United States:  Army to Revise Patent Amid Treaty Violation Concerns

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army plans to revise a patent for a rifle-launched, aerosol-dispensing grenade that experts say suggests the United States designed the system in violation of international arms control treaties and federal law.

The patent application was filed September 10, 2001, and the patent was awarded Feb. 25, 2003.  A copy appears on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Web site and was first publicized by the Sunshine Project, an arms control advocacy group.

The application says the “rifle-launched non-lethal cargo dispenser” could be used to disperse aerosols, including “chemical agents” and “biological agents.”

One of the patent’s specific claims is that it could disperse aerosols from a category of materials, including “smoke, crowd control agents, biological agents, chemical agents, obscurants, marking agents, dyes and inks, chaffs and flakes.”

“There is also a need for delivering nonaerosol payloads or articles, including, but not limited to, flash grenades, concussion grenades, nets … biological/chemical agents, and the like for efficient, rapid dispersal and delivery,” the patent says.

The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and treaty-implementing U.S. Biological Weapons Antiterrorism Act of 1989 prohibit developing devices for delivering biological weapons agents.

The more complicated 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention generally prohibits dispersal of toxic chemical agents in combat, while allowing certain chemicals to be used for law enforcement purposes and perhaps riot control agents in certain military situations, experts say.

“It looks as if it is being specifically designed to deliver those payloads.  Now that raises some pretty serious questions under the BWC or CWC,” said David Fidler, an Indiana University international law professor and arms control treaty expert.

“To see biological agents repeatedly used here as a specifically contemplated payload, it’s amazing and worrying,” he said.

“Either it’s a [treaty] violation or the patent is invalid,” Julian Perry Robinson of the University of Sussex, a chemist and patent lawyer by training, said.  Robinson said a patent might be considered invalid if it makes a claim that could not be supported.

U.S. Defense Department spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Don Sewell said today in an e-mail that the terms “chemical agents” and “biological agents” were included in the patent “in order to be comprehensive and claim possible payloads as broadly and generically as possible (which is the objective when obtaining patent protection).”

“Our objective was to claim chemical and biological payloads in general, not to specify chemical or biological warfare agents/materials,” he said.

Sewell said the Army is planning to change the text.

“It is clear now, in hindsight, that inserting the term chemical or biological ‘agents’ was unfortunate and that ‘materials’ may have been a better choice of words,” he said.

Suggested Interpretations

In a worst-case interpretation, experts said, the patent indicated that the United States is developing a weapon in violation of an international treaty and U.S. law.  In the best possible light, they said, the language was mistakenly included in the patent, but is nevertheless harmful because it could undermine the credibility of the U.S. commitment to upholding its international arms control commitments.

Even if the language was mistaken, “this is not prudent drafting …  What’s going to happen is people are going to say, here’s further proof that the United States is flouting its obligations under the BWC,” said Fidler.

“It suggests a kind of cavalier attitude by the United States government towards its international treaty constraints and that in turn will suggest, at least to many people, that the United States is acting to develop a biological and chemical weapons capability,” said Mark Wheelis, a University of California-Davis chemical and biological warfare authority.

“Whether that’s true or not is another matter, but it certainly is giving that impression,” Wheelis said.

The Defense Department said in a statement yesterday it was “currently reviewing the patent.”

“It has not been finally determined if and how the rifle-launched delivery device might be used, but it will not be used in any way that is inconsistent with U.S. law or U.S. treaty obligations,” the statement said.

Suggestions of Intent

In another recent e-mail comment, Mickey Morales, a public affairs officer at the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, said that just because a device could be used for illicit purposes does not necessarily make it illegal.

“Keep in mind that there are endless items that can deliver chemical or biological agents.  These include aerosol cans used for commercial deodorants, crop dusters, conventional munitions, plastic baggies (remember the Tokyo subway incident?), etc.”

The experts agreed, but said if the patent language correctly indicated the system was designed specifically so it could disperse biological agents and nonlethal chemical agents such as incapacitants on a battlefield, it indicated treaty and federal law violations.

