U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice greets Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Saturday in Moscow. Russia rejected the U.S. call to support Washington’s hard line against Iran’s nuclear program (Yuri Kadobnov/Getty Images). Russia Rejects U.S. Pressure on Iran Security Council Referral Russia rejected efforts Saturday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to persuade Moscow to support Washington’s hard line on Iran’s nuclear program, the Washington Post reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct.14). Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia does not support U.S. efforts to have the International Atomic Energy Agency report Iran’s case to the U.N. Security Council...Full Story

U.S. Eyes Legal Changes for Indian Nuclear Deal The White House this week could begin offering details of the changes to domestic and international laws it plans to allow a nuclear technology sharing deal with India to move ahead, Reuters reported (see GSN, Oct. 13)...Full Story

Critics See Higher Drug Prices in Bioshield II By Emily Heil, CongressDaily WASHINGTON — A coalition including employers and generic drug makers on Friday launched a pre-emptive strike against the “Bioshield II” bill that Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is slated to introduce this week, saying the patent extensions it would grant to prescription drugs could suppress generics and raise costs for employers, consumers and the government (see GSN, June 10)...Full Story

	Monday, October 17, 2005

Cheney’s Office Began Criticism as Wilson Publicized Discoveries on Alleged Iraq Uranium Buys U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s office began attempting to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson immediately after he published a July 2003 essay in the New York Times accusing the Bush administration of using faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, reporter Judith Miller said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 26, 2004). Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis Libby also that summer complained to Miller of “selective leaking” by the CIA, as well as the agency’s “hedging strategy” to protect itself in case no weapons of mass destruction were found, Miller wrote in the Times (see GSN, Oct. 14). “If we find it, fine, if not, we hedged,” is how Libby described the agency’s strategy to Miller. Miller spent 85 days in an Alexandria, Va., jail for refusing to testify about her conversations with Libby as part of the official investigation into the release of the identity of Wilson’s wife, an undercover CIA operative who would later be publicly named by columnist Robert Novak. Libby in the June 23 meeting with Miller complained of “highly distorted” reports suggesting that senior Bush administration officials had accepted questionable intelligence about prewar Iraq’s alleged efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Libby said Cheney’s office had pressed the Defense and State departments for more information about the possible Africa-Iraq uranium connection. However, he added that the CIA “took it upon itself to try and figure out more” by sending a “clandestine guy” to Niger. Miller said in recent federal grand jury testimony that she believed Libby was referring to Wilson, according to the article. Libby denied to Miller that Cheney had anything to do with Wilson’s trip, contradicting earlier reports in the Times. “Veep didn’t know of Joe Wilson,” Miller wrote in her notes, referring to Cheney. “Agency did not report to us.” Libby in a July 8 meeting with Miller — two days after the Wilson essay was published — “proceeded through a lengthy and sharp critique of Mr. Wilson and what Mr. Libby viewed as the CIA’s backpedaling on the intelligence leading to war,” Miller wrote. On the basis of two intelligence reports, Cheney’s office had asked the CIA for more analysis and investigation of the Niger connection, Libby told Miller. Libby said that the conclusions of Wilson’s fact-finding mission barely made it out of the CIA and that then-Director George Tenet did not know of Wilson. Miller pressed Libby to discuss additional information in a more detailed, classified version of an Iraq intelligence estimate. Libby, however, would only tell Miller that the classified estimate contained stronger evidence for the uranium claims than did the unclassified version. In a July 12 phone conversation, Libby told Miller it was not clear if Wilson in his trip to Niger had talked with officials there who had worked with visiting Iraqi trade personnel. Libby also described the inclusion of the questionable Niger intelligence in President George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address as the result of a communication breakdown between the CIA and White House (Judith Miller, New York Times, Oct. 16). Miller said she was proud of her journalism career but acknowledged serious problems with her reporting on Iraqi weaponry, the Times reported yesterday. “WMD — I got it totally wrong,” she said. “The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them — we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong. I did the best job that I could.” Within a few weeks after becoming Times executive editor in 2003, Bill Keller told Miller she could no longer cover Iraq and WMD issues. However, “she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm,” he said. On May 26, 2004, Keller published an editors’ note criticizing some Times coverage of the run-up to the war, citing institutional failures. Miller is expected to receive a First Amendment award from the Society of Professional Journalists tomorrow. She said she hopes to return to the newsroom to cover “the same thing I’ve always covered — threats to our country” (Van Natta/Liptak/Levy, New York Times, Oct. 16). Back to top

