British Lawmaker Interviewed “Dr. Germ” Before War

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the United Kingdom asked a lawmaker from the Labor Party to interview Iraqi biological weapons scientist Rihab Taha, also known as “Dr. Germ,” the London Times reported today.

Taha, who is believed to have made weapons including anthrax and aflatoxin under the Hussein regime, was captured in late 2003 but freed last December without being charged (see GSN, Dec. 22, 2005). Ian Gibson, while a senior biological scientist at the University of East Anglia, taught her in the early 1980s. 

The British government asked Gibson to meet with Taha in early 2003, and specifically to ask her if she was working on WMD programs, following newspaper reports that he had known her.

“I was interested and flattered, too,” Gibson said. “I wanted to know if I could find anything out. I was also interested in how she felt.  It was never made absolutely clear who I was talking to. It was a government department — one of the ‘M’s (MI5 or MI6).”

Gibson was not told of his destination when he left to meet Taha.

“It was not a conventional flight. We might have been going to Baghdad or Brussels, as far as I knew,” he said.

British officials met him after the flight and taken to an abandoned building close to the airport. “I walked in and there was Rihab, wearing a dress, in an empty room save for a couple of chairs and a table,” he said. “We smiled at each other, exchanged pleasantries. I asked her how she was and what she had been doing. I eventually asked her the question that I had been asked to put to her: ‘Are you working on biological warfare?’ She said, ‘No, we have stopped all that and stopped it for some time,’” he said.

He was then taken back to the airport and questioned by British agents.

“I just said to [the agents] that I had got nothing from that, but I imagine that they would think that she would say that anyway,” Gibson said.

“Thinking back, we were not going to get any answer that could be relied on anyway, but I didn’t feel as if I was being lied to,” he said (Rajeev Syal, The Times, March 14).

Back to top

U.S. Intelligence Saw Hussein’s Orders to Destroy Iraqi WMD Stockpiles as Ruse, Analysts Say

U.S. intelligence agencies incorrectly believed that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s orders to his military in 2002 to destroy WMD stockpiles were a ruse, according to three U.S. defense analysts who helped draft a Defense Department report on the issue (see GSN, March 13).

The report says that U.S. intelligence intercepted an internal message between two Iraqi military commanders in 2002. The men discussed removing the words “nerve agents” from “wireless instructions,” but the report says analysts “had no way of knowing that this time the information reflected the regime’s attempt to ensure it was in compliance with U.N. resolutions,” the Washington Post reported today.

U.S. intelligence also learned of orders to the Iraqi military to search “for any chemical agents” in order to “make sure the area is free of chemical containers, and write a report on it,” the analysts wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine. The United States “viewed this information through the prism of a decade of prior deceit” and discounted it, the analysts wrote.

Ali Hassan al-Majeed, a former Iraqi military commander on trial for allegedly using chemical weapons against Kurds, told U.S. interrogators that prior to the U.S.-led invasion of the country Hussein told his top commanders that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. However, Hussein “flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack,” according to the report.

By late 2002, Hussein finally decided to publicly acknowledge that he had given up his WMD programs, the Post reported.

Hussein “was insistent that Iraq would give full access to U.N. inspectors ‘in order not to give President [George W.] Bush any excuses to start a war,’” says the Pentagon report. “But after years of purposeful obfuscation, it was difficult to convince anyone that Iraq was not once again being economical with the truth” (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, March 14).

Back to top

India Implements Export Controls in WMD Law

India yesterday issued guidelines for the implementation of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, DNA India reported (see GSN, May 16).

India’s parliament passed the act in 2005.

“This is nothing new. It is just the enforcement of the act which was passed in parliament. This is an omnibus act, involving several ministries of the government and had to be worked out in close coordination with the various agencies involved in export control,” said a senior official.

India is hoping to put the export controls contained in the legislation in place before the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of nations that sets guidelines for exporting nuclear technology, considers whether to lift restrictions on the import and export of nuclear materials to and from the country. 

The law requires tight controls on exports of nuclear-related materials, which could be sent only if the receiving country has International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. India’s Atomic Energy Department would consider each export request individually, and the receiving country must agree to on-site inspections by Indian officials, according to DNA.

Prohibited is the export of “prescribed” materials “when there is an unacceptable risk of their diversion to the development of a nuclear device.”

Items allowed for export include nuclear reactors, fuel fabrication and reprocessing plants, uranium and plutonium conversion facilities, uranium enrichment facilities, tritium recovery plants and heavy-water production plants. India has pledged to show restraint in the transfer of any WMD-related technology, according to DNA (Seema Guha, DNA India, March 14).

Back to top

U.N. Security Council Powers at Impasse on Iran

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council continue to debate the best way to persuade Iran to ease international suspicions over its nuclear activities, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, March 13).

Ambassadors from the five powers met yesterday morning for the third time to discuss a council statement, AP reported.

France and the United Kingdom, with support from the United States, are proposing a statement calling on Iran to end its uranium enrichment activities permanently. Russia and China, however, continue to resist such strong language.

