Weapons inspections in Iraq have not turned up any hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction and “transparency is increasing,” U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council yesterday, according to his briefing notes (see GSN, Jan. 9).
The prompt access and cooperation provided by Iraqi officials, however, “is no guarantee that prohibited stocks or activities could not exist at other sites, whether above ground, underground or in mobile units,” according to the notes.
Blix also criticized the Iraqi declaration as “rich in volume but poor in new information about weapons issues and practically devoid of new evidence on such issues.”
The burden is on Iraq to prove it has no weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi officials could provide a range of evidence, including “budgets, letters of credit, productions records, destruction records, transportation notes, or interviews by knowledgeable persons, who are not subjected to intimidation,” according to the notes.
“If evidence is not presented, which gives a high degree of assurance, there is no way the inspectors can close a file by simply invoking a precept that Iraq cannot prove the negative. In such cases, regrettably, they must conclude, as they have done in the past, that the absence of the particular item is not assured,” the notes say.
Blix’s notes also say that the “Air Force document” — submitted by Iraq to account for chemical weapons it says it used during the Iran-Iraq war — is insufficient and does not resolve the inspectors’ questions. There are also outstanding questions regarding possible stocks of the chemical agent VX.
“We have found no additional information in the declaration that would help to resolve this [VX] issue. Instead, it contains information that is contradicted by documents previously found by UNSCOM. Iraq will have to further clarify the matter,” the notes say.
Blix also said that Iraq’s list of personnel was insufficient. The list included 117 people associated with Iraq’s chemical programs, 120 for biological programs and 156 for missile programs.
“This is an inadequate response,” the notes say. “We do not feel that the Iraqi side has made a serious effort to respond to the request we made,” Blix added.
In its declaration, Iraq also declared the import of banned missile engines and material for missile fuel, some as late as 2002, according to Blix’s notes.
Currently, there are 100 U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission inspectors, 58 support staff and 49 air crew in Iraq, the notes say. As of Wednesday, UNMOVIC had conducted 150 inspections of 127 sites. The inspectors have eight helicopters and plan to begin high-altitude surveillance soon, the notes say.
A group of 19 inspectors are working out of a regional office that the United Nations has established in Mosul, according to the notes (CNN.com, Jan. 9).
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s top science official, Gen. Amir Saadi, criticized the report.
Those who allege shortcomings in Iraq’s reports are either “not fully acquainted with our voluminous declaration or they lost their way” while reading it, Saadi said (Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, Jan. 10).
The International Atomic Energy Agency has conducted 109 inspections at 88 sites in Iraq, according to notes from IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei who also briefed the Security Council yesterday (CNN.com II, Jan. 9).
Elbaradei’s report questions U.S. President George W. Bush’s assertion to the U.N. General Assembly last September that Iraq was attempting to buy aluminum tubes for use in uranium enrichment centrifuges.
“While the matter is still under investigation and further verification is foreseen, the IAEA’s analysis to date indicates that the specifications of the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq in 2001 and 2002 appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets,” the report says. “While it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for it,” the report added (Michael Gordon, New York Times, Jan. 10).
Iraqi Scientists Not “Ready” to Leave
Meanwhile, in Baghdad, no Iraqi scientists are ready to leave the country for interviews with U.N. weapons inspectors, said Gen. Hussam Mohamed Amin, chief of Iraq’s monitoring directorate.
“Nobody is ready to go outside to make an interview with UNMOVIC or the IAEA,” Amin said (Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, Jan. 10).
Officials Want Deadline Pushed Back
Officials from Russia, Britain and Germany yesterday called for allowing the inspectors sufficient time to complete their work in work. The first significant inspections report due Jan. 27 should not be considered a final report, officials said (Nichols/Diamond, USA Today, Jan. 10).
U.S. officials agreed that Jan. 27 would probably not be a firm deadline.
“It’s wrong to assume anything has to happen in January or February. We’re not in this to call a quick war, so don’t assume any timetable,” said a senior U.S. State Department official. “We have to exhaust the U.N. process to get people to come through with military and other support,” the official added.
The White House also said that inspectors must be given room to work.
“The president has said that he wants the inspectors to be able to do their jobs, to continue their efforts, and that’s what we support,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday said that the inspectors were only “in the middle” of their work (Robin Wright, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 10).
The Jan. 27 report “will be another in a series of reports, likely not the last,” said British U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock. “Jan. 27 won’t necessarily produce something new or dramatic. My advice is to calm down,” he added (Betsy Pisik, Washington Times, Jan. 10).
