W. T. Whitney, Jr.
War in Ukraine turns people’s lives and affairs upside down. Dirty laundry, previously hidden, is on display. A Russian communication on March 6 mentions “evidence of an emergency clean-up performed by the Kyiv regime was found—aimed at eradicating traces of the military-biological program in Ukraine, financed by @DeptofDefense.”
A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson two days later spoke of “26 [U.S.] bio-labs and other related facilities in Ukraine.”
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded, saying that the United States “does not develop or possess such weapons anywhere.” Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland indicated “Ukraine has biological research facilities …[and] so we are working with the Ukrainians [to] prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces.”
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported that, as of February 25, “a network of U.S.-linked labs [existed] in Ukraine that work with dangerous pathogens.” Those 26 such facilities are “public and animal health labs.”
The gist of the Chinese and Russian communications is their claim that the U.S. Government is doing bio-warfare. In that regard, the “Richard G. Lugar Center for Public Health Research” in Tbilisi, Georgia, looms large. The U.S. Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) paid for the Center’s construction and for its operation, between 2011 and 2018.
The distinction between offense and defensive preparations has ostensibly been clear as regards Fort Detrick. A “biological weapons program” existed there until 1969 when, as ordered by President Richard Nixon, it became a “biological defense program.” Apparently, no such official demarcation between offensive and defensive purposes has been applied to similar U.S. research installations elsewhere in the world.
One of the U.S. bio-laboratories abroad is Battelle Memorial Institute, “a $59 million subcontractor at Lugar Center” that, according to Gaytandzhieva, operates laboratories in eight countries across the globe and, as of 2018, “has been awarded some $2 billion [in] federal contracts” and ranks 23rd among U.S. government contractors.
In a report published in January 2022 by CAM, Gaytandzhieva identifies the “US Federal Contractor Registration” as documenting that “DTRA allocated $80 million [to Black & Veatch] for biological research in Ukraine as of 30 July 2020.”
She charges that the contractor did more than merely fund the labs—as suggested by Victoria Nuland—but instead has been responsible for their day-to-day operation. Cited as evidence are “internal documents” showing that “independent experts were denied even a visit” to the laboratories.
The scientists have arranged for genetically modified viruses to infect insects that then go on to transmit the fixed-up viruses to plants where they alter the plants’ properties. Critics, mainly in Europe, doubt the peaceful purposes of the new methodology. They fear that the technique of “lab-modified self-spreading viruses” may ultimately be used to harm humans and animals.
Commentary from the Max Planck Institute in Germany interprets the Science magazine article this way: “[T]he findings of the Insect Allies Program could be more easily used for biological warfare than for routine agricultural use.” It cites a legal opinion saying that “the Insect Allies Program could be seen to violate the Biological Weapons Convention” (BWC)” which took effect in 1975.
The information assembled here pertains to the accusation put forth by the Russians that the U.S. government is operating a “military-biological program” with, implicitly, offensive capabilities. U.S. officials have offered nothing that absolutely refutes the claim.
There are two aspects of the relevant biologic research that move the narrative from suggestion to possibility. First, bio-medical and bio-industrial products are developed for both peaceful and war-making uses. Secondly, some military products are readily repurposed from defensive to offensive use.
At issue is a merging of purposes. A representative statement from officials in The Netherlands in 2013 makes the point:
On the one hand, many pathogenic organisms are very important to research and development in the fields of medicine, biology and agriculture. However, some of these organisms can also be used to develop biological weapons that may pose a threat to public health and the environment. The term “dual-use research” can be extended … “Dual-use research of concern” is the type of research that could be misused directly and whereby such misuse would have major consequences.
And from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, November 2015:
[The] Biological Weapons Convention prohibits the development, production and stockpiling of biological weapons, but does not prevent states conducting research activities for peaceful and defensive purposes. However, distinguishing between permitted and prohibited activities is difficult at the level of basic biological research where the same techniques used to gain insight and understanding about fundamental life processes for the benefit of human health and welfare may also be used for the development of biological warfare agents.
While the purposes of this kind of biological research may be ambiguous, our conclusion here is less so. Specifically, we think that it’s quite possible that the U.S. government actually has been preparing for offensive biowarfare capabilities in Ukraine, and elsewhere. So far, not much information or evidence has cropped up as to deny that possibility. And besides, a grim historical record does exist that moves the matter of possibility quickly into the realm of probability.
That record includes previous resort to biowarfare, particularly in association with the U.S. war in Korea. Analyst Jeffrey Kaye in 2018 provided a readable version of the International Scientific Commission’s 1952 report on claims that, earlier that year, the U.S. military had carried out biowarfare “in an experimental fashion” against civilian populations in China and Korea.
The prestigious British scientist Joseph Needham led the Commission, and the World Peace Council sponsored it. The report consists of a 60-page summary and 600 pages of documentary material. Kaye states in his article that, indeed, “the report concluded that the U.S. had used a number of biological weapons, including use of anthrax, plague and cholera, disseminated by over a dozen different devices or methods.”
Cuba also fell victim to U.S. bioweapons. For example, a “U.S. intelligence source” told Newsday that “operatives linked to anti-Castro terrorists introduced African swine fever virus into Cuba in 1971 …[Soon] an outbreak of the disease forced the slaughter of 500,000 pigs.”
It is also highly probable also that U.S. operatives introduced hemorrhagic dengue into the island in 1981, with lethal results. Circumstantial evidence indicates strongly that a State Department crop-dusting plane widely disseminated the “plant-eating insect” Thrips palmi, and soon vegetable crops were destroyed.
Lastly, the record shows that the U.S. government only too easily has accepted that masses of humans are going to suffer and die. We recall:
- The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the conventional bombing of Dresden that sickened and killed hundreds of thousands.
- Pursuit of wars, in Korea and Vietnam, in which millions died, plus wars and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan that took the lives of hundreds of thousands.
- Complicity in massacres in Indonesia and Latin America.
- Institution of economic sanctions that killed or incapacitated hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Cuba and Venezuela.
- Support for repressive regimes like apartheid South Africa and Saudi Arabia that killed and maimed.
A government that has done all this and lied about it, is likely lying again about the biolabs in Ukraine and plans it has for causing further devastation in the name of “national security.”
W. T. Whitney Jr. is a political journalist who focuses on Latin America, health care, and anti-racism. A Cuba solidarity activist, he formerly worked as a pediatrician, and lives in rural Maine. He can be reached at: atwhit@roadrunner.com.
INTERNATIONALIST 360° 