Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:25:48.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can an attribution assessment be made for Yellow Rain? Systematic reanalysis in a chemical-and-biological-weapons use investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Rebecca Katz  and
Burton Singer
Rebecca Katz
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy, George Washington University, 2021 K Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006 rlkatz@gwu.edu
Burton Singer
Affiliation:
Office of Population Research, 245 Wallace Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 singer@opr.princeton.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In intelligence investigations, such as those into reports of chemical- or biological-weapons (CBW) use, evidence may be difficult to assemble and, once assembled, to weigh. We propose a methodology for such investigations and then apply it to a large body of recently declassified evidence to determine the extent to which an attribution can now be made in the Yellow Rain case. Our analysis strongly supports the hypothesis that CBW were used in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan in the late 1970s and early 1980s, although a definitive judgment cannot be made. The proposed methodology, while resource-intensive, allows evidence to be assembled and analyzed in a transparent manner so that assumptions and rationale for decisions can be challenged by external critics. We conclude with a discussion of future research directions, emphasizing the use of evolving information-extraction (IE) technologies, a sub-field of artificial intelligence (AI).

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 24 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Footnotes

∗

Corresponding author.

References

1.Kennedy, D., “Intelligence Science: Reverse Peer Review?” Science, 2004, 303:1945.Google Scholar
2.McCreight, R. and Weigert, S., “Up in Smoke: Political Realities and Chemical Weapons Use Allegations during Mozambique's Civil War,” International Politics, June 2001, 38:253–272.Google Scholar
3.Cole, L., The Anthrax Letters: A Medical Detective Story (Joseph Henry Press, 2003).Google Scholar
4.http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Contents/Subscribers/Contents-2007-3/poli-26-01-05_24-42_supplemental_documents/.Google Scholar
5.Seagrave, S., Yellow Rain: A Journey Through the Terror of Chemical Warfare (New York: M. Evans and Company, 1981).Google Scholar
6.Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of War (Geneva, 1925); available at http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4784.htm.Google Scholar
7.Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (1972); available at http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4718.htm#treaty.Google Scholar
8.Geneva Convention, Common Article 3 (1949); available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm.Google Scholar
9.Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal (1950); available at http://www.icrc.ch/IHL.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument.Google Scholar
10.U.S. Department of State, Chemical Warfare in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan: An Update. Report to the Congress from Secretary of State George P. Shultz. (Special Report No. 104, November 1982).Google Scholar
11.Katz, R., Yellow Rain Revisited: lessons learned for the investigation of chemical and biological weapons allegations. dissertation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2005).Google Scholar
12.Crone, H., Gee, J., and Barton, R., “Lessons Learnt from the Yellow Rain Investigation Conducted by Australia,” paper presented at the Workshop on Investigations of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons, Geneva, 1984.Google Scholar
13.Dow, J. and Humphreys, G. R., “An Epidemiological Investigation of Alleged CW/BW Incidents in SE Asia,” Prepared by Directorate of Preventive Medicine, Surgeon General Branch, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, 1982.Google Scholar
14.Inch, T. D., “The Decision to go to War in Iraq: Oral Evidence Taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee, UK Parliament,” United Kingdom House of Commons, Foreign Affairs Committee, 18 June 2003; http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2003/6182003_3_iraq_uk.htm).Google Scholar
15.Heyndrickx, A., Sookvanichsilp, N., and Van Den Heede, M., Arch Belg, 1984, Supplement, p. 110.Google Scholar
16.U. S. Department of State, Chemical Warfare in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. Report to the Congress from Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Special Report No. 98, 22 March 1982.Google Scholar
17.M. J. B., quoting C. Darwin on Yellow Rain, Gardener's Chronicle, 18 July 1863, 29:675Google Scholar
18.Zhongying, Zhang, Yu-Ming, Chen, Shu, Chow, and Min, Li, “A Study of the Origin and the Pollen Analysis of “Yellow Rain” in Northern Jiangsu,” Kexue Tongbao, 1977, 22:409–412.Google Scholar
19.Seeley, T. D., Nowicke, J. W., Meselson, M., Guillemin, J., and Akratanakul, P., “Yellow Rain,” Scientific American, 1985, 253:128–137.Google Scholar
20.Nowicke, J. and Meselson, M., “Yellow Rain — a palynological analysis,” Nature, 17 May 1984, 309:205–206.Google Scholar
21.Dorsey, N. E., “The Velocity of Light,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 1944, 34, Part 1, p. 1.Google Scholar
22.Kane, M. T., “An argument-based approach to validity,” Psychological Bulletin, 1992, 112:527.Google Scholar
23.Venn, J., The Logic of Chance (New York: Chelsea Publishing Company, 1888), Ch. 14.Google Scholar
24.Good, I. J., Probability and the Weighing of Evidence (London: Charles Griffin and Company Limited, 1950).Google Scholar