French U.N. Ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, also opposed a firm time limit (Wright, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 10).
Inspectors Visit Four Sites Today
Inspectors visited four sites near Baghdad today, and went to seven sites in central Iraq yesterday, Reuters reported.
A team of chemical inspectors visited the al-Mamoun Plant of the al-Rasheed State Company, run by the Military Industrialization Commission 25 miles southeast of Baghdad.
The facility was suspected to be developing missiles that would be armed with chemical or biological weapons and the site was named in a British dossier released in September 2002, Reuters reported (see GSN, Sept. 24, 2002).
A team also visited the State Company for Drugs and Medical Appliances in the Jadiriya suburb of Baghdad. Biological experts visited the Trade Ministry of Baghdad’s al-Dabbash and al-Adel stores (Reuters/MSNBC.com, Jan. 10).
Experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have conducted hundreds of inspections in Iraq since resuming the post-Gulf War inspection regime Nov. 27. More than 100 inspectors are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ reported activities.
| Date | Site | Activity | | Jan. 10 | Al-Mamoun Plant of al-Rasheed State Company, about 25 miles southeast of Baghdad | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the site, which produces missile propellants (see GSN, Jan. 10). | | State Company for Drugs and Medical Appliances in Jadiriya | See GSN, Jan. 10. | | Trade Ministry’s al-Dabbash stores in Baghdad | | Trade Ministry’s al-Adel stores in Baghdad | | Jan. 9 | Al-Rifah facility in Baghdad | See GSN, Jan. 9. | | Al-Hareth in Taji, about 10 miles north of Baghdad | | Al-Milad in Yousefiyah, about 10 miles south of Baghdad | | Al-Rayah facility in Taji, about 10 miles north of Baghdad | | Ayniyah in Beji, about 110 miles north of Baghdad | | Baghdad medical laboratory | | Al-Qadisiyah facility, located northeast of Baghdad | | Jan. 8 | Medical college in Baghdad | See GSN, Jan. 8. | | Al-Tareq public company, about 60 miles northwest of Baghdad | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the site, which is believed to produce chemical weapons precursors (see GSN, Jan. 8). | | Al-Mamoun Plant, about 40 miles southeast of Baghdad | UNMOVIC missile inspectors visited the site, which produces components for several types of solid propellant rockets (see GSN, Jan. 8). | | Mosul medicine factory | See GSN, Jan. 8. | | Samawa cement plant in the southern part of the country | | Kofa cement plant in the southern part of the country | | Kerbala cement plant in the southern part of the country | | Irrigation Ministry repair company in Baghdad | | Jan. 7 | Al-Mamoun Plant of the al-Rasheed Company | UNMOVIC missile inspectors tagged critical equipment at the site (see GSN, Jan. 8). | | Al-Samoud Factory | UNMOVIC missile experts inspected two missile engines scheduled to soon be static-tested by Iraq (see GSN, Jan. 8). | | Ukhaider Ammunition and Missile Storage Area | See GSN, Jan. 8. | | | Akashat uranium mine in al-Qaim, located about 260 miles west of Baghdad | See GSN, Jan. 7. | | Al-Mutasim missile plant in Jurf al-Sakhr, about 30 miles south of Baghdad | | Baghdad cancer research center | | University of Mosul | | Cement factor in Kbeisi, about 120 miles west of Baghdad | | Air force base near Kbeisi, about 120 miles west of Baghdad | | Jan. 6 | Bin Seena Center | An UNMOVIC biological team visited the site, which produces veterinary drugs (see GSN, Jan. 7). | | Army base located far south of Baghdad | An UNMOVIC missile team began tagging surface-to-surface solid propellant al-Fatah rockets (see GSN, Jan. 7) | | Maintenance section of the al-Fao Company, in northern Baghdad | See GSN, Jan. 7 | | Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center | See the Dec. 20 entry. | | Bin Bitar research center, about five miles north of Baghdad | See GSN, Jan. 6 | | Fallujah 3 pesticide factory | See the Dec. 9 entry. | | Faydah free-trade zone, located about 240 miles north of Baghdad | See GSN, Jan. 6 | | Jan. 5 | Graphite facility | See GSN, Jan. 6 | | Hospital in the northern city of Mosul | | University in the southern city of Basra | | Hospital in the southern city of Basra | | Food laboratory at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Glass research center at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Al-Basel company at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Al-Khawarizmi company at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Al-Tabani company at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Al-Majd company