#148 12 Feb 2002

USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Air University Air War College Maxwell AFB, Alabama Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established here at the Air War College in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal to Lt Col Michael W. Ritz, ANG Special Assistant to Director of CPC or Jo Ann Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953-7538 or DSN 493-7538. To subscribe, change e-mail address, or unsubscribe to this journal or to request inclusion on the mailing list for CPC publications, please contact Mrs. Eddy. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved CONTENTS

German specialist troops to leave for "Arab Peninsula" in next few days Ottawa approves anti-terrorist response team All Pentagon Workers to Receive Chem/Bio Training US Commander Sees N. Korea As Threat To World Security Pentagon Sees High Possibility Of War Here Proliferation in the “Axis of Evil” North Korea, Iran, and Iraq (CSIS Report) Facts About N. Korea's WMD Arsenal 78 Countries Hold Arms Talks Demilitarization Program Gets A Failing Grade Army: Arsenic Levels Near AU Are OK Agency With Most Need Didn't Get Anthrax Data Porton Down makes new plague and pox Hussein Calls On U.S. To Halt Hostility But Fails To Talk Of Weapon Inspection Bush's Team Targets Hussein The Iran Connection Moscow To Upgrade Its ABM Shield Anthrax Vaccine News Bush Is Right To Get Tough With North Korea New Path To Nuclear Policy U.S. Moves To Quickly Secure Russia's Vast Nuclear Stockpile Iraq Calls Bush's Bluff On Weapons Scrutiny U.S. Lines Up Support For Confrontation With Iraq FBI Hones In On Military Labs In Hunt For Source Of Anthrax

German specialist troops to leave for "Arab Peninsula" in next few days BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 6, 2002

Hoexter: The Bundeswehr is now deploying NBC [nuclear, biological, chemical] defence forces on the Arab Peninsula. Maj-Gen Juergen Ruwe, commander of the 7th Tank Division, and State Secretary Georg-Wilhelm Adamowitsch, chief of the North Rhine-Westphalian State Chancellery, held a farewell ceremony for the 250 soldiers in their military post in Hoexter in Westphalia on Wednesday [6 February]. Their departure is planned for the next few days. According to press reports, the unit is to participate, alongside US special forces, in an exercise for the detection of nuclear, biological and chemical contamination in Kuwait... Asked whether the employment of the Bundeswehr special forces on the Arab Peninsula was connected with possible US action against dictator [Saddam] Husayn, German Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping (SPD, Social Democratic Party of Germany) answered: "No." However, he also stated that the exercise was "a preparation for the case, which is not in sight but also cannot be ruled out, that people are threatened by the use of biological or chemical weapons." Precautions against terrorist attacks should be taken. After the exercise, which is to last until early March, the majority of the soldiers will return home and be put on "a high level of alert". The equipment and a contingent of 50 soldiers will stay on the Arab Peninsula... http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/article.html?id=020206005025

(Return to Contents)

February 7, 2002 Ottawa approves anti-terrorist response team No dollar figures given: Will be deployed in chemical, nuclear, biological attacks Mike Blanchfield Ottawa Citizen OTTAWA - The federal government has approved the creation of an expanded, elite military team to respond to biological, nuclear and chemical attacks in Canada. The Liberals made the commitment yesterday in a response to the Commons Defence committee, which highlighted Canada's inability to respond to a terrorist attack that featured weapons of mass destruction. "As part of its recent public security initiative, the government committed additional resources to DND (Department of National Defence) to increase the readiness and number of personnel assigned to CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear)-related response," says the government's reply to an earlier defence committee's report, which was circulated for the first time yesterday among MPs. In November, the committee made 19 recommendations on improving the Canadian Forces' state of readiness to a terrorist attack. It convened special hearings after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Numerous government reports and studies have highlighted Canada's shortcomings in responding to a biological, chemical or nuclear attack. The committee's recommendations called for the expansion of the Forces Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Response Team and the dispersion of detachments across Canada to assist the military's ability to quickly respond to terrorist attacks. "This is important, definitely," said Liberal MP David Pratt, chairman of the Commons defence committee. "The minister, the department and the committee seem to be on the same track." The Liberals' response calls for the establishment of "a new high-readiness team that will be ready to deploy, on short notice, to more than one CBRN incident anywhere in Canada. "The creation of this team will be the first step in the establishment of a larger CBRN organization that will be available to support operations in both Canada and abroad, and the department will assess the feasibility of staging units in different locations across the country." The Liberals also approved the purchase of protective radioactive clothing and other specialized equipment, to be delivered by June. The government's response contained no specific figures on money or personnel. The federal government also followed through on a pledge it made in last fall's budget: It will more than double the military's elite Joint Task Force Two (JTF-2) to more than 1,000 members. The JTF-2 is currently assisting the United States in southern Afghanistan, where it has captured at least three al-Qaida terrorists. The JTF-2 mission in Afghanistan could cost Art Eggleton, the Defence Minister, his Cabinet post because he has made conflicting statements in the House of Commons about when he learned of the al-Qaida captures and when he informed Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister. Mr. Eggleton has been called before another Commons committee to explain his comments. Mr. Pratt said his committee will continue to press forward in two main areas: urging the government to increase the defence budget, and ensuring the recruitment drive, aimed at shoring up the dwindling number of full-time personnel, is successful. http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/printer/printer.asp?f=/stories/20020207/1363198.html

(Return to Contents)

All Pentagon Workers to Receive Chem/Bio Training By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 8, 2002 -- All military and civilian personnel assigned to the "Pentagon reservation" will receive training in what to do in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack, officials said Feb. 8. More than 24,000 people will receive the training, said Army Lt. Col. Douglas Norton, officer in charge of the biological and chemical operations cell. The Pentagon reservation includes the five-sided building itself, the nearby Navy Annex and 90 other buildings leased by Washington Headquarters Services. The Pentagon, of course, was one target of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. A hijacked airliner slammed into the Pentagon, killing 125 people in the building and 64 aboard the airliner. But terrorists are seeking more deadly means of attack. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said repeatedly in recent weeks that captured intelligence in Afghanistan indicates the Al Qaeda terror group was actively seeking weapons of mass destruction. Training Pentagon reservation workers how to react during an attack is the prudent thing to do, Norton said. People being assigned to the Pentagon will go through the training and there will be yearly refreshers. "This is a small two-hour block of instruction that will provide them general awareness as well as key them to some specific things they need to do to be able to respond properly if required to do so," Norton said. His group is "training the trainers" now. These people will go back to their services and offices and train their co- workers. The training is mandatory for all and will explain detection efforts inside and outside buildings, the differences between the threats and the different responses people should have to the different threats. Norton said his group is planning a series of exercises. "The work force training is the first step," he said. "We've already conducted some tabletop exercises to train the leadership, some command post exercises to train the staffs, and we will ultimately have some field training exercises." He said the first field exercise is set for May 8, when the Pentagon will participate in an Arlington County, Va., domestic preparedness exercise. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/n02082002_200202085.html

(Return to Contents)

Korea Times February 8, 2002 US Commander Sees N. Korea As Threat To World Security By Sohn Suk-joo, Staff Reporter A top U.S. commander said yesterday that North Korea poses a potential threat to world security and peace. Accusing the North of proliferating weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and engaging in drug trafficking, Adm. Dennis C. Blair, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, also warned that the communist country will face dismal consequences if it risks a military provocation. “North Korea has become a potential threat to world security by engaging in missile proliferation and drug trafficking,” he was quoted as saying by the Yonhap News Agency. “During his visit to Seoul later this month, President George W. Bush will consult closely on those issues with President Kim Dae-jung.” Blair, though acknowledging that the two allied nations are faced with WMD proliferation, expressed hope that they would be able to take advantage of such a threat as an opportunity to bring forth reconciliation and create a new framework of regional security on the Korean peninsula. He was speaking at a closed-door breakfast lecture organized by the American Chamber of Commerce and the Korean-American Association at the Hilton Hotel in downtown Seoul. South Korea is the last stop of his five-nation Asian tour, which also took him to Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam. Blair will retire from the navy in three months. “The two nations have been open-minded in dealing with North Korea so far, and I believe that the summit will be a testament to such close ties,” Yonhap quoted him as saying. But he expressed doubts about the communist country, saying that North Korea is a unique case in the Asia-Pacific region, where no terrorism- sponsoring nations like Afghanistan exist. Blair predicted that the U.S. would not sign a peace treaty with North Korea unless confidence-building measures, proposed by South Korea, are enforced across the border. The Korean War (1950-1953) ended with a truce, not a peace treaty. South Korea has proposed a package of tension-easing measures, including exchange of military observers and prior notification of military exercises, following the summit between President Kim and North Korean leader Kim Jong- il. The commander added that the historic meeting, though it did not completely obliterate the tension, contributed to an easing of it on the Korean peninsula, as North Korea’s acts of military provocation have been reduced. Later in the day, he paid a courtesy call on President Kim, Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun and Defense Minister Kim Dong-shin, who awarded him with a decoration for his meritorious service to peace and stability not only in Korea but also in the Asia-Pacific region.

