U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth (shown in a September photo) endorsed a U.N. Security Council antiterrorism resolution Friday (AFP photo/Evan Schneider). U.N. Adopts Antiterrorism Resolution By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council on Friday unanimously adopted a resolution proposed by Russia designed to make the fight against terrorism more effective by demanding that states deny safe haven to terror suspects and move more aggressively to extradite or prosecute people suspected of committing or planning terrorist acts. Russian Ambassador Andrei Denisov said the “major emphasis” of the resolution was that terrorism was “a crime that could not be justified by any political, ideological, religious or other views. Those responsible for terrorist acts should be given the harshest punishment for their crimes.” ..Full Story

Preventive War Doctrine Disputed in Second Debate By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush’s policy of preventive war was again a subject of contention in his second presidential debate on Friday, with Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) saying the rationale provided no justification for invading Iraq in 2003 (see GSN, Oct. 7)...Full Story

South Korea Complies With NPT, Diplomat Says By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire NEW YORK — Scientific research that produced a “trivial” amount of weapon-grade nuclear material “could be a technical violation, but not noncompliance” with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a South Korean diplomat said Thursday (see GSN, Oct. 6)...Full Story

	Tuesday, October 12, 2004

U.N. Adopts Antiterrorism Resolution By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council on Friday unanimously adopted a resolution proposed by Russia designed to make the fight against terrorism more effective by demanding that states deny safe haven to terror suspects and move more aggressively to extradite or prosecute people suspected of committing or planning terrorist acts. Russian Ambassador Andrei Denisov said the “major emphasis” of the resolution was that terrorism was “a crime that could not be justified by any political, ideological, religious or other views. Those responsible for terrorist acts should be given the harshest punishment for their crimes.”  Unanimity was made possible after Russia and the other sponsors of the draft negotiated with the Muslim nations on the council to satisfy Muslim concerns that the resolution would not be used as a blanket condemnation of the Palestinians. Resolution 1566 defines terrorism as “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons” that “are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.”  U.S. Ambassador John Danforth called this provision the most important in the resolution since it “states very simply that the deliberate massacre of innocents is never justifiable in any cause — never.” The resolution also “condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed, as one of the most serious threats to peace and security.”  To reinforce this point, the draft originally included a call for a list of terror suspects who would be placed under council sanctions. Muslim states objected to this idea, fearing resistance to occupation — a clear reference to the Palestinians and Israel — would be lumped in with other forms of violence. Instead, the resolution established a working group to consider steps “to be imposed upon individuals, groups or entities” involved in terrorist activities. Under current council resolutions, only al-Qaeda and the Taliban are specifically branded as terrorist organizations. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov proposed the resolution in his speech to the General Assembly on Sept. 28, saying, “The time has come to renounce double standards once and for all when it comes to terror no matter what slogans it uses.” To this end, Lavrov said the Security Council needed a new resolution to identify “weak links in the antiterrorism network and increase practical cooperation” and that countries need to do more to ensure asylum rights are not abused as a cover for terrorism. Turkish Ambassador Umit Pamir told the council that the Organization of the Islamic Conference had “serious misgivings” with the original Russian draft. He said the organization was pleased that the revisions had produced a resolution that “enjoyed the much wider support of the international community.” Human rights advocates were also concerned that the language was so broad as to endanger legitimate expressions of religion and speech. Amnesty International said the resolution contains “language so broad and vague that peaceful political or human rights activists can easily be detained, prosecuted or extradited” under the resolution. In particular, the use of the word “supports” in connection with the planning of terrorist attacks could be used against “peaceful political or human rights activists,” Amnesty said. The resolution also calls on states to “cooperate fully on an expedited basis in resolving all outstanding issues with a view to adopting by consensus the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and the draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism.” Coincidentally, the working group debating those two draft conventions concluded a four-day session on Friday without overcoming those “outstanding issues,” including a definition of terrorism and a decision on how far the use of force by states’ armed forces