IAEA safeguards chief Olli Heinonen faces the press following his trip to Pyongyang last week to negotiate terms for monitoring North Korea’s pending nuclear freeze (Teh Eng Koon/Getty Images). North Korea Pledges Continued Cooperation With IAEA North Korea has pledged to take several steps to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency can verify the closure of the nation’s nuclear facilities, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, July 2). Agency safeguards chief Olli Heinonen detailed the offer in a confidential four-page report, issued following his trip to Pyongyang last week.  ..Full Story

U.S. Struggles With BioShield Program By Zack Phillips Government Executive WASHINGTON — On the morning of Jan. 28, 2003, Bob Marsella received a tip about a surprise that President George W. Bush would deliver in his State of the Union address that evening.  ..Full Story

Putin Expands Missile Defense Proposal Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday announced new components to his proposal for the U.S. missile defense system in Europe, the New York Times reported (see GSN, July 2)...Full Story

	Tuesday, July 3, 2007

India Seeks “Clarifications” on PSI India is seeking details regarding the Proliferation Security Initiative while it considers joining the U.S.-led program to interdict illicit shipments of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, the Times of India reported Sunday (see GSN, July 7, 2006). “We are still examining some elements of it,” said a senior official.  “We have sought certain clarifications (from the U.S.).” Washington has sought to involve New Delhi in the program, but Indian officials have been concerned about its application and potential legal consequences, the Times reported.  There are also questions regarding the “mechanics” of halting suspect sea vessels (Times of India, July 1). Back to top

North Korea Pledges Continued Cooperation With IAEA North Korea has pledged to take several steps to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency can verify the closure of the nation’s nuclear facilities, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, July 2). Agency safeguards chief Olli Heinonen detailed the offer in a confidential four-page report, issued following his trip to Pyongyang last week.  The agency’s governing board could approve the report within a week, opening the door for IAEA inspectors to begin monitoring the shuttering of the Yongbyon nuclear facility. Among the steps Pyongyang has agreed to take, according to the IAEA report, are:  supplying the agency with a list of closed and sealed nuclear facilities, which could be updated as work progresses; giving inspectors “access to all facilities that have been shut down and/or sealed”; permitting “appropriate containment and surveillance” devices and other verification systems to be used at nuclear facilities; and ensuring that agency personnel have complete access to the North Korean nuclear program. North Korea agreed in February to halt operations at the reactor as the first step toward ending its nuclear weapons program.  In return, it would receive economic aid and other benefits from the other nations participating in the six-party talks. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il called for the negotiating countries to begin following through on their commitments, according to Chinese state media.  He met today with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (George Jahn, Associated Press I/Yahoo!News, July 3). Pyongyang is likely to shut down the plutonium-producing Yongbyon reactor once it receive the first shipment of fuel oil pledged under the February deal, AP reported yesterday. South Korea is expected to supply that shipment of 50,000 tons of oil in about two weeks. “Pyongyang indicated its willingness to shut down the Yongbyon facilities upon the arrival of the first batch of heavy fuel oil,” an official in Seoul told AP (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, July 2). There are no indications to date of preparations for closing Yongbyon, U.S. officials told Reuters.  One opponent to the deal in the Bush administration said that North Korea is “slow rolling us again.”  Another official was more optimistic, saying the Pyongyang simply wanted to make sure it would receive the fuel. “We are down to a couple of weeks” to the reactor closing, said the official, who backed the agreement (Reuters/ABS-CBN, July 2). Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said today it is likely to take “a few more weeks” for six-party talks to resume, Agence France-Presse reported. “It’s unlikely that the meeting will take place in early July,” he said.  “As the IAEA Board of Governors meeting starts on July 9 it will take a few more weeks to hold the (six-party) talks” (Agence France-Presse, July 3). Back to top       U.S., Russia Initial Nuclear Cooperation Agreement U.S. and Russian officials have initialed a nuclear cooperation agreement pledging to promote the growth of nuclear power while strengthening efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the White House announced today (see GSN, July 2). In a joint statement announcing the agreement, President George W. Bush and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin emphasized efforts both nations have undertaken to create an international fuel supply system that they hope will enable developing nations to forgo developing indigenous fuel capabilities that could be used to make nuclear weapon materials. Both countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency have offered similar versions of such fuel supply arrangements (White House release, July 3). Today’s agreement would require formal signature as well as congressional approval to take effect, Reuters reported. The Bush administration cannot take congressional support for granted, however, as the House International Relations Committee last week passed a bill to strengthen current U.S. laws that require sanctions against firms doing major business in Iran’s oil and energy sector (see GSN, June 27). The bill’s language also prohibits bilateral cooperative agreements “with Russia or with any other countries assisting Iran’s nuclear or missile or advanced conventional weapons programs.” Russia has nearly completed construction of a nuclear power reactor in Iran, but has withheld supplying fuel for the site, apparently waiting for a resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis, Reuters reported (see GSN, July 2;Carol Giacomo, Reuters/New Zealand Herald, June 29). Back to top       Rice, Lavrov Agree to Maintain Nuclear Reductions The United States and Russia today reaffirmed a mutual goal of sustaining strategic nuclear arms reductions made over the past decade, even as a major arms treaty is set to expire in 2009 (see GSN, June 22). Under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the two nations have each cut their arsenals to fewer than 6,000 deployed warheads, reductions that were monitored and verified by detailed treaty provisions.  The pact is scheduled to expire in December 2009, 15 years after it entered into force, but the treaty allows for five-year extensions if the parties agree.  The treaty requires its parties to meet before the end of this year to formally decide on such an extension (see GSN, May 23). U.S. officials have publicly dismissed the need for detailed arms control agreements with Russia, arguing that such negotiations are a Cold War artifact (see GSN, March 6). That view was illustrated by the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which calls for significant reductions to nuclear deployments by the end of 2012, but includes no verification or monitoring measures (see GSN, May 24, 2002). Today’s joint statement by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reaffirms the two nations’ intention to continue nuclear arms cuts. “The United States and Russia reiterate their intention to carry out strategic offensive reductions to the lowest possible level consistent with their national security requirements and alliance commitments,” their statement says. “To this end, ministers discussed development of a post-START arrangement to provide continuity and predictability regarding strategic offensive forces.  Upon instructions of the presidents, the sides will continue these discussions with a view toward early results” (Greg Webb, Global Security Newswire, July 3). Back to top       Bush and Putin Vow to Counter Nuclear Iran The leaders of the United States and Russia said yesterday they stood together in opposition of any Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, July 2). “When Russia and the United States speak along the same lines, it tends to have an effect and therefore I appreciate the Russians’ attitude in the United Nations,” said President George W. Bush, during his meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Maine.  “We’re close on recognizing that we got to work together to send a common message.” Putin agreed, but hinted that there would be “further substantial intercourse on this issue.” The United States recently proposed tougher sanctions against Iran for failing to heed U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment efforts. Offering a carrot, Russia, the United States and their fellow Security Council members said they would stop seeking new sanctions if Iran pauses uranium enrichment during negotiations.  Tehran has not submitted an answer to this offer, AP reported. Putin and Bush differ agree that Iran must not develop nuclear weapons but are at odds on how soon that might happen and how exactly to stop Tehran, AP reported (Deb Riechmann, Associated Press/Forbes.com, July 2). Back to top       Nuclear Weapon Core Delivered to Pantex Plant The first nuclear weapon “pit” produced by the United States in nearly 20 years has been delivered from Los Alamos National Laboratory to a Texas manufacturing site for assembly in a nuclear warhead, the Energy Department announced yesterday (see GSN, June 11). The pit — the softball-sized plutonium core of a nuclear weapon —was delivered to the Pantex warhead assembly site near Amarillo (National Nuclear Security Administration release, July 2).   The pit is to be placed on a W88 warhead for a submarine-launched missile, the Associated Press reported. Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Representative Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) gathered yesterday in Los Alamos with officials from the Energy and Defense departments to “congratulate the lab for a job well done,” said laboratory spokesman Kevin Roark. Pit production halted in 1989 with the closure of the Rocky Flats plant in Colorado.  Los Alamos was assigned to create new pits, the first of which received NNSA certification in early June, AP reported. The administration, a semiautonomous DOE agency that manages the nuclear weapons program , has asked the Los Alamos laboratory to produce 10 pits each year for the near term. Jay Coghlan, executive director of the Nuclear Watch of New Mexico watchdog group, said the federal government restarted the pit program to “produce newly designed pits for new types of nuclear weapons.” We have too many weapons and they ought to be retired anyway,” he said.  “There’s 10,000 intact weapons and there’s 15,000 pits in storage in Pantex.” The nation’s nuclear laboratories could be put to better use working on non-nuclear issues such as pandemic disease and climate change, said Mike McCally, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, ”If I were a lab director, I would see nuclear weapons production as a fading industry,” he said (Matt Mygatt, Associated Press/Houston Chronicle, July 2). Back to top       Pakistan Denies Ending Khan’s House Arrest A Pakistani official yesterday dismissed reports that Abdul Qadeer Khan, former head of the nation’s nuclear program and a global nuclear trafficking ring, had been released from house arrest, United Press International reported (see GSN, July 2). “There is no change in Khan’s status,” said Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam, according to the Voice of America.  “He continues to lead a quiet life with his family,” she added. Pakistan has confined Khan to his home since he confessed in 2004 to selling nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran, and Libya.  Recently, government officials said the disgraced scientist now is allowed to travel around Islamabad (United Press International/Earthtimes.org, July 2).  Reached at his home by the Daily Times of Pakistan, Khan denied that his punishment had eased. “Obviously I would have wished that it was true but it doesn’t seem to be the case.  If they tell you they have lifted the restrictions, come and meet me and see for yourself,” he said (Daily Times, July 3). Back to top       U.S., Indian Officials to Meet Again on Nuclear Deal Senior U.S. and Indian officials are scheduled to meet again this month in Washington in hopes of pushing forward the two countries’ planned nuclear trade deal, the Press Trust of India reported (see GSN, June 26). A meeting is set for July 16 between U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley and Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and Indian national security adviser M.K. Narayanan (Press Trust of India, June 30). Back to top

U.S. Struggles With BioShield Program By Zack Phillips Government Executive WASHINGTON — On the morning of Jan. 28, 2003, Bob Marsella received a tip about a surprise that President George W. Bush would deliver in his State of the Union address that evening.  Marsella had come to Washington with data on a drug that his company, San Diego-based Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals, was developing to cure the often fatal effects of severe radiation exposure.  He was in the White House, showing the information to Alan Gilbert, Bush’s special assistant for domestic policy.  Gilbert reacted favorably and offered a little foreshadowing, Marsella recalls. “I think you’ll really like the speech tonight,” he said (see GSN, Jan. 29, 2003). That night, halfway through his address, the president proposed a new $5.6 billion federal program, called Project BioShield, to develop and purchase vaccines and other medical countermeasures to biowarfare agents like anthrax, along with other potential weapons of mass destruction, such as a radiation-producing nuclear bomb. Marsella, Hollis-Eden’s senior vice president for development and marketing, was very happy indeed with what he heard.  “It gave us a vehicle to know they had money and wanted to encourage companies,” he says. “Now there was a real market for this, and we could go to Wall Street to develop the drug. … We had bankers come to us and say, ‘We want to fund this. This is going to be huge.’” But as of May, Hollis-Eden no longer is developing Neumune, its drug for radiation sickness, for the federal government or anyone else. In a sharply worded May letter to Representative James R. Langevin (D-R.I.) the company’s chairman, Richard Hollis, announced that Hollis-Eden is “out of the business of BioShield.” Langevin is chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cyber- security, and Science and Technology (see GSN, March 19). BioShield once was hailed as a revolutionary program that would use market forces to develop cutting-edge therapeutics where few existed before. But in the four and a half years since its creation, it’s been a disappointment. The Health and Human Services Department, which oversees the program, has used it to buy a limited number of vaccines or other therapies, and few of them are new products. The department canceled