|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Response: Washington Wants to “Roll Back” Illicit Weapons from “Rogue” States By David Ruppe The statement was delivered even as administration officials are increasingly pressed to defend the U.S. justification for the March invasion of Iraq, where U.S.-led occupation forces have so far found no unconventional weapons. Speaking at a House International Relations Committee hearing, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said the use of force would not necessarily be the first or only option for addressing suspected proliferation, but said it would be a consideration. “We aim ultimately not just to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, but also to eliminate or roll back such weapons from rogue states and terrorist groups that already possess them or are close to doing so,” he said. “While we stress peaceful and diplomatic solutions to the proliferation threat, as [U.S.] President [George W.] Bush has said repeatedly, we rule out no options. To do so would give the proliferators the safe haven they do not deserve, and pose a risk to our innocent civilian population and those of our friends and allies,” he said. In his prepared testimony, Bolton described Iran and North Korea as “axis of evil” countries and Libya, Syria, Cuba and Sudan as “beyond the axis of evil” countries either possessing such weapons or having a program, or “effort,” to acquire such weapons. “The logic of adverse consequences must fall not only on the states aspiring to possess these weapons, but on the states supplying them as well,” he said. Interdiction Plan Bolton described a new U.S. plan, the Proliferation Security Initiative, through which the United States and allies would cooperate to interdict transfers of internationally restricted weapons and related technologies “at sea, in the air, and on land” (see GSN, June 2). He said the United States plans to work with other countries using “a broad range of legal, diplomatic, economic, military and other tools,” and has begun working with “several close friends and allies to expand our ability to stop and seize suspected WMD transfers.” The plan received endorsements from both Republican and Democratic committee members. Criticism of Iraq Approach Bolton’s comments were delivered as the administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair receive continuing criticism over the fact that no unconventional weapons have yet been found in occupied Iraq. Several Democrats on the committee yesterday restated the criticisms. “Like millions of Americans, I’m wondering where the hell the weapons of mass destruction are. I think the administration faces a growing credibility gap regarding the weapons of mass destruction,” said Representative Joseph Hoeffel (D-Pa.). Bolton said he anticipates that finding such weapons and their production means “will occur in due course.” The invasion of Iraq and the administration’s policy of threatening force against unconventional weapons proliferators are controversial, in part, because the U.N. Security Council did not specifically authorize the Iraqi war and customary international law permits a pre-emptive attack only when there is evidence of an imminent threat. Bolton said the “inextricable link between weapons of mass destruction capabilities and [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s regime meant that the only way ultimately that we could be secure both in ourselves and in terms of our friends and allies, that the intent of Resolution 687 be carried out, was to resort to military force.” He said the United States was motivated because of Hussein’s “desire” to acquire unconventional weapons. Bolton said, “it was his desire to have these weapons, his desire to conceal them from U.N. weapons inspectors, his desire to evade U.N. sanctions over more than a decade to procure the prerequisites to having weapons of mass destruction and his repeated and insistent violation of numerous Security Council resolutions that brought us to the conclusion that there was no option other than the use of military force to change the regime in Baghdad and deny them the use of weapons of mass destruction.” Bolton reiterated a statement in an earlier speech that a suspected Iraqi capacity for developing and producing unconventional weapons offered justification for a military attack (see GSN, May 23). “It’s the weapon, it’s the delivery system, it’s the means of production, it’s the research and development, it’s the intellectual capacity, all of which are points on a spectrum,” he said. “I think it’s very unlikely that we will find weapons-grade uranium or weapons-grade plutonium in Iraq. But what we will find, what we know is there now, is the cadre of nuclear scientists and technicians, whom Saddam Hussein himself called his nuclear mujahadeen, who are the possessors of the intellectual know-how of how to construct nuclear weapons,” he said. Representative Chris Bell (D-Texas) said the threatened use of force against proliferators could be counterproductive, potentially instigating an acceleration of the very proliferation activities it is intended to address. “Our country’s pre-emptive actions, overwhelming military strength, and unprecedented projection of power capabilities have engendered distrust, resentment and hostile feelings in countries around the world and I’m afraid that in the interest of possessing some kind of leverage against what may be seen as overwhelming force, we have not provided a disincentive for nonproliferation, but rather an incentive,” he said. Bolton responded, “It seems to me the lesson for the proliferators is that we don’t think that these weapons that you seek are things that you should have when they threaten us and our friends and our allies, and we are determined either to prevent you from getting them or to roll back the capacity if you have it.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