“I think that we want a constructive statement,” said China’s ambassador to the United Nations, Wang Guangya. “I think [the Western powers] want to be too tough” (Nick Wadhams, Associated Press I/Yahoo!News, March 14).

A Security Council diplomat said representatives from all council members are scheduled to meet this afternoon at the French mission to the United Nations, the Washington Post reported (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, March 14).

The United Kingdom may try to force a vote on a resolution calling for Iran to freeze uranium enrichment, the Times of London reported today.

British officials planned to turn to the full 15-member Security Council after the permanent members failed to agree on a resolution, the London Times reported.

The draft resolution by Paris and London calls for a deadline as short as 14 days for Iran to suspend enrichment, according to the Times.

“We are trying to hold the [permanent members] together first, but reality is reality and time is an important factor,” said U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.

The five powers also disagree as to whether the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency should report on Iran’s compliance to the Security Council or to the agency’s governing board after the deadline passes, according to the Times (Bone/Baldwin, The Times, March 14).

Washington anticipates that the Security Council will take up the issue this week, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday.

“Our focus is on, as a first step, looking at a strong presidential statement, spelling out very clearly what the regime in Iran needs to do and what the international community expects the regime to do,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

“We are all working together to move forward in a diplomatic way to resolve the matter,” he said.

The State Department said the statement would be a “starting point” for an enrichment freeze by Iran.

“As an initial starting point we would like to see a presidential statement that will reaffirm the decision made by the IAEA and call on Iran to make the necessary steps,” said department spokesman Tom Casey (Agence France-Presse I, March 13).

Meanwhile, U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday renewed sanctions prohibiting U.S. entities from making oil deals with Iran for one year, AFP reported.

The decision maintains sanctions enacted by President Bill Clinton in 1995, according to AFP (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, March 13).

Iran announced today that it has resumed nuclear negotiations with Russia.

“The Iranian delegation headed by Ali Hosseini-Tash held a first round of negotiations with the Russians yesterday,” Supreme National Security Council spokesman Hossein Entezami said today.

“Within the framework of the IAEA and the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty], we will pursue our consultations and talks with different countries,” he said (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, March 14).

State Department spokesman Casey expressed skepticism that Iran would make a good-faith effort in the talks.

“If they (Iranians) want to return to the negotiating table and work at a real deal with the Russians without the delaying tactics we have seen, it would be wonderful,” he said. “But we have no indication that Iran is prepared to accept the Russian proposal” (AFP I, March 13).

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would now bow to pressure from the Security Council, AP reported today.

“Rest assured that the technology to produce nuclear fuel today is in the hands of the youth of this land and no power can take it back from us,” Ahmadinejad said during a speech in northern Iran.

“Today, unfortunately, [a] few big powers want, through coercion and bullying, [to] prevent progress of nations. ... They are really angry that this great nation (Iran) is gaining access to the peaks of progress and development,” he said (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, March 14).

Iran for the first time appear to believe that talks with Washington could be in its best interest, the Los Angeles Times reported today.

Mehdi Karroubi, a former Iranian parliament speaker, said Tehran’s past decisions to curtail relations with Washington were not meant to last forever.

“The break in relations is not forever and not for eternity,” he said. “We only need a pioneer, someone to take the first step.”

Iran’s growing influence in Iraq and Afghanistan would allow it to engage the United States on a more equal footing, said Amir Mohebian, editor of the hard-line newspaper Resalat.

“Both sides have demands,” he said. “For a fundamental resolution of the problem, the U.S. should engage, and other issues should be on the table.”

One option for engagement would be a forum based on six-nation nuclear talks with North Korea, third-party diplomats have said.

“Then the U.S. can say it’s multilateral, but when they are all in the room, there will be an opportunity to talk,” one diplomat said.

However, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that channels exist for only limited bilateral talks. Rice mentioned the U.S. envoys to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York.

“I think that that is the appropriate level of engagement given our deep concerns about Iranian policy on the nuclear issue, on the terrorism issue and indeed in terms of the Iranian regime's treatment of its own people,” she said.

U.N. envoy Bolton was more dismissive.

“I don’t think we have anything to say to the Iranians,” he said yesterday (Daniszewski/Rubin, Los Angeles Times, March 14).

Back to top

Congress Might Put Conditions on Indian-U.S. Nuclear Technology Sharing Agreement

A U.S. lawmaker said yesterday that Congress might put conditions on the nuclear technology sharing agreement between India and the United States before approving it, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 13).

“This is a complex agreement with profound implications for U.S. and global interests. Congress will need to take a close look at its many provisions in order to come to an informed decision,” said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.).

Hyde discussed the deal last week with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, according to AFP.

The White House is pushing for India to be exempted from the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, which bars sales of nuclear technology to countries that are not party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 

India, which has refused to sign the treaty, has developed nuclear arms independently.

Hyde, along with Representative Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), has agreed to introduce the legislation necessary to implement the bill. Hyde indicated that there might be unspecified conditions that need to be met if it is to be approved.