can be excluded from the definition of terrorism. The working group, a subsidiary of the General Assembly’s legal committee, is scheduled to bring the issue to the full committee later this month. Back to top       U.S. House Approves Intelligence Reform Bill; Senate Approves Efforts to Improve Congressional Oversight By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives voted 282-134 Friday to approve legislation that would restructure the U.S. intelligence community through the creation of a national director of intelligence (see GSN, Oct. 8). The bill, intended to implement the intelligence reform proposals made this summer by the Sept. 11 commission, creates a national director of intelligence with budgetary and personnel authority over most U.S. intelligence agencies, though to a lesser degree than provided in similar legislation approved by the Senate last week. The bill also creates a National Counterterrorism Center, as recommended by the Sept. 11 commission and included in the Senate intelligence reform bill. “This is a good bill that moves America in the right direction in terms of retooling our intelligence structure for the first time in two generations. We think we’re on the way to making a real difference in that effort,” House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said Friday. House Democrats have said the bill was developed without enough input from their side of the aisle. “In case anyone missed it, the terrorists didn’t check our party labels before they attacked us, and they certainly won't care whether we’re Democrats or Republicans when they try to attack us again,” Representative Jane Harman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Thursday. In an official policy statement released Thursday prior to the vote, the White House said it supported the House bill, but expressed concern that the national intelligence director envisioned in the legislation would not have enough authority “to manage the intelligence community effectively.” The House bill, approved by almost all Republicans and about 70 Democrats, differs from the Senate plan in several ways, which could complicate efforts to reconcile the two. For example, the House bill would maintain as classified the total amount of the intelligence budget requested by the president and appropriated by Congress, while the Senate version contains a provision to declassify the amounts.  The House bill also contains a number of nonintelligence-related provisions concerning enhanced law enforcement and counterterrorism authorities, as well as illegal immigration issues. One such provision that has been the subject of intense scrutiny is language that would allow foreign terrorism suspects to be deported to countries where they could face torture. The provision was later amended to allow the Homeland Security Department to detain such suspects but would prohibit their deportation until the State Department could be assured that they would not be harmed, according to the New York Times. In its policy statement, the White House said it “strongly opposes” the provision in the House bill allowing terrorist suspects to be deported to countries that allow torture. The House voted 229-169 to reject a motion to instruct House members of the joint conference committee on the intelligence reform bill to strike a number of the nonintelligence-related provisions.  Republican leaders in the House and Senate said Friday that they believed the differences in the two bills could be reconciled in time to send a final version to President George W. Bush for his signature before the November elections. “It is no surprise that the House and Senate have passed different bills. They are different institutions.  But there is much in common with these bills, and we believe that we can reconcile the differences quickly, yet responsibly,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said in a joint statement. Senate Approves Changes to Committee Structures Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate voted 79-6 Saturday to approve a resolution modifying the structure of several committees, including the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to improve oversight of homeland security and intelligence issues. In addition to modifying the structure of the Senate intelligence committee by reducing the number of panel members from 17 to 15 and removing term limits, the resolution would also add an intelligence subcommittee to the Appropriations Committee and would change the Governmental Affairs Committee to a permanent homeland security committee. The resolution was based on recommendations made by a bipartisan Senate working group led by Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “I applaud my colleagues for approving this critical reform, which will enable Congress to better monitor and support the executive agencies tasked with keeping America safe,” McConnell said in a statement. The resolution came under fire during debate Friday by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who charged that it did not do enough to change congressional oversight. McCain failed last week to amend the resolution to consolidate appropriations and authorization authority within the Senate intelligence committee — a move called for by the Sept. 11 commission. “Have we embraced comprehensive change? No, we haven’t.  We haven’t even embraced a modicum of change. We have said that the status quo is fine with us, and as far as the Senate is concerned, Sept. 11 never happened,” McCain said. Back to top

