Threat Assessment:  States May Help Terrorists Attack U.S., CIA Director Says

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Terrorists groups such as al-Qaeda are poised to launch a series of coordinated attacks against U.S. targets throughout the world, possibly using weapons of mass destruction, CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday (see GSN, March 18).

Countries such as Iraq and Iran may be aiding terrorists who aim to attack U.S. interests at home and abroad, creating concern that one of them may help Osama bin Laden or other terrorists obtain weapons of mass destruction, Tenet said.

“Although the Sept. 11 attack suggests that al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups will continue to use conventional weapons, one of our highest concerns is their stated readiness to attempt unconventional attacks against us,” Tenet said.

“Terrorist groups worldwide have ready access to information on chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons through open sources,” he continued.  “Documents recovered from al-Qaeda facilities in Afghanistan show that bin Laden was pursuing a sophisticated biological weapons research program.  We also believe that bin Laden was seeking to acquire or develop a nuclear device.  Al-Qaeda may be pursuing a radioactive dispersal device, what some call a ‘dirty bomb’ (see related GSN story, today).

“Alternatively, al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups might try to launch conventional attacks against the chemical or nuclear industrial infrastructure of the United States to cause widespread toxic or radiological damage,” Tenet said (see GSN, March 12).

Possible targets of terrorist attacks in the United States include high-profile government or private facilities, famous landmarks and U.S. infrastructure nodes, such as airports, bridges, harbors, dams and financial centers, Tenet said.  U.S. diplomatic and military installations are at high risk, especially in East Africa, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan, he said.

Al-Qaeda cells already in place in major European cities and the Middle East are prepared to launch attacks against U.S. interests, Tenet said.  The group also could call on associates or connections to other terrorists groups in countries such as Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia and the Philippines, he added.

State Link a Concern

Terrorists and countries such Iraq and Iran may have different ideological views, but they are drawn together by their common goals to attack U.S. interests and damage Western influence throughout the world, Tenet testified.

In the past Tenet and other U.S. officials have speculated that countries seeking to attack the United States might employ terrorists so that they are not directly linked to such attacks — hence, do not suffer the repercussions.

Yesterday Tenet said “tactical cooperation” between states and terrorists groups is possible.

“While al-Qaeda represents a broad-based, worldwide Sunni extremist network, it would be a mistake to dismiss possible connections to either other groups or state sponsors, either Sunni or Shia,” he said, referring to the different sects of Islam.

“States like Iran and Iraq … continue to support terrorist groups,” Tenet said.  “Iran continues to provide support, including arms transfers, to militant Palestinian groups and Hezbollah.  Tehran also failed to move decisively against al-Qaeda members who have relocated to Iran from Afghanistan,” Tenet said.

Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq has long supported terrorists, including giving sanctuary to Abu Nidal and other known terrorists, Tenet said.

“Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals,” Tenet said.  “It has also had contacts with al-Qaeda.  Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies, but the two sides’ mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences” (see GSN, March 19).

Political Balancing Act

The war on terrorism has greatly reduced the effectiveness of al-Qaeda, eliminating its training bases in Afghanistan and leading to the arrest of some 1,300 suspects in more than 70 countries, Tenet testified.

In addition to maintaining relations with terrorists who share a common enemy with Iraq — namely, the United States and Western influence in the Middle East — Hussein has been maneuvering to cultivate support among Arab neighbors, trying to make a U.S. attack on his country less likely, Tenet said (see GSN, March 19).

“Saddam has craftily responded to our progress in Afghanistan with a political and diplomatic charm offensive,” Tenet said. 

“He's carefully cultivating neighboring states, drawing them into economically dependent relationships, in the hopes of further undermining their support for sanctions,” he continued.  “The profits he gains from these relationships provide him the means to reward key supporters and, more importantly, to fund his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.”

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Bush Administration Will Ask for $25 Billion More

U.S. President George W. Bush will probably request an additional $25 billion in anti-terrorism funds as early as tomorrow, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, March 18).

About half of the funds will go to the Defense Department to help pay for the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and other countries, as well as to help defend U.S. cities and sites, aides said.  Rebuilding efforts in New York would take $5.5 billion of the request and $4 billion would go toward increasing U.S. airport security.  Bush might also request funds to help decontaminate U.S. postal facilities after last fall’s anthrax attacks, the AP reported.

