Threat Assessment:  Chechen Militants Threaten Nuclear Plant Strike

An envoy for Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov has warned of future Chechen attacks on Russian targets, possibly including Russian nuclear power plants, Reuters reported today (see GSN, related story today).

“We cannot guarantee that there will not be another group on Russian territory,” Akhmed Zakayev told Reuters.  “Terrorist acts are possible.  We cannot exclude that the next such group takes over some nuclear facility.  The results may be catastrophic, not only for Russian society and for Chechen society but for the whole of Europe.”

Russian authorities could have ended the recent Chechen takeover of a Moscow theater peacefully through negotiations rather than through a raid that resulted in the deaths of more than 100 hostages, Zakayev said (see GSN, Oct. 28).  The Chechen militants involved in the takeover had presented “concrete demands of a political nature:  to stop the violence, to pull out the Russian troops,” he said.

Next time, however, Chechen militants might bypass negotiations for a course of direct action, Zakayev said.  Russia would only have itself to blame for future attacks because it has done little to end the war in Chechnya, he said.

“What happened in Moscow was a gesture by desperate people, the result of the continuing war in Chechnya.  These are people who have been subjected to violence, humiliation, who have lost their relatives,” Zakayev said (Reuters/Planet Ark, Oct. 30).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Public Health System Has Improved, Experts Say

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — While the United States has improved its public health capabilities to respond to a future terrorist strike in the year following the Sept. 11 attacks, it has been less successful in addressing international and sociological components of terrorism, the American Public Health Association said in a report released this fall (see GSN, Oct. 3).

Styling its report as a school report card, the association gave grades of B or higher to U.S. efforts to improve public health capabilities in several areas.  The association praised U.S. efforts to strengthen public health infrastructure by increasing funding for public health programs and developing new laboratories in which analysts can test for chemical and biological agents (see GSN, Oct. 16).

The association also concluded, however, that the United States still lacks a baseline set of performance goals with which to measure public health preparedness, and it lacks cooperation at regional levels, with readiness being lower in rural areas than in major urban centers.

The United States has increased potential access to medicines and vaccines following a terrorist attack and educated health professionals and the public about possible consequences of terrorism, according to the association (see GSN, June 7).  While medical schools have begun teaching more bioterrorism-related information, experts still disagree over how to integrate such information into curricula, the report says.

The association reported progress in addressing mental health needs of those affected by terrorism and in creating a capability to collect data on mental health-related consequences of terrorism.  U.S. officials have also better ensured protection of the environment and food and water supplies, the report says.  Thousands of facilities, however, use and store chemical agents that might pose risks to the general population in the event of a release, the association said (see GSN, Aug. 1).

The association gave a grade of C — the lowest in areas related to the U.S. public health system — to the progress made in delineating roles and responsibilities among public health agencies, law enforcement entities and first responders.  The U.S. General Accounting Office has determined that officials have so far failed to achieve any highly integrated approach to securing the country against possible threats, the association report says.  Potential response roles in the event of an attack have also been poorly defined among state and local law enforcement and emergency personnel, according to the association (see GSN, Oct. 25).

International and Sociological Factors

The association harshly criticized the apparent lack of progress in addressing sociological and international concerns.  It gave one of the lowest grades, a D, to U.S. efforts to control and eliminate weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Oct. 8).  The association criticized decisions in 2001 and 2002 to reject a protocol to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention and to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  It also criticized delays in destroying the U.S. chemical weapons arsenal as mandated by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The association praised the the swift accomplishments of the war in Afghanistan, which overthrew the Taliban regime.  The United States has made less progress, however, in providing humanitarian assistance to international populations affected by terrorism and in promoting human rights, the report says.

The association gave another D grade to U.S. efforts to address poverty and social injustices that could lead to terrorism, and it gave an F grade to progress in preventing hate crimes and protecting civil liberties.  The latter grade is based, in part, on the Operation TIPS program, proposed by the U.S. Justice Department, which would recruit civilian informants for surveillance purposes, the report says.  The association also criticized the establishment of military tribunals for suspected terrorists, the classification of two U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” and their subsequent detention on terrorism suspicions and the detention and deportations of U.S. aliens following the Sept. 11 attacks (see GSN, June 12).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Task Force Urges Elevation of National Guard Defense Role

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — As it prepares for a possible war against Iraq, the United States remains woefully unprepared for a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction and must take immediate remedial steps, including making homeland security the primary mission of the National Guard, a new report says.

