The United States and United Kingdom have dropped plans to circulate a new resolution on Iraq to the U.N. Security Council today. The decision came as dozens of nations spoke before the council yesterday and today to oppose the use of force against Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 18).
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said the United States had not decided whether to go through with an additional resolution, much less when to do it. British diplomats, however, said they would push hard for Security Council approval of any military action in Iraq.
The two allies had planned to circulate a new draft today, but they still haven’t agreed on its contents, according to diplomats. Outstanding issues included whether to set a specific deadline for Iraq to meet detailed demands or to issue a more general ultimatum.
“All options are on the table,” said one U.S. diplomat (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 19).
U.S. President George W. Bush said he supported pursuing a second resolution, but its passage was not necessary for the United States to act.
“We don’t need a second resolution. It’s clear this guy [Iraqi President Saddam Hussein] couldn’t even care less about the first resolution. He’s in total defiance with [U.N. Security Council Resolution] 1441. But we’re working with our friends and allies to see if we can get a second resolution,” Bush told reporters yesterday (MacAskill/White, London Guardian, Feb. 19).
U.S. Finds Little Support in Security Council
Speakers at the open Security Council debate yesterday and this morning gave their support to continuing the U.N. weapons inspection regime to ensure Iraq’s disarmament, but also stressed that the burden was on Iraq to fully cooperate with the inspectors.
Few countries expressed support for the U.S. and British position that there is no point continuing the inspections and that the use of force to disarm Iraq is now necessary.
While there was little support for that view, there was a sense that only Iraq’s “proactive” cooperation with inspectors can prevent the use of force. “Under the current circumstances and with a devastating war in the offing, it is all the more incumbent upon Iraqi leadership to fully and proactively cooperate with the weapons inspectors,” Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif said yesterday.
Iran, Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey, which all neighbor Iraq, warned against the regional instability a war would cause and reminded the council that they are still feeling the effects of the first Gulf War in the form of refugees and the economic impact of sanctions.
“The extent of destabilization in the region and uncertainty in Iraq in the case of a war may go far beyond our imagination today,” said Zarif. “Given the state of the Iraqi society and the whole region, there are so many wild cards and no party could fit them beforehand into its calculations with any degree of certainty. But one outcome is almost certain: extremism stands to benefit enormously from an uncalculated adventure in Iraq.”
Turkish Ambassador Umit Pamir said, “We look for a solution that will not require military involvement while reassuring the world that there are no lurking dangers whatsoever of the sort Security Council Resolution 1441 deals with.” He added, “We should recognize that intense diplomatic efforts backed by a credible force posture still seems to be, especially in this case, the most plausible means to achieve progress.”
Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously in November, set the stage for the return of the inspectors and also warned Iraq of “serious consequences” — language universally considered code for military action — if it did not cooperate.
Jordanian Ambassador Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein said the inspections process has “proven an unprecedented efficiency. It should be continued and enhanced if necessary.” He also called on Iraq “not to waste the available opportunity and take the initiative by cooperating proactively in the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions.”
This public meeting was requested by the Nonaligned Movement to give noncouncil members an opportunity to comment on Friday’s reports by Hans Blix, chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, speaking for the coalition of 115 developing countries, said yesterday, “We believe that resorting to war without fully exhausting all other options represents an admission of failure by the Security Council in carrying out its mandate.”
The Blix and ElBaradei reports show “that the inspection process in Iraq is working and that Iraq is showing clear signs of cooperating more proactively with the inspectors,” Kumalo said. Nothing that has been revealed “thus far would seem to justify the Security Council abandoning the inspection process and immediately resorting to the threatened ‘serious consequences,’“ he added.
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said last night outside the council chambers, “We want to be sensitive to international opinion … but in the end, our behavior is going to be determined by our concern about the disarmament of Iraq and considerations of national security of our own country and of others.”
Some Countries Support Issuing A New Security Council Resolution
Only Australia and Japan — and to a lesser extent, Argentina and Peru — supported the U.S. position that continued inspections are futile and that a second resolution is now necessary, but both stopped short of calling for the use of force. Australian Ambassador John Dauth said, “The Security Council should not wait forever to confront this issue. Either Iraq has complied or it hasn’t. The Security Council should move quickly to consider a further resolution that deals decisively with Iraq’s failure to comply with Resolution 1441.” He added, “We could wait until March … but do we really think more time will make Iraq cooperate?”
