Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Cuba, previously a 'threat,' drops from radar

Two years ago, John Bolton widely publicized a State Department report alleging that Cuba was developing a biological warfare program.

By DAVID ADAMS
Published September 6, 2005

MIAMI - A week ago, the State Department quietly reinterpreted its intelligence assessment on the bioweapons threat posed by Cuba.

It makes for interesting reading.

Readers may recall that two years ago the State Department alleged that Cuba had "at least a limited, developmental offensive biological warfare research and development effort."

The report was widely publicized by critics of the Cuban government, including John Bolton, who at the time was undersecretary for arms control and international security.

Bolton was recently tapped as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Congress was unable to agree on his nomination after Bolton was criticized during testy hearings for allegedly using his political influence to bully intelligence officials.

The Bush administration appointed him anyway.

The new finding, made public Aug. 30, restates the 2003 claim that Cuba is researching and developing biochemical weapons. But it recognizes that the "intelligence community" and the "policy community" do not agree.

This "split view" is the result of what it describes as "inconclusive" evidence.

Government intelligence experts "unanimously held that it was unclear whether Cuba has an active offensive biological warfare effort now, or even had one in the past," the report says.

But, using the same information, the policymakers insist the 2003 finding "remains correct."

They base their concern on Cuba's "technical capability" to pursue bioweapons thanks to the island's highly advanced biotech and pharmaceutical industry. Critics say such a hypothetical scenario is hardly the basis for making such a serious allegation.

Confused? As well you might be. That was my first impression, too. If I had written such a nonsensically worded essay in my university history exams I'd probably have gotten an F.

So whom do we believe? The politicians or the intelligence wonks? If the former are right, we are sitting ducks. On the other hand, there may be nothing to worry about.

It helps to understand how government works.

Each year, the State Department looks at countries around the globe to decide if they are adhering to international treaties on arms control and nonproliferation.

First of all, the intelligence analysts at different government agencies sit down and sift through a pile of classified reports and data. They come up with what is called a national intelligence estimate.

Then the "policy community" takes a look and makes its own judgment before a final report is drawn up.

It turns out this kind of disagreement is not uncommon. "There's always a distinction between intelligence and interpretation," says Jonathan Tucker, a chemical and bioweapons expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. "The interpretation is often influenced by ideology."

Does the lead-up to the war on Iraq ring a bell?

Bolton has made no secret of his strong political views. In November 2000, he was among a group of Republicans who burst into the Miami-Dade elections offices trying to stop the now infamous vote recount.

Bolton's tough views on Cuba are also well known, making him a popular figure among Cuban-American hard-liners.

But his political behavior has at times caused him problems. He does not like to be crossed. During testimony at Bolton's nomination hearing to become U.N. ambassador, it emerged he had tried to reassign two government intelligence analysts who disagreed with his Cuba analysis.

Bolton may not have changed his mind about Cuba, but the State Department is now being more cautious. "The State Department is stepping back and the intelligence community is reasserting itself," said Tucker, who toured Cuba's biotechnology centers last year.

Were there any truth to the Cuba threat, you would think Washington would be desperately seeking to do something about it. The silence on Cuba stands in sharp contrast to the Bush administration's diplomatic gyrations on Iran and North Korea.

The fact is that when the threat was first raised in 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell noticeably downplayed it. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was even more dismissive.

The State Department concludes its Cuba report with these reassuring words: "The U.S. government will seek to pursue additional information on which to assess this issue."

Until then, my guess is we probably shouldn't lose too much sleep about it.

--David Adams can be reached at dadams@sptimes.com

[Last modified September 6, 2005, 05:58:13]