 |
I said the drier the better, cut the rhetoric.
—Alastair Campbell, communications director for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, denying that he ordered exaggerated claims to appear in a British dossier assessing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
Iranian officials want other countries to share civilian nuclear technology if Tehran agrees to sign the Additional Protocol to its nuclear safeguards agreement, which would allow greater international oversight of Iran’s nuclear activities, the Financial Times reported today (see GSN, Aug. 19)...Full Story 
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — A U.S. Agriculture Department agency canceled a series of public meetings this month on possible changes to a list of biological toxins and agents that could damage plants and agicultural products...Full Story
By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — A White House-backed “new model” for acquisitions is posing problems for U.S. missile defense development and complicating congressional support for missile defense, a top Defense Department acquisitions official said yesterday...Full Story
 |
Wednesday, August 20, 2003 |  | | |  |
 |
By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. emergency responders believe they lack adequate protection to respond to terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction, according to a report released by RAND today (see GSN, Aug. 8).
“The majority of emergency responders feel vastly underprepared and underprotected for the consequences of chemical, biological or radiological terrorist attacks,” the study says.
Researchers from RAND’s Science and Technology Policy Institute interviewed almost 200 first responders throughout the country, including law enforcement officers, emergency medical service responders and firefighters. Most of those interviewed expressed concern over not having access to adequate protection to respond to a terrorist attack involving biological, chemical or radioactive agents, the report says.
“Men and women who choose to risk their lives to save the lives of others are telling us they need better protection, better safety-training equipment and better coordination to do their jobs,” Tom LaTourrette, lead author of the report, said in a press release.
Many law enforcement officers and firefighters said they did not know what they needed to protect against, what types of protection were appropriate or where to acquire such protection, the report says. It adds that many of those interviewed were unsure that available protective gear would be able to protect against terrorist attacks involving WMD materials. For example, hazardous material protective equipment currently in service is designed for use in responding to industrial accidents and is not designed or certified for use in respond to terrorist attacks, the report says.
There is also concern over the vulnerability of nonspecialist first responders who initially arrive at the scene of a WMD-related terrorist attack, the report says. Already, some emergency-responder departments have begun equipping vehicles with biological and chemical protective gear, it says.
In addition to concerns over personal protective equipment, there are also concerns that “systems-level” equipment, such as communications gear, is also inadequate, according to the report. For example, a number of first responders said there are “fundamental problems” with the communications systems currently in use, which often are incompatible with each other and cannot easily inter-communicate at the site of an incident, the report said. While some departments have begun to use digital 800-megahertz systems to replace prior analog radio systems, they have said they were not fully satisfied with the new systems’ performance, the report says.
By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft began a public relations campaign yesterday to bolster support for the USA PATRIOT Act, which critics have assailed as infringing upon U.S. civil liberties (see GSN, July 24).
During a speech yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute here, Ashcroft defended the act, saying it has played a major role in the war on terrorism.
“We have used the tools provided in the PATRIOT Act to fulfill our first responsibility to protect the American people. We have used these tools to prevent terrorists from unleashing more death and destruction on our soil. We have used these tools to save innocent American lives. We have used these tools to provide the security that ensures liberty,” Ashcroft said.
The act has helped to improve cooperation and information-sharing between intelligence and law enforcement officials, Ashcroft said. The act has also aided law enforcement officials in tracking down and developing cases against suspected terrorist operatives, he said.
Ashcroft also unveiled a new U.S. Justice Department Web site, www.lifeandliberty.gov, which provides information on the PATRIOT Act and testimonials on its effectiveness from members of Congress and others.
Despite the support of the Bush administration, the act has come under intense criticism from some members of Congress, civil-liberties organizations and state and local governments. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 150 communities throughout the country have passed resolutions calling for revisions to the act. In addition, the ACLU has filed the first lawsuit against the act in an attempt to roll back Section 215, which allows the FBI to access library records without showing probable cause.
Ashcroft warned yesterday, however, against attempts to limit the scope and powers of the PATRIOT Act.
“The PATRIOT Act gives us the technological tools to anticipate, adapt and out-think our terrorist enemy,” Ashcroft said. “To abandon these tools would senselessly imperil American lives and American liberty, and it would ignore the lessons of Sept. 11,” he said.
