|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
International Response: G-8 Reports “Substantial Progress” in Implementation of Global PartnershipBy Mike Nartker The G-8 effort, the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction was initiated during the G-8 summit last year in Kananaskis, Canada (see GSN, June 28, 2002). The partnership calls for G-8 members — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and United States — to provide $20 billion over 10 years to fund nonproliferation projects, primarily in Russia. According to a report released here today at the G-8 summit, a group of senior G-8 officials has determined that “substantial progress” has been made in translating the partnership into concrete nonproliferation projects. “At the same time, much work remains to be done,” the report says. The report praises progress on implementing several contentious partnership guidelines that form a framework for the negotiation of specific projects, such as tax exemption and liability issues (see GSN, May 22). In addition, a proposal to help simplify access to project sites by reducing prior notification requirements from 45 days to 30 days is considered an “improvement” but is still contentious to some partnership members, the report says. It adds that this proposal should continue to be evaluated over the next year. In its report, the G-8 also praised progress made in launching new cooperation projects with Russia. For example, new projects designed to aid in the destruction of former nuclear submarines have been launched at two Russian shipyards on Russia’s east coast, according to the report. It also says that agreements have been reached on a program to end Russian production of weapon-grade plutonium and on the acceleration of efforts to secure Russian stockpiles of fissile materials and nuclear weapons (see GSN, May 28). In addition, the report highlights the progress made in improving security at Russian biological research facilities and in the conversion for former WMD production sites to produce commercial products. The report warns, however, that for all the progress made in launching cooperative projects with Russia, “sustained and broadened efforts will be needed.” In addition, the G-8 report also calls for further outreach efforts in both new partnership members and targets. For example, Ukraine has presented an official application to become a partnership recipient country, in addition to Russia, according to the report. While the G-8 answered Ukraine’s request positively “in principle,” the partnership is still in its initial phase and thereby focused on projects within Russia, the report says. The senior officials group has expressed a readiness, however, to enter into preliminary discussions with countries willing to adhere to the partnership’s guidelines, it says, adding that some G-8 members have already begun pursuing projects in other former Soviet states. The European Union has decided to organize an interparliamentary conference on the partnership in November in Strasbourg, the report says, adding that the decision to hold such a conference is “fully supported” by the G-8. Nongovernmental Experts Also Push for Continued G-8 Efforts Speaking Saturday in Morzine, near Evian, a panel of nonproliferation experts praised the initial results of the G-8 nonproliferation efforts. The global partnership was “urgently needed” in Russia because of the difficulties Moscow had previously had in securing nuclear materials and stockpiles of chemical weapons, said Vladimir Orlov, founding director of the PIR Center for Policy Studies in Russia. For example, a 1994 Russian government document described the lack of physical protection, as well as poor security, at a naval facility on the northern Kola Peninsula that housed stockpiles of enriched uranium, Orlov said. The same facility would have much better security today because of increased international assistance, made possible through the partnership, he said. Russia itself is applying more resources to the security problem, Orlov said. For example, Moscow has agreed to provide $2 billion over the next 10 years to the partnership, making it the second largest donor to the effort behind the United States, he said. In addition, eight leading Russian security experts have recently presented recommendations on further implementation of the partnership to Russian President Vladimir Putin, he said. The concern now is whether Russia will meet its funding pledge, as well as whether it will fully meet the principles set forth in the partnership, Orlov said. For its part, the G-8 also needs to develop a schedule for the provision of pledged funding, he said. While in the last year there has been “more good news … than bad news” concerning the security of Russian WMD materials, such materials are still at risk, according to Orlov. In January, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that intercepted communications from Chechen militants expressed an interest in sabotaging nuclear facilities and capturing nuclear materials, he said. Another concern is the status of former Soviet weapons scientists, who are feared to be potential sources of information and expertise for rogue states and terrorist groups. Despite the risk posed by such scientists, Russia has chosen to focus its initial efforts on disposing of strategic submarines and its vast chemical weapons arsenal, Orlov said. He nevertheless defended Moscow’s priorities, arguing that disposing of actual weapons was a sensible first step, in part because those activities would attract international attention. The threat posed by scientists potentially aiding terrorist groups or other states may also be exaggerated, according to another expert. Rudimentary information on making weapons of mass destruction is easily available, said Laura Holgate of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, so restricting access to WMD materials should be the primary concern. Additional Areas Another possible area for possible increased cooperation is the disposal of Russian general-purpose nuclear submarines, said Sverre Lodgaard, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Russia currently has about 100 such submarines that need to be scrapped, at a cost of millions of dollars per submarine, he said. Norway, which has sent a letter of intent to France regarding joining the global partnership, is soon set to enter into an agreement with Russia to aid in the disposal of two general-purpose nuclear submarines, Lodgaard said. Lodgaard also called for a “crash program” to accelerate the blending down of stockpiles of highly enriched uranium for later use as fuel in civilian nuclear power plants. Stockpiles of highly enriched uranium pose a greater threat than plutonium because terrorists could develop a crude nuclear device more easily with uranium, he said.
