Don't You See? We Only Hate Other Countries' Biological Weapons
	found on Washington Post written by Philosawyer, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 21 Sep 9:29am
		"For the second year in succession, the Bush administration has stymied international efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention against germ warfare, advising its allies that the United States wants to delay further discussions until 2006. The 1972 treaty bans the development, stockpiling and production of germ warfare agents, but has no mechanism to enforce the prohibition, hence the negotiations in Geneva over the past seven years on an inspections regime: The administration stunned its allies last December by proposing to end the negotiators' mandate, saying that while the treaty needed strengthening, the enforcement protocol under discussion would not deter enemy nations from acquiring or developing biological weapons if they were determined to do so. Negotiators suspended the discussions, saying they would meet again in November when U.S. officials said they would return with creative solutions to address the impasse. "One year later, the U.S. has again stunned its allies with its 'creative solution' of doing nothing. Instead of bringing its own proposals or concerns to the world, the administration now argues that the current multilateral approach is so totally flawed that the international community should twiddle its thumbs for four more years, after which time the U.S. will instruct them on how it should be done properly. Any discussions now, it is argued, would only lead to squabbling (apparently due to the almost all other countries' inability to see the 'truth'), and it's considered better to halt all substantive discussion so as not to be politically embarrassing for anyone. "Not surprisingly, many allies are warning that U.S. unilateralism will simply accentuate the problem of weapons of mass destruction, particularly given the terrorist threats trumpeted by the US. It also raises questions over the credibility of any U.S. call for military co-operation against Iraq's biological weapons program." We note, in passing, that this comes six months after the US-backed removal of the highly-regarded head of the chemical weapons disarmament body on very similar grounds.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 23 commentsbest: 1 comment by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Conjuring Threats for the Future   by NH4       at Sat 21 Sep 10:16am score of 1 compelling     As America continues its groundbreaking work in the field of human extermination, its government continues to pretend that no other countries will be heading down the trail it is blazing. As we all know, though, it is much cheaper and much quicker to duplicate America's biological weapons programs than it is to duplicate America's nuclear programs. I get the disturbing feeling every now and again that the folks who run this country are playing Russian roulette -- except that, instead of aiming guns at their own heads and pulling the triggers, they are aiming their guns at ALL OF US.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Into the breach...   by dylanr       at Sat 21 Sep 12:53pm score of 1 clever     Well, this sure sounds bad. And there's a certain inherent hypocrisy in identifying something as a problem and then refusing to take part in what others offer as a solution. But let me take a stab of making a bit of sense out of this. Back in my IT days, I had a customer who wanted me to install a firewall so that her network would be "safe." Now, there's nothing wrong with a firewall per se, and any decent half-secure network should have at least one. But I knew something about this client that made me demur: I knew that the moment she got a firewall, she was going to make the argument that all my other security measures (such as meaningful passwords, minimum privileges, etc) were no longer necessary. They didn't want a firewall to enhance their security, they wanted a firewall instead of security. I sounded like an idiot for advising against having a firewall, but I truly believed that they were better off feeling unsafe than becoming complacent. People familiar with InfoSec see this all the time: customers invariably favor the use of "magic bullet" products as a total solution rather than doing the hard work necessary to spec out and implement meaningful security. What that produces is a situation where everyone feels secure (after all, we've got a firewall) but is actually less secure, since they see less need for the common-sense pain-in-the-ass measures that provide actual security. It's a long way from computer security to national security... but hell, it's Plastic, right? If I follow the Bush argument, they are really saying that bio weapons are a problem. The fact that they don't want to go along with the international consensus doesn't reflect a change in opinion about the nature of the problem, so much as it shows a distaste for taking ineffective measures. After all, we can sign all the treaties we want and its enforceability is still very much in question. Ironically enough, having a treaty in place could make Europe less likely to act against nations that flaunt that treaty's requirements. Treaties can have their place, but most of them are just the geopolitical equivalent of firewalls... they're little more than a common agreement to avoid discussing a a problem by declaring it solved. If a bio-weapon treaty were to lead to complacency, that would truly be worse than nothing. I believe that's the case the Administration is making, in a nutshell. In theory there should be no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there usually is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: Into the breach...   