two of the most high-profile BioShield procurements. And the large pharmaceutical companies it was intended to lure never appeared. HHS leaders say they now have the program heading in the right direction. The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act passed last year created a new HHS agency to shepherd manufacturers through the bumpy drug development process. That new agency and authority, along with reshuffling at HHS, have put the department in a better position to help companies develop medical countermeasures to smallpox, radiation sickness and the like, HHS officials say. “I’m not sure it’s provided us all the tools yet, but it’s moved us well in the right direction,” says Gerry Parker, HHS deputy assistant secretary for preparedness and response. Losing Interest In April, Langevin’s subcommittee held a hearing called “Can BioShield Effectively Procure Medical Countermeasures That Safeguard the Nation?” Marsella, Hollis and other industry officials sat in chairs on the left side of the center aisle. Representatives of HHS, the Homeland Security Department and other agencies sat on the right. BioShield was supposed to bring together those two groups, but the subcommittee’s question betrays that the divide has yet to be bridged. The idea behind BioShield was to attract pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology firms, traditionally active in more lucrative markets, to the biodefense arena. People buy drugs for cholesterol, diabetes and hair loss, which makes it worth it for drug companies to develop them. People don’t usually go to the local pharmacy to buy anthrax vaccine. There’s no guarantee biodefense products ever will be needed, hence little reason for companies to produce them. What made BioShield revolutionary was the idea that government would create the market for such drugs by guaranteeing to buy a certain quantity of them — assuming they worked — to put them in the Strategic National Stockpile. Companies could then weigh the risks of trying to develop such drugs. Pharmaceutical firms don’t take that peril lightly, since 67 percent to 91 percent of new compounds under investigation are rejected and the average biotechnology drug takes $1.2 billion and more than eight years to develop, according to the Center for the Study of Drug Development at Tufts University. Thus, the government would issue “advanced purchase” contracts. Firms wouldn’t be paid until they delivered effective products, but assured of a market, private investors would fund their development. The market and the new drugs haven’t come to fruition, critics say, because HHS has been too conservative. The department has taken too long to say what kinds of therapies it wants — and how many and at what price. It has delayed issuing solicitations and has failed to buy large enough quantities of what it has asked for. Understandably, the critics contend, companies and potential investors have lost interest. “In commercial drug development, where the markets are known, the investment community is willing to continue to fund development as long as the potential market remains clear,” Hollis wrote to Langevin. “There is no reason to believe that the same cannot be true for BioShield; however, that would require the program to guarantee markets, issue advanced purchase contracts and ride out the vagaries of the drug development process.” What Hollis is referring to, in part, is his own experience of trying to work with HHS on Neumune. High levels of radiation can cause, among other things, a fatal drop in infection-fighting white blood cells and in clotting cells called platelets. Neumune, the firm says, would mitigate both conditions. After waiting through multiple delays, a request for information, a draft request for proposals and a final request for proposals, the company finally reached the negotiation stage last year only to have the department announce in March that it was canceling the procurement. Neumune was not far enough along in development to merit a contract, according to HHS. Hollis-Eden had spent $85 million developing the drug under the belief that the department would buy it, the company chairman says. The procurement of a next-generation anthrax vaccine sputtered, too. In November 2004, HHS awarded a contract worth nearly $900 million to VaxGen Inc. of Brisbane, Calif., for 75 million doses of the vaccine it was developing. That contract made VaxGen the most high-profile HHS biodefense contractor, the “BioShield pace car,” as one company spokesman put it. But last December, HHS terminated the contract for default (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2006). VaxGen, which already had pushed back its delivery date several times, was unable to convince the Food and Drug Administration to allow it to start a Phase 2 trial by the HHS-imposed deadline of Dec. 18. A month after the payment-on-delivery contract was canceled, VaxGen cut its workforce in half and Lance Gordon, the firm’s president and CEO, resigned. As FDA commissioner from November 2002 until early 2004, Mark McClellan was one of the architects of BioShield and pitched it to industry at a well-attended Biotechnology Industry Organization conference for CEOs and investors in