A Council on Foreign Relations task force led by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman — both widely credited with warning of the growing threat of domestic terrorism prior to last year’s attacks — provides a stark assessment of U.S. prevention and response capabilities in the face of a WMD attack (see GSN, Oct. 25).

“A year after Sept. 11, 2001, America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil,” says the report, America Still Unprepared — America Still in Danger.  “In all likelihood, the next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy.”

The report urges quick and drastic measures to minimize the damage of a large-scale terrorist attack and thereby force terrorist groups to change their strategy.

Elevating the Role of the National Guard

A key recommendation calls for dramatically expanding the role of the National Guard — now focused on supporting overseas military operations — in defending U.S. territory and responding to terrorist events that state and local authorities are currently ill equipped to address.

The prospect that Washington will launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq, to rid it of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, makes it all the more important to take immediate action, according to the report, as those weapons could be used against U.S. targets in retaliation.

“The need for immediate action is made more urgent by the prospect of the United States going to war with Iraq and the possibility that [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein might threaten to use weapons of mass destruction in America,” the report says.

The report recommends tripling the number of National Guard WMD support teams located around the country from 22 to 66. It also urges new funding to help the National Guard train first responders, and remove Guardsmen from guarding borders and airports, where they are less valuable.

“Governors will expect National Guard units in their states to help with detecting chemical and biological agents, treating the victims, managing secondary consequences, and maintaining civil order,” the report says.  “The National Guard has highly disciplined manpower spread throughout the nation in 5,475 units.  When called up by governors, the National Guard can be used to enforce civil laws — unlike regular forces, which are bound by posse comitatus restricting on performing law enforcement duties.”

The National Guard’s medical units, engineer units, military police units, and ground and air transport units will likely prove indispensable in helping manage the consequences of a terrorist attack, the report added.

This includes providing critical communications, evacuating, quarantining and protecting residents, utilizing knowledge of chemical, biological and radiological threats and the capacity to supplement local trauma and triage capabilities. New and improved Guard capabilities such as detecting WMD threats in urban areas and greater emphasis on biological warfare are needed, according to the report.

“An aggressive approach to revamping the capabilities of National Guard units designated to respond to domestic terrorist attacks can in the short term provide a more robust response capability while states and localities work to bring their individual response mechanisms up to par.”

Local Authorities Need Help

The report makes a variety of recommendations to beef up public health systems to better identify a biological attack on the food or water supply, train local police, fire and other emergency response personnel, tighten security at border crossings and sea ports and ensure that major cities and counties plan for “truly catastrophic attacks.”

“While these scenarios strike many as too horrific to contemplate, imagining and planning for them can potentially make the difference between a 20 percent casualty rate and an 80 percent casualty rate,” the report says.

The document outlines a series of significant shortfalls in domestic WMD preparedness.

For example, between 1996 and 1999, the federal government was able to provide WMD response training to only 134,000 of the nation’s estimated 9 million first responders.  “Furthermore, only 2 percent of these 134,000 responders received hands-on training with live chemical agents.”

The Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, Alabama, the only facility in the country where first responders can get hands-on experience with chemical agents, can train only 10,000 first responders per year at peak capacity.

At the same time, most city and county health agencies lack the resources to operate 24-hour emergency hotlines.  The National Association of City and County Health Officials estimate that localities need between 10,000 and 15,000 new employees to work in public health preparedness functions.

To deal with chemical and biological outbreaks, local authorities need federal assistance to develop public health surveillance systems and develop and maintain lists of retired doctors and nurses who can be mobilized in an emergency, among many other steps.

And without adequate training, local health officials could be at grave risk themselves in the event of a catastrophic attack.

“A nuclear, chemical or biological weapon poses a grave danger not only to those who are immediately exposed, but also the entire emergency response and medical care system in the areas where such a weapon might be used,” the report warns.  “Heavy losses of seasoned firefighters, emergency technicians, police, and medical personnel can easily compromise a community’s long-term capacity to provide public health and safety.”

The report’s authors stress that quick mobilization to prepare for the worst “is an act of prudence, not fatalism.”