From June 2, 2003 issue.U.S. Response I: Bush Proposes New Initiative to Block Suspect Cargo ShipmentsBy Mike Nartker The United States has already begun contacting a number of countries, such as Poland, on the development of new legal agreements authorizing the search of planes and ships carrying suspect cargo, Bush said during a press conference in Krakow, Poland. Legal agreements developed through the Proliferation Security Initiative would also provide authority to seize illegal shipments of WMD- or missile-related components if discovered. “When weapons of mass destruction or their components are in transit, we must have the means and authority to seize them,” Bush said. The issue of the legality of stopping and seizing suspect cargo was dramatically demonstrated late last year when a joint U.S.-Spanish effort briefly seized a North Korean ship carrying at least a dozen disassembled Scud ballistic missiles to Yemen. Bush said he would work to continue to add new members to the initiative. “We will extend this partnership as broadly as possible to keep the world’s most destructive weapons away from our shores and out of the hands of our common enemies,” he said. The initiative is likely to be a topic of discussion during a one-on-one meeting between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac scheduled for today during the Group of Eight summit in Evian, France, according to Chirac spokeswoman Catharine Colonna. While France is not opposed to consideration of the issue, one concern is the legal basis for the stopping and seizure of WMD- and missile-related technologies, Colonna said during a press conference. She added that the planned initiative could also be included in a larger nonproliferation system.
From June 2, 2003 issue.U.S. Response II: Pentagon Report Outlines Chemical, Biological Defense Needs and SolutionsBy David Ruppe The various needs — and the solutions planned to address them — were outlined in the annual report of the Defense Department’s Chemical and Biological Defense Program provided to Congress in April and released to the public last month. To develop improved chemical and biological defense technologies, the Pentagon this year requested more than $1.1 billion to research, develop and acquire chemical and biological defenses in fiscal 2004, up $35 million from the previous year’s request. At a March congressional hearing, the senior Pentagon official overseeing the effort said U.S. forces are becoming better prepared for operating in chemical and biological warfare environments, but conceded that there are shortcomings. “I believe that the forward-deployed troops are the best protected that they can be,” said Dale Klein, assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense. Nevertheless, “we wish we had better standoff detectors, we wish we had better antibiotics, we wish … we knew what was coming so that we could detect to prevent rather than detect to treat,” he said. Michael Powers, a senior fellow at the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute here who recently completed a review of U.S. biological defense activities, similarly said there are two particular weaknesses in U.S. biological defense capabilities in particular, both on the prevention side: detection and vaccine availability. The detection weakness is of particular concern because the military’s approach to chemical and biological defense focuses on preventing contamination. Post-exposure treatment is a less preferable option, as it would inevitably require removing soldiers from the battlefield. “Their emphasis is really on preventing exposure rather than preventing disease,” he said. Detection Capabilities The report specifically says there is a need for battlefield chemical and biological detection systems that are able to detect and identify in real time all known chemical and biological agents. “Current technologies require a high level of logistical support and lack discrimination in biological standoff detection,” it said. “Real-time detection of biological agents is currently unavailable and is unlikely in the near- to mid-term, though investment efforts are reducing detection times.” Detection devices are needed for a range of entities, from ships to vehicles to soldiers, according to the report. Soldier Protection Systems Insufficient detection systems, Powers said, hinder soldier contamination avoidance efforts because soldiers may not have enough time to don their protective equipment. “What you want to do is provide ample warning that an agent could be moving through your area so you could don your gas mask,” he said. The recent Pentagon report says efforts are underway to develop protective clothing that is longer lasting and less burdensome to the soldier in terms of weight and heat. “Individual protection equipment must also provide protection against emerging threats, such as novel agents or toxic chemicals,” it says, suggesting that the challenge will be difficult and complex. “Integral respiratory protection requires tradeoffs between physiological performance parameters such as pulmonary function, field of regard, speech intelligibility and anthropometric sizing against constraints of cost, size/weight, protection time and interfacing with other equipment.” A breakthrough could be pending, according to the report, as a new mask now in the final stages of testing is expected to offer increased protection, improved comfort and usability. Funding also is directed toward technologies to reduce the weight, volume, cost and deployability of chemical- and biological-safe shelters and to integrate skin and respiratory protection systems into major weapons systems. That, too, can be a challenge, as protection is sought for incorporation into major land, sea, and air weapons systems — for instance, within the Army’s Comanche, Crusader, Bradley, Breacher, Heavy