Ashcroft’s speech was the first of several planned events throughout the United States to bolster support for the PATRIOT Act. He is also scheduled to deliver speeches to law enforcement officials in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit and Des Moines, Iowa, according to an FBI press release.
The ACLU yesterday criticized Ashcroft’s speaking tour, calling it an attempt to gain support for policies that violate civil liberties.
“An attorney general going on the road, away from his official duties, to favorably spin policies violative of civil liberties is troubling, to say the least,” said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, in a press release. “It raises two serious questions: Is this tour … political in nature and how prudent is it to be spending public money on a ‘PATRIOT Act’ charm offensive?” she added.
|
 |
British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s communications director denied yesterday that he exaggerated British intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to bolster a case for war, according to the New York Times (see GSN, Aug. 19).
Alastair Campbell told a British government inquiry that he had headed meetings in which officials revised drafts of a September 2002 dossier on Iraq’s WMD programs but denied that he or other senior Blair aides had had any influence on the final report. Campbell said he had only advised intelligence officials on the “presentational” aspects of the dossier.
Campbell also said yesterday that, instead of exaggerating the claims made in the dossier, he sought to tone down its language. “I said the drier the better, cut the rhetoric,” he said.
The BBC had previously reported that Campbell had included in the dossier a claim that the Iraqi military had the capability to deploy biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so, according to the Times. Campbell yesterday denied having anything to do with the inclusion of that claim.
“I had no input, output or influence upon them in any stage of the process,” Campbell said of the words used in the dossier (Warren Hodge, New York Times, Aug. 20).
Spanish Assessment of Iraqi WMD Capabilities
Meanwhile, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reported Monday that the Spanish Defense Ministry prepared an assessment of Iraqi WMD capabilities in early February.
The assessment, which was provided to 19 military personnel for use in preparing public statements, said Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was not considered to be significant because of its lack of success and the lack of ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets in Spain. The assessment did, however, make strong claims about Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons capabilities, including that Iraq possessed stockpiles of smallpox, botulism toxin, aflatoxin and mustard gas (El Pais, Aug. 18 in FBIS-WEU, Aug. 18).
World leaders denounced yesterday’s bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad that killed at least 20 people, including U.N. special representative in Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello, and wounded at least 100, the Associated Press reported today (Mike Corder, Associated Press/Newsday, Aug. 20). Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called Vieira de Mello’s death a “bitter blow” to the United Nations but vowed to continue the organization’s work (U.N. release, Aug. 19).
Calling the truck bombing of the Canal Hotel an unprecedented attack against the United Nations, Annan said the attack would not derail the U.N. mission in Iraq. “We will persevere,” Annan said. “We will continue. It is essential work. We will not be intimidated,” he added (Sameer Yacoub, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Aug. 20).
World leaders added their condemnation to Annan’s. “Acts as odious as this can only prompt indignation and unreserved condemnation,” said French President Jacques Chirac.
“We will not allow terrorists to weaken our resolve in bringing about a better Iraq,” said British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
“This criminal ... act should not influence the U.N.’s role in helping the Iraqi people restore their freedom and independence,” said a Syrian Foreign Ministry official (Corder, AP/Newsday).
At U.N. headquarters in New York, some officials and diplomats started to raise questions about the incident and the organization’s role in rebuilding Iraq.
“We are going to want to review our presence in Iraq,” said Shashi Tharoor, U.N. undersecretary general for public information. “But the secretary general has made it clear that it would be a betrayal of Sergio [Vieira de Mello] not to continue what he lived for. So there is a reasonable prospect that we will continue, but we will have to review the size of our presence and the way it is deployed,” he added (Felicity Barringer, New York Times, Aug. 19).
Annan met yesterday with the Security Council to discuss security measures to be taken for U.N. workers in Baghdad. According to Veronique Taveau, spokeswoman for the U.N. humanitarian coordinator, the organization’s operations in the country were temporarily suspended and travel arrangements were being made for workers who wanted to leave the country.
Taveau also said there are many people who are still missing. The official U.N. figure for the dead is 17, but around 300 U.N. employees were thought to be in the building when the bomb exploded.
Investigations led by FBI agents and Bernard Kerik, the U.S. official responsible for rebuilding the Iraqi police force, have indicated that the attack was a suicide bombing. Kerik said, however, that it is “much too early” to say whether al-Qaeda was behind the attack.
According to AP, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the United Kingdom and United States are considering a bigger role for the United Nations following the bombing (Yacoub, AP/Yahoo!News).
