebanon border),creates tension. The Israelis thought that the basic problem was thatwhoever controlled the Golan Heights had an automatic advantage overthe other side, so that there would be the temptation to cheat on anagreement. Even with a demilitarized Golan, Israel would beconcerned about the large standing Syrian Army. Monitoring of thesestrategic areas may be a key element of any future Middle East PeaceAccord. In addition to security concerns, equitable access to water inthe Golan Heights is a potentially contentious issue. Although there islittle military tension on the border between Israel and Jordan, watermanagement, pesticide pollution, and transmission of animal-bornedisease are important bilateral problems. Some type of cooperativemonitoring may be needed to manage these non-militay problems andwill become more important as Middle Eastern countries enter intopeaceful relations.

6 Sandia National L.aboraton”es

@

In other regions of the Middle East, for example the ArabianPeninsula and the territory between Iraq and Kuwait, borders have yetto be clearly defined, and there is the potential for tension that does notinvolve Israel. Some form of cooperative monitoring could play a rolein achieving and implementing agreements in these areas as well.

Ballistic missiles were acknowledged as being relevant to allMiddle Eastern countries. There was some difference of opinion,however, as to how large a problem they posed. Many participantsthought missiles were a major problem for security in the region. Theyalso emphasized that with the obvious breaches in the MissileTechnology Control Regime, there are no simple solutions to theproblem. Ballistic missiles were perceived as supporting both politicaland military goals, with the historical uses of missiles in the MiddleEast being primarily political. One person horn the region thought thatrecent initiatives by various Arab states to acquire ballistic missiles areintended to increase their relative strength and, as such, theiracquisition actually might be a stabilizing influence in the region.

At previous “track two” meetings, a great deal of interest had beenexpressed in the relationship of cooperative monitoring to nationaltechnical means. In particular, several countries had expressed concernthat cooperative monitoring regimes could undermine national securityif they were perceived as replacing information received from othersources. In response to these concerns, we included a discuss~on of therelationship between the two types of monitoring led by a member ofthe Stanford Center for International Security and Arms Control. Thepotentially complementary nature of cooperative monitoring andnational technical means was emphasized. Another key point in thediscussion was that decisions regarding compliance with naticmalsecurity agreements should always remain the prerogative of individualcountries, not the prerogative of monitoring organizations. Thisassures that individual countries can make use of all information attheir disposal, including information from national capabilities, whenmaking compliance decisions.

Included in the discussions of national technical means was aninteresting proposal on the role of emerging technology in the field ofunmanned aerial vehicles as a means of increasing the nationalcapabilities of countries without access to satellite imagery or othersophisticated technical means. The relative inexpensiveness of suchnew technology could “equalize” access to information relevant tocompliance monitoring. The availability of such information to allcountries, even if not used cooperatively, could itself function as aconfidence-building measure.

Sandia National Laboratories 7

!B’!!lMonitoring Hardware and SoftwareDemonstrations

The morning of the second day of the workshop was devoted todemonstrations of monitoring hardware and software applicable tocooperative monitoring. Demonstration capabilities for both armscontrol and environmental applications at the CMC included

exterior monitoring and tamper-indicating technologies(seismic, magnetic, video, electronic perimeters, breakbeams,tags, seals)

portal perimeter monitoring as used for monitoring missileproduction facilities under the Intermediate Range NuclearForces Treaty

monitoring technologies applied to remotely monitoring theinterior of nuclear facilities (sensors similar to those used forexterior monitoring plus data authentication)

seismic monitoring, emphasizing detection andcharacterization of nuclear explosions versus earthquakes andthe use of!single stations as compared to sensor arrays

commercial satellite and aerial overflight imagery and dataintegration (LANDSAT, SPOT, synthetic aperture radar,image processing)

pollution dispersion modeling (meteorological data collection,airborne particulate dispersion models, air and water sampling)

● software to matchenvironmental problemswith monitoring andremediation technologies

■ simulation software to act astraining and demonstrationtools for the interaction ofsensors and theirenvironment

8 Sandia National Laboratories

mThere were two purposes for the demonstrations: (1) to acquaint

the participants with monitoring technologies that would be used in thedevelopment of the border monitoring scenarios on the third day and(2) to provide the participants with a survey of a wide range of readilyavailable monitoring technologies. One important goal was tostimulate the participants’ imagination about the role of technology inimplementing regional confidence-building measures.

