Thai Prime Minister Taksin Shinawata and U.S. President George W. Bush meet the press yesterday at the Asian-Pacific leaders’ summit in Bangkok (AFP/Getty). Bush Ready to Offer North Korea Written Security Pledge, Not Treaty Reinforcing recent comments by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, President George W. Bush yesterday suggested that the United States could offer written security assurances to North Korea if Pyongyang showed significant progress toward dismantling its nuclear program (see GSN, Oct. 14)...Full Story

U.S. Intelligence Officials Charge Bush Administration With Altering Intelligence-Handling Methods During Prelude to War Current and former U.S. intelligence officials have charged the Bush administration with bypassing customary procedures for examining intelligence — a move that could explain the disparities between prewar intelligence on Iraqi WMD programs and what has been found so far on the ground, the New Yorker reported this week (see GSN, Oct. 15)...Full Story

IAEA-Iran Talks Result in “Understanding” Over Additional Protocol A senior Iranian official has said that talks between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency have resulted in an “understanding” that could lead to Iran complying with international demands to allow more intrusive IAEA monitoring of its nuclear facilities, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Oct. 17)...Full Story

	Monday, October 20, 2003

U.S. Intelligence Officials Charge Bush Administration With Altering Intelligence-Handling Methods During Prelude to War Current and former U.S. intelligence officials have charged the Bush administration with bypassing customary procedures for examining intelligence — a move that could explain the disparities between prewar intelligence on Iraqi WMD programs and what has been found so far on the ground, the New Yorker reported this week (see GSN, Oct. 15). The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is currently conducting an inquiry into prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq. The committee has found, according to an intelligence official, that reports provided by U.N. weapons inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency were more accurate than CIA reports. “Some of the old-timers in the community are appalled by how bad the analysis was,” the intelligence official said. “If you look at them side by side, CIA versus United Nations, the U.N. agencies come out ahead across the board,” the official added. According to current and former intelligence officials, soon after the Bush administration came into office, senior administration officials began to change how intelligence was examined, the New Yorker reported. A retired CIA officer said that, typically, no requests for action should be made to higher officials, a process known as “stovepiping,” without the information the request is based on having been scrutinized. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, said the Bush administration had dismantled the existing filtering mechanism that prevented the use of bad intelligence. “They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them,” Pollock said of Bush administration officials. “They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack said. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information,” he added. For example, soon after the Bush administration came into office, Greg Thielmann, then a disarmament expert with the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), was assigned to serve as daily intelligence liaison with Undersecretary of State John Bolton, according to the New Yorker. Bolton, however, became “troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear,” Thielmann said, adding that he was soon asked not to attend Bolton’s staff meetings. “I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, ‘The undersecretary doesn’t need you to attend this meeting anymore,” he said. Even though Thielmann said he told Bolton’s staff that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide had replied, “The undersecretary wants to keep this in the family.” Ultimately, Bolton demanded that he and his staff obtain direct access to sensitive intelligence, according to the New Yorker. Previously, however, such intelligence had only been made available to undersecretaries after it had been analyzed — a process designed to prevent raw intelligence from going to “people who would be misled,” according to Thielmann.  Bolton has acknowledged that he altered intelligence-handling procedures to obtain more types of sensitive information, the New Yorker reported. “I found that there was lots of stuff that I wasn’t getting and that the INR analysts weren’t including,” Bolton said in an interview with the New Yorker. “I didn’t want it filtered.  I wanted to see everything — to be fully informed. If that puts someone’s nose out of joint, sorry about that,” he added. Bolton also said that Thielmann had “invited himself” to his daily meetings. “This was within my family of bureaus. There was no place for INR or anyone else — the Human Resources Bureau or the Office of Foreign Buildings,” Bolton said. According to the New Yorker, similar changes in intelligence-handling procedures were also made at the U.S. Defense Department. In 2001, an official assigned to a Pentagon planning office examined an assumption held by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith that the Iraqi National Congress opposition group could help overthrow then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.  