U.S. President George W. Bush tours a U.S. vaccine research center in 2003. He praised the House of Representatives yesterday for approving a biodefense vaccine bill (AFP photo/Luke Frazza). U.S. Congress Passes Bioshield By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday bestowed final congressional approval on legislation to guarantee a government market for medical countermeasures against a biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear attack (see GSN, June 10)...Full Story

North Korea Vows to Keep Peaceful Nuclear Program North Korea would not give up its civilian nuclear program even if it agreed to end its atomic arms efforts, a spokesman for the country’s Foreign Ministry said yesterday (see GSN, July 14)...Full Story

Expansive U.S. Support for Pakistani President Damages Other Foreign Policy Concerns, Experts Say By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States has placed too much emphasis on Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terrorism and in its relationship with President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to the detriment of other U.S. foreign policy and security concerns regarding Pakistan, experts said yesterday (see GSN, July 8)...Full Story

	Thursday, July 15, 2004

British Report on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Shines Light on Al-Qaeda WMD Efforts A British government report released yesterday provides new information on attempts by al-Qaeda to develop weapons of mass destruction, according to the Washington Times (see GSN, July 14). The report, which details the findings of an official inquiry into British prewar intelligence on Iraq, says that terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden established a nuclear laboratory in Afghanistan in 1999 and that a former Pakistani nuclear scientist was “associated” with either al-Qaeda or the Taliban regime, according to the Times.  The British report also cited intelligence reports going back to 1999 that identified al-Qaeda operative Abu Khabbab as a chemical expert who conducted training courses on how to make and use poisons, the Times reported. Khabbab was also seeking to develop biological weapons, according to the British report. According to the British report, intelligence reports speculated that Iraqi chemical experts may have been in Afghanistan in 2002, the Times reported. The report also said, though, that it was unknown whether Iraq provided al-Qaeda with training in biological and chemical weapons (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, July 15). Back to top       Solid Information Behind Recent Al-Qaeda Attack Warning, Acting CIA Chief Says Recent warnings about a possible al-Qaeda attack against the United States are based on “very, very solid” information, acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said yesterday (see GSN, July 8). “We have very little doubt about the information we have in terms of its sourcing and its authenticity,” McLaughlin said in an interview with National Public Radio (Agence France-Presse, July 15). Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said yesterday that the warnings issued last week were not politically motivated. “We don’t do politics at Homeland Security,” Ridge said (Katherine Pfleger Shrader, Associated Press/Salon.com, July 15). Meanwhile, The FBI recently issued a bulletin to 18,000 U.S. law-enforcement agencies warning that al-Qaeda may attempt to attack U.S. energy targets, such as power plants, according to the New York Post (Niles Lathem, New York Post, July 15). Back to top