at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Jan. 4 | Al-Ma’mun Factory, part of the al-Rashid State Company | IAEA inspectors visited the site’s facilities and asked about projects and recently purchased machines (Baghdad Republic of Iraq Radio Main Service, Jan. 4, in FBIS-NES, Jan. 4). | | Al-Ubur State Company | IAEA inspectors inquired about the company’s affiliation, visited an aluminum pipe storage site and conducted a radiation survey (Baghdad Republic of Iraq Radio Main Service, Jan. 4, in FBIS-NES, Jan. 4). | | Bin Sina Company | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors met with company officials, searched computers and visited the site’s small production units and various laboratories (Baghdad Republic of Iraq Radio Main Service, Jan. 4, in FBIS-NES, Jan. 4). | | Army Helicopter Gunships Base at al-Suwayrah | UNMOVIC inspectors met with the base commander and searched the site’s facilities and warehouses (Baghdad Republic of Iraq Radio Main Service, Jan. 4, in FBIS-NES, Jan. 4). | | Al-Khalis Alcohol distillery | UNMOVIC biological inspectors reviewed the plant’s activities and changes that occurred since 1998 (Baghdad Republic of Iraq Radio Main Service, Jan. 4, in FBIS-NES, Jan. 4). | | Basra University Faculty of Agriculture | UNMOVIC biological inspectors met with the faculty dean and discussed research conducted since 1998 (Baghdad Republic of Iraq Radio Main Service, Jan. 4, in FBIS-NES, Jan. 4). | | Basra University Faculty of Nutrition | UNMOVIC biological inspectors verified tags and declarations (Baghdad Republic of Iraq Radio Main Service, Jan. 4, in FBIS-NES, Jan. 4). | | Jan. 3 | Al Mamoun Plant | UNMOVIC missile inspectors tagged several pieces of declared equipment (IAEA release, Jan. 3). | | Former ammunitions depot | UNMOVIC inspectors visited the site, which has been a previously used as a chemical weapons storage site (IAEA release, Jan. 3). | | Adjacent area to the former ammunitions depot | UNMOVIC inspectors visited the site, which had been used for chemical weapons tests (IAEA release, Jan. 3). | | Al Basil Narawan site, part of the al-Basil Center | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the site, which produces several types of chemicals (IAEA release, Jan. 3). | | Dec. 21- Jan. 2 | See GSN, Jan. 2 | |
 |
North Korea will withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty tomorrow, according to U.N. Ambassador Pak Kil Yon who addressed reporters at the United Nations this morning (see GSN, Jan. 9).
North Korea would no longer be bound by treaty restrictions after “[we] withdraw effectively from tomorrow,” Pak said, “immediately.”
Pak’s remarks echoed an official North Korean statement issued earlier today.
“The D.P.R.K. government declares an automatic and immediate effectuation of its withdrawal from the NPT,” the state-owned Korean Central News Agency said in the statement.
North Korea also said that is no longer obligated to abide by its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which called for the monitoring of North Korea’s nuclear facilities, because it would no longer be party to the NPT.
In it statement, North Korea listed several U.S. actions as its reasons for withdrawing from the treaty, including the labeling of North Korea as part of an “axis of evil” and its rebuke of Pyongyang’s calls for a U.S.-North Korean nonaggression pact (see GSN, Jan. 31, 2002). North Korea also linked its action to the U.S. decision to end fuel oil shipments — a provision of the 1994 Agreed Framework — that reduced the deal to “a dead document,” KCNA said (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002).
“As it has become clear once again that the U.S. persistently seeks to stifle the D.P.R.K. at any cost and the IAEA is used as a tool for executing the U.S. hostile policy towards the D.P.R.K., we can no longer remain bound to the NPT, allowing the country’s security and the dignity of our nation to be infringed upon,” KCNA said.
The decision to withdraw from the treaty does not mean North Korea will begin producing nuclear weapons, KCNA said, suggesting that it is willing to work with the United States to verify it does not possess nuclear weapons.
“Though we pull out of the NPT, we have no intention to produce nuclear weapons and our nuclear activities at this stage will be confined only to peaceful purposes such as the production of electricity,” KCNA said. “If the U.S. drops its hostile policy to stifle the D.P.R.K. and stops its nuclear threat to the D.P.R.K., the D.P.R.K. may prove through a separate verification between the D.P.R.K. and the U.S. that it does not make any nuclear weapon,” the news agency said.