An official said the assumption that the INC could play a major role in any coup against Hussein and that its leader Ahmad Chalabi would be welcomed by Iraqis was subjected to a type of “what could go wrong” study. “What if it turns out that Ahmad Chalabi is not so popular? What’s Plan B if you discover that Chalabi and his boys don’t have it in them to accomplish the overthrow?” the official said. When the official asked about the analysis, however, he was told that senior Pentagon officials wanted to focus more on what could go right, rather than what possibly could go wrong, the New Yorker reported.  “Their methodology was analogous to tossing a coin five times and assuming that it would always come up heads,” the official said. “You need to think about what would happen if it comes up tails,” the official added (Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Oct. 27). Back to top       Kay Report Indicates Hussein Wanted Banned Weapons, Powell Says By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The recently released findings of the Iraq Survey Group, which is conducting the search for evidence of suspected Iraqi WMD efforts, indicates that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein maintained programs to produce banned weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 17). Early this month, chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq David Kay released an interim report detailing the findings of the Iraq Survey Group in its search for alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In that report, Kay said his team had not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, evidence of active chemical and nuclear weapons programs or evidence of active biological weapons production. The team did find, however, evidence of WMD-related program activities and dual-use equipment that had previously been concealed from U.N. weapons inspectors. During appearances on two Sunday talk shows, Powell said that Kay’s report indicated that Hussein had maintained WMD production programs and the desire to produce such weapons. “Let there be no doubt about what Saddam Hussein’s intentions always were. He had weapons of mass destruction.  He has used weapons of mass destruction, and the president determined that it was not a risk the world should have to face any longer,” Powell said on CBS’s Face the Nation. During an appearance on FOX News Sunday, Powell dismissed recent allegations made by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that U.S. President George W. Bush had lied about the threat posed by Hussein. “The president did not lie week after week, after week, and the American people know better. The American people know better and are demonstrating they know better by their support for the president’s policies,” Powell said. In addition, the large number of U.S. allies that joined in the fight to overthrow Hussein and in the current efforts to rebuild Iraq also indicates the widespread perception of the threat posed by the former Iraqi dictator, according to Powell. “There are 32 nations standing alongside us in … Iraq now. I don’t think they’d be standing alongside us if they didn’t think they were doing the right thing, if they didn’t think that this was a noble cause that got rid of a horrible regime, a horrible dictator who had gassed people in the past, and we didn’t want to take the chance that he would gas them, expose them to biological weapons, or if given the chance, reconstitute his nuclear weapons program,” Powell said. Powell’s appearances yesterday on Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday were the latest in more than two weeks of public remarks by senior White House officials, including Bush himself, justifying Operation Iraqi Freedom. The White House public relations campaign, apparently intended to counter criticism of the war and of the Iraqi reconstruction, has also included speeches from Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) yesterday, however, criticized the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence on Iraq, saying the White House had “exaggerated” the threat. “I think there was exaggeration upon exaggeration upon exaggeration. There’s just a huge disconnect here between what the intelligence was said to provide or to say about what was going on in Iraq,” Levin said on Face the Nation. Levin also said yesterday that “it appears now from all we know” that Iraq did not possess stockpiles of actual weapons of mass destruction. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), however, said that while he did not believe Iraq had a nuclear weapons capability, “school is still out” with regards to evidence of Iraqi biological and chemical weapons. Roberts also said that his committee’s inquiry into prewar intelligence on Iraq was “about 90 percent done” and that a report on the committee’s findings would eventually be made public. Levin, however, criticized the committee for failing to also examine how such intelligence was used by the Bush administration. “What they’re not looking into is the policymakers’ use of that intelligence. They have omitted that second key half of the question, [which] is not just what was the intelligence given to them, but what did they do at the administration level — at the top levels with what was given to them. And that is a critical question which needs to be reviewed,” Levin said (see related GSN story, today). Back to top

