New Anthrax Vaccine Delayed

The company working on the next-generation anthrax vaccine has reported a major setback that will delay delivery of the drug in the United States by at least a year, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Nov. 2, 2005).

VaxGen Inc. of California, which was awarded a $1 billion vaccine contract two years ago under Project Bioshield, said it has identified the problem and is working on a solution. The company said it will default on the contract to deliver 25 million doses of the vaccine by November unless the government grants an extension.

The delay confirms fears on Capitol Hill that the small firm could not meet the deadline to produce 75 million doses of the vaccine, the Post reported.

Health and Human Services Department officials would not comment on details of the VaxGen contract, but said that despite setbacks, defenses against anthrax are being put in place. They noted that there are enough antibiotics in the U.S. stockpile to treat 40 million people.

“I think overall we are certainly making progress in our anthrax preparedness program,” said Gerald Parker, chief deputy for the department’s emergency preparedness office.

To compensate for the delay, the United State purchased 5 million doses of an older vaccine. This would be enough to inoculate fewer than 2 million people, and more is expected to be ordered, according to the Post.

The problems with the VaxGen contract are representative of difficulties with Bioshield, the Bush administration’s bioterrorism defense program. Many of the countermeasures promised by the White House when Congress created Bioshield will not be ready for some time. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said yesterday that “more can and must be done to aggressively and efficiently implement Project Bioshield” and that changes to the office that runs the program are forthcoming.

The $5.6 billion in federal money set aside for the program has drawn the interest of some biotechnology companies. However, analysts said that the research needed to produce the new bioterrorism countermeasures is moving slowly. Also, larger drug companies have ignored the program, seeing little upside of developing a risky product.

Smaller, less established firms have filled the gap. Health and Human Services, however, cannot provide large amounts of money to the companies before the product is delivered. Only 10 percent of the contract value can be delivered before the product is complete, a small amount that many times does not cover expenses to get production rolling, according to the Post.

Companies can receive research subsidies early on and can look forward to large government paychecks once the product is complete. However, they must pay for the middle stages of product development. Biotechnology companies call this gap the “Valley of Death” and it is not yet known if this period can be crossed and a Bioshield contract delivered, the Post reported.

Companies have aired their grievances to lawmakers, complaining that the government has not issued contracts quickly and has done a bad job of outlining project requirements.

“There should be a sense of expediency and urgency to get these products developed and stockpiled,” said Richard Hollis, head of Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals Inc. The company has spent $70 million on developing a radiation countermeasure, only to see its stock price drop on the news that the government has delayed purchase of the drug.

Department spokesman William Hall said the government is aware of the companies’ complaints and is trying to move quickly. However, terrorist threats must be analyzed and needed countermeasures must be carefully chosen.

Funding for Bioshield projects “is not a bottomless pit,” Hall said.

VaxGen is an example of how Bioshield is supposed to work. The small company was expected to produce enough vaccine to inoculate the entire populations of New York and Washington.

The product was supposed to be fully delivered by next year, but now will not be ready until 2008 or 2009, nearly a decade after the anthrax attacks of 2001.

Shaky finances bring VaxGen’s ability to survive as a company long enough to deliver the vaccine into doubt, the Post reported.

Problems with the strength of VaxGen’s vaccine are behind the delay. Testing found that the drug remained potent only for a few months, making it useless as the treatment could sit in the national stockpile for years. 

VaxGen researchers attempted to solve this problem by adding an additional ingredient, but the effectiveness of that fix is not yet known. 

Health and Human Services would not comment on the problems but said a stable product was expected from VaxGen (Justin Gillis, Washington Post, March 17).

Back to top

State Official Asks for Bioterror Readiness Funds

North Carolina’s top public health official told U.S. lawmakers yesterday that states continue to need federal assistance to prepare for bioterrorism-related health crises, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 9).

“It's about early detection and rapid response. The threats are not going away,” Leah Devlin, North Carolina Public Health Division director and president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, told a Senate committee.

Devlin made her comments at a hearing on the renewal of the $4.3 billion Bioterrorism Act of 2002. Some state leaders fear that federal funding will decrease as the 2001 terrorist attacks recede further into the past, according to AP.

For example, North Carolina received $24.6 million in 2003 and $17 million last year. Another cut of 15 percent is expected in 2006.