The patent application does suggest that intent, said Jonathan Tucker, a chemical and biological arms control expert, currently a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

“Certain words in the patent description raise some red flags, specifically the reference to the delivery of biological/chemical agents and the use in combat or noncombat operations,” he said.

“Those specific words in that description raise concerns about the intent.  And if the intent is for delivery of chemical or biological agents or the use of chemical incapacitants in a combat situation, those would be clear violations of the convention,” Tucker said.

“There’s enough here.  I could make a case that because it’s mentioned on a number of occasions that … it is designed to deliver biological agents,” Fidler said.

Marie Chevrier, a University of Texas at Dallas arms control authority, also said the document could be read as an indication of purpose, saying it suggests “they knowingly developed a delivery system for biological agents as a weapon.”

Mistaken Language

Prior to Sewell’s statement today, Robinson said patent applications often are drafted to be as broad as possible

“Basically, when somebody is patenting a system for disseminating a payload, they’ll think of any possible payload they might conceivably put in, in order to make a claim on it,” he said.

 “It was the patent lawyers for the Army, or whoever it was that got this patent, simply using boilerplate language is my guess,” Robinson said.

Wheelis also said the language might have been crafted, “not so much to suggest that the U.S. is going to do this, but to make sure that — at least within the context of patent law — if anybody uses this munition or a munition designed on these principles, they are infringing on the U.S. patent.”

Incapacitants

Edward Hammond, co-director of the Sunshine Project, said his primary concern is that the grenade may be intended for use in dispersing so-called incapacitating agents on a battlefield. 

“When you are talking about a chemical or biological payload for use as a sort of an offensive weapon, the payload for this sucker is a calmative,” he said.

The development and stockpiling of incapacitating agents has emerged recently as a concern among arms control experts and some governments, who say the Chemical Weapons Convention does not sufficiently define the legal boundaries for using such agents.  Hammond has asserted that U.S. military-sponsored research on incapacitating agents is illegal, a charge denied by the military.

In a rescue operation last year that is generally considered legal by international experts, Russian security forces used a chemical incapacitating aerosol to free hundreds of hostages and kill their captors.  The chemical, however, unintentionally killed more than 100 hostages.

A presentation on a component of the device, the aerosol dispersal mechanism, delivered publicly last year by a joint personnel from the U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center and a private contractor did not mention the types of materials that could be dispersed.

It said the system is “suited to a variety of nonlethal applications,” listing “tactical concealment, sniper countermeasure, crowd control and dispersal, building clearing operations, [and] area denial to personnel.”

Sewell said the projectile was investigated as a way to deliver “special effects payloads (especially obscurants) in MOUT (Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain) situations.”

The Defense Department in its statement yesterday said, “The Army and all other components of DOD have no plans, programs, or intention to develop chemical or biological weapons prohibited by statute or treaty.”

Back to top

Iraq:  Rumsfeld Suggests Baghdad Destroyed Banned Weapons Prior to War

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday suggested that Iraq might have destroyed its alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction prior to the recent war (see GSN, May 27).

Rumsfeld said that the rapid U.S. invasion of Iraq could have prevented the Iraqi military from ordering chemical attacks, accounting for why such weapons were not used during the war.

“It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict,” Rumsfeld said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.  “I don’t know the answer, and I suspect we’ll find out a lot more information as we go along and keep interrogating people.”

Rumsfeld also called for patience in evaluating the U.S. search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which has so far found no conclusive proof of such programs.

“It’s a country the size of California.  It is not as though we’ve managed to look every place,” Rumsfeld said.  “There are hundreds and hundreds of suspect chemical or biological or nuclear sites that have not been investigated, as yet.  It will take time,” he added (Federal News Service transcript, May 27).

Rumsfeld’s remarks raise new questions about the U.S. intelligence used to justify going to war and about U.S. credibility, defense analysts said yesterday.

“They don’t have a good explanation, and therefore are trying to come up with as long a list as possible,” said Joseph Cirincione, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  “But it’s impossible to destroy or hide the quantities the administration said they had without our noticing it,” he said (Eric Schmitt, New York Times, May 28).