U.S. Prewar WMD Intelligence on Iraq Not Sole Basis For War, Acting CIA Director Says By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said yesterday that the Bush administration did not choose to invade Iraq solely based on U.S. prewar intelligence on former President Saddam Hussein’s alleged WMD efforts — intelligence that has come under heavy criticism by a recent Senate report (see GSN, July 14). Last week, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report consisting of more than 500 pages detailing the findings of a yearlong inquiry into prewar intelligence on Iraq. The committee found that “most of the major judgments” contained in the CIA’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s alleged WMD efforts either “overstated, or were not supported by” the available information. During a press conference Friday to release the report, committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and top Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) expressed varying levels of doubt over whether lawmakers would have supported the Iraq war knowing the flaws in the WMD-related intelligence.  McLaughlin yesterday, though, denied that the 2002 estimate had provided the sole rationale for war. “The implication that has come out of all of this discussion is that somehow decisions to go to war were based on this document that was studied for a year overstates the role of this document,” he said in an interview with National Public Radio. McLaughlin seemingly accused lawmakers of failing to delve into the body of the 2002 estimate, which he said contained a number of caveats not included in the document’s summary on the assessments. “When you get past the first five pages there is a lot of argument laid out in that estimate,” he said. “If you go into the document itself, you’ll find that there were strong dissents established,” McLaughlin said. He also said that if the 2002 estimate had been the sole reason for invading Iraq, then the caveats contained would have been more prominent in the debate over the war. “More would have been made in the debates about the fact that we said that Saddam didn’t have nuclear weapons.  More would have been made in the debates about the fact that we said that he was not enriching uranium,” McLaughlin said. “I think that there was more involved in this debate,” he said. “This was, after all, not Switzerland we were writing about,” McLaughlin added. He also said that he did not believe that Bush administration officials knowingly exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq’s alleged WMD efforts. The Senate intelligence panel is now set to begin examining the administration’s use of prewar intelligence, though the results are not expected to be released before the 2004 presidential election. “I would say, policy-makers, unlike intelligence analysts, make their statements and their judgments on a broad range of issues,” McLaughlin said. Among the judgments lawmakers have to make, he said, was “what is the level of risk you’re willing to take in the post-9/11 environment? That’s not an intelligence judgment. Intelligence doesn’t make policy.” Ultimately, the American public should have confidence in the U.S. intelligence community despite the Senate report, McLaughlin said, noting other successes achieved against proliferation, such as Libya’s decision to end its WMD efforts and the dismantlement of the international nuclear network.  “Look, we are in the classic position now that American intelligence gets into about every 10 years.  There’s a cycle here, where perceived shortcomings overshadow dramatically the successes.  So I would say to the American people that they need to have confidence in their intelligence community,” McLaughlin said. Back to top       U.S. State Department Analysts Objected to Claims in Powell Draft U.N. Presentation on Prewar Iraqi WMD Shortly before U.S Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations in February 2003 on the threat posed by prewar Iraq, State Department analysts found a number of factual problems in a draft of his presentation, according to two memos included in a Senate report released last week (see GSN, July 14). In one memo dated Jan. 31, 2003, State Department analysts listed 38 objectionable claims included in a draft of Powell’s speech, according to the Los Angeles Times. Such claims included allegations that Iraq sought to interfere with U.N. weapons inspections and that Iraq had attempted to mislead inspectors by having intelligence agents pose as weapons scientists.  In response to the analysts’ objections, 28 of the 38 questioned claims were either removed or altered, according to the Senate report, which detailed the findings of an inquiry conducted by the Senate intelligence committee into prewar intelligence on Iraq. The departmental analysts did not object, though, to some claims made in Powell’s U.N. speech that were later discredited, such as the allegation that prewar Iraq had developed mobile biological weapons facilities, the Times reported (Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, July 15). Back to top       Australian PM Holds Out Hope for Iraqi WMD The report released yesterday on British intelligence developed in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq does not close the door on the search for weapons of mass destruction in the Middle Eastern nation, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said (see GSN, July 14). The report by former British civil servant Robin Butler found that prewar Iraq had no “significant, if any” usable biological and chemical weapons stockpiles, but that former President Saddam Hussein still hoped to relaunch his WMD programs once free of U.N. inspections and international sanctions. However, Butler said it was too early to conclude whether Iraq had existing WMD stockpiles. “I agree with Lord Butler; it would be a rash person to conclude that they didn’t exist or never will be found,” Howard said today, according to the Associated Press. “There’s always a range of possibilities” (Rod McGuirk, Associated Press, July 15). Back to top       Hungary Sending Mobile Detection Lab to Olympics Hungary is sending to the Athens Olympics a mobile laboratory capable of detecting a chemical or biological attack within an hour, the country’s defense minister said yesterday (see GSN, July 14). The nine-person team of doctors and biologists could analyze any agents used in an attack and develop a response, said Defense Minister Ferenc Juhasz. “This is a special Hungarian development,” he said. Hungary will pay $135,000 to send the lab to Greece as part of NATO’s efforts to secure the summer games scheduled for Aug. 13-29 (Associated Press, July 14). Back to top

