IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei spoke in Dubai today while European and Iranian diplomats prepared to discuss Iran’s nuclear program in Brussels. ElBaradei, under fire from the United States, would be responsible for monitoring an EU-Iran nuclear agreement (AFP photo/ Nasser Younes). Iran Resumes Nuclear Talks Amid New Suspicions Iran and the European Union were set to resume talks today aimed at forging a long-term agreement on the country’s nuclear program, while diplomats alleged Tehran was conducting experiments that could have nuclear weapons applications, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Dec. 9). The experiments, carried out with a neutron generator, are reportedly occurring under military supervision at a base maintained by Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard, diplomats told AFP...Full Story

Biological Weapons Convention Requires Updates to Match Technological Change, Group Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Members of the treaty banning biological weapons must update the pact at its 2006 review conference or watch it become irrelevant, according to a report released last week by a Geneva-based group...Full Story

U.S. Panel Seeks Broad Information-Sharing Changes to Improve Antiterrorism Efforts By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A week after the U.S. Congress approved a bill to implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, a federal advisory panel is set to issue a report calling for sweeping changes in information-sharing among levels of government that could flesh out the Sept. 11 bill’s limited provisions on the subject (see GSN, Dec. 9)...Full Story

	Monday, December 13, 2004

U.S. Panel Seeks Broad Information-Sharing Changes to Improve Antiterrorism Efforts By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A week after the U.S. Congress approved a bill to implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, a federal advisory panel is set to issue a report calling for sweeping changes in information-sharing among levels of government that could flesh out the Sept. 11 bill’s limited provisions on the subject (see GSN, Dec. 9). Washington should restructure its domestic intelligence efforts to better coordinate information flowing to and from state and local officials and businesses, according to the report, which was obtained by Global Security Newswire. The document — an unusually comprehensive attempt at addressing deficiencies in the handling and distribution of terrorist information collected at various levels of government — is slated to be released tomorrow by experts with the Homeland Security Advisory Council, a panel of mostly state and local officials that advises the federal homeland security secretary (see GSN, June 18). The council working group that prepared the report stresses the dual role of state and local governments as both collectors of crucial antiterrorism information and consumers in need of existing federal information. “As both collectors and consumers of intelligence/information, it is critical that state, tribal, local and private-sector efforts be coordinated with those of the federal government — specifically, the intelligence community,” the report reads. “The manner in which our modern-day intelligence community operates was established during the Cold War and designed to confront foreign-based, state-sponsored adversaries, but the world has changed since the end of the Cold War.” Officials “must focus on defining the appropriate roles for state, local, tribal and private-sector entities in the collection, analysis, dissemination and use of this intelligence/information — and how those efforts should be coordinated with those of the federal intelligence community,” the authors continue. “This debate represents an historic opportunity to enhance existing intelligence/information-sharing between all levels of government, and the threat to the nation demands that we proceed expeditiously.” The group recommends more federal resources for state and local intelligence programs, a deeper role for the private sector, smarter prioritization of homeland-security efforts and a general campaign of integration, to make information collected at all levels of government readily available to any officials who might need it to protect the populace. Bill Would Set Framework, Leave Details to Be Determined The Sept. 11 bill contains only skeletal language on improving information-sharing among the levels of government and the private sector. A six-page section of the 600-page bill would establish a national “information-sharing environment” (ISE) with an appointed program manager at its helm, setting aside $40 million over the next two years for the program. Massachusetts homeland-security adviser John Cohen told Global Security Newswire today that the information-sharing structure set up in the bill should become the forum for enacting the types of change envisioned in tomorrow’s report but that it remains to be seen what form the bill’s provisions will take. Establishing an “information-sharing environment,” said Cohen, “sort of sets the scene potentially for taking some steps to put in place the architecture and the processes” for better information sharing. “A big part of the issue should be the roles and responsibilities of state and local government,” said the adviser to Governor Mitt Romney, chairman of the report working group. “We’ve taken that on already through this working group.” The bill would require the president to “ensure that the ISE provides and facilitates the means for sharing terrorism information among all appropriate