There has been bipartisan support for Bush’s defense and domestic security plans and the funding request is likely to be popular, according to the AP.  Because of its expected popularity, Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are examining attaching it to an unpopular bill that would raise the government’s borrowing limits (Associated Press/New York Times, March 20).

Back to top

Iraq:  Any New Regime Likely to Abandon WMD Pursuit, Experts Say

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Iraq is likely to end its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction when a post-Saddam Hussein regime comes to power, but a successor regime might consider Iraq’s WMD capability to be an effective deterrent and choose to keep it, according to several analysts.

Analyzing Iraq’s next government has gained momentum as the Bush administration is seeking to build support for confronting Iraq (see GSN, March 19).

If Hussein loses power and a representative government takes over in Iraq, then you will see a move away from the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, said U.S. State Department spokesman Gregg Sullivan.  Instead, the focus would be on rebuilding Iraq’s economy, he said.

“I can’t imagine [someone] would spend money on guns when so much is needed on butter,” Sullivan said.

Any post-Saddam Hussein government would want to have relations with the United States, said Charles Duelfer, former deputy executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM).  He said one of the main U.S. conditions for better relations probably would be to get rid of the Iraqi WMD arsenal.

“I can’t see a new government creating the same problems the old one had,” Duelfer said.

Sullivan agreed, adding that it is the U.S. view that Iraq should give up its WMD aims.  “[We] would like to see an Iraq free from weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

A new regime in Iraq also would probably see the self-benefits of giving up weapons of mass destruction, said Robert Einhorn, former U.S. assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation.  New Iraqi leaders would be aware of the fact that it was Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction that led to U.S. calls, and potential direct action, for a regime change.

Deterrence With WMD

The deterrence value and Iraq’s past history of using weapons of mass destruction, however, might still make them attractive to any future Iraqi government, according to other experts.

It is in the interest of the Iraqi state to protect itself from its powerful neighbors, such as Iran, said Ann Joyce, vice president of the Middle East Policy Council.  Weapons of mass destruction make powerful deterrents, and Iraq will continue to want them for that purpose, she said.

“If you’ve got your own doomsday machine, you’re better protected,” Joyce said.

Iraq has no legitimate rights to weapons of mass destruction for deterrence, Sullivan said, disputing assertions that Iraq has viewed its WMD arsenal as helping to win its war against Iran in the 1980s and preventing U.S. forces from invading Baghdad during the Gulf War.

Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, and Iraq’s use ultimately led to Iran responding in kind, Sullivan said.  Iran even referred to chemical weapons as “un-Islamic weapons” and had only primitive, World War-I-type munitions such as mustard gas, while Iraq used modern sarin and tabun chemical weapons, he said.

It is “a flawed, revisionist view of history if Iraq needs to defend itself with weapons of mass destruction,” Sullivan said.

Who Will Be Next?

The composition of the post-Saddam Hussein government will play a role in determining Iraq’s future views toward weapons of mass destruction, Einhorn said.  Already, several candidates have emerged, according to reports (see GSN, Feb. 13).

In one possible scenario, one of Hussein’s two sons — Uday or Qusay — might grab control.

“You have to remember the Iraq government is a family enterprise,” former high-level Iraqi official Khidr Hamzah said, according to ABC News.com.  “It’s run by family members, tribal members, second cousins, their sons, their nephews .… It’s a tribal system that (runs) the country and family relations” are the best way to ensure loyalty.

If one of Hussein’s sons were to take control, they probably would continue to pursue weapons of mass destruction just as their father did, Einhorn said.  The United States, however, would probably oppose either Uday or Qusay, according to experts.

Uday is a “bit over the top even by Iraqi standards,” Duelfer said.

Qusay has been more groomed for power, but still poses many of the same risks as his father and could be even worse due to his recklessness, Joyce said.  Duelfer agreed that Qusay is just as ruthless as his father, but lacks the charisma Saddam has.

The informal message going around in Washington is that just removing Hussein, and Hussein alone, from power “won’t be enough,” Duelfer said.

Several former Iraqi military officers-in-exile also have floated themselves as possible candidates for a new Iraqi leadership.  One such former officer waiting in the wings is Nizar al-Khazraji, a four-star general who ran the Iraqi Army from 1980 until 1991, during both the Iran-Iraq war and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, according to Newsweek.