Preventive War Doctrine Disputed in Second Debate By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush’s policy of preventive war was again a subject of contention in his second presidential debate on Friday, with Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) saying the rationale provided no justification for invading Iraq in 2003 (see GSN, Oct. 7). The policy articulated by Bush and other administration officials, also known as “the Bush Doctrine,” is that the United States will consider attacking countries suspected of having ties to terrorists and pursuing weapons of mass destruction because those nations might someday threaten the United States by sharing the weapons with the terrorists. Preventive war is intended to prevent potential threats from emerging and differs from the policy of pre-emption, which concerns using force against an imminent threat and is accepted by both candidates and under customary international law. Kerry during the debate argued that the Bush Doctrine is not legitimate. “There’s no bigger judgment for a president of the United States than how you take a nation to war. And you can’t say because [former Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] might have done it 10 years from now, that’s a reason. That’s an excuse,” he said. Bush argued the policy should be considered legitimate after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “After 9/11, we had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it seriously before it comes to hurt us. In the old days we’d see a threat and we could deal with it if we felt like it, or not. But 9/11 changed it all,” he said. “Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies,” he said. Kerry argued the president’s decision to invade in March 2003 cut short U.N. inspections that might have determined that Iraq did not possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and so “wasn’t a threat” Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. investigator searching for evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, issued a report last week concluding Iraq neither had those arms nor active programs to develop such weapons. The report gave no indication that Iraq previously sought weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States. It concluded that unconventional weapons were sought for deterrence against Iran and Israel, both of which are believed to have some form of such weaponry, and for prestige. “Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy,” the report said regarding the Iraqi pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq used chemical weapons in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war and for repression against Kurdish Iraqis. Former CIA Director George Tenet this year said that intelligence analysts never said Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. Bush’s preventive war policy was officially declared in a National Security Strategy of the United States document released in September 2002 (see GSN, Sept. 20, 2002). “We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. … They rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction –— weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.” it said. Before that, it was famously suggested in Bush’s January 2002 State of the Union address, in which he characterized Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil,” that those nations might share weapons of mass destruction with terrorists. “They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. … America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security,” he said. Back to top       EU Ministers Agree to Lift Libyan Arms Embargo Foreign ministers from the European Union agreed yesterday to lift an arms embargo against Libya as a reward for Tripoli’s progress in following through on a pledge to dismantle its WMD program, according to the International Herald Tribune (see GSN, Sept. 23). The decision was made during a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg. The embargo was imposed in 1988 after the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland (Graham Bowley, International Herald Tribune/New York Times, Oct. 11). Back to top       India Establishes WMD Security for Parliament India is implementing security measures designed to protect its parliament against nuclear, biological and chemical attacks, the Press Trust of India reported Sunday (see GSN, Oct. 4). At least 30 security officials have trained at the Defense Research and Development Organization in Gwalior as part of the program, which was initiated about six months ago, government sources told PTI. Another group of 16 officers and other personnel are scheduled to begin the five-day training course next week, they added. “The security personnel are being apprised of the various kinds of agents and taught how to take care if such an attack occurs,” the sources said. Parliament is also considering buying gear and equipment to protect against an attack, and is expected to create a “safe place” in the parliament building for use by leaders in case of a nuclear, biological or chemical strike, the sources said. The new measures were designed to supplement security upgrades taken following a Dec. 31, 2001, terrorist attack at the parliament (Press Trust of India/BBC Monitoring, Oct. 10). Back to top