federal, state, local and tribal entities and the private sector through the use of policy guidelines and technologies,” but the specific measures that would advance that end are largely left to be determined by the program manager over the coming year. “The program manager can make or break it,” said Cohen, who recommended that the manager be a person who has operations, policy and technological knowledge and, above all, state or local experience. “There really hasn’t been a clear understanding at the federal level of the full role of states and locals is in this area,” Cohen said. “There is a real lack of understanding on the amount of information that may exist at the local level.” Panel Cites Information-Flow Difficulties in Both Directions The panel’s report says the country’s 800,000 law-enforcement officers alone constitute “95 percent of counterterrorism capability” in the United States and that “there is tremendous capacity outside of the law-enforcement community that supports our efforts to prevent attacks.” It adds that businesses own “85 percent of our nation’s critical infrastructure” and must be key players in information sharing. Since resources are limited, the working group says, “a system of prioritization” must be created whereby Washington collects state and local terrorist information and consolidates it in a nationwide threat assessment. Such an effort was envisioned in the law that created the Homeland Security Department but so far has not taken flight (see GSN, May 25). The report group criticizes the current state of the information flow both from and to the federal government. It describes state and local terrorism-intelligence efforts as an often ad-hoc collection of measures that vary widely around the country in quality and approach, owing in part to the lack of any national coordination. “Each day, state, tribal and local authorities collect, analyze, disseminate and take action on a great deal of information from various sources within their communities (law enforcement, fire services, EMS [emergency management services], public works, health care, private companies etc.). Currently, there is difficulty in identifying linkages between that which is ‘routine’ and that which is terrorism-related,” the group writes. “This information could be vital to federal efforts to update the national threat picture,” it says, but “today, the federal government receives limited intelligence/information from state, tribal and local authorities. … There is no multidisciplinary national plan that defines how state, tribal, local and private-sector entities should be working with the intelligence community to better collect, analyze and disseminate ‘all-source’ intelligence/information.” “Capabilities and activities vary from state to state,” the group goes on. “Intelligence/information-sharing is often based on ‘personal relationships.’” At the same time, the group says, states and cities are not receiving information they need from the federal government. “A majority of state, tribal, local and private-sector officials are only ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the timeliness and detail of intelligence/information received from federal sources,” it says. “There is no formal process in place to define the intelligence/information requirements of state, tribal, local and private-sector entities. … There is no single system that provides access to all of the federal repositories of terrorism-related intelligence/information.” “There should be a single pipeline that integrates intelligence/information provided by multiple federal sources … based on the needs of the user (state, tribal and local governments) — not those of the provider,” the report reads. The group recommends a focus on rapidly providing unclassified information to state and local officials, rather than seeking clearances for the officials to receive classified material. “It is very difficult to manage the receipt, storage and dissemination of classified information,” Cohen said. International Association of Fire Chiefs Government Relations Director Alan Caldwell indicated last week in an interview that firefighters largely agree with the working group’s conclusions about the flow of information. “The feds have an enormous wealth of information, because they’re the ones that have the intelligence-gathering organizations,” said Caldwell, whose association advised the report group. “If there’s an imminent threat or there’s information that would involve a community — either a threat or some type of risk — the fire chief needs to know.” In the other direction, Caldwell said, Washington has “no organized means of collecting” valuable information obtained initially by local agencies. “These guys are in and out of buildings all day long,” he said of firefighters. “Well, you see things, and you see what you see.” An official close to the council said the “information-sharing environment” program manager will have the “direct and very visible backing of the White House” over the next year. Although the focus of President George W. Bush’s domestic agenda will shift away from homeland security during the president’s second term, the official said, the information-sharing initiative will be one of a handful of high-priority homeland-security topics. Back to top