(Return to Contents)

(Editor’s Note: Hyperlink for referenced report follows article. “Estimate of North Korean Actions and Intentions Involving Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Weapons” is actually a chapter in the report.) Korea Times February 8, 2002 Pentagon Sees High Possibility Of War Here NEW YORK (Yonhap) -- The most likely large-scale regional war in the near future, which could involve the United States, will be centered on the Korean peninsula, the U.S. Department of Defense reported. The report, “Estimate of North Korean Actions and Intentions Involving Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Weapons,” was posted Jan. 30 on the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies’ (CSIS) website, just one day after U.S. President George W. Bush said the North was part of an “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address. The report said, “North Korean forces continue to be deployed close to the border with South Korea in a defense oriented posture, and North Korea’s NBC and missile programs [will] likely remain key components of its overall security strategy.” North Korea continues to pose complex security challenges to the United States and its allies, even after agreeing to freeze its production of plutonium in 1994, according to the study. “There are concerns that the North is continuing with some elements of a nuclear weapons program,” the report added. “North Korea also possesses stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, which could be used in the event of renewed hostilities on the peninsula,” the report said. “Research and development into biological agents and toxins suggest that the North may have biological weapons capabilities.” The report concluded, “The sale of missile technology to Iran has created an immediate, serious and growing capability to target U.S. forces and allies in the Middle East.”

Proliferation in the “Axis of Evil” North Korea, Iran, and Iraq A summary report, "Proliferation in the Axis of Evil": North Korea, Iran, and Iraq," provides a detailed picture of developments in the three nations President Bush singled out in his State of the Union address. http://www.csis.org/burke/proliferation_axis.pdf

(Return to Contents)

Korea Times February 8, 2002 Facts About N. Korea's WMD Arsenal By Seo Soo-min, Staff Reporter North Korea's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have become the biggest source of contention between Pyongyang and Washington, as the Bush administration has been stepping up its verbal attacks on the North. The issue is certain to be dealt with during the Seoul-Washington summit in mid-February. It has thus become natural to wonder about the North's WMD arsenal, although defense statistics on the North are hard to come by. Talk on North Korea's WMD generally deals with the three subjects of nuclear warheads, missiles and biochemical weapons. Intelligence data amassed by Seoul and Washington suggest that Pyongyang has its hands on all three. While some speculate that the U.S.'s recent attack on Pyongyang may be based on significant new information regarding the issue, such as evidence of the North's ties with terrorists, experts agree that the North's missile development and sales are the most obvious issue pitting it against the U.S. North Korea is thought to have completed tests of the Taepodong I missiles, which have a firing range of 2,000- 2,500 km. Development of Taepodong II, which has a greater range of 6,700 km and could be utilized as an inter- continental ballistic missile (ICBM), is thought to be underway. Besides the longer-range missiles, the North already deploys and sells the 1,300 km Rodong missiles to Middle Eastern countries like Iran, Syria, Libya and Egypt, according to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports. However, North Korea's development and sales of missiles are not technically in violation of any international agreement, since it has not signed any on that issue. It neared agreement with the U.S. to become a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) restricting export of missiles and related technology near the end of the Clinton administration, but negotiations fell apart with the inauguration of President Bush. National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong-il, during the European Union delegation's visit to Pyongyang last May, said he would withhold test- firing of missiles until 2003, in line with the 1999 announcement that it would not test the missiles as long as missile negotiations with the U.S. continued. The missile issue was only mentioned as a mutual issue of concern in the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework between North Korea and the U.S., in which Pyongyang agreed to freeze its nuclear program producing weapons-grade plutonium, receiving two 1,000 megawatt light water reactors from a U.S.- led consortium in return. Although the North's nuclear program has officially been suspended with the Agreed Framework, Pyongyang is thought to have accumulated enough weapons-grade plutonium from past activities to produce a nuclear warhead or two. As for chemical weapons, South Korea's 2000 Defense White Paper said North Korea has 2,500 to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons in stock, which were produced by eight plants, and include nerve agents. North Korea is also thought to be capable of biological warfare, and possesses deadly agents including anthrax, the bubonic plague and smallpox, according to Russian intelligence reports. Pyongyang signed the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987, but has not become a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(Return to Contents)

International Herald Tribune February 8, 2002 78 Countries Hold Arms Talks By Reuters PARIS -- A total of 78 nations, including several actively expanding their missile arsenals, began negotiations Thursday to oppose the proliferation of ballistic missiles around the world. Officials from Iran and Iraq, both branded by President George W. Bush as being part of an "axis of evil," as well as some from the nuclear rivals India and Pakistan were among those at the two-day meeting.

(Return to Contents)

Anniston (AL) Star February 7, 2002 Demilitarization Program Gets A Failing Grade By Matthew Creamer, Star Staff Writer The Army's program to destroy the nation's chemical weapons stockpile received a failing grade in President Bush's budget plan released this week. The 2003 budget, which for the first time publishes evaluations of government agencies and select programs alongside spending proposals, called the chemical demilitarization program "ineffective" because of a 60 percent cost increase estimate and delays stemming from "unrealistic schedules, site safety and environmental concerns, and poor planning." The program, charged with the destruction of chemical munitions at nine sites, including the Anniston Army Depot, as well as non-stockpile weapons sprinkled among the nation's military bases, was one of nine programs assessed for the defense-spending portion of the $2.13 trillion plan sent to Congress Monday. The criticism is part of a defense budget bursting with new spending initiatives to foot the bill for the two-pronged war against terrorism. The president seeks to raise military spending by $48 billion for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. How the grade will affect the Army's $1.5 billion request for the disposal of chemical weapons is unclear, as it comes at the beginning of the long, contentious process of shaping the federal budget. The president's proposal traditionally acts only as a starting point for the two congressional appropriations committees whose final bills may differ greatly from the president's original desires. Officials from the Pentagon and chemical demilitarization headquarters declined to comment in detail on the assessment because of uncertainty as to its author. However, a spokesman for the project manager for chemical demilitarization said the program would adapt to any changes that are ordered. "Our job is to safely and effectively destroy the stockpile, and we'll do the best job we can given the budgets we're given," said Greg Mahall, the spokesman. The assessment, meted out in blunt, concise language, caps a year in which the program was questioned in congressional hearings, had its oversight changed, and saw its estimated cost jump from $15 billion to $24 billion. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, said the grade comes as no surprise. "The history of this program has been an ongoing saga of cost overruns, schedule slippages and safety concerns," he said. Last April, Shelby participated in a Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing in which the head of the program, James Bacon, was questioned on these shortcomings. Shortly thereafter, the program was moved into the office of the Secretary of Defense. "The administration has identified precisely the same problems we have been raising for more than 15 years - the program is unsafe, environmentally unsound and mismanaged," said Craig Williams, head of the anti-incineration Chemical Weapons Working Group and a participant in the senate hearing. Operating under an international treaty that mandates the destruction of the nation's chemical munitions by 2007, the Army has built an incinerator to destroy the more than 2,000 tons of chemical weapons stockpiled at the Anniston depot. Completed last summer, the incinerator now is undergoing a period of testing and is expected to begin burning chemical agent this year. Matt Creamer covers chemical weapons issues for The Anniston Star.

(Return to Contents)

Washington Times February 7, 2002 Pg. B3 Army: Arsenic Levels Near AU Are OK Residents of an area around American University where World War I era chemical weapons were buried, received reassuring news yesterday stating preliminary soil tests show arsenic levels are below levels deemed acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Army Corps of Engineers announced that no further testing will be performed in Friendship Park, which is in an upscale D.C. neighborhood, just south of the Maryland border. Between 1917 and 1919, the Army tested and disposed of chemical-warfare materials — including mustard agent — at American University. Since 1993, the corps has found high levels of arsenic in the soil at the Korean ambassador’s residence, a university day care center and some homes. More extensive soil sampling began in the area in May. According to the corps, 84 percent of the nearly 1,500 properties and lots have been sampled. Of those, additional sampling is under way at 144. Remediation will begin in the spring on at least seven properties.