South Korea Complies With NPT, Diplomat Says By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire NEW YORK — Scientific research that produced a “trivial” amount of weapon-grade nuclear material “could be a technical violation, but not noncompliance” with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a South Korean diplomat said Thursday (see GSN, Oct. 6). South Korea recently revealed the unauthorized experiments performed in 1982 and 2000, under its Additional Protocol agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Chun Yung-woo, South Korean deputy ambassador to the United Nations. This voluntary agreement goes beyond the NPT reporting requirements and requires signatories to report on all nuclear activities, whether or not they have any direct military connections. South Korea signed its protocol in 1999, and it went into force last February. “These reporting lapses do technically violate the safeguards agreement, but they do not violate the NPT” or the 1991 joint denuclearization agreement between South Korea and North Korea, Chun said in a speech at the Korea Society. Any violations “should be seen in the context of the spirit of the NPT and objectives of the IAEA” safeguards, he added. The denuclearization agreement prohibits both nations from possessing nuclear weapons as well as uranium enrichment or plutonium production facilities. Safeguards are meant to deal with “proliferation relevant” quantities of fissile materials, he said. “They are not intended to [account for] every milligram of nuclear material.” “The amount involved was too trivial to have any proliferation relevance,” Chun added. Chun said he was “most embarrassed” by the revelations because he was responsible for prompting South Korea to sign the Additional Protocol in the first place. It was reporting required under the protocol — not under the Nonproliferation Treaty itself — that revealed the experiments. He said there had been two experiments: one in the 1980s during which irradiated uranium fuel produced 86 milligrams of plutonium; followed by a process in 2000 that produced 200 milligrams of enriched uranium from natural uranium. South Korean officials have said the experiments were done without government authorization. These experiments “do not deserve the media attention they are getting. Why is there so much fuss about a seemingly harmless experiment?” Chun asked. He then answered his own question: because “it is proliferation sensitive technology.”  As the country with the sixth-largest nuclear industry, South Korea “has a legitimate and compelling need” for fuel cycle research, including the construction of its own uranium enrichment plant. These experiments should be seen in the context of South Korea’s “fundamental right under [the] NPT to the peaceful use of nuclear energy,” he added. South Korea has 19 nuclear power plants and could have a total of 28 within a decade. Chun told Global Security Newswire yesterday that his comment Thursday about a “compelling need” did not imply that South Korea is preparing to renounce the 1991 agreement under which both North and South Korea promised not to build enrichment facilities. He said Seoul is “unilaterally abiding by” the agreement even though North Korea is “in material breach” of the pact and has never abided by it.  While enrichment is “an imperative from an economic standpoint,” Chun said, “It is a remote possibility that no one is considering at this time.”   His remarks at the Korea Society were meant “to underline the extraordinary lengths we are going to,” he said, to avoid suspicion that South Korea is laying the groundwork for a nuclear weapons program.   These “scientific experiments” should not be compared to Iran or North Korea since the research “cannot be associated with weapons in any remote way because [of] the [small] quantity produced,” Chun said Thursday. “Without enrichment, without reprocessing we can never produce enough fissile material that can be used in a weapons program.”  “Intentions are more important than capabilities,” he added. Sanctioning South Korea over this issue “will send a wrong message to those countries which have significant nuclear capabilities but are hesitant” to sign the Additional Protocol, such as Argentina and Brazil. “This would be a serious setback to the global nonproliferation regime,” Chun said. Back to top       U.S., European Powers Trying to Forge Iranian Nuclear Deal; Moscow, Tehran Ready to Close Bushehr Pact The United States is working the United Kingdom, France and Germany in hopes of creating a set of economic incentives that might induce Iran to suspend its work on uranium enrichment, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 7). “The Europeans are in discussion to present some kind of package to present to Iran within the short window of opportunity between the American election and the end of November,” said a European diplomat. “If it works, fine.  