Russian ambulances line up to aid hostages freed from a Moscow theater seized by Chechen rebels in 2002. Anesthetic gas used during the rescue operation to incapacitate the rebels also killed over 100 hostages (Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images). Chemical Incapacitants Must Be Kept From War, Experts Say By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire THE HAGUE — The next generation of chemical agents designed to incapacitate a human target must not become an accepted tool of war, experts said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 21). Using “nonlethal” materials on the battlefield would violate the Chemical Weapons Convention, speakers said during a panel discussion on the sidelines the annual conference of states parties to the treaty...Full Story

U.S., Partners to Offer New Program of CWC Support By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire THE HAGUE — The United States plans next year to intensify its efforts to help countries take steps to prevent the misuse of potentially dangerous materials produced by their chemical industries, a senior U.S. official said yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 1)...Full Story

University Ends Plan to Add Nuclear Reactor Power Faced with U.S. efforts to reduce the use of highly enriched uranium, the University of Missouri has ended plans to double the power of its nuclear research reactor, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 19)...Full Story

	Thursday, December 7, 2006

University Ends Plan to Add Nuclear Reactor Power Faced with U.S. efforts to reduce the use of highly enriched uranium, the University of Missouri has ended plans to double the power of its nuclear research reactor, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 19). University officials had planned to increase the reactor’s power from 10 megawatts to 20 megawatts, but decided that the move would fly in the face of Bush administration efforts to remove highly enriched uranium fuel from U.S research reactors. Instead, the university would seek the technology to replace the reactor’s fuel to low-enriched uranium, which is much more difficult to use in nuclear weapons, AP reported. “We need to do what we can to focus our energy on conversion,” said reactor director Ralph Butler.  “That’s the highest priority right now.  It’s the government’s priority, so it’s our priority too.” “We have tabled our desire to upgrade,” he added (Alan Scher Zagier, Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Dec. 6). Still, converting the fuel could take years, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Technological limitations prevent simply swapping out reactor fuel, the Chronicle reported, and new fuel would not be available until at least 2010 for both the Missouri reactor and another at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Six U.S. university reactors continue to use highly enriched uranium, four of which are scheduled for conversion in the next three years, according to the Chronicle: Purdue University next year, the University of Washington in 2008, Oregon State University in 2008 and the University of Wisconsin in 2009. Some nonproliferation advocates have criticized the conversion schedule for being too slow. “It’s absolutely outrageous that a place like MIT continues to have significant quantities of highly enriched uranium,” said Victor Gilinsky a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Kelly Field, Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec. 8). Back to top       South African Reactors to Use Uranium From Former Russian Nuclear Warheads South Africa plans to use fuel created from former Russian nuclear warheads to fuel a new line of small nuclear power plants, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported today (see GSN, Oct. 13). The nation has been developing the Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, relatively low-power units, and plans to build 24 of them by 2028, said public enterprises minister Alec Erwin (see GSN, Nov. 14, 2001). “On the PMBR, that uranium we will bring in from Russia, which is downblended weapon graded uranium,” he said. South Africa ended its own uranium enrichment activities in 1997, Erwin said, after ending its nuclear weapons program and deciding that enriching its own fuel was too expensive. However, the decision to use foreign fuel could change as the demand for fuel increases with the number of completed power plants. “We are re-evaluating our nuclear program,” Erwin said.  “We have the uranium, and we have the technology” (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Dec. 7). Back to top       U.S., Russia Could Discuss Nuclear Arms Verification The United States and Russia are expected to discuss strategic arms control verification issues tomorrow, Inside the Pentagon reported.  Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak is scheduled to meet with U.S. Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph in Washington (see GSN, Aug. 18). Russia is interested in extending some of the verification tools now used by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which is set to expire in 2009, the newsletter reported.  The START agreement created a detailed set of provisions to verify and monitor U.S. and Russian efforts to reduce to their strategic nuclear warhead forces to less than 6,000 each (see GSN, June 20). A follow-on pact, the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, calls for further nuclear cuts to be made by 2012, but has no verification provisions. Whether or not the two nations agree to formally extend some of the START provisions, Russia is seeking a “legally binding” agreement to apply to future arms control deals, a Russian official said (see GSN, June 28). That view would probably not be supported by the Bush administration (see GSN, June 22, 2004). “I don’t think anyone has an appetite for those big, giant documents that try to script every single element of strategic forces,” a senior Bush administration told the newsletter earlier this year.  “That’s sort of a thing of the past, I hope.” A U.S. official played down any expectations from tomorrow’s meeting with Kislyak. “He’s just dropping by to say hi,” he said (Sebastian Sprenger, Inside the Pentagon, Dec. 7). Back to top       Israel Restates Nuclear Ambiguity Policy Israel today reaffirmed its policy of ambiguity over declaring its nuclear weapon status, two days after U.S. Defense Secretary-nominee Robert Gates said Israeli nuclear weapons were one reason Iran was similar weapons (see GSN, ). “Israel won’t say … whether we have nuclear weapons,” said Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres.  “It suffices that one fears that we have them and that fear in itself constitutes an element of dissuasion.” In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday, Gates said Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons primarily to deter other nuclear-armed powers in the region. “They would see [nuclear weapons] in the first instance as a deterrent,” Gates said.  “They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons — Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west, and us in the Persian Gulf.” Peres denied that Israel needed to be deterred. “Israel is the only country threatened with destruction.  Israel does not threaten any other state,” he said (Jean-Luc Renaudie, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Dec. 7). Back to top

