Bush Administration Continued Claims on Mobile Iraqi Bioweapons Labs After Receiving Contrary Evidence

Two trailers proclaimed by the Bush administration for months after the invasion of Iraq to be mobile biological weapons laboratories were believed even at the time by U.S. intelligence to have nothing to do with biological weapons, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Nov. 29, 2005).

On May 29, 2003, Bush said, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”

However, U.S. intelligence officials had already received evidence to the contrary, according to the Post. Leaders of a secret Pentagon-sponsored fact-finding mission had concluded that the trailers were not involved with biological weapons and transmitted their findings in a report on May 27, 2003.

The report and a longer follow-up issued three weeks later were stamped “secret” and shelved. White House and intelligence officials continued for nearly a year afterward to argue that the trailers were involved in biological weapons production.

“There was no connection to anything biological,” said one expert who examined the trailers.

“Within the first four hours it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs,” said another team member.

A Defense Intelligence Agency spokesman said the findings were not covered up, but rather included in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which said in a final September 2004 report that the trailers were “impractical” for weapons production and were “almost certainly intended” as hydrogen-manufacturing laboratories for weather balloons.

Intelligence analysts said the initial team was one of several that analyzed the trailers in the months after the March 2003 invasion. They said two teams of military experts believed they were intended to produce weapons.

“It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides,” said one former senior official.

On May 28, 2003, the CIA said in its first formal assessment of the trailers that U.S. officials were “confident” they were involved in “mobile biological weapons production.” Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in June declared that the “confidence level is increasing” on that assessment. In September, Vice President Dick Cheney called the trailers “mobile biological facilities” possibly used to produce anthrax or smallpox, the Post reported.

Some team members complained that their report was never publicly acknowledged.

“I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated,” one member said. “It never happened.  And I just had to live with it” (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, April 12).

Back to top

Reporters Questioned in Anthrax Lawsuit

Lawyers for Steven Hatfill, the former U.S. Army scientist who is suing the Justice Department after being publicly identified as a “person of interest” in the 2001 anthrax attacks, have questioned at least two reporters about their sources, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, March 28).

At least two more reporters have received subpoenas to answer questions in connection with the lawsuit, according to the Post.

Kevin Baine, a lawyer representing Michael Isikoff of Newsweek and Brian Ross of ABC, said the reporters in depositions cited First Amendment and federal common law privilege that allows reporters to keep sources private.

A Post lawyer said subpoenaed reporter Allan Lengel would take a similar stand.

“Allan will not name any of his confidential sources,” said lawyer Eric Lieberman.

Newsweek Washington bureau chief Dan Klaidman has also been subpoenaed, but no date has been set for questioning, Baine said. Jim Stewart of CBS is also expected to be called for questioning (Martin Weil, Washington Post, April 12).

Back to top

Prosecutor Backs Away from Claim on Iraq Intel Leak

The special prosecutor investigating the leak of the identity of a CIA operative yesterday made a correction to a court filing used in recent criticisms of White House use of intelligence on Iraq, the New York Sun reported (see GSN, April 11).

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in a letter to Judge Reggie Walton that he made a mistake in this sentence:   “Defendant [Lewis Libby, former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney] understood that he was to tell [former New York Times reporter Judith Miller], among other things, that a key judgment of the [National Intelligence Estimate] held that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure’ uranium.”

The 2002 document does not include the uranium intelligence in its key judgments.

Fitzgerald said the sentence should have read: “Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure’ uranium.”

The correction did not undermine the revelation that Libby told a grand jury that Cheney said he asked for President George W. Bush’s approval to leak information and that the intelligence was released without going through typical declassification processes, according to the Sun. 

However, the revisions by Fitzgerald do undercut claims that the president and vice president lied about the report’s conclusions. The New York Times used the fact that the leak about Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium was considered a “key judgment” to argue that the leak was misleading, the Sun reported (Josh Gerstein, New York Sun, April 12).

Back to top

Concerns Raised Over Growing Intel Bureaucracy

Some U.S. lawmakers are concerned that the office of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte is simply increasing the federal bureaucracy rather than meeting its purpose of coordinating intelligence-gathering efforts, USA Today reported today (see GSN, Feb. 28).