Japanese Ambassador Koichi Haraguchi said, “There is serious doubt as to the effectiveness of continued inspections,” adding, “based on the fact that Iraq is not cooperating and not discharging its obligations fully, we consider it desirable that the Security Council adopt a new resolution that clearly demonstrates the determined attitude of the international community.”
Iraq Responds
Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri told the Security Council session yesterday that his government has cooperated with inspectors.
“Reason and wisdom make it incumbent upon us to ask if there is any justification for the U.S. and Britain to launch war against Iraq under the pretext of their concern about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, even at a time when Iraq is under an ongoing monitoring and verification system,” said al-Douri. He added that an invasion “will be evidence of a failure of the international system in its entirety. … This attack will undermine the credibility of the Security Council” (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Feb. 19).
Missile Dispute Continues
Iraq has not decided whether to destroy its al-Samoud 2 ballistic missiles as requested by UNMOVIC head Blix last week. An experts’ panel convened by Blix concluded that the missile violated U.N. bans on missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers.
Iraq has disputed that conclusion, saying that missile tests that exceeded that range were caused by the test missiles being lighter than their operational versions would be.
A decision on the matter would require additional U.N.-Iraqi discussion.
“It depends on the concrete results (that) might occur between Iraq and UNMOVIC,” said al-Douri (CNN.com, Feb. 19).
Unsuccessful Interviews
Despite hopes that private interviews with Iraqi scientists would uncover new information for U.N. weapons inspectors, not a single such interview has proven successful for UNMOVIC experts, according to U.N. officials.
“There were roughly 30 attempts made to interview Iraqis in private, and three such interviews took place,” U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki said yesterday.
Each of the three had been recommended by Iraqi and officials and none of the scientists UNMOVIC asked to interview privately has agreed.
“We hope that Iraqi interviewees will eventually accept being interviewed in private under UNMOVIC’s terms,” Ueki said.
IAEA inspectors have had more success by relaxing the interview rules. The agency allows the interviewees to tape record the interview (John Daniszewski, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19).
South African Disarmament Assistance
South African President Thabo Mbeki announced yesterday that a team of seven disarmament experts would travel to Iraq by the end of this week, CNN.com reported.
The team includes Deon Smit, who was South Africa’s top liaison with the International Atomic Energy Agency during the country’s disarmament, and Super Moloyi, who recently traveled to Iraq as part of a group pushing peace initiatives.
“Between [the team members] they will be able to address all matters that relate to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, missile systems, nonproliferation and disarmament,” Mbeki said before a session of parliament in Cape Town (Charlayne Hunter-Gault, CNN.com, Feb. 18).
Inspections
Teams from UNMOVIC and the IAEA visited 13 sites in Iraq yesterday, according to U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki.
UNMOVIC teams missile teams inspected five sites, including the al-Khadima facility, which handles the final assembly of al-Samoud 2 missiles. Teams also visited al-Harith, which is involved in missile research and development; al-Qaid, which fills al-Samoud 2 warheads; al-Radwan Factory, which manufactures missile parts and containers; and several deployed al-Samoud 2 missiles.
U.N. chemical experts visited al-Muthanna to continue destroying artillery shells filled with mustard agent but their work was delayed by poor weather. A separate team conducted an inspection of Dar al-Salam Factory for Chemical Industries, about 70 kilometers west of Baghdad.
Inspectors visited the Mansour Electronic Company, west of Baghdad, and the Sa’ad State Company in Baghdad.
A biological inspections team visited the Qadasiyah Dairy Factory, about 180 kilometers south of Baghdad.
IAEA teams inspected the al-Tahidi Company, which specializes in electronics, and the al-Naser al-Adheem General Company in Baghdad. A third IAEA team conducted radiation surveys in two Baghdad neighborhoods (IAEA release, Feb. 18).
Today, inspectors visited the Abu Ghraib missile site, northwest of Baghdad, Reuters reported.
Teams also visited the al-Mamoun, Ibn al-Haytham and al-Fidaa military sites near Baghdad.
A UNMOVIC team returned to al-Muthanna and another set of inspectors visited a Baghdad vegetable oil factory.
IAEA teams visited military facilities at al-Nidaa, al-Zawra and another conducted radiation tests at Nahrawan, south of Baghdad (Reuters, Feb. 19).