Another potential candidate is the former head of the Iraqi military intelligence unit, Maj. Gen. Wafiq al-Samarrai, who was among the military officials that Hussein believed were plotting against him in the mid-1990s, causing al-Samarrai to flee to London, Newsweek reported.

Al-Khazraji and al-Samarrai, however, are burdened by their ties to past WMD use by the Iraqi military, according to Newsweek.  Denmark, where al-Khazraji lives in exile, is investigating him for war crimes connected to his suspected ordering of poison gas attacks against Iraq’s Kurdish minority in the north of the country that killed 5,000 in 1988.

Al-Khazraji said it was Iraqi military intelligence, headed by al-Samarrai, who ordered the gas attacks, Newsweek reported.

Whoever ends up in control in Iraq after Hussein is deposed might not want to cozy up to the United States so quickly, Joyce said, warning that the new leader could “get bumped off.”

Outside Influences

Other opposition groups under U.S. consideration as possible players in a new Iraqi government include the Supreme Islamic Council for Revolution in Iraq, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party, according to the New Yorker.

These opposition groups are made up of members from Iraq’s two largest and heavily oppressed minorities:  Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north.  Even though they have connections to outside influences — Iran, the only Shiite-majority Islamic state, and Kurdish independence movements throughout Central Asia and the Middle East — their loyalties probably would still be to Iraq alone if they gain power, according to experts.

Iraqi Kurds are not looking to form an independent state, as some Kurdish groups in other countries are doing, Joyce said.  She added that it also is unlikely that Iraq’s Shiite community would work together with Iran, since it did not do so during the Iraq-Iran war.

Duelfer agreed and said Iraq’s Shiite community, although having religious ties to Iran, sees itself as Iraqi in terms of its self-identity.

“There’s more holding the country together than pulling it apart,” he said.

The United States wants to see the territorial integrity of Iraq maintained in a post-Saddam Hussein environment, and any U.S. cooperation with Kurdish and Shiite opposition groups is contingent on that goal, Sullivan said.

He said he hopes that any current Shiite cooperation with Iran is based on the two having a common enemy in Hussein, and that once Hussein is removed from power, Iraq’s Shiite community would resent any further Iranian meddling.

What Role for the United Nations?

While Hussein has fought tooth-and-nail to keep U.N. biological and chemical weapons inspectors out of Iraq, a new government probably would be more willing to cooperate, experts said (see GSN, March 11).

Once any military action against Iraq would be completed, there would need to be diplomatic efforts in which the United Nations could play a vital role, Joyce said, adding that the United States should begin efforts now to convince the Iraqi people that their next leader would be more acceptable to negotiate with than Hussein.

The international community will have much more leverage over Iraq in a post-Saddam Hussein world because Iraq wants nothing more than to re-establish ties to the West, Duelfer said.

Even with a new government’s cooperation, the United Nations would still be involved in Iraq due to the country’s past obligations, Sullivan said, adding the U.N. Security Council does not “personalize” things.

It is still largely unknown what WMD designs a post-Saddam Hussein government in Iraq would have, and which people or groups would compose the new regime, according to experts.

In testimony early this month before the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, Einhorn said, “Those uncertainties are subject to positive influence and are far preferable to the certainty of a Baghdad government that is bound and determined to acquire nuclear weapons and long-range means to deliver them — and sooner or later will succeed.”

Back to top

Al-Qaeda:  No Evidence of Chemical or Biological Weapons, Officials Say

U.S. investigators in Afghanistan have found no evidence that al-Qaeda produced or acquired biological or chemical weapons, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, March 18).

“They haven’t found anything,” a U.S. official said.  “There are no traces showing production at any of the sites we thought might be involved.”

Tests such as soil samples and swabs have been conducted at more than 60 sites in Afghanistan, with none detecting any materials that would be used in biological or chemical weapons, the officials said, adding that testing is still continuing.

Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration had gathered information indicating al-Qaeda had conducted crude biological and chemical weapons experiments, officials said.  U.S. forces searching abandoned al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, however, have found no physical evidence of testing or production, the Times reported.  If al-Qaeda did conduct such tests, they must have been small in scale, according to analysts.

Even though al-Qaeda probably has not developed chemical or biological weapons or the means to produce them, the group accumulated a storehouse of research on biological and chemical compounds, said analysts who reviewed the thousands of documents recovered from the abandoned training camps.

According to a review of textbooks and papers found, al-Qaeda also appeared to be training its members in basic sciences such as chemistry, but that training did not appear to have gone beyond a college undergraduate level, the analysts said.