“U.S. counterterrorism initiatives abroad can be reinforced by making the U.S. homeland a less tempting target,” they conclude.  “We can transform the calculations of would-be terrorists by elevating the risk that an attack on the United States will fail, and the disruptive consequences of a successful attack will be minimal.”

Back to top

Iraq:  Chief U.N. Weapons Inspectors to Brief U.S. President

The leaders of the U.N. weapons inspections teams today are expected to brief U.S. President George W. Bush and other senior White House officials on their views of the U.S. draft Security Council resolution on Iraq (see GSN, Oct. 29).

Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, are scheduled to brief Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (Reuters/MSNBC News, Oct. 30).

“It’s to consult on a way forward,” a U.S. official said describing Blix and ElBaradei’s visit.  “Blix is going to be the guy on the spot.  He’s going to be the guy who has to put a team together and take them in.”

Blix and ElBaradei’s visit to Washington indicates that the United States is becoming increasingly serious about returning inspectors to Iraq, a U.N. official said.  A U.S. official, however, has said the Bush administration has always supported inspections (CNN.com, Oct. 30).

U.N. Debate

The Security Council began closed-door consultations this morning on the preambular paragraphs of the U.S. draft resolution.  Since none of the contentious phrases, such as “material breach,” appear in these 14 introductory paragraphs, council diplomats said most of the discussion is likely to center around the desire of some states to remove from the text any references to issues other than weapons inspections, such as terrorism and the return of Kuwaiti property.  One council diplomat said this morning that there is a “positive outlook” about coming to a conclusion, but “that’s not necessarily to say that we think it will all be signed and settled today or even this week.”  (Jim Wurst, GSN, Oct. 30).

In the background, the United States and France appear to be closer to reaching a compromise on the more substantive issues, according to BBC News.

The two countries have discussed a proposal that calls for a single resolution outlining a new inspections regime for Iraq.  If Iraq then fails to comply, the United States has agreed to consult the Security Council before taking military action, BBC News reported.  The United States still does not support, however, the need for a second U.N. resolution authorizing an attack.  While the United States would be involved in the discussions on a second resolution, it would not be bound by it, according to BBC News.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the compromise has made him optimistic of reaching a final solution on the new resolution.

“I know that the progress has been slow, for sure, but it has genuinely been constructive.  And I think that the final outcome will be a good one,” Straw said (BBC News, Oct. 30).

Debating U.S. Influence

Some analysts have said the U.N. debate over a new resolution on Iraq, which has continued for seven weeks, is part of a larger conflict over projection and containment of U.S. power, according to the Washington Post.  So far, the U.N. debate has done little to calm international concerns that the Bush administration is only trying to obtain a justification for war, the Post reported.

Because the United States has rejected several international agreements since Bush came to office, U.S. allies have become increasingly cynical about U.S. motivations for now going to the United Nations to resolve the Iraq issue, according to U.N. diplomats.

“The whole debate is about two issues,” said an envoy from one of the five permanent Security Council members.  “One is Iraq.  The other is U.S. power in the world.  The second issue is the bigger part of the debate.”

Within the Security Council, distrust has been growing on both sides of the issue, diplomats said.  Many of the proposals made by France and Russia — which also opposes military action against Iraq — have been an attempt to force the United States to seek U.N. approval before attacking Iraq (see GSN, Oct. 25).

French President Jacques Chirac has said war can only be used in self-defense or with international support.

“In the modern world, the use of force should only be a last, and exceptional, resort,” Chirac said before a recent meeting of French-speaking countries in Beirut, Lebanon.  “It should only be allowed in the case of legitimate defense, or by decision of the competent international authorities.  Whether we are talking about making Iraq adhere to its obligations, relaunching the Israeli-Palestinian peace process or solving conflicts in Africa, the same logic of legitimacy has to inspire all of us, because only this firmly guards us against temptations of adventure.”

U.S. officials have warned that if Iraq fails to comply with the new inspections, there would still be weak international support for military action.  To counter this, the Bush administration has sought a resolution that would force other countries to accept a potential military solution, they said.

“This is why words are so critical and important now,” said Ivo Daalder, a Brookings Institution fellow who served on the National Security Council staff in the Clinton administration.  “It is clear that some of our closest friends, like the French, don’t trust us” (Kessler/Pincus, Washington Post, Oct. 30).