International Health Officials Report Progress on Joint WMD Agent Surveillance Networks Top health officials from the Group of Seven industrial powers and Mexico announced Friday that they had made “significant progress” in developing joint surveillance networks to detect the use of WMD agents, according to Agence France-Presse (see GSN, Dec. 10). Developments include continuous systems for notifying other nations of incidents and coordinating responses to such events, AFP reported. The announcement was made during a meeting in Paris of the Global Health Security Initiative. The meeting was the fifth held since the effort was launched in November 2001 (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Dec. 10). Back to top

Iran Resumes Nuclear Talks Amid New Suspicions Iran and the European Union were set to resume talks today aimed at forging a long-term agreement on the country’s nuclear program, while diplomats alleged Tehran was conducting experiments that could have nuclear weapons applications, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Dec. 9). The experiments, carried out with a neutron generator, are reportedly occurring under military supervision at a base maintained by Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard, diplomats told AFP. “The combination of the existence of a neutron initiator in a secret facility run by the Revolutionary Guard, making high- and not low-energy neutron experiments is a sufficient good indicator to a suspected military program,” said a diplomat who has contact with intelligence sources. “Fast (high-energy) neutron experiments, involving 14 million electron volts, which are not slowed down by moderators and are performed in a classified facility, are designed for nuclear fission processes, that is nuclear bomb systems,” the diplomat added. The experiments may involve beryllium metal, which can be used as a catalyst for a nuclear explosion, AFP reported (see GSN, Dec. 3). The International Atomic Energy Agency was aware of the experiments and was determining whether to investigate the matter, said an expert close to the agency. The expert said the experiments have three potential applications — studying research reactors, which can use beryllium shields; studying fusion; or developing energy reflectors for nuclear bombs. The meeting between Iranian and the European Union officials was set for today in Brussels with the aim of forging a long-term deal in which Iran would receive civilian nuclear technology, trade deals and other benefits in return for a permanent end to Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, according to AFP (Agence France-Presse/EUBusiness, Dec. 11). The European Union is likely to resume talks on a trade and cooperation deal next month if Iran maintains its uranium enrichment freeze, diplomats told the Associated Press. All 25 EU foreign ministers are likely to endorse resuming trade negotiations with Tehran at their regular monthly meeting today, diplomats said (Constant Brand, Associated Press, Dec. 10). A top Iranian official en route to Brussels said yesterday the negotiations would be held at three levels — a ministerial meeting with foreign ministers of Iran and the European powers and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana; a steering committee designated to implement last month’s Paris Agreement; and a series of working groups on political, security, technology and nuclear issues. “We will continue the talks if we feel that they are progressing, but in case of facing a dead-end, Iran will cease the negotiations,” Hassan Rohani, secretary of Supreme National Security Council and head of Iran’s delegation to the talks, was quoted as saying by Iran’s official news agency (Xinhua, Dec. 12). Iran also warned yesterday that it has no plans to permanently freeze its nuclear work, AFP reported. “The permanent suspension of enrichment is not on our agenda,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. “We have agreed to a voluntary suspension for a short period. A short-term freeze is what we are stressing,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Dec. 12). British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said today that Iran must remain committed to the freeze agreement contained in the Paris Agreement. “What is important is that each side accepts both the spirit as well as the letter” of the agreement, in which Iran pledged to suspend all uranium enrichment activities (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Dec. 13). Meanwhile, several Bush administration officials have said pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear installations were not a viable option, the Los Angeles Times reported today. “Nobody’s seriously talking about military options because it doesn’t make any sense,” said a senior U.S. official, calling pre-emptive strikes “a dumb idea.” “It’s uninformed and irresponsible to suggest that there is a military solution to this program,” the official said. “Diplomacy is our approach, and it’s not a stalling tactic.” Other officials said the United States has many options short of military action. “At the end of the day we may have to do it,” another senior official said of military action. “We’re not at the end of the day yet.” The apparent lack of a clear U.S. strategy is worrisome, said some experts. “I don’t think this administration has decided on what its Iran policy is going to be, but one thing is clear: It’s not going to be war,” said an Iran expert in the Defense Department. Other experts said sabotage at Iranian nuclear sites or oil-exporting facilities were also options. “The idea that the only contingency plan available is to use U.S. air raids is not true,” said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Given the poor design of the Russian nuclear plants on which the Iranian facilities were based, he said, “one could well imagine that there could be catastrophic industrial accidents.” Another U.S. administration official, however, said