Satellite imagery of the Iraqi al-Qaqaa facility. A senior U.S. Defense Department official has claimed that Russian forces might have moved explosives from the site before Operation Iraqi Freedom (AFP photo). Russia May Have Moved Missing Iraqi Explosives to Syria, U.S. Defense Department Official Says A senior U.S. Defense Department official has said that prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Russian special forces “almost certainly” moved hundreds of tons of conventional explosives reported missing this week from the al-Qaqaa site in Iraq, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 28). “The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units,” said Deputy Defense Undersecretary John Shaw. “Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units.”..Full Story

U.S. Experts Call for Nuclear Posture Debate By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A diverse panel of experts last night called for a national debate on the future composition and uses of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, with some arguing the current U.S. strategy lacks clarity and a clear mandate...Full Story

Iranian Leader Threatens to End EU Talks Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said yesterday that pressure on Iran to accept an extended suspension of uranium enrichment could lead the nation to end negotiations on its nuclear work, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 27)...Full Story

	Thursday, October 28, 2004

U.S.-Style Antiterrorism Changes Floated for European Union Amid Chafing at U.S. Policies By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The European Union is hearing calls for U.S.-style restructuring to fight terrorism, despite continued strong resistance in Europe to Washington’s approach to the struggle, prominent experts from both sides of the Atlantic say in a collection of papers out this month. According to the editor of an influential French journal, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the subsequent U.S. reaction have reversed a successful European effort to stake out an independent path against terrorism and provoked widespread resentment in Europe. A U.S. researcher agrees that Washington has too often sought to impose its will after Sept. 11 but argues that U.S. policy is understandable in light of events and of the characteristics of the U.S. population. Their papers were included in European Homeland Security Post-March 11th and Transatlantic Relations, published this month by the Center for European Policy Studies and the International Institute for Strategic Studies.   Cultures et Conflits Editor-in-Chief Didier Bigo writes that “many voices” in Europe are calling for U.S.-style reforms such as an EU homeland-security agency, an EU intelligence-fusion system and an “interagency antiterrorism community” focused on “prevention” and “proactivity.” At the same time, the Institut d’Etudes Politiques professor says, U.S.-European judicial and intelligence cooperation since Sept. 11 has been more difficult than reported, and U.S. reliance on technology and on the military to fight terrorism is unwise. “Some recent work by journalists and several internal [government] reports … affirm that everything has been radically transformed … thanks to the strengthened political will of the United States and President [George W.] Bush and to his insistence that the European Union get with the program,” Bigo writes. “Often based on political statements, press accounts and superficial interviews,” he writes, “this ‘research’ is more like political communication without any critical approach than analysis of policies at work and their problems. Without claiming exhaustiveness, and based on interviews we have conducted over the last year with antiterrorism professionals from all over Europe … our judgment is much more nuanced and our outlook more pessimistic.” According to Bigo, an effort to impose U.S. views — on matters ranging from air traffic to military campaigns — on European countries is meeting with widespread resistance, and European responses to the Madrid train attack on March 11 of this year have been more effective than Washington’s post-Sept. 11 approach. “Between the option of war using armies and intelligence services and the option of a judicial crackdown using judges with broadened powers supported by police acting on a transnational scale, the Americans did not hesitate for a second. They believed too easily that the war ‘solution’ could put an end to transnational political violence, but it only unleashed a little more violence,” Bigo writes. “On the other hand, the Spanish government’s response to Madrid — placing confidence in its police and judges — was much more effective, at least over the near term.” Europol, Interpol and national intelligence agencies in Europe are protective of their turf and skeptical about U.S.-style intelligence reorganization, according to Bigo, and their resistance is increased by a U.S. bid to relegate them to a secondary role in international operations. Despite such friction, members of the EU Parliament and independent experts have called for U.S.