(Return to Contents)

Agency With Most Need Didn't Get Anthrax Data CDC Unaware of Canadian Study Before Attacks By David Brown Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 11, 2002; Page A03 Canadian researchers last spring performed a series of experiments involving simulated "anthrax threat letters," one of which had recently arrived at a government office in Ottawa and proved to be a hoax. The studies showed that if anthrax spores were finely powdered, a letter could release thousands of lethal doses of the bacteria within minutes of being opened. Furthermore, large amounts of material leaked out of sealed envelopes even before they were opened. The research was the only rigorous, scientific effort to evaluate the risks posed by an event that actually happened less than a year later. On Oct. 15, an envelope loaded with anthrax spores was opened in the offices of Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). By then, more than two dozen federal government employees knew of the Canadian studies, which showed, in brief, that a real anthrax threat letter was a far more dangerous weapon than anyone had believed. Within days, a dozen more people were informed of the now highly relevant experimental findings. In all, bioterrorism and civil defense experts in a half-dozen agencies had the information. An agency that didn't have the information, however, was the one that could have used it the most – the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC epidemiologists, who had the lead roles in formulating a public health response to the unprecedented attack, didn't learn of the Canadian studies until early November. By then, the anthrax outbreak was almost over. "It would have been good to have that information," Bradley A. Perkins, the CDC's lead anthrax investigator, said recently. "We were clearly dealing in a low-information environment." David A. Ashford, another of CDC's anthrax specialists, said at a recent scientific meeting: "This experiment was shocking in that it showed how high the doses could be from envelope delivery." How it happened that the agency with the most need for the information got it last is a story of bad luck, misinformation, incorrect assumptions and simple forgetfulness. Whether that made a difference is impossible to say. Senate staffers in Daschle's office – many of whom had anthrax spores detectable in their noses – were given prophylactic antibiotics immediately after the letter was opened. Postal workers were offered the drugs six days later, when it was clear that two mail-sorting centers the letter had passed through were contaminated with spores. By then, though, several postal workers had developed the disease; two of them eventually died. "Had we known early on about the Canadian experiments, would that have pushed us to prophylax people earlier? Maybe," said Larry Siegel, senior deputy director for medical affairs for the D.C. Department of Health. "Would it have mattered? We don't know." As it was, more than 10,000 people took preventive antibiotics, and none became ill with anthrax. Siegel termed that "one of the biggest and most effective public health interventions that's ever been done‚. . . and one I think we can be proud of." Asked whether the information would have led to a different strategy toward the postal workers, Sally Davidow, a spokeswoman for the American Postal Workers Union, said: "I don't think we can begin to know the answer to that. It was a tragedy that the two men died." For his part, Perkins doubts the Canadian findings would have led to an earlier recommendation for antibiotics. The reason is this: When earlier that month two people in a newspaper office in Florida developed inhalational anthrax (one fatally), no postal workers became ill, even though the source of the bacteria in that outbreak was also thought to be a bioterror letter. "I think the weight of the decision‚. . . would [still] have been based on the field observations in Florida," Perkins said. "Whether having this information would have tipped the scales of decision-making to a more conservative approach is in the realm of speculation at this point." The Canadian research was done in two places – at a military lab in Alberta called Defence Research Establishment Suffield (DRES), and in Ontario by police-fire-health department workers calling themselves the Ottawa-Carleton First Responders Group. The Alberta researchers used "weapons-grade" spores of Bacillus globigii, an anthrax bacterium simulant obtained from the U.S. Army. They put it in envelopes containing letters, and opened the envelopes in a special chamber equipped with air samplers. The researchers counted spores in units called LD-50s – "lethal dose 50 percent" – which is the dose that has a 50-50 chance of infecting and killing a person. A person opening a letter and standing over it for 10 minutes would inhale 480 to 3,080 LD-50s, depending on how much powder was in the envelope and whether one used a high or low estimate for the LD-50s. Factoring in heavy breathing from stress, a person might inhale more than 9,000 LD-50s, the researchers found. People can become infected by doses smaller than a single LD-50, and can survive doses that are many LD-50s. Doses in the hundreds or thousands, however, will kill virtually anyone unless preventive antibiotics are begun immediately. "‚'Passive' dissemination of anthrax spores from an envelope presents a far more serious threat than had been previously assumed," the scientists wrote in their report. The Ottawa researchers used fluorescent fingerprint powder as a stand-in for anthrax spores. Unlike their Alberta colleagues, they also recorded what happened when a letter was simply carried around the office. "Contamination was present on the desk, papers, file folders and pen prior to opening the envelope (contamination was concentrated at the corners of the envelope where it was leaking out). . .‚. Potentially contaminated persons are not limited to those in direct contact with the envelope and/or its contents," they wrote. The results of the Alberta research were presented at four meetings of American, Canadian and British military biodefense experts. The first was on May 31, and the last on Oct. 17 (at the Canadian Embassy in Washington), two days after the Daschle letter was opened. The findings from the Ottawa experiments were less widely disseminated. The one time they were presented to Americans was in mid-May in Canberra, Australia, at a meeting of civil defense experts. Representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and two branches of the military were at that meeting. The FEMA employee, upon returning, shared the Ottawa study (and about 30 other reports presented at the meeting) with contacts in the Public Health Service and Environmental Protection Agency. Immediately after the Daschle letter arrived, the State Department's counterterrorism office – which had sponsored the American delegation to the Canberra meeting – passed the information on to the FBI, Secret Service and U.S. Capitol Police. Officials at some of the agencies say they have no record of those briefings. None of the people who recall them – including about two-dozen Defense Department employees – passed the information on to the CDC. They either assumed, or had been mistakenly told, that officials there already knew. (The one exception is an officer at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Maryland, who said he called the CDC within days of the Daschle letter. But the three people he believes he may have talked to don't remember the call.) One of the Canadian researchers tried to inform the CDC but was unsuccessful. On Oct. 9, he sent an electronic copy of the 17-page Alberta study (which also contained a brief description of the Ottawa experiments) to Richard B. Kellogg, head of the CDC's laboratory response network. An attached note said, "In light of current events, we thought you might like a copy." That occurred as the agency was frantically responding to the Florida outbreak. Kellogg said he was getting hundreds of e-mail messages a day and working 16-hour shifts, often away from his computer. He didn't notice or open the message until told of its existence two months later. He is hesitant to criticize his Canadian colleagues. But he did advise: "In the middle of an emergency, do not do things in a perfunctory way. There was no red flag on this, and I was dealing in a red-flag world." The CDC finally learned of the findings on Nov. 1, when a professor of epidemiology at the University of Minnesota sent Perkins a copy of the Alberta report. Perkins read it and immediately invited two of its authors to Atlanta to present the findings in detail. In the space of a month, they visited twice. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55212-2002Feb10.html

(Return to Contents)