Russia Rejects U.S. Pressure on Iran Security Council Referral Russia rejected efforts Saturday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to persuade Moscow to support Washington’s hard line on Iran’s nuclear program, the Washington Post reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct.14). Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia does not support U.S. efforts to have the International Atomic Energy Agency report Iran’s case to the U.N. Security Council. “We think that the current situation permits us to develop this issue and to do everything possible within the means of this organization [the International Atomic Energy Agency] without referring this issue to other organizations,” Lavrov said. Meanwhile, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton on Friday accused Tehran developing a nuclear arms program for strategic reasons and “possibly to supply to terrorists.” “I think that the Iranians have been pursuing a nuclear weapons program for up to 18 years,” Bolton told the BBC. “They have engaged in concealment and deception and they’ve engaged in threats before” (Robin Wright, Washington Post, Oct. 16). Rice yesterday did not, however, call for referring Iran to the Security Council at the Nov. 24 IAEA board meeting, the Financial Times reported. Meeting in London, Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw agreed not to set a deadline “because that’s not the way diplomacy works,” she said. “You look for movement, you look to see whether or not there are promising solutions and ideas. You look to see whether there are contacts that seem to be bearing fruit. And at a time of our choosing, we’ll push for referral,” Rice said. British and French officials do not believe there is sufficient international support for an early referral, European diplomats in Washington told the Times (Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, Oct. 17). Rice on Sunday also dismissed the possibility of direct talks between Tehran and Washington “at this point,” USA Today reported. She did not, however, rule out such talks at a later date. Iran’s ambassador to France, Sadeq Kharrazi, said his country was open to such a possibility. “Iran is not closed to the Americans,” said Kharrazi. “Iran would be open to talks, but the condition is mutual respect” (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, Oct. 17). French President Jacques Chirac and Rice agreed Friday that “the perspective of an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons is unacceptable,” a presidential spokesman told Agence France-Presse. Chirac also said that “it is necessary to continue the way of dialogue started by Germany, Britain and France in close coordination with Russia, in complete openness with the U.S., and with full respect by Iran of the Paris Accord,” the spokesman added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 14). Iran yesterday again refused to again suspend uranium conversion despite the fact that the European Union has set that act as a condition for a resuming talks, AFP reported. “The suspension was voluntary and we are not ready to go back on our decision,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi. “There is no judicial or legal reason to send the Iranian dossier to the Security Council,” Asefi added. “Many countries have this view,” he said naming China and Russia. “You cannot use the threat of the Security Council like the sword of Damocles over the head of Iran” (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 16). Back to top       U.S. Eyes Legal Changes for Indian Nuclear Deal The White House this week could begin offering details of the changes to domestic and international laws it plans to allow a nuclear technology sharing deal with India to move ahead, Reuters reported (see GSN, Oct. 13). Chances of modifying the regulations improved when India supported the potential referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council. However, some U.S. lawmakers are concerned that the controversial deal encourages the spread of nuclear weapons, Reuters reported.  Doubts about whether India would ultimately send Iran to the Security Council also have clouded the deal. Congressional sources and several experts said India, which has growing strategic ties with Iran, has not yet committed to the issue.  Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns is expected to speak tomorrow in New York on relations between Washington and New Delhi before traveling to India for additional negotiations, Reuters reported. The deal would violate current international guidelines and U.S. law, both of which allow nuclear exports to non-nuclear weapon countries only if all nuclear-related facilities in those countries are subject to international inspection. India does not meet these standards. Congressional sources and experts said they believe the Bush administration will ask the for a special exception for the Indian deal from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the multinational group that sets nuclear export guidelines. However, a European diplomat said that other countries want a broad exception that would allow for additional nuclear deals.  Pakistan has asked for a similar deal, a move that the United States opposes, Reuters reported, and experts said China would try to use India’s exception as a justification for enhancing its nuclear cooperation with Pakistan. Most European countries expect “a way will be found to accommodate India,” according to a European diplomat, but no decisions are anticipated during this week’s Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting (Reuters, New York Times, Oct. 16). Meanwhile, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov is in New Delhi to watch Indo-Russian war games and is expected to discuss civilian nuclear cooperation with India, according to the Press Trust of India. When asked if Russia would enter into nuclear cooperation agreements similar to India’s planned deal with the United States, Ivanov said that Russia and the United States are both members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.  “However, a) we have an understanding of India's acute energy requirements, b) we know that India has an impeccable nonproliferation record, c) India's domestic regimes and legislations replicate the nonproliferation pacts, although it has not signed [the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty], d) it is the largest democracy,” he said. “All this allows us to trust India in sensitive issues bordering on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” (Vinay Shukla, Press Trust of India/OutlookIndia.com, Oct. 15). Back to top       North Korea Would Accept Electricity Only as Interim Measure to Getting Nuclear Reactor North Korea would only accept South Korea’s offer of electricity aid as an interim measure leading to eventual construction of light-water nuclear reactors, Kyodo News reported Friday (see GSN, Oct. 14). “If the South Korean electricity assistance proposal is meant to provide substitute energy until the completion of light-water nuclear reactors, we welcome it,” Ja Song Nam, acting director general at the state-run Institute for Disarmament and Peace think tank. “But if it is something that is meant to be in place of light-water reactors, or if it first requires nuclear abandonment, we cannot welcome it,” said Ja (Kyodo/Yahoo!News, Oct. 14). South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun is expected to hold one-on-one meetings with U.S. President George W. Bush and other leaders of countries attempting to negotiate an end to the North Korea nuclear standoff at next month’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, Asia Pulse reported today. “President Roh will be able to make the most use of the APEC summit to seek support for and understanding of our efforts to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue peacefully,” said a Roh aide (Asia Pulse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 17). Back to top       U.S. Breaks Ground on Plutonium Fuel Facility U.S. and Russian officials were on hand Friday for the groundbreaking of the mixed-oxide fuel production facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, July 21). The Energy Department plans to use the MOX facility to convert 34 tons of weapon-grade plutonium into nuclear fuel that would not pose a proliferation risk. Under terms of a 2002 nuclear nonproliferation agreement, Russia is required to build a similar facility to process another 34 tons of plutonium. However, responsibility for the cost of the $1.6 billion U.S. facility is still an issue, the Augusta Chronicle reported. The Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration has already committed $600 million to the plant, but the House and Senate have not agreed on how to meet the full cost.  Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said that the facility is not expected to meet a 2009 deadline to start processing, which could lead to a $1 million per day fine from South Carolina.  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the project needs to be completed.  “What's it worth to the world to get 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium off the Russian market?” he said. Other concerns “pale in comparison of what could be done if plutonium fell into the wrong hands.” Development of the Russian plant has been stalled over the question of liability for work done there. Site preparation work is scheduled for the next 10 months. An agreement between the two nations is expected later this month. “Finally, the two sides have found a mutually acceptable agreement,” said Vladimir Rybachenkov, a Russian Embassy official who attended the event Friday (Associated Press/Macon Telegraph, Oct. 14). Back to top       Australia Considers Allowing China Access to Uranium Australia said today it could allow China access to its uranium deposits for energy purposes if Beijing promises not to use the material in weaponry, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, July 25). Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board would have to approve the plan and that a nuclear safeguards agreement would have to be forged. “We wouldn’t be exporting any uranium to China for military purposes of any kind,” Downer said. “By that I don’t only mean for use in nuclear weapons, but also we wouldn’t be exporting any uranium to China for use in military vessels or vehicles of one kind or another,” he said. One nuclear proliferation expert said monitoring China’s use of such material would prove difficult and that China could use the Australian uranium in its nuclear energy plants, freeing up its own uranium deposits for military applications. “I’m very worried about this,” Richard Broinowski, a former Australian diplomat, told The Age. “I think the Australians are seeing dollar signs all over the place,” he said (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 17). Back to top