If it doesn’t work, we are going to have to talk about sanctions.” The package would allow Iran to import nuclear fuel for the civilian reactor under construction at Bushehr and could also lift certain economic sanctions, the Times reported. The discussions with the Europeans are also said to include specifics what sanctions might be imposed if Iran rejects the incentives. Sanctions might only be adopted by the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Japan, given the chance of a veto in the Security Council by Russia or China. European officials disclosed details of the talks between the European nations and United States. A Bush administration official subsequently confirmed that the discussions were under way. “We are still dealing with theoreticals,” said the U.S. official. A European diplomat familiar with the negotiations said the United Kingdom, France and Germany were also holding discussions on the composition of the incentives package. “We need to have a quiet discussion with the Americans to know what we put in the package,” he said (Steven Weisman, New York Times, Oct. 12). Meanwhile, Iranian officials called on European countries to offer a proposal to settle the standoff and said Tehran would only remain committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if it is allowed to continue its work in mastering the nuclear fuel cycle, Agence France-Presse reported. “The Europeans have not respected their commitment, and it is time that they took a step and presented proposals that respect our legitimate right to use civilian nuclear technology and that provide the necessary assurances that we will not seek to build an atomic bomb,” Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi was quoted as saying by the student news agency ISNA. “It is wrong to think that they can, through negotiations, oblige Iran to give up its right to uranium enrichment,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Khaleej Times, Oct. 12). Russia and Iran are finishing an $800 million deal to start up the Bushehr nuclear power plant, officials from the two countries announced Sunday. Lavrov said he and Kharazi have reached an agreement for Russia to provide fuel for the reactor. The Bush administration has been pressuring Russia to abandon the reactor deal, citing Iran’s terrorist ties and suspicions that it is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. Lavrov said U.S. efforts to refer Iran’s nuclear work to the Security Council are not “constructive.” He refused to say, however, whether Russia would veto any attempt to impose U.N. sanctions on Iran. “To start thinking of some scenarios, which I don’t believe are constructive, is premature to put it mildly, and maybe even counterproductive,” Lavrov said (Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson, Knight Ridder/Monterey County Herald, Oct. 11). Elsewhere, an International Atomic Energy Agency delegation arrived in Tehran today for talks aimed at resolving outstanding questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear activities, including traces of highly enriched uranium found at various Iranian nuclear installations and Iran’s work on P2 centrifuges, AFP reported. IAEA Deputy Director General Pierre Goldschmidt, heading the six-member delegation, said his team intended to make site visits, including the Parchin military zone near Tehran that has been reported as a possible location of covert nuclear activities, according to AFP (Agence France-Presse/IranMania.com, Oct. 12). Back to top       ElBaradei Expresses Concern Over Equipment Removed From Former Iraqi Nuclear Sites The International Atomic Energy Agency yesterday issued a letter calling on nations to turn over any information they might have regarding the disappearance of high-precision equipment from former Iraqi nuclear facilities, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Aug. 9). “The IAEA continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq’s nuclear program and sites previously subject to ongoing monitoring and verification by the agency,” agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in a letter to the U.N. Security Council. “The [satellite] imagery shows in many instances the dismantlement of entire buildings that housed high-precision equipment ... formerly monitored and tagged with IAEA seals, as well as the removal of equipment and materials (such as high-strength aluminum) from open storage areas,” he said. Some industrial material that Iraq sent outside of the country has been found in other countries, according to ElBaradei. That has not occurred for the missing high-precision equipment, which includes milling machines and electron beam welders that can be used for both civilian and military purposes, according to the Associated Press. “As the disappearance of such equipment and materials may be of proliferation significance, any state that has information about the location of such items should provide IAEA with that information,” ElBaradei said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 11). Back to top       Congress Approves Legislation Seeking to Prevent Terrorists From Obtaining Nuclear Materials The U.S. Congress has approved a domestic nuclear security measure authored by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), according to press statements from the two senators (see GSN, Oct. 4). The Domenici-Feinstein Amendment Seeking to Prevent Terrorists from Obtaining Nuclear Materials was included in the fiscal 2005 Defense Department authorization bill, and was approved Friday by the House of Representatives and Saturday by the Senate. “I am deeply concerned that the Bush administration’s efforts do not adequately address the seriousness of the issue,” Feinstein said in a press release. “We must do everything in our power to prevent terrorists from ever getting their hands on nuclear material and developing nuclear weapons. We have little time to spare,” she added. The amendment calls upon President George W. Bush to set up a task force on removal of nuclear materials from vulnerable sites and provides funding authorization for a removal program mandated in the measure (Feinstein release, Oct. 11). One of two provisions authored by Domenici, co-sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), in the defense bill authorizes various programs to accelerate the removal or improve the security of fissile materials, radiological materials, and equipment worldwide, according to a statement from Domenici’s office (see GSN, Oct. 1). The second Domenici provision allows the Energy Department to accept international payments and apply them to the U.S.