Independent Digital (UK) Ltd 12 February 2002 20:01 GMT Porton Down makes new plague and pox By Severin Carrell 10 February 2002 A potentially devastating range of genetically modified superbugs, including bubonic plague, smallpox and gangrene, has been developed by scientists working on Britain's biological warfare programme. The highly sensitive research at Porton Down in Wiltshire also includes genetically modifying a smallpox virus with anthrax genes and gangrene bug genes to produce new vaccines. The Porton Down research is listed in a Health and Safety Executive register, seen by this newspaper, of all GM research projects in Britain. But in a move expected to provoke heavy criticism, ministers will announce tomorrow that this information will now be suppressed on the grounds of national security. Porton Down officials also reveal in the documents that human trials of powerful GM anthrax and bubonic plague vaccines are being conducted this year, using volunteers hired by a bio-medical company. News of the research programme has alarmed MPs and anti-GM campaigners at Genewatch, coming amid heightened concern in the wake of anthrax attacks in the US, that rogue scientists could steal the GM viruses or research findings. The campaigners also warned that the programme might fuel a global "arms race" to produce ever more deadly biological weapons. Certainly, security concerns about bio-weapons escalated after the FBI concluded that US anthrax attacks which left five dead in October and November were probably carried out by a scientist involved in research or bio-warfare programmes. Analysis of the anthrax used in the attacks showed that Porton Down was one of five laboratories to hold stocks of the same Ames strain of anthrax since it was shared by the US and British bio-warfare programmes. Dr Alan Whitehead, a junior minister at the Department of Local Government, Transport and the Regions, will tell MPs that the register will now name only the organisms being studied but will exclude the purpose and location of the research. Ministers insist that Porton Down's research is purely defensive, and is intended to develop more effective vaccines, antibiotics and detection methods for troops and potentially the civilian population. They argue it would be negligent to ignore the potential threat. But the research is also designed to anticipate lethal new GM bio-weapons that could be designed by hostile countries and terrorists. Russian scientists have admitted genetically modifying anthrax in the 1990s, and suspicions about Iraqi research programmes continue. The research includes modifying bubonic plague (yersinia pestis), which killed 25 million Europeans during the 14th-century Black Death, the smallpox virus (vaccinia virus), the fever virus francissella tularensis, clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene and food poisoning, and neutralised strains of E.coli and the typhoid bug salmonella typhimurium. MPs insisted yesterday that censoring the register was pointless after Porton Down officials admitted that up to 90 per cent of their research findings was published in scientific journals. Alan Simpson, a senior Labour backbencher, and Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said that increasing the secrecy about British research would also undermine the UK's attempts to strengthen international treaties to combat biological warfare. Mr Simpson added: "The real urgency is to re-examine the physical security arrangements at laboratories and screening those involved in the research, not delete information from the public register." http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=119233

(Return to Contents)

Wall Street Journal February 11, 2002 Hussein Calls On U.S. To Halt Hostility But Fails To Talk Of Weapon Inspection By James M. Dorsey, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal In a rare public letter, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein demanded a halt to U.S. interference in Iraqi affairs, but appeared to keep the door open for a possible return to his country of United Nations weapons inspectors. Responding to a letter by Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit urging him to accept the inspectors, Mr. Hussein said, "America has to abandon its hostile policies of imposing the embargo and of continuous military aggression in the north and south of Iraq, and of interfering in Iraq's internal affairs." The U.N. imposed economic sanctions on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Mr. Hussein's letter, released by Iraqi officials, is part of a diplomatic offensive designed to avert possible military action by the U.S., which has accused Iraq of developing weapons of mass destruction. The country has in recent weeks sought to revive its dialogue with the U.N., which was broken off in 1998 after the U.N. withdrew its weapons inspectors amid charges that they were not allowed to operate freely. President George W. Bush earlier this month named Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as part of an "axis of evil" nations seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. In his letter, Mr. Hussein said Iraq had no such weapons and no intention of producing them. "The issue of Iraq should not be approached by succumbing to aggressive American arrogance but rather within the framework of justice and law," Mr. Hussein said. "Iraq stands at the helm of those who demand that our region should be free of mass-destruction weapons," he added. Speaking to reporters in Ankara on Friday, Prime Minister Ecevit said Mr. Hussein's letter demonstrated that there was "no change of attitude" in the Iraqi leader's refusal to allow the inspectors to return to Iraq. Turkey has joined Arab countries, Russia and China in pressuring Iraq to allow the U.N. inspectors back in. But several Arab diplomats noted that despite the letter's harsh tone, Mr. Hussein did not explicitly reject U.S. and U.N. demands to allow inspectors back into his country. "Saddam is seeing whether he can push the envelope. He knows that he will have to somehow allow the U.N. to return," one Arab diplomat said. The diplomats said Mr. Hussein's diplomatic offensive was likely to stiffen Arab resistance to possible U.S. military action -- a message Arab leaders would convey to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney when he visits nine Middle Eastern countries in mid-March.

(Return to Contents)

Los Angeles Times February 10, 2002 Pg. 1 Bush's Team Targets Hussein Iraq: Voices of caution fall silent as U.S. plans new campaign that could include military force. Diplomacy, sanctions also may play a role. By Robin Wright, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- After a year of internal divisions and military diversions, serious planning is underway within the Bush administration for a campaign against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The administration expects to complete a long-delayed Iraq policy review by the time Vice President Dick Cheney makes his nine-nation Mideast tour next month, so that he can outline American plans to Arab leaders, according to senior U.S. officials. Any denouement in Iraq is still a long way off, the officials insist. But the broad outlines of favored options have begun to emerge. At the heart of administration policy are two strategic decisions, according to the officials, who do not want to be identified while the policy review is underway. First, the Iraq problem has to be solved, not simply managed as it was during the previous two U.S. administrations. The philosophy of so-called containment, or limiting the damage Hussein could do either to the region or at home, is no longer considered enough. Many analysts, including former Clinton administration officials, now argue that it may even be dangerous to simply contain Iraq, because the regime has enough wiggle room to quietly work on weaponry that would allow it to pull off devastating surprises down the road. Second, Washington is prepared to push beyond the limitations imposed by international sentiment, Arab public opinion and even the original U.N. resolutions that opened the way for Operation Desert Storm 11 years ago to force Iraq out of tiny oil-rich Kuwait. Having survived short-lived opposition to the campaign in Afghanistan, U.S. officials express a new confidence about going up against what is still a strong tide of resistance. The debate continues, however, about what to do next. But the administration's mind-set and the progress of the war in Afghanistan, especially compared with the decade-long Soviet struggle there in the 1980s, have opened the way for new thinking about what might work. As policymakers deliberate the options, three basic scenarios are emerging: * The diplomatic route, working through the United Nations to pass new "smart sanctions" and press Hussein's regime to allow the return of inspectors who would look for and dismantle any chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. * A military campaign, probably relying heavily on air power and potential defections within the Iraqi military. * A tightening of the political noose around Hussein's government with more coercive actions by neighboring states and the international community. The policy may well end up with some mix of these approaches. But the common denominator behind each is the threat of some kind of military action should Iraq not change its ways. Despite opposition from allies, a major U.S. military effort is no longer out of the question, U.S. officials say. "There's an evolving consensus that a sizable U.S. military activity will be required," a well-placed source said. Even Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, long the most cautious voice among the principals crafting policy on Iraq, is on board. At two congressional hearings last week, he put the world on notice that President Bush is exploring "the most serious set of options that one might imagine" that will leave "no stone unturned." The ultimate goal: a change of regimes--and sooner rather than later. "After the president, Powell now looks like the hardest-line person in the administration," mused a senior State Department official Friday. The policy review is exploring the possibility of new anti-Hussein opposition inside and outside Iraq, U.S. officials say. Consensus is growing on broadening the makeup of the U.S.-funded Iraqi National Congress, or INC, and encouraging the coalition to find new leadership. "The INC could still be a useful umbrella to bring other political forces together, but not as it is currently constituted. We need an INC that is more representative of all the forces in Iraq," a senior administration official said. INC chief Ahmad Chalabi still has support from some quarters, notably at the Pentagon, but "that is not where policy is currently headed," the official added. Since last year, Pentagon political appointees have advocated using the INC in the same way the American military used Afghan opposition forces, backed by U.S. Special Forces troops, to battle the Taliban. But key officials at the State Department and in the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain skeptical about the INC's military capabilities. The INC, and the CIA station that supported it, was forced out of northern Iraq by Hussein's troops in 1996. Since then, the INC has been headquartered in London and unable to make any serious challenges at home. "I don't see us drawing up operations with the INC as it would take too long to build it up as a fighting force," said the well-placed source. Last month, the U.S. suspended key INC funding because the group failed to account for tens of millions of dollars in aid. After lengthy talks, Washington has restored full funding for three months, during which it will monitor INC accounting. Even if the INC is reconstituted, however, the administration is still exploring other fronts. One idea gaining currency in Washington is turning to the Iraqi military as allies, according to U.S. officials. The new thinking argues that a U.S. offensive would lead to thousands of defections by Iraqi troops, as happened during Desert Storm. Defectors might then be converted into an anti-Hussein force. The former Bush and Clinton administrations believed that Hussein's downfall depended on senior officers in his inner circle who might be disillusioned enough to turn on their boss. But a decade of waiting for the generals to act has produced nothing significant. In contrast, key U.S. officials now argue, the rank and file in the military might easily fold under serious military pressure--and defect to the U.S. side. "As we learned in Afghanistan, some regimes are not as solid as they pretend to be. The trick is finding the pressure points that can break the structure," the senior State Department official said. Of the three scenarios, the diplomatic route is gaining speed the fastest, although key U.S. officials are skeptical that it will produce a change of Iraqi regimes. But Washington must be seen to exhaust those possibilities to win allied support for--or at least tolerance of--more aggressive options, U.S. officials say. After months of negotiations, Washington is close to winning agreement at the United Nations on streamlining the world's toughest economic embargo, U.S. officials say. Russia, which has a veto, has been the last holdout. U.N. agreement, which could be voted on in May when the embargo is due to be renewed, would open the way for a change in the sanctions that would allow more goods for Iraq's struggling population while limiting Hussein's arsenal. The United Nations is also pressing harder for return to Iraq of its weapons inspectors, who have been barred since 1998. The threatening language from Washington, including Bush's description of Iraq as part of an "axis of evil," and the U.N. moves have Hussein on the defensive, U.S. officials claim. Last week he offered to resume "a dialogue" with the world body, although he is resisting any talk of the inspectors. But the diplomatic route is vulnerable to failure, U.S. officials note. To enforce smart sanctions, the U.N. will have to rely on inspections on the borders of Syria, Iran, Turkey and Jordan, all of which allow Iraq to smuggle oil out in violation of U.N. sanctions in exchange for payoffs or deep discounts on the resource. Persuading Iraq to allow in the weapons inspectors also may not produce a quick and decisive climax. Just getting the operations going could take months. And then, as his regime did for eight years, Hussein could carry out "cheat and retreat" schemes to prolong the process. The second scenario, involving a tighter squeeze on Iraq outside the framework of the United Nations, also would try to cut off the regime in high-profile ways. One idea making the rounds in Washington is getting Iraq's neighboring states together to discuss a viable post-Hussein government--similar to the talks in Germany on post- Taliban rule. But some of these options depend on the cooperation of front-line neighbors and the Arab world, which have been reluctant to sign on to previous proposals. Indeed, Cheney may find that he has his work cut out for him on his most ambitious diplomatic mission. Arab allies remain deeply concerned about some of the new U.S. ideas. "Our problem is that we see much of it as wishful thinking or a leap of faith--particularly relying on defections. This doesn't have the feel of a workable plan," said an Arab official who asked to remain anonymous. Arabs are particularly worried about the post-Hussein government. "None of us are defending Saddam Hussein," the envoy added. "But we want to make sure that everyone is better off the day after he's gone, and that means a lot more planning than is going on now."