Participants reacted to the demonstrations with a great deal ofinterest. Because of their widely varying backgrounds, they exhibited avariety of responses. Those with military experience were particularlyinterested in practical implementation issues and were eager to spendmore time becoming familiar with the equipment and technology. Oneparticipant with a scientific background was familiar with many of thetechnologies and wished that a broader range of technologies wereavailable. All observed that complete summaries of the technicaldemonstrations, including performance specifications, strengths,weaknesses, application (including previous use), cost, and possiblyvendor information, would be extremely usefid.

Precedents for Cooperative Monitoring

~storical precedents were presented to provide evidence of thevalue of technically based monitoring. The highlight of the discussionwas a presentation on the use of technology in monitoring the SinaiDisengagement Agreement between Israel and Egypt in the late 1970s.Because of the familiarity of many of the participants with this historicagreement, the briefing incited a great deal of interest. Participants askednumerous questions about details of the Sinai system. The mood of themeeting shifted from one of “if’ cooperative monitoring could work to“how to implement” a cooperative regime. The need to mix technologyand human presence, as illustrated in the Sinai Disengagement was adominant theme of this session. There were observations about the valueof a third party, such as the United States or the United Nations, in themediation and implementation of an agreement. Many thought the needfor such mediation was as great today as in the 1970s.

This historical example illustrated the importance of working outall technical, procedural issues as conclusively as possible beforeexecution. Of particular concern is the problem of the “rogue colonel,”a lower official who obstructs the implementation of an agreement.This situation illustrates the problem of how ambiguity in the text of anagreement can later create unnecessary conflict in the field du]ingimplementation. A field commander may obstruct an inspection ormonitoring procedure if he is unfamiliar with procedures that are notclearly defined in the agreement.

Sandia National Laboratories 9

!!!!!!lWe also presented examples of cooperative environmental

monitoring of air pollution and water management along theU.S./Mexican border and regional ecological monitoring to studydesertification in an arid climate. Partly because of the orientation ofthe participants toward security issues, these briefings did not stimulatea high level of interest. However, the participants suggested thatregional environmental specialists would be very interested in thesubject. It also was acknowledged that cooperation on environmentalmonitoring issues may be a more feasible near-term goal in the MiddleEast than cooperation on military security issues. Some proposed thatthe CMC consider hosting a specialized water and environmentmultilateral working group meeting to focus on technical options formanaging these problems.

Application: Zone Monitoring of Border Regions

This application session wtied participants through the process ofdesigning a cooperative monitoring system for a variety of applicationsrelevant to an agreement to limit military presence in the zone near anational boundary. The importance of assessing the vulnerability ofpotential monitoring regimes was emphasized, including a presentationon the methodology of making such assessments. The purpose of thesepresentations was to illustrate a systems approach to selecting technicalmonitoring options, highlighting tradeoffs between cost andeffectiveness, between human presence and technical monitoring, andbetween monitoring intrusiveness and system vulnerability.

To serve as a concrete basis for discussion, we prepared a “modeltext” for an agreement limiting military forces in a region adjacent tothe boundary between two countries. The setting for the model text

Map of Border Monitoring Exercise

agreement was the Alb~querque region, withthe Rio Grande River representing the nationalborder.

After a description of monitoring optionsin the model text, with illustration by computersimulation, we conducted a “confidence-building exercise” in which the group wasdivided into two parts, one representing eachhypothetical country. The two groups metseparately and developed strategies forestablishing a cooperative monitoring regimefor the hypothetical agreement expressed in themodel text. They used the experience gainedfrom the technology demonstrations andsystem design briefings to define monitoringand negotiation strategies.

10 Sandia National hbomtones

mThe participants enjoyed this exercise, felt it was useful, and

thought it should have lasted longer. Most suggested that we shouldhave provided more historical context for the model text and,consequently, before they separated to design monitoring regimes,voted to adopt the historical context of the Iran/Iraq wars.Interestingly, although using the Golan Heights as the setting for theexercise was briefly considered by Sandia, it was rejected as being toopolitically volatile for this group to discuss. Participants alsorecommended seeking input from military experts on the design of themodel text and monitoring regimes in order to make the exercise morerealistic in the future. They also thought a post-exercise discussion thatreviewed the political and procedural processes each “country” used indeveloping monitoring options should be included. Some thought acooperative monitoring “game,” supported by computer simulation,would be very useful.