Bush Ready to Offer North Korea Written Security Pledge, Not Treaty Reinforcing recent comments by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, President George W. Bush yesterday suggested that the United States could offer written security assurances to North Korea if Pyongyang showed significant progress toward dismantling its nuclear program (see GSN, Oct. 14). The assurances would not take the form of a treaty, Bush said. “We will not have a treaty, if that’s what you’re asking. That’s off the table,” Bush told reporters yesterday during a photo opportunity with Thai Prime Minister Taksin Shinawata on the eve of a summit of Asian-Pacific leaders in Bangkok (David Sanger, New York Times, Oct. 20). “Perhaps there are other ways we can look at to say exactly what I said publicly on paper, with our partners’ consent,” Bush said, referring to past statements that the United States has no plans to attack North Korea. U.S. officials said the Bush administration would only consider a written nonaggression promise as part of a multilateral pledge offered in conjunction with North Korea’s neighbors. North Korea has previously insisted on a bilateral pact, however, according to the Los Angeles Times. The United States is unwilling to pursue a bilateral agreement because North Korea has violated such agreements in the past, including the 1994 Agreed Framework to end nuclear activities in North Korea, according to U.S. officials. “So we’re not likely to go back down that road,” national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday on ABC’s This Week. “But we will be more than willing to talk about how, within the six-party context, we can address the North Korea security concerns in concrete ways,” she added. U.S. officials said they believed North Korea was less likely to violate an agreement that included its traditional allies China and Russia. In any case, the nonaggression pledge would probably take the form of an “agreement with a small ‘a,’” that would not require ratification or U.S. Senate approval, said one Bush administration official (Maura Reynolds, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 20). Bush’s statement represents a policy change for the president, who until now has repeatedly said he would not submit to North Korean blackmail by offering incentives before Pyongyang verifiably ended all nuclear activity, the New York Times reported. Bush decided to modify his stance last weekend, however, and adopted a position, promoted by the State Department, to at least communicate to Pyongyang what it might receive if it retreats from its nuclear program, according to the Times. Despite the new U.S. position, officials cautioned that North Korea might still reject it, deciding that it has invested too much in its nuclear weapons program to stop it now. “There are a lot of people in the administration who think that the North is bound and determined to plow ahead with its nukes, no matter what,” said one senior U.S. official who opposes any meaningful negotiation with North Korea. The U.S. offer is nevertheless valuable, the official said, because a North Korean rejection would illustrate its true intentions. “We could demonstrate to the world that it’s time to take more decisive action, from cutting off their oil, to seizing their ships, to having unpleasant things happen to their suspected sites,” the official said (Sanger, New York Times). Back to top       IAEA-Iran Talks Result in “Understanding” Over Additional Protocol A senior Iranian official has said that talks between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency have resulted in an “understanding” that could lead to Iran complying with international demands to allow more intrusive IAEA monitoring of its nuclear facilities, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Oct. 17). After two days of “intensive negotiations” with the IAEA this weekend, Iran “now has a more positive stance” toward signing the Additional Protocol to its agency safeguards agreement, said Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s representative to the IAEA. “We found a mutual understanding. We had indicated some ambiguities, and in the course of our discussions the ambiguities were removed,” Salehi said. He also said that Tehran could make a decision on signing the Additional Protocol in “a matter of days or weeks” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 20). IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said Thursday that he had worked during last week’s meeting with Iranian officials to reassure them that the additional protocol would not infringe on Iranian sovereignty. “I made it very clear that the protocol is simply an instrument we need, to make sure that all nuclear activities in a country, Iran or otherwise, are dedicated for peaceful purposes,” ElBaradei said. “I think they were happy to hear that,” he added. ElBaradei also said that he was hopeful Iran would fully comply with an Oct. 31 deadline to demonstrate greater transparency over its nuclear program. “We’ve been here for a year, the credibility of this verification system requires that by that time we need to have all the information,” he said. “I will not compromise on the need for Iran to come with the full story, comprehensive information, in the next couple of weeks and I was assured that this was going to happen, that they will