-style antiterrorism and intelligence restructuring in EU institutions — a debate that strikingly resembles the one being conducted in Washington. “Many arguments have been exchanged about where to place the coordination and centralization of intelligence at the European level and about the presence and role of Brussels’ [i.e., the European Union’s] institutions,” Bigo writes. “Once again, this European ‘debate’ appears derived in part from internal battles in the United States.” Brookings Institution foreign-policy expert Jeremy Shapiro, in a separate paper in the same collection, paints a more optimistic picture of European-U.S. cooperation but acknowledges “fundamental differences.” According to Shapiro, who directs research at the Washington think-tank’s Center on the United States and Europe, the two entities “have usually reached agreement and have avoided any serious public disputes to date, despite much goading by the press on both sides of the Atlantic.” “Superficially, the externalization of U.S. counterterrorism policy has had quite positive effects on relations with trans-Atlantic allies,” Shapiro says. “The U.S. government has accepted that it will need military, intelligence, law-enforcement and judicial cooperation. … Particularly on the level of intelligence, both sides report that contacts have increased dramatically and that they have shown some results in disrupting threats.” He adds, however, that “U.S. homeland-security policy as now configured demands that other parts of the world fall into line with U.S. domestic political needs, as evidenced in Iraq, on border control, on data exchange, etc. Such demands inevitably alienate other countries, particularly powerful countries such as those in Europe that the U.S. desperately needs as allies for realizing its long-term counterterrorism goals.” “Europe is not particularly high on the list of foreign-policy priorities for the U.S., which is now overwhelmingly focused on the Middle East and Asia,” Shapiro says. “American policy-makers who do not deal directly with European issues have become astonishingly indifferent to what European leaders or European publics think. … [They believe] Europeans will whine and complain, but, in the end, they will have no choice but to conform to U.S. policy needs. They are perhaps wrong in this assumption, but they have yet to be proven so.” U.S. policies are understandable, Shapiro says, in light of the scarcity of resources to fight terrorism, the impossibility of making the country “100 percent secure,” the proliferation of reports warning about unlikely attack scenarios and the U.S. public’s “apathy” and “short attention span.” “There is no way that the terrorists will think of something that the wider policy-analysis community has not considered. As Paul Samuelson said in a different context, ‘Economists have predicted eight out of the last two recessions,’” Shapiro writes. The result, he says, is that the public will be likely to blame leaders for insufficient preventive action when an attack occurs. The combination of these factors, Shapiro says, made Sept. 11 a “huge and fleeting opportunity to reorganize the government to fight this problem in a manner that had long been understood to be necessary but which heretofore had been politically impossible. … The government acted vigorously and indiscriminately, but, in any case, very much in the manner that governments everywhere respond to such emergencies.” Europe Resists WMD Justification for Preventive War According to Bigo, Europeans continue to reject U.S. arguments that the possibility of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction justifies “proactive” or “preventive” military strikes — an approach Bigo sees as related to an unrealistic U.S. faith in intelligence generally and technology in particular. European skepticism about such a stance, he adds, could be souring European-U.S. antiterrorism cooperation. “Despite American strategists’ expectations, no capabilities exist to predict the future or to organize it as one likes. A belief in the existence of weapons of mass destruction that are ready for use and can be launched in 45 minutes does not mean the weapons necessarily exist as such at a given time, even if Iraqi plans are found that envision such a use,” Bigo writes. “It is not true,” he continues, “that a general collection of raw data can be obtained and filtered in time to prevent violent incidents that have not been detected by traditional infiltration techniques, [but] such is the crude lie of all the intelligence agencies, which would have us believe that they will predict the future if we give them the technical means to do so and allow them access to all public and private databases.” “It is impossible to predict the future and think it always necessary to act on the basis of the ‘worst-case scenario.’ This approach is paranoid, in the strongest sense of the word,” he says. “There is no absolute security, and the tyranny of surveillance in no way prevents the irruption of violence; instead, it encourages [terrorist] vocations.” Seemingly responding directly to Bigo’s concerns, Shapiro writes, “No one believes that intelligence can always be accurate nor threats always identified appropriately, but a prevention policy responds both to the reality of a new threat that has a demonstrated potential for surprise and to the domestic need to take the offensive.” “Moreover, prevention is nothing new, nor is it peculiarly American,” Shapiro says. “The real question is … who can legitimately and efficiently decide when prevention is necessary. On the domestic level, both Europe and America have some legitimate and effective mechanisms for accomplishing this; on the international level, the appropriate balance between legitimacy and efficiency has not been found.” Back to top       Personnel Purge Foreseen at CIA Current and former U.S. intelligence officials have said that new CIA Director Porter Goss appears set to conduct a purge of the agency’s Directorate of Operations after the Nov. 2 election, Knight Ridder reported today (see GSN, Oct. 22). Goss has placed at least four former Republican congressional staff members in top CIA positions and has given them powers over personnel and restructuring, the officials said. One of Goss’ aides has been “going around telling people they are to fire 80 to 90 people” in the Directorate of Operations, which manages clandestine intelligence activities, a former intelligence official said. A CIA spokesman, though, said that Goss had yet to make any decisions on restructuring, according to Knight Ridder. “These people ought to be given a little time. It’s been less than a month since he’s (Goss) been sworn in. That goes for some of the people he has brought with him,” the spokesman said (Strobel/Landay, Knight Ridder, Oct. 22). Back to top       U.S. Intelligence Report Assessing Impact of Iraq War on Terrorism Will Not Be Ready Before Elections U.S. intelligence agencies are not likely to have completed by the Nov. 2 elections a report that is expected to assess whether the Iraq war has increased or decreased the terrorism threat on the United States, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 22).  