Yesterday U.N. and U.S. officials blamed each other for the lack of security around the Canal Hotel, where the U.N. offices are located.
“We are entirely in their [the United States’ and their allies’] hands,” U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said. “The security of everyone in Iraq — Iraqis, the nongovernmental humanitarian workers, the U.N. relief workers — everyone is dependent on the coalition for their security in Iraq.”
A U.S. Defense Department official, however, said “it was the U.N.’s decision not to have forces there providing protection for that building” (Betsy Pisik, Washington Times, Aug. 20).
O Estado de Sao Paulo reported yesterday that a U.N. spokesperson in Geneva said the lack of security forces to protect the U.N. building in Baghdad was Vieira de Mello’s idea. According to the spokesperson, the envoy wanted to show Iraqis that the organization was there to support the population, not to occupy the country (Jamil Chade, O Estado de Sao Paulo, Aug. 19, GSN translation).
According to Folha de Sao Paulo, however, the U.N. coordinator in Brazil, Carlos Lopes, said Vieira de Mello was concerned about the lack of security around U.N. headquarters. Lopes said the envoy recently asked the Security Council to consider security measures in the area because the headquarters was too vulnerable without it (Ricardo Mignone, Folha de Sao Paulo, Aug. 19, GSN translation).
Today, O Estado de Sao Paulo released parts of a telephone interview with Vieira de Mello conducted on Sunday. The interview was considered by the United Nations to be his last.
When asked if he was concerned with his security in Baghdad, Vieira de Mello said, “there is no doubt the situation here is intense. But, I don’t know why, I believe that I have been involved in riskier situations. Here in Baghdad I don’t feel I am in danger like I felt in many other places where I was doing work for the United Nations.”
When asked if the United Nations is a terrorist target, the envoy said, “I don’t think so. The United Nations is well respected by the population. The Iraqis see the United Nations as an independent and friendly organization, on the contrary of what they feel about the occupying forces. They trust our work and they know we are here to help them” (Jamil Chade, O Estado de Sao Paulo, Aug. 20, GSN translation).
Vieira de Mello, a 55-year-old Brazilian, worked for the United Nations for 33 years. He was the transitional administrator for East Timor following the 1999 vote for independence from Indonesia and a special representative in Kosovo (Paul Maclnnes, London Guardian, Aug. 19).
After being informed about the envoy’s death, Annan issued a statement saying “those who killed him have committed a crime, not only against the United Nations but against Iraq itself.”
“The death of any colleague is hard to bear, but I can think of no one we could less afford to spare, or who would be more acutely missed throughout the U.N. system than Sergio,” Annan added (U.N. release, Aug. 20).
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva decreed yesterday a three-day official mourning for Vieira de Mello, saying he was “a victim of insanity of terrorism, especially if we take into consideration that the U.N.’s objective is to maintain peace in the world” (Jornal do Brasil, Aug. 19, GSN translation).
Hussein Vice President Captured
In other news, Pentagon spokeswoman Diane Perry has confirmed that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s former vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, is in U.S. custody. Ramadan, No. 20 on the U.S. list of the 55 most wanted officials from the former regime, was arrested Monday by U.S. Kurdish allies in northern Iraq.
U.S. President George W. Bush said, “Slowly but surely, we’ll find who we need to find. It’s just a matter of time.”
Of the 55 most wanted officials from Saddam’s regime, 36 are in custody, 15 remain at large, two have been confirmed dead and two have been reported killed (Associated Press/USA Today, Aug. 19).
|
 |
Iranian officials want other countries to share civilian nuclear technology if Tehran agrees to sign the Additional Protocol to its nuclear safeguards agreement, which would allow greater international oversight of Iran’s nuclear activities, the Financial Times reported today (see GSN, Aug. 19).
Iran wants to “add pages” to the proposed protocol that would direct the International Atomic Energy Agency to push other countries to provide nuclear assistance, according to Hossein Afarideh, the head of the Iranian parliament’s energy commission.
Iran is also looking for a clause in the protocol that would prevent inspectors from visiting religious shrines or the homes of top officials.
“Iranians have bad memories of what happened in Iraq,” said an Iranian official. “There’s a feeling that the Americans would use the protocol to create a crisis, by demanding that the inspectors go to the leader’s house,” the official added (Bozorgmehr/Khalaf, Financial Times, Aug. 20).