There are still sites in Afghanistan that must be tested and evidence of al-Qaeda chemical or biological weapons might still be found, some U.S. officials said.

The “absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence,” said one analyst, adding that Bush administration officials believe some concrete evidence could still be found (Johnston/Risen, New York Times, March 20).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Lugar Introduces Bill to Expand CTR to Other Countries

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) introduced a new bill Monday to expand the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which is currently focused on former Soviet states, to other countries with weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, March 18).

Lugar’s bill, called the Nunn-Lugar/CTR Expansion Act, would authorize the defense secretary to use up to $50 million of nonobligated CTR funds for nonproliferation projects in states other than those of the former Soviet Union.

The CTR program currently provides assistance to the former Soviet states to employ former weapons scientists, dismantle missiles and weapons of mass destruction and secure WMD materials and facilities.

Under the bill, the Defense Department could ask Congress for permission to use some CTR funds for other countries if there are concerns about the security and safety of WMD materials.  Congress would review requests and decide whether to approve projects.

In an emergency situation in which there is a high possibility that weapons of mass destruction could be diverted or stolen, the defense secretary could decide to launch “emergency operations,” Lugar said when introducing the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor.

The defense secretary would have to report to lawmakers within 72 hours of launching a mission.  Under the current program, the United States has responded to emergency situations in Kazakhstan and Georgia, Lugar said.

Lugar’s proposal would allow the Defense Department to provide only equipment, goods and services to other countries — not cash.  The program “is not foreign aid,” Lugar said, noting that more than 80 percent of CTR funds have been given to U.S. firms contracted to work in the former Soviet Union.

The bill is also designed to use funds from several projects rather than one particular area so that extending CTR to other countries does not significantly hinder individual programs in the former Soviet Union.

A provision in the bill provides for the possible expansion of the CTR program more directly to another country.  If the Defense Department provides CTR assistance to a country for two years in a row, the department and Congress could consider expanding the program more permanently to the country.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Richard Lugar is a board member of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]

Back to top

International Response:  IAEA Board Approves New Security Plan

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors yesterday approved a new program for securing nuclear materials worldwide from sabotage, theft and possible use in terrorism.

Through the effort, the agency will offer expertise in assessing vulnerabilities in nuclear security and assistance in addressing them.

Such assistance might include security standards, guidelines and methodologies, training, technical and administrative advice.

“National measures for protecting nuclear material and facilities are uneven in their substance and application,” said the agency in a press release, after the plan was approved “in principle” during a closed meeting.

“There is wide recognition that the international physical protection regime needs to be strengthened,” the agency said.

The program would specifically help improve protection of nuclear facilities, border controls, detection of malicious activities using nuclear material, state systems for accounting and control of such material, responses to malicious acts or threats, coordination and information management and adherence to international guidelines.

A preliminary proposal for the plan was announced in November (see GSN, Nov. 30, 2001).

In developing the program, there apparently was concern among states about protecting confidentiality and avoiding leaks of information about vulnerabilities.

Anita Nilsson, head of the agency’s physical protection and material security office, told Global Security Newswire the program would not provide inspections, but would rather arrange for states on request the opportunity to have a team of experts, or “peers,” perhaps from another country of choice to provide assessments or services.

A single report might be prepared after an assessment to be provided to the client, she said.

Bypasses Budget Cap

The program is to be funded entirely through donations from member states, necessary since the agency has been operating under a zero real growth budget cap for 15 years. The overall agency budget is currently about $300 million.

To pay for the program, a number of states during the Board of Governors meeting pledged money for a special fund to support the plan including: $100,000 from Australia, $350,000 from Great Britain, $500,000 from Japan, $221,000 from the Netherlands, $12,000 from Slovenia and $1 million from the United States.

The plan is not intended reduce to diminish the responsibilities of states for protection, said IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.

“In some rare cases,” said Nilsson, the program might provide some small types of equipment if there are some specific needs. She said, however, there were no pledges for providing equipment through the program so far.

The pledges would need to be renewed each year, but there is hope the program eventually will be included in the IAEA budget, said Nilsson.

The United States lately has been aggressively working to persuade other states to free the agency from the budget caps, officials say.

Non-Monetary Assistance

Finland, France, Germany, India, Romania and Turkey said they would provide nonfunding assistance, such as training facilities, to support the program, and others said they plan contributions in the near future.