Watching the Inspectors

Iraq yesterday called for independent media personnel and individuals to accompany U.N. weapons inspectors once they return to Iraq.  Without the presence of neutral observers, the United States will use the inspections as justification for war, Iraq said.

“We will not allow the inspectors to be the sole source (of information) because we don’t trust them,” Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan said.  “We want the inspectors to work clearly under light and I think this won’t annoy anyone but it would rather facilitate their task to look for weapons of mass destruction.”

The United States has rejected Iraq’s demand, according to the Beirut Daily Star.

“On the Iraqi call for observers for the inspectors, once again Iraq is attaching conditions to something in which they should have no say,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.  “No matter how meritorious the group of journalists that Iraq might have in mind, the point is Iraq, having said unconditional … inspectors are welcome, is now once again attaching conditions” (Mona Ziade, Beirut Daily Star, Oct. 30).

Middle East Command Post

Meanwhile, a planned U.S. military exercise involves deploying a new command post in the Middle East that could later be used during an attack on Iraq, according to the Washington Times.

The “Internal Look” exercise is scheduled to run for 10 days, and some U.S. military personnel may remain in the region once it is completed, U.S. Army Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command, said yesterday.

The purpose of the exercise is to evaluate Central Command’s abilities to deploy a command-and-control facility at an airbase in Qatar.

“Over the last year, Central Command has built a deployable command-and-control capability,” Franks said.  “What that actually means is containers of communications gear, very large communications pipes that we’re able to put in the back of an airplane, fly it a long ways, land it on the ground and then set up a command-and-control complex.”

Franks said that if the situation in Iraq were to reach a point in which military action became necessary, he believes the United States would receive international support.

“My sense is that we have a great many friends, partners and allies who see the situation the same way we do,” he said (Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, Oct. 30).

Iraqi “Dirty Dozen”

The Bush administration has begun developing cases against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other senior Iraqi officials for crimes against humanity if the regime is overthrown, according to U.S. officials (see GSN, Oct. 21).

Besides Hussein, other possible Iraqi war criminals include:

*         Izzat Ibrahim, vice president of the Revolutionary Command Council and deputy supreme commander of the Iraqi military;

*         Ali Hassan Majid, de facto governor of Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation and known for using chemical weapons against Kurds;

*         Tariq Aziz, deputy prime minister;

*         Uday Hussein, the president’s oldest son and commander of the Fedayeen militia;

*         Qusay Hussein, the president’s second son, head of the Republican Guard and overall commander of the Iraqi security services;

*         Barzan Ibrahim Tikriti, the president’s half-brother, a presidential adviser and former head of Iraqi intelligence;

*         Aziz Salih Noman, former governor of occupied Kuwait and former commander of Popular Army in Kuwait;

*         Watban Ibrahim Hassan, the president’s half-brother, a presidential adviser and former interior minister;

*         Mohamed Hamza Zubeidi, former deputy prime minister and former head of the Northern Bureau of the Baath Party, Iraq’s ruling political party;

*         Sabawi Ibrahim Hasan Tikriti, Hussein’s half-brother, former director of Iraqi intelligence and security directorate and

*         Taha Yassin Ramadan, vice president, commander of the Popular Army and member of the Revolutionary Command Council.

Many other Iraqi officials are considered badly tainted by their connections to the Hussein regime and might also face war crimes charges following further investigation, sources said.

Two U.S. Defense Department lawyers have been gathering evidence that might be useful to prosecutors, according to U.S. officials.  A U.S. State Department-supervised group of about 30 Iraqi exiles and Iraqi-Americans have been developing plans for transitional justice following an overthrow of the Hussein regime, including criminal charges against a larger number of Iraqis.

War crimes prosecutions would probably target Hussein and the aforementioned senior Iraqi officials, who have been referred to as the “dirty dozen,” according to the Washington Post.  The Bush administration supports trials held in Iraqi courts that would be partially staffed by international judges and lawyers, the Post reported.

“We’ll take the lead in setting the tone.  From there, it’s hard to say,” said Pierre-Richard Prosper, State’s war crimes ambassador.  “We know that Saddam and his dirty dozen are believed to be the leaders responsible for all the atrocities that have occurred there for well over a decade.  We know that over 100,000 people have been killed.”

