21 September 2001

Today the Sunshine Project USA is distributing the following  commentary to United States peace activists and other non-profits to  help build awareness about biological weapons control aspects of the  US war on terrorism.

We would be very grateful to anyone redistribute this information to  local and regional peace groups forming in cities and states across  the US.
--------

Averting Bioterrorism Begins with US Reforms
by Edward Hammond
21 September 2001

The author is Director of the US office of the Sunshine Project, an  international non-profit organization dedicated to biological weapons control. Online at www.sunshine-project.org. Copyleft 2001.  This paper may be freely reproduced and redistributed  in its entirety.

The United States feels an imminent threat of biological or chemical  terrorist attack.  How do our own policies relate to the rise of this  frightening situation? Why has our government been throwing away so  many opportunities to work with other nations to control weapons of  mass destruction?  This paper, for the US peace movement and  non-profit activists, explains the key avoidable factors that have  led to this predicament, and suggests what US policy changes can be  made to help us find a peaceful way out.

Shaken and angered by cruel terrorist attacks, the United States has  announced a war on terrorism. Although no legal declaration has been  made, US leaders are emphatic that they are not using the word in a  figurative sense.  This time, war really means war.  Our nation's  goals include not only capturing the attacks' perpetrators "dead or  alive" and ending state-sponsored terrorism (although none is yet  proven); but ridding the globe of the threat posed by terrorist use  of biological and chemical weapons.

The latter is certainly a noble goal, although many thoughtful  citizens and peaceniks (including the author) oppose the US's  military methods. The killing power of biological and chemical  weapons is unfathomable.  There is no defense but to avoid it  happening in the first place. In 1983, the US Army estimated that one  thousand kilograms (2200 lbs.) of sarin nerve gas aerosolized over an  urban area on a clear, calm night would kill 3,000 - 8,000 people, an  attack in terms of human lives roughly proportionate to that on the  World Trade Center. One tenth of the amount of anthrax spores - one  hundred kilograms - distributed under similar conditions would be  likely to result in the death of one to three million people, an  unimaginable toll two hundred to six hundred times that in New York.

Once Upon a Time

There was a time when the US arguably could muster sufficient  credibility to lead a campaign to eliminate chemical and biological  weapons.  In 1973, President Nixon renounced biological weapons and  mostly dismembered the US bioweapons apparatus.  It wasn't an  altruistic move so much as a way to discourage poorer countries from  developing offensive biological warfare capabilities that could rival  nuclear weapons in killing power.  All without making a Manhattan  Project-sized investment in science and infrastructure.

Not produced in large quantities for so long that many are actually  leaking their deadly contents, old stocks of chemical weapons began  to be incinerated at the end of the Cold War (the process continues  today).  Russian inspectors were even allowed to enter and examine US  facilities that they thought might be producing biological weapons.  The US ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, and was in talks  with other nations to develop a UN system to verify global compliance  with the Biological Weapons Convention.

In short, we were cooperative and did not seem to be threatening the  world with chemical and biological warfare.

The Present

Sadly, it is no longer the case that the US can lead the world  against chemical and biological weapons. Our leaders have sacrificed  our progress in bungled attempts to address policy problems of the  present.  The US may have the military muscle to stamp out the  current generation of active terrorists; but does not possess the  moral authority to spearhead a crusade against weapons of mass  destruction.  Certainly not nukes. Vice President Cheney refuses to  rule out dropping the bomb on terrorists.  Chemical and biological  weapons? Our actions and policy are even worse.

There has always been a shadier side to the US renunciation of  chemical and biological weapons.  For example: Cuban accusations of  biological attack with agricultural pests (unproven; but stridently  alleged and not without evidence), enemies convinced that the US  maintains offensive biological weapons (incorrect as alleged; but  some biodefense research walks a razor-thin line), and refusal to  accept responsibility for the horrendous human and environmental  effects of Agent Orange, the latter most recently, shamefully  repeated by Bill Clinton in Hanoi itself.

Some problems - like Agent Orange - are ongoing moral failures.  Others, as troubling as they are, remain unproven, pertain to events  dating from years ago, or were sufficiently ambiguous (at least in  terms of the public's knowledge), to shield the US from many critics.  For problems like the Cuban allegations, it will take years for the  truth to be known with certainty, if ever. They have damaged; but in  themselves did not destroy US ability to lead the struggle against  biological and chemical weapons. At least until now.