South Korean Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan tried to lower expectations today for the results of next week’s six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear crisis (see GSN, Aug. 19).
“It would be hard to resolve the problem through a few rounds of talks, given the nature of nuclear issues,” Yoon said.
North and South Korea are scheduled to meet with diplomats from China, Russia, Japan and the United States for three-day talks starting Aug. 27.
“It is a correct view to say that a long process for settlement is now beginning, rather than being too optimistic or pessimistic about the outcomes of the first round of talks,” according to Yoon (Agence France-Presse, Aug. 20).
Pyongyang, meanwhile, said the United States is insisting on new teams — with officials from China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States — to conduct early inspections of North Korean facilities.
“The U.S. demand for an early inspection of the D.P.R.K. nuclear facilities is absolutely unacceptable as it is a blatant interference in its internal affairs and an infringement upon its sovereignty,” said the state-run Korean Central News Agency (Agence France-Presse II, Aug. 20).
U.S. Navy officials are finalizing plans to use an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine in “Silent Hammer,” an exercise to examine the Trident submarine’s conversion to carry conventional cruise missiles, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported today (see GSN, June 16).
The exercise is slated to take place in mid-2004 off the coast of Southern California, according to Rear Adm. Stephen Johnson, the Navy’s director for undersea technology.
During the event, a submerged submarine will strike targets, send special forces personnel ashore “from a couple of different platforms,” and conduct “pathfinding” for the larger force, Johnson said (Andrew Koch, Jane’s Defense Weekly, Aug. 20).
The Rocky Flats site in Colorado is now free of nuclear weapons material, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced yesterday (see GSN, June 27). The facility fabricated the plutonium cores of every nuclear weapon now in the U.S. stockpile.
“Rocky Flats helped the United States win the Cold War and it is no longer in the nuclear weapons business,” Abraham said. “Rocky Flats is on a path to close under budget. The hard work of all those involved in the Rocky Flats cleanup has helped beat target dates for key milestones and maintained the commitment to the American people of this country to shutdown and cleanup this facility. This removal of the weapons-usable material is a historic event,” he added.
The Energy Department currently is cleaning the facility.
According to Energy officials, the removal of the nuclear-weapons material was achieved 12 years ahead of schedule.
“This accomplishment is probably the most important milestone of the Rocky Flats Closure Project to date,” said Energy Department Rocky Flats Site Manager Gene Schmitt. “It also saves close to $2 million in security costs each month that can be applied directly to accomplishing more cleanup work,” he added (Energy Department release, Aug. 19).
|
 |
Experts from countries that are party to the international treaty banning biological weapons began a two-week meeting in Geneva Monday to discuss ways to strengthen the treaty (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002).
The discussions, which include officials from the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization, will cover how the countries can better implement provisions of the Biological Weapons Convention, enact penalties related to treaty violations and maintain control over biological agents that could be used to make weapons.
The meeting is a preliminary session to an annual meeting of senior officials scheduled for November.
Previous negotiations aimed at strengthening the treaty ended unsuccessfully late last year, but the states parties agreed to meet annually until the next review conference on the convention is held in 2006 (U.N. release, Aug. 19).
|
 |
A Russian chemical weapons disposal plant located in Gorny resumed operations Monday after being shut down for repairs (see GSN, June 27). The destruction of more than 1,100 metric tons of yperite and lewisite stored at the plant were halted in mid-May to conduct maintenance, according to ITAR-Tass (ITAR-Tass, Aug. 18 in FBIS-SOV, Aug. 18).
|
 |
By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The U.S. military is preparing to transport several Iraqi missiles from Iraq to the United States to examine the missiles’ capabilities and to attempt to determine whether toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein received outside help in developing them, U.S. Missile and Space Intelligence Center Director Clyde Walker told Global Security Newswire today.
Within the next month, a number of al-Samoud 2 and Ababil 100 missiles are to be brought to the Missile and Space Intelligence Center here and the National Ground Intelligence Center in Charlottesville, Va., respectively, Walker said at the annual Space and Missile Defense Conference.
“Maybe we’ll have one available to show you next year” at the conference, Walker said during a speech yesterday at the event.
Under Hussein, Iraq was banned by the United Nations from possessing missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers, and Iraq declared the ranges of both Ababil and al-Samoud missiles to be under that threshold. Walker told GSN, though, that five al-Samoud 2 missiles that Iraq fired — and the United States intercepted — during the recent war had ranges of at least 180 kilometers.