There are concerns, however, that by preparing war crimes charges so far in advance, senior Iraqi officials who are facing prosecution will fight harder to remain in power, according to the Post.

“You want to get into Iraq the message that you’re not going to kill everybody in the Baath Party,” a U.S. official said (Peter Slevin, Washington Post, Oct. 30).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

IAEA Iraq Action Team

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Refuses Weapons Discussions With Tokyo

North Korea yesterday refused to discuss its nuclear weapons program with Japan during talks on normalizing relations between the two countries (see GSN, Oct. 29).  Instead, officials said they want to conduct any discussions on ending the country’s weapons program directly with the United States, according to the Financial Times.

The normalization talks, which are being held in Kuala Lumpur and were scheduled to end today, got off to a difficult start yesterday and “not much progress” was made, said Katsunari Suzuki, head of the Japanese delegation.

“It will be a tough negotiation — like inserting an elephant through a needle,” Suzuki said (David Pilling, Financial Times, Oct. 30).

Back to top

United States:  Sandia Designs Mock Nuclear Bomb

Technicians at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico recently completed the design of a new mock nuclear bomb to allow U.S. Air Force crews to practice handling nuclear devices (see GSN, Oct. 10).

The simulated B61 weapons replace older training bombs that were not realistic enough, Sandia engineer Beth Connors said.  Air Force officials designed the model to be sufficiently rugged for crews to hang it from airplane wings many times.

“This trainer is going to see thousands of hours of use,” Connors said.

When the mock bomb is mounted on a wing, the pilot’s cockpit instruments register as if an actual bomb is attached.

A pilot “wants to hit all his buttons and have all his lights light up the way they really would if it was a ‘go to war’ scenario,” Connors said.

Sandia began work on the B61 model in 1998 and the National Nuclear Security Administration plans to produce 51 units by March 2003.

Sandia technicians have also developed and built a number of training units for the military to use for hands on training, including a “scatter kit,” designed to look like nuclear weapons parts.  Military personnel train with the kit to be able to identify unexploded bomb parts in a nuclear accident.  Sandia also provides training units for the NNSA’s Pantex Plant in Texas, which assembles and disassembles nuclear weapons (John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal, Oct. 25).

Back to top

CTBT:  Botswana Ratifies Treaty

Botswana ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Monday (see GSN, Oct. 1).  The country hosts an auxiliary seismic station, part of the treaty’s International Monitoring System (see GSN, Sept. 18).  To date, 166 countries have signed the treaty and 97 have ratified it, including 31 of the 44 countries which must ratify the treaty before it can enter into force (CTBT Organization Web site, Oct. 30).

For further information, see:

CTBT Text

States Parties to the CTBT (Federation of American Scientists)

CTBT Organization

Back to top

Russia:  German Company Plans to Launch Converted ICBM

The German firm Astrium plans to launch a satellite on a Dnepr rocket, a model made from a former Russian SS-18 ICBM, ITAR-Tass reported Monday (see GSN, Sept. 12).  Astrium has signed a contract with the Russian-Ukrainian transnational space company Cosmotras, according to ITAR-Tass, and the launch is scheduled for December (ITAR-Tass, Oct. 28 in FBIS-SOV, Oct. 28).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Thousands Abandoned Treatment Prematurely

More than half of the government, media and postal workers who received antibiotics during last year’s anthrax attacks failed to finish taking the full course of the drugs, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported today (see GSN, Oct. 3).

Of the 10,000 people who received the medicine, 44 percent took the complete 60-day prescription, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (see GSN, Oct. 26, 2001).

The CDC plans to examine how it can better explain the risks of not completing the prescription if another emergency arises.  Anthrax spores can remain dormant for an indefinite amount of time, potentially affecting people more than a month after infection.  Many patients who stopped taking antibiotics thought they were safe, but they put themselves in danger, health officials said.

“We would probably make greater efforts to stay in contact with them, to determine if they were having difficulties and to make sure we could answer their questions,” said Stephen Ostroff, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases.

Another reason that many people abandoned their prescriptions was that side effects were much more prevalent than expected, the study says.  Of those who took the antibiotics, 57 percent suffered from headache, dizziness, diarrhea or nausea, 14 percent said their side effects were severe and 26 percent missed at least one day of work.  Four of those taking the medicine were hospitalized.  One manufacturer had said that 16.5 percent of people would experience side effects (M.A.J. McKenna, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Oct. 30).