Application: Ballistic Missile Monitoring

Presentations on the problem of missile control identified a.range ofgoals for missile control agreements, highlighted challenges inmonitoring missile control agreements, then offered a range of optionsfor controlling missiles at different stages in a ballistic missile’s lifecycle. In particular, options for controlling missiles through limits onproduction and testing, deployment, and missile range, payload, oraccuracy, as well as through export and import regulations, werediscussed. It was agreed that controls on missiles imported to the regionwere currently more pertinent than indigenous production.

Our final presentation in this session was given by a member of theUN Special Commission on Iraq on the Baghdad Monitoring Centerand its current efforts to verify destruction of missiles. Althoughmonitoring in Iraq is not an illustration of a cooperative regime, therewas a great deal of interest in the technical details of the operation,especially from Kuwait. In fact, this presentation elicited one of themost lively discussions of the week, reflecting once again the stronginterest the parties have in regional examples of cooperativemonitoring.

Although participants generally were interested in missile controlissues, they felt that our presentations did not offer enough concretetechnical options. They recommended that future presentations onmissiles focus more heavily on providing technical options formonitoring potential agreements, not on analyzing options foragreements.

Sondia National Laboratories 11

OBSERVATIONS AND KEY THEMES

Reactions to the Cooperative Monitoring Centerand the Workshop

Participants were very positive about future interactions with Sandiaand the Cooperative Monitoring Center. Particularly critical to thesuccess of the workshop was the active involvement of military officersfrom the region who were concerned about the impact of securityarrangements on the soldier in the field. Many especially liked theproblem-solving orientation of this workshop and its technical focus, incontrast to what was described as the “talkfest” that sometimes occurs atmeetings on regional security issues.

The more technically oriented participants emphasized the need forthe Cooperative Monitoring Center to establish as broad a technologybase as possible in order to offer a full spectrum of monitoring options.This can be accomplished by means of collaborations with otherNational Laboratories, universities, and regional organizations.

The interactive workshop sessions were perceived as being themost useful. However, participants recommended that we carefullyplan future meetings to include adequate time for group discussion.Many felt that discussions had to be terminated just as they werebecoming exciting. Some felt that too much information was presentedfor adequate digestion. They also expressed the desire for moreunstructured time, including shorter working sessions.

All recommended that Sandia staff should increase their familiaritywith the historical/political context of conflict in the Middle East inorder to better understand the implementation environment forpotential cooperative monitoring regimes. Recommendations includedvisiting research institutes in different regions, soliciting guest lecturesby regional specialists, and establishing collaborations with regionalacademic and technical specialists.

The ability to present technical options for solutions to regionalproblems is a unique capability of a technical institution such asSandia. Participants emphasized that Sandia should focus on providingtechnical options, rather than analysis of security issues. Closeinteraction with policy analysis groups will ensure that we direct ourattention to relevant problems. There was agreement that technicallybased monitoring has a role in the Middle East Peace Process andshould be discussed more in future working groups.

12 Sandia National Laboratories

(i!EiilTechnical Asymmetry and the Importance ofEducation

A recurring theme of the workshop was technical asymmetry amongcountries in the Middle East. Implications of technical asymmetry arecomplex. On the one hand, less technically capable countries may not bewilling to engage in discussions of cooperative monitoring out of amisunderstanding of the capabilities of technology. Education andtraining about relevant monitoring technologies could make a significantimpact on their attitudes toward monitoring regimes for the re~on. Onthe other hand, the more technically sophisticated countries may beopposed to projects that would provide monitoring technologies to theregion as a whole, since this could diminish their relative advantage.Nevertheless, it was generally agreed that efforts to familiarize countriesin the region with shamble monitoring technologies would have apositive effect.

Conducting a Workshop in the Region

In light of the importance of education and training, virtually allparticipants encouraged Sandia to host similar workshops in the MiddleEast. A regional setting would facilitate participation from a much wideraudience. The Egyptian and Qatari representatives offered to investigatepossibilities for hosting workshops in their countries. Severalparticipants thought that along-term goal should be to establish aCooperative Monitoring Center in a Middle Eastern country.

Benefits of Establishing a Regional Arms ControlInfrastructure

Several participants emphasized that an important benefit of theCooperative Monitoring Center and future regional workshops will be tocreate a constituency for arms control and peace within the technicalcommunity in the region. By supporting scientists and technolc~gists indeveloping technologies that can be used to monitor arms control orregional security agreements, we can help establish an infrastructure forsupporting the implementation of such agreements. One Americanparticipant, who has taught students from South Asia, observed that someAmerican-educated scientists eventually work in nuclear programs whenthey return home. In his opinion, these scientists might be happierworking on technologies to promote peace in the region, rather thandeveloping weapon technologies.

hndia National hborato?ies

—.