by holgate       at Sat 21 Sep 1:31pm score of 1 modappeal   in reply to comment 2     If a bio-weapon treaty were to lead to complacency, that would truly be worse than nothing. I believe that's the case the Administration is making, in a nutshell. I'd be more convinced by this argument if it weren't for various American biotech and pharmaceutical corporations which argue that they simply don't want foreign inspectors poking around their labs, whether it's for reasons of intellectual property or simple xenophobia. So, as much as I'd like to rationalise it thus, I don't see so much a 'distaste for taking ineffective measures' as a desire not to upset Big Pharma and Biotech. In the meantime, get your bubonic plague starter kits mail-order.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Into the breach...   by dylanr       at Sun 22 Sep 8:50am score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 4     American biotech and pharmaceutical corporations... don't want foreign inspectors poking around their labs Says the Pacific News Service. I'm not sure what an India-based nuclear physicist knows about back-room US politics that we don't, but the early, gratuitous reference to Larry Harris made me suspect that most of her research was being done online. Though Larry Harris exists, and did, in fact, order plague bacteria through the mail, the idea that the fast-thinking FBI narrowly averted a massive outbreak is the kind of baloney that leftie news services don't normally eat. It's going to be awfully difficult to reign in this "weapon of mass destruction" since anybody with a microbiology degree and a squirrel cage can harvest yersinia in the four corners area. Each year, 10-20 Americans get the plague... but since we licked this disease so long ago, Southern California, Arizona and New Mexico are still well-populated. But back to the issue at hand. I'm not sure what kind of split may have developed between the FAS and PhRMA, but they co-authored a paper on this very topic only two years ago, which stated: FAS and PhRMA agree that industry's fears concerning possible loss of confidentiality during on-site activities could be reduced by US implementing legislation that maintains all inspectee's constitutional rights. According to their web site, their position seems to have evolved a bit, but not in a way that would negate international agreements. The idea that the biotech industry will bristle at inspections may be intuitive, but it's a bit ludicrous... they already submit to unannounced inspections by several regulatory agencies, including FDA. The mechanics of inspection and the process of holding inspections without losing control of proprietary information is well established. In theory there should be no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there usually is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Into the breach...   by holgate       at Sun 22 Sep 8:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Says the Pacific News Service. Says lots of people. And to gloss over those lots of people makes you sound just a little too much like a shill for the pharmaceutical industry.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Into the breach...   by dylanr       at Sun 22 Sep 9:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     Says lots of people Well... the quantity of people expressing an idea doesn't really vouch for its veracity, does it? Regardless of how many people say something, or how passionately they believe themselves to be right, how does it prove anything to base your arguments on factual claims which are incorrect? The sources named by the author of your article simply don't say what she claims they do. It's one thing to suspect that big pharma is pushing an agenda, but quite another to misrepresent the positions of specific organizations. It's a pity when facts get in the way of a good argument, but the facts do matter. to gloss over those lots of people makes you sound just a little too much like a shill And not caring if the article you cited is factually incorrect makes you... what exactly? Or do we only hold big evil corporations accountable to those kind of standards? Having a decent familiarity with primary sources leads me to a different set of conclusions than the ones typically reached by drive-by activists. Call that what you will. I'm perfectly willing to concede the fallibility of the pharmaceutical industry and the raw greed that drives its choices. Yep, that's a duh. I still don't buy the contention that fear of inspections caused big pharma to undermine a bioweapons treaty. First, they just don't have that kind of influence (yet). Second, big pharma plants get inspected all the time and they aren't likely to be the targets of international inspection teams anyway. Seriously, there's really very little opportunity for them to be inconvenienced here. In theory there should be no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there usually is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: Into the breach...   by Djerrid       at Sat 21 Sep 1:33pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 2     Hold on... Do you truly believe that a biological weapons treaty, which calls for the "Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction", is a bad thing because if it was ratified and enforced, those nations would become complacent and disregard biological weapons as threats? That's the same as saying we should get rid of airport security because it gives the passangers a false sense of security (instead of say, increase the effectiveness of security measures). 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  Re: Into the breach...   