Some officials took the CDC statistics as good news.

“Adverse events were commonly reported, but serious adverse events were rare,” CDC official Colin Shepard said.

“I’m gratified by how effective the [treatment] seemed to be,” Ostroff said.  “No one put on it developed anthrax” (Daniel Yee, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Oct. 30).

Back to top

United States:  Research Efforts Could Undermine Treaties, Scientists Say

U.S. efforts to develop nonlethal weapons and biological agents, ostensibly for defensive purposes, might undermine biological and chemical nonproliferation agreements, the South African Mail and Guardian reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 5).

In a paper to be published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Malcolm Dando, an international security professor at the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom, and Mark Wheelis, a microbiology professor at the University of California, named several U.S. research programs that appear to violate the Biological Weapons Convention.  The projects include:

*         the copying of a Soviet cluster bomb designed to disperse biological agents;

*         a U.S. Defense Department effort to build a biological weapons plant from commercially available materials to demonstrate that terrorists could do the same;

*         research into genetically engineered antibiotic-resistant anthrax and

*         a program to produce weaponized anthrax to test biological weapons defenses (see GSN, May 20).

The United States rejected a treaty enforcement protocol, which had high levels of international support, to keep U.S. research programs secret, according to Dando (see GSN, Oct. 1).

Additionally, the United States is investigating several nonlethal weapons similar to the gas used by Russian troops to end the takeover of a Moscow theater by Chechen militants, Dando said (see related GSN story, today).  Such weapons include “calmative” agents meant to incapacitate rather than kill a person.

“What happened in Moscow is a harbinger of what is to come,” Dando said.  “There is a revolution in life sciences which could be applied in a major way to warfare.  It’s an early example of the mess we may be creating” (Mail and Guardian, Oct. 29).

The Pentagon has denied conducting research on calmative agents, according to BBC News.

“There are no projects or research into calmatives,” a Pentagon spokesman said.

The United States is also not conducting any biological research that would require BWC oversight, said a spokesman for the Pentagon’s Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate.

“We have lawyers who are experts ... and they tell us right away if something is a technology they should or should not be looking at,” the spokesman said.  “We don’t have to go to a higher entity — they keep us honest” (BBC News, Oct. 29).

For further information, see:

BWC Text and Associated Documents (U.S. Defense Department)

BWC States Parties (U.S. State Department)

U.N. Background on BWC

Back to top

CWC:  Experts Differ on Whether Russian Hostage Rescue Violated Treaty

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Sharp differences have emerged among international arms control experts over whether Russia has violated the Chemical Weapons Convention by using an incapacitating substance during a hostage-freeing raid Saturday (see related GSN story, today).

A top Russian health official said today that the chemical substance delivered included the opioid fentanyl, which is used widely in medicine as an anesthetic.  A German health official said analyses in Munich suggest that the substance also included another anesthetic called halothane.

Russian authorities stormed a Moscow theater Saturday shortly after the incapacitating agent was used and shot the Chechen hostage-takers, who had killed prisoners and had threatened to blow up the building.  Authorities said 118 hostages died as a result of exposure to the agent but more than 600 survived (see GSN, Oct. 29).

“The Russians were in my mind not in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention,” said Jean Pascal Zanders, leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Others are not as sure.  “I think it is a potential violation because … we know it had persistent effects,” said Jonathan Tucker, director of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

The differences of view can be traced to interpretations of the language in the 1993 treaty.  Some experts, including Tucker, contend that a violation occurred, arguing that the substance was used as a riot control agent with results more damaging than allowed by the treaty.

They cite a treaty provision titled “Purposes Not Prohibited Under This Convention,” which allows the use of only certain riot control agents for law enforcement purposes.  The treaty defines a riot control agent as one that rapidly produces sensory irritation or disabling physical effects “which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.”  In addition, the treaty’s Schedule 1 chemicals are banned from legal riot control use.  Such chemicals, listed in a treaty annex, are considered to pose the highest risk for use in chemical weapons.

“If it persists for several hours or days, that is an incapacitating agent, which is banned by the convention,” Tucker said.  In his view, the effects of the agent should last no longer than an hour.

