Modal close

Dear Democracy Now! visitor,

You turn to Democracy Now! for ad-free news you can trust. Maybe you come for our daily headlines. Maybe you come for in-depth stories that expose corporate and government abuses of power. Democracy Now! brings you crucial reporting like our coverage from the front lines of the Dakota Access pipeline protests or news about this unprecedented US presidential election—and our coverage is never paid for by the oil and gas companies or the campaigns and superPACs. We produce our daily news hour at a fraction of the budget of a commercial news operation—all without ads, government funding or corporate sponsorship. How? This model of news depends on your support. Today, less than 1% of our visitors support Democracy Now! with a donation each year. If even 3% of our website visitors donated just $8 per month, we could cover our basic operating expenses for a year. Pretty amazing right? If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution.

Non-commercial news needs your support.

We rely on contributions from you, our viewers and listeners to do our work. If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution.

Please do your part today.

Topics

Empta</B>

August 27, 1998
Story
WATCH FULL SHOW

The United States State Department has, at different times, offered several reasons for bombing the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant near Khartoum, Sudan: that it was linked to Saudi dissident Osama ben Laden, that U.S. intelligence had secretly found traces of a chemical component Empta that can only be used to make VX nerve gas, that the factory was producing chemical weapons for the Iraqi government.

But now it’s clear that nothing’s clear: experts disagree with the government’s contentions about Empta. A spokesperson for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague says that EMPTA does have legitimate commercial uses. In the strangest twist yet, the New York Times yesterday implied that the U.S. had bombed the factory for humanitarian purposes! The report said, "a military complex on the southern outskirts of the city, not the plant that was attacked, was the most likely place for the production." The story went on to quote American diplomats who said, "they believed that the factory had been chosen as a target because it could be more precisely hit than the military plant and without running the risk of deadly vapors."

But the Sudanese government says the factory produced nearly half of the country’s medicine, including anti-malarial drugs.

Guest:

  • Amy Smithson, a Senior Associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center based in Washington, D.C.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.