North Korea’s future use of its nuclear program, however, “will depend entirely on the attitudes of the United States,” Pak said (Mike Nartker, GSN, Jan. 10).
Soon after the treaty withdrawal announcement, a South Korean television network reported that a North Korean envoy to China said Pyongyang might be willing to remain a party to the NPT if the United States resumed the fuel oil shipments (Peter Goodman, Washington Post, Jan. 10).
International Reaction
The United States and European and East Asian countries offered varied reactions today to the North Korean announcement.
The treaty withdrawal did not surprise one senior U.S. State Department official.
“This (withdrawal) is, I must say, not at all unexpected,” U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said today at a press conference in Bangkok. “The North Koreans were not adhering to the treaty when they were still a party to it,” he added (AFX News, Jan. 10).
A French official criticized North Korea’s decision, saying that it demonstrated the need for a multilateral approach to resolve the conflict.
“France condemns this decision which underlines the need for continuing the bilateral, regional and multilateral efforts (to solve the crisis),” French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said. “It is a serious decision, heavy with consequences that has to be dealt with by the United Nations Security Council. This major development underscores the necessity and the urgency of international mobilization,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Jan. 10).
North Korea’s decision, however, is expected to make it more difficult for the IAEA to call on the Security Council to impose economic sanctions because Pyongyang would no longer be under the treaty’s legal obligations, analysts said (Goodman, Washington Post).
Pak warned today that North Korea would see any attempt by the United Nations to impose sanctions as “a declaration of war” (Nartker, GSN).
Japan also joined in criticizing North Korea.
“The Japanese government finds it is extremely regrettable that North Korea declared to pull itself out of the NPT today,” said Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda. “We strongly urge and demand that North Korea swiftly withdraw the declaration,” Fukuda added.
Pyongyang has worsened the situation on the Korean Peninsula by its decision, South Korea said today, calling an emergency meeting of its National Security Council, according to AFP.
“The North’s withdrawal from the NPT brought the situation on the Korean Peninsula from bad to worse by one step,” South Korean President Kim Dae-jung said. “But at the same time, thanks to our efforts, the United States is now moving toward dialogue with North Korea. We have to make the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. For this purpose, we have to be patient and persistent in achieving a peaceful solution,” Kim added.
Russia, formerly a source of major support for North Korea, said it too was concerned about Pyongyang’s decision.
“North Korea’s announcement sparked our concern. Now we are analyzing the situation, and our Foreign Ministry is in close contact with all parties involved,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said (Agence France-Presse).
China, North Korea’s other chief ally in the region, echoed Russia’s concerns, according to AFX News.
“We are concerned about the North Korean announcement of withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and the possible consequences that could arise from this,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said (AFX News, Jan. 10).
North Korea Maintains Informal Discussions
Meanwhile, a senior North Korean U.N. diplomat met yesterday with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, former U.S. energy secretary and U.N. ambassador in former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s administration, in an apparent attempt to open an informal channel for discussions between Pyongyang and Washington, according to the New York Times.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell personally approved the visit by Hang Son Ryol, the North Korean senior diplomat, to Santa Fe, New Mexico, to meet with Richardson, according to the Times. North Korean U.N. diplomats must first receive State approval before leaving New York because the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Pyongyang.
North Korea, not the United States, set up yesterday’s meetings, according to the White House. State Department Asian experts said they had little expectations for the meetings, which were expected to continue today.
Richardson only has the authority to restate the U.S. public position — no negotiations will be held until North Korea has ended its nuclear program, the White House said.
“The only message we expect is what America’s position is, that we are ready to talk, and that we will not negotiate,” said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. “That’s the U.S. position. You should not see this as anything beyond that,” he added.
Some White House officials said they were surprised at North Korea’s choice of Richardson for the meeting. While North Korea is familiar with him, Richardson has few connections in the Bush administration, the Times reported. A senior administration official described North Korea’s approach as “a bit bizarre, but perhaps more constructive than building nukes.”
The White House is divided over Richardson’s involvement in the North Korean issue, with some administration officials opposing the idea, according to the Times. A White House official involved in the debate, however, said “maybe this will break something loose, and let us get out of the macho spiral where we cut off their oil, and they stoke up the nuclear facilities” (David Sanger, New York Times, Jan. 10).