By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire
A U.S. program aimed at preventing WMD smuggling in Eastern Europe has seen many active duty personnel be reassigned to protect U.S. borders, and officials are now turning to law enforcement retirees to help train East European border guards.
The eight-year-old On-Site Directorate Program — run by the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency — sends FBI and U.S. Customs Service teams to Eastern Europe to train officials to detect WMD smuggling and investigate WMD incidents. The program offers classes to local officials on a range of subjects, from investigating crimes to detecting chemical, biological or nuclear weapons at border checkpoints.
This is “training that builds professionalism and awareness,” said DTRA spokesman Clem Gaines.
The teams, which range from five to eight people, were previously stocked with a mix of contractors and active U.S. law enforcement personnel but are now becoming increasingly reliant on former agents.
“Three or four years ago, we were using more active duty FBI and Customs,” said Ken Keating, chief of DTRA’s Arms Control Interagency Liaison Division.
The FBI still mandates that at least one member of every team be an active duty agent but some Customs Service teams go into the field staffed entirely by contractors, he said.
Program officials, however, do not see the influx of retirees as a weakness. Law enforcement agencies have a mandatory retirement age of 57, which is sometimes too young, according to Keating.
Not all contractors are retired FBI or Customs agents, but retirees include a “lot of people who still have a lot of useful life and the program can certainly use their expertise … If they are retired from the FBI or the Customs they are ideal candidates,” he said.
Program Began in 1995
The program is divided into two parts, an FBI component that was created in the 1995 Defense Authorization Act and a Customs Service component created in the 1997 Defense Authorization Act.
The United States offers the program to countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, except for Russia. Lynn Gibby, the representative for the program’s contracting officer, said the program has a mandate to work with about 25 countries.
The FBI teams train local officials on internal controls, including how to investigate crimes and how to respond to WMD incidents. Customs Service teams train border control agents to prevent dangerous materials from leaking out of the region.
The program is flourishing, officials are adding courses to the schedule and countries are requesting more training, Gibby said. The legislation is open ended and the agency has budgeted $8.8 million to spend on the program in fiscal 2003. Officials have tentatively planned 40 visits this year to hold classes for East European officials.
The program, however, is faced with the difficulty of measuring its own effectiveness. Keating said that a lack of incidents involving weapons of mass destruction is encouraging, but it is difficult to take credit for something that does not happen.
“It’s hard to prove a negative,” according to Keating.
The situation is similar to a police officer who receives firearms training, but never shoots his gun. “Just because he doesn’t fire his weapon, doesn’t mean the training was wasted,” Keating said.
The U.S. State Department has leveled sanctions against an Indian company and a Indian national who “have engaged in chemical/biological weapons proliferation activities,” according to an announcement in today’s Federal Register (see GSN, Jan. 21).
As of Feb. 4, neither the Indian firm NEC Engineers Private nor the individual Hans Raj Shiv may export any goods to the United States, according to the notice signed by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John Wolf.
U.S. officials sanctioned Shiv last summer for violating the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992 (see GSN, July 25, 2002). In a dossier released last September, British Prime Minister Tony Blair cited NEC for dealing arms to Iraq (see GSN, Sept. 24).
NEC was originally based in India but has now spread its operations to the Middle East and Eurasia, according to the State Department.
Shiv is believed to be in the Middle East.
The sanctions will apply for “at least one year and until further notice,” according to the State Department document (Federal Register, Feb. 19).
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 200 U.N. personnel, including about 150 inspectors, are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ recently reported activities.