come forward, and we’ll see,” ElBaradei added (BBC News, Oct. 16). Iran suggested yesterday that it might end its uranium-enrichment program if allowed to maintain a civilian nuclear program, according to USA Today. “We will do whatever is necessary to solve the problems, and in return, we’re expecting our rights to be preserved, which is (the right) to have nuclear technology,” Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, Oct. 20). European Officials to Visit Tehran Tomorrow Meanwhile, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom are scheduled to arrive in Tehran tomorrow for talks with Khatami on Iran’s nuclear program, Iranian sources said. The three European officials were unlikely to travel to Tehran unless they were able to obtain a firm Iranian commitment to comply with the IAEA Oct. 31 deadline, sources said (Agence France-Presse, Oct 20). Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the three European officials were traveling to Iran at Tehran’s invitation. “Since the foreign ministers of Germany, Britain and France have sent us a letter showing their inclination to cooperate with us, we have decided on a constructive dialogue,” Asefi said. “It is possible in the coming days that this will reach a higher level — so we have invited to Iran the three foreign ministers to give their points of view,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 19). Back to top       Pentagon Panel Recommends Deploying Lower-Yield Nuclear Weapons A U.S. Defense Department advisory group report has urged the United States to deploy a range of lower-yield nuclear weapons to make the U.S. nuclear deterrent “more relevant to the threat environment,” Jane’s Defense Weekly reported today. In an unreleased report completed this summer and entitled Future Strategic Strike Forces, the Defense Science Board says the current U.S. nuclear arsenal “is not adequate to (meet) future national security needs,” because potential enemies believe U.S. weapon yields are too large to use. Smaller weapons would reduce collateral damage and make their possible use more credible, the report says. The recommendation does not address the current legislative controversy over researching new low-yield nuclear weapons as the report’s plan simply calls for lowering the yields of existing weapons, but not below the five-kiloton threshold that defines a mini-nuke (see GSN, July 17). The new arsenal sought by the report would include “special effects” nuclear weapons, such as ones with a greater electromagnetic pulse or enhanced neutron weapons. Because these weapons would be derived from existing types, they would not require any explosive testing, the report says. The report also calls for creating more non-nuclear strike options, including some that could use existing nuclear weapons delivery vehicles. For example, MX strategic missiles, now scheduled to be removed from the nuclear arsenal, could be redeployed with conventional warheads at Vandenburg Air Force Base in California and Cape Canaveral, Fla., said Dennis Blair, a former U.S. Navy admiral who co-chaired the panel that produced the report. Non-nuclear weapons are needed to attack “very hard-to-hit, small, mobile and concealed targets at greater distances” than can be threatened now, Blair said. The MX plan would cost $350 million to develop, $600 million to deploy and could be ready by 2010, the report says. In addition, the report recommends developing an intermediate-range submarine-launched ballistic missile that would be armed with a conventional warhead (Andrew Koch, Jane’s Defense Weekly, Oct. 22). Back to top       France Constructs Nuclear Testing Simulation Facility France has begun work on a $2.2 billion laser facility for use in simulating nuclear weapons tests, the Financial Times reported Saturday (see GSN, Oct. 15). The Megajoule laser complex is being constructed 30 miles south of Bordeaux by the French Defense Ministry and the French nuclear energy agency. France believes that a final set of six nuclear tests conducted in the Pacific Ocean in the mid-1990s will give its laser facility an advantage over a U.S. laser currently under construction, according to the Times. While the French laser is set to become operational in 2010, after its U.S. counterpart, France has already developed a laser prototype that became operational this year for testing, the Times reported. The United States has decided not to build a prototype of its laser to save money. In addition to the Megajoule complex, the French nuclear testing infrastructure also includes the Airix X-ray system in the Champagne region and Europe’s most powerful supercomputer located at a facility near Paris, the Times reported (Paul Betts, Financial Times, Oct. 18). Back to top

