Exclusive: US lies on Sudan bombing exposed

Mike Marqusee reports on scientific research exposing US-British claims about chemical weapons manufacture in Sudan.

A little-noticed article in an American magazine casts grave doubts on the credibility of the US justification for the recent bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. After the bombing, US officials claimed that the presence of a chemical called EMPTA in a soil sample taken from the area proved the factory was producing VX nerve gas, and therefore justified the lethal Cruise missile attack.

However, the 31st August issue of Chemical & Engineering News, which is published by the American Chemical Society, makes it clear that no such inference can reasonably be drawn from the presence of EMPTA in a soil sample.

In an article entitled, "Soil sample is key to US missile strike in Sudan", C&E News points out that EMPTA (O-ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid) is a Schedule 2 compound under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). This means that it is recognised as a 'dual-use' compound with a variety of legitimate uses unrelated to weapons manufacture. According to C&E News, EMPTA is used "in making fungicides, pesticides, and antimicrobial agents." This would confirm the Sudanese Government's claims about the nature of the factory.

Under the CWC, of which the US is a signatory, compounds used only to produce chemical munitions are classified as 'Schedule 1'. Schedule 3 compounds are 'dual use' but generally used in large quantities for other purposes. Since US negotiators have agreed that EMPTA is a schedule 2, not a Schedule 1 compound, and since it is known to be regularly used for legitimate commercial purposes, US government statements claiming that its presence in a soil sample justified passing a death sentence on civilian workers in Sudan was clearly bogus.

C&E News reporters pressed the US government for details on the soil sample. According to the magazine, officials refuse to provide information on: "1. where the soil sample was collected (in or outside the plant); 2. who collected it; 3. what the sample's chain of custody had been; 4. how much EMPTA was in the sample; 5. what other chemicals were also detected; 6. what lab analyzed the sample."

A research chemist in the USA has informed LLB that in the absence of such details, no scientific conclusions could possibly be reached regarding the sample. "No US court would accept a soil sample in evidence, for example in an environmental law case, unless all these questions were answered," she said. "Yet it appears that the US government considers such scanty and dubious evidence sufficient to pass a death sentence on people in a foreign country."

In August, Defence Secretary George Robertson was quick to proffer unequivocal support to the US action on the basis that US intelligence had irrefutable "proof" that the factory is Sudan was manufacturing chemical weapons. Robertson should be pressed to withdraw that false assertion. LLB urges Labour MPs to secure an immediate inquiry into the whole affair.

previous article ·  Oct '98 index of LLB ·  write to LLB ·  LLB home page ·  next article