The pledges come on top of a $1.2 million pledge last year by the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

“This modest investment in nuclear security will bring benefits for all states,” ElBaradei said.  “All of us are vulnerable, because all of us use nuclear materials and radioactive materials [that] can easily move across borders.”

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group, Inc.]

Back to top

North Korea:  Bush Will Refuse to Certify Compliance, Officials Say

U.S. President George W. Bush will not certify that North Korea is abiding by a 1994 nuclear agreement, but he still intends to permit a $95 million shipment in fuel oil to North Korea under the pact, officials said yesterday (Peter Slevin, Washington Post, March 20).

Officials said Bush plans to waive congressionally required certification, allowing the United States to send aid and continue other work under the 1994 Agreed Framework, a deal in which North Korea agreed to end its nuclear weapons program in exchange for the construction of two nuclear power reactors (see GSN, March 15).

Refusing to certify North Korean compliance acknowledges the possibility that North Korea might still be developing nuclear weapons, as some critics of the agreement say (see GSN, Feb. 14).

A senior U.S. official said that though Bush will refuse to certify North Korean compliance, the move does not mean that the United States believes North Korea is violating the agreement.

“We’re not walking away from the agreement,” the official said.  “We’re continuing to implement it and hoping for progress” (Miller/Sanger, New York Times, March 20).

The Bush decision is the first time a U.S. administration will not certify North Korean compliance.  The previous Clinton administration told Congress annually that North Korea was fulfilling its obligations under the agreement.

Why Bush Will Not Certify

The U.S. State Department has recommended against certification, a senior State official said yesterday.  A staff member said Bush has not made a formal decision on the certification but has agreed with the State Department’s recommendation.

Some officials believe North Korea hid nuclear material from inspectors in the 1990s, said an official involved in discussions regarding North Korean compliance.

A major point of convention is North Korea’s refusal to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors access to several sites (see GSN, Jan. 23).  The 1994 agreement requires IAEA inspectors to examine several sites before the two light-water reactors that the United States and other countries are building in North Korea can become operational.

The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), an international organization building the reactors, has started excavation and preliminary work at the site where they are supposed to be built.  The organization plans to pour foundations in August (Slevin, Washington Post).

The IAEA said last summer it would need 36 to 48 months to complete full inspections in North Korea.  The reactors probably will be mostly complete by May 2005, so unless inspections begin very soon, the reactors are unlikely to be brought on line as scheduled (see GSN, Dec. 5, 2001).

Missile Exports

The United States is also displeased with North Korean missile technology exports, although the Agreed Framework does not include any restrictions on such exports.

“Exports of missile technology are increasing as fast as they [North Korea] can increase them — to whomever will buy them,” said a Bush administration official (see GSN, Feb. 21).

At the end of former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s term, Clinton administration officials said they were close to reaching an agreement with North Korea on missile exports.  The Bush administration, which said an agreement was not close, has continued only low-level talks with North Korea.

The Bush administration has said North Korea has refused to talk with Bush (see GSN, Feb. 22), and North Korea has said Bush only shows hostility (Miller/Sanger, New York Times).

Opposition to Waiver

Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said last week that Bush should certify North Korean compliance with the 1994 agreement unless there is sound proof North Korea is not in compliance.

“We have no evidence they are in breach,” said a congressional staffer.  “We share the president’s concern about their long-term intentions, but they remain in compliance with all of their central obligations under the Agreed Framework, according to what we have been told.”

“As far as we can see, it has been fulfilled,” a KEDO official said.  “We challenge anybody who wants to make us believe that the North Koreans didn’t stick to the bargain” (Slevin, Washington Post).

Major Military Drills

Meanwhile, U.S. and South Korean troops tomorrow will begin the largest military drills simulating conflict with North Korea since the Korean War.  The United States says the drills are only defensive exercises, but North Korea says they are provocative.

The drills come as South Korea issued warnings that conflict with North Korea is increasing in likelihood.  Reasons why a crisis could occur include the end of North Korea’s moratorium on missile test launches in 2003 (see GSN, Jan. 15), North Korean refusal to allow IAEA inspections and disagreements regarding the KEDO reactors, according to Agence France-Presse.

“We may face a similar crisis to the one over Pyongyang’s nuclear program in 1994,” Lim Won-Dong, an adviser to South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung, said this week.  “Progress must be made on these issues within a year or there will be another crisis,” said Lim (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, March 20).