high-value Iranian nuclear installations could be destroyed in air strikes. “We could knock most of the sites out pretty easily,” the official said. A pre-emptive strike could backfire, however, because it might inflame Iranian nationalism, the official added: “If we strike Iran, we play right into the mullahs’ hands” (Sonni Efron, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 13). IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said Thursday that Iran’s nuclear program was not an imminent threat, AFP reported. “For the time being, the Iranian government has not prevented our inspectors from accessing any military building or installation. Until 2003, the Iranians sought to hide things. But their collaboration is good now,” he said. “There is still one large military installation left to inspect. I hope that we will be able to access it soon, but there has not been any ban or negative response,” he added (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Dec. 12). Elsewhere, the first energy unit of the Bushehr nuclear power plant is expected to go online in 2006, Speaker of the Russian Federation Council Sergei Mironov said Saturday. “The sides coordinated the schedule of putting into commission the first unit of the Bushehr nuclear power plant and I believe that this work will be done on schedule,” Mironov said while visiting Iran (Nikolai Terekhov, RIA Novosti, Dec. 11). Back to top       United States Tapped Calls Between ElBaradei and Iranian Officials, U.S. Officials Say The Bush administration has been monitoring telephone conversations between International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and Iranian officials in hopes of finding information to derail ElBaradei’s efforts to serve a third term as head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the Washington Post reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 1). The intercepted conversations have shown no signs of wrongdoing by ElBaradei, according to three U.S. officials. “Some people think he sounds way too soft on the Iranians, but that’s about it,” one official said. Agency officials said they were not surprised ElBaradei’s calls were being monitored, the Post reported. “We’ve always assumed that this kind of thing goes on,” agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said. “We wish it were otherwise, but we know the reality.” While the Bush administration opposes ElBaradei’s quest for a third term as director general, it has yet to put forward a viable replacement, according to the Post. The State Department has examined several candidates, with the top choice being Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. However, Downer has not shown interest in seeking the position, according to the Post. “Our original strategy was to get Alex Downer to throw his hat in the ring, but we couldn’t,” one U.S. policy-maker said. “Anyone in politics will tell you that you can’t beat somebody with nobody, but we’re going to try to disprove that.” Slightly more than one-third of the IAEA’s Board of Governors would have to vote against ElBaradei’s reappointment to stop him from serving a third term beginning in summer 2005. Many nations on the board have asked him to stay on, according to the Post (Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, Dec. 12). Australian Defense Minister Robert Hill said today that Sydney had confidence in ElBaradei, according to Agence France-Presse. Hill also said he would like to see Downer remain in the Australian government. “He’s doing an excellent job as foreign minister so I’d like him to stay as foreign minister,” Hill said (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Dec. 13). Back to top       U.S. Energy Department Completes Security Upgrades at Two Russian Nuclear Sites By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration last week completed security upgrades at two Russian nuclear sites as part of efforts to prevent terrorists from obtaining crude nuclear or radiological weapons (see GSN, Dec. 2). Security upgrades have been completed at the Production Association Electrochemical Plant in the closed city of Zelenogorsk, which produces low-enriched uranium fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors. The site is also one of four Russian facilities involved in a U.S.-Russian program to convert highly enriched uranium from Russia’s nuclear arsenal into civilan nuclear reactor fuel. Work was also completed last week at the Urals Electrochemical Enrichment Plant in the closed city of Novouralsk, which also produces enriched uranium for use as commercial fuel. The upgrades installed there include hardened doors and windows, a material storage area, new communications equipment and computer-based material inventory systems. The agency said in a statement Friday that it plans to continue to provide “low levels” of support to both sites until 2012 to ensure that the security upgrades are maintained and continue to operate. Security upgrades were completed in September at the Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant, which provides nuclear fuel for power stations and research reactors around the world, the U.S. agency said. The upgrades installed there, which the agency plans to support until 2013, include improved alarm and video monitoring systems and new protective and communications equipment. “The completion of these upgrades is an important milestone in cooperative efforts to prevent terrorists from gaining access to Russia’s nuclear facilities,” NNSA chief Linton Brooks said in a statement. “We will continue our important work partnering with the Russians to keep nuclear