The fact that the US maintains what is far and away the largest  biological weapons defense program in the world doesn't help either.  Even the greatest experts disagree on which specific activities are  offensive and which can be classified as defensive.  The tendency  among governments has been toward classifying all "research" (as  opposed to weapons-building and testing) as the latter.  The laxity  of interpretation has given rise to potential misunderstandings and  opened doors to would-be biological weapons developers.  Genetic  engineering and its proliferation has made matters worse, further  blurring the line between offensive and defense and giving rise to  the technical possibility to create genetically-engineered superbugs  and even entirely new classes of biological weapons.  The billions  recently authorized by Congress for homeland defense will swell this  opaque military-scientific-corporate biotechnology bureaucracy and  the instability it creates to even larger proportions.

Demolishing Cooperation

The demolition of international confidence in the US has come more  recently, and we have nobody but ourselves to blame. Bumbling  attempts to address several post-Cold War problems were allowed to so  completely convolute chemical and biological weapons control  commitments that we sacrificed whatever moral high ground we might  have had. Now, many international critics convincingly argue the US  is a chemical and biological weapons control "rogue state".

Where did we go wrong?  Three main areas: First, fear of terrorism  and "rogue states" and, particularly, their access to the military  talent and technology of our Cold War enemies.  Second, missteps  retooling the US military for greater involvement in peacekeeping and  military "operations other than war" (such as Somalia).  Third, a  foolish attempt to find the ever-elusive "silver bullet" to win the  Drug War that has resulted in US development of biological weapons.  In more detail:

Biological Warfare in the Name of America's Children

For more than three years the US has menaced other countries with the  threat of biological attack. Not just any countries.  We've mainly  harassed two of the world's terrorism hotspots:  Afghanistan and  Colombia.

The ostensible US motive is to prevent American kids from becoming  drug addicts by using biological weapons on Third World countries  that produce the drugs we buy and then snort, inject, and smoke.  In  Afghanistan the target is opium poppy, source of heroin.  Our weapon  is a dangerous fungus developed by a perverse alliance of  militaristic US drug warriors and ex-Soviet bioweapons researchers  who previously dedicated themselves to developing pathogens to  destroy US food supplies. The legal pretext includes attempts to gain  the "approval" of the Afghan government in exile (in Pakistan), a  bitter enemy of the Taliban that has no de facto power. The  environmental and human effects of use of these fungi could be  devastating.

Our troops are a surprise.  This biological weapon is not in our  military arsenal; but that of the State Department's anti-narcotics  division, supported by US diplomatic missions (repeat: diplomatic  missions) that provide cash, political, and intelligence support.

The US also supports using bioweapons in other conflict-torn  countries, such as Burma and Colombia, site of the largest armed  conflict in the Americas.  Colombia has no fewer than three terrorist  organizations as defined by the State Department, including FARC, one  of the world's largest terrorist groups and an organization that has  repeatedly killed Americans. It is a testament to the severity of the  conflict in Colombia that it has the second largest number of  war-displaced persons in the world (after Sudan).  Into this mix, the  US wants to throw biological weapons.

(In case you were wondering, it was proposed here too - to eradicate  pot in Florida - but environmental officials immediately shot it  down.)

Burning the Treaties to Save Them - Non-Lethal Weapons

Mogadishu was a harrowing disaster for the US armed forces.  Sadly,  Somali civilians literally tore to pieces several US servicemen who  thought they were on a mission to help the poor and feed the hungry.  The military, understandably anxious to prevent a recurrence, vows it  will never happen again.  The Pentagon's solution, of course, is not  politics; but weapons.  Specifically, it started a huge program to  delve into new and controversial "non-lethal" weapons systems.  Non-lethal should not be understood as benign.  In fact, these are  powerful weapons designed not to prevent death or permanent injury;  only to lessen its frequency.

Apart from microwaves to heat the skin, sound generators to vibrate  internal organs, lasers to confuse the eyes, and other non-chemical  and biological systems, the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program (JNLWP)  has entertained proposals to dose people, especially rioters and  "potentially hostile civilians", with drugs.  These drugs include  sedatives, "calmatives" (such as hallucinogens and ketamine, a DEA  schedule narcotic), muscle relaxants, opioids (the class of chemicals  in heroin), and "malodorants" (indescribably foul smelling  substances).  JNLWP has weighed genetically engineered microbes to  destroy enemy vehicles, machinery, and supplies.

It isn't just blackboard and small-scale laboratory work.  The Navy  has a genetically modified microbe to destroy plastics and, in the  words of one researcher "There is almost nothing some bug won't eat."  Delivery mechanisms under consideration or development include  backpack sprayers, land mines, mortars, and payloads for unmanned  aerial vehicles. JNLWP has planned computer simulations of the  offensive use of calmative agents, contracted with a major US  military supplier to develop an overhead-exploding chemical riot  control mortar round, and field-tested new non-lethal weapons (but  not biological ones) on humans in Kosovo.