For further information, see:
Agreed Framework Text
KEDO
NPT Text
U.N. Background on NPT
By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow this week called on Moscow to exert more influence to help stem WMD proliferation to North Korea and Iran, considered by Washington to be among the worst violators of arms control regimes.
Vershbow, in Washington for talks at the State Department, criticized Russia for not doing enough to help resolve the burgeoning crisis over nuclear weapons with Pyongyang or rising U.S. concerns that Russian aid to Iran is furthering Tehran’s nuclear weapon ambition.
Using unusually strong language, Vershbow said Russia is “in denial” about North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship, while other U.S. officials were reported as saying Moscow’s stance may actually be encouraging Pyongyang to defy the international community. North Korea today announced it plans to pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty immediately (see related GSN story, today).
“We think the Russians need to get past the denial stage and join us in putting much more substantial pressure on Pyongyang to pull back from the brink,” Vershbow told reporters yesterday. “We think they have leverage given the close relations,” he said.
One step Russia could take would be to offer North Korea assistance in meeting its energy needs, Vershbow said later in the day in remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The United States cut off fuel oil shipments to North Korea in November after charging that Pyongyang was pursuing a uranium enrichment program (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002).
Russian assistance to Iran’s nuclear efforts, meanwhile, also tops U.S. proliferation concerns, Vershbow said. In addition to the Bushehr nuclear reactor now under development with Russian assistance, U.S. intelligence officials suspect that Iran is constructing at least other two nuclear facilities as part of a covert weapons program (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002).
“The Russians need to close the leaks in the technology for both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to Iran and fully contain the proliferation risks of the Bushehr reactor,” he said.
State Department officials added that Moscow might have underestimated Tehran’s intentions for atomic power. One official who asked not to be named said, “I think their own assessments are beginning to get more sober about Iranian intentions.”
Russia, officials added, could benefit from a much more lucrative relationship with the United States if it tightens controls on nuclear technology.
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — Expert staff at the Vienna organization responsible for implementing the global nuclear test ban treaty when it takes effect have appealed to change an institutional rule requiring many of them to lose their jobs in two years.
At least 44 staffers of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization are seeking to amend an organization rule that will require more than one-quarter of the organization’s professionals to leave in two years.
They filed a complaint in October with the International Labor Organization, which adjudicates labor disputes involving international organizations, according to a source in Vienna.
The rule says professional staff must leave the organization after seven years of employment. Because the organization was created in 1997, about 80 people from a total staff of 270 are expected to hit the seven-year ceiling in 2004, according to CTBTO spokeswoman Daniela Rozgonova, speaking by telephone from Vienna.
The complainants are not seeking to eliminate the rule, created in 1999 by treaty parties, according to Rozgonova. They are requesting, rather, that the rule not apply to the employees’ service before the rule was established, she said.
The term limit is not uncommon among international organizations. The International Atomic Energy Agency also has such a rule.
Rozgonova said the treaty parties sought to make the organization a “noncareer” institution, to ensure that new people with fresh ideas are cycled into the organization.
“We don’t want to become one of these organizations that become rather stolid, [where] things don’t change much,” she said.
Critics of the rule say it inevitably produces a loss of expertise and institutional memory.
Rozgonova conceded such losses are inevitable, and said they can be more dramatic when an organization is young and therefore employs a large number of people who were hired at approximately the same time.
There is at least one professional employee who has been there since 1997 to whom the rule does not apply, Executive Secretary Wolfgang Hoffman. His contract is renewed each year by the treaty parties.
The Indian National Security Advisory Board, which advises the National Security Council on strategic issues, issued a report late last month recommending that India abandon its “no-first-use” nuclear weapons policy (see GSN, Jan. 8).
“India must consider withdrawing from this commitment as the other nuclear weapon states have not accepted this policy,” the board said in its Dec. 20, 2002, report. It also urged India to consider abandoning its self-imposed nuclear testing ban if the United States were to resume testing, according to the Hindustan Times.
India officially reaffirmed its no-first-use policy last week in an announcement unveiling its new nuclear command-and-control structure (see GSN, Jan, 6; Vishal Thapar, Hindustan Times, Jan. 10).