| Date | Site | Activity | | Feb. 19 | Abu Ghraib | An al-Samoud missile site, northwest of Baghdad (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | Al-Mamoun | UNMOVIC team inspected this military compound near Baghdad (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | Ibn al-Haithem | UNMOVIC team inspected this military compound near Baghdad (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | Al-Fidaa | UNMOVIC team inspected this military compound near Baghdad (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | Al-Muthanna | UNMOVIC chemical team visited site near Baghdad (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | Vegetable oil factory | Inspectors visited factory in Baghdad (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | Al-Nidaa | IAEA inspectors visited military compound (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | Al-Zawra | IAEA inspectors visited military compound (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | Nahrawan | IAEA inspectors visited military compound south of Baghdad (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | Feb. 18 | Al-Khadima | Facility responsible for final assembly of al-Samoud missiles (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | | Al-Harith | Missile engine and gyroscope research and development facility (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | | Al-Qaid | Site where al-Samoud missile warheads are filled (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | | Al-Radwan | Facility manufactures missile parts and containers (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | | Deployed al-Samoud missiles | UNMOVIC missile team visited deployed missiles (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | | Al-Mutanna | Team visited facility to continue destroying artillery shells filled with mustard agent but were delayed by weather (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | | Sa’ad State Company | UNMOVIC team visited mechanical engineering and design center (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | | Al-Naser al-Adheem General Company | IAEA team visited facility in Baghdad’s Daura district (see GSN, Feb. 19). | | | Al-Qa Qaa | U.N. teams visit this chemical and explosives production plant (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | | Mansour State Company | IAEA radiation survey of electronics manufacturing facility (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | | Dar al-Salam chemical plant | (See GSN, Feb. 18). | | | Al-Tahidi factory | Production plant for electrical cables and high-voltage generators (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | | Qadasiyah Dairy Factory in southern Diwaniya province | (See GSN, Feb. 18). | | Feb. 17 | Al-Khadimia and al-Samoud Factories | UNMOVIC missile inspectors examined these facilities that work on liquid-fueled engines (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Al-Assma Company | Manufacturing plant for al-Fateh missile components (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Al-Mutasim airfield | Site of Iraqi UAV testing (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Al-Ameen Factory | Site of static testing of al-Fateh and al-Abour missile motor cases (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Um al-Maarik General Establishment | Manufacturing facility for missile and rocket motor cases (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Al-Muthanna | UNMOVIC chemical experts visited “in connection with the mustard gas destruction process and took some chemical samples for analysis” (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Al-Zahif al-Kabeer Center | Chemical plant designed to extract minerals and chemical compounds from mining and seawater (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Al-Fuwayjah | UNMOVIC biological experts visited this seed processing facility (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Hadr Ammuntion Storage Facility | UNMOVIC teams “focused primarily on artillery and small-caliber munitions” (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Samarra | IAEA radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Al-Nida | IAEA experts visited this heavy industrial manufacturing plant (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Um al-Maarik | IAEA “no-notice” inspection (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Tho al-Fekar | IAEA team investigates flow forming equipment and processes (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Feb. 16 | Food processing facility at Baquba | UNMOVIC biological inspectors visited (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Biology Department of the College of Sciences at Baquba University | | Food processing facility at Diyala | | Diyala Tuberculosis and respiratory center | | Al-Kindi | UNMOVIC missile experts visited this missile development site (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Ibn al-Haytham | UNMOVIC missile experts tagged SA-2 missile engines (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Taji | Missile experts tagged al-Samoud 2 missiles (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Al-Mamoun | Missile inspectors examined casting chambers rebuilt by Iraq after U.N. inspectors destroyed them in the 1990s (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Fallujah 3 | UNMOVIC chemical experts conducted an “inspection involved [in] the verification of declared items” (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Hadr Ammunition Storage Facility | UNMOVIC teams “covered a vast amount of ground, which included roughly 300 storage warehouses, bunkers, brick stores, metal containers and external munitions dumps” (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Feb. 15 | Al-Nida | UNMOVIC missile inspection of solid propellant mixer plant (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Nissan Factory 17 | Production plant for al-Samound missile components (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Salah al-Din State Company | Manufacturing facility for fuses and printed circuit boards for missiles (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Saddam Center for Biotechnology Research | UNMOVIC biological team visited to “follow up the movement of items notified by the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate” (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Chemistry Department of Saddam University College of Science | (See GSN, Feb. 18). | | Southern Refinery Company | UNMOVIC chemical experts sought evidence of chemical weapons production at this facility in Basra (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Tuwaitha | Rockclimbing IAEA inspectors explore previously inaccessible underground chambers at the Israeli-bombed Tamuz 1 reactor complex (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Tuwaitha | IAEA officials inspected and prepared to remove “a small amount of natural uranium slurry,” previously intended for removal in 1998 (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Radwan and Yarmouk facilities | IAEA radiation surveys (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Taji Engineering facility | IAEA inspectors examined this aircraft engine facility (see GSN, Feb. 18). | | Feb. 7-13 | See GSN, Feb. 14. | |
 |
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi met North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun yesterday to discuss the nuclear standoff on the Korean Peninsula, CNN.com reported (see GSN, Feb. 18).