Islamic Foreign Ministers to Meet

Meanwhile, Iraq is expected to be one of the main issues tackled by foreign ministers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference during a three-day meeting slated to begin today in Tehran, according to Agence France-Presse.

All 57 member states — except Iraq — are expected to participate in the meeting to “review and consult about the situation in Iraq,” a conference source said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 28).

United States Lifts Most of Remaining Sanctions

The U.S. Treasury Department yesterday announced a general license to permit U.S. companies to trade with Iraq — a move that lifts most of the remaining U.S. sanctions and implements a recent U.N. resolution that lifts international sanctions against the country.  The U.S. license still prohibits a small number of transactions, such as trade in arms and stolen cultural artifacts, as well as trade with Baath Party officials, according to the Washington Post.

“It is no longer a crime for U.S. companies and individuals to do business with Iraq,” U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said.  “Trade and the opportunities that come with it will unleash the forces of the free market, bringing a better life for the people of Iraq,” he said (Paul Blustein, Washington Post, May 28).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  House Defeats High-Speed Computer Export Control Revisions

The U.S. House of Representatives last week voted 217-207 against legislation that would have allowed U.S. President George W. Bush to revise guidelines on the export of high-speed computers (see GSN, Dec. 30, 2002; Jim Puzzanghera, San Jose Mercury News, May 28).

The amendment to the fiscal 2004 defense authorization act, would have repealed a congressional mandate that high-performance computer exports be regulated based on the number of millions of theoretical operations per second a computer can perform, according to Technology Daily (Technology Daily, May 22).

Opponents of the bill suggested that easing computer export controls would help rogue states acquire tools to develop nuclear weapons.

“We need to put heavy restrictions on those countries that could be potential enemies, like Communist China,” Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) said.

U.S. technology industry executives have said, however, that the current export control system hurts competition and does not adequately protect homeland security.  A revised control system would still prohibit rogue states from obtaining high-powered computers, they said.

“The idea that these computers are going to be sold willy nilly to anybody is fairly crazy logic,” said Ralph Hellmann, senior vice president of government relations for the Information Technology Industry Council, a technology industry trade organization (Puzzanghera, San Jose Mercury News).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia I:  Russian Parliament Approves Moscow Treaty; Entry Into Force Imminent

The upper house of the Russian parliament today approved the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, May 20; Associated Press, May 28).

“The Federation Council was the last of the steps that the legislative branch needed to take to formalize the Moscow Treaty’s adoption and ratification,” said Arms Control Association research analyst Christine Kucia.  She expected U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin to exchange the instruments of ratification and bring the treaty into force this weekend when the two leaders are scheduled to meet in Russia before traveling to the Group of Eight summit in Evian, France.

The Federation Council approved the treaty by a vote of 140-5 with two abstentions, according to Interfax.  The treaty calls for the United States and Russia to deploy no more than 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads by the end of 2012.

Earlier this year, the Russian Duma, or lower house, delayed passage of the treaty to protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but it eventually approved the pact earlier this month (see GSN, May 14; Associated Press).

Back to top

Iran:  Russia Links Bushehr Fuel to IAEA Additional Protocol

Western officials have said that Russia will not provide fuel for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant unless Tehran agrees to accept additional International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, the Financial Times reported yesterday (see GSN, May 27).

By signing the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, Iran would give the agency the authority to access any Iranian nuclear facility, according to the Times.  Currently, Iran is only obligated to allow the IAEA to inspect sites Iran has declared (Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, May 27).

A top Russian Atomic Energy Ministry official was quoted today by Interfax as reiterating Moscow’s call for Iran to sign the Additional Protocol, saying such a move would “dispel doubts concerning the existence of a military nuclear program in Iran” (Interfax/BBC Monitoring, May 28).

Moscow is concerned about “serious unresolved questions in connection with Iran’s nuclear research,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov said after a meeting this week with Iran’s Ambassador to Russia, Gholamreza Shafei.

Russia’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear efforts began several months ago, when an Iranian opposition group revealed that Tehran was allegedly working to construct a secret uranium enrichment facility.