13

9

Increasing Attendanceat Future Workshops

Pointing out the importance thatworkshops be attended by influentialand credible people from eachcountry, the participants recom-mended that Sandia be aggressive inseeking help from the localAmerican Embassies, with ACDAand State Department approval, tosecure representatives from therelevant government ministries atfuture meetings. Many haveprovided names of people in theircountries to act as points of contact.These will be important both forfuture meetings at Sandia and atworkshops conducted in the MiddleEast.

Social Occasions andFree Time

A high degree of rapport wasdeveloped among the technicalspecialists and the regionalparticipants by the end of the week.This was due in part to the informalnature of the workshop, theenthusiasm of the Sandia team, and

the degree to which we attempted to make life pleasant for the regionalvisitors. We might have been too assiduous in scheduling social eventsfor each evening, however. Some of the participants would haveappreciated less structure in the evenings to allow them to rest and reflecton the day’s events. It also was suggested that more free time in theevenings would be welcome to provide for shopping opportunities for theforeign visitors.

14 Sandia National Laboratories

Agenda mCooperative Monitoring Workshop:

Focus on the Middle East

Agenda

Ju/y )7-21, 7994

Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, New Mexico

Sandia National Laboratories A-1

(iiiiil AgenakSunday, July 17SheratonOldTownHotel

Social Period

Fireplace Room

600 p.m.

Welcome Dinner

FireplaceRoom

700 p.m.

Welcoming Remarks

Introduction

Dr.ArianPregen.zer,Manager

Verification and Monitoring Analysis Department

Sandia National Laboratories

Dr. Ed Fei, Director

Department of Energy

International & Regional Security Division

Dr. Susan Shirk, Director

University of California

Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation

Keynote Speaker

Ambassador Paul Robinson

Sandia National Laboratones

Vice President for Laboratory Development

Title

joint Experimentation:

The Key to Successful Negotiation of Technical Inspections

A-2 Sandia National bboratories

Agenda

Monday, July 18Cooperative Monitoring FamiliarizationCooperative Monitoring Center Facility, Research Park Complex

Exchange of background information on cooperative monitoring and d+ne security issues in theMiddle East.

INTRODUCTION AND GOALS

745 a.m.

8:00 a.m.

&30 a.m.

8:40 a.m.

9:00 a.m.

9:30 a.m.

1030 a.m.

1045 a.m.

11:15 a.m.

1L45 a.m.

1:00p.m.

1:15 p.m.

230 p.m

245 p.m.

4:00 p.m.

645 p.m.

Depart Hotel

Badging, Cooperative Monitoring Center

Welcome and Administrative Information

Dr. Arian Pregenzer, Sandia National Laboratories

Overview of Sandia National Laboratories Activities

Dr. Gerald Yonas, Sandia National Laboratories

Overview of Cooperative Monitoring and Workshop

Dr. ArzianPregenzer, Sandia National Laboratories

Introduction of Attendees

Break

Cooperative Monitoring Scenarios: Framework For Cooperative Monitoring

Mr. Kent Biringer, Sandia National Laboratories

Regional and Bilateral Transparency Measures:

Example of United States Nuclear Facilities

Mr. Tim Ingle, Negotiations and Analysis Division, Department of Energy

Lunch

Tour of Cooperative Monitoring Center Facility

Mr. Michael Skroch, Sandia National laboratories

Roundtable Discussions

Middle Eastern Issues(borders and security issues; missiles; natural resources)Modmator: Dr. Andy TerrW, Lawrence .LivermoreNational bboratoy

Break

National Means and Cooperative Monitoring

Moderator: Dr. Terry Taylor, Stanford University Center for Intentional Securityand Arms Control

Return to hotel

Depart hotel for dinner at the home of Dr. Gerald YonasVice President for Systems ApplicationsSandia National Laboratories

hndia National bboratories A-3

m Age&Tuesday, July 19Cooperative Monitoring Technology OrientationCooperative Monitoring Center Facility, Research Park Complex

Make attendees aware of available monitoring technologies, so~re simulation, and implementationissues.

SENSORS AND SOFIWARE

8:00 a.m.8:30 a.m.

845 a.m.1000 a.m.

1200 p.m.

Depart HotelDemonstration PreviewMs. Pauline Dobranich, Sandia National laboratoriesSensor and Simulation DemonstrationsBreak

Working Lunch

Informal Discussions of Hardware and Software

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DESIGN OF COOPERATIVE

SYSTEMS

MONITORING

1:00 p.m.