(Return to Contents)

Newsweek February 18, 2002 The Iran Connection Washington believes Tehran is developing weapons of mass destruction—and worries they could wind up in the hands of Lebanon’s Hizbullah By Christopher Dickey This is where the Marines were," says Amin Sabah, 45, as he looks out across an empty parking lot near Beirut airport. The U.S. troops were in a building they thought was well protected that morning of Oct. 23, 1983. Sabah was parked in his taxi, waiting for a fare a few hundred yards away. "There was a huge explosion. Huge!" he remembers. "Everything was red." He gestures with his hand as though he’s sorting packages on a shelf, but in his mind he sees the corpses. "They put them all next to each other." The final body count was 241 U.S. soldiers killed. Until September 11, it was the worst suicide attack Americans had ever experienced. Sabah thinks in silence for a moment. "I don’t remember why they were here," he says of the ill-fated Marines. Few Americans do, either. But history has a way of coming back at you in the Middle East. In the new war on terror, the Bush administration is focusing attention once again on the group American intelligence held responsible for that bombing: the Iranian-backed Party of God, or Hizbullah. For almost 20 years, Hizbullah has provided the shock troops and covert agents for Iran’s revolution. In the 1980s, it helped define America’s notion of Islamic fanaticism as "Shiite terrorists" carried out waves of suicide bombings, airline hijackings and hostage-takings. A group tied to Hizbullah and Iran was behind the 1996 bombing of an apartment building at Khobar, Saudi Arabia, that killed 19 Americans. More recently, Jordanian intelligence sources tell NEWSWEEK they’ve stopped "hundreds of operations" in which Iran and its proxies were trying to thwart the Arab-Israeli peace process. And in January the Israelis caught a ship in the Red Sea, the Karine A, loaded with 50 tons of arms that Hizbullah had shipped out of Iran, allegedly to support Yasir Arafat’s Fatah faction. No wonder the Israelis and the Bush administration are worried. If Iran is developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as some evidence suggests, might those fall into Hizbullah hands? "Iran remains a serious concern because of its across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction," CIA chief George Tenet told a Senate committee last week. When asked to assess the Iranian threat further, Tenet said that Iran’s "continued use of Hizbullah and their own surrogates is a very fundamental challenge to American interests." Yet even Tenet, in assessing the contradictory forces at work in Iranian society, was cautious about painting too stark a picture. "I think the jury’s out [on Iran]," he told the senators. "On the one hand, you have behavior on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction ... On the other hand, there appears to be a very big opportunity with people who may want to have nothing to do with all that." So how serious is the threat, and how great the opportunity? For now, Tehran’s most feared weapon is a relatively conventional ballistic missile, the Shahab-3, which is in the late stages of development and may deliver warheads 800 miles. That’s not likely to be shared with anyone. But Israeli officials claim Iran has supplied 8,000 to 10,000 short-range rockets to Hizbullah, and the group’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, refused to confirm or deny the report when he spoke to his followers last week. Israeli politicians making those accusations "are waging psychological war against themselves," he said—and far be it from him to allay their fears. Hizbullah’s most infamous operative, Imad Mugniyah, still figures near the top of America’s list of most-wanted terrorists. And Mugniyah may have contacts with Al Qaeda. According to testimony in a U.S. trial of Qaeda members last year, Osama bin Laden thought the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks was a model for what he wanted to do. Mugniyah met with bin Laden himself in 1994, and Qaeda agents afterward trained with Hizbullah in south Lebanon. They aimed to improve their skills blowing up "big buildings," according to the testimony. Yet neither Hizbullah nor its patrons in Iran would have much to gain from getting too close to Al Qaeda. In religious terms, the Sunni fundamentalists around bin Laden are anathema to the Shiites of Iran and Lebanon. And while there’s no doubt Iran supports Hizbullah—sources in Tehran estimate that the Party of God receives $100 million a year from Iran, much of it through powerful religious foundations—both the elected government in Tehran and much of the current Hizbullah leadership are trying to distance themselves from the old terrorist tactics. In Lebanon, Hizbullah is trying to forge a new image that builds on the old militant one, but is more mainstream. The group has an extensive grassroots educational and welfare network, its members sit in Parliament and its veteran fighters are considered nationalist heroes, even by Christian Lebanese. (When Israeli troops finally withdrew from south Lebanon in May 2000, Hizbullah fighters were hailed as the first Arabs ever to defeat the "Zionist entity.") Hizbullah’s most potent weapon today may actually be its satellite TV station, Al-Manar (the Beacon), which is one of the most popular channels in the Middle East. Its broadcasts aim to inspire Palestinian violence instead of negotiations with Israel. "Hizbullah has a dilemma," says Magnus Ranstorp of St. Andrews University’s Center for the Study of Terrorism. "How does it shed its darker past, without hurting its own popular credibility?" Iran is in a similar quandary. The government of reformist President Mohammed Khatami is not so enthusiastic about spreading revolution or terror. Khatami’s position has been that the Palestinians need to determine their own fate, and if they want to make peace with Israel, so be it. Hizbullah’s terrorist adventures have complicated his position at a time when he has plenty of domestic problems of his own. According to Ranstorp, Khatami summoned Hizbullah leader Nasrallah to Tehran after September 11 to make sure the organization had nothing to do with the attacks. Iran supported the American war in Afghanistan and was instrumental in creating the transitional government in Kabul (although Washington has accused it recently of undermining the coalition). Yet Imad Mugniyah "most probably lives part time in Iran," says one of the leading journalists in the reform movement. So is Iran playing a double game? Many Iran-watchers think there’s a real division on the issue of terrorism between the elected reformers around Khatami and what Bush called "the unelected few" who "repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom." "There’s a political dialogue in the country," said Tenet. "There’s a vibrancy to it." The conservative mullahs, wary of the popularity of the reformers, seem almost anxious to provoke the United States and Israel. Two months ago former president Hashemi Rafsanjani declared that if there were a nuclear war with Israel, it would be wiped off the face of the earth, "while Islamic countries will be harmed only slightly." An odd statement for an official whose government says it’s not trying to build nuclear weapons. And a dangerous game to play with an American government that’s looking for ways to make its future more secure, and hasn’t forgotten some old scores from the past. With Maziar Bahari in Tehran, Reem Haddad in Beirut, Dan Ephron in Ramallah, Tara Pepper in London and Roy Gutman in Washington