Negroponte’s office is “not adding any value” by making the intelligence bureaucracy larger, said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). 

“They're lengthening the time to make things happen. ... We want them to be lean and mean,” he said.

The agency was created in 2004 to centralize control of U.S. intelligence collection operations. In March, a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the Intelligence Committee asked for the agency’s budget to be frozen until concerns are addressed.

Once a bureaucracy is created, “It’s awfully hard to get rid of,” Hoekstra said.

Negroponte’s deputy, Gen. Michael Hayden, said the agency has not exceeded the congressional limit of 500 new positions. He said that about 400 intelligence positions have moved from other agencies and now fall under Negroponte’s control. About 400 staffers focused on nuclear proliferation and terrorism are also part of the new agency.

Improvements are being made, said John Scott Redd, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who reports to Negroponte. He said last week that a list of 200,000 known terrorists has been created in a classified database.

Hoekstra did praise Negroponte for avoiding turf wars with the Pentagon and improving interagency communications.

Other worries about the U.S intelligence community have been raised. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said earlier this year that the Hamas victory in January’s Palestinian elections was a surprise. “Nobody saw it coming,” she said.

Representative Jane Harman (D-Calif.) called this “a stunning failure.”

Harman also said that evidence of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons efforts was not convincing and “not where it needs to be.”

John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org said that the Pentagon still dominates intelligence decision making despite congressional efforts to bolster civilian control. He said the Pentagon is still dominant because of demands by field commanders for intelligence, as well as the greater funding, people and power within the Defense Department.

Pike said Negroponte must have a staff large enough to have a say in the Pentagon-funded National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office. “You have no influence over a meeting that you didn't attend,” he said.

Navy Cmdr. Gregory Hicks said Negroponte’s office and Pentagon officials are “working side by side on a daily basis on intelligence issues” (John Diamond, USA Today, April 12).

Back to top

Trial Begins in Tennessee Sarin Threat Case

The trial of a white supremacist charged with seeking sarin nerve agent and heavy explosives to use against a federal or state courthouse has begun in Tennessee, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Nov. 8, 2004).

“I ain’t gonna quit trying. I want one so damn bad I can’t stand it,” Demetrius “Van” Crocker said on a secretly recorded audiotape played in the courtroom yesterday. Crocker was telling an undercover FBI agent about his desire to obtain and detonate a nuclear device in Washington, D.C.

An FBI agent posing as an employee at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas in 2004 gave Crocker a small quantity of C-4 explosive and a canister filled with fake sarin for $500, AP reported.

“Are you gonna do something or not?” the agent, Steven Burroughs, asked Crocker.

“I’d like to wait two or three years down the road,” Crocker replied. “I’m not just a cold-hearted murderer. I’m in it for a purpose.”

Crocker also told Burroughs about ideas for preparing poisoned marijuana or using an ultralight airplane to disperse mustard gas and kill black people.

He later told the agent that, “I’m not any al-Qaeda and I’m not angry but I’m a Southerner.”

Defense attorney Randy Alden in court described his client as “a simple man, below average intelligence, a go-along get-along guy” (Associated Press, April 12).

Back to top

Iran Proclaims Breakthrough in Nuclear Program

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday said his nation had reached a major milestone in its efforts to develop uranium enrichment technology, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, April 11).

“I’m announcing officially that Iran has now joined the countries that have nuclear technology,” Ahmadinejad said. “This is a very historic moment, and it’s because of the Iranian people and their belief. And this is the start of the progress of this country.”

Iranian Atomic Energy Organization chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh said the breakthrough came Monday at the Natanz pilot enrichment plant. He said the facility had successfully produced material containing 3.5 percent of the isotope uranium 235 — sufficient for use in nuclear power plants but far below the 80 percent needed for weapons. Iran had previously enriched uranium to a level of about 2 percent, the Post reported.

“This achievement has paved the way for Iran to start its industrial-scale production and, to enter this stage, we are trying to put in operation a complex of 3,000 centrifuges” by mid-March 2007, Aghazadeh said.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the announcement meant that Iran continued to defy international mandates to suspend enrichment-related activities that Washington believes is connected to a nuclear weapons program.