-led effort to shut down Russia’s remaining plutonium reactors in Seversk and Zheleznogorsk by 2011 under the U.S.-led Global Threat Reduction Initiative. “The threat of nuclear materials spreading around the world makes this a global problem, and responsible governments around the world recognize this. However, the American taxpayer does not have to shoulder all costs for this work just because the United States is the world leader in nonproliferation activities. My amendment will help defray U.S. costs and encourage international cooperation,” Domenici said in the press statement. Allowing direct international payments would also give partner countries legal protections under the Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement, according to Domenici. “We cannot be successful in our efforts to defeat global terrorism if we don’t have a comprehensive plan in place to prevent nuclear materials from ending up in the wrong hands.   This amendment makes securing and safely storing these materials a national priority,” Bingaman said in a statement (Domenici release, Oct. 9). Back to top       German Authorities Arrest Engineer on Suspicion of Aiding Libyan Nuclear Weapons Program German authorities last week arrested a Swiss engineer on suspicion that he aided Libyan efforts to develop nuclear weapons, the German federal prosecutor’s office announced yesterday (see GSN, June 4). While the office did not release the engineer’s name, officials close to the case identified him as Urs Tinner, 39, according to the Washington Post. Earlier this year, Malaysian officials identified Tinner as being part of the international nuclear network revealed by the confessed involvement of top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. German prosecutors said they planned to charge Tinner with conspiracy to commit treason.  Swiss officials have conducted their own investigation into Tinner and his family based on the Malaysian allegations, and the results have been provided to Swiss prosecutors, the Post reported. Tinner was a consultant from April 2002 to October 2003 for Scomi Precision Engineering, a Malaysian company that built uranium enrichment centrifuges for Libya. The company has said it did not know the parts, which were discovered before reaching their destination, were to be used in a nuclear program (Whitlock/Smiley, Washington Post, Oct. 12). Back to top

Experts Call for New Approach to Biodefense By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Top experts see important gaps in U.S. President George W. Bush’s largest biological-defense initiative and believe a fundamentally different approach is needed, according to a study released today (see GSN, Oct. 4). Project Bioshield does not address the threat of an attack using biologically engineered pathogens, according to 30 biological-defense leaders in the government, the drug industry and the academic world who were interviewed for the study by University of Pittsburgh and Sarnoff Corp. researchers. Instead of seeking to spur development of specific drugs to fight existing agents, the experts said, Washington should invest massively in an effort to speed the processes by which new drugs are developed. “The experts recommend that government, academia and private enterprise unite to create a new system to develop and approve antidotes quickly and affordably,” the authors wrote. “This is a major challenge, requiring interagency cooperation, coordination with dozens of entities and significant resources. It’s an effort on par with our push to put a man on the moon. But study participants believe such an effort is necessary because of the certainty and magnitude of the threat.” The experts unanimously called a biological attack on the United States “a certainty,” with some expecting a strike using an existing agent and others predicting a new pathogen would be used. The researchers indicate biological engineering of new pathogens is considered “easy,” anonymously quoting one interviewee as saying, “Any high-school student can create genetically engineered organisms, so I think they will come.” As a result, the experts believe “that an ‘organism-by-organism’ approach is not an effective long-term strategy for countermeasure development,” according to the study. “The number of potential threat agents (and engineered agents) is much too large to have a ‘one-bug-one-drug’ approach. In the long term, new paradigms for countering infectious disease will be needed, and the overall drug-development process must be shortened,” the researchers wrote. Development of a new drug currently takes more than a decade and costs $800 million, according to the study. The researchers did not specifically ask the experts how much time and cost could be trimmed from those figures, but one of the study’s authors, Sarnoff Senior Vice President for Government Operations Mark Lister, said yesterday in an interview that a reduction of “one to two orders of magnitude” is possible. In calling for a program to shorten “bug-to-drug” times, the experts echoed the views of some House of Representatives Democrats, who in May introduced legislation to create such a