“Both sides had a deep and broad discussion on the nuclear issue in North Korea, and exchanged views on the issue. Each side also said they want to see the issue resolved through peaceful means and through dialogue,” according to Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue.
Chinese officials would not say if the officials discussed Pyongyang’s recent threat to pull out of the 1953 Armistice Agreement (Lisa Weaver, CNN.com, Feb. 18).
A South Korean military official said that the North Korean threat was not a new development, Agence France-Presse reported today.
“North Korea said in 1994 they were no longer bound by the Armistice Agreement,” the official said.
Pyongyang again called for a nonaggression treaty with Washington yesterday, and urged the United States to engage in direct negotiations.
“The U.S. is insisting on its strange assertion that it cannot respond to the D.P.R.K. (North Korea)-U.S. talks as they mean a sort of reward for the D.P.R.K. despite the unanimous world public opinion that D.P.R.K.-U.S. direct talks should take place to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue. This is an illogical far-fetched assertion,” said a statement from the Korean Central News Agency.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell will visit Beijing “shortly” to discuss the crisis, Zhang said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Feb. 19).
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung said that Japan and South Korea could be forced to build their own nuclear capacity if North Korea continues its weapons development.
“If North Korea gets nuclear weapons, the stance of Japan and our country toward nuclear weapons would change,” Kim said (Hamish McDonald, Sydney Morning Herald, Feb. 19).
Kim said, however, that the current standoff will probably not end in war.
“I believe the danger of war on the Korean Peninsula is slight — in fact, nonexistent,” he said yesterday (Cho/Struck, Washington Post, Feb. 19).
Pentagon officials are planning to meet later this year to discuss U.S. nuclear weapons requirements, including the possibility of a new generation of nuclear warheads to target hardened and deeply buried underground bunkers, according to a New Mexico organization opposed to nuclear testing (see GSN, Feb. 14).
The Los Alamos Study Group, an advocacy group, published minutes of a Jan. 10 Defense Department meeting on its Web site and said Pentagon officials were planning a secret conference “to discuss what new nuclear weapons to build, how they might be tested … and how to sell the ideas to Congress and the American public.”
The document says that the meeting is being planned to consider nuclear issues but there has been no decision to resume nuclear testing.
The “genesis” of the planned meeting is an October 2002 memo from Pentagon acquisition and technology chief Pete Aldridge, which deals with “the risk associated with not testing our nuclear weapons,” according to the minutes (see GSN, Nov. 19, 2002). “Although the conference will consider issues related to nuclear testing, it is not the policy of the administration to return to nuclear testing,” the document says.
The meeting will produce a “recommended roadmap and offer suggestions,” according to the document.
During a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about money requested to study nuclear weapons development (see GSN, Feb. 14).
“If the United States sends signals that we’re considering new uses for nuclear weapons, isn’t it more likely that other nations will also want to explore greater use or new uses for nuclear weapons?” Levin asked.
Rumsfeld said the U.S. military must be able to reach and destroy deeply buried bunkers.
“Not having the ability to penetrate and reach them creates a very serious obstacle to U.S. national security,” he said (Reuters, Feb. 19).
Officials are considering holding the meeting “the week of Aug. 4, 2003,” according to the leaked documents.
The National Nuclear Security Administration confirmed the validity of the leaked document yesterday but Anson Franklin, the NNSA’s head of governmental affairs, said that “we have no request from the Defense Department for any new nuclear weapon, and we have no plans for nuclear testing,” according to the London Guardian.
Greg Mello, head of the Los Alamos Study Group, said that the meeting could be a first step toward the U.S. withdrawal from nuclear treaties.
“It is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and U.S. compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” he said (Julian Borger, London Guardian, Feb. 19).
“What’s clear is, in this administration, the brakes are off in nuclear development and the push for nuclear testing,” he added (Ian Hoffman, Oakland Tribune, Feb. 19).
For further information, see:
CTBT Text
States Parties to the CTBT (Federation of American Scientists)
NPT Text
States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)
U.N. Background on NPT
|
 |
By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
DENVER — A group of editors from leading scientific journals have called for restraint in publishing articles that might contain information useful to terrorists seeking to conduct biological attacks.