Back to top

United States:  Cracked Stealth Bombers Keep Flying

The U.S. Air Force has found cracks in 16 B-2 stealth bombers, but the damage is not significant enough to ground the 21-plane fleet, U.S. Defense Department officials said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 2).

B-2 bombers participated in the first week of the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, but have only flown training missions since (see GSN, Oct. 29, 2001).

The cracks, ranging up to nine inches long, were discovered on titanium plates behind engine exhausts, according to the New York Times.  Air Force officials do not know what caused the cracks, and they have not developed any fixes, the Air Force said.

Military officials believe the cracks pose little risk to the safety of the B-2s, and aircrews have continued to fly training missions, an Air Force spokesman said.  Now, however, maintenance crews measure the cracks after each flight, the Times reported.

Purchased for $2.2 billion apiece, the B-2 is also among the most expensive planes to maintain in the U.S. Air Force, according to the Times.  The Air Force spends $150 million per year on depot maintenance and employs 1,000 workers to take care of the 21 B-2s stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

A recent Pentagon assessment found that the average B-2 was available for combat duty only 31 percent of the time in 2001, down from 37 percent in 2000.  The Air Force aims to keep its aircraft combat-ready 60 percent of the time. (James Dao, New York Times, March 20). 

Back to top

Smallpox:  Early Research on Anti-Viral Derivative Shows Effectiveness

Early research has shown that a derivative of the HIV anti-viral drug cidofovir is effective in combating smallpox, U.S. scientists said yesterday at a medical conference in Prague (see GSN, March 19).

“Although it’s too early to say that this is, quote, a breakthrough, there are some very encouraging components about this,” said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.  “We are pushing very vigorously to get this into a trial in humans, to see if it would work.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already approved cidofovir as an experimental treatment in the event of a smallpox outbreak.  The derivative, made by adding a molecule called a lipid to cidofovir, is 100 times more powerful and can be taken orally instead of through intravenous injections as cidofovir requires, said Karl Hostetler, a professor of medicine at the University of California at San Diego who helped develop the derivative.

“If it tracks all the way through, it could be a very useful addition” to treatment strategies, Hostetler said.  “People could self-administer it instead of having to go to places and stand in line” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, March 20).

Research indicated that five oral doses of the derivative given to mice infected with cowpox, a cousin of smallpox, prevented death.  Scientists also learned that, unlike cidofovir, the derivative reduced the amount of smallpox virus in the lungs of infected animals to undetectable levels, according to the Chicago Tribune.

“Until now, the eradication and control of smallpox relied upon vaccination,” Hostetler said.  “These results suggest that anti-viral drugs given orally in a regimen consisting of as few as five doses over five to 14 days might be used as an alternative to people exposed to smallpox, especially those individuals who cannot safely be vaccinated” (Peter Gorner, Chicago Tribune, March 20).

U.S. Office of Public Health Preparedness Director D.A. Henderson, however, said he was unconvinced that the government should stockpile cidofovir.  Animal studies have shown that the drug is only effective immediately after smallpox exposure, and not when symptoms set in.  He said if the derivative works in the same way, then there is little advantage to it over vaccination.

“I know I look like some kind of troglodyte, as though I am not interested in anything novel or new,” said Henderson, who had a key role in the World Health Organization’s efforts to eradicate smallpox in the 1970s and 1980s.  “But you can see why I am a little lukewarm about this” (Stolberg, New York Times).

Back to top

Russia I:  U.S. Doubts Keep Destruction Funds Frozen

By Anne Marie Pecha
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States believes Russia has more chemical weapons than it has acknowledged under the Chemical Weapons Convention, complicating efforts to release funds for destroying them, a U.S. official told Global Security Newswire Monday (see GSN, March 1).

“There is information available to us that suggests there are stockpiles that have not been declared,” said a Bush administration official.  “This is a concern that the Russians need to address.”

According to the 2002 Defense Authorization Act enacted in December, the United States is withholding all chemical weapon nonproliferation aid to Russia — currently $50 million — until Pentagon officials can certify that Russia has met certain requirements, including disclosing the “full and accurate” size of its existing chemical weapons stockpile (see GSN, Feb. 1).