January 2003. He says the program’s problems generating private sector interest come down to the lack of a large financial carrot. The annual appropriations process makes it difficult for the government to commit to spending a large sum of money several years from now, he says. “It’s the demand at the end of the line that drives everything,” says McClellan, now a visiting senior fellow in health policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Institute Joint Center for Regulatory Studies in Washington. “Usually, it’s up to the company to convince investors [to continue funding a drug’s development]. That’s different here because there’s not that clear, secure promise of financial success at the end of the line.” Valley of Death Gerry Parker of HHS twiddled his fingers and shook his head in disagreement during Hollis’ testimony at the April BioShield hearing. He and other HHS leaders have a very different take on the project’s chief problem and the solution. They believe industry has stayed away from biodefense because of constraints imposed by the original BioShield legislation. The fixed-price, payment-on-delivery contracts the law required were too risky for companies to bear, they say. “Any companies under a BioShield contract were operating under their own risk to get the product to the point where we could get it into the Strategic National Stockpile,” says Carol Linden, HHS acting director for public health emergency medical countermeasures. “Most other contracts, and especially research and development contracts, would be cost-reimbursement-type contracts where the company or entity does some work, submits an invoice, you pay the invoice, they do some work, submit another invoice, you pay the invoice.” Under fixed-price BioShield contracts — which state that the government will buy a certain number of doses at a certain price — companies had to roll all developmental work into the initial price. “And sometimes those costs are not entirely predictable,” Linden says. This is where HHS thinks it has a large part of the solution. The pandemic and hazards act created the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority at HHS to manage drug development. Linden is the acting chief of BARDA. It now has nearly 150 employees (including contractors), and Linden anticipates it will grow to a total staff of 300 by the end of fiscal 2008. The 2006 law gives HHS authority to pay companies up to 5 percent of a contract’s value at completion of certain milestones and up to 10 percent of the award as advance payments. HHS and congressional backers hope this will help companies bridge what industry calls the Valley of Death — the long period between early drug development and FDA approval, when many firms run out of money. Having stopped all work on its radiation drug, Hollis-Eden now is pursuing drugs for prostate and breast cancer. Company officials believe BARDA exacerbates BioShield’s problems. Focusing on issuing development grants to get companies over the valley of death spends taxpayer dollars on a risky process guaranteed to produce some failures, and takes the program further away from a market-driven approach, they say. “I want to be perfectly and absolutely clear about this: There is no valley of death in the private sector markets for known attractive commercial products and market opportunities,” Hollis said at the House subcommittee hearing. “The legislation, the way it’s being implemented, has created the valley of death.” McClellan, too, thinks intermediate payments are not an ideal approach, because government bureaucrats wind up having to judge whether a drug under development is on track, traditionally the province of venture capitalists and others in the private sector. Previously, government employees only had to judge the final product, and evaluate whether it was effective. “Where governments have a better role to play is setting out a big reward, not trying to critique each intermediate step,” he says. He advocates a model like the one sometimes employed in sub-Saharan Africa, where extreme poverty means there is no market for anti-malaria medication and other drugs that are desperately needed. A foundation or government puts up a large cash prize for the first company to produce an effective therapeutic. Called Advanced Market Commitment, it is actually quite similar to the original vision of BioShield. Changing Minds Last summer, HHS began reorganizing in anticipation of passage of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act. The domain of W. Craig Vanderwagen, assistant secretary for preparedness and response, has been divided into four new offices: Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, which handles long-term planning; Office of Medicine, Science and Public Health, which is the medical adviser to Vanderwagen and does international preparedness; Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations, which coordinates HHS’ emergency response; and BARDA. Parker emphasizes that the reorganization is more than just nominal; he says it has created a central, coordinating enterprise for the many agencies and departments involved in medical preparedness and response, something that did not exist before. “We’ve got the