North Korea Vows to Keep Peaceful Nuclear Program North Korea would not give up its civilian nuclear program even if it agreed to end its atomic arms efforts, a spokesman for the country’s Foreign Ministry said yesterday (see GSN, July 14). A peaceful nuclear program is part of North Korea’s “sovereignty and this should never be included in the objects to be frozen of dismantled,” the spokesman said in a statement issued through the official Korean Central News Agency. The spokesman also said that the communist nation would only rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty “if the Korean Peninsula is denuclearized” (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, July 14). The United States continues to demand that North Korea fully and irreversibly dispose of all nuclear programs, U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in response to the North Korean spokesman’s statement. In separate interviews with ITAR-Tass, Russian ambassador Alexander Alexeyev said North Korea should freeze any nuclear arms projects, while Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi said his country backs the U.S. demand that North Korea eliminate all nuclear efforts (ITAR-Tass, July 14). Alexeyev said the three-month deadline set by the United States for North Korea to provide complete details of all its nuclear activities, disable its nuclear weapons and allow inspections in return for U.S. aid is insufficient. “According to Pyongyang, before it freezes its nuclear program, it is necessary to accumulate the potential of mutual trust with Washington,” he said, according to the Associated Press. “It needs more time than the proposed three months for dismantling,” he added (Associated Press, July 14). Back to top       Expansive U.S. Support for Pakistani President Damages Other Foreign Policy Concerns, Experts Say By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States has placed too much emphasis on Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terrorism and in its relationship with President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to the detriment of other U.S. foreign policy and security concerns regarding Pakistan, experts said yesterday (see GSN, July 8). Pakistan “embodies in concentrated form the most severe dangers that face U.S. policy in the [South Asian] region, and it certainly would be on the short list for that honor in the world, said Teresita Schaffer, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ South Asia Program, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Dangers include the possible threat of nuclear war between Pakistan and rival India and the potential for future proliferation of Pakistani nuclear weapons technology, she said. Schaffer and other experts warned the committee that the United States has focused too much on Pakistan’s antiterrorism cooperation — including military operations against al-Qaeda along the border with Afghanistan — while ignoring other areas of concern. “The lavish praise which we continue to heap on Musharraf, designed to strengthen his resolve on combating terrorism, has, in effect, given Musharraf a pass on satisfying Washington on issues of democracy, nuclear proliferation, domestic extremism and social investment,” said Marvin Weinbaum of the Middle East Institute. To date, the Bush administration has shown little interest in imposing punitive measures against Pakistan for the nuclear proliferation activities of top nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who confessed early this year to having transferred nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Instead, the White House has supported Musharraf’s claims that Khan acted without the approval of the Pakistani government. In addition, it appears that Khan’s past nuclear proliferation activities will have little impact on a planned five-year, $3 billion economic and security aid package to Pakistan. Despite calls by some Democratic lawmakers, a senior U.S. State Department official testified before a House International Relations subcommittee hearing late last month that there was little need to place restrictions on the aid package. “There has been no cause at all for us to have second thoughts about providing that assistance to Pakistan, which, as I mentioned in my statement, continues to be very cooperative on all the fronts of … vital national interest to the United States,” Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca said during the June 22 hearing. Experts yesterday also criticized the Bush administration for placing too much emphasis on direct relations with Musharraf and ignoring other Pakistani political institutions. “President Musharraf is certainly important, but we need to act as if the institutions in Pakistan, including the parliament and the elected government, are important, even on those occasions when Musharraf acts as if they aren’t,” Schaffer said. The United States lacks a “Plan B” in the event Musharraf leaves the Pakistani political scene, either by choice or through violent action, Weinbaum said. “We’ve not seriously thought through in our government how we would proceed without General Musharraf. We’ve put so much of our faith in him. He’s got an investment in us, we’ve got an investment in him,” he said. Were Musharraf to be assassinated — not an unlikely possibility given the fact that there has already been at least two attempts on his life — either another general or a military junta, according to Weinbaum, would probably replace him. Experts were divided, though, as to how much possible leverage the United States could employ against any future military leaders in Pakistan. Schaffer told the committee that the United States could use access to F-16 fighter aircraft and diplomatic support against India — “two major things the military wants” — to achieve leverage. She cautioned, though, against providing F-16s to Pakistan for fear of encouraging “risky policies,” such as the Pakistani military’s 1999 incursion into central Kashmir. In addition, the United States should do more to support the current peace dialogue being conducted by India and Pakistan to help resolve the Kashmir dispute, rather than diplomatically choosing sides, Schaffer said. Weinbaum said, though, that U.S. relations with the Pakistani military have been damaged, in part, because of sanctions imposed in 1990, which helped to end the “very intimate relationship” between the two countries’ armed forces. “The degree of good feeling that we once had between our two militaries … [has] severely eroded. And together with the greater Islamization of the military as part of the greater Islamization of Pakistani society — that has been driving I think us apart. And to be very honest, it’s something that is going to take us a while for us to reconstitute,” he said. Back to top       Former Niger PM Denies Meeting With Iraqis in 1999 Former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki denied a claim in a recent U.S. Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq that he acknowledged meeting an Iraqi delegation in 1999 with the expectation of discussing uranium sales, BBC News reported yesterday (see GSN, July 14). The report, released last week by the Senate intelligence committee, says that Mayaki acknowledged that he met with an Iraqi delegation, but was able to shift discussions away from uranium sales. Mayaki told the BBC, though, that he does not remember meeting any Iraqi delegation while serving as prime minister from 1999-2001. “I think this could be easily verified by the Western intelligence services and by the authorities in Niger,” Mayaki said (BBC News, July 14). Back to top