(Return to Contents)

Moscow Times February 11, 2002 Moscow To Upgrade Its ABM Shield By Vladimir Isachenkov, The Associated Press A missile defense system that protects the city of Moscow, the only such shield in the world, is likely to be upgraded in the next few years, Itar-Tass reported Friday. Itar-Tass quoted an unidentified Russian military-industrial complex official as saying there are plans to modernize the system's energy and mechanical equipment, a computer complex, transmitting and receiving devices and other systems. The system's overhaul is expected to be carried out within three to four years, the official said. A Defense Ministry spokesman, who asked not to be named, said the military has no immediate plan to make any upgrade of the system, but added that struggling weapons makers would welcome such an order. The Soviet Union deployed the A-35 anti-ballistic missile system, consisting of radars and 64 missile interceptors, around Moscow in 1974. In later years, that system was continually modified to enhance its ability to intercept ballistic missiles with independently targeted multiple warheads. The latest version, the A-135, which includes both long- and medium-range missile interceptors, was put on duty in 1994. Moscow's missile defense system complied with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which allows both the United States and Russia to protect a single site with no more than 100 interceptors. The United States had a similar system to protect missile fields in North Dakota in the 1970s but shut it down. U.S. President George W. Bush told Russia in December that in six months his country would withdraw from the ABM Treaty, which bars a nationwide missile shield of the kind the U.S. administration wants to deploy. Former Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev, who now is President Vladimir Putin's military adviser, said in an interview published Friday that the United States should put restrictions on its missile shield to prove that it is not aimed against Russia. "Unlimited missile defense assumes the active use of space systems, and that would signal that that it is aimed also against Russia," he told the Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily.

(Return to Contents)

Newsweek February 18, 2002 Pg. 7 Periscope Anthrax Vaccine News Nobody likes getting a shot, but the people eligible for vaccination against anthrax last December were particularly doubtful. Conflicting recommendations from public-health representatives heightened worries about possible side effects from the vaccine developed by the Defense Department. This week the first data on the outcome of the vaccinations will be released. The results: nothing much worse than a sore shoulder. Swollen arms, little knots at the injection site that went away within days, but no "vaccine reportable events"—that is, no serious side effects. "It was what I expected. I’ve given plenty of people this DOD vaccine. I’ve taken it myself," says Dr. Greg Martin of the National Naval Medical Center. "It’s not that big a deal." Now the serious science begins. Researchers want to know how the immune responses of the vaccinated will differ from those people who took 90 days of antibiotics. Longer-term studies will get underway. And docs also hope to work out the kinks in a system where nearly all the Capitol Hill staffers offered the vaccine took it, but out of more than 5,000 postal workers only 103 felt safe enough to roll up their sleeves. — Adam Rogers

(Return to Contents)

Wall Street Journal February 11, 2002 Bush Is Right To Get Tough With North Korea By Henry Sokolski and Victor Gilinsky Supporters of Bill Clinton's 1994 deal with Pyongyang -- in which the U.S. gave billions of dollars of energy aid to get North Korea to open up to international nuclear inspections -- have been on edge of late. What frightens them is the prospect that President Bush, after his recent denunciation of North Korea, might actually enforce the agreement. In fact, North Korea has been in violation of its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations ever since it announced its intention to withdraw from these treaties a decade ago. To keep it from pulling out, however, the Clinton administration cut North Korea a deal. The latter was to freeze activity at its nuclear sites and pledge to open itself up to full international inspections. In exchange, the U.S. offered North Korea two large, modern power reactors and -- until these plants were completed -- 500,000 tons of heating oil a year, nearly half of North Korea's heating oil requirement. Central to this understanding was that inspections would be tied to the reactors' construction. The IAEA has already determined that North Korea's original declaration of what nuclear materials it has produced (including weapons- usable plutonium) are inaccurate. The CIA, meanwhile, believes North Korea has at least one or more bombs' worth of nuclear weapons material secreted away. Inspections are needed to ensure it is not hiding this material and that it is out of the bomb-making business. When will these inspections take place? Under the deal, North Korea must come into full compliance with its international inspection obligations "when a significant proportion" of the promised reactors are completed and before any key nuclear parts are delivered. Those managing the reactors' construction estimate that a significant portion of the project will be completed by May 2005. That seems like a long ways away but it's not. In fact, the director of the IAEA has announced that it will take his agency at least three to four years after Pyongyang grants full access to all nuclear sites to determine if it is making or hiding nuclear weapons materials. This estimate is largely based on the agency's experience in the early 1990s when it had to account for South Africa's covert nuclear production. This effort took over two years in a country that, unlike North Korea, was fully cooperative. Working backwards from May 2005 and assuming the four-year estimate, Pyongyang should have allowed full inspections nine months ago. Even with the low-end inspection estimate of three years, Pyongyang must open up within the next three months. That doesn't leave much time. Pyongyang is in what lawyers call "anticipatory breach" -- meaning, if one knows that a party to a contract has no intention of meeting its terms, then the other party is under no obligation to continue complying. One could, of course, delay the reactors' construction and put off when Pyongyang would have to open up to inspectors. But this is not what's planned. If anything, the understanding now is that the group building the reactors -- Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization -- will begin pouring concrete no later than August. These preparations are going ahead even though North Korea has so far refused to agree to a schedule of inspections and construction activity as required by contract. Pouring concrete without inspections, though, is risky, especially since there is reason to believe that North Korea is conducting a covert nuclear program. In a letter last week to the president asking him to certify if North Korea is making nuclear weapons, Reps. Christopher Cox (R., Calif.), Edward Markey (D., Mass.) and Ben Gilman (R., N.Y.) cite reports that North Korea has operated a deep underground uranium processing plant at Mount Chun-Ma since 1989. Uranium ore is trucked in and what's produced is helicoptered out. The two most worrisome explanations are that Pyongyang is making fuel for a covert weapons production reactor, or that it is processing uranium for enrichment for direct use in weapons. The only way to find out is through full access. Pouring the reactors' foundations before inspectors gain full right of entry is only likely to pressure them to rush their work once they gain access. This much is clear: When the concrete begins to pour, hundreds of workers will be on site. As more parts and equipment arrive and the numbers of employees mount, idling them will become increasingly impractical. Under the terms of the 1994 deal, the key parts needed to complete the reactors cannot be delivered until the IAEA has given North Korea a clean bill of health. When we reach this point, though, the desire to sustain thousands of workers and billions of dollars in contracts is almost certain to trump any demand for thorough (i.e. lengthy) inspections. Given the lack of oversight, do we really want to give Pyongyang two U.S.-designed reactors capable of producing 50 bombs worth of weapons-grade plutonium in the first 15 months of operation? Defenders of the deal insist that North Korea could not extract this material without being detected. Perhaps. But at this point, if it went ahead and built its arsenal, how much more would it need? And what could we do to stop North Korea? All of this suggests why President Bush should stay the course he has already set and insist that North Korea let inspectors in before the concrete is poured. This may not satisfy those who originally crafted the 1994 deal. They now want to negotiate a new bargain. But before we do, we should enforce the deal we have. Mr. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, is author of "Best of Intentions: America's Campaign Against Strategic Weapons Proliferation" (Praeger, 2001). Mr. Gilinsky, an energy consultant, served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan.