Assault Bridge, Future Scout and Cavalry systems. Decontamination Systems More efficient, less destructive decontamination systems also are needed, the report says. “Existing systems are effective against a wide variety of threat agents, yet are slow and labor intensive and present logistical, environmental, material and safety burdens,” it says. According to the report, existing systems are inadequate for decontaminating electronic equipment or for a large area, such as a port or airfield. The military is searching for decontaminants that are not water-based or corrosive, can be used on equipment to neutralize a wide range of agents, pose no “unacceptable” health hazards and require reduced manpower and logistics to implement. Medical Defense Another major biological defense weakness, said Powers, is the availability of vaccines for the many possible biological weapons threats. The nature of the science and technology, he said, forces the Defense Department to develop specific vaccines for a broad array of potential threat agents, often after a lengthy testing processes for safety. The military currently lacks Food and Drug Administration-licensed vaccines for a number of biological weapons threats. Work is underway to develop and license vaccines for Q fever, tularemia and smallpox. There are options, however, for the development and licensing of 10 other vaccines, the report says. In the next two years, the military expects to have licensed a paste for reducing chemical agent exposure to skin and a pretreatment for protection against soman, a nerve agent. It also aims to produce a new system for identifying and diagnosing biological agent exposure, licensing the antibiotic cyprofloxacin for treating anthrax and approving a shorter dosing schedule for administering anthrax vaccine, the report said. Anthrax vaccination currently requires a primary series of six doses given over 18 months, with an annual booster to maintain immunity. “The protocol makes it difficult to complete before deployment of forces or to ensure that mobile forces, once deployed, are administered the proper regimen,” it said. Work also is underway to assess the effectiveness of current medical countermeasures on nontraditional chemical and biological agents and to assess the effects of low dose exposure to chemical agents on soldiers. Powers says the military is much more prepared to deal with the chemical threat than the biological threat.” “Longstanding programs within the Chemical Corps, a lot of the training and education programs that have been underway for several years if not decades have really focused on the chemical weapons threat, or dealing with the biological threat in sort of the context of a hazardous materials response,” Powers said, noting that the military is much more prepared to deal with a chemical threat than a biological one. “What DOD I think has come to realize in the past couple of years … is a sort of gradual shift to recognize the difference in both the threat and necessary response for chemical and biological weapons and a recognition of the important role played by the public health and the medical care providers within DOD in dealing with the biological weapons challenge,” he added.
From June 2, 2003 issue.Iraq I: Scientist Says Saddam Hid Weapons Programs Near Commercial FacilitiesAn Iraqi scientist has told Bush administration officials that Saddam Hussein placed the country’s chemical and biological weapons programs close to commercial facilities in an effort to produce the weapons on a moment’s notice, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN , May 29). Positioning the alleged WMD programs near commercial facilities also helped to keep them under wraps, the scientist said. In a May 7 White House document made available to the Post, the scientist describes Iraq as having “carefully embedded its (weapons of mass destruction) infrastructure in dual-use facilities” so the weapons could be made quickly in the event of an attack. According to the Post, the commercial facilities also made legitimate products such as pesticides, but “such sites also could employ ‘just in time’ manufacturing and delivery systems to reduce the need for stockpiles,” the document noted. Administration officials have pointed toward the recent discovery of two trailers in Iraq that could have been used to concoct biological weapons. The trailers — one captured by Kurdish forces near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and turned over to U.S. troops in late April and a second discovered by U.S. troops at the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development and Engineering site in Mosul in early May — have long been suspected of being mobile biological production plants (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, June 2). The United States is ramping up efforts to find weapons of mass destruction, sending in the Iraq Survey Group, which will consist of 1,300 to 1,400 personnel. The team will be led by Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, who is scheduled to arrive in Baghdad today. “This will be a deliberate process and it will be a long-term effort. We will be using all sources to put together pieces of an incredibly complex jigsaw puzzle,” Dayton said (Politi/Alden, Financial Times, May 31). Some Looted Barrels Recovered U.S. officials, meanwhile, are busy recovering barrels that were used to store nuclear material that were looted from Iraqi government facilities. U.S. forces are paying $3 for barrels that originally contained uranium and were being used by civilians for storing food and washing clothes, Reuters reported. “We recovered 100 barrels, but we do not know how many more are out there,” said Lt. Col. Brent Bredehoft, head of the U.S. unit searching for the radioactive material (Reuters/Sydney Morning Herald, June 2).