U.S. Congress Passes Bioshield By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday bestowed final congressional approval on legislation to guarantee a government market for medical countermeasures against a biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear attack (see GSN, June 10). The chamber voted 414-2 in favor of a bill to implement Project Bioshield, which President George W. Bush first proposed in January of last year. The Senate passed identical legislation May 19 (see GSN, May 20). Bush is expected within a week or two to sign the bill, which is intended primarily to spur production of drugs that manufacturers would otherwise find unprofitable. Select Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) called the passage “a watershed in our mission to defend America against bioterrorism, establishing our first line of defense against biological weapons.” “This is the most significant first-responder program in our nation’s history. It will ensure that we have treatments immediately on hand to save lives,” Cox said. Besides authorizing the government to spend $5.6 billion over the next decade on countermeasures produced by private drugmakers, the act would speed National Institutes of Health countermeasure research and development, as well as allow the Food and Drug Administration to approve new drugs more quickly during emergencies. A $700 million contract for a new anthrax vaccine, the first contract under the new law, is likely to be awarded “as soon as next month,” said Jim Turner (Texas), the top Democrat on the House committee. “By bringing researchers, medical experts and the biomedical industry together in new and innovative ways,” Bush said in a statement today, “we will not only help protect the homeland but also gain insights into other diseases. This will break new ground in the search for treatments and cures while strengthening our overall biotechnology infrastructure.” Lawmakers Take “First Step,” Eye Long Road Ahead The measure passed with nearly unanimous bipartisan support, but representatives from both parties cautioned that it is only a first step in bolstering the country’s biological defenses. Several outside experts and industry representatives agreed. “From the beginning of this process,” Turner said, “I have been concerned that this legislation will not be enough. Project Bioshield is an experiment.  We do not know if the incentives in this bill will drive our pharmaceutical industry to develop medicines for biodefense when they can make so much more money on other products.” Seeking to plug another perceived gap in the Bioshield plan, Turner and other Democrats in May introduced a bill seeking to shorten the time needed to produce countermeasures against new agents (see GSN, May 5). The Democrats said at the time that Bioshield would not address the threat of future pathogens that could be engineered to resist existing drugs. Representative Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said yesterday that “implementation of Bioshield must be linked to the threat,” with spending guided by a list of high-priority pathogens maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and intelligence agencies. “The success of Bioshield also depends upon broader biopreparedness priorities,” Shays added. “Massive caches of stockpiled vaccines, antibiotics and drugs,” he said, “will protect no one if they cannot be administered quickly and safely. Public-health capacity is a critical enabler to Bioshield success” (see GSN, July 14). Executive Director Shelley Hearne of the Trust for America’s Health, a nonpartisan advocacy group, expressed similar sentiments today. “While we feel that Bioshield is an important and laudable step toward better preparedness,” Hearne said through a spokesman, “we also need a simultaneous upgrade on distribution systems and work-force shortages. We need to shore up the full spectrum of our bioterrorism and public-health capabilities in order to really improve our readiness.” American Public Health Association Executive Director Georges Benjamin said Bioshield “will serve as a good way of funding cutting-edge research in a time of extraordinary need.” In an interview today, Benjamin expressed optimism that Bioshield will prove flexible enough to address broad public-health concerns in addition to drug procurement. “It makes no sense to create a new vaccine and then not figure out how to get people to take it,” Benjamin said. Some drug makers also highlighted the work left to be done after passage of the measure, calling in particular for special legal protections for the government’s vendors. Congress is preparing legislation known as “Bioshield 2” that could set limits on the legal liability of drug makers whose government-purchased products are said to cause harm to users. In an e-mail today, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spokesman Court Rosen called for “meaningful product liability protection for products specifically designed to be used (or used in new ways) to combat bioterrorism threats, as well as procurement provisions that more closely resemble the competitive private market in which the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries ordinarily operate.” Democrats Slam Previous Bush Biological-Defense Efforts Representative John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) said yesterday that although the Bioshield act is not “perfect … I do not think we will hear anyone take to the floor and say that this is not a bicameral, bipartisan proposal to address a serious threat to this nation.” Democrats nonetheless took the opportunity to blast the Bush administration for what they called the failure of previous efforts to protect the United States against potential WMD attacks. Turner called on Congress for “vigorous oversight” of Bioshield implementation, criticizing the Bush administration for past “biodefense failures.” He cited the administration’s civilian smallpox vaccination program, which he said has vaccinated only about 10 percent of its goal of 500,000 health care workers. “We need to be asking now, before the ink is dry on this [anthrax-vaccine] contract, ‘What’s the plan? How does this vaccine fit into our biodefenses?’” Turner said. “Given the failure of the smallpox vaccination program, do we really expect our citizens to be any more receptive to an anthrax vaccine?” he asked. Shadegg said simply readying countermeasures can serve as a deterrent against an attack. “If al-Qaeda knows that we are unprepared for a chemical, a biological or a radiological attack,” he said, “then they are incentivized to make that kind of attack. On the other hand, if they know that we have invested the money and done the research and we have developed countermeasures … then they are discouraged to even make that kind of attack.” Back to top