“The only agents which are permissible for law enforcement use are those that fit the definition of a riot control agent in the Chemical Weapons Convention,” said Edward Hammond, co-director of the Sunshine Project, a nongovernmental organization that has alleged that the United States is violating the chemical and biological weapons conventions by researching and developing certain nonlethal agents (see related GSN story, today).

In a recent interview for the Washington Post, Elisa Harris, a chemical weapons expert at the University of Maryland and former staff member at the National Security Council, also raised the possibility of a violation if Russian authorities “used something other than tear gases in this scenario.”

Another Interpretation

Other experts interpret the same treaty provision differently.  They say the Russian operation most certainly was law enforcement, though not riot control, and that the provision allows for chemicals to be used for law enforcement purposes other than riot control, without specifying what those purposes or chemicals might be used.

They cite the treaty language, “Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes,” and say the word “including” implies there are law enforcement purposes allowed other than riot control.  A classic example of such a purpose cited is executions for capital crimes, for which some U.S. authorities use a lethal gas.

“While it remains to be seen whether the Moscow theater use of gas was allowable for ‘riot control purposes,’ it could be allowable as ‘law enforcement,’ wrote Harvard professor Matthew Meselson, a co-director of the Harvard Sussex Program on Chemical and Biological Warfare Armament and Arms Limitation, in an e-mail Sunday.

Zanders agrees.

“The restrictions on the nature of the agent in terms the duration of the effects, or whether they are listed in the schedules or not, do not apply to law enforcement situations, with the exception of Schedule 1 chemicals,” he said.

Still, there appears to be some question about whether that interpretation is widely accepted in the international community.

According to Daniel Feakes, a researcher with the Harvard Sussex program at the University of Sussex, the British government in written comments to Parliament in 1992 on the treaty interpreted the criteria for using riot control agents to apply to apply to all law enforcement uses.

Foreign Minister Douglas Hogg wrote states parties “will be entitled to use toxic chemicals for law enforcement, including domestic riot control purposes, provided that such chemicals are limited to those not listed in the schedules to the convention and which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.”

“The way I read the answer is that the UK government (in 1992) interprets the CWC criteria for chemicals for riot control purposes as ALSO applying to the broader category of chemicals for law enforcement purposes,” Feakes wrote in an e-mail to colleagues posted on the Internet.

Hogg’s interpretation, Feakes said, implies the use of hydrogen cyanide for capital crime executions would not meet the treaty’s criteria since that agent is listed on one of the treaties schedules, or lists of chemicals for which varying restrictions apply.

Feakes’ research so far has turned up no additional comments by the British government further clarifying that view, or similar comments by other governments, and he said there could be a possibility the government was not precise in its language.

“To my mind there hasn’t been much discussion of that since 1993 or since the treaty came into force,” he said.  “You’ve always got to think that it wasn’t considered as carefully as it would be,” he said.

Was the Material Declared?

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, responsible for implementing the treaty, along with the United States and other countries, were pressing Russia for information in the chemical or chemicals used.

German, British and possibly other authorities had separately been analyzing chemical traces collected from their citizens who were rescued by Russian authorities.  U.S. officials reportedly said Tuesday they believed fentanyl was used.

A German medical expert in Munich told reporters today traces of halothane, an anesthetic agent often used in combination with opioids, were found on one victim.  He said it was likely used in combination with some other substance.

Even if the treaty did not ban the agent or agents used, Russian authorities may yet have committed a violation if the material was not declared to be in their stocks for such purposes, said Amy Smithson, a senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center.

“If they used an incapacitating agent that they had not declared to the international inspection agency as having on hand for these types of purposes, then they might run afoul of the international community,” she said.

“The first question to ask according to the treaty is did Russia declare this is one of the incapacitating agents it had on hand,” she said.

It does not appear that fentanyl was declared by Russia, at least not as of last year.  An annex to the 2001 Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons annual report provides a list of the chemicals declared by members for riot control purposes and fentanyl was not included.

If Russian authorities grabbed the agent or agents off the shelf of a medical facility that would also have been a violation, she said.

Feakes said, however, that Russian authorities were not required to pre-declare the agent used, because while the treaty requires declarations for riot control agents, “nowhere in the CWC are states parties required to declare for law enforcement purposes.”

“Russia could have fentanyl for law enforcement purposes other than riot control, if in types and quantities consistent with this purpose, and not have to declare it to the OPCW,” he said.