“This is a regime that needs to be building confidence with the international community,” McClellan said. “Instead, it’s moving in the wrong direction.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran was operating a 164-centrifuge cascade. Agency inspectors, expected in Tehran today, are to verify the latest production of nuclear fuel.

“This means they can operate a larger cascade, but can they do it for a long time? We don’t know,” said a Western official involved in monitoring Iran’s work.

Experts and diplomats, however, said the technical development was significant.

“It is an acceleration of the pace of their technology, which certainly worries us,” said a European diplomat in Tehran. “The bottom line is they completely ignored what the rest of the world tells them to do. So they’ll have to take the consequences, I guess.”

A U.S. diplomat expressed skepticism.

“We don’t yet know if it’s true or not, and getting one little drop doesn’t mean much anyhow,” the diplomat said (Vick/Linzer, Washington Post, April 12).

Iranian Deputy Nuclear Chief Mohammad Saidi told state television today that Iran intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges, the Associated Press reported.

“We will expand uranium enrichment to industrial scale at Natanz,” he said.

He said Iran has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz by late 2006, then expand to 54,000 centrifuges by an undisclosed date (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, April 12).

The United States yesterday warned that Iran’s reported nuclear advance could increase international pressures on the country, Reuters reported.

“If the regime continues to move in the direction that it is currently, then we will be talking about the way forward with the other members of the Security Council and Germany about how to address this going forward,” McClellan said.

The State Department said it could not confirm Iran’s claim.

Robert Einhorn, a former senior U.S. nonproliferation official, told Reuters that Iran’s announcement is “probably a premature declaration of success, perhaps done for political reasons.” The announcement might be followed by a move from Iran to once again freeze enrichment and restart negotiations, he said.

“On the other hand, it might be designed to convey the message that at this point it will do the world no good to conduct military strikes because Iran already has this technology ... and can replicate it,” Einhorn said (Giacomo/Zakaria, Reuters I, April 11).

Russia today joined criticism of Iran’s announcement, Agence France-Presse reported.

“We believe this is a step in the wrong direction,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin. “It runs counter to the resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors and the declarations from representatives of the United Nations Security Council.”

“We hope that Iran correctly understands the concern of the international community and takes practical steps to implement IAEA decisions. These include a call for suspension of all uranium enrichment work, including scientific research,” Kamynin said.

“We are in a very bad situation,” said Viktor Kremenyuk, deputy head of the USA-Canada Institute think tank, referring to Russia’s Iran policy.

“Is this the result of our carelessness or was it intentional? We have made too many mistakes on this issue. Is it not we who have created this problem by supporting a peaceful nuclear program for Iran? If we were so worried, why have we not worked more closely with the West to end Iran’s nuclear program?" he said (Christopher Boian, Agence France-Presse I/Mail & Guardian, April 12).

A European Union spokeswoman today expressed concern over Iran’s announcement, Reuters reported.

“This is regrettable,” said Emma Udwin, a spokeswomen for Benita Ferrero-Waldner, EU commissioner for external relations. “We will continue to seek a diplomatic solution, but such announcements are not helpful” (Reuters II, April 12).

An Iranian opposition figure said Tehran would be able to make nuclear bombs within two or three years, AFP reported yesterday.

“Once they master the technique, then they will only be a screwdriver’s turn away from making fissile material for a bomb,” said Alireza Jafarzadeh.

“Iran has about 5,000 centrifuges ready to be installed in (the) Natanz uranium enrichment facility,” he said.

“The nuclear clock is rapidly ticking and we don’t have much time. Unless the international community acts now, Iran will eventually get a bomb,” he said (Agence France-Presse II/IranMania.com, April 11).

Israel today issued a cautious response to Iran’s announcement.

“The United States has placed this issue at the top of its agenda. I do not recommend that we should be involved,” former Prime Minister Shimon Peres told Israel Radio. “I am sure the United States is aware of the expected danger and the matter is in its hands.”

Israeli chief of staff Dan Halutz told Army Radio that Iran was far from being able to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

“The Iranians are still not there,” he said. “It will take time until they have a nuclear ability and time is there for dialogue to stop the program” (Luke Baker, Reuters III, April 12).

Meanwhile U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed published reports of U.S. planning for military strikes on Iran as “fantasyland.”