25.Bunker, J., Forrest, W., Mosteller, F., and Vandam, L., The National Halothane Study: A Study of the Possible Association between Halothane Anesthesia and Postoperative Hepatic Necrosis (Bethesda, MD: The National Institutes of Health, 1969).Google Scholar
26.Tetlock, P. E. and Belkin, A., Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
27.Guillemin, J., Anthrax: the investigation of a deadly outbreak (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999).Google Scholar
28.National Security Archives, Volume V: Anthrax at Sverdlovsk, 1979: U.S. Intelligence on the Deadliest Modern Outbreak. Wampler, Robert A. and Blanton, Thoas S., eds., National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 61. 15 November 2001; https://www.gwu.edu/∼nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB61.Google Scholar
29.Doyle, Arthur Conan, The Complete Sherlock Holmes: All 4 Novels and 56 Short Stories (Bantam Classic and Loveswept, 1998).Google Scholar
30.Wannemacher, R. and Weiner, S., “Trichothecene Mycotoxins,” in Textbook of Military Medicine: Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Sidell, F. R., Takafuji, E. T., and Franz, D. R. (Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General at TMM Publications, 1997), pp. 655–676.Google Scholar
31.Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center. (1985) “Compilation of CW Use Data, 5 July 1985,” (DIA Declassification number 152534).Google Scholar
32.United Nations Group of Experts, Report to the Secretary General (1982). UN Document number A/37/259.Google Scholar
33.Marshall, E., “The Soviet Elephant Grass Theory,” Science, 1982, 217:32.Google Scholar
34.Pavlin, J., “Epidemiology of Bioterrorism,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 1999, 5(4):528.Google Scholar
35.Treadwell, T., Koo, D., Kuker, K., and Khan, A., “Epidemiologic clues to bioterrorism,” Public Health Reports, 2003, 118:92.Google Scholar
36.Evans, A., “Causation and Disease: A chronological journey,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 1978, 108(4):249.Google Scholar
37.Hill, A. B., “Heberden Oration 1965: Reflections on the Controlled Trials,” Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 1966, 25(2):107.Google Scholar
38.Evans, A., “Causation and Disease: the Henle-Koch postulates revisited,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 1976, 49:175.Google Scholar
39.Falkow, S., “Molecular Koch's postulates applied to bacterial pathogenicity — a personal recollection 15 years later,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2004, 2(1):67–72.Google Scholar
40.Merton, R. K., “The Role of Applied Social Science in the Formation of Policy: A Research Memorandum,” Philosophy of Science, 1949, 16(3):161–181.Google Scholar
41.Murray, H. A., Exploration in Personality (New York: Oxford Univesrtiy Press, 1938).Google Scholar
42.Harris, Z., Language and Information (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
43.The Legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and Information into the 21st Century, 2 vols., Nevin, B. E., Johnson, S. B., eds. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers, 2002).Google Scholar
44.Harris, Z., Gottfried, M., Ryckman, T., Mattick, P., Daladier, A., Harris, T. N., and Harris, S.S., The Form of Information in Science: Analysis of an Immunology Sub-language (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987).Google Scholar
45.Sager, N. and Nhan, N. T., “The computability of strings, transformations, and sublanguage,” in The Legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and Information into the 21st Century, 2 vols., Nevin, B. E., Johnson, S. B., eds. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers, 2002), vol. 2, pp. 79–120.Google Scholar
46.Sager, N., Lyman, M., Bucknall, C., Nhan, N., and Tick, L. J., “Natural language processing and the representation of clinical data”, J Am Med Inform Assoc, 1994, 1(2):142–60.Google Scholar
47.Sergot, M., “The representation of law in computer programs: a survey and comparison of past and current projects,” in Bench-Capon, T., ed., Knowledge-Based Systems and Legal Applications (London: Academic Press, 1991), pp. 3–67.Google Scholar
48.Linebarger, M. C., Dahl, D. A., Hirschman, L., and Passoneau, R. J., “Sentence fragments regular structures,” Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Buffalo, NY: 1988).Google Scholar
49.Gaizauskas, R. and Wilks, R., “Information Extraction: Beyond Document Retrieval,” Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 1998, 3(2):17–60.Google Scholar
50.Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P., Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977).Google Scholar
51.Dejong, G., “An overview of the FRUMP system,” in Lehnert, W. and Ringle, M. H., eds., Strategies for Natural Language Processing (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982), pp. 149–176.Google Scholar
52.Hobbs, J. R., “The generic information extraction system,” in Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Message Understanding. (Morristgown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1993), pp. 87–91.Google Scholar
53.Hume, D., A Treatise of Human Nature (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1739/1998).Google Scholar
54.Hauser, M. and Spaulding, B., “Wild rhesus monkeys generate causal inferences about possible and impossible physical transformations in the absence of experience,” Proc National Acad. Sciences, 2006, 103(18):7181–7185.Google Scholar
55.Premack, D. and Premack, A., Original Intelligence (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002).Google Scholar
56.Michotte, A., The Perception of Causality (New York: Basic Books, 1962).Google Scholar
57.Hobbs, J. R., “Toward a Useful Concept of Causality for Lexical Semantics,” J. Semantics, 2005, 22(2):181–209.Google Scholar