Meanwhile, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes is expected to discuss buying Russian-made nuclear weapons delivery platforms during a visit to Moscow later this month, according to The Hindu. India is interested in purchasing nuclear-capable aircraft and submarines, the Hindu reported (see GSN, Dec. 3, 2002; Sandeep Dikshit, The Hindu, Jan. 8).
|
 |
Several U.S. law enforcement officials have said the FBI is continuing to investigate former U.S. Army biologist Steven Hatfill, who has been the public focus of the bureau’s investigation into the autumn 2001 anthrax attacks, even though there is no direct evidence linking him to the crime, ABC News reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 30, 2002).
The FBI is attempting to develop a case against Hatfill using circumstantial evidence, officials told ABC News after attending a recent meeting of the bureau’s anthrax task force. The FBI had hoped that the search of a section of forest near Hatfill’s home in Frederick, Md., last month would find new evidence but little was found, officials said. The search had been launched because of credible tips that Hatfill had attempted to dispose of laboratory equipment in ponds in the forest, and further searches of those ponds are planned, an official said (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2002).
“We may have enough right now to get an indictment, but we don’t have anywhere near enough to get a conviction,” an official said (ABC News.com, Jan. 9).
Easily Solved Hoax
Meanwhile, an Indiana prison inmate who sent anthrax hoax letters to a prosecutor and judge was discovered because he wrote his return address on the envelopes, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Oct. 8, 2002). Kevin Mitchell, who had been scheduled for release from prison next year, now faces an additional eight-year sentence for sending the two hoax letters. Mitchell was caught because prison rules require return addresses on all prisoner mail, AP reported (Associated Press, Jan. 10).
For further information, see:
FBI Amerithrax Investigation
GSN Anthrax Attack Chronology (Dec. 12, 2001)
A new scientific article argues that past strategies to fight smallpox outbreaks were relatively ineffective and urges the United States not to adopt similar tactics today. Some experts, however, criticized the article as simplistic and wrong, Science reported today (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2002).
Ring vaccination — the practice of isolating smallpox victims and vaccinating the network of people around them — does little or no good to stop a smallpox epidemic, according to a new article from Yale professor Edward Kaplan and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Lawrence Wein.
In the January issue of Epidemiology, Kaplan and Wein take aim at the ring vaccination theory and a graph used in scientific papers in the 1970s that purports to show the effectiveness of ring vaccinations. In fact, the two say, mass vaccinations, not targeted ones, proved more effective in controlling and wiping out smallpox and the graph was manipulated to improve the image of ring vaccinations.
D.A. Henderson, the long-time smallpox crusader and current White House biological terrorism adviser, acknowledged that the graph could have faults and was used to encourage uncommitted governments to conduct ring vaccinations. Numerous experts including Henderson, however, have taken exception with Kaplan’s overall conclusion that ring vaccinations are of no use.
“Kaplan doesn’t understand what he’s talking about,” Henderson said.
The recent article is “very simplistic,” said Jeffrey Koplan, a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who now works at Atlanta’s Emory University. Koplan referred to the work as “Epidemiology Lite.”
William Foege wrote two papers that used the disputed graph and now works for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He defended his findings in the 1970s and the concept of ring vaccinations.
In 1969, no more than 60 percent of West and Central Africa’s population was immunized against smallpox, Foege said. That immunization level was insufficient to wipe out the disease, but ring vaccination made it possible, he added.
Even in India, where 90 percent of the population was immunized, smallpox kept appearing, Foege said. With ring vaccinations, however, the disease was eliminated within a year, he added.
Kaplan said that he is now looking at the figures from the smallpox eradication effort in India, and he believes his theory holds in that scenario as well. Bush administration officials are interested in his findings, he said (Martin Enserink, Science, Jan. 10).
U.S. scientists and security experts met yesterday at a National Academies of Science conference to discuss whether biologists should restrict publishing scientific information that could be used by terrorists, and if so, how such restrictions should be enacted, according to the New York Times (see GSN, Dec. 12, 2002).
Many scientists have argued that in-depth research that is widely available for peer review is the best defense against a potential terrorist attack involving biological weapons, according to the Times.
A set of new regulations issued last year included prohibitions on research in certain areas, noted Roland Atlas, president of the American Society of Biologists. He added that the regulations raised First Amendment issues.
“Do you have a right of inquiry?” Atlas asked. “It’s almost biblical: when God says, ‘Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of Knowledge,’” he added.
Security experts, however, have said scientists are being naive and even reckless in their attitude toward security concerns, the Times reported.
“Traditional regulatory approaches are not well suited to biosecurity concerns,” said John Marburger, director of the White House Office on Science and Technology Policy, citing a report by the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies. “Those concerns are public concerns, and to them the public deserves a rational and serious response from its government,” he said.