“We have I do not know how many various contingency plans in this department,” he said yesterday, according to AFP.

“And the last thing I am going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or do not refresh a plan and why,” he said. “It just is not useful.”

“And I have responded with respect to Iran,” he added. “We are on a diplomatic track.  The president has said exactly what he wants said. And we support the president” (Agence France-Presse III/Yahoo!News, April 11).

Gen. Michael Moseley, head of the U.S. Air Force, said he has not been involved in any internal Defense Department discussions over the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran, AFP reported yesterday.

“I’ve not been in any meeting that is portrayed in the way the articles are written over the weekend,” he said.

“There are always operational planning endeavors ongoing,” he said. “It’s not appropriate to comment on particular military options.”

He added, however, that the Air Force can destroy buried, hardened targets using conventional weapons, depending on how deep they are.

“There are a variety of weapons that can penetrate concrete and steel structures, and there are variety of weapons that can penetrate a mix of concrete and steel and sand and rubble structures,” Moseley said.

“There are potentials I would suppose of things so deep and so hardened that it would be hard to get through with anything,” he said (Agence France-Presse IV/Yahoo!News, April 11).

Analysts warned of the potential cost and unpredictable nature of a conflict that could follow air strikes, AFP reported yesterday.

“You cannot go into it assuming it will stay limited, so very quickly, a limited military operation becomes a relatively unlimited military operation,” said Richard Haas, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

A “furious” Iranian response to such assaults was “highly likely,” according to Kenneth Pollack, an expert at the Brookings Institution.

“We can talk about a surgical strike where all we do is go in with a bunch of airplanes and flatten a few buildings. That’s effectively what Osama bin Laden did on Sept. 11. And look at how we reacted,” Pollack said.

An escalated bombing campaign targeting hundreds of sites would be necessary, said Reuel Gerecht, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.

“I think those who argue that you have to do 100 sites, 200 sites, I actually think they’re being a little intellectually dishonest,” he said. “You’re going to have to be prepared to absorb the Iranian response to that.”

Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, warned that an attack could also strengthen support for Ahmadinejad.

“I believe a military strike would consolidate the hold of the Islamic government, not loosen it. If you want to keep President Ahmadinejad in power for the next five years, launch a strike on an Iranian facility,” he said (Agence France-Presse V/Yahoo!News, April 11).

Back to top

U.S. Acknowledges “Double Standard” on Indian Deal

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States is unapologetically pursuing a “double standard” as it seeks a civil nuclear trade agreement with India, while pressuring Iran and North Korea to abandon their alleged nuclear weapons programs, the top U.S. negotiator on the agreement said last week (see GSN, April 7).

India has never joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and Iran has been a member since 1970, although the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors found Tehran to be in noncompliance with its nuclear safeguards agreement late last year. North Korea was alleged to have a nuclear weapons program before and after it announced withdrawing from the treaty in 2003.

“A lot of our critics will say that’s a double standard. ‘How can you treat India one way and treat other countries another?’ And we say, ‘It is a double standard,’” said Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns in a brief speech Thursday before a gathering of lawmakers, lobbyists and others presumably favoring the deal in the U.S. Capitol.

The approach was valid, he said, because of differences between India’s government and the regimes in Iran and North Korea, because New Delhi is friendly with the United States, and because India has “played by the rules” of nuclear nonproliferation in recent decades, a point disputed by critics. 

“We treat India, a democratic, peaceful friend, differently than we treat Iran and North Korea and we’re very happy to say that. India is inviting the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] in, Iran is pushing the IAEA out. India is playing by the rules.  Iran is not. If that’s a system of double standards, we’re very proud to establish that double standard on behalf of a democratic friend,” Burns said.

The potential agreement — which because of India’s nuclear weapons program requires a relaxation of export control restrictions by an undecided U.S. Congress and unanimous support for an Indian exception to the export rules of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group — would strengthen the nonproliferation system, he said.

“Let’s consider where we are right now in 2006. We have an anomalous situation.  We have an NPT regime where cheaters and violators Iran and North Korea are inside the system. And we have a great friend of the United States, democratic India, which has played by the rules for 30 years, has not proliferated its nuclear technology, and is outside the system,” he said.