This money is used for terrorism preparedness as well as preparation for naturally occurring diseases, AP reported.

“Now is not the time to be backing up,” Devlin said.

“We use this work every day in North Carolina,” she added. “All of these investments are not one-time. They require a sustained commitment” (Associated Press/Charlotte Observer, March 17).

Back to top

White House Official Defends Preventive War Policy

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A top White House national security official yesterday said the Bush administration’s preventive war policy is justifiable, despite post-invasion findings that Iraq was not planning to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, March 17).

National security adviser Stephen Hadley said the Bush administration has learned since the March 2003 invasion that better intelligence is needed for appropriately conducting a war to prevent a country from acquiring capabilities the White House believes could be used against the United States.

“We learned a lot of things. … We’ve learned that we need better intelligence. It is difficult.  These kinds of regimes are difficult intelligence targets, but obviously, we didn’t have the intelligence we needed in that particular instance,” he said at an event hosted by the U.S. Institute for Peace.  

Hadley was defending the administration’s reiteration of the policy in its updated National Security Strategy of the United States document, released yesterday.

Prior to the war, senior Bush administration officials alleged Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda, was developing nuclear and other catastrophic weapons, and was intent on using such weapons for blackmail or to attack the United States.

The U.S. intelligence community at the time had unanimously concluded Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and programs — and some agencies believed there was evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

However, the community also unanimously and repeatedly told the administration that Iraq was not likely to use such weapons against the United States or share them with terrorists and was not an imminent threat, the National Journal reported this month (see GSN, March 9).

After the invasion, a CIA-led investigation concluded Iraq had abandoned its WMD programs years earlier and had no intention of attacking the United States with such weapons through terrorist surrogates or otherwise (see GSN, Jan. 25, 2005).

While the U.S. intelligence community was largely mistaken about the existence of Iraqi weapons and programs, it was not responsible for the decision to go to war, according to P.J. Crowley, national defense and homeland security director at the Center for American Progress.

“There was nothing in the intelligence that justified the Bush administration’s rush to war,” he said.

The first version of the National Security Strategy, released six months prior to the war, in September 2002, said the United States could legitimately conduct a preventive war, that is, attack a country on suspicion it might pose a future WMD threat. 

It argued that governments perceiving a potential WMD threat should not be limited to the internationally accepted custom of pre-emption, which holds that a country must have evidence of an imminent threat to attack in self-defense.

“We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries,” it said.

The updated document restates that view, and Hadley defended it.

“I think the basic proposition … remains that we have seen the lethality of terrorist groups and their state sponsors without access to weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot turn away from the risk that those groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction and the threat that that could pose to the United States of America,” he said.

Critics of the preventive war policy say it eliminates a meaningful standard of justification for one country to attack another, opening the door to legitimized international aggression.

“Imagine if every country arrogated to itself the right to attack a state or group that had the capability to inflict harm in the future. Adopting such behavior establishes a new standard of international behavior that will increase the chance of conflict in global hot spots and haunt the United States in the long term,” wrote Center for American Progress staffers Lawrence Korb and Robert Boorstin, in a report last year intended to provide an alternative national security strategy.

Pre-emptive action should still be allowed, Korb and Boorstin wrote. “Any country that has intelligence that it is about to be attacked has the right under the international legal doctrine of anticipatory self-defense to strike first or launch a pre-emptive attack.”

“If there is no evidence an attack is imminent, however, no country has the right to launch an attack or wage a preventive war on another sovereign country,” they added.

Like Hadley, the most recent National Security Strategy document apparently attempts to address such criticisms. It calls preventive war a form of pre-emption, only lacking details about when and where an attack might occur.

“If necessary … under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack,” it says.

The document also says “we must learn” from the Iraq war that U.S. intelligence “must improve,” and it assures, “We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.”

Crowley said the administration’s continued assertion of a preventive war justification “demonstrates that they have learned very little from the experience of the last three years.”

“The critical failures here were the preconceptions that led to their decision to invade,” he said.

The administration held “the preconception, the misconception that [former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein] posed a proliferation risk in terms of his willingness to potentially give nuclear know-how to a terrorist organization.”

Hadley, like the document, suggested that the Iraq invasion has been beneficial for telegraphing to other countries that the United States might attack if it suspects they are developing unconventional weapons.