Russian officials were “embarrassed and concerned” that Iran had apparently carried out a secret program while they had been saying Tehran was doing no such thing, said Rose Gottemoeller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran, a leading Iranian opposition group, yesterday revealed that Iran has allegedly begun building two smaller uranium enrichment sites designed to both complement larger sites and to replace them if necessary.  A U.S. official said, however, that Washington could not verify the group’s claim and that it “should be taken with some skepticism.”

“They’ve been right before, but they’ve been way off base before too,” the official said (Richter/Miller, Los Angeles Times, May 28).

Iran No Longer Needs Foreign Aid, Pentagon Says

Meanwhile, a draft U.S. National Security Decision Directive currently being examined by top Bush administration officials says Iran’s nuclear program is so far advanced it no longer needs foreign aid, according to Newsday.

The directive is primarily based on U.S. Defense Department intelligence analyses, according to a source that received a classified briefing on the directive.  The directive indicates that Iran’s nuclear efforts can no longer be halted by applying pressure on countries that have aided Iran’s nuclear program in the past, such as Russia, the source said.

“The assessment (being reviewed) at the National Security Council is that they (Iran) have passed the point of no return in terms of getting outside assistance to enable them to have a nuclear weapons program,” the source said.  “In other words, they have everything in hand to do it on their own if the Russians stopped tomorrow,” the source added.

The CIA, however, has not come to the same conclusion as the Pentagon, the source said, adding that senior CIA, Pentagon and State Department officials would work out their differences before presenting the directive for adoption.  Such a meeting had been scheduled today but was postponed, according to Newsday (Knut Royce, Newsday, May 28).

Tehran and Washington Trade Barbs

Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is only for civilian use — a claim the United States has rejected.

“The United States rejects that argument as a cover story,” White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said yesterday.  “Our strong position is that Iran is preparing, instead, to produce fissile materials for nuclear weapons,” he said (Bob Deans, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 28).

Iran today criticized the United States for its allegations.

“Any concern over countries’ noncompliance with weapons of mass destruction instruments needs to be dealt with through international cooperation,” Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said before a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference in Tehran.  “The resort to force, or directing unverified accusations … will only undermine the current international arrangements,” Kharazi said, adding that the IAEA was the “only competent authority” on the issue (Stefan Smith, Agence France-Presse, May 28).

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Repeats Nuclear Reprocessing Claim

North Korea yesterday repeated an earlier claim that it had begun reprocessing more than 8,000 spent fuel rods, a key first step in producing nuclear weapons (see GSN, May 27).

“As far as the issue of reprocessing spent fuel rods is concerned, the D.P.R.K. made it clear on April 18 that it was successfully carrying out the work of reprocessing over 8,000 spent rods at the final stage,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency said.

Pyongyang also rejected reports that North Korean nuclear scientists had defected to the West or that China had cut off oil to North Korea to force multilateral talks in Beijing (Korean Central News Agency, May 26 in FBIS-CHI, May 26).

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has rejected a North Korean offer to hold bilateral talks with the United States.

“I’ve been reading those statements and we always examine closely whatever they say, but we are still committed to multilateral talks, expanded multilateral talks, if there are going to be future talks the way we want to do it,” Powell said (Yonhap News Agency/BBC Monitoring, May 28).

Diplomats from Japan, the United States and South Korea will meet in Seoul next month to discuss North Korean nuclear development and present Pyongyang with a unified front (Daily Yomiuri, May 28).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia II:  Washington Awards Contracts to Replace Russian Plutonium Production Reactors

The U.S. Energy Department has selected two U.S. companies to help shut down three Russian plutonium production reactors, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, March 6).

Washington Group International and Raytheon Technical Services have been directed to build two coal-fired power plants near three nuclear reactors at Seversk and Zheleznogorsk in Siberia.

The reactors were built primarily to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, but they also produce energy for neighboring towns and cities, according to U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.  That energy production needs to be replaced before the nuclear reactors can be shut down, a move Abraham described as “critical.”