Critics See Higher Drug Prices in Bioshield II By Emily Heil, CongressDaily WASHINGTON — A coalition including employers and generic drug makers on Friday launched a pre-emptive strike against the “Bioshield II” bill that Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is slated to introduce this week, saying the patent extensions it would grant to prescription drugs could suppress generics and raise costs for employers, consumers and the government (see GSN, June 10). The bill, which is in draft form, would allow brand drug makers to classify a broad range of drugs as “countermeasures” to potential bioterrorism attacks, a category that would allow them to extend patents for drugs that have little to do with biodefense, according to members of the Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Market, which includes generic drug makers, employers, manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers. That in turn would raise costs for employers who provide drug benefits to employees, government programs such as Medicare, and to consumers who would be denied access to generic versions of pricey brand drugs, they said. “Hopefully, senators concerned about the federal budget deficit and about the ability of the federal government to provide drug benefits will appreciate the direct and significant impact this will have on drug costs,” said Kathleen Jaeger, president of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association. The legislation is still being negotiated, a Burr spokesman said. “It's premature to criticize legislation that hasn't been introduced,” he said. “But Senator Burr has made clear that whatever bill is introduced, it will provide for more and better countermeasures to market faster — that's his No. 1 priority.” The Bioshield bill might be marked up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as soon as this week. Project Bioshield is the administration's effort to develop and secure commercial countermeasures to bioterrorism threats. Under the program, the Health and Human Services Department is to identify threats and encourage industry to produce medical countermeasures. The theory is companies will develop vaccines and other products for which the government would be the only likely purchaser, as long as they know the demand exists. Without incentives, the government might lack a sufficient supply of treatments or vaccines for bioterrorism threats such as anthrax, botulism and Ebola. In this second installment of Bioshield legislation, Burr is planning to expand the program and ease liability for the makers of bioterror countermeasures. In the latest draft of the bill, Jaeger said, the committee dropped the “wild card” exclusivity that previous drafts of the bill had included, which she called “the most egregious” patent extension. Under the wild-card provision, companies that develop countermeasures could receive additional patent life for any product they chose. Back to top       U.S. Homeland Security Chief Considers Keeping Plum Island Laboratory at Biosafety Level 3 The Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York could be upgraded without having its security level increased, the New York Times reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 24). Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff originally planned to replace the existing facility with a new $450 million laboratory to study biological terrorism. However, at the request of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Representative Timothy Bishop (D-N.Y.), Chertoff agreed earlier this month to explore the possibility of maintaining the facility at Biosafety Level 3. Clinton and Bishop are trying to save the laboratory, which employs 200 people and studies foreign animal diseases. The Homeland Security Department in August announced that a laboratory studying biological and agriculture defense could replace Plum Island, but did not specify whether the new facility would be on the same site as the existing laboratory.   The facility would be expected to have the top Biosafety Level 4 security status, which allows research on diseases that are fatal to animals and humans and have no known cure, according to the Times. Clinton and Bishop said after meeting with Chertoff that the vast majority of their constituents do not want a Level 4 laboratory on the island.  They said that Chertoff did not reaffirm a pledge by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to keep the facility at Biosafety Level 3. They told Chertoff that that work being done at the laboratory was important enough to warrant upgrading the facility and allowing it to continue at its current designation, the Times reported. “The calculus changes dramatically if you get a Biosafety Level 4 that is looking at human diseases and even looking at how animal viruses and pathogens jump from the animal world to the human world, and it just is very hard to justify putting that kind of facility in the midst of one of the most populated areas where workers would be going back and forth all the time,” Clinton said.  Clinton said Chertoff “was open” to the idea of improving Plum Island without changing its biosafety level. “He said he was going to be guided by the scientists who he has appointed to look into this,” Clinton said. The Homeland Security Department confirmed that Chertoff is exploring the possibility of keeping the facility at Level 3. “All options are on the table,” said spokeswoman Valerie Smith. “We are open to proposals from officials and groups across the county.” The lawmakers’ effort to keep Plum Island as a Biosafety Level 3 site ensures that it will be replaced, said David Kapell, mayor of nearby Greenport, N.Y. “It is a pipe dream to think that the lab will survive on Plum Island if it is not allowed to expand to Biosafety Level 4,” he said. “Ruling Level 4 out effectively seals its fate and invites any other community out there to steal our lab from us.” Kapell said Greenport’s village board recently passed a resolution in support of turning Plum Island into a Biosafety Level 4 facility (John Rather, New York Times, Oct. 16). Back to top       Ohio Postal Facility Gets Anthrax Detector The U.S. Postal Service processing facility in Lima, Ohio, has received a system capable of detecting anthrax in the mail, the Lima News reported today (see GSN, Sept. 29). The Lima mail processing facility played a key role in the U.S. response to the 2001 anthrax attacks. Mail from a Washington-area postal facility was sent to Lima for sterilization by Titan Scan Technologies. Titan sold the federal government eight $40 million machines to scan mail at processing centers, but the equipment proved troublesome, according to the News.   “We found that was not practical, and it was even dangerous,” said Postal Inspector Bruce Conner (Jim Sabin, Lima News, Oct. 17). Back to top