“In some sense, those countries that pursue weapons of mass destruction in secret also learned an important lesson: that there are risks of that kind of behavior and that kind of activity,” he said.

Hadley denied the administration was continuing to enunciate the policy with Iran in mind.

It is “completely wrong to say that our preservation of the doctrine of pre-emption is to preserve it with Iran as the principal case. That is not true,” he said.

“It is a generalized doctrine to be used in cases that are appropriate,” he said.

Back to top

Starbucks to Install Sensors on Coffee Shipments

Starbucks Corp. plans to place sensors on its coffee bean cargo containers to detect possible tampering during transit, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, March 13).

The coffee giant participated in a three-year U.S. Homeland Security Department study called “Operation Safe Commerce,” which concluded that cargo containers were vulnerable to tampering during shipment. Terrorists could smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States inside such shipments, officials found.

The study, in part, tracked bean shipments from the Palin Dry Mill in Guatemala to the Starbucks Green Bean plant in Kent, Wash., and discovered significant security lapses, according to AP.

Starbucks announced Wednesday that it would install sensors on containers of green coffee beans from Guatemala to detect whether containers are opened during transit.

“We are taking a proactive approach in securing our supply chain to ensure the safety of our customers, partners, employees, communities and countries of origins,” said Dorothy Kim, executive vice president of Starbucks’ supply chain operations (Ted Bridis, Associated Press/Chicago Tribune, March 16).

Back to top

U.N. to Send Strong Signal on Iran, U.S. Says

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said yesterday that the U.N. Security Council is prepared to send a “strong and clear signal” to Iran over its controversial nuclear work, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 16).

After meeting informally yesterday, the 15 Security Council members were to meet today for their first formal session on Iran. Senior officials from the council’s five permanent members plus Germany are scheduled convene Monday.

France and the United Kingdom plan to craft a draft text on Iran and present it to the council at today’s meeting, diplomats said.

“I would describe today’s meetings as the best we’ve had so far,” Bolton said after the meeting yesterday. “The mood of the discussion is certainly in the direction of a strong and clear signal to Iran on the part of the Security Council.”

Bolton said the top diplomats would talk Monday about what steps to take after the first council action.

Diplomats will try to formulate a “clear strategy.” Russian Deputy U.N. Ambassador Konstantin Dolgov told AP. 

Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya emphasized that disagreements persist.

“I think the differences are still there,” he said. “There are some common points but there are also some differences” (Nick Wadhams, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, March 17).

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday criticized the push for quick Security Council action over the crisis, the Financial Times reported.

A Western plan to call for the International Atomic Energy Agency to report on Tehran’s compliance with its nuclear demands within 14 days was “not very feasible,” Lavrov told the Times.

Lavrov warned against hastily transferring complete management of the issue from the agency to the council, saying that such an approach would create a “highly politicized” environment.

“We would not like to see the situation where the value of the professional agencies would be underestimated … at the expense of us getting to the bottom of the facts,” he said.

“I don’t approve of what the Iranian side is doing. The quite arrogant statements don’t help create the necessary business-like atmosphere for the IAEA to finalize its work,” Lavrov added (Wagstyl/Buckley, Financial Times, March 17).

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that discussions with Tehran on stabilizing Iraq could prove useful, AP reported.

“This isn’t a negotiation of some kind,” Rice said. “If we found it useful to exchange information we’ll talk, and if we do it will be about Iraq.”

Iran yesterday unexpectedly announced that it was open to direct talks with the United States over Iraq, according to AP (Anne Gearan, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, March 17).

However, Washington said there would be no bilateral nuclear talks, AFP reported yesterday.

“The nuclear issue is being discussed at the United Nations among diplomats of the Security Council,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. “That’s a separate issue” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 16).

Back to top

Congress Gets Legislation for Indian Nuclear Deal

The chairmen of the U.S. Senate and House Foreign Relations committees yesterday submitted legislation that would amend U.S. law to allow the Bush administration’s planned nuclear sharing agreement with India, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Mach 16).

White House officials said they expect long negotiations with Congress over the deal, but they want lawmakers to begin work.

“This is round one of a 15-round match,” said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns. 