The coal-fired energy plants will take five years to build, after which the nuclear plants will be shuttered, the Journal reported.

The $466 million dollar award is intended to close down plants that are “considered to be among the highest risk reactors in the world,” according to the Energy Department (John Fialka, Wall Street Journal, May 28).

Russia will be responsible for dismantling the reactors, according to agreements signed in March (see GSN, March 12).  The plants produce enough plutonium to make two nuclear warheads every three days, Energy Daily reported today.

Russian officials have hesitated to close the reactors and lose jobs, while the U.S. Congress has been reluctant to pay for the replacement plants, according to Energy Daily.  Abraham has pushed the deal and Russia is ready to embrace the project, Energy Department officials said.

“The Russians want to shut these down as much as we do,” said Kenneth Baker, acting deputy administrator for nonproliferation in the National Nuclear Security Administration.  “They are just as scared as we are of terrorist attacks,” he added (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, May 28).

Abraham told Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Alexander Rumyantsev that the contracts should be in place by the end of June.

“The selection of the contractors is another significant step in advancing the Bush administration’s nonproliferation programs,” Abraham said.  “Russia and the United States have enjoyed a good relationship on this program and we look forward to continued progress,” he added (Energy Department release, May 27).

Russia will also build a plant at Seversk to transform weapon-grade plutonium to mixed oxide fuel, Interfax reported Monday.

Construction on the $1 billion plant will begin in early 2005, according to Siberian Chemical Plant Director General Vladimir Shidlovsky (Interfax, May 26 in FBIS-SOV, May 26).

Back to top

International Response:  Nuclear Suppliers Group Agrees to Amend Guidelines

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — An organization that establishes export control regulations for nuclear trade has agreed to update a section of its guidelines concerning components that could be used to produce a nuclear reactor, a U.S. State Department official told Global Security Newswire yesterday (see GSN, May 23).

During an annual plenary meeting held last week in South Korea, the 40-member Nuclear Suppliers Group agreed to update the primary coolant pump entry on the group’s trigger list, the State official said.  Under group guidelines, members agree to only export items listed on the trigger list if they first receive assurances that the item will not be used to develop a nuclear weapon. 

The group also proposed several new entries for the trigger list, which should be finalized by the end of the year, the State official said, noting that the group agreed to work to improve the clarity and understanding of its guidelines.

During the meeting, group members also discussed the threats posed by Iran and North Korea, according to the State official.  The group expressed concern about Iran’s nuclear program, calling on Tehran to address unanswered questions about its nuclear activities.  They also discussed the crisis surrounding North Korea’s relaunched nuclear efforts and called on group members to increase their efforts to prevent Pyongyang from acquiring materials and technologies that could be used in its nuclear program.

Back to top

United States:  Planned Attack on Nuclear Facility Described in Court

Al-Qaeda supporters planned a 2001 attack on U.S. soldiers at a Belgian military base that houses nuclear weapons, a trial in Brussels was told Monday (see GSN, Nov. 18, 2002).

During a November broadcast interview, former Tunisian professional soccer player Nizar Trabelsi said he had planned to attack the base.  Trabelsi is one of 23 defendants in the case, Agence France-Presse reported.

The trial began last Thursday and the defendants could face up to 10 years in prison if found guilty of a range of charges, including planning to attack U.S.-related targets.

“The attack was due to happen between midday and 1 o’clock and target the canteen of the base,” Judge Claire De Gryse said, citing testimony in the case.

A Belgian Army spokesman said the base houses U.S. military personnel who are trained to equip “planes with nuclear means in the event of an attack” (Agence France-Presse, May 26 in FBIS-WEU, May 26).

Back to top

International Response:  WHO Governing Body Approves New Powers

The governing body of the World Health Organization yesterday approved a new resolution to significantly expand its powers to combat international epidemics that could be caused by biological terrorism, according to the New York Times (see GSN, May 19).

The resolution, approved by the World Health Assembly, would give the WHO the authority to establish an instant communications network with member countries and to use nonofficial sources of information, such as media reports, when there is an international public health threat, according to the Times.  The resolution also gives the WHO the authority to issue global alerts for international health threats and authorizes the organization’s director general to send an inspection team to determine if a country has taken adequate measures to combat an international public health threat.