From June 2, 2003 issue.Iraq II: Coalition Nations Defend Assessment of Iraqi WeaponsToday and over the weekend, top U.S. and British officials defended their prewar intelligence estimates of Iraq’s WMD capabilities, according to reports. British Prime Minister Tony Blair today supported British intelligence assessments on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that were released prior to the recent war. “I stand absolutely, 100 percent” behind the intelligence information, Blair said this afternoon at a press conference held during the Group of Eight’s summit in Evian, France (Mike Nartker, GSN, June 2). Yesterday, Blair said he had seen new evidence of Iraq’s WMD arsenal “which is not yet public,” adding that he had “no doubt at all” that Iraq possessed illegal weapons (Sparrow/Brogan, London Telegraph, June 2). Recently, there has been increasing criticism of information contained in a British dossier released last year on the threat posed by Iraqi biological and chemical weapons. For example, the dossier said the Iraqi military could deploy such weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so — a claim some of Blair’s critics have called exaggerated. Blair denied that any British intelligence had been “doctored” prior to release, saying that the British Parliament’s Joint Intelligence Committee had first cleared such information. Blair also denied recent allegations made by former Cabinet member Claire Short that he and U.S. President George W. Bush made a secret agreement last year to invade Iraq. During his address today, Blair called for patience in assessing the results of the coalition’s search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. An international survey group is set to begin its work in Iraq this week, and the results will be released upon completion, Blair said (see related GSN story, today). He refused to comment directly, however, on whether an independent inquiry of the disputed intelligence information will be conducted. “Have a little patience,” Blair said (Nartker, GSN). Bush Claims Smoking Gun Late last week, U.S. President George W. Bush told a Polish television station that the discovery of two Iraqi mobile laboratories meant the United States has “found the weapons of mass destruction,” the Washington Post reported yesterday (see GSN, May 29). Officials did not find any illegal or dangerous biological agents in the two trailers, but the vehicles did contain laboratory equipment. The threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was the major reason Bush cited for invading and occupying Iraq, but U.S. forces have yet to find any illicit weapons or biological agents that could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. “We found the weapons of mass destruction,” Bush said. “We found biological laboratories. You remember when [U.S. Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they wrong. We found them,” he added. U.S. officials have been shifting away from the prewar claims that Iraq had large WMD stocks and posed a direct threat to the United States, the Post reported. “Just because they found two mobile labs, to say that’s evidence of weapons of mass destruction is absurd,” said Kristian Denny, a spokeswoman for Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.) (Dana Milbank, Washington Post, June 1). Tenet Defends CIA Analysis In the face of growing criticism, CIA Director George Tenet Friday defended his agency’s analysis of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities, the Post reported (see GSN, May 30). Tenet is sending Congress “all the statements made by the administration on weapons of mass destruction and the underlying intelligence that supported those statements,” according to Senator John Warner (R-Va.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Warner said that he might support an investigation of the intelligence that supported the U.S. invasion. Warner said, however, that his actions should not be construed as criticism of the agency or Bush’s decision to invade. Democratic lawmakers were more critical. “If we don’t find these weapons of mass destruction, it will represent a serious intelligence failure or the manipulation of that intelligence to keep the American people in the dark,” according to Graham. Representative Jane Harmon (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the House intelligence committee, said that she is concerned about weapons of mass destruction that have not been found and might be in the hands of U.S. enemies. If weapons of mass destruction are buried in Iraq, “someone knows where that is, Saddam Hussein and his sons may still be alive, and the major moral underpinning of our war, to prevent him from using (weapons of mass destruction) against American interests and Iraqi citizens, may still be out there,” Harmon said (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, June 2). Powell Was Frustrated at Holes in Allegations, Report Says Before the invasion, the Bush administration was seriously divided over the merits of the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, according to U.S. News and World Report. On Feb. 1, 24 U.S. officials reportedly met to review Secretary Powell’s pending speech to the United Nations, in which he would allege an extensive Iraqi WMD program. Powell reportedly became frustrated with holes in the U.S. allegations. “I’m not reading this,” Powell reportedly said after throwing some pages of the speech in the air. “This is bull----,” he added. In the speech he presented to the United Nations, Powell excluded some allegations that did not stand up to a close examination, according to U.S. News and World Report. Lower ranking officials were also distressed. “The policy decisions weren’t matching the reports we were reading every day,” said a U.S. intelligence official (U.S. News and World Report, June 9). Greg Thielmann, a recently retired State Department intelligence analyst who was directly involved in reviewing intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, said that “there is a lot of sorrow and anger at the way intelligence was misused,” according to Newsweek (Newsweek, June 9).
From June 2, 2003 issue.U.S. Response III: Washington Deploys Sensors to Map Wind CurrentsU.S. scientists have installed wind strength and direction sensors in the Washington, D.C., area to reduce the consequences of a potential chemical, biological or radioactive terrorist attack, the Washington Post reported today. The system, called DCNet, consists so far of 30-foot aluminum weather towers erected near sensitive sites in the area, including the U.S. Capitol, the White House, tourist spots and highways. The sensors are designed to forecast how urban “wind fields” might disperse fallout from a weapon of mass destruction, according to the Post. The sensors will sample the wind 10 times per second, and data will be downloaded to experts every 15 minutes. “The Washington exercise is seen as a prototype of what could eventually be a nationwide program,” said Bruce Hicks, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s air resources laboratory, which created the $500,000 network. “The system now in place offers this area an unparalleled capability to plan for possible attacks and to respond if one were to occur,” he added. A sister program, called SensorNet, has been launched by the U.S. Energy Department, the Post reported. This $3 million program has added gamma-radiation detectors to the towers to test their feasibility in detecting a radiological terrorist attack. The U.S. House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations is scheduled to hold a hearing today to examine technologies that model the spread of airborne biological, chemical and radiological agents. “In the Cold War, we plotted the course of ballistic missiles,” said Chairman Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) in a press release last week. “In the war against weapons of mass destruction, we need to be able to predict the path of toxic clouds across new battlefields abroad and here at home,” he added (Spencer Hsu, Washington Post, June 2).