U.S. Army Says Pneumonia Data Shows No Link to Vaccines By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army Surgeon General’s office said last week that its data indicates no causal relationship between the serious pneumonia suffered by 19 U.S. soldiers in Southwest Asia and the smallpox and anthrax vaccines they received. That conclusion, however, has been questioned by some experts who said that assessing causes of some cases is better done from medical analyses, rather than through a statistical analysis based on only 19 pieces of data. The data, presented on three charts provided to Global Security Newswire last week, indicates that most of the soldiers did not receive their anthrax and smallpox vaccinations shortly before they were hospitalized for serious pneumonia-like symptoms. Instead, it shows the 19 troops, two of whom died, were hospitalized between one and 30 weeks after receiving their smallpox vaccination and between 10 and more than 40 weeks after their first anthrax vaccination — with no apparent clustering of data around a particular time period. The Army data also shows an apparently even distribution of illness onsets from the time the soldiers received their sixth and final anthrax booster shot. “The pneumonia cases were evenly distributed after vaccination, which is what you’d expect if there was no cause-and-effect relationship, if they were just dispersed by chance, and that’s in fact what we see,” said Col. John Grabenstein, deputy director for military vaccines for the Army’s surgeon general. Grabenstein, an epidemiologist and pharmacist by training, said investigators might suspect the vaccinations as a cause if there was a cluster of data showing hospitalization within a month of vaccination. Grabenstein said the data, combined with information suggesting people vaccinated for anthrax and smallpox were no more likely to be hospitalized with pneumonia than unvaccinated people, has led military investigators to rule out the possibility that the vaccinations caused the unusually serious cases of pneumonia. “The fact that pneumonia admissions were statistically equivalent between unvaccinated people, people who got anthrax only, people who got smallpox only, people who got both vaccines were statistically equivalent, is the second reason,” he said. Investigation Continues The Army has said that, altogether, about 100 soldiers in the region have contracted pneumonia since U.S. forces invaded Iraq last March and that such an infection rate is not out of the ordinary. However, some experts said that while hospital admissions for pneumonia are not uncommon, serious cases requiring ventilator support for young and healthy adults are unusual. “How often do you have a young healthy gunfighter get on the ventilator? That’s definitely less common,” said Craig Smith, medical director of the Phoebe Center for Infectious Diseases in Georgia. The Army surgeon general this summer dispatched epidemiological consultation teams to the region and to Germany to investigate the possible causes or contributing factors to the illnesses, including whether the anthrax or smallpox vaccines played a role.  Grabenstein previously has said investigators have generally ruled out the vaccines as a cause, but had not provided data indicating whether there was a telltale pattern of hospitalization following the vaccinations for the 19 cases. Question About Damaged Immune System Meryl Nass, a practicing physician and prominent critic of the military’s use of the anthrax vaccine, challenged Grabenstein’s conclusions.  She said it could be a mistake to assume that vaccine-caused illnesses would occur at generally the same time following a vaccination. Sickness from a vaccine could possibly weaken an immune system, making the patient more susceptible to an autoimmune illness that could strike at a random time with symptoms possibly manifesting weeks after that. “The fact that these vaccines can have a profound effect on the immune system, thus potentially increasing the susceptibility of vaccinated individuals to a myriad of other diseases, is the issue here,” she said. “The problem with these autoimmune illnesses is that the initial pathology may start right after the vaccination, but by the time you are developing symptoms that are severe enough to take you to a doctor and get you diagnosed, a lot of time may go by,” she said. Nass cited a New England Journal of Medicine article published last week that referenced a study she said showed “people start getting sick at point A, but at the time they really show up with most of these autoimmune illnesses, it’s months or years later.” She also questioned Grabenstein’s conclusion that pneumonia hospitalization rates did not differ significantly for vaccinated and unvaccinated people, presenting statistics she said were obtained indirectly from Grabenstein’s office that contradict the conclusion. Within a Month Grabenstein contended that if the vaccinations were causing the illnesses, there would likely be a cluster of hospitalizations within a month of the vaccination. “After a month, things become quite unlikely. There just aren’t many things … that have an association after a month,” he said. Grabenstein challenged the idea that a vaccine might weaken an immune system and make the recipient more susceptible to infection.  He cited an Institute of Medicine report published last year that he said showed “there is no evidence of this kind of association with military vaccines.” The study concludes that there is no risk that multiple immunizations commonly given to infants could overwhelm their immune systems and make them more susceptible to infection. The report says “the epidemiological evidence … favors rejection of a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and increased risk for infections.” According to Grabenstein, “As a general phenomenon, the human body expects to encounter things in the environment that stimulate the immune system, that stimulate the immune defense, and a vaccination is, you know, having one of those immune responses intentionally rather than just at random, and unraveling, is just not a legitimate concern.” Agreement With the