The Pentagon claims - and desperately wants to hypnotize itself into  believing - that these arms are not chemical and biological weapons,  rather, that they are a potentially less bloody way to conduct  peacekeeping operations, isolate terrorists, and squelch civil  disobedience.  But it is exceedingly unlikely that people forcibly  gassed with mind-altering drugs will view the hijacking of their  brains and bodies as a humane act.  Much more probably, when their  motor control returns and hallucinations fade away, they may have  permanent psychological damage and feel enraged at the denial of  their freedom of thought and expression.

These weapons are not a panacea for death at the hands of US  soldiers, they are cruel and unusual biological and chemical weapons  banned under international laws for arms control, those prohibiting  torture, and those for protection of Human Rights.  This is how the  world, and especially the victims, will understand and react to these  weapons if they are used.  US attempts to characterize them as  anything else are not only wrong; but run the terrible risk of  provoking a biological or chemical attack on the US and its allies.

Blunders and Backsliding on the Bioweapons Convention

As 2001 opened, biological weapons control was focused on the  completion of six years of negotiations to develop an inspection  system to verify global compliance with the Biological and Toxin  Weapons Convention, the main international law against biological  weapons.  The inspection system, called the Verification Protocol,  was designed to give teeth to this important international agreement  by, among other things, mandating declaration of biodefense research  and permitting the UN to inspect suspected bioweapons facilities.

Signs early this year from the USA were ominous.  At a non-lethal  weapons meeting in Scotland, US military officers left arms control  experts slack jawed when they called for the renegotiation of the  bioweapons treaty to allow the US to produce and use anti-material  biological weapons like those being investigated by the Joint  Non-Lethal Weapons Program.

Things only got worse, and Uncle Sam led the way.  In July,  bioweapons negotiators were set to meet and try to finalize the  verification agreement.  The day before the meeting opened, the US  press was so uninterested that a back pages New York Times headline  declared the meeting was taking place in London, more than 450 miles  away from the actual site in Geneva, Switzerland.

Unfortunately, the US diplomatic team didn't divert to London and, as  expected arrived in Geneva and trashed the Verification Protocol. Six  years of negotiations were rendered at least temporarily useless, and  perhaps permanently. The US backed away just as other countries  approached agreement.  It was reminiscent - and close on the heels  -  of the US's withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement to control global  warming.  In this case not content to simply walk away, the US went a  big step further.  Adoption of the Verification Protocol needs  consensus.  The US said it will sit in the negotiations and kill the  Verification Protocol by deliberately blocking the efforts of others,  including the European Union.  The United States, standing alone,  delivered what may have been a knockout punch to the world's efforts  to combat biological weapons cooperatively.

The CIA's Monstrous Mistake

Not everybody at the New York Times had been asleep.  Although the  timing was unusual, in early September, a Times article made stunning  revelations about the US biodefense program. The US Central  Intelligence Agency (CIA) is conducting a secret program of  biodefense research that, in the opinion of many experts, violates  the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.  The CIA tested mock  biological bombs and built a real bioweapons production facility in  Nevada.  If any other country conducted this research, it would have  drawn the US's harshest denunciations and, quite possibly, military  attack.  The real reasons for the US rejection of the Verification  Protocol suddenly became much more clear.

The date of the New York Times story (September 4) was unusual  because persons close to the reporters' investigation, including US  officials, confirm that the Times was in possession of information  about the CIA's Nevada facility and bomb testing by May, 2001 - over  a month before the US trashed the Protocol.  Yet the Times waited to  enlighten the rest of the world until September, altering the course  of events in Geneva.  This has led to quiet accusations that instead  of printing the news when it was fit to be printed, the Times  withheld the information in order for its release to more closely  coincide with distribution of review copies of the journalists' new  book on the US biodefense program.  Or, some have suggested more  ominously, somebody at the Times may have placed protecting US  diplomatic interests ahead of journalistic ethics.

It gets even worse.  Much worse.  The CIA's research activities were  not disclosed in annual declarations of biodefense activities to the  Bioweapons Convention.  Without actually mentioning it, the Times  article incontrovertibly demonstrated that the US had flouted a UN  mechanism to enhance transparency and trust between nations. The US  remained recalcitrant, claiming the CIA was "entirely appropriate,  necessary, consistent with US treaty obligations".  The diplomatic  significance of this is difficult to overstate. The most powerful  country in the world proved itself untrustworthy on biological  weapons research.  The CIA research has undermined faith in voluntary  confidence building measures to promote transparency between nations.  To US enemies, the CIA's work looks like nothing short of a  biological weapons threat and means that pious declarations about the  danger of bioweapons will ring hollow and be interpreted by US  enemies as lies - or even threats.