From May 30, 2003 issue.Iraq: U.S. Congress to Investigate Pre-War U.S. IntelligenceThe U.S. Congress is to begin investigating the claims made by the Bush administration prior to the war with Iraq that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction programs, the London Times reported today (see GSN, May 29). The House Intelligence Committee has sent a letter to CIA Director George Tenet with several questions related to the U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The letter asks for information on the quality and reliability of such intelligence and whether “any dissenting views were properly weighed,” the Times reported. “My concern is that we did not have enough good intelligence to draw the necessary conclusions that our policy-makers need to be completely confident,” Committee Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) said. “Wouldn’t it be nice if we gave them better information to base their judgments on?” he asked. The letter requests that Tenet respond by July 1, and the committee is expected to begin holding hearings on the matter that month, according to the Times. The Senate Intelligence Committee is also expected to hold similar hearings (Reid/Webster, London Times, May 30). U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday reiterated his belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the war, citing the discovery of suspect mobile biological weapons plants. “We discovered weapons manufacturing facilities that were condemned by the United Nations,” Bush said. “Biological laboratories described by our secretary of state to the whole world that were not supposed to be there, that are a direct violation of the U.N. resolutions, have been discovered,” he said (Agence France-Presse, May 30). U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday denied that the war was launched under “false pretext.” “I can assure you that this war was not waged under any false pretext,” Rumsfeld said. “We believed then and we believe now that the Iraqis have, had chemical weapons, biological weapons and that they had a program to develop nuclear weapons but did not have nuclear weapons,” he said (Agence France-Presse II, May 30). Blair Faces Criticism Over Possibly Exaggerated Intelligence Meanwhile, British lawmakers have called on Prime Minister Tony Blair to make a statement on the justification for going to war with Iraq amid reports that the government might have exaggerated intelligence information on the threat posed by Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, the London Independent reported today. A case could be made for launching an investigation into the government’s claims that Iraqi forces could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so, said former British Defense Secretary Lord King of Bridgwater. Such a claim was made in a British dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction released last year. “These are very serious allegations and if they are true then they would substantially undermine the government’s legal and political case for going to war,” said Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party. The House of Commons Security and Intelligence Committee has refused to say whether it will conduct an investigation into the government’s claims of the Iraqi WMD threat, the Independent reported. Such an investigation, if it were to occur, would be conducted in secret and any report would be reviewed prior to release. Members of Parliament yesterday said only a statement by Blair would dispel doubts about the legality of the war. “The prime minister should make a statement to Parliament on Tuesday to tell MPs and the nation what were the reasons for going to war,” said Doug Henderson, a former armed forces minister. “If he doesn’t do that there will a feeling that there is a cover-up and ultimately he will be forced to make a statement,” Henderson said (Ben Russell, London Independent, May 30). Blair yesterday rebuffed criticism that there is no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. “When you say there is no evidence that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, there are 12 years of United Nations resolutions about the weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. There’s no doubt about the chemical program, the biological program, indeed the nuclear weapons program,” Blair said. “All that is well documented by the U.N.,” he said (Jon Smith, London Independent, May 30).
From May 30, 2003 issue.International Response: G-8 Set to Address Global Partnership Funding at Evian SummitBy Mike Nartker At Kananaskis, Canada, summit last year, the G-8 countries — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — agreed to create the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. The eight agreed to contribute $20 billion over 10 years to the effort, meant to help prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction through nonproliferation projects mainly in Russia, Elizabeth Latham of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Global Security Newswire last week. Latham is the coordinator for the institute’s Strengthening the Global Partnership Project. Since the 2002 G-8 summit, approximately $16 billion of the initial $20 billion has been pledged, Latham said, including $650 million from Canada, $1.2 billion from the European Commission, $1.8 billion from Germany, $890 million from France, $1.2 billion from Italy, $200 million from Japan, $750 million from the United Kingsom, and $10 billion from the United States. One area of debate is Russia’s contribution, according to Latham. Currently, Russia has agreed to pledge approximately $2 billion to the effort, which U.S. and Russian officials have argued should not count toward the $20 billion total because the partnership is designed to aid projects in Russia, Latham said. European partnership members, however, have argued that Russia’s contribution should be applied. In addition, efforts could be made at the Evian summit to urge Japan to increase its contribution, Latham said. Japan has been hesitant so far to increase its contribution to the partnership because of transparency concerns related to a joint Japanese-Russian project to scrap decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines off Russia’s eastern coast, she said (see GSN, May 5). In testimony before two U.S. House of Representatives International Relations subcommittees earlier this month, Jon Wolfsthal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace called on U.S. President George W. Bush to convince other G-8 members to work quickly to reach the $20 billion goal. Bush should also pledge that the United States would contribute $3 for every dollar contributed by other G-8 members, and $5 for every $1 contributed by Russia, Wolfsthal said. The G-8 is also expected to announce the addition of several new