The missiles being brought to the United States represent a portion of a larger number of missiles captured by U.S. and British forces following the end of major combat in Iraq. Walker said missiles other than those tapped for investigation in the United States will be destroyed.
U.S. officials are predicting that over the next five years the United States will face an increased threat from enemy ballistic and cruise missiles, the Huntsville Times reported yesterday.
“Technology is progressing very fast. The bad guys out there get this also, and they are using it,” U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Joseph Cosumano, head of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said at the opening of a missile defense conference in Huntsville, Ala. (see related GSN stories, today).
U.S. intelligence has estimated that at least 25 countries and 12 terrorist organizations are developing ballistic missiles, said Clyde Walker, director of the Missile and Space Intelligence Center at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville. Many of those countries are upgrading older missiles, such as the Scud system, or modifying existing systems. For example, there is concern over Iranian attempts to modify the Russian-designed SA-2 surface-to-air missile into a ground-attack weapon, Walker said (Shelby Spires, Huntsville Times, Aug. 19).
In addition, a new U.S. intelligence report distributed at the conference warns that several countries are developing advanced land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs) that could pose new challenges for U.S. air-defense systems.
New LACMs are being developed with stealthy capabilities to make them less visible to radar and infrared detectors, according to the report, which was prepared by the National Air & Space Intelligence Center. The report also warns that some missile systems are being developed to use chaff or decoys to make them harder to intercept, according to Aerospace Daily.
Modern LACMs can also be programmed to fly around radar stations and air defenses or to attack them in large numbers, according to the report.
“Defending against LACMs will stress air-defense systems,” the report says (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, Aug. 20).
|
 |
By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — A White House-backed “new model” for acquisitions is posing problems for U.S. missile defense development and complicating congressional support for missile defense, a top Defense Department acquisitions official said yesterday.
As a result, said Kent Stansberry, “For the time being, we’re going to set aside our [new] acquisition model.” Stansberry is deputy director for defense systems in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
The new approach, which involves assigning responsibility for different aspects of the missile defense program to different agencies, “gives rise to a number of problems,” Stansberry said at the Space and Missile Defense Conference here.
In an approach championed in recent years by U.S. President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency is to have responsibility for research, development, testing and evaluation of missile defense technology, while the various armed services would be responsible for deploying and operating the final missile defense systems.
“Moving things from MDA into a service” in this way, though, means giving the service responsibility for systems it did not develop or test, Stansberry said. Ideally, he said, programs would experience a “birth-to-death” shepherding by a single agency through all stages of their existence.
“This is an area that has been an increasing challenge, a challenge to take our theory of the acquisition process and put it into practice,” said Stansberry.
So far, the model of migration from the Missile Defense Agency to a service applies only to one example, the combining of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and the Medium Extended Air Defense System programs, which is being taken over by the Army (see GSN, Aug. 15). Stansberry said the move has fed congressional confusion about, and opposition to, the new model, with various congressional authorization and appropriations measures calling for responsibilities to be divvied up in a host of different ways.
Meanwhile, the United States is planning to deploy a number of elements in coming months that will serve both operational and testing purposes, a situation that further complicates implementation of the new acquisitions model.
Among other problems in missile defense acquisitions, Stansberry cited increasing technical complexity as the Defense Department tries “to integrate things in a scope and depth that are unprecedented,” as well as an uncertain and shifting threat landscape.
He also blamed “political baggage” for slowing the process, saying “there were hardly any neutral people on the subject” during the Cold War, and that much current opposition to missile defense stems from that period.
“People begin to believe shortsighted views about limitations and restrictions, and they get repeated so often that they become conventional wisdom. … I see it diminishing every day, but it is still a part of the landscape that we have to deal with,” he said.
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is considering hundreds of proposals for new ways to improve U.S. missile defense efforts, an industry official said yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 19).
For example, more than 200 ideas are being considered for 2008-2009, said Jim Evatt, Boeing senior vice president and general manager for missile-defense systems. While many of the proposals are classified, Evatt said, he indicated that the list was wide-ranging, including ideas such as new radar and airborne infrared systems (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, Aug. 20).
The United States and Denmark are expected to resume discussions next month on upgrading a radar station in Greenland for use in the planned U.S. missile-defense system, Inside Missile Defense reported today (see GSN, April 25).