Senior U.S. officials said the forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate, initiated by the National Intelligence Council, would be the first to address the international terrorist threat since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In an August memorandum sent to the White House, the CIA did not offer an opinion on whether the overthrow of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein made the United States safer, as the Bush administration has claimed, according to senior U.S. officials.  The CIA did recommend, though, several “factual corrections” to a document prepared by the White House entitled America Is Safer Without Saddam Hussein, according to officials. The agency proposed that Hussein be described as “an obstacle” rather than “a major obstacle” to political reform in the Middle East and that the White House make “more general” its claims of Hussein’s ties to terrorists, an administration official told the Times. The White House never released the document, but said its decision was not based on the CIA’s comments, according to the Times (Douglas Jehl, New York Times, Oct. 28). Back to top

Arkansas Reserve Unit Prepares for WMD Duty in Iraq Members of an Arkansas U.S. Army Reserve unit that specializes in detecting chemical, biological and radiological weapons are undergoing final training before heading to Iraq, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Aug. 19). The unit could be in Iraq for up to 18 months. Its work includes taking background readings, air samples and soil samples to determine if a weapon of mass destruction has been used in an area, according to AP. “It’s a very technical field. Soldiers who get involved in this have to have a commitment to learn and know their equipment,” said Lt. Eric Groff. “Their equipment is the lifeline for them and everyone else on the battlefield” (Jay Hughes, Associated Press, Oct. 28). Back to top

Russia May Have Moved Missing Iraqi Explosives to Syria, U.S. Defense Department Official Says A senior U.S. Defense Department official has said that prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Russian special forces “almost certainly” moved hundreds of tons of conventional explosives reported missing this week from the al-Qaqaa site in Iraq, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 28). “The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units,” said Deputy Defense Undersecretary John Shaw. “Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units.” Disputed claims on Russian involvement in the disappearance came amid reports that the amount of missing explosives — reported at nearly 380 tons — might have been greatly overstated. Shaw said he obtained information on Russian efforts to transport Iraqi military hardware into Syria from two European intelligence services. Russia’s possible involvement in the removal of explosives, some of which could be used to detonate nuclear weapons, is still under investigation, he said (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, Oct. 28). The Pentagon has sought to separate itself from Shaw’s comments, the Financial Times reported today. “I am unaware of any particular information on that point,” department spokesman Larry Di Rita said (Financial Times, Oct. 28). Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Vyacheslav Sedov today labeled Shaw’s allegations “absurd” and “ridiculous.” “I can state officially that the Russian Defense Ministry and its structures couldn’t have been involved in the disappearance of the explosives, because all Russian military experts left Iraq when the international sanctions were introduced during the 1991 Gulf War,” he said (Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 28). Senior Iraqi science official Mohammed al-Sharaa yesterday denied that the missing explosives could have been removed from the al-Qaqaa facility prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. “The officials that were inside this facility (al-Qaqaa) beforehand confirm that not even a shred of paper left it before the fall and I spoke to them about it and they even issued certified statements to this effect which the U.S.-led coalition was aware of,” he said (Agence France-Presse/TurkishPress.com, Oct. 27). Three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said yesterday that looters raided the al-Qaqaa facility soon after U.S. troops passed through the site in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, according to the New York Times. One of the witnesses said facility employees asked U.S. troops to protect the facility, but were told the soldiers were not responsible for such a mission (Glanz/Dwyer, New York Times, Oct. 27). The Pentagon has begun to review old satellite images in an attempt to pin down when the missing explosives disappeared from the al-Qaqaa site, USA Today reported today (Moniz/Komarow, USA Today, Oct. 28). Recently obtained International Atomic Energy Agency documents indicate that Iraqi officials may have overstated the amount of explosives missing from the al-Qaqaa facility, ABC News reported today. Iraqi officials