The legislation submitted yesterday would exempt India from components of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act that place restrictions on trade done with countries that are not signatories to nuclear treaties. India has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which makes it currently ineligible to receive U.S. nuclear technology (Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, March 17).

Lawmakers have told White House officials that they want to revise the agreement, the New York Times reported today.

Administration officials said changes would torpedo the deal.

“This is a complex agreement, and if we were to reopen it, we would never be able to reassemble it again,” Burns said.

The chairmen who introduced the legislation did so as a favor to the president rather than as a clear sign of support for the deal, the Times reported. House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) in a press release placed the words “at the request” of the White House in capital letters.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) was noncommittal, saying that he anticipated Congress “fulfilling our constitutional role in this important matter” (Joel Brinkley, New York Times, March 17).

Meanwhile, Pakistan said the agreement would lead to the collapse of international nonproliferation treaties, the Financial Times reported.

“The whole Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty will unravel. It’s only a matter of time before other countries will act in the same way,” Khurshid Kasuri, Pakistan’s foreign minister, said yesterday.

“Nuclear weapons are the currency of power and many countries would like to use it. Once this goes through the NPT will be finished. It’s not just Iran and North Korea. Brazil, Argentina and Pakistan will all think differently,” he added (Johnson/Bokhari, Financial Times, March 16).

Back to top

U.S. Still Opposes Russian Uranium Sale to India

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns yesterday reiterated U.S. opposition to Russia’s plans to sell nuclear fuel to India, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 16).

Burns said any deal should wait until the Nuclear Suppliers Group and U.S. Congress ratify the U.S.-Indian nuclear technology sharing agreement.

“India needs energy ... so one understands that,” Burns said. “We think the proper sequencing would be that if India needs nuclear fuel for its reactors in Tarapur, that the proper way to do this would be to have the U.S. Congress act, hopefully change our laws, have the NSG act and change NSG practices, and then countries would be free to engage at that point in civil nuclear trade with India.”

“We think that that is the proper sequencing,” he said.

Burns said India and Russia have been made aware of the U.S. position (Agence France-Presse, March 16).

Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister John Howard indicated today that sales of uranium by his country to India were not out of the question if the nuclear deal is approved.

However, Howard said that Canberra’s policy against selling uranium to nations that remain outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was not going to quickly change, AFP reported.

“There isn’t going to be any immediate change in government policy. Obviously, like all policies, you never say never,” he said.

“However, we would send in the next little while a team of officials to India to get some more information regarding that agreement and that group would go on to the United States,” Howard added.

The prime minister said India has a good nonproliferation record since testing a nuclear device in the 1970s.

“But obviously we have a policy and we're not going to automatically change it because of the agreement between the United States and India and despite the fact that India has expressed, as you all know, a great interest in purchasing Australian uranium,” Howard said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 17).

Back to top

Putin to Discuss Iran, North Korea While in China

Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to discuss the Iran and North Korea nuclear crises during a state visit to China next week, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 13).

Assistant Chinese Foreign Minister Li Hui and Russian Ambassador to Beijing Sergei Razov said Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao both believe the issues should be resolved through negotiation (Agence France-Presse, March 16).

Back to top

UC, Bechtel Could Seek Livermore Contract

The public-private team that will operate the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico might also join forces to seek the management contract for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 17).

The University of California alone had operated both facilities since they opened. However, a series of financial, security and safety troubles led the Energy Department to put the management contracts up for bid.

The university last year joined with engineering firm Bechtel Corp. to win the Los Alamos contract (see GSN, Dec. 22, 2005). University officials said Wednesday that the two entities would team up again if the university decides to compete for the Livermore contract.

While university administrators have not yet made a decision, they have told staff to prepare for a bid, AP reported.

The university has also appointed a new interim director for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, AP reported.

George Miller has been an associate director of the facility since 1985 and became associate director at large in June (Michelle Locke, Associated Press/Monterey County Herald, March 16).

Miller immediately replaces Michael Anastasio, who has been chosen to manage Los Alamos, the San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday.

Miller said Building 332, Livermore’s plutonium facility, is “something on the order of 50 percent” back to full operation. It was shut down last year for a security reassessment and possible improvements, according to the Chronicle.

Miller also confirmed that Gatling machine guns are now being installed to protect the laboratory (Keay Davidson, San Francisco Chronicle, March 16).

Back to top