weapons material out of the hands of terrorists.” Matthew Bunn of Harvard University’s Managing the Atom Project today praised the completed security upgrades, saying that all three sites handled highly enriched uranium “in bulk,” increasing the need for rigorous material accounting. “These are very important accomplishments in reducing the risk of nuclear theft,” he said. The National Nuclear Security Administration said that it has so far completed security upgrades at about 70 percent of Russian nuclear sites, and is on track to complete upgrades at 80 percent of sites by the end of next year. The agency plans to complete upgrades at all Russian sites by 2008. Earlier this year, though, Bunn’s project released a report calling for greater efforts to improve security at Russian nuclear facilities, saying that only about 40 percent of 600 tons of Russian nuclear material had received some level of security improvements by the end of fiscal 2003 (see GSN, May 24). According to the U.S. agency, work began first at the most vulnerable Russian sites, which tended to be smaller and contain less material. There are fewer sites that still need security upgrades, but those contain larger amounts of material, according to the agency release. “As a result, NNSA will secure much more material per year as the remaining sites are addressed,” the release says. In addition, the University of Georgia’s Center for International Trade and Security released a report earlier this month warning that personnel improvements were needed at Russian nuclear sites to better enhance security.    “Hardware by itself does not produce security; people do,” the report said. Back to top       U.S. Denies Manipulating North Korea Intelligence By Marina Malenic Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. State Department on Friday denied allegations by a U.S. expert on North Korea that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Pyongyang’s nuclear program (see GSN, Dec. 10). “Those claims are wrong,” said deputy spokesman Adam Ereli, referring to an article in this month’s Foreign Affairs magazine, in which Selig Harrison accused the administration of “seriously exaggerating the danger that Pyongyang is secretly making uranium-based nuclear weapons.” “We think there is clear and compelling evidence, a wealth of clear and compelling evidence about North Korea’s uranium enrichment program,” Ereli said. “We have known since the late 1990s that North Korea is interested in enrichment technology. We obtained clear evidence over 2 1/2 years ago, that it was pursuing a covert program to enrich uranium and assessed that North Korea was pursuing uranium enrichment as an alternate route to nuclear weapons.” “The director of central intelligence reported to Congress that North Korea had begun seeking centrifuge-related materials in large quantities in 2001, and that it was also obtaining equipment suitable for use in uranium feed and withdrawal systems,” Ereli added. “There are claims made in the article that we learned about the uranium enrichment program from the North Koreans. That’s not the case,” he said. “We were already aware of the program before they ever talked to us and we informed them of our knowledge about it in October 2002, and it was at that time that North Korea acknowledged to senior U.S. officials that it was pursuing such a covert program.” Ereli also said that, while North Korea’s leadership appeared to remain publicly committed to six-party talks to address its nuclear program, there was no sign that Pyongyang is ready to resume talks yet. “North Korea has committed to coming back to six-party talks. And they did that at the last round and that is their public position. They have also said that they are not yet ready to come, to return to talks at this time,” Ereli said. “It’s our view that talks should resume as soon as possible.” Meanwhile, North Korea’s official Rodong Sinmun newspaper announced yesterday that Pyongyang would not consider dismantling its nuclear program until South Korea’s past nuclear experiments were adequately addressed. South Korea was admonished last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors after revealing that South Korean scientists had conducted illicit experiments involving plutonium and highly enriched uranium (see GSN, Nov. 26). “If the South Korean authorities are really interested in the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the peaceful reunification of the country, they should not cover up their nuclear issue and join in the outside moves to stifle the North but make clear their nuclear issue and stop developing nuclear weapons at once,” the statement says. “Were it not so, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the improvement of inter-Korean relations and regional peace are unthinkable.” Back to top       India, Pakistan to Hold CBM Talks India and Pakistan are scheduled to hold two-days of expert-level talks beginning tomorrow in Islamabad on nuclear confidence building measures, according to Agence France-Presse (see GSN, Oct. 20). The talks are expected to focus on the development of a formal advance notification system for missile tests and the creation of a nuclear hot line between foreign ministry officials from both countries to help avoid a nuclear clash, said Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman Masood Khan.  This week’s talks follow CBM meetings held in June in New Delhi. “We covered some ground … and we want to build on this momentum and elaborate some concrete CBMs,” Khan said (Agence France-Presse/SpaceDaily.com, Dec. 12). Back to top