“And so, what we did is sat back and said, ‘What is the best interest of our country over the long term?’” he said.

Critics of the deal have challenged India’s nonproliferation credentials, noting it conducted in 1974 a nuclear test explosion supposedly using technology and material obtained from the United States and Canada; is one of four NPT hold-outs believed to possess nuclear weapons, along with North Korea, Pakistan and Israel; has amassed an arsenal of potentially 200 nuclear weapons, comparable to neighboring rival Pakistan; has refused to sign the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; and reportedly conducted five nuclear weapons tests in 1998. Critics have also noted that the U.S. State Department twice sanctioned Indian entities in recent years for alleged nuclear exports to Iran.

“Of course India is a major proliferator. Their detonations in 1974 and 1998 directly convinced other countries to develop their nuclear programs,” said Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a critic of the agreement.

“It’s their actions that are contributing to proliferation. It’s convenient for the administration to define proliferation narrowly as the sale of technology, but that has never been primarily what the proliferation problem has been about. It’s about countries acquiring nuclear weapons. One country’s arsenal begets its neighbor’s arsenal, that’s the proliferation problem, that’s where India has never cooperated,” he said.

Burns’ comment that India has “played by the rules” echoed those of another senior Bush administration official in March suggesting that India’s defiance of international nonproliferation agreements could be excused because New Delhi had never signed them.

“They never pretended that they had given up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. They never tried to tie what they were doing under a cloak of international legitimacy. They did it openly and they did it legitimately,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said, adding the next day, “India and Pakistan had never signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and therefore, they weren’t in violation of it by having nuclear programs.”

Burns rejected criticisms that the deal could provoke increased nuclear proliferation in Asia.

“Others have said, ‘This is going to lead to an arms race in South Asia. There are unintended consequences.   This is a leap of faith. How do you know that this won’t promote between India and China, India and Pakistan, an expansion of nuclear weaponry between them?’ We said, look at India’s record.  It has a very small deterrent force. It has a policy of no first use [of nuclear weapons], and is a peaceful country that doesn’t attack its neighbors. And by the way, India’s got enough uranium, enough scientific technology and mastery to double or triple [its] arsenal,” he said.

“We don’t think the motivation of the Indian government is to spend money on nuclear weapons. It’s to spend money on nuclear power,” he said.

Burns said Thursday there was a lot riding on the potential nuclear deal, citing a potential package of agreements for closer relations in a number of areas, including high-tech trade, space cooperation, agriculture, science, health and the environment.

“This agreement will help cement the strategic partnership that I just talked about.   It is the lynchpin of it. And if we achieve it, the future is limitless. If for any reason we cannot achieve it, then I think it will be a major setback,” he said.

He told the Indian ambassador to the United States, R.S. Jassal, who was in the room, that the Bush administration would also like to see the United States win nuclear energy deals in India once U.S. and international restrictions are lifted.

“We certainly hope Mr. Ambassador that you’re going to look kindly on American firms when facing their European and Russian counterparts. We’re banking on that, because we know that does mean jobs for American citizens,” he said.

“It’s outrageous for American officials to sell out vital national security interests so that some companies can make a buck,” said Cirincione.

“Proliferation double standards cannot work. If this deal stands, the nonproliferation treaty will fall and U.S. national security interests will be set back a generation or more.   You cannot maintain this treaty if this U.S. starts picking and choosing who are legitimate nuclear powers,” he said.

U.S. officials have said the deal is not intended to endorse India’s nuclear weapons status.

A Pakistani official reportedly said Friday it should be allowed access to nuclear technology along with India and that it had proposed a “strategic restraint regime in South Asia” that would head off an arms race in the region (see GSN, April 10). 

Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, reportedly said yesterday his country might sign a nuclear technology deal with China (see GSN, April 11).

Back to top

Russian Defense Analyst Calls for Accelerated Deployment of New Ballistic Missiles

Russian defense analyst Alexei Arbatov yesterday urged an accelerated deployment of Moscow’s new Topol-M missiles and renewed arms control talks with the United States, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 31).

“I am not calling for an arms race, but for modernization” of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, said Arbatov, a Carnegie Moscow Center senior researcher.