While there is a need for scientific research to be published and distributed, scientists and journal editors must also consider the need to prevent terrorists from acquiring information that could aid them in developing biological weapons, said a statement by the Journal Editors and Authors Group released here Saturday at annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
“There is information, that, although we cannot now capture it with lists or definitions, presents enough risks of use by terrorists that it should not be published,” said the group, consisting of editors from publications such as Science and Nature. “How and by what processes it might be identified will continue to challenge us, because … it is also true that open publications brings benefits not only to public health but also in efforts to combat terrorism,” they added.
The group has called on editors from international scientific journals to modify, or even refuse to publish, papers that might contain information useful to terrorists. Scientific papers, however, must also remain of a high quality and contain enough detail to allow for reproducibility — “a requirement for scientific progress,” the group said in its statement. The statement is set to be published this week in several scientific journals, said Ronald Atlas, president of the American Society for Microbiology, who spoke at a press briefing. Atlas said the editors would not act as censors.
There are no set qualifications as to what information would be too dangerous to block from publications, Atlas said. He compared the situation to pornography — “You know it when you see it.” Many editors and scientists involved in peer review boards have worked in biological defense and should have the background needed to recognize dangerous information, Atlas said.
Almost all of the papers published in the last several years that were considered by the group as they developed their statement would have still been published under the new mindset of restraint, Atlas said. For example, more than 14,000 papers were submitted to journals published by the ASM between 2001 and 2002, according to an ASM press release. Out of those, 224 dealt with “select agents” — biological agents subject to new U.S. regulations because of their potential threat. Of those 224 articles, only two raised security concerns. The articles were modified and are now set to be published, Atlas said.
One of the two papers was modified to have the rhetoric in its introduction, describing the dangerousness of the pathogen being studied, toned down, Atlas said. In addition, information in the paper that described how the pathogen could be made more dangerous was removed, he added. The authors of the two papers were not angered by the modifications, Atlas said.
Even some articles that raised public concerns when released would still deserve to be published with new security considerations, Atlas said. One such article was a paper published in July of last year that explained how scientists at the State University of New York at Stony Brook was able to recreate the polio virus (see GSN, July 12, 2002). The Los Angeles Times reported at the time that a number of scientists criticized the paper’s publication, calling it irresponsible. Atlas Saturday defended the paper’s publication, saying it was considered at the time to have no new information and posed little security risk.
There are types of articles that should be blocked outright from being published and made widely available, Atlas said. For example, there is no need to release information on how to weaponize anthrax, he said.
The group developed their statement in a series of meetings held last month. The National Academy of Sciences, at the ASM’s request, held a meeting Jan. 9 with journal editors to consider the balance of open publication with security concerns (see GSN, Jan. 10). On Jan. 10, the ASM hosted a meeting of journal editors, scientists and representatives from various U.S. agencies, such as the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to determine what measures journals could take to prevent terrorists from obtaining useful information.
Although representatives from U.S. agencies took part in the discussions leading to the creation of the group’s statement, there has been no request from the government to become involved in the peer review process, Atlas said. Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, said he doubted any type of legislation on the issue would be proposed, noting that attitudes of the U.S. officials present at the discussions leading to the statement’s creation.
The antibiotic Cipro, most famously used during the 2001 anthrax attacks, is becoming increasingly weak in treating infections because of dangerous overuse, according to a study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (see GSN, Oct. 26, 2001).
The study was conducted on patients with sicknesses such as respiratory and urinary infections, and the results of the study do not mean that Cipro has become less effective in treating anthrax, the Associated Press reported.
Researchers studied the effects of fluoroquinolone antibiotics, which include Cipro, on patients in 43 states and Washington from 1994 to 2000.
In 1994, Cipro was 86 percent effective against bacteria samples. In 2000, however, Cipro was effective against 76 percent of bacteria samples.
“More judicious use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics will be necessary to limit this downward trend,” according to the study, which was headed by Melinda Neuhauser of the University of Houston. The study said that doctors are now prescribing Cipro for common sicknesses (Associated Press/Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19).
|
 |
British experts inspected a chemical factory in Serbia Monday to decide if the facility was producing chemical weapons.
Experts were given access to the entire factory, were given chemical formulas of the factory’s products and took pictures of the facility, Belgrade’s RTS TV reported.
Prvoslav Davinic, head of the Serbian organization responsible for implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, supported the visit and said it would be a positive step (Belgrade RTS TV/BBC Monitoring, Feb. 17).
| |
Back to top