Biological Weapons Convention Requires Updates to Match Technological Change, Group Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Members of the treaty banning biological weapons must update the pact at its 2006 review conference or watch it become irrelevant, according to a report released last week by a Geneva-based group. “Bioweapons Report 2004,” the first of an annual series produced by the nonprofit Bioweapons Prevention Project, was released at a meeting of Biological Weapons Convention members. It assesses the global state of technology that could be used to create biological weapons and the strength of the norm against such efforts. The report says the treaty faces continued challenges, including state-sponsored biological weapons programs, “apparently” growing interest by nonstate entities in biological agents, and “the future threat posed by unconstrained developments in science and technology which may enable states, organizations or even individuals to develop stable and controllable agents to cause indiscriminate harm.” “Biological warfare is closely related to the knowledge of disease,” it says. Research and development for legitimate purposes, such as for medicine, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and biological defense, “generates considerable knowledge about the potential offensive use of certain substances to interfere with biological processes in humans, plants and animals,” the report states. Potential technological advancements of concern, the report says, include those for modulating the immune system, mechanisms enabling microorganisms to evade immunological defenses, and targeted delivery systems — gene vectors and immunotoxins — for transferring foreign cells to particular areas of the body. The 153-member treaty “lacks effective mechanisms for monitoring and verifying whether or not states parties are complying with their treaty obligations,” the report states. It notes also that many states have failed to produce required data on biological activities, called “confidence-building measures,” intended to promote transparency and clarity about treaty compliance. “If nothing happens in 2006, we could really be moving toward the end of the BWC,” said Jean Pascal Zanders, who directs the project. “Right now, it’s already been eight years since the norm was updated in light of scientific and technological developments. If it doesn’t happen in 2006 … it could be 15 years.” At the same time, “the rate of [biotechnological] growth is exponential,” he said. Current Activities Called Insufficient Member states attempted to modify the treaty in a number of ways at the 2001 treaty review conference, including by creation of an official monitoring body; however the United States opposed the amendments and the effort collapsed (see GSN, Nov. 15 2002). The next review conference is scheduled for 2006. Between the conferences, experts and officials from states parties have been meeting to discuss certain topics related to the treaty. The meeting of treaty parties that ended Friday in Geneva, the second such meeting, addressed: — strengthening and broadening national and international institutional efforts and existing mechanisms for the surveillance, detection, diagnosis and combating of infectious diseases affecting humans, animals and plants; and — enhancing international capabilities for responding to, investigating and mitigating the effects of alleged use of biological or toxin weapons or suspicious outbreaks of disease. Experts from the treaty parties met in July to discuss those issues and urged a number of recommendations, including that states individually strengthen their capabilities for detecting, diagnosing and combating infectious disease and provide aid and cooperate internationally to that end. A final document produced at the meeting Friday evening said the treaty members could implement the recommendations of the experts meeting, but did not direct them to take any new action. The current program of meetings, however, “only have a limited mandate to discuss five sets of topics and they cannot reach legally binding agreements,” according to the BWPP report. Looking Toward 2011 The report also forecasts scientific advances that might be expected between now and the 2011 review conference as a way of urging action in 2006. It predicts that: — massive U.S. investment in biothreat research could result in a dramatic rise in knowledge of pathogenic mechanisms and the immune system’s defenses; — the biotechnology industry will expand to many new countries, and the means for conducting research will become more simple and available, increasing “significantly” the “potential for misuse;” — “we should expect surprises” from scientific developments; and — more could be learned about genetic differences between ethnicities, in the interest of advancing medicine, which also “could bring us back to discussion of ethnic weapons.” The report calls for a more responsive mechanism for reviewing scientific developments other than the five-year review conferences, “if the [convention] is not to be seen as an irrelevant relic.” Back to top       BWC Parties Issue Document Without Recommendations By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Struggles over mustering action to improve compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention continued last week, as an annual meeting of treaty parties in Geneva issued a statement containing no recommendations or commitments (see related GSN story, today). The parties in the statement “agreed on the value of” improving disease surveillance and developing national response, investigation and mitigation capabilities — the two principal subjects for discussion on the agenda.  