members, such as Finland, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland, to the global partnership at next week’s summit, Latham said. Norway has already sent a letter of intent on joining the partnership to France, she said, adding that Oslo could also announce a financial aid package. New countries joining the partnership will not necessarily provide financial assistance, but could also provide technical aid in nonproliferation projects, Latham said. One issue not likely to be addressed at the Evian summit is the expansion of the partnership to include nonproliferation projects in other countries, Latham said, adding that Ukraine had previously expressed interest in being the target of new programs. Such an expansion, however, is currently not a U.S. priority, she said. Other Concerns In addition to the Global Partnership, the G-8 nations are expected to address several broader areas of proliferation concern, such as concerns related to Iran’s nuclear efforts and the crisis surrounding North Korea’s relaunched program. The leaders are expected to discuss ways to ensure that countries that have relations with Iran, such as Russia, do not contribute to Tehran’s nuclear weapons efforts, U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday during a White House press conference (see related GSN story, today). “I think that the presidents will want to talk about what steps can be taken to make certain that any efforts in which anyone is engaged in with Iran … are not actually contributing to the potential problem of a military nuclear program in Iran,” Rice said. Bush is also expected to discuss the Iran and North Korea situations with Chinese President Hu Jintao, who has been invited to the Evian summit even though China is not a G-8 member, according to Rice. She said Bush would discuss with Hu China’s involvement with Iran. Last week, the United States sanctioned a state-owned Chinese company for allegedly aiding Iran’s ballistic missile program (see GSN, May 27). China’s presence at next week’s summit should not be seen as a sign that China could soon become a formal member of the G-8, Rice said. “As to any restructuring of the G-8, I don’t think that’s on the table at this particular point in time,” she said. One issue the G-8 summit is not likely to address is the conflict between nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir, Rice said (see GSN, May 23). While the two countries have recently begun working to establish a dialogue to reduce tensions, the process is “not something that can be moved forth by the will of the G-8,” she said. “I know that members of the G-8 are welcoming what is happening with the Indians and the Pakistanis,” Rice said. Personal Diplomacy The Evian summit has also been seen as an opportunity to help resolve any remaining diplomatic grudges stemming from the recent war in Iraq — most notably tensions between the United States on one side and France and Germany, two of most visible opponents of the U.S. invasion, on the other (see GSN, April 10). In his congressional testimony, Wolfsthal called on Bush to “reach out to his French and German counterparts” on implementing the Global Partnership. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer indicated yesterday that next week’s summit could help the G-8 nations to move past previous diplomatic conflicts. “This is about making progress as members of the G-8 on issues that unite us,” Fleischer said. “I think that the time has moved beyond us, whether there were recriminations or disagreements about previous issues,” he said. Bush is expected to cut his stay in Evian short though, according to Rice. She said Wednesday that Bush will only be at the summit for the first two days, after which he is to travel to Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, to meet with Middle Eastern leaders. Rice denied, however, that Bush’s early departure from the G-8 summit is intended as any kind of snub. “The French have said … they fully understand why the president needs to take this opportunity to go to the Middle East,” Rice said. “Everybody supports the mission that he is going to undertake,” she said, adding that she had spoken “personally” to her French counterpart on the issue. While at the summit, Bush only plans to hold bilateral meetings with Hu and summit host French President Jacques Chirac, according to Rice. Bush will still have opportunities to meet with his counterparts, however, during a number of planned working groups and social settings, Rice said, adding that most of these meetings “take place leader-on-leader.” “There are not many staff there and the like, so they’re in very close quarters,” Rice said of the G-8 leaders. Recommendations A number of nonproliferation advocates have recently issued recommendations for additional measures the G-8 nations should address at next week’s summit, saying the G-8 needs to do more quickly to address the threat WMD materials pose. At a press conference in Paris Wednesday, Sam Nunn, co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, called on G-8 members to develop an agreement on how much funding each will provide to the global partnership and when such funding would be made available, as well as an agreement on the creation of a senior position in each government responsible for efforts to prevent “catastrophic terrorism.” The G-8 should also work to develop international standards for the protection of nuclear materials and an agreement to “take full advantage of the skill and experience” of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Nunn said. “We are well past the time when we can take satisfaction with a step in the right direction. A gazelle running from a cheetah is taking steps in the right direction,” Nunn said in a statement. “It’s no longer just a question of direction; it’s a matter of speed. We are not moving as fast as we can or as fast as we must,” he said. Last week, a coalition of 20 security organizations from more than 15 countries, including CSIS, issued a statement containing their recommendations for the summit’s agenda. The coalition called on the G-8 countries to work to develop plans to secure vulnerable nuclear materials and research reactor fuels; to accelerate the blending down of excess stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, as is done in the U.S.-Russian “Megatons to Megawatts” program; and to accelerate the dismantlement of Russian general-purpose nuclear submarines (see GSN, May 15). The coalition also called for progress in the creation of international standards for the handling of dangerous biological pathogens and in new efforts to engage former Soviet biological weapons scientists in civilian work. In addition, the G-8 should also work to increase assistance to Russia to help Moscow meet its Chemical Weapons Convention obligation to destroy its chemical weapons arsenal by 2012. “The countries of Asia, Europe and North America must work hand in hand on an urgent basis to reduce the WMD threat. We need to do more — faster and better,” the coalition of security organizations said in its statement. “This is a call to duty for all who seek greater international security — one which we currently ignore at our peril,” it said. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Sam Nunn is co-chairman and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]