(Return to Contents)

Los Angeles Times February 10, 2002 New Path To Nuclear Policy Security: Bush wants to keep U.S. options open, including stockpiling warheads, at the expense of treaties. By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- Since he began his 2000 campaign, President Bush has sought to win recognition as the leader who cut the American and Russian nuclear arsenal by two-thirds, to "leave the Cold War behind." Yet in the first year of his term, the Bush administration has overhauled the nation's nuclear arms policy in ways that reach far beyond the count of offensive warheads. The Bush team has effectively set aside a 30-year-old tradition of arms control and asserted the need for a "flexibility" that will allow the United States to rebuild its arsenal on short notice. It has ordered construction of long-prohibited defensive weapons and is even considering new nuclear arms, which could mean resuming nuclear testing that has been halted for a decade. The approach aims to reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons, yet it leaves the nuclear arsenal as the core ingredient of U.S. security. Its framework was sketched out a year ago in a report by an obscure Virginia think tank, the National Institute for Public Policy, that amounted to a blueprint for the administration's nuclear arms policy. "What we're seeing is the steady implementation of a new conservative strategic vision," said Joseph Cirincione, an arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonprofit group aimed at fostering world peace. "There's no question about it: There's been a plan to do this, and we're seeing it laid out, step by step." In the last year, the administration has again and again demonstrated its willingness to shake up the status quo: It has announced a withdrawal from the landmark Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, distanced itself from a handful of other arms treaties and asserted its prerogatives to rebuild the nuclear arsenal at any time. Administration officials believe that radical changes in the nature of the threat to the United States make it necessary to adopt a new approach to national security. Threats Arising From Many Nations For half a century, the greatest threat came from the Soviet Union, an adversary with well-known capabilities. Now, with the Soviet empire crumbled, threats are emerging from the dozens of countries that are trying to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Since it's not clear which of these countries may pose the greatest danger and how soon their capabilities will develop, the United States needs a flexibility that isn't possible under restrictive treaties, officials believe. Iran, Iraq and North Korea--Bush's "axis of evil"--pose the most obvious threats. But officials worry about others as well and say they can't exclude the possibility that Russia and China could be led by hostile regimes. Advocates of the new approach, including administration officials who helped write the think tank paper, contend that the United States must break free of the arduous Cold War arms negotiations that sought ceilings on arsenals. Such negotiations were not the path to peace but "just a tool to manage enmity," said former ambassador David Smith, who was chief arms control negotiator during the administration of Bush's father. Now the U.S. and Russia need to build a friendly relationship based on openness and consultation, not on binding treaties, advocates say. Critics of the approach contend that abandoning the treaties and insisting on U.S. "flexibility" will encourage other countries to maintain or increase their nuclear arsenals. They charge that the administration's moves are a sign of its "unilateralist" outlook and contend that nuclear arms remain as important as ever, and perhaps even more so, given the declining role of treaties. "Nuclear weapons remain a core of our security strategy," said Ivo H. Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington. "The message to other countries is: If you want to be truly secure, having nuclear weapons, and maintaining them in large numbers, is a good idea." Treaties Are Seen as Obstacles to U.S. The administration's view, say analysts, grows from a belief that arms control treaties have often held back the United States from safeguarding its interests while giving less scrupulous nations an opportunity to cheat. This wariness was apparent last year as the White House backed away from a proposed treaty to curb illegal small- arms traffic and from a proposal to create an enforcement mechanism for the 30-year-old Biological Weapons Convention. Administration officials have signaled that they will oppose the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and will not press ahead with the 1993 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II with Russia, which never fully took effect. "Arms control treaties are not for friends," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared last year. The administration's most momentous departure from the old order came Dec. 13, when Bush announced that the United States would withdraw in six months from the 1972 ABM Treaty with Russia. The ABM Treaty was drawn to avoid a spiraling arms race that the governments feared would ensue as the two countries built more and more missiles to try to overwhelm the other's antimissile defenses. But the Bush administration believed that the treaty kept the United States from developing a system to protect the entire country from ballistic missiles. Last month, the administration further fleshed out its view with the release of a major report on the role of nuclear weapons. A publicly released summary of the classified report quoted Rumsfeld as saying that the administration wanted to "put Cold War practices behind us." It intended to reduce reliance on offensive nuclear arms by increasing reliance on defensive hardware, such as the proposed national missile defense system, and, for some missions, nonnuclear weapons. The biggest change described in the report was in the nuclear arms cuts, already announced by Bush, that would slice the offensive arsenal from what is now 7,000 deployed warheads to as few as 1,700. Bush's unilateral proposal gave new life to stalled arms-reduction talks, and, by raising hopes that so many weapons could no longer be fired in minutes, won praise for the administration. Even so, the document clearly embodied a conservative approach to nuclear issues. The decommissioned warheads would not all be destroyed, officials said. Some would remain in the stockpile, ready to be redeployed, a step that could be accomplished in weeks or months if circumstances required, officials said. The nuclear cuts would take place over 10 years, longer than some had hoped. Because of a change in the way warheads are counted, the reductions were really no greater than those envisioned by the Clinton administration, some analysts argued. Officials also stressed that the cuts would take place only if no new threat materialized. While the administration hopes world events will permit continuing reductions, "we may decide that we have to increase our forces," J. D. Crouch, an assistant Defense secretary, acknowledged at a briefing. Crouch stressed that the United States intended to keep the arsenal big enough that no other country would be tempted to challenge it. "We will maintain sufficient forces to put us beyond their reach . . . as a peer competitor," he said. The administration said that, while it has no plans to take the controversial step of developing new nuclear weapons, as some aides have hinted, it wants to be ready to resume testing relatively quickly if such a decision is made. A resumption of testing, which was suspended by Bush's father in 1992, would likely be met with strong opposition abroad. Administration officials say their policy has begun a move away from "mutually assured destruction," the Cold War doctrine that sought to guarantee nuclear stability by ensuring that both countries would be destroyed if one attacked. They hope that in the future, improved antimissile defenses will make nuclear forces less and less important. Yet administration officials acknowledge that they will have a large nuclear deterrent force for the indefinite future and intend that the U.S. will be fully prepared if an unfriendly regime emerges in Russia, China or any other nuclear power. Nuclear arms are "still the ultimate insurance policy," said Tom Z. Collina of the pro-arms control Union of Concerned Scientists. A key question now is whether the Russians will further reduce their arsenal when the Bush administration is keeping a large stockpile and trying to avoid signing an agreement that would limit U.S. options. Russian officials, worried that the Americans are trying to widen their arms advantage, complain that the U.S. plan to stockpile, rather than destroy, warheads undermines the current round of negotiations. U.S. officials would like to have an informal agreement to set out the two countries' unilateral arms reductions for Bush and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to sign when Bush visits Russia this summer. And U.S. officials have reason to feel they have the upper hand, given the unexpected ease with which they carried out the sweeping policy shifts of the last year, analysts say. Their bold moves to abrogate the ABM Treaty and other agreements have brought only muted reaction from the Russians and Chinese, who are determined to maintain good relations with the American superpower. Likewise at home, few politicians in Congress or elsewhere have challenged the new approach, given Bush's soaring popularity and his standing as the leader of the war effort. "My guess is [administration officials] will go on their way, doing what they want to do," said Collina. "And if the Russians don't like it, that's their problem."

(Return to Contents)

Los Angeles Times February 9, 2002 U.S. Moves To Quickly Secure Russia's Vast Nuclear Stockpile Weapons: Energy secretary calls the 'harrowing' situation his highest priority. By Gary Polakovic, Times Staff Writer The Bush administration is speeding efforts to safeguard Cold War-era nuclear stockpiles before terrorists can get hold of them, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Friday. Addressing the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in Beverly Hills, Abraham outlined a series of measures aimed primarily at securing the former Soviet Union's vast stockpiles of weapon-grade radioactive materials. "We are facing a situation we think is, frankly, more harrowing than it was a decade ago. . . . I don't believe I have any higher priority," Abraham said. He acknowledged that some efforts to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons were undertaken during the Clinton administration but said that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 demonstrated the need to expand and accelerate those efforts, especially in Russia. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to breakdowns in the protections of 40,000 nuclear weapons, plus assorted nuclear materials, some of which are coveted by terrorist groups and other countries. Abraham said many of the scientists and technicians who oversee those materials have gone with little or no pay for months at a time, raising concerns they might exchange nuclear products for bribes. Authorities have documented about 200 illicit attempts to acquire nuclear materials in recent years, he said. Abraham said heightened security measures will include better housekeeping and accounting practices, new technologies and incentives. While they are focused on Russia, they also deal with nuclear materials in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, as well as in the United States. Under an agreement worked out with counterparts in Russia, U.S. officials will help accelerate a program to enhance security for trucks and trains hauling weapon-grade material and to store it in fewer locations to make it less vulnerable to sabotage or terrorist attack. The program will be completed by 2008, two years ahead of schedule, Abraham said. Other measures he cited include installation of radiation detectors at transit and border crossings to prevent smuggling. President Bush's budget proposal seeks $1.2 billion for nonproliferation programs, two-thirds of which is earmarked for programs in Russia. A quarter of a billion dollars more is earmarked for research and development of new technologies to help counter nuclear proliferation and terrorism, Abraham said. Russia and the United States have reached agreement on a controversial plan to convert 68 tons of plutonium in both countries into fuel for atomic reactors. Critics challenged the costs to the United States, but Abraham said the administration lopped $2 billion off the program and can complete it within three years. "If one good thing can come out of the tragedy of Sept. 11, it's that our nation is now working more closely with Moscow on issues of national security--ours as well as theirs--than we have done at any time in the post-Soviet era," Abraham said. A yearlong review of controls led administration officials to conclude that the threat of nuclear materials getting into the wrong hands is greater today than ever, Abraham said. In the war in Afghanistan, documents left by Al Qaeda and Taliban forces reveal diagrams and information for the construction of crude nuclear devices. Authorities believe terrorists are capable of assembling a "dirty bomb" by using conventional explosives to disperse plutonium or other radioactive materials in an urban area. In an address before Congress last week, Bush blasted an "axis of evil" consisting of North Korea, Iraq and Iran for promoting terrorism and pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