Earlier versions of the document had contained stronger wording for those areas, in which states “agreed to improving, wherever possible, national and regional disease surveillance capabilities” and “agreed to continue to develop their own national capacities for response, investigation and mitigation,” according to Jean Pascal Zanders, who directs the Geneva-based Bioweapons Prevention Project The final document also said nations could consider recommendations for action that were made by a meeting of states experts last July. “It’s a weak document obviously. It’s not substitute for any efforts to strengthen the treaty,” he said. “Any commitment was taken out of the text,” he said. In addition, the only proposal for joint, multiparty action that was under consideration, a letter urging the U.N. secretary general to consider measures for strengthening his capabilities for investigating suspicious biological weapons use, was excluded from the final statement, said Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a professor at the University of New York at Purchase. “There was no willingness whatsoever for taking any kind of even the mildest action. … There was no sense of a joint international view on the subject of controlling biological weapons,” she said. Positives Seen Zanders said that the statement nevertheless could be viewed as a positive development because of apparent opposition early in the week by Iran, which had argued instead for negotiations to update the treaty with a verification protocol. “The mere fact that there was a document at all was relevant because at one point it didn’t look like it was forthcoming,” he said.  Another positive outcome, he said, was that the statement appeared to suggest the two discussion issues be made items of consideration at the sixth review conference of the treaty in 2006, which is the formal venue for updating the treaty. “One of the things we feared … is that there would be nothing to consider at the sixth review conference,” Zanders said. The previous meeting of states parties last year did not produce a statement (see GSN, Nov. 18). The meeting last week was the second of three scheduled prior to the review conference. The meetings, proposed by the United States in 2002 after it scuttled efforts to adopt a treaty protocol, have been criticized for lacking authority to compel action toward improving treaty compliance and for lacking sufficient time to seriously discuss their respective issues. U.S. Ambassador Donald Mahley, on the other hand, said in a Dec. 6 speech at the start of the meeting that the process was a success simply because of the discussions that occurred during the experts meeting. “The results that emerged indicated that, notwithstanding differing domestic arrangements, states parties to the BWC are following, and enhancing, similar basic approaches relating to surveillance, detection, diagnosis, and combating of infectious diseases affecting humans, animals and plants, regardless of their origin,” he said. “All of these efforts will contribute to combating the BW threat in practical ways, thereby strengthening the norms set forth in the Biological Weapons Convention,” Mahley added. Back to top       Experts Question U.S. Anthrax Vaccine Plan Experts have questioned a Bush administration plan to order a new $877 million anthrax vaccine whose developer is experiencing financial troubles and which has not been proven effective in humans, the New York Times reported Saturday (see GSN, Dec. 9). The vaccine contract with California manufacturer VaxGen is part of Project Bioshield, a multibillion-dollar effort to build a drug stockpile and other defenses against biological terrorism. VaxGen, which is to produce and deliver 75 million syringes of vaccine beginning in early 2006, has had recent difficulties with accounting irregularities and lawsuits related to research on other vaccines, according to the Times. The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute at Fort Detrick, Md., has tested the vaccine on mice, guinea pigs and monkeys, producing varying levels of protection against anthrax, the Times reported. Those results have led some doctors to question the vaccine’s efficacy. “We don’t know the concentration of antibodies in humans that are needed to confer immunity to anthrax,” said Steven Wolinsky, head of the division of infectious diseases at Northwestern University’s medical school. Some experts question the value of Project Bioshield in its entirety. “This anthrax threat is extraordinarily exaggerated,” said Victor Sidel, a professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. “All of this is simply playing to the politics of fear.” Bush administration officials, however, insist that preparation for a possible anthrax attack remains necessary. “For us to say let’s wait and do nothing would be an abdication of our responsibility for homeland security,” said William Raub, principal deputy assistant secretary for public health emergency preparedness at the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. In the event of an anthrax attack, victims would be treated with antibiotics followed by vaccination. The plan would rely on rapid distribution of antibiotics and vaccines, a task Bush administration officials acknowledge could not be done effectively today. “We are not where we want to be by any means,” Raub said (Eric Lipton, New York Times, Dec. 11). Back to top       Prison Inmate Pleads Guilty to Anthrax Hoax A man serving 50 years in prison for robbery pleaded guilty Friday to threatening to send anthrax to President George W. Bush, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and