program (see GSN, May 5). The Senate is contemplating legislation known as Bioshield II that would also address some of the weaknesses identified in today’s study. According to the study, “many” of the interviewees favor a “one-stop shop,” either wholly or partly within the government, to implement their recommendations. The entity would coordinate the new strategy and serve as a clearly defined, single interlocutor for the industry. Lister said the first step should be a “system analysis” of the current drug-development process, with an eye to speeding the process. Because of its experience in conducting such analyses and its familiarity with biological defense, he added, the Defense Department should take the lead. Bioshield Has “No Impact,” Says Industry Figure The interviewees not only faulted Bioshield’s lack of focus on overarching processes, but also said the program would do little to spur drug development anyway. Bioshield is intended to promote new development by creating a government-supported market for otherwise unprofitable countermeasures. “Frankly, I don’t see a whole lot of support” for Bioshield among drug makers, Lister said. “Government doesn’t completely understand the market drivers that confront people in industry.” The experts said drug makers would be dissuaded from responding to Bioshield by uncertain profits and the potential for huge lawsuits. “Bioshield has no impact on us as an industry,” the authors quote one industry leader as saying. “What?  Are they going to help us with purchasing? What would drive me to put a team on antibiotics when my commercial people are saying, ‘Don’t do it, there is no return on investment on it’?” Some interviewees recommended more government incentives to drug makers, potentially including direct government funding of companies’ research and stronger market and price guarantees, to spur new countermeasure development. The experts also identified potential liability for harm caused by new drugs as an obstacle to drug-maker interest in countermeasure development. “That’s first and foremost on the minds of people in industry,” Lister said. Since testing for countermeasures developed under Bioshield will probably be done on animals, the researchers wrote, “It is possible that the first time that a countermeasure is used in humans — possibly on thousands or even millions of people — would be during a crisis. This scenario has the potential to expose the developer to a significant level of liability because of side effects or lack of efficacy in humans, and many firms are unwilling to shoulder that liability exposure on their own.” The 30 experts interviewed were listed in the study, and direct quotations from them were included without attribution by name. The experts included the director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Immunization Research, Donald Burke; GE Healthcare Technologies President Joe Hogan; the acting deputy assistant to the defense secretary for chemical and biological defense, Klaus Shafer, and a former occupant of the post, Anna Johnson-Winegar; Science Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy; former Merck Chief Executive Officer Roy Vagelos; and acting Food and Drug Administration Deputy for Operations Janet Woodcock. Back to top       Delaware Congressional Delegation Seeks Investigations of Alleged Military Vaccine Testing Reports that troops at Dover Air Force Base might have been subjected to illegal tests of an anthrax vaccine have led Delaware’s congressional delegation to request a military investigation, the Wilmington News Journal reported today (see GSN, Aug. 26). Senators Joe Biden (D) and Tom Carper (D) and Representative Mike Castle (R) said they would send a letter asking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to examine the allegations, adding that an independent investigation may be needed. “I want to know, if it was intentional, what compensation will take place; and if it was negligence, who was responsible and what the federal government will do,” Biden said. After investigating the incident for several years, former Dover commander Col. Felix Grieder determined that his troops were the subject of illegal experiments at the base, the News Journal reported Sunday. Grieder has alleged that the troops were given anthrax inoculations that may have contained squalene, which even at slight levels can suppress the human immune system, causing arthritis, neurological problems, memory loss and migraine headaches, according to some experts. Officials at Dover Air Force Base and at military offices in Washington were unavailable for comment yesterday due to the Columbus Day holiday, AP reported. Government officials have acknowledged that the Defense Department secretly tested squalene on humans in Thailand to determine whether the substance would increase a vaccines’ effectiveness, according to the News Journal. The military has denied that it tested squalene in Dover and has said that any contamination in the vaccine must have been accidental. In May 1999, some troops in their 20s and 30s stationed at Dover began developing illnesses associated with old age, according to AP. Grieder halted the vaccination program.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration later detected squalene in varying amounts in the vaccine sent to Dover, but not in any other batches sent to other U.S. military installations, according to the News Journal. The military has said it suspects the FDA tests were faulty and that the vaccine contained no squalene, adding that the small amount of the substance the FDA said it found could not have affected the health of human subjects. Castle said he believes an independent investigation by a presidential or legislative commission may be necessary. “We may need to appoint individuals with medical knowledge and no vested interest,” Castle said. “We may need an outside agency beyond the military.” He said he was struck by the age of the troops reporting medical problems. “I am very concerned about the young people getting this,” Castle said. “We’re dealing with fit individuals in the military. Secondly, they’re used to hardships. If they say they’re sick, it’s very real” (Williams/Ratnayake, News Journal, Oct. 12). Back to top

