Documents Show Hussein Tried to Convince U.N. that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction

Documents confiscated by the U.S. government after the invasion of Iraq indicate that former President Saddam Hussein and high-ranking Iraqi officials in the 1990s sought to prove that the country no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 20).

“We don't have anything hidden!” Hussein said, according to transcripts.

On another occasion, he wondered if U.N. inspectors would “roam for 50 years” looking for weapons of mass destruction.

“When is this going to end?” he asked.

Documents also illustrate the secretive nature of the Hussein regime. A 1997 intelligence document told agencies to block U.N. inspectors from obtaining confidential files and to get rid of “forbidden equipment.”

As Iraqi WMD programs had ended by that time, the document might refer to equipment and information from chemical, biological and nuclear programs that operated during the 1980s, AP reported.

Officials said they hoped to revive these programs one day. “The factories will remain in our brains,” an unnamed official said at one meeting believed to have occurred in the early 1990s.

Hussein at that session talked about converting chemical weapons factories for peaceful purposes, AP reported.

After U.N. inspectors took equipment that could be used for insecticide or pharmaceutical production, Hussein said they had “no right” to take the equipment as “they have ascertained that we have no intention to produce in this field (chemical weapons).”

Numerous times in the transcripts Hussein and top officials note that Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons were destroyed and WMD production programs stopped in the early 1990s.

“We played by the rules of the game,” said Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in the mid-1990s. “In 1991, our weapons were destroyed.”

Weapons program official Amer Mohammed Rashid said in 1996 that he told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had no WMD programs.

“We don't have anything to hide, so we’re giving you all the details,” he said.

Hussein was working to have sanctions lifted by convincing the United Nations that he did not have weapons of mass destruction. He believed he was blocked by hard-liners in the United States.

Inspectors “destroyed everything and said, ‘Iraq completed 95 percent of their commitment,’” Saddam said. “We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify).

“Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing,” he added (Charles Hanley, Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, March 21).

Back to top

U.N. Security Council Postpones Meeting on Iran Nuclear Standoff

The U.N. Security Council yesterday delayed meeting on Iran’s controversial nuclear activities due to an impasse between China and Russia and the Western powers, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 21).

Senior diplomats from the five council powers plus Germany were unable to reconcile their differences during a meeting Monday evening, forcing France, Germany and the United Kingdom to resume work on a draft council statement.

Diplomats said yesterday that they planned to focus on bilateral meetings in hopes of reaching consensus.

“We’ll just keep working on it,” said John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, March 22).

European and U.S. negotiators said the International Atomic Energy Agency briefed officials within the last week on Tehran’s preparations for assembling 164 uranium enrichment centrifuges, the New York Times reported today.

“What this means is that time is not on our side,” said one European diplomat. “It means that while we are negotiating, Iran is not wasting its time.”

There has been speculation that Western nations, under perceived time pressure, would push for a binding Security Council resolution rather than a statement. However, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said he had heard strong support for a statement at Monday’s meeting of council powers.

“We believe that the members of the Security Council all have an interest in issuing this presidential statement, because the most important step we can now take is to send a common, united, clear message to Iran — that is, suspend your nuclear program and return to negotiations,” he said. “It may take some time to achieve the final wording, but we believe that goal is attainable.”

China's ambassador, Wang Guangya, said Russia opposed references in the British-French draft text to Iran’s activities being a threat to international peace and stability, words he said could lead to sanctions.

“I believe that the Russian concern has its logic,” Wang said.

Russian officials also objected to noting the specific demands on Tehran, including suspension of all uranium-enrichment related activities, arguing that they are included in the resolution issued earlier this month by the IAEA governing board, he said.

Wang said Beijing prefers a “brief political statement” aimed at reinforcing the agency’s authority and placing “some pressure” on Iran to cooperate.

French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said Paris did not want to drop the specific language.

“We are not in favor of a too general statement,” he said. “We want a precise and strong message.”

British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry agreed.

“What France and Britain both feel is that if this text is to be amended further, it should be amended in order to come to an agreed conclusion,” he said. “And if there is no prospect of an agreed conclusion, we won’t be amending the text” (Warren Hoge, New York Times, March 22).

Diplomats said the United States was prepared to push for a tough resolution if the impasse on a presidential statement continues through the week, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday.