Although Sergei Kiriyenko, chairman of the Russian state commission for chemical disarmament, told the Russian Nezavisimaya Gazeta that Russia has declared all of its weapons because “understatement of supplies would imply a smaller sum of assistance,” the United States is not buying that argument, the administration official said (see GSN, Feb. 4).

“Our concerns are a little bit different,” the official said.  “We want to make sure the Russians understand the seriousness of this and are prepared to show greater transparency.”

In February, both Kiriyenko and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell had expressed hope that Russia would meet U.S. conditions this spring.

“I think we finally got the certification cleared up,” Powell said during testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  “I assured Mr. Kiriyenko that I think we’re almost there, and that will release $50 million” (see GSN, Feb. 6).

Kiriyenko told the Moscow Times that he hoped to work out an agreement before U.S. President George W. Bush visits Moscow in May (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The administration official told GSN this week, however, that Russia faces at least two major obstacles to receiving the funds it needs to build a destruction facility for nerve agents at Shchuchye this year — full disclosure and concrete plans (see GSN, March 1).

“At this stage without the Russians addressing and resolving our concerns, I don’t see that anyone is going to prepare a recommendation [for Pentagon certification] any time soon,” the official said.  “I don’t want to write it off, but it’s going to be difficult.”

In addition to the problem of Russia’s declaration, the United States is concerned about another of the congressional requirements — practical plans for destroying the nerve agent stockpile.

“There have been a number of different ideas, statements and announcements in Russia,” the official said.  “They seem to be basically conceptual rather than a concrete plan.”

Finally, a short construction season further hinders Russia’s goals, according to the official.  “Shchuchye has a very short construction season.  If anything is going to happen, it has to happen soon.”

Back to top

Russia II:  $10 Billion Needed to Destroy Russian Stockpiles, Biden Says

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States should pour up to $10 billion into Russia to help the country safely rid itself of nearly 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapons, the largest such arsenal in the world, Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said yesterday (see related GSN story, today).

Because Russian officials appear willing to destroy their chemical stockpiles but cannot afford the costs, the United States and other countries party to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention should bear the financial burden, Biden said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

A significant boost in aid from the United States and other countries would help Russia wipe out its gigantic chemical arsenal by 2012, five years later than the treaty goal, according to Biden, other U.S. senators, analysts and an assistant secretary of state.

“The Russian CW stockpile is a ticking time bomb,” Biden said, referring to the possibility that these chemicals, many of which are weaponized, could wind up in the hands of terrorists or other U.S. enemies. 

“We need to accelerate, in my view, U.S. funding, and that may cost as much as $10 billion over several years — a price we can afford if we want to neutralize that menacing threat.”

Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said some U.S. officials have complained that taxpayer money should not be used to solve a Russian problem, but they are now beginning to understand that these stockpiles pose a threat to the United States and just about every other country. 

“I think we're over that hurdle,” Lugar said.  “We sort of understand that the stuff is portable.  Proliferation could occur.”

2012 Deadline Hard to Meet

In accordance with the chemical weapons treaty, Russia is supposed to get rid of its declared 39,969 metric tons of chemical weapons by 2007.  Now, however, it appears likely that the country could not even meet an extended 2012 deadline, Biden said.

This year the U.S. Defense Department is scheduled to spend $50 million on programs to assist Russia with destroying chemical weapons, and European countries such as Germany and Norway are also chipping in, but the 2012 deadline could only be met if the Bush administration commits $8 billion to $10 billion over the next several years, Biden said.

“Russia needs to step up to the plate with its own funding, and we need to push our European allies to do more, because it’s clearly in their interests as much as ours,” Biden said.  “Why is it not in our interest, I keep asking myself, for us to spend $8 to $10 billion to wipe out a significant portion of the chemical capability that exists there?”

“Those countries that have an interest in the destruction of the Russian CW stockpile — which is in essence every state party to the CWC — should also provide more assistance,” said Michael Moodie, president of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute.  “In my view the Europeans and Japanese should do more.”

Russians Want Change

Moscow apparently only spends $5 billion on its defense budget, a far cry from the nearly $400 billion that the Bush administration has proposed the United States should spend for its military next year.

As a result, Russia is strapped to come up with the funds to destroy its gigantic chemical arsenal, which is stored at seven different locations throughout the country.  Russian officials would be happy to start destroying its chemical weapon stockpiles as the United States and other countries have done, but they simply do not have the cash to do so, officials said yesterday (see GSN, March 18).