Iraqi Insurgents Seeking Chemical Weapons, U.S. Chief Arms Inspector Warns Insurgents in Iraq are attempting to obtain and use chemical weapons against coalition forces there, according to a report released last week by chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq Charles Duelfer (see GSN, Oct. 7). The report describes one insurgent group, known as the “al-Abud network,” which coalition forces dismantled in June, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Iraq Survey Group, the coalition unit searching for evidence of prewar Iraq’s alleged WMD efforts, first learned of the group in March when U.S. forces raided a laboratory in Baghdad, where they found an Iraqi chemist who had produced a small quantity of ricin, according to the Times. After interviewing the scientist, a team was put together to track down and arrest other members of the al-Abud network, named for the laboratory where the chemist was discovered, the Times reported. By June, the team was able to “neutralize” the group’s scientists, chemical suppliers and other members of the network, according to Duelfer’s report. “I think this is a case where we got ahead of a problem a bit,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said. Duelfer’s report also says, though, that the leaders and financiers of the al-Abud network “remain at large.” In addition, other insurgent groups are “planning or attempt to produce or acquire” chemical and biological agents, the report says (Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 10). Back to top

Pakistan Tests Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missile Pakistan today conducted its third test this year of the nuclear-capable Ghauri ballistic missile, which has a range of 1,500 kilometers, according to Agence France-Presse (see GSN, July 2). “The test completely validated all the design parameters,” the Pakistani military said in a statement. The test firing was “part of a series of tests planned for the Ghauri missile system,” which is also known as the Hatf 5, the military said. India was informed in advance of the test, an Indian official said. Tests this year of the Ghauri and Shaheen missiles are a response to fears within the country that Pakistan could be forced to limit its nuclear program following the scandal surrounding the nuclear black market led by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, analysts said. “Fears about the rollback of Pakistan’s nuclear program will never go away,” said retired Lt. Gen. Hameed Gul, former head of Pakistan’s military spy agency (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 12). Back to top       North Korea Missile Activities Slowing, Report Says; Pyongyang Says No Plans for Launch Fears that North Korea might be planning a ballistic missile test have lessened as activity around the nation’s missile launch sites has diminished, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported Sunday (see GSN, Sept. 27). A Japanese ship equipped with an Aegis radar system was deployed when satellites last month detected increased activity around missile and other military bases in North Korea, Reuters reported. The Japanese Defense Ministry has now recalled the ship. “The series of moves appear to have been North Korean military training,” the Yomiuri quoted a Japanese official as saying. About 70 percent of the activity had ended, the official added (Reuters, Oct. 10). Meanwhile, North Korea’s official news agency today defended Pyongyang’s missile program but added that it was not preparing a test launch, Agence France-Presse reported. “Our missile testing, production and deployment are self-defensive in nature and pose no threat to anyone,” the Korean Central News Agency announced (Agence France-Presse, Oct. 12). Back to top

U.S. Missile Defense Exercises Begin The U.S. Defense Department is testing its missile defense system in preparation for the program’s expected activation later this year, the Associated Press reported Friday (see GSN, Oct. 5). The exercises began in early October and call for testing crews and activating sensors and command centers to ensure they accurately transfer information, Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner said Friday. The exercises are likely to continue for several more weeks, he added. “No problems have cropped up,” Lehner said. Five ballistic missile interceptors have been installed in silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, but their arming pins have not been removed, said Lehner. The system, therefore, is not considered to be “on alert” yet, he said. The Defense Department expects the system to go on alert by the end of the year, but has not set a date (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 8).   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.