The Danish Parliament has yet to decide whether to accept a U.S. plan to upgrade an early warning system at the Thule Air Base in Greenland. Most Greenlandic officials and Greenlanders, however, oppose the upgrade, according to Inside Missile Defense. While able to govern its domestic affairs under home rule, Greenland’s foreign and defense policy are administered by Denmark.
In a report released earlier this year, the Danish government indicated that it was likely to support the U.S. radar upgrade request. “It could be in Denmark’s own political interest to respond positively to Washington’s request, and it is not excluded that we in the long term might also want to be protected by a missile defense,” the report said (Jeremy Feiler, Inside Missile Defense Aug. 20).
U.S. defense contractor Boeing has begun work to develop a miniature cruise missile that could be used against enemy ballistic missile launchers, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported this week (see GSN, June 12).
Boeing has started on a prototype of a 1,000-pound cruise missile with a range of 1,000 miles that could be fired from an F/A-22 stealth fighter, according to Aviation Week. The prototype’s first flight is scheduled to occur by early 2006.
The miniature cruise missile is set to fly at a speed of Mach 0.8 at an altitude of 25,000 feet, said Carl Avila, director of advanced tactical missile programs for Boeing Phantom Works. The missile will carry enough submunitions to attack two or three targets, he said (David Fulghum, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Aug. 18).
|
 |
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — A U.S. Agriculture Department agency canceled a series of public meetings this month on possible changes to a list of biological toxins and agents that could damage plants and agicultural products. The move was criticized by some in the biological research community.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service had scheduled three meetings in North Carolina, Maryland and California to specifically discuss revising the U.S. criteria for determining “whether an agent has the potential to pose a severe threat to plant health or products,” according to a notice in the Federal Register.
An official from the service said Monday that one reason for the cancellations was that there was a concern that the meetings would tip terrorists to potentially destructive agents.
“It was prudent to cancel,” said Assistant Director for Plant Health Programs Michael Firko, who added that the meetings “would have been too much of a public forum.”
Firko also said the meetings might have been used for off-topic or premature criticism of the congressionally mandated update of the list, which is expected to occur next year.
“They were turning into a lot more than we expected them to be,” he said. “We don’t want to get into the position of defending something we haven’t even proposed yet. … A public meeting like that would have been a very freewheeling environment,” the official added.
Questions Over Criteria
Biological security expert Ronald Atlas, a University of Louisville biology professor, questioned the service’s explanations for the cancellations.
“We were given an explanation that the information was too sensitive to discuss, but it’s not clear what the real explanation was,” said Atlas, who recently served a term as president of the American Society of Microbiology.
Atlas said there has been disagreement among plant pathologists over exactly how restrictive the list should be — whether it should restrict entire species or target specific subtypes of pathogens.
Differing from criteria used for a similar list for animals, Atlas said, “The nomenclature of what we call an organism or what’s really the pathogen of concern is really more complicated. … If you use just the genus and species name, you capture a whole lot of things you’re not really concerned about.”
He said while some serovars — or subcategories — of pathogens might be harmful to economically useful plants, others would not.
The lists and accompanying restrictions were required by the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2002 Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act with the purpose of better controlling materials that could be used to attack U.S. food sources, such as plants and animals, as well as associated products (see GSN, Dec. 12, 2002).
Researchers have criticized the laws for, among other things, mandating costly laboratory security upgrades, intrusive federal background checks for researchers and destruction of surplus, allegedly in some cases for toxins and agents that might not pose a health or economic threat.
Public Dialogue
Atlas criticized the decision to cancel the meetings, saying that researchers have questioned how the inspection service will make sound regulation changes “if they don’t talk to the community.”
Michelle Bjerkness, a spokesperson for the American Phytopathological Society, said service officials, however, were available to interact with the public by staffing a booth during the society’s annual conference, which was being held in Charlotte at the same time as the cancelled meeting.
Firko said the canceled gatherings were simply preliminary meetings and were not required by law. He noted, though, that officials would continue to solicit written public comments that might have been delivered by meeting attendees.
Public meetings will be held at a later date, and in the meantime, the service will seek independent advice on the criteria directly from experts, Firko said.
|
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
© Copyright
2002 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
HOME |
CONTACT US |
GET INVOLVED
|
SITE MAP
|
|
Back to top