Senate Passes Vaccine Incentive Bill, But Full Congressional Approval Remains Unlikely The U.S. Senate approved legislation Tuesday to try to spur the development of vaccines to counter biological terrorism, but it appeared unlikely that the whole Congress would act on the measure before its term expires this week, the Winston-Salem Journal reported (see GSN, Nov. 15). The bill, passed by unanimous consent, would establish the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority within the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.  A House version of the bill passed earlier this year (see GSN, Sept. 22), but it appeared unlikely that Congress would find time to resolve differences in the two bills before it is scheduled to complete its term this week, according to the Journal (Mary Shaffrey, Winston-Salem Journal, Dec. 6). Following the 2001 anthrax mail attacks in the United States, Congress passed so-called Bioshield legislation to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to develop new vaccines to defend against potential bioterrorist agents.  The industry, however, has complained that Bioshield has too many problems and that vaccine development remains too risky and expensive (see GSN, Sept. 12). “We cannot close our eyes and pretend that [Bioshield] has been a success — it hasn’t,” Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) said in a statement yesterday praising the passage of the new bill.  “The pharmaceutical industry is not commercializing enough drugs to fight the spread of infectious diseases — whether they are spread naturally, accidentally or through the efforts of man” (Enzi release, Dec. 6). Back to top

Chemical Incapacitants Must Be Kept From War, Experts Say By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire THE HAGUE — The next generation of chemical agents designed to incapacitate a human target must not become an accepted tool of war, experts said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 21). Using “nonlethal” materials on the battlefield would violate the Chemical Weapons Convention, speakers said during a panel discussion on the sidelines the annual conference of states parties to the treaty. Such weapons could also add complications to an already critical situation, said Peter Herby, head of the Mines-Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross.  Herby and other panelists also questioned the safety of the incapacitating agents themselves, pointing to the deaths of 117 civilians exposed to a gas in 2002 as Russian authorities tried to end the standoff at a Moscow theater (see GSN, Sept. 29, 2003). “The term ‘nonlethal’ is misleading, since all of these gases can be lethal if the concentration is sufficiently high and the time of exposure sufficiently long,” said Patricia Lewis, director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, quoting the June 2006 report.issued by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission on which she served (see GSN, June 2). Incapacitating agents were among dozens of WMD issues considered by the commission. “There is an increasing interest among some governments to adopt a more flexible interpretation of the CWC rules in the use of incapacitating chemical weapons, even as a method of warfare, in order to be able to use them in diverse situations,” the report states (see GSN, Nov. 11, 2005). “Such an interpretation, in the view of the commission, would constitute a dangerous erosion of the fundamental ban on chemical weapons that the authors of the convention intended.” Panelists said that a number of countries are considering developing this capacity, though they declined to identify specific states. This interest has risen alongside research into new forms of incapacitating agents designed to cause loss of consciousness, nausea, pain, confusion or other debilitating effects, according to the Scientists Working Group on CBW at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, which organized the discussion. The Chemical Weapons Convention allows for use of riot control agents — chemicals such as tear gas that “can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure” — by law enforcement.  It allows for military use of chemical agents only for “purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare.” The commission, led by former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix addressed the seeming contradiction in allowing the use of tear gas against civilians but not in warfare.  Tear gas is designed to prevent use of guns in riot situations, while on the battlefield gases have been used to drive soldiers into the path of gunfire or explosives.  Using riot control agents in warfare also could lead to a response involving use of more dangerous chemicals, the report said. Herby labeled incapacitating agents as toxic chemicals and posed several questions regarding their use.  There is no assurance that their use would not cause significant numbers of deaths, he said.  People exposed to a gas might also suffer long-term health effects. It remains unknown whether soldiers would be able to recognize that their target has been rendered harmless, or determine if that person is wounded or attempting to surrender, Herby said.  “If it’s not clear that a person is completely incapacitated they will also be subject to the means of conventional warfare,” he said. The danger also encompasses the people using the gas.  It might take several minutes for the agent to take effect, allowing time for the target to respond violently, Herby said. The Blix commission called on member nations to the Chemical Weapons Convention to ban the use of toxic chemicals in warfare.  Possession of such materials must be declared under Article 3 of the treaty, it said. Herby urged CWC states parties to clarify which chemicals, other than riot control agents, are allowed under the treaty’s exception for law enforcement.  They should require that all chemicals maintained under that exception be publicly declared, he said. Former CWC negotiator Walter Krutzsch argued that the treaty forbids law enforcement agencies from using any incapacitating materials beyond riot control agents. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the treaty’s monitoring body, would follow the guidelines set by states parties on this issue, said spokesman Peter Kaiser. There was no immediate response from delegates to the convention regarding the issue. Back to top       U.S., Partners to Offer New Program of CWC Support By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire THE HAGUE — The United States plans next year to intensify its efforts to help countries take steps to prevent the misuse of potentially dangerous materials produced by their chemical industries, a senior U.S. official said yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 1). The “Twenty in Ten” program would offer international support to an estimated 20 nations on the year of the 10th anniversary of the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention. “This is an important nonproliferation aspect of the Chemical Weapons Convention and it’s an area that we in the United States think deserves an increased level of attention,” said Christopher Padilla, assistant commerce secretary for export administration. Member nations are allowed to use toxic chemicals in activities not banned by the treaty.  Article 6 mandates that they provide annual accounting of relevant materials and facilities, and open plants for inspection by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Article 7 sets another seven directives on member states for national implementation of the treaty.  At the top of the list is enactment of legislation and other domestic measures to prevent actions that violate the terms of the treaty banning development, production, possession and stockpiling of chemical agents for weapons purposes. Roughly 40 percent of the 181 CWC states parties have implemented all the treaty provisions.  Nations that conduct 90 percent of the world’s chemical production and trade have met all their requirements, Padilla said in a press conference prior to speaking at the 11th Conference of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention.  “What I will be calling for in my remarks later and what I’ve been meeting with delegations about is an effort to make that number 100 percent in time for the 10th anniversary here of the CWC in 2007,” he said. Padilla said there are roughly 20 chemical-producing treaty nations that have yet to fulfill their obligations.  Most are medium-income developing countries in Southeast Asia and Latin America, he said. The United States would work with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the governments that now provide the greatest amount of technical assistance for treaty members — including Japan, Singapore, Australia and the European Union — to finalize a list of nations to support. This group would then help guide the nations through the legal and administrative steps of meeting their treaty obligations. The OPCW Technical Secretariat and treaty states already offer financial support and expertise to countries struggling to meet their commitments.  They have conducted bilateral visits and organized training workshops and conferences. Padilla displayed two U.S. booklets that provide information on national implementation of CWC measures.  One contains “basically everything a country would need, from draft legislation to how to do a declaration,” he said.  A smaller document, issued yesterday, is designed to help companies prepare for inspections and declarations of chemicals under the treaty. The assistance to be offered in the program is not new, Padilla said.  The difference comes from the planned focus on a specific set of countries. “We should not turn people away, but I think we do need to set some priorities.  In the scarce resources that we and others have, I think we should focus first on those countries that have chemical production,” he said. Padilla said he would like to pursue “industry to industry dialogues,” to allow U.S. chemical firms to tell counterparts in other nations about their experiences with the treaty, hopefully allaying concerns overseas. “We welcome all the support from member states that we can acquire to enhance the verification, to enhance national implementation,” said OPCW spokesman Peter Kaiser.  “It’s often a complex, difficult task.  There is always a need for technical support.” Back to top

U.S. Ready to Move on European Missile Interceptors The U.S. Missile Defense Agency has largely completed its plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe, agency head Lt. Gen. Trey Obering said Tuesday.  All that remains are final negotiations with the future host countries, widely reported to be Poland and the Czech Republic (see GSN, Oct. 16). “We have done all the work that we believe we need to do with respect to the site surveys, technical analyses and everything else,” Obering said at a National Defense Industrial Association breakfast (see GSN, July 26).  “We’ve got the partners identified, we’ve got the decision packages forwarded, and we’re just waiting now for the results of the decision as to be able to enter into negotiations with the host nation to put the interceptor field as well as the midcourse radar in the European area.” The U.S. Congress approved $32.8 million for the European deployment next year, $24 million less than the agency requested, Inside the Pentagon reported. The reduction would not seriously affect U.S., plans, Obering said, and Pentagon documents have indicated that plans to deploy up to 10 interceptors at a European base by 2011 remain unchanged, according to the newsletter (Liang/Duffy, Inside the Pentagon, Dec. 7). Back to top       Russia, Ukraine Agree to Radar Upgrade Russia and Ukraine have agreed to modernize two early warning radars that serve to alert Russia to missile attacks, Tass reported today (see GSN, Feb. 16). The radars at Mukachevo and Sevastopol were once on the periphery of the Soviet Union but are now in Ukraine.  Russia operates them by the terms of lease with Kiev, according to Tass. The radar upgrade could cost $4 million, according to some experts (Tass, Dec. 7). 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.