While the resolution lacks “legal teeth,” it does provide the WHO with “leverage” in compelling countries to address international public health threats, said WHO spokesman Iain Simpson.

The resolution is expected to be approved today by the full WHO because members routinely approve committee decisions, Simpson said.  Once approved, the resolution will be incorporated into a new version of WHO international health regulations, said David Heymann, WHO executive director for communications.  Members will have an opportunity to comment on the new regulations before they are presented for formal approval in 2005 (Lawrence Altman, New York Times, May 28).

Back to top

Smallpox:  Panel Says Smallpox Campaign Needs Review, Thwarted SARS

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Institute of Medicine committee yesterday recommended that health officials pause and evaluate the sluggish national smallpox immunization effort before expanding the pool of vaccine recipients (see GSN, Jan. 16).

Institute officials said, however, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has so far taken a thorough and deliberate approach to prepare for a smallpox bioterrorism attack.  That preparation might have helped prevent an outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in the United States, according to a letter yesterday from the IOM’s Committee on Smallpox Vaccination Program Implementation.

“The committee heard from program administrators that the effective response to SARS both at the national and local level was at least in part facilitated by smallpox preparedness efforts,” the letter said.

The improved communication between health officials most likely aided the U.S. response to the worldwide emergence of SARS, according to the letter.

Pause, Review Program

Health officials should investigate all adverse effects to the vaccine and ensure the four-month-old program is integrated with the overall effort to combat bioterrorism, the letter says.

The CDC is currently focusing the immunization effort on health workers who would respond to a bioterrorism attack with the smallpox virus.  When the plan was originally announced, health officials expected to immunize 450,000 health workers — “phase one” — and then expand the program to include 10 million emergency workers, law enforcement officials and firefighters, known as “phase two.”

Widespread concerns about the safety of the vaccine have hampered the overall effort, and only 36,000 health workers have received the vaccine so far.  Some states and localities, however, are beginning phase two.

“The committee would like to reaffirm the need for a pause in the program, before the vaccine is offered more widely,” yesterday’s letter says.  The committee acknowledged the program’s low turnout, but said that a pause and evaluation is vital to “safely building smallpox preparedness.”

Specifically, the committee recommended new educational material for volunteers who lack a medical background.  The CDC has attempted to screen out some volunteers — such as those with eczema or suppressed immune systems — who are vulnerable to adverse side effects and should not receive the vaccine.

Health officials have said that more thorough safety material is needed once the program moves beyond immunizing nurses and emergency room personnel.

Back to top

Anthrax:  U.S. Company Receives FDA Approval to Begin Testing New Vaccine

A U.S. company has received Food and Drug Administration approval to begin testing a new anthrax vaccine (see GSN, Oct. 4, 2002).

VaxGen plans to conduct Phase I human clinical testing of its vaccine on 100 volunteers beginning next month, according to the company.  The trials will be carried out at four medical centers — Baylor College of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University and St. Louis University Health Sciences Center. 

The tests will compare the safety of VaxGen’s new vaccine with that of the existing anthrax vaccine.  The tests are also intended to evaluate the efficacy of the new vaccine by comparing human immune responses with those immune responses shown to protect animals from inhalation anthrax, company officials said.

“The ability to begin Phase I clinical trials advances our ultimate goal of supplying the next-generation anthrax vaccine to the U.S. and foreign governments, as well as private markets,” company Chief Executive Officer Lance Gordon said in a statement (VaxGen release, May 27).

Back to top

Moldova:  United States Sanctions Three Moldovan Entities for Aiding Iran

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States has imposed economic sanctions on three Moldovan entities for knowingly aiding Iran’s ballistic missile program, a U.S. State Department official told Global Security Newswire today (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002).

The sanctions, which took effect May 9, prohibit Moldovan companies Cuanta S.A. and Computer & Communicatii SRL, as well as Moldovan citizen Mikhail Pavlovich Vladov, from importing items from the United States that are controlled by the Missile Technology Control Regime and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act for two years, according to a notice published today in the Federal Register. 