From May 29, 2003 issue.Iraq: British Intelligence Official Says Iraqi Dossier ReworkedA senior British intelligence official has said a government dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs was reworked to make it “sexier” prior to its release in September, BBC News reported today (see GSN, May 28). The British dossier’s claims included that the Iraqi military had the ability to deploy biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order (see GSN, Sept. 24, 2002). The British intelligence official said, however, that claim was not in the original draft of the dossier because it was considered to be unreliable. “Most things in the dossier were double-source, but that was single-source, and we believe that the source was wrong,” the intelligence official said. British Defense Minister Adam Ingram denied that the government had demanded changes to the dossier, saying it was “not concocted by Number 10 or under pressure from Number 10 to produce it in a particular way.” “(It came from) their best knowledge and their best assessment of what they could declare into the public domain, based upon the knowledge of what was out there,” Ingram said (BBC News, May 29). Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook has accused the government of basing its justification for the war on Iraq on false information. “It is plain he [ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein] did not have that capacity to threaten us, possibly did not have the capacity to threaten even his neighbors, and that is profoundly important,” Cook said. “We were, after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that would provide the basis for military action were in the wrong. Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right,” he said. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said yesterday that he had “absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction.” “Rather than speculating, let’s just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the Iraqi scientists,” Blair said (Russell/McSmith, London Independent, May 29). Iraqi WMD Was Singled Out for “Bureaucratic Reasons,” Wolfowitz Says Meanwhile, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has said the United States focused on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a reason for war because of “bureaucratic reasons,” adding that there were several other motives. “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,” Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in the July issue of Vanity Fair (Reuters, May 28). United States Limits IAEA’s Return Role While the United States has reached an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the organization to send its experts back to Iraq to help secure the Tuwaitha complex, the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program, the agreement sharply limits the agency’s role, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, May 27). Under the agreement, IAEA experts are limited to a small area within the complex and are specifically blocked from investigating reports that radioactive material from the site may have been removed, the Post reported. After labeling the effort made by U.N. inspectors prior to the war as insufficient, the Bush administration was not going to allow them to return to look for weapons now, a senior Bush administration official said. “Make no mistake, the IAEA wanted to get back in and do its former inspection role,” the senior Bush administration official said. “And they were told, in no uncertain terms, no,” the official added (DeYoung/Pincus, Washington Post, May 29).
From May 29, 2003 issue.Threat Assessment: Al-Qaeda May Still Strike U.S. Interests, FBI SaysMore than a week after raising the U.S. terror threat level to “orange,” the FBI has warned that al-Qaeda could still strike U.S. interests at home or abroad using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, May 21). In its weekly bulletin to state and local law enforcement and government agencies, the FBI said the terrorist group continues “to enhance their capabilities to conduct effective mass casualty attacks” (Washington Post, May 29). In an interview published Sunday in the London-based al-Majallah magazine, al-Qaeda spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Ablaj said the group plans to poison the U.S. water supply, according to a United Press International report. “Al-Qaeda (does not rule out) using sarin gas and poisoning drinking water in U.S. and Western cities,” al-Ablaj said. “We will talk about (these weapons) then and the infidels will know what harms them. They spared no effort in their war on us in Afghanistan. … They should not therefore rule out the possibility that we will present them with our capabilities,” he added. U.S. officials, however, have played down al-Ablaj’s claims, noting that it is extremely difficult to contaminate an entire water supply, UPI reported. “It would take many truckloads of poison, which would make it difficult to do secretly,” a U.S. intelligence official said. “That is not really a viable threat” (Shaun Waterman, UPI/Washington Times, May 29).
From May 29, 2003 issue.British Response: Decontamination Units To Aid Terror Attack VictimsMobile decontamination units that will serve to aid victims in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear terror attack have been purchased by British authorities and will be delivered within days, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Nov. 8). The units — which have the capability to decontaminate up to 200 people per hour and contain large tents that house walk-through showers and dressing areas — are similar to those stationed at airports and major cities within in the United States, according to AFP. Eighty of the vehicles have been purchased at a cost of $92 million and will be stationed across England and Wales (Agence France-Presse, May 29).
From May 28, 2003 issue.United States: Army to Revise Patent Amid Treaty Violation ConcernsBy David Ruppe 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.”
From May 28, 2003 issue.Iraq: Rumsfeld Suggests Baghdad Destroyed Banned Weapons Prior to WarU.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).
From May 28, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: House Defeats High-Speed Computer Export Control RevisionsThe 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).