Conclusions Smith of the Phoebe Center said he agrees with Grabenstein that the data appears to indicate no link between the vaccines and 19 sick soldiers. “If you are going to associate it with the vaccination itself, you are going to have to show some kind of temporal relationship. And right now, they have kind of a “scattergram” that doesn’t look like it has any pattern to it,” he said. Smith cautioned, however, that 19 cases may not be a large enough statistical sample for identifying a meaningful pattern. “The caveat always in epidemiology is, well that’s because you only did 200,000 patients. If you did two million patients, then that scattergram might develop into a pattern,” he said. Smith also agreed with Grabenstein’s view that it is unlikely the vaccines might have damaged the immune systems of the 19 servicemen, making them more susceptible to infection and pneumonia weeks later.  With the case of the smallpox vaccine, which uses a live virus, a patient might be more susceptible to contracting a respiratory infection for a short time while building up immunity, he said. “But, to the point of damaging their immune system over the short term or long term or making them highly susceptible to other infections over the short term or long term, that hasn’t been proven out, and that’s from the [Institute of Medicine] report, from experience and from a lot of other things you can read about,” he said. “Every time you take a breath, drink a glass of water, it’s got all kinds of antigens and things that will affect your body. So if you go kind of from just a country doctor approach, why would one thing tend to knock everything out? It just wouldn’t make sense,” he said. On Safety in Combinations Nass said the safety of administering the anthrax vaccine at the same time as other vaccines remains in question. She cited a disclosure by a senior British defense official this month that British health authorities as late as 1999 advised against administering the anthrax vaccine with others. “The vaccine should be used alone. There is no evidence for the safe use in combination with other vaccines or medicinal products,” the British Medicines Control Agency had advised. In 1998, the British Ministry of Defense had required that the vaccine be given alone and in 2001 issued guidance stating, “Ideally, anthrax vaccine should be given separately from other immunizations,” citing live vaccines in particular. The British Committee on Safety of Medicines, however, conducted a review of available studies and reconsidered the advice, concluding that “none of the human and animal data available to members of the committee in respect of U.K. and U.S. anthrax vaccines warranted the advice that the vaccine should be used alone.” It advised against mixing the vaccine with others, though, and said the shot should be not given on the same limb at the same time as other vaccines. Grabenstein cited a March 2002 Institute of Medicine report, to which he contributed data, that found no evidence that vaccine recipients “face an increased risk of experiencing life-threatening or permanently disabling adverse events immediately after receiving” the vaccine. It further found no “convincing evidence that vaccine recipients face elevated risk of developing adverse health effects over the longer term,” but added, “although data are limited in this regard.” Back to top       U.S. Weighs Proposal for Self-Scrutiny in Scientific Community’s Biological Research By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is currently evalulating a recent study urging the U.S. scientific community to self-restrict biological research that could aid terrorists, a senior U.S. official said today (see GSN, Oct. 8). White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Marburger, speaking at a bioterrorism conference here, described the study published by the National Academy of Sciences Research Council this month as “a very important report” and said “there will be action soon” by the government in response. The report was important, he said, for promoting a culture of responsibility within the scientific community to protect against their research being used by potential terrorists. Marburger also said the report’s list of seven types of experiments that might potentially aid bioterrorists was “very thought provoking.” “We haven’t had such a list up to the present time. … It makes direction of all future discussions much more concrete and meaningful,” he said. He said the report has sparked an intensive review, primarily at the National Institutes of Health, where officials are considering not only the new study’s recommendations but also other alternatives. The review is “completely open. All range of possibilities are being discussed,” Marburger told Global Security Newswire in comments following his speech. The report has received mixed reviews from researchers for recommending a largely voluntary system for reviewing potentially dangerous research rather than government regulations to control potentially dangerous research. Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright has said the proposed system might enable research facilities, particularly those not funded by NIH, to opt out of reviews. The proposed system, he wrote recently in an e-mail to GSN, would only be meaningful if it entailed the mandatory participation of all institutions and researchers. Marburger, however, suggested sympathy within the administration for the study’s approach. “This is an administration that likes volunteerism, not command-and-control regulations,” he said. “It won’t work if government has to pass down directives … to control research. That’s not how research works,” he said. Marburger said, though, that the proposed system is being evaluated on whether it would be “credible to the public” as well as simple to implement and “minimally intrusive.” Back to top       Philippine Raid Nets Suspect Biological Material The Philippine Army announced today that a biological terrorism manual and suspected biological agents had been recovered during a raid on a hideout used by the militant Islamic group Jemaah Islamiyah, according to the Straits Times (see GSN, Aug. 18). Vice Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Rodolfo Garcia described the material recovered during yesterday’s raid in the southern city of Cotabato as possible residues of a “tetanus virus-carrying chemical.” Police experts are currently analyzing the recovered material, Garcia said. “These were not found in bulk,” Garcia said. “It takes time to determine” whether they are indeed biological weapons, he said (Straits Times, Oct. 20). Back to top       Texas Tech Professor Says FBI Tricked Him Into Plague Confession Texas Tech University professor Thomas Butler has said the FBI tricked him into confessing that he had accidentally destroyed 30 vials of plague samples and that he had falsely reported them missing, the New York Times reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 4). In January, Butler told university officials that 30 out of 150 vials of plague bacteria had been stolen, prompting a massive FBI search, according to the Times. After two days of questioning, however, Butler said in a handwritten affidavit that he had accidentally destroyed the vials and had reported them missing “to demonstrate why I could not account for the plague bacteria that had been in my possession.” Butler is now scheduled to begin trial in two weeks in federal court on almost 70 charges, including many unrelated to the charge of making false statements to FBI agents, the Times reported. According to court documents, Butler has said that while he may have accidentally destroyed the vials, he does not remember doing so (Kenneth Chang, New York Times, Oct. 19). During an interview aired last night on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Butler said the FBI had tricked him into making a confession to close the case.  “I was tricked and deceived by the government. I feel I was naive to have trusted them and the assurances they gave me,” he said (CBS News.com, Oct. 19). Back to top

Pentagon Relies on a Single Non-U.S. Firm for Chemical Protection Suit Component U.S. officials have said that the U.S. Defense Department relies on a single non-U.S. company to produce a special liner used in biological and chemical protection suits, Defense Week reported Friday (see GSN, April 29). The U.S. company Tex-Shield licenses the German company Bluecher GmbH to produce its Saratoga filter fabric for the lining of the Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST) suit, according to U.S. officials and documents. The German company subcontracts the Japanese company Kureha Chemical Industry Company to produce the carbon beads used in the fabric, Defense Week reported. Ray Decker, a military protective gear expert at the U.S. General Accounting Office, said the reliance on the single firm to produce an important suit component could create supply concerns. “This foreign dependence does place us at some risk, even though these countries are our allies. The risk could be precipitated by a disruption in supply — whether caused by a political, economic or other event. There is no alternative supply of these critical components,” Decker said. A U.S. Army spokeswoman said that “there is always some risk” to delivery disruptions from non-U.S. companies. To help offset that risk, the Army this fiscal year plans to identify alternative U.S. manufacturers of the lining and to begin stockpiling foreign liner components, the spokeswoman said (John Donnelly, Defense Week, Oct. 17). Back to top       Pine Bluff Incinerator Establishes Emergency Plans U.S. Army and Arkansas officials have created extensive emergency response plans in case there is an accidental release of chemical weapons agents from the Army’s incinerator in Pine Bluff, the Associated Press reported today. The facility is scheduled to begin operations next year (see GSN, Sept. 3). Under the contingency plans, if the Army were to detect a chemical release that could reach the surrounding community, it would use a dedicated “hot phone” to contact the Jefferson County emergency operations center, according to Wally Hunt, director of the county’s Office of Emergency Management. The county would then decide whether to evacuate residents, block inroads, advise residents to take shelter or order school children into specially protected school gymnasiums. The county could use a reverse 911 phone system to call all the private phones in the area to notify of an evacuation or could also broadcast instructions on radio and television stations. In addition, officials have erected a countywide siren system and have distributed specially coded radios from which residents can receive emergency instructions (Greg Giuffrida, Associated Press, Oct. 20). Back to top       OPCW Begins Annual Meeting, Expected to Consider Deadline Extension Requests The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons opened its eighth annual meeting today in The Hague and it is expected to consider requests for deadline extensions for chemical weapons destruction efforts, according to Agence France-Presse (see GSN, Sept. 4). The OPCW, which oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention, is expected to hear requests by countries to extend deadlines for the destruction of “category one” chemical weapons — those weapons that can be used immediately, AFP reported. Today, delegates are expected to elect a chairperson and members of the executive council. During the four-day meeting, delegates are also scheduled to develop an action plan for the full implementation of measures set out in the treaty (Agence France-Presse, Oct. 20). Back to top