1:30 p.m.

200 p.m.

2:15 p.m.

245 p.m.

3:00 p.m.

600 p.m.

9:45 p.m.

Historical Precedents for Cooperative Monitoring

Mr. Michael Vannoni, Sandia National laboratories

Cooperative Environmental Monitoring Between the United States and Mexico

Mr. Art Verardo, Sandia National Laboratories

Break

Rio Grande River Valley Long-Term Ecological MonitoringDr. James Gosz, National Science Foundation and the University of New Mexico

Concept of Zone Monitotig and Application to a Scenario Based on theAlbuquerque Region

Mr. hry Trust, Sandti National Laboratories

Return to hotel

Leave hotel for dinner at Sandia Peak

Arrive back at hotel

.

A-4 Sandia National Laboratories

Agenab

Wednesday, July 20Scenarios for Monitoring of Geographic ZonesCooperative Monitoring Center Facility, Research Park Complex

Demonstrate the application of sensor hardware and simubtion sojlware to a speciic scenario andgeographic location.

INTRODUCTION TO GEOGRAPHIC ZONE MONITORING

8:00 a.m.

8:30 a.m.

9:00 a.m.

945 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

1045 a.m.

11:45 a.m.

Depart Hotel

Design of a Cooperative Monitoring System

Ms. Pauline Dobranich, Sandia National Laboratories

Vulnerability Assessment in Monitoring Systems

Mr. Byron Gardner, Sandia National bboratories

Break

Characteristics of Albuquerque Cooperative Monitoring ScenarioMr. Michael Vannoni, Sandia National Laboratories

Example of Strategy for Sensor Selection and System Design

Jointly pe@rmed by Issues, Sensor, and Simulation Teams

* Garrisons small enclosed areas

* Chokepoints: mountain passes, river crossings

* Linear Areas: riverbank

“ Open Areas demilitarized zone

Lunch

APPLICATION OF COOPEIUkTIVE MONITORING WITHIN A MIDDLEEASTERN CONTEXT

1:00 p.m.

2:15 p.m.

230 p.m.

400 p.m.

700 p.m.

Group Discussion Applicability of Albuquerque scenario to Middle EastModerators: Vannoni, Dobranich, Dam; Sandia National laboratoks

Break

Middle East Specific IssuesDr. Arian Pregenzer and Mr. Kent Biringer, Sandia National Laboratories

Depart from Cooperative Monitoring Center

Dinner at Sheraton Hotel, Islets RoomProfessor Al Won, University of New Mexico School of Law“Water in the Arid Anencan ScmthweskAn International Region Under Stress”

Sandia National Laboratories A-5

m Age&Thursday, July 21Introduction to Ballistic Missile IssuesCooperative Monitoring Center Facility, Research Park Complex

BALLISTIC MISSILE MONITORING ISSUES

Introduce options in monitoring potential ballistic missile agreements.

8:00 a.m.

&30 a.m.

9:00 a.m.

9:30 a.m.

1000 a.m.

10:15 a.m.

11:45 a.m.

Depart Hotel

Introduction to MissileIssues

Mr. Kent Biringer, Sandia National Laboratories

Options for Control

Mr. l-my Trost, Sandia National laboratories

Examples of MissileMonitoring

Dr. Steve Dupree, Sandia National Laboratories

Break

Roundtable Discussion

Cooperative Monitoring of BallisticMissilesin the Middle EastModerator: Dr. Steve Dupreer Sandia National laboratories and UN SpecialCommission on Iraq

Lunch

CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSURE

Evaluate presentations and discussions for application to confidence building in the

Middle East and proposals for future action.

1:15 p.m. Group Discussion: Conclusions from Workshop and Suggestions for Future

Developments, Scenarios and Presentations

Moderator: Dr. Arian Pregenzer, Sandia National Laboratories

3:00 p.m. Close of Workshop

Return to hotel or transportation to airport for evening departures

6:30 p.m. Depart hotel for farewell banquet at El Pinto restaurant

A-6 Sandia National Laboratories

Cooperative MonitoringWorkshop Focus on the Middle East

Distribution:

1

5

1

2

151

MS9018

MS0899

MS0619

MSO1OO

MS0567MS0567

CentralTechnicalFiles, 8523-2

TechnicalLibrary, 13414

Print Media, 12615

DocumentProcessing,7613-2For DOE/OST’I

Arian Pregeruer, 9241ColistaMurphy,9241