foundation now of being able to more effectively manage and integrate and lead an enterprise for preparedness and response,” he says. That coordinating framework, Parker adds, has brought together not only senior leaders, but also those at the staff level, to ensure that, for example, researchers are talking to people in preparedness and response. “There’s a natural tension in the research and development world: We need a lot of innovation and a lot of good ideas, but we also have to channel that innovation and good ideas into something that … is pragmatic at the delivery level,” he says. “It would do no good if we spent a lot of money developing something that had no operational utility.” Parker is hinting at the Hollis-Eden drug. Though they have been careful to say they canceled the radiation sickness procurement because no proposed therapy was far enough along to meet their requirements, HHS officials expressed doubt about the requirement that Neumune be administered four hours after exposure. “We have to take into account how fast we can get the drugs to the people who need them versus how fast they need to be treated,” Linden says. “If you have a drug that says it has a positive effect, but you have to give it in a very short time period after exposure, say four hours — from an operational standpoint, we can’t do that right now.” Hollis-Eden officials counter that the drug could be stocked in households or cities in the event they might one day have to use it. In June, HHS issued a new sources-sought notice for drugs to treat some of the effects of radiation sickness. Linden says some drugs used in radiation oncology could fit the bill here, even if their manufacturers never considered it. The department also has planned a series of outreach events to get the word out to the private sector about opportunities within BioShield. Notably, Linden will host a BioShield workshop at the end of July, and a BARDA industry day at the beginning of August. “We’re very excited about this — to have a whole day where folks can come,” Linden says. “We’ve set it up with half-hour presentations so they can come tell us about their technologies.” And there is some evidence that business might be coming around on BioShield. The implementation plan HHS released in April, which, among other things, spells out acquisition priorities, was greeted favorably by companies, though many say more details are needed. And on June 4, HHS took a large step forward, awarding a $500 million contract to Danish drug manufacturer Bavarian Nordic for 20 million doses of its next-generation smallpox vaccine. Although the national stockpile already contains enough smallpox vaccine for every American, it can cause harmful side effects. The Bavarian Nordic vaccine is safer, and could be given to Americans with compromised immune systems, HHS officials say. Will HHS be able to change private sector minds about doing business on biodefense? Both the department and its critics will be scrutinizing the response to solicitations for a next-generation anthrax vaccine and radiation sickness therapy for signals of a turnaround. “This is a new kind of a problem that the government hasn’t had to solve before,” McClellan says of biodefense. “Every time there are new problems to solve, there is going to be an iterative process. You start with ideas that seem like the best approach and then identify ways that they might be improved.” Back to top       National Smallpox Vaccine Trial Begins Next Month Researchers are scheduled to begin testing a new smallpox vaccine next month at seven U.S. universities, the Houston Business Journal reported yesterday (see GSN, May 1). The study, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is intended to test the efficacy of the new Imvamune vaccine, produced by Bavarian Nordic of Denmark, against the existing Dryvax treatment produced by Wyeth Laboratories of Pennsylvania (see GSN, June 5). Dryvax is now given to U.S. soldiers deployed in the Persian Gulf.  The vaccine in some cases has been found to cause nasty rashes and brain and heart inflammation, said the Journal. “Although the probability of release of smallpox through a terrorist attack is low, the effect could be devastating, since much of the population has not been protected through vaccination,” said Chip Walter of Duke University, one of the schools participating in the study. Nationwide, 215 subjects are scheduled to take a placebo or one of the medicines to see how long each vaccine takes to develop immunity. “If there’s an outbreak, the question is how quickly can we get everybody immunized.  That part is crucial,” said Lawrence Stanberry of the University of Texas Medical Branch (Greg Barr/Houston Business Journal, July 2). Back to top