According to a recent article in Foreign Affairs, Russia now has 39 percent fewer strategic bombers, 58 percent fewer ICBMs and 80 percent fewer nuclear-armed submarines than it did at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

“Russia’s leaders can no longer count on a survivable nuclear deterrent,” the article warned. “And unless they reverse course rapidly, Russia’s vulnerability will only increase over time.”

Moscow in 10 to 15 years could have only three nuclear submarines and 150 modern missiles, Arbatov said. To prevent this, Russia should produce 20 to 30 Topol-M missiles annually rather than the six to eight as done today, he said.

Russia should also seek to cut the number of deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads to 1,000 in each nation, rather than the 1,700 to 2,200 to be achieved under the Moscow Treaty by the end of 2012.

“You can speak as much as you want about partnership, cooperation, raise champagne glasses and conduct joint press conferences, but all these (nuclear weapons) remain,” he said. “If you bring them down to about 1,000, we can get out from this ‘clinch’ of a nuclear standoff ... and then you can take new steps, like lowering the level of combat readiness or deploying a joint early warning system” (Judith Ingram, Associated Press/Army Times, April 11).

Back to top

Diplomacy Fails to Restart North Korea Nuclear Talks

A series of meetings on the sidelines of a security conference in Japan this week failed to jump-start six-nation talks on North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, April 11).

Chinese chief negotiator Wu Dawei said nuclear negotiations would not resume this month.

“We’ll continue to make efforts,” he said. “At the moment, our prospects are still unclear.”

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill met with his counterparts from Japan and South Korea today.

“I don’t think it's up to us to get the D.P.R.K. back to the talks,” he said.

North Korea has refused to return to the talks until the United States ends its financial clampdown on a Macau-based bank and North Korean entities accused of illicit activities.

Hill said yesterday that the United States had frozen some $24 million of Pyongyang’s holdings in retaliation for alleged counterfeiting and other illicit activities (Kwang Tae-Kim, Associated Press/Pravda, April 12).

Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Foreign Assets Control Office announced last week that beginning May 8, U.S. citizens would be banned from financial dealings with any vessel flagged by North Korea, the Yonhap News Agency reported.

“It’s a continuation of what the U.S. has been doing up to now,” said a diplomatic source in Washington.

The source suggested that a potential decision by North Korea to resume nuclear talks may have some bearing on the U.S. crackdown.

“But (the latest measure) suggests that there could well be more follow-up actions,” he said.

U.S. efforts to intercept WMD materials under the Proliferation Security Initiative have led to two interceptions of nuclear and chemical weapons components heading to North Korea, he said. South Korea announced in January that it would “partially” join the program.

“In the latest measure, the U.S. has decided that in addition to the initiative, it needs to take action on North Korea-flagged vessels as well,” the source said (Yonhap News Agency, April 12).

Back to top

Workers at Aberdeen Exposed to VX, Mustard Agent

Two workers at the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Round in Maryland received hospital treatment yesterday after being exposed to small amounts of mustard gas and VX nerve agent, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb.9).

The incident occurred following a brief power outage at the facility. Aberdeen spokesman George Mercer said 15 people were monitored for exposure.

The two workers “thought that whatever symptoms they had warranted further attention,” he said.

The 11:20 a.m. outage of less than one minute shut down filters that protect workers at the Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense. Mercer said researchers were working with mustard agent and VX at the time.

Following the power outage, workers made sure none of the chemicals escaped and followed self-decontamination procedures. Mercer said the public, other Aberdeen employees and residents near the facility were not in danger (Associated Press/WBAL, April 11).

Back to top

Indian Chemical Industry Moves to Stop Proliferation

India’s chemical industry is taking steps to adhere to the Chemical Weapons Convention by preventing the proliferation of substances that could be used to create such weapons, the Press Trust of India reported today (see GSN, Feb. 23).

“The government of India has formed the National Authority for Chemical Weapons Convention. It is taking measures to educate the industry to help us act according to the law,” said Indian Chemical Manufacturers’ Association Director General D.P. Misra.

“The government is trying to create awareness amongst the industry members. We have been holding seminars and workshops for this purpose,” added P.N. Maji, joint industrial adviser for the Chemicals and Fertilizers Ministry (Press Trust of India/NewKerala.com, April 12).

Back to top