The CIA activities not only threaten arms control; but may have  contributed to expanding the black market for bioweapons technology.  Part of the CIA effort involved (failed) attempts to buy and then  test small biological bombs ("bomblets") manufactured by the Soviet  Union in its final years.  According to University of Maryland expert  Milton Leitenberg:

CIA operatives would have had to inform various networks of  essentially criminal elements -- smugglers and middlemen in Russia --  of what it was that the Agency was seeking. Those criminal networks  would then have tried to obtain the item.  If they did not succeed  this time, as was apparently the case, they have learned that it is a  sought-after commodity, and they may be motivated to continue that  effort on their own, understanding that there will be an interested  purchaser sometime later. The next time the interested buyer might  not be the US CIA. This duplicates the process that occurred in the  mid-1990s when covert operations by German intelligence agencies  [seeking] sellers of fissionable materials [i.e. fuel for  constructing nuclear weapons] in former East European nations  produced a flow of items of varying quality. When it was understood  that this program had stimulated individuals in Russia to find things  to sell, the operation was quickly shut down. Since these events  occurred only a half dozen years ago, one might have imagined that  the vaunted CIA might have remembered the lesson.

The Bang of Big Buried Biological Bombs

Next, in mid-September, Dr. Barbara Rosenburg of the Federation of  American Scientists dropped another (figurative) bomb detailing the  US's disregard for bioweapons control. Rosenburg found Department of  Energy documents stating that the US is planning (and might already  have begun) to test biological weapons loaded with live agents in two  large underground aerosol chambers at the Army's Edgewood Chemical  Biological Center in Maryland.  A similar facility is suspected to  exist for use by researchers pursuing similar aerosol projects at  Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.  Its precise location is  unknown.  Not by coincidence, Sandia is headquartered at Kirtland Air  Force Base near Albuquerque, a major research center for the Joint  Non-Lethal Weapons Program.

To the initiated in the technical world of bioweapons research, the  kind of research planned is a big no-no.  It is of a scale  unnecessary for defensive research and apparently designed to yield  the exact kinds of data needed to build new biological weapons.

Unfortunately Not the End

Before the Twin Towers crashed to the ground, America's international  reputation on control of chemical and, especially, biological weapons  was punched full of holes and sinking fast.  Staunch allies are  appalled.  Before September 11th, UK officials made less than  complimentary remarks to the US press. Australia's Foreign Minster  upset Colin Powell's otherwise warm and cuddly kangaroo-hop Down  Under by blasting US rejection of bioweapons verification at a press  conference.  If the US's most obedient international lap dogs are  biting, it's hard to fathom what could be running through the mind of  leaders of many other political persuasions - Iran, Libya, Israel,  Sudan, Egypt, Iraq (all accused by the US of developing biological or  chemical weapons). Not to mention terrorists. A facade of cooperation  between most of these states has been achieved; but very deep  suspicions on weapons of mass destruction lurk just beneath the  surface and will come out, sooner or later.

What happened in New York and Washington was truly terrible.  The  authors of the attacks and those that can be proven to have knowingly  assisted them should be tried in a court of law and face punishment.  But the war on terrorism isn't going to do anything good for  Americans' security from biological and chemical weapons attack.  To  the contrary, there are many things that may actually heighten the  risk, like spraying pathogenic fungus on Colombia, gassing people who  disagree with us with inhumane chemical weapons, or continuing to  flout international commitments on biological weapons.

After thinking about the victims, it's also useful to think about  Mohammed Atta, who is alleged to have flown the first plane into the  World Trade Center. If what the FBI says is true, Atta was nothing  like the stereotyped "Arab terrorist".  Atta reportedly was a  disenchanted urban planning student alienated during his time in  Hamburg, Germany. He smoked, drank and, supposedly, enjoyed video  games.  He raised no suspicion in the US because he knew how to fit  in. More so than many isolated Americans, Atta was a product of  globalization and knew both sides of rich and poor, powerful and  passive.  He also knew from whence so many unpopular; but  global-imposed economic and social policies come, and whose will  prevails when they are at issue. Which might explain why he didn't  fly an Airbus into the Brandenburg Gate, or even the Frankfurt Stock  Exchange.

Which isn't the slightest justification for his alleged actions.  But  don't be fooled for a minute into thinking that waging war against  terrorism will do anything to improve the long-term prospects of  avoiding the use of biological and chemical weapons.  Key elements of  the solution to those problems lie inside our own institutions.