Scientists and security officials need to begin working together to develop a balance between their concerns, said John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which sponsored the meeting along with NAS. “These two communities, if we do not start now with a constructive dialogue with each other, we’re going to turn this into a disaster,” he said.
Because of the war on terrorism, there is now greater support for placing restrictions on scientific research in the name of security, Hamre said. If scientists did not take security concerns seriously, lawmakers with little scientific understanding would place “blanket restrictions on science, not knowing what’s sensitive and what’s not sensitive,” he said.
“For precious little security, we would have devastating effects for the conduct of science,” Hamre said (Diana Jean Schemo, New York Times, Jan. 10).
|
 |
Two of the seven men arrested this week — in connection with the discovery of ricin in a north London apartment — arrived in Britain from France last week, according to French intelligence sources (see GSN, Jan. 9).
The men were part of a group of Islamic militants that has been under surveillance for several months and they had previously met with a important Algerian terrorist who was later arrested, the London Telegraph reported today (O’Neill/Laville, London Telegraph, Jan. 10).
Some of the suspects are suspected to have undergone training in Afghanistan, Georgia or Chechnya, and two of them had been detained and questioned previously by French officials, the Telegraph reported.
French intelligence officials reportedly alerted their British counterparts to a terrorist plan to conduct attacks with chemical or biological weapons in both countries, ABC News reported yesterday.
Shortly after French police arrested four suspected terrorists in a Paris suburb, British police arrested seven men during raids in London and the Scottish city of Edinburgh (see GSN, Dec. 30, 2002). Police gained enough information from interrogating those men to raid the apartment in north London last Sunday, ABC News reported.
The ricin in the London apartment was “poor,” according to ABC News sources. The sources said, however, that the men belong to a terror network with extensive contacts and the organization might have laboratories in Canada (ABCNews.com, Jan. 9).
|
 |
The United States and the United Kingdom criticized India yesterday for its recent test of a variant of the Agni 1 nuclear-capable short-range ballistic missile, saying such tests could further increase tensions with Pakistan (see GSN, Jan. 9).
“We’re disappointed when we see ballistic missile tests in this region,” U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. “We think tests like this contribute to a charged atmosphere, make it harder to prevent a costly and destabilizing nuclear arms race,” he added.
The United States has called on both India and Pakistan “to take steps to restrain their nuclear weapon missile programs, including no operational deployment of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles,” Boucher said. Washington wants the two rivals to begin a dialogue on confidence-building measures to reduce tensions and reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, he said (Chicago Tribune, Jan. 10).
The British Foreign Office also criticized yesterday the Agni test, according to the London Independent.
The test “sends the wrong signals within the region and beyond,” an office spokesman said. “We believe that restraint in developing possible nuclear weapon delivery systems is in the long-term interest of India and the region,” the spokesman added.
The Agni 1 has advantages over both the shorter-range Prithvi missile and the longer-range Agni 2 missile, according to The Hindu. The Agni 1 costs less to produce than the longer-range version and is able to carry a heavier payload for a greater range than the Prithvi. It also can be launched faster because it is fueled by solid propellant, according to the Hindu. Yesterday’s missile was launched from a mobile launcher, and India has already developed a number of railroad cars to covertly carry the missile, the Hindu reported (Sandeep Dikshit, The Hindu, Jan. 10).
India plans five more missile tests in the next few weeks, the Independent reported (Phil Reeves, London Independent, Jan. 10). The missiles slated for testing include the Brahmos cruise missile, the surface-to-air Akash missile and anti-tank Nag missile, The Hindu reported (Dikshit, The Hindu).
|
 |
Moscow has proposed a joint effort on missile defense with the United States, the Russian Foreign Ministry said yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 20).
Russian officials have sent a draft “political agreement” to U.S. officials, according to Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko.
The Russian plan would “strengthen, not weaken the strategic stability,” Yakovenko said.
A high-ranking Russian military official said, however, that the two countries have not agreed on joint missile defense efforts.
“We believe that we should work together to develop a joint product,” said Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff. “But the Americans would like to establish direct contacts with our industries to get a ‘product’ they need and forget about them,” he added.
Baluyevsky also said that a U.S. missile defense shield threatens Russia.
“I absolutely disagree with the claim that the (U.S.) missile defense is not a threat to Russia,” he said (Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press/Island Packet, Jan. 9).
| |
Back to top