Possible Implications

While Zanders believes the Russian operation, if it turns out they did not include use of any forbidden chemical, was not a violation, he also says the incident points out a potential problem with the convention as currently written.

The absence of a definition of law enforcement agents used for purposes other than riot control, he said, “leaves a potential loophole in the convention.”

“I think it’s of great concern because the Russian action is just one more illustration of what I would call a new series of contingencies — conflict situations that have emerged in which so called nonlethal technologies might be considered for use by police and military forces — and among them I see anti-terrorism operations but also peacekeeping operations, where peacekeeping troops might be responsible for civil order,” he said.

“We are also approaching a very fuzzy borderline between such operations and actual warfare operations,” he said.

Zanders hopes treaty parties will use the pact’s first review conference next spring to clarify the understanding of the phrase law enforcement and how toxic chemicals might be restricted with respect to peacekeeping, anti-terrorism and rescue of foreign nationals abroad.

For further information, see:

CWC Text

OPCW Main Page

CWC States Parties

Pentagon Executive Summary of CWC

OPCW List of Other Chemical Conventions

Federation of American Scientists List of Chemical Weapon Agents

Back to top

Russia:  Theater Gas Was Fentanyl, Hostage Death Toll Rises

Russia used a chemical compound that included the anesthetic fentanyl to incapacitate Chechen extremists — and their hostages — in a Moscow theater Saturday, Russian Health Minister Yuri Shevchenko said today (see GSN, Oct. 29).

The compound would not have killed the hostages if they were not exhausted, dehydrated, hungry, unable to move and severely stressed, Shevchenko said.  After much international speculation, this is the first Russian admission of the use of fentanyl in the raid that freed several hundred hostages (Judith Ingram, Associated Press, Oct. 30).

Two hospitalized former hostages died yesterday, bringing the civilian death toll from the three-day siege to 119, Moscow’s chief medical officer Andrei Seltsovsky said.  At least 116 of those died as a result of the chemical (News24.com, Oct. 30).

Russian authorities pumped the chemical compound through the ventilation system before storming the theater; U.S. officials have said they believe the gas was an opiate, possibly fentanyl.  Soldiers also killed 50 Chechen hostage-takers in the assault, Russian officials said.

U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow today criticized Russian officials’ refusal to tell doctors what chemical had affected the hostages.

“We regret that the lack of information simply contributed to the confusion after the immediate operation to free the hostages was over,” Vershbow said.  “It’s clear that perhaps with a little more information at least a few more of the hostages would have survived.”

A Russian doctor who has been treating the freed hostages agreed that the lack of information has cost lives.

The opiate is mostly harmless if used properly, but emergency responders at the scene “weren’t prepared for detoxification,” the doctor said.

“If people were intubated and helped to breathe with artificial ventilation while still in the vehicles, almost everyone would have survived,” the doctor said.  “Everyone brought to my hospital alive is still alive” (Baker/Glasser, Washington Post, Oct. 30).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Missile Defense Agency Focuses on Boosters

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency and lead defense contractor Boeing are reviewing the national missile defense system’s test schedule and hope to improve the program’s boosters — historically plagued by problems — over the next fiscal year, Inside Missile Defense reported today (see GSN, Oct. 15).

“At this point the booster program is the least mature of all the elements, so we plan to concentrate on that part of the program over the next year in order to have that booster design ready to begin operationally realistic testing of the system,” a Missile Defense Agency official said.  “At this point in time, the integration of a new booster into the system is a priority for the program.”

In tests in 2003, the agency plans to power interceptors with a booster rocket developed by defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Orbital Sciences.  Surrogate boosters from Minuteman 2 missiles have been powering intercept tests to date, but the last scheduled test with a surrogate booster is scheduled for December or January, an agency official said.  The United States wants to conduct four flight tests each year, according to Inside Missile Defense (see GSN, Oct. 15).

Meanwhile, the agency plans to house five interceptor missiles in a Ft. Greely, Alaska, test bed to serve as a contingency defense capability (see GSN, Feb. 28).  Officials plan to use an April 2004 test to rehearse that capability, which could be in place for emergency deployment by October 2004, missile defense chief Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish told Congress in February (see GSN, July 19; Thomas Duffy, Inside Missile Defense, Oct. 30).

Back to top