One Western diplomat said the United States and Europe would work on persuading Russia at least through this week, before possibly “throwing down a draft U.N. Security Council resolution and forcing them to vote on it.”

“This would up the ante right away,” said another Western diplomat.

Diplomats said a resolution could pass with China and Russia abstaining.

A resolution of this sort, “even with abstentions, would still be a strong step in New York,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, a nonproliferation analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“It would set a new legal framework,” for pressure on Iran, he said (Agence France-Presse I/SpaceWar.com, March 21).

U.S. President George W. Bush warned yesterday that Iran could “blackmail” the world if it obtained nuclear weapons, AFP reported.

“If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon, they could blackmail the world. If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon, they could proliferate,” he said.

Bush said he continued to favor a diplomatic solution to the standoff (Agence France-Presse II/IranMania.com, March 21).

Iranian nuclear documents have been linked to a blueprint for a warhead bought by Libya on the black market, the London Daily Telegraph reported today.

A 15-page document on manufacturing enriched uranium hemispheres was discovered among documents submitted in October by Tehran to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Diplomatic sources said the instructions were “similar” to a full blueprint sold to Libya by former top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

“They are part of the same recipe,” said one source.

Iran allowed the agency to study the hemispheres document, copy it by hand and place it under seal.

“We can’t figure out why Iran would have given this document to the inspectors.  They probably just made a mistake and did not realize it was there,” said one Western source.

Iranian officials have claimed that Tehran did not request the document, which they said was provided free by Khan’s network along with enrichment technology in 1987.

“I have seen the document. Of the 15 pages, only 1 1/2 deal with hemispheres in a general, nontechnical manner. We have never used it,” said Iranian IAEA Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh (Anton La Guardia, Daily Telegraph, March 22).

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said today that his country would not yield to any Security Council decree, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported.

“The use of civilian nuclear technology is necessary for the progress of any country, and, therefore, the Iranian nation will resist any pressure in this regard,” he said.

“We would not even give in to Security Council decisions if they were contrary to our national interests,” he said.

Khamenei also said the nuclear matter would not be included in possible talks with the United States on Iraq (Deutsche Presse-Agentur/Khaleej Times, March 22).

Back to top

Expert Warns of Risks of India-U.S. Nuclear Pact

By David Francis
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A nuclear weapons expert warned yesterday that the risks of nuclear proliferation associated with the United States sharing nuclear technology with India far outweigh the benefits offered by the proposed deal (see GSN, March 21).

The agreement “is a major, major geostrategic bet by the administration,” said Michael Krepon, president emeritus of the Henry L. Stimson Center, speaking at a forum here. “It’s a bet that the upside potential of U.S.-India relations will be greater than the downside risks of nuclear proliferation. So this is a big bet.  It’s a bold bet.”

New Delhi and Washington announced the agreement in July 2005 and finalized the deal this month during a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President George W. Bush. In order to receive nuclear technology, India — a nuclear weapons state that has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — would have to place its civilian nuclear reactors under international safeguards. Indian military reactors would not be subject to international monitoring.

Both sides have said the deal is necessary to meet New Delhi’s growing demand for energy as the country’s economy expands and to improve ties between the two countries. 

Bush has defended the deal, saying the agreement would not benefit India’s nuclear weapons program and does not undermine nonproliferation efforts. The White House also said the deal does not hamper negotiations with Iran and North Korea on their nuclear programs (see GSN, March 9).

The U.S. Congress, which must approve the deal before it takes effect, has expressed concerns that the agreement would mean trouble for the international nonproliferation regime (see GSN, March 3). The Bush administration has warned that any changes requested by lawmakers would scuttle the pact.

Krepon claimed the White House’s failure to consult with Congress before moving forward with the deal indicates a “closed-loop” decision-making process in which no one outside of a select few presidential advisers was consulted. He said the process was reminiscent of the buildup to the Iraq war, in which Bush was convinced of the course of action and did not involve people with opposing opinions.

“I think this detour, the India deal, has much in common with the detour we took in Iraq.   We are seeing the fruition of a fixed idea developed among a very small circle of the president’s advisers. Once again, second guessers, executive branch expertise, were largely excluded in making this deal. Congress was entirely excluded prior to the July 18 agreement in principal,” he said. “Key allies, Nuclear Supplier Group members … were largely excluded from the thinking that went into this deal.”