by dylanr       at Sat 21 Sep 2:32pm score of 1 compelling   in reply to comment 5     Do you truly believe that a biological weapons treaty...is a bad thing because...nations would become complacent and disregard biological weapons as threats? Bio weapons have been illegal by international convention since the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Even so, bio weapons are far more of a present threat now than when that treaty was ratified. If international law were sufficient to stop the development of bioweapons, would we even need this new treaty? That's the same as saying we should get rid of airport security because it gives the passangers a false sense of security (instead of say, increase the effectiveness of security measures). Funny you should mention it, but I have made that argument too... not against having security measures per se, but against many of the ones we've chosen to implement. A good presentation of that case can be found here. Current airline security policies are designed to create the illusion of security and little else. If you don't believe that, get to know someone in the National Guard who has airport detail and ask them one simple question: "Are the M-16s loaded?" The answer to that question may tell you more about the fine line between illusion and reality than you wish to know. In theory there should be no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there usually is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  Distaste for solution that industry does not like.   by Philosawyer       at Sat 21 Sep 4:03pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 2     The fact that they don't want to go along with the international consensus doesn't reflect a change in opinion about the nature of the problem, so much as it shows a distaste for taking ineffective measures. That is certainly the main reason that the Bush administration has provided to rationalize the decision. However, if they have a "distaste for taking ineffective measures" and actually want "effective measures", then why aren't they making any proposals as to what effective measures would be. When they suspended negotiations more than a year ago, that was what they promised to do. To come back with nothing and claim the need to wait four more years without any concrete proposals whatsoever points to a complete lack of commitment and good faith to the process. I suspect the reason they came back completely empty handed is not because they could not conceive of any effective solutions, rather they just couldnt come up with any that would not be opposed by industry supporters of the Bush administration. The real distaste is for measures that US industry won't support. Hence their answer - nothing and lets put it off four more years. Djerrid in comment 4 points out industry distaste for currently proposed measures, which may need to be even more intrusive for an "Effective" treaty. Comments asside I appreciate someone going "into the breach" The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Distaste for solution that industry does not   by dylanr       at Sun 22 Sep 9:25am score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 7     why aren't they making any proposals as to what effective measures would be Yeah... saying you'd come back with a proposal in a year and showing up empty-handed is a bit thin. But then again, we've spent the last year coping with a terrorist attack, economic slowdown, and going to war... so it's possible there have been a few other things occupying key people's attention. I suspect... they just couldnt come up with any that would not be opposed by industry supporters of the Bush administration. That's a supposition that fits well with the standard view of pharmaceutical companies. But companies like Merck, GSK, and Pfizer are well-equipped and well-prepared to host all kinds of bureaucrats and inspectors in their facilities. It's a regular fact of life in this industry. There are many industries who would raise holy hell if inspections were required of them... but pharma is actually one of the few industries that acknowledges the necessity of such things. In any event, that's really not where the threat is anyway. Inspectors looking for bioweapons would have to be daft to go pestering Merck. Bioweapons being manufactured in the US will be made in one of two types of facilities: US Government facilities that are way underground. Some rogue bacteriologist running a single lab bench in some shack in Wyoming. Good luck finding either one of those. Merck and Pfizer have nothing to fear, nothing to hide, and no reason for objecting to taking yet another bureaucrat on the full facility tour. These tours are already so routine that large pharma companies have full-time employees who do little else besides host these tours. Perhaps such inspections might be a burden on small biotech, but PhRMA isn't going to the mat for them. In theory there should be no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there usually is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Into the breach...   by sglover910       at Mon 23 Sep 11:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     I would really like to agree with your argument. I'd like to agree for the same reason that, a week or a month ago, I wanted to hope that our saber rattling toward Iraq was part of a really shrewd psychological strategy -- if it were true, then my government wouldn't be as short-sighted and reactionary as I fear it might be. But y'know, I was young and naive way back then.... As other people have said, the administration's objections would be a whole lot more credible if they had some specific proposals to offer. You mention that with September 11, Afghanistan, etc. they're prooccupied. But it's clear to any literate person that if we really are concerned about weapons of mass destruction, genetically engineered pathogens are going to be the agent of choice for future terrorists, because of their (eventual) ease of manufacture and (theoretical) lethality. Even if the proposed treaty is ineffectual, it seems to me that an associated enforcement agency, even if it's an ad hoc committee, could form the nucleus of a cadre of researchers. Prohibiting the development of new germs is going to be a horrendously difficult, maybe even impossible technical problem. In that light, mightn't it be best to at least be studying the problem, with an eye towards developing an enforcement regime? The Bush approach of doing nothing is, well -- doing nothing. While time slips away. But all that is irrelevant anyway. Given this government's record to date, I don't believe they have any more thoughtful objection to the treaty than that it is a treaty. I won't be entirely surprised if the fraternity boy decides that, say, the Law of the Sea treaty is no good, and declares that our national maritime boundaries now extend to the coasts of Europe and Asia. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Into the breach...   by dylanr       at Mon 23 Sep 2:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     genetically engineered pathogens are going to be the agent of choice for future terrorists, because of their (eventual) ease of manufacture and (theoretical) lethality. I'm not a microbiologist, but it's my understanding that engineering pathogens is anything but easy. What is relatively easy is cultivating large stocks of existing pathogens. But these are the very same pathogens that we've got ample for. That doesn't render the issue moot, but the real threat is quite a bit less serious than many people imagine. Probably the biggest threat is losing control of whatever super-virus thing we're cooking up in some underground military lab. But we'll keep on doing stupid shit like that, treaty or no. I don't believe they have any more thoughtful objection to the treaty than that it is a treaty. That's cynical, but you may well be correct. This is an administration that has more than the usual level of US scorn for multilateralism. In theory there should be no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there usually is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Into the breach...   by dylanr       at Mon 23 Sep 2:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     we've got ample for Ugh. How about: we've got ample medications for In theory there should be no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there usually is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Into the breach...   by sglover910       at Mon 23 Sep 2:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     > I'm not a microbiologist, but it's my understanding > that engineering pathogens is anything but easy. I'm not one either, but I think we can plausibly deduce some worrisome developments. There are more microbiologists in the world each year. The tools they require are compact and relatively unsophisticated -- nothing like what's necessary for developing nuclear weapons, or even conventional explosives. As far as I know there's a wealth of publicly available life sciences data -- gene sequences, protein structures, and so on. I certainly don't expect guys to be brewing up hyper-pathogens in their garages this year, or maybe even within the next five years. But given the pace of biological research, it seems reasonable to expect "edited" micro-organisms before too long. Which is why I'd like competent authorities to start thinking about precautions now. Remember the recent story about the group that cooked up some smallpox virus from gene sequence data? (Incidentally, recently a research team managed to concoct a pathogen that somehow evades mammalian immune systems. I really wish I had a link to the story. Maybe somebody here can point us to a site? Of course it might help if I had a more detailed description of the event.) An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  History of poor BIoChem treaty compliance.   by GodSpiral       at Sat 21 Sep 1:25pm score of 1.5 scholarly     The strangest quote in the article, "If a challenge inspection system is not geared to pursue violators aggressively, then it does not serve U.S. security interests," the 65-page report states. The participants strongly favored establishing mandatory standards backed by penalties and "robust" inspections, which goes significantly further than the proposed protocol backed by the EU and other nations. Since the beggining of this treaty ('72/'75), I don't believe the US has ever submitted to inspections. The US position has always been that the treaty must not be effective. That it allow the US to evade inspection. The Chemical weapons (CWC) treaty US compliance has been an even bigger joke, where the US requested unilateral exemptions such as refusing inspections on national security grounds. (ummm wouldn't it adverse national security if chem weapons were found, and so there would always be a national security objection?) a cns.miis.edu link All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  I'm no expert, but..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Mon 23 Sep 6:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     Regarding the suggestion that the U.S. did not submit to inspections under the Biological Weapons Convention--the original treaty has no provisions for verification. The U.S. did participate in periodic Review Conferences which instituted various "confidence-building measures", which to my limited knowledge the U.S. participated in. Regarding the CSM article from July of 1998 regarding US industry compliance with the CWC. Fast forward from July to October 1998. That was quite a while ago. Things change. While the US was tardy in implementing the treaty, it also has the world's largest chemical industry; as of December 2000, things were proceeding apace. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: I'm no expert, but..   by GodSpiral       at Mon 23 Sep 11:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     I'm not sure if any nation has been eager to submit to inspections. You point out links that are helpful in dismissing the impression I left that the US might want to evade any accountability while imposing it on others. Yet, the US quite obviously has ongoing research programs in both of these areas. Under the pretext of biochem defense and counter warfare, "innovation" in the area is being pursued. WMDs are not about to be uninvented. Treaties powerful enough to find and destroy all stockpiles are not wanted by anyone, because the intrusiveness would be too much to bear. The stockpiles could be reconstituted anyway. Both BWC and CWC are essentially to be used as religion: Everyone should nod to each other that its a good idea so that plebs are comforted, and there is political ammunition to persecute a nation for its sins. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: History of poor BIoChem treaty compliance.   by MajorMojo       at Mon 23 Sep 6:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     The US has been inspected. This was the main reason that Dr. Alibeckov decided to defect. He realized that the US was teeling the truth about bio weapon research. Read his book or just go meet the man....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Rogue Statements   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sun 22 Sep 5:45am score of 0.5 succinct     The US is developing Weapons of Mass Destruction and will not allow international inspectors in. I say we invade.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Perspective   by ksu93       at Sun 22 Sep 2:28pm score of 1     Regardless of what people think about the U.S. position on Iraq, it's silly to suggest the U.S. is being hypocritical by insisting that a country like Iraq not have chemical weapons while taking this stance on the Biological Weapons Convention against germ warfare. The U.S. isn't going to wake up one morning and gas its own people or launch a chemical attack on a nearby country. Iraq, however, has done both. I happen to be a person who has enormous reservations about the way the Bush administration has handled the issue of Iraq, but that doesn't mean it's open season to accuse the U.S. of being just as bad as Saddam Hussein. Yeah, we have chemical and biological weapons in the U.S., but so do a lot of other countries. The idea isn't that we want to use these weapons, but as long as they're pointed at us, we need to be able to point back with the same kinds of weapons to act as a deterrent. "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Re: Perspective   by paul_holloway       at Mon 23 Sep 4:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     The U.S. isn't going to wake up one morning and gas its own people. Waco. The idea isn't that we want to use these weapons, but as long as they're pointed at us, we need to be able to point back with the same kinds of weapons to act as a deterrent. Despite the US being a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons? "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Actually, the U.S. is destroying its chem arsenal   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Mon 23 Sep 6:49am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 15     Waco. Wacko? The idea isn't that we want to use these weapons, but as long as they're pointed at us, we need to be able to point back with the same kinds of weapons to act as a deterrent. Despite the US being a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons? Actually, the U.S. has been making significant progress in eliminating its chemical weapons stockpiles--as of 2000, the only active chemical weapons destruction program in the world. The fact that the U.S. maintains chemical weapons research (which it justifies as a defensive measure) is permitted by the treaty. The Administration's hardline position on the BWC strikes me as foolish although I think dylanr's assessment has merit--but with chemical weapons the U.S. is doing its part. Given U.S. conventional dominance and the relative ease of verifying chemical compliance, this makes perfect sense--the last thing the U.S. wants is for its conventional forces to be deterred by some pissant with a few VX shells. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Actually, the U.S. is destroying its chem   by paul_holloway       at Mon 23 Sep 6:59am score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 18     Waco. Wacko? Waco - you remember, where the US gassed and killed its own men, women, and children. "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Uh huh.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Mon 23 Sep 8:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     Waco - you remember, where the US gassed and killed its own men, women, and children. Riiiight. Like I said. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Uh huh.   by paul_holloway       at Mon 23 Sep 9:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Riiiight. Like I said. I agree that it is a wacko idea. just as wacko as this constant assertion that Saddam Hussein used gas in a genocidal manner on his own people, which wasn't the case according to reports produced by the US and the UN at the time. "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  A matter of definition..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Mon 23 Sep 10:04am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     I would tend to distinguish between a building catching fire after (but not necessarily as a result of) being struck with tear gas canisters (that notable weapon of genocide employed by such fiends as Scotland Yard) and the use of poison gases to wipe out a village. I wouldn't necessarily characterize either case as genocide, but that doesn't mean they're equivalent. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]