Putin Expands Missile Defense Proposal Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday announced new components to his proposal for the U.S. missile defense system in Europe, the New York Times reported (see GSN, July 2). Putin has been vocal in his opposition to Washington’s intent to place 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic.  Last month, he proposed using a Soviet-era radar in Azerbaijan for the system rather than the new Czech installation. At the end of his meeting with President George W. Bush in Maine, Putin yesterday said Russia would be willing to upgrade the Azerbaijan radar, and to add a separate early detection system in Russia and information-sharing locations in Moscow and Brussels.  The NATO-Russia Council would develop the system, the Times reported. “In this case, there would be no need to place any more facilities in Europe — I mean, these facilities in Czech Republic and the missile base in Poland,” Putin said. U.S. officials have already said that the Azeri site could complement but not replace their planned facilities.  They have argued that the equipment is outdated and the Azerbaijan is too close to Iran to allow for interception of Iranian missiles. Bush appeared to maintain that argument. “I think it’s innovative, I think it’s strategic,” he said of Putin’s proposal.  “But as I told Vladimir, I think that the Czech Republic and Poland need to be an integral part of the system.” Putin’s new offer is “a minor modification” of his previous proposal and seemingly carries the same drawbacks, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.  Another expert called Putin’s continued proposals a good sign. “We’re beyond the point where Putin shows up and says, ‘Over my dead body,’” said Julianne Smith of the Centers for Strategic and International Studies (Jim Rutenberg, New York Times, July 3). Bush and Putin did agree on the need to include a greater number of European countries in talks on the missile defense system, the Los Angeles Times reported (Maura Reynolds, Los Angeles Times, July 3). Back to top

Canada Ill-Prepared for “Dirty Bomb,” Study Finds Canadian officials have plans for responding to a “dirty bomb” attack in their nation, but the country remains insufficiently prepared for such a catastrophic event, the Canadian Press reported today (see GSN, Jan. 3). A government-funded study found Canadian preparations lacking for the detonation of such a weapon, in which conventional explosives would be used to spread radioactive material.  Canada and other nations have failed to acquire equipment for decontamination of large, high-population areas, and the various levels of government in the country have not established agreed on an extended recovery plan. Few people would die directly from a dirty bomb explosion, the Defense Research and Development Canada study found.  An attack would instead cause economic paralysis and mass hysteria. The economic fallout of such an attack was estimated at $22.1 billion for Toronto, $8.2 billion for Vancouver, and $2.1 billion for an explosion connecting Windsor, Ontario, with Detroit.  A dirty bomb explosion in Canada is by no means impossible, the study determined.  It based its model on the explosion of a weapon containing a small amount of americium 241, a plutonium byproduct that is available in industrial oil well gauges.  Thieves easily stole such a device in Alberta in 2003. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said Canadian government agencies and private firms have worked hard to prevent and prepare for a dirty bomb explosion, according to the Canadian Press. “We know that terrorists have a particular fascination with explosives, and radioactive explosives would be devastating,” he said.  “An event like that could happen.” The government has installed 25 radiation detectors at the Ottawa International Airport and Canadian first responders have participated in several simulations of dirty bomb explosions. The final version of the study is due next March (Bronskill/Bailey, Canadian Press/The Globe and Mail, July 3). Back to top       Brazilian Diplomat Named U.N. Disarmament Chief Longtime Brazilian diplomat Sergio Duarte has been tapped to lead the United Nations’ new Disarmament Affairs Office, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, March 16). U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced yesterday that Duarte would become the organization’s first high representative for disarmament, a position with the rank of undersecretary general. When he took over as U.N. chief in January, Ban called for increased efforts “to invigorate disarmament and nonproliferation efforts.” He had hoped to merge the U.N. political affairs and disarmament departments, but could not overcome opposition to the plan from the 118 nations in the Nonaligned Movement, AP reported.  Diplomats from those nations feared the move would undermine the focus on nuclear disarmament. The Nonaligned Movement also rejected Ban’s proposal to have the Disarmament Affairs Department become a component of the Secretary General’s Office and be led by an assistant secretary general. “The high representative will report directly to the secretary general with greater access and participation in top policy-making,” said U.N. deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe. Duarte has served for nearly five decades in the Brazilian foreign service, with postings in China, Italy, the United States and other nations.  He led the International Atomic Energy Agency governing board from 1999 to 2000 and headed the 2005 review conference for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, July 2).     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.