The Moldovan entities were sanctioned under the U.S. missile sanctions law, the State Department official said.  Under the missile sanctions law, the entities were found to have knowingly transferred MTCR Category 1 items to Iran that Tehran could use in its missile program, the official said.  MTCR Category 1 items include complete missiles — or component systems that can be used to assemble missiles — capable of carrying a 500-kilogram payload farther than 300 kilometers, such as Iran’s Shahab 1 missile, the State official said. 

The three entities had previously been sanctioned in May 2002 under the Iran Nonproliferation Act for the same transactions with Iran that resulted in today’s announced sanctions, the State official said (see GSN, May 10, 2002).  Under the Iran Nonproliferation Act, sanctions can be imposed against companies for transferring items controlled by a multilateral export control regime, the official said. 

In addition, the United States has also imposed sanctions on an Iranian company, the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group, which prohibits it from conducting business with the United States for two years, according to a notice published today in the Federal Register.  The United States last week announced sanctions against Shahid Hemmat for missile-related transfers involving the state-owned Chinese company North China Industries Corporation (see GSN, May 23).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  GAO Recommends Missile Defense Agency Reconsider Satellite Development Plan

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Missile Defense Agency needs to consider alternative approaches to the development of its Space Tracking and Surveillance System — a constellation of satellites designed to be a component of a U.S. missile defense system, the U.S. General Accounting Office said in a report released yesterday (see GSN, April 14).

The Space Tracking and Surveillance System, formerly known as Space-Based Infrared System Low, is intended to be a system of U.S. satellites that would detect and track an enemy ballistic missile through all stages of flight.  In its development of the satellite system, the MDA chose a strategy of incremental development, “rather than trying to make a big leap in its capability,” the GAO report says.  The MDA’s development strategy called for competition in the development and production of acquisition and tracking sensors that would be installed in the satellites and for the launch of “demonstration” satellites prior to large-scale production, the report says.

“This strategy helps to reduce risks because it ensures technology is sufficiently mature and capabilities have been demonstrated before a greater investment is made,” the report says.

The GAO determined, however, that recent decisions made by the MDA would limit the agency’s ability to achieve its original goals for the satellite system and limit the amount of information that could be learned through satellite demonstrations.  For example, the MDA decided to retrieve satellite and ground system components from storage that had been previously partially constructed, complete the assembly of these systems and then launch two satellites in 2007 to take part in larger missile defense tests, according to the report. 

To meet the 2007 launch date, however, the MDA eliminated its plans to have two contractors compete for the production of satellite acquisitions sensors and, instead, will only fund the separate development of an alternative acquisition sensor design.  This approach could result in higher overall costs for the satellite system because the MDA could be “locked in” to employing one contractor for the production of a large satellite system, the report says.

The MDA’s decision to complete the development of “legacy” satellites will also delay the development of new demonstration satellites, the report says.  While the agency could learn much information from the deployment of the legacy satellites, the MDA has already decided that it wants to investigate other designs and technologies for the planned satellite system, it says.

“As a result, delaying work on the next generation of satellites will delay work that could offer a better basis from which MDA could build operational capability,” the report says.  

The MDA’s decision to launch two satellites in 2007 was made before it had completed an assessment of the working condition of the equipment needed to finish the construction of the satellites, according to the report.  Because of this, the agency does not know what work still needs to be completed or how much that work will cost, the report says.

In its report, the GAO recommended that the MDA focus its spending on completing an assessment on what remains to be done to complete legacy satellite components so the agency has a basis for its cost and schedule estimates.  The report also recommends that the MDA assess alternative development strategies “that may offer opportunities to reduce risks and gain more knowledge.”

According to the report, the agency had considered two such alternatives, but they are constrained by the MDA’s need to participate in missile defense tests scheduled for 2006 and 2007.  One such approach involved delaying the launch of the two legacy satellites till 2008.  The second involved ending work on the legacy satellites and a shift in emphasis toward the development of new demonstration satellites.

Back to top