“The Russians have a palpable fear of the results of the stuff getting out, as we do, to Chechens or others in their own country, where Russians would be killed,” Lugar said.  “The problem is … it comes down essentially to money.  There hasn't been very much in the Russian budget.”

“The Russians clearly would like to be rid of this problem,” testified Carl Ford, assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research.

“They’re afraid that they're going to lose some of them — somebody’s going to steal them, somebody’s going to sell them — and so that they’d like to have them off their hands,” Ford continued.  “They also are clearly understanding that many of these weapons are deteriorating and that they are … going to be a costly problem in the future for themselves.”

Biden said he believes Russian officials are serious when they say they want to adhere to the CWC and destroy all their chemical agents over the next decade.  “My impression is they desperately need help,” he said.

What About Russia’s Biological Arsenal?

Russia may also be willing to destroy or at least reduce some of its biological weapons stockpiles, the details of which remain a closely guarded secret, Ford said.  Even though Moscow is party to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, Russian scientists covertly maintained offensive biological weapons programs, and might continue to do so today, Ford said (see GSN, March 18).

Ford said he could not discuss what details U.S. officials know about Russia’s biological weapons programs during an open hearing, but he did offer some insight into their programs and how they might want to strike a deal on ending them.

“My unclassified answer is that I think that biological weapons research is a serious and embarrassing subject for a lot of people, and that they’re — even if they have changed their mind about the use of biological weapons and would like to be rid of them, as we would — they probably have fibbed to us a little bit, or fibbed to some people about it, and they don’t want us to find out the extent of their program,” Ford testified. 

“I think it has more to do with embarrassment of what they had up their sleeve and what they were doing rather than a desire to keep a capability back and use it against the United States at some point in the future,” he said.

Back to top

CWC:  United States Calls For Bustani to Resign

The United States yesterday called for the resignation of Jose Bustani, director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention (see GSN, March 19).

The management of the OPCW is beset by “problems that have resulted in the loss of confidence in the current director,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.  “The loss of confidence is widespread among many countries of the world, and we’ve seen a variety of problems there, including financial mismanagement, demoralization of the technical secretariat staff and what many believe are to be ill-considered initiatives.”

“So the United States and others, given these serious concerns, don’t believe the [OPCW] can continue to fulfill its primary mission of eliminating chemical weapons under its current leadership,” Boucher said (U.S. State Department release, March 19).

The United States, which has been lobbying for support against Bustani, is expected to propose a “no confidence” vote on Bustani later this week at a meeting of the OPCW executive council at The Hague, according to a senior Bush administration official.

A majority of the 41 members of the council are expected to support the U.S. position or abstain from voting, the official said.  Bustani only has the support of a few states, including Russia, Iran, Cuba and his home country, Brazil, officials said.

The U.S. call for Bustani’s resignation has nothing to do with the increasingly aggressive tone from the United States toward Iraq, State Department officials said.  Instead, U.S. officials believe that Bustani is “a terrible manager whose judgment calls have undermined American and world confidence in a vital international institution that the United States strongly supports,” said a senior State Department official (Judith Miller, New York Times, March 20).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  More Complex Tests to Follow Successful Intercept Test

Last week’s successful intercept during a missile defense test will allow the U.S. Missile Defense Agency to increase the complexity of future tests, Defense Department and industry officials said Monday (see GSN, March 18).

Last week’s test, which used three decoys, helped developers design the interceptor to distinguish between a mock warhead and decoys.  Plans for upcoming tests, including the next flight test in the summer, will rapidly become more challenging, officials said, according to Defense Daily.  Future tests will include new target sets, alteration in attack angles and more decoys, officials said.

“Tonight’s test is a major step in our aggressive developmental test program,” the MDA said Friday.  “We will continue to pursue this testing regime to achieve a layered approach to missile defense, using different architectures to deter the growing threat of ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction.”

TRW Says Its System Works Well

Defense contractor TRW said the test, which used the contractor’s battle management system (BMC3), proved the system’s ability to function against more decoys (see GSN, March 6).

“Tonight’s test further challenged the system by increasing the number of decoys from one to three, demonstrating the BMC3’s ability to perform against more complex target suites,” said Donald Winter, president and CEO of TRW Systems.

As tests become more complex, TRW will have to update the battle management system, said Jerry Agee, vice president of TRW’s Missile Defense Division, adding that the success of Friday’s test proved the system is on the right track (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, March 19).

Back to top