U.S. Review of MTCR Delayed as Missile Defense Exemptions Debated A review ordered last year by U.S. President George W. Bush of the Missile Technology Control regime and other export-control regulations is months behind schedule and has suffered disagreements over how to handle exceptions for missile defense technologies, the Washington Post reported yesterday (see GSN, July 14). U.S. and European officials have said that U.S. MTCR-based export controls are hampering efforts to enlist foreign aid in developing a missile defense network. In an effort to obtain European aid in building a missile defense network, senior U.S. Defense Department officials began an approach two years of targeting European countries, according to the Post. By signing cooperative agreements with European companies, it was hoped that the companies would then in turn lobby their governments to support the U.S.-led program, the Post reported. Since late 2001, several European companies have entered into agreements with U.S. companies to explore options. To engage in more technical discussions, however, the European companies need to sign technical assistance agreements with the United States, the Post reported. Out of 19 requests for such agreements in the past two years, 15 have been approved but with provisions limiting what can be discussed because of MTCR-based export controls, company officials said. “The problem is that the people who administer the process don’t seem to understand we’re living in a new world,” said a senior executive with a large U.S. defense company. “They continue to apply the rules in the strictest manner,” the executive said (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, Oct. 19). Back to top       North Korea Tests Anti-Ship Missile North Korea today test-fired an antiship missile as part of an annual military exercise, South Korean military officials said (see GSN, April 1). The office of South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff refused to identify the type of missile used in the test, but said North Korea had previously conducted tests of the same missile earlier this year, according to the Associated Press. The North Korean missile did not pose an immediate threat to neighboring countries, a Japanese Defense Agency official said. Reports indicated that the missile had a range of about 60 miles, the official said, adding that it was believed that the test was part of “routine training,” (Soo-jeong Lee, Associated Press/Washington Post, Oct. 20). Back to top

Israel Expanding Missile Defense Capabilities, Defense Official Says A senior Israeli defense official has said that although Iraq no longer threatens Israel with ballistic missiles, Tel Aviv is continuing to expand its missile defense capabilities and is currently establishing a national missile defense command-and-control facility to process all radar sensing information and to manage the nation’s batteries of Arrow and Patriot missile interceptors, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported this week (see GSN, May 7). “What we need to do is to ensure that our defenses are broad enough, vis-a-vis quantities potentially coming from Syria, sophisticated enough vis-a-vis the very dangerous potential threat from Iran and deep and flexible enough to address a potential threat from Libya,” said Arieh Herzog, director of Israel’s Missile Defense Organization. Herzog said Syria has hundreds of chemically armed Scud missiles that require Israel to acquire a large arsenal of interceptors (see GSN, July 17, 2002). “We must use potentially more than one missile [interceptor] against each of them. Therefore, talking only in terms of countering the quantity of the potential Syrian threat, we require a significant number of Arrow interceptors,” he said. In addition, Iran is developing longer-range missiles (see GSN, July 8) and Libya is seeking to purchase ballistic missiles from North Korea, Herzog said (see GSN, Aug. 15). To counter these threats, Israel also plans to deploy more Green Pine missile tracking radars and to increase their power. Without missile defense funding constraints, Herzog said he would also pursue the deployment of sea-based missile defenses. “I would like a naval component to the program, particularly if the potential Libyan threat were to develop, because the best way to cope with it would be with a naval component. But this is being studied now, and I don’t know if we shall have the available funding to develop [or] acquire it,” he said (Robin Hughes, Jane’s Defense Weekly, Oct 22.)     Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

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