federal employees, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Nov. 23). Roger Evans admitted he mailed a letter in April laced with white powder from a Florida prison to a U.S District Court clerk’s office, AP reported. The substance was determined to be body powder. Evans is scheduled to be sentenced in March on charges of threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction against federal property and mailing threatening communications. He could face life in prison, a term that would begin only after his present prison term ends (Associated Press/Miami Herald, Dec. 10). Back to top       Canada Contracts With IBM to Develop Bioterrorism, Infectious Disease Early Warning System Canada has entered into a $723,000 contract with IBM Canada Ltd. for the development of a computerized system to detect biological attacks or disease outbreaks in their early stages, Canadian Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 8). The pilot project would collect data from hospital emergency rooms, laboratories, pharmacies and other facilities in Winnipeg and then alert officials to a sudden increase in emergency room visits for particular symptoms or in the sale of certain over-the-counter medication, said Amin Kabani, a senior medical adviser with Health Canada. The system could also be used to notify officials of a possible bioterrorist attack, CP reported. “Public health and counterterrorism are very much linked,” Kabani said. “Not only can we detect public health events, but we can actually then detect unusual events that may imply that there is an intentional release of something going on in the community.” If successful during the test phase, the system could be expanded to cover all of Canada, Kabani said (Steve Lambert, Canadian Press/Yahoo!News, Dec. 12). Back to top

Ukrainian Presidential Candidate Poisoned With Dioxin, Doctors Say; Prosecutors Resume Investigation Doctors in Vienna believe that Ukrainian opposition presidential candidate Victor Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin, the Washington Post reported Sunday (see GSN, Oct. 8). Yushchenko, who fell ill in early September while campaigning, returned Friday to Austria for further tests at the private Rudolfinerhaus clinic, according to the Post. Yushchenko has claimed he was the victim of an assassination plot conducted by Ukrainian officials who supported Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych for president. Yushchenko’s long-term health prospects are good, though it could take years for the lesions on his face to heal, according to the Austrian doctors. “If this dose had been higher, it may have caused death,” said clinic director Michael Zimpfer, who said that the organic compounds could have been delivered through soup or other food. “The criminal investigation does not fit within our purview but … there is suspicion of third-party involvement” in the incident, Zimpfer said (Peter Finn, Washington Post, Dec. 12). The Ukrainian prosecutor-general’s office yesterday said that it would resume its investigation into the Yushchenko case, according to the Los Angeles Times. Prosecutors halted their work in October because there was then no information or forensic evidence indicating the candidate had been poisoned (David Holley, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 13). Paul Wax of the American College of Medical Toxicology said two scientists he met in Russia in 2002 told him that that Soviet Union had considered dioxin as a possible chemical weapon, according to the Washington Post. “We don’t think about it as an acute poison that can kill you,” said Wax, an Arizona physician who teaches courses on chemical terrorism. “It’s not going to cause someone to keel over on the battlefield” (Finn, Washington Post). Back to top

U.S. Navy Jet Mistaken for Iraqi Missile in Friendly Fire Incident, Military Probe Concludes A U.S. Navy pilot was killed last year during the invasion of Iraq when a U.S. Army Patriot missile battery misidentified his F/A-18 fighter jet as an Iraqi missile and shot it down, Agence France-Presse reported Friday (see GSN, May 14). Proper launch procedures were violated in the April 2, 2003 incident, which claimed the life of Lt. Nathan White, according to a report from U.S. Central Command. An “erroneous” detection of a hostile threat led to the downing, AFP reported. Unspecified “appropriate actions” were being taken to protect coalition ground and air forces, the report says (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Dec. 10). Back to top

Former New York Police Commissioner Withdraws From Homeland Security Secretary Consideration The White House choice for the next homeland security secretary, former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, said Friday he could not take the job because a former employee may have been an illegal immigrant, according to the Los Angeles Times (see GSN, Dec. 3). “I uncovered information that now leads me to question the immigration status of a person who had been in my employ as a housekeeper and nanny,” Kerik said in a statement. “It has also been brought to my attention that for a period of time during such employment required tax payments and related filings had not been made.” Among the other people mentioned to replace Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, according to the Times, are House Select Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson and White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend (Vieth/Chen, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 11).   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.