MEADS Set to Begin Development This Year The joint German-Italian-U.S. Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) is set to soon begin full development, Defense Today reported today (see GSN, April 14). MEADS International Inc. President Jim Cravens said that he expects the three countries involved in developing the system to sign contracts by the end of the year to begin developing MEADS. He said that the Italian parliament is expected today to approve beginning the development phase. German lawmakers are not expected to address the issue until fall, but early indications are that they will also support development, Cravens said. The United States approved MEADS development in July, Defense Today reported. MEADS will replace the Patriot missile interceptor in the United States and other systems in the European nations. The MEADS development phase, expected to cost $2.9 billion, is scheduled to begin after Sept. 23, according to Defense Today. The United States is expected to cover 55 percent of the costs, with Germany and Italy respectively covering 28 percent and 17 percent. Cravens also said that he expects Germany, Italy and the United States to complete negotiations on a memorandum of understanding for the project today. With such an agreement in place, the three countries would begin staffing the MEADS development offices next week, Defense Today reported (Ron Laurenzo, Defense Today, July 15). Back to top

High-Altitude Nukes Still a Danger, Report Finds A high-altitude explosion of a nuclear weapon could cause damage to the U.S. electronic infrastructure that might take years to repair, according to a report set to be released next week by a congressional commission (see GSN, Oct. 21, 2002). The detonation of a nuclear weapon at 40 kilometers above the earth or higher would create a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) that could disable electronic power grids, telecommunications systems, energy distribution, transportation, emergency services, the military and other services, according to Inside the Pentagon. That could affect everything from food and water supplies to cellular telephones to government control, the commission said. “HEMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold at risk the continued existence of civil society within the United States, and our ability to maintain national security and project military power anywhere it is needed,” according to a commission briefing. “America’s ability to reconstitute following such an EMP attack is inadequate; full recovery might take months to years,” the briefing adds. The “interdependence” of systems increases the potential for disaster, according to the commission. For example, damage to the oil and gas industry would have implications for power plants, communications, military installations and legislative offices, among other operations. There are “a number of potential adversaries” now capable of such an attack, and the number would grow over the next 15 years, according to the commission. A commission scenario of a high-altitude nuclear explosion over Chicago showed significant effects for 900 miles, an area that includes New York and Washington. That area contains the majority of the U.S. population, along with half or more of the country’s power generation, telecommunications equipment and major Internet hubs. Government and private industry must work together to reduce the U.S. vulnerability to an EMP attack, according to the commission. “Plans and procedures have not been developed to restart the national power grids” following an outage, the briefing states. “The financial system of the United States is vulnerable to an EMP-induced disruption of telecommunications. The transportation industry is vulnerable to disruption,” it adds. The commission’s findings are expected to be presented July 22 to the House Armed Services Committee (Daniel Dupont, Inside the Pentagon, July 15). Back to top       Missing Spent Fuel Pieces Found at Nuclear Plant Technicians at a Vermont nuclear power plant Tuesday found two pieces of spent nuclear fuel at the plant’s spent fuel storage pool three months after they were reported missing, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, June 29). The missing spent fuel pieces were found after engineers opened a previously unknown container in the pool, said Jay Thayer, site vice president in charge of Vermont Yankee for owner Entergy Nuclear. Two earlier searches of the pool conducted by robots failed to find the container, and its existence became known last week after a record was found at a California laboratory showing that the canister had been sent to the Vermont plant during the 1980s, according to AP (David Gram, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 13). Back to top       U.S. Pushes Forward With Yucca Mountain, Despite Federal Appellate Court Ruling The U.S. government will continue development of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository in Nevada despite a recent court ruling requiring the U.S. government to increase safeguards against nuclear leaks, Reuters reported today (see GSN, June 10). “We are still on track toward submitting a license application in December of this year, and opening the repository and beginning waste acceptance in 2010,” Deputy Energy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow said during a Senate Energy Committee Hearing. The U.S. Court of Appeals last week blocked Nevada’s efforts to stop plans to store 77,000 tons of nuclear power and defense waste at the facility. The court, however, ruled that the Bush administration had ignored National Academy of Sciences safety recommendations and must provide safeguards against radiation leaks that could peak in 300,000 years, Reuters reported. It would be “impossible” to provide protection over 300 millennia, said Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) (Reuters/CNN.com, July 15).         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.