From May 27, 2003 issue.Iraq: IAEA Inspectors Expected to Return This WeekInternational Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are expected to return to Iraq by the end of the week to evaluate the security of radioactive material stored at the Tuwaitha complex, the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program, an agency spokesman said yesterday (see GSN, May 26). IAEA inspectors will “determine what is missing and what it will take to recapture that material and ultimately repackage it and reseal it and secure the facility,” agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said. “The mission is limited to verifying Iraq’s safeguards obligations,” he said. The United States limited the scope of the IAEA’s planned mission to Iraq, Gwozdecky said. “The IAEA was informed by the United States that at this stage, the occupying powers are responsible for the health and safety of the Iraqi people, including nuclear health and safety issues,” Gwozdecky said. “The IAEA stands ready, if requested, to provide assistance in these areas,” he added (Susanna Loof, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 26). Suspicious Finds Meanwhile, British military experts have learned through interrogations with captured Iraqi officials about Iraq’s efforts to develop a ballistic missile with a range of more than 600 miles, according to the London Sunday Telegraph. The missile was being developed by the Iraqi Military Industrialization Commission, according to the Telegraph. While Iraqi officials have said the missile was only designed to be equipped with a conventional warhead, British experts have said it could have been modified to carry biological or chemical weapons. A senior Iraqi engineer who worked at the commission said the missile had entered the development stage just prior to the recent war. “If it had not been for the war, development would have been completed within a year,” the engineer said. Former U.N. nuclear inspector David Kay said Iraq’s plans to develop the missile proved that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein never intended to comply with U.N. disarmament requirements. “This is the smoking gun we have been looking for,” Kay said. “We have known all along that Saddam was desperate to develop a delivery system for his mass destruction weapons, and this missile would undoubtedly have given him that capability,” he added (London Sunday Telegraph, May 25). A team of international experts is traveling to Iraq to inspect two recovered trailers that the United States suspects were used as mobile biological weapons laboratories, a top U.S. military commander said yesterday (see GSN, May 21; Associated Press/Los Angeles Times, May 27). It is only “a matter of time” before U.S. forces in Iraq find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday. “Given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction,” Myers said (USA Today, May 27). Intelligence U.S. weapons experts have begun using locally gathered intelligence, instead of what is seen as outdated U.S. information, in their efforts to find evidence of Iraqi WMD programs, according to the Associated Press. Weapons experts have begun collecting their own information through interviews with Iraqi scientists and factory workers, according to AP. U.S. military officials hope the new approach will improve the quality of gathered information. “The frustration level is increasing as we keep getting constant negative results,” said Lt. Col. Keith Harrington. “Intelligence needs to play a main role here,” he said (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/San Diego Union-Tribune, May 26). Some coalition experts, however, have complained about the quality of information taken from Iraqi sources, according to the Associated Press. “The human intelligence has been massively problematic,” said Lance Corp. David Reed, a member of a two-man British team that operates a ground-penetrating radar system (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press, May 27). In an effort to increase Iraqi cooperation with coalition forces searching for weapons of mass destruction, the coalition’s Baghdad radio station announced today rewards for any new information that could aid the search. “Give the coalition any information on mobile laboratories … help in preserving the safety of the Iraqi people,” the announcement said. “If you bring forward any information, the coalition will keep your identity secret and provide you with protection if you want it. You will receive a reward,” it said (Agence France-Presse, May 27). Bush Exaggerated WMD Threat, Senator Says U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said Sunday that U.S. President George W. Bush overstated the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction prior to the war. “I do think that we hyped nuclear, we hyped al-Qaeda, we hyped the ability to disperse and use these weapons,” Biden said on NBC’s Meet the Press. Such exaggerations were unnecessary because it was obvious Iraq had violated U.N. resolutions, Biden said, while acknowledging that exaggeration is a tactic “that tends to be done by all presidents” who push for war. “I think a lot of the hype here is a serious, serious, serious mistake and it hurts our credibility,” he said (James Gordon Meek, New York Daily News, May 26). Chalabi Apparent Source of New York Times Reporter’s Stories A primary source for New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s articles concerning the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq appears to be Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress opposition group, according to an internal Times e-mail obtained by the Washington Post (see GSN, April 21). Miller’s connection to Chalabi came to light when John Burns, the Times’ Baghdad bureau chief, criticized Miller for writing a piece earlier this month on Chalabi without his approval. In an e-mail, Miller defended her actions, noting her long association with Chalabi, and revealed that he was her primary source for her WMD-related coverage. “I’ve been covering Chalabi for about 10 years, and have done most of the stories about him for our paper, including the long takeout we recently did on him. He has provided most of the front-page exclusives on WMD to our paper,” Miller said in her reply to Burns. Miller refused to comment on the e-mails obtained by the Post. Andrew Rosenthal, Times assistant managing editor for foreign news, said it is a “pretty slippery slope” to publish reporters’ private e-mails and to reveal any of their possibly confidential sources. Rosenthal defended Miller’s connections to Chalabi. “If you were in Iraq and weren’t talking to Chalabi, I’d wonder if you were doing your job,” he said (Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, May 26).
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top