Hearings on the matter are expected later this month, according to a statement issued by Lantos and Hyde.

“The issues involved are complicated and technical, and it will take some time for Congress to absorb them as we move the agreement to fruition,” Lantos said.

“I view the new strategic alliance between the world’s oldest and largest democracies as a breakthrough, but all members of Congress will undoubtedly wish to see the details of the agreement before deciding how to vote,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 14).

Meanwhile, a State Department official said Russia intends to sell nuclear fuel to India for its Tarapur reactor, the Associated Press reported.

Critics warn that the move could indicate a trend toward selling nuclear-related materials outside the boundaries of international treaties.

“This is the first salvo," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “China could be next in trying to propose a similar loophole for Pakistan.”

The State Department official said the Russia sale had nothing to do with the agreement between the United States and India. The official said India’s supply of nuclear fuel was limited and needs to be increased to provide power.

“A serious need exists independent of the U.S.-India arrangement,” the official said.

The official said Moscow indicated that it would ship 60 metric tons of fuel to India. Russia believes the sale is acceptable under Nuclear Suppliers Group regulations.

Russia drew sharp criticism from the United States and the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2001 for shipping 58 metric tons of fuel to India.

The group’s guidelines allow exports to countries without International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards only if the shipment is needed to prevent or correct “a radiological hazard to public health and safety which cannot reasonably be met by other means.”

The State Department official called Russia’s justification of the sale — that it is “safety related” — “at best arguable.”

The United State hoped that by entering into the sharing agreement, it would become the major nuclear trading partner to India, said Jon Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

“To assume that the United States would be the only country competing for a potentially lucrative cut of the Indian budget is naive. If the United States is going to put business before nonproliferation priorities, then other countries are going to do the same,” he said (Foster Klug, Associated Press/Express India, March 14).

Back to top

U.S. Energy Secretary Says Nuclear Power Not Discussed During Meeting in Pakistan

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said he did not discuss nuclear energy during talks yesterday with Pakistani officials, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 6).

“We have developed a very wide-ranging and effective sort of dialogue with Pakistan but it does not include nuclear energy and I did not discuss that during this visit,” Bodman said.

“There were expressions made by various members of the government about their desire to talk about nuclear energy, but it was not the subject that I was ... or am prepared to deal with,” he added.

However, Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said civilian nuclear cooperation did come up in the meeting.

“This (civilian nuclear technology) is something that we have been discussing about and yes it was discussed and we will continue to take this issue up,” she said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 13).

Back to top

U.S. Nuclear Bomb Designer Deems Reliable Replacement Warhead Program Unnecessary

One of the designers of the first U.S. hydrogen bomb said Friday that he believes the Reliable Replacement Warhead program is not necessary, the Albuquerque Journal reported (see GSN, March 8).

Physicist Richard Garwin has advised the federal government on nuclear policy for the past five decades and remains a strong advocate for the expansion of nuclear power, according to the Journal. He said the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile can best be maintained by manufacturing identical replacement weapons instead of designing a new generation of weapons.

Teams at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories are completing independent work on designs for a new nuclear warhead that could be built by 2012. Both teams are expected to present their designs to a federal selection panel by August, the Journal reported. National Nuclear Security Administration chief Linton Brooks earlier this month revealed a plan to manufacture plutonium parts for the new warhead at Los Alamos before building a new plutonium pit factory.

Garwin said implementation of a new design would create pressure to test the new weapon — a move that could lead to renewed testing by other nations observing a test ban, especially Russia and China.

He added that aging weapons posed no greater safety risk from accidental detonation.

“There’s no question of safety,” he said. “Safety does not erode” (John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal, March 13).

Back to top

Australia, China Expect to Agree on Uranium Sales

Australia is expected to soon sign an agreement that would allow sales of uranium for energy purposes to China, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Jan. 18).

“The agreement is nearing finalization and is expected to be signed in the near future,” said an Australian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman.

The latest talks took place in early March in Beijing and “proceeded in a positive and constructive atmosphere and substantial progress was made,” she said.

“During the consultations both sides reiterated their support for the international nonproliferation efforts and their commitment to cooperate in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy while fulfilling their respective international obligations,” the spokeswoman added (Agence France-Presse/Zee News, March 14).

Back to top

Chinese Chemical Weapons Victims to Get Checkup

Chinese citizens harmed by leaking Japanese chemical weapons are expected to receive medical checkups on Sunday, the Xinhua News Agency reported (see GSN, Dec. 5, 2005).

More than 50 citizens are expected to be treated. Among those are victims of an August 2003 accident in Qiqihar and two children poisoned by a leaking weapon in the Jilin Province, according to Chinese lawyer Luo Lijuan.

Japanese doctors are expected to travel to China to take part in the examinations. Findings could be used as evidence in future lawsuits, according to Xinhua.

The checkups are expected to explore the skin, the respiratory system and cell biology, according to Chinese doctor Li Xiaojun (Xinhua News Agency/CRIEnglish.com, March 13).

Back to top