(Return to Contents)

Los Angeles Times February 10, 2002 Iraq Calls Bush's Bluff On Weapons Scrutiny Baghdad woos global leaders to counter the 'evil' label by the U.S. By Scott Ritter The past week has seen an unprecedented diplomatic offensive on the part of Iraq. This appears to be driven by the harsh rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration since the president's identification of Iraq as an integral part of an "axis of evil." Whether or not Iraq is sincere, Baghdad's burst of diplomacy appears to be designed to derail a drive for war from within the Bush administration that has been gaining momentum at a startling rate. Iraq has dispatched representatives to Europe, Russia, China and the Arab world to distance itself from President Bush's characterization of it as evil and to discourage the war-like undertones of such a label. These efforts have borne instant fruit. The "axis of evil" formulation has been criticized in almost every corner of the world as ill- conceived and counterproductive. There was, however, one issue that caused trouble for Iraq: the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. The focus by Bush on the matter of weapons inspections prior to his State of the Union address resonated in many capitals around the globe, even those sympathetic to Iraq or overtly opposed to renewed military conflict. The ambiguities that exist concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are troubling. The shadow cast by Sept. 11, combined with the specter of weapons of mass destruction, made the issue of the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq suddenly relevant. Russia, China and Turkey all have urged Baghdad to allow the inspectors back to work. Iraq was cool to these overtures until, in a stunning recent reversal, Baghdad communicated to the U.N. secretary general its willingness to engage in discussions on the matter. In so doing, Iraq has exposed the Achilles' heel of Washington's policy: Is the U.S. truly serious about weapons inspections? While Iraq has stated that it has set no preconditions for any discussions regarding inspectors, it is widely recognized in the United Nations that the issue of economic sanctions is firmly linked to weapons inspections. Any discussion of sanctions is the last thing the Bush administration would want. Economic sanctions have been the cornerstone of a policy of containment pursued by three consecutive administrations. Sanctions are essential to Bush's plan to destabilize and eventually overthrow Saddam Hussein. The resumption of serious weapons inspections would, by their very nature, open the door for the eventual lifting of the sanctions, which in turn would signal an end of containment. This could mean the de facto recognition that Hussein would retain power. Such a process certainly flies in the face of the strong language of confrontation coming from such proponents of the Hussein regime's removal as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Sens. Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Joe Biden. The Iraqi diplomatic offensive has thrown the administration into a quandary. Although the Iraqi offer was given short shrift by Secretary of State Colin Powell, the machinery of international diplomacy has been actively engaged and will prove hard to stop. By showing a willingness to discuss the issue of inspectors, Iraq has trumped those who have maintained that Hussein would never permit their return. Baghdad now has raised the question as to whether U.S. support for inspectors has been merely rhetorical, a verbal foil designed to support the primary policy objective of removing Hussein from power. How the Bush administration answers this new challenge will do much to shape the nature of any global support for future actions against Hussein. Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector, is the author of "Endgame: Solving the Iraqi Problem, Once and For All" (Simon & Schuster, 1999).

(Return to Contents)

USA Today February 12, 2002 Pg. 1 U.S. Lines Up Support For Confrontation With Iraq By Barbara Slavin and Judy Keen, USA Today WASHINGTON — President Bush is preparing for military action against Iraq and lining up support from allies in the Middle East, U.S. officials and diplomats from the region say. A White House official says Vice President Cheney is expected to discuss efforts to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein when Cheney visits 10 Middle East countries in March. U.S. officials say no decision has been made about timing or the scope of the campaign. But a foreign leader who met with top administration officials last week told his aides that he is convinced Bush has decided to confront Saddam. Military action is unlikely before May, when the United Nations Security Council will vote on new sanctions against Iraq. A showdown could erupt then if Hussein refuses to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors. Likely military options range from a limited intervention to help rebel groups to "Desert Storm lite," a reprise of the 1991 Gulf War that could involve as many as 200,000 U.S. troops, Iraq experts say. Bush has said Iraq belongs to an "axis of evil" that is trying to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Other signs of a looming showdown: U.S. military commanders for the region have been transferring their headquarters from U.S. locations to the Persian Gulf since late last year. Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer and U.S. officials talked last week about how Israel might respond to an Iraqi retaliatory attack. Nervous Iraqi neighbors appear to be reluctantly accepting action against Iraq. Jordan's King Abdullah told visiting members of Congress recently that he is reconciled to a confrontation, a source familiar with the talks says. Officials in Saudi Arabia say privately that they would back a realistic plan to get rid of Saddam, according to a Western source. The source says he is "cautiously optimistic" that the Saudis would let U.S. forces in the kingdom participate in an assault on Iraq. Turkey also has signaled it would support military action so long as it is consulted and Iraq's Kurds aren't allowed to seek an independent state that could attract Turkey's Kurdish minority, diplomats say. At home, Bush can expect strong support for war with Iraq, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted over the weekend. In the survey of 1,001 adults, 82% agreed with Bush that Iraq is "evil," and 88% said it is important to remove Saddam from power. The CIA has reactivated a covert program to topple Saddam, according to Tony Cordesman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The CIA declined to comment. The administration has announced that it is giving $2.4 million to the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress.

(Return to Contents)

Wall Street Journal February 12, 2002 FBI Hones In On Military Labs In Hunt For Source Of Anthrax By Antonio Regalado, Gary Fields and Mark Schoofs, Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal The Federal Bureau of Investigation is making U.S. military laboratories the primary focus of its anthrax investigation, said senior law-enforcement officials close to the case. While it has been reported that the FBI plans to use genetic fingerprinting and other scientific analyses to narrow down the labs most likely to have been the source of the anthrax bacterium used in the terror attacks, it has become clear that investigators are looking first at military labs, at least for now. While investigators haven't ruled out anybody, university-based laboratories that study the biology of the bacterium have emerged as a lower priority. Officials at several schools said FBI agents hadn't been pursuing investigations or interviews on campus this year. People inside the FBI have confirmed that the agency is taking a tiered approach toward U.S. laboratories believed to possess the know-how to produce anthrax, especially weapons-grade anthrax. The highest priority laboratories include military facilities where anthrax was both stored and processed into more deadly forms. While many expert observers already believed that military laboratories and contractors were the focal points of the probe, FBI officials previously have been extremely tight-lipped about this aspect of the case. FBI officials confirmed that under the tiered approach, investigators would be focusing first on security plans, staff and former staff members at military facilities known to handle anthrax, including the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick, Md., and the U.S. Army's Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. It is already known that Dugway scientists had produced anthrax in its most deadly powdered form. Similar technology was likely used to produce the spore-laden letters sent to Capitol Hill. Experts have termed the anthrax contained in those letters, sent to Senators Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) and Patrick Leahy, (D., Vt.) as "weapons grade." The FBI is collecting anthrax samples from labs to compare them against the anthrax sent in the terror mailings last fall. The Ames strain was the type of anthrax mailed to Sens. Daschle and Leahy, as well as New York and Florida media organizations, killing five people and sickening more than a dozen. Dugway officials declined to comment on the investigation, referring questions to the Pentagon. A Department of the Army spokeswoman said that Dugway and other military facilities were cooperating with law-enforcement authorities and had addressed all of the FBI's requests. A spokeswoman for Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, a private military contractor, which used anthrax as part of its development of a vaccine and detection devices, also declined to say it if had been asked to provide a sample. "We have provided all the information and materials that have been requested by law enforcement," said Katy Delaney.

(Return to Contents)