Former Russian Military Experts Allegedly Assist Iran in Long-Range Missile Development Iran has received support from former Russian military personnel in its efforts to obtain nuclear-capable missile technology, the Sunday Telegraph reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 10). Western intelligence officials have said the experts are acting as intermediaries for a 2003 arms deal between Iran and North Korea. Technology being moved through Russia is believed to be helping Iran to develop a missile with a range of 2,200 miles, according to the Telegraph. A senior U.S. official said Iran’s missile development program was “sophisticated and getting larger and more accurate. They have had very much in mind the payload needed to carry a nuclear weapon.” The official said Russian authorities were likely complicit in the cooperation. “I think [Russian President Vladimir] Putin knows what the Iranians are doing,” the official said (Con Coughlin, Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 16). A high-level Russian lawmaker yesterday denied Moscow’s involvement in Iran’s missile program, the Associated Press reported. Russian authorities should “exclude the spiraling of speculation,” said Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the international affairs committee of the lower house of parliament, according to the Interfax news agency. Georgy Mirsky, an Academy of Sciences researcher, called the report “absurd.” He said only an official Russian organization could transfer such technology and then only with Kremlin permission. “Without the president’s permission no one could do it,” Mirsky said. “Would Putin compromise himself this way, to help them create missiles?” However, Ruslan Pukhov, chief of the Center for Strategic and Technological Analysis, said it was possible retired military officers had transferred some former Soviet missile technology without official sanction, Ekho Moskvy radio reported (Associated Press/Pravda, Oct. 16).   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.