have said that about 380 tons of explosives, including about 141 tons of RDX, are missing. According to IAEA documents, though, agency inspectors on Jan. 14, 2003, recorded that only about 3 tons of RDX were stored there, ABC News reported (ABC News, Oct. 28). Meanwhile, the missing explosives were a topic of heated rhetoric for a third day yesterday in the U.S. presidential election, with Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry (Mass.) accusing rival President George W. Bush of dodging responsibility for the incident. “This is a growing scandal and the American people deserve a full and honest explanation of how it happened and what the president is going to do about it,” Kerry said. “We’re seeing this White House dodging and bobbing and weaving … just as they’ve done each step of the way in our involvement in Iraq.” Directly addressing the incident for the first time yesterday, Bush accused Kerry of making “wild charges” and said the challenger was “denigrating the action of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts.” “Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site,” Bush said. “A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief.” Bush’s remarks drew a sharp reply from Kerry’s running mate, Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.). “Aren’t we sick and tired of George Bush and [Vice President] Dick Cheney using our troops as shields to protect their own jobs instead of doing everything they should to protect our troops? Our men and women in uniform did their job. George Bush didn’t do his,” Edwards said (Milbank/VandeHei, Washington Post, Oct. 28). Back to top       U.S. Experts Call for Nuclear Posture Debate By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A diverse panel of experts last night called for a national debate on the future composition and uses of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, with some arguing the current U.S. strategy lacks clarity and a clear mandate. Madelyn Creedon, counsel for the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Peter Huessy, a senior defense associate at the National Defense University Foundation, and Amy Woolf, an analyst with the Congressional Research Service, expressed similar lines of thought at an event sponsored by the nonprofit Women in International Security.  “We need to have a serious nationwide discussion that involves both Congress and the administration and the American public about where are our nuclear weapons going. Are they going to be for deterrence?  Are they going to be a first strike weapon?” Creedon said. “We haven’t had this debate. It’s kind of been under the table. We’ve let the arms control process go through, START I, START II, and then SORT, and I’m not sure where we are now with respect to the nuclear posture review, but it hasn’t been done in a clearly appropriate way,” Huessy said. Ambiguous Policies Alleged Creedon argued the Bush administration’s much-debated 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and subsequent government policy documents have suggested that the White House is pursuing new roles for nuclear weapons beyond traditional deterrence, possibly including pre-emptive attack (see GSN, Jan. 10, 2002).  The administration has not been clear, though, on exactly where the United States is headed, she said. “Exactly what signal that the Nuclear Posture Review gave is still the source of substantial debate. The question is, is that a signal to look at new nuclear weapons? Is that a signal to look at modifying nuclear weapons? Is it a signal to make nuclear weapons less usable or more usable?” she said. “What’s the role of nuclear weapons in the policy of pre-emption?” she said. She asked further whether unspecified, planned cuts to the current U.S. nuclear arsenal announced by the administration earlier this year are intended merely to reduce numbers, or instead, are part of a plan to develop new nuclear weapons. “Are these reductions enabling new nuclear weapons?” she said. Congress Needs to Act The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review effectively initiated a discussion of what role, if any, U.S. nuclear weapons could play in a post-Cold War world where potential adversaries may have different deterrence calculations than the Soviet Union did, Woolf said. “Congress did not pick up on that discussion,” she said. One reason, Huessy said, may be that “only 25 percent of Congress was here when the Cold War ended.” Similarly, many congressional staff may do not appear to be familiar with the issues, he said. “That makes it tough because when you go in to talk to a staffer about deterrence and the Triad, they say, ‘What’s deterrence and what is the Triad?’” he said, referring to the three elements of the U.S. nuclear strike force — land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles and bombers. Many of the weapons systems for delivering the current arsenal will need to be retired in the coming decades, creating an imperative to discuss what might come after, Creedon said. “In probably 10 or 15 years, the current forces aren’t going to be with us any longer probably, and so it’s a good time to start this debate,” she said. Also appearing on the panel last night was Col. Richard Patenaude, chief of the deterrence and strike division at the Air Force Space Command. He said that his command does not appear engaged in a debate over the larger issues of the implications of U.S. nuclear weapons policies for arms control and international stability. “What I don’t get is an intellectual discussion on deterrence outside of our own book club that we have,” he said, adding jokingly, “We read books that are antinuclear just so we have a dissenting opinion in the room.” Discussions focus more on justifying new strategic weapons initiatives and concepts, such as a conventionally armed intercontinental ballistic missile, in battles for funding resources, he said. “For every dollar I’m able to get I have to really put forth a strong argument for competing with exciting programs like the space-based infrared, and space-based radar, and new launch vehicles and faster launch vehicles,” he said.  “There’s a lot Space Command needs to do and it’s a constant struggle to keep nuclear deterrence and conventional programs on the table and funded.” Back to top       Iranian Leader Threatens to End EU Talks Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said yesterday that pressure on Iran to accept an extended suspension of uranium enrichment could lead the nation to end negotiations on its nuclear work, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 27). “A long-term suspension of enrichment is a discussion without logic,” Khamenei told Iranian state-operated television. “If there is any form of threat in the talks, it will show a lack of logic on the part of (Iran’s) partners in the negotiations,” he said. “In that case, the great Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic of Iran will reconsider the very basis of negotiations and cooperation.” (Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, Oct. 28). Other Iranian officials echoed the refusal to suspend enrichment related activities, but seemed more conciliatory regarding continuation of talks with the United Kingdom, France and Germany, Agence France-Presse reported. “Negotiations will continue and, most certainly, can satisfy both parties,” an Iranian delegate to the talks, Sirus Naseri, told state television. Naseri said one of the European nations would “very soon” host a follow-up meeting. “A certain progress has been accomplished and there will soon be a second meeting,” senior nuclear official Hossein Mousavian told AFP in Tehran. “Concerning the suspension of uranium enrichment, as a confidence-building measure, we have not yet given a definitive reply.” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 27). The European package, according to some diplomats, is a “last chance” offer ahead of the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting next month, AP reported. The agency could refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. Some diplomats expect the two sides to meet again on Nov. 5, following the U.S. presidential election, according to the Financial Times (Dombey/Smyth, Financial Times, Oct. 28). Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program is an issue better addressed through diplomacy rather than force, AP reported. “There was a lot of speculation and horror stories and other stories about what this might lead to in the way of crisis, and part of that speculation is that the Israelis might do something or not do something,” Powell said in an interview with CNBC, in response to questions about whether Israel might take military action against Iran if the nuclear standoff is not resolved. “I have no information on that,” Powell said. “And I think the whole world, to include Israel, is trying to find a diplomatic and peaceful solution to this problem.” He added that Iran would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon quickly. “It’s going to take them time,” he said (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 27). Elsewhere, Iranian officials announced yesterday that they expect a heavy water plant near the city of Arak to begin operations within a month, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse/IranMania.com, Oct. 27). Back to top       China Says North Korea Talks Could Resume Next Month North Korea might return to negotiations on its nuclear program by the end of November, though possibly not in the formal six-nation meetings, a Chinese official said today, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Oct. 27). “They could be formal talks, informal talks or even talks in some other form,” Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei told the Beijing News (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 28). Meanwhile, a U.S. official insisted that there was “a remarkable similarity of views” between the United States and other parties to the talks, the Associated Press reported. “The differences are being exaggerated,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said regarding reports of discord with South Korea and China, which both called for greater flexibility in the U.S. approach to North Korea. “We do understand the need in negotiations to be creative and flexible. We are prepared to go back to the table and listen to what the North Koreans might have to say about our proposal,” said Boucher. “We are prepared to discuss that proposal with other governments at the bargaining table,” he added (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 27). Secretary of State Colin Powell, who returned Tuesday from a trip to Asia aimed at reviving the talks, yesterday told CNBC that he believes the North Koreans will return to the negotiating table if the other members of the talks — Russia, South Korea, Japan, the United States and China — continue to apply pressure. “I’m confident that if the other five members of the six-party group stay together … the North Koreans will eventually find it in their interest to return [to the negotiating table],” he said. “But it’s up to them to decide when they want to return.” (State Department release, Oct. 27). Back to top       Former Indian Foreign Minister Disputes Powell’s Account of Role in Aiding India-Pakistan Dialogue Former Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh has disputed a recent account by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell regarding Powell’s role in orchestrating a dialogue between the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Oct. 26). In an interview last week with USA Today, Powell said that in 2002, with tensions high between the nuclear-armed South Asian rivals, he was asked by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as to whether the Indian prime minister would accept a call from his Pakistani counterpart. “I said, ‘I’ll call you back in a little while.’ And we set it up, the call was made,” Powell told USA Today. “We also arranged for the call to be a ‘How are you?’ ‘Fine’” type of call, he added. Singh, who was foreign minister at the time, called Powell’s account “fabricated and baseless,” according to the Post. “The way he has gone about claiming credit is a total concoction and a matter of imagination, the way he conjured up biological weapons in Iraq,” Singh said at a press conference this week. “I don’t know whether the State Department of U.S.A., in addition to attempting to run U.S. foreign policy as best as it can, is also a telephone exchange and now is acting as a kind of elocution instructor to South Asia.” Singh also denied claims that India and Pakistan were then at risk for a nuclear conflict, the Post reported. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, “The story told by the secretary is the true story” (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Oct. 28). Back to top       Correction An article Wednesday in Global Security Newswire incorrectly described the location of the Analytical Center for Nonproliferation at All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Experimental Physics. The center is located in the Russian closed city of Sarov (see GSN, Oct. 27), Back to top

Federal Court Orders Pentagon to Stop Anthrax Immunization Program For a second time, a federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Defense Department must stop administering the anthrax vaccine to military personnel, concluding that the Food and Drug Administration did not meet the required review standards before allowing use of the vaccine, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Sept. 9). The Defense Department’s mandatory vaccination program, under which more than 1.2 million troops have been inoculated since 1998, must stop until the FDA reviews the anthrax vaccine properly for safety and effectiveness, according to a ruling yesterday by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan.  Sullivan was particularly critical of the FDA for forgoing public comment before the agency first approved the vaccine last year, the Post reported. “The men and women of our armed forces deserve the assurance that the vaccines our government compels them to take into their bodies have been tested by the greatest scrutiny of all — public scrutiny. This is the process the FDA in its expert judgment has outlined, and this is the course this court shall compel FDA to follow,” Sullivan wrote. U.S. President George W. Bush, however, retains the power to waive the standard review process if he determines emergency circumstances exist, according to the ruling. Sullivan initially ruled late last year, according to the Post, that the FDA had never approved the vaccine and ordered the inoculation program stopped. The FDA, however, approved the vaccine eight days later based on an application made 18 years earlier, and the program continued.  “As a result of the injunction, the Department of Defense will pause giving anthrax vaccinations until the legal situation is clarified,” the department said in a press release. “[The department] remains convinced that the anthrax immunization program complies with all the legal requirements and that the anthrax vaccine is safe and effective.” (Marc Kaufman, Washington Post, Oct. 28). Back to top

North Korea Missile Base Activity Is Response to PSI Drill Hosted by Japan, Pyongyang Says North Korea increased activity at its Jeongju missile base in response to the multinational WMD-interdiction exercises held this week in Japan (see GSN, Oct. 26), a military source in Pyongyang told ITAR-Tass yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 27). “The Korean People’s Democratic Republic believes that Exercise Team Samurai 04 is directed primarily against North Korea and is a rehearsal of a sea blockade of the northern part of the Korean Peninsula,” the source said. “Pyongyang is responding by a show of its readiness to rebuff the participants in the exercise and their possible attack.” He added, however, that any potential test missile launch is not imminent. “The North Korean leadership has already carried its point — the activity at the base has been noticed and the media have brought the fact home to people around the world. If the Korean People’s Democratic Republic really intended to launch a missile, it would launch an anti-ship missile as usual from a base located on the eastern coast,” he said (BBC Monitoring/ITAR-Tass, Oct. 27). Back to top

Russia Looks to Beat Missile Defense, Official Says Russia is working to improve its strategic systems to be able to counter U.S. missile defense interceptors, Russian Academy of Military Sciences President Makhmut Gareyev told ITAR-Tass yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 21). “We have a long-term development program for Russia’s nuclear triad. This takes account of what the Americans are doing with their missiles,” Gareyev said. “This is primarily qualitative improvements to the Russian nuclear arsenal and development of delivery vehicles capable of getting past phased arrays of antimissile defense systems.” “Washington’s withdrawal from the 1972 [Antiballistic Missile] Treaty and efforts to deploy interceptor missiles in the USA and Europe could tangibly destabilize the situation in Europe and worldwide,” he added (ITAR-Tass/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Oct. 27).   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.