“These tactics and President Bush’s penchant for making huge, boldly consequential decisions have not served our armed forces very well in Iraq,” he added.

The White House is right to increase cooperation with India, Krepon said. Partnerships in areas such as space exploration, agriculture, public health, trade and investment have been beneficial to both countries, he said.

Adding the nuclear element, however, could dramatically alter their relationship, he said. It outweighs the other agreements, and its failure could sour relations between the India and the United States

The agreement “becomes the litmus test for the health of the relationship,” Krepon said. 

He also disputed the assertion that the deal was only about increasing India’s energy production. While the country would be able to increase the energy supply, the U.S. technology would also theoretically free up Indian capacity to build up its nuclear arsenal.

“The agreement is not only about electricity,” Krepon said. “It’s about India’s military nuclear program.”

Finally, Krepon said the deal undermines nonproliferation efforts, as other countries would expect similar deals. This would lead to increases in the amount of potential nuclear weapons materials available, while one of the goals of the nonproliferation regime is to reduce this amount.

He noted that Russia has already agreed to sell uranium to India, and that France and Libya are working on an agreement similar to the one signed by New Delhi and Washington. Australia is also reportedly considering uranium sales to India (see GSN, March 21).

He said the United States must limit nuclear sharing to India and not extend similar offers to other nations. “If we can’t, then we’re in trouble.”

However, Krepon said a scenario in which only India received such technology was “wildly optimistic.” Other countries are likely to follow the lead of the United States and India and forge nuclear agreements that advance their strategic interests, he argued.

Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso today echoed Krepon’s concerns, arguing that the agreement would create a “double standard” that could make it more difficult to deal with rogue nuclear states such as Iran and North Korea.

Aso’s comments contradicted earlier statements made by Japan, a U.S. ally that has been looking to improve ties with India, according to Agence France-Presse.

“It is good that inspectors can get in there” to monitor nuclear reactors, he said. “But our largest concern is that the current order becomes obsolete,” he added, referring to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Aso said he shared his concerns with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying he told her “to take into consideration not having a negative influence on Iran and North Korea.”

“I also told Rice the deal would be criticized for sure as being a double standard,” he said.

Back to top

North Korea Announces Pre-Emptive Strike Capability

North Korea announced yesterday that could launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, USA Today reported (see GSN, March 21).

“Our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter (a) possible U.S. pre-emptive strike,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States” (USA Today, March 22).

The United States called on North Korea to resume multilateral nuclear disarmament talks rather than making “inflammatory statements,” Agence France-Presse reported yesterday.

“We’ve been very clear, the president, the secretary of state and others have made it very clear that the United States has no plans to invade or attack North Korea,” said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 21).

Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador in Seoul reportedly told South Korean lawmakers on Friday that Pyongyang could discuss U.S. regulatory actions in response to Pyongyang’s alleged financial crimes “in the context of the six-party talks, where many different contacts can take place,” the Associated Press reported today.

Alexander Vershbow’s comments seemed to indicate a shift in U.S. policy. Washington has maintained that the nuclear and financial issues are separate. The U.S. Embassy in Seoul would not confirm the remarks, according to AP.

“I understand that (the ambassador) meant that this kind of issue can be discussed within the framework of six-party talks if the talks resume,” South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said today.

However, U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the U.S. position remained unchanged. He said an agreement at the multilateral talks last year allowed for economic and trade consultations within the six-party framework.

South Korea’s top nuclear envoy, Chun Young-woo, is expected in Washington today for consultations with his U.S. counterpart, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, according to AP (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press/Khaleej Times, March 22).

Elsewhere, the United Nations is preparing an economic package for North Korea to help end the nuclear dispute, the Yonhap News Agency reported yesterday.

The package would include fuel but would not necessarily come directly from the United Nations, said Maurice Strong, a former U.N. vice secretary general.

The aid would be separate from an economic package expected to be offered by countries involved in the nuclear talks, although those countries would be “key parties” in the U.N. effort as well, he said (Yonhap News Agency, March 21).

Back to top

U.S. Calls for Federal Regulation of Chemical Plants

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said yesterday that federal security regulations are needed for chemical facilities that would allow companies to devise their own safeguards, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 21).

Chertoff said that Congress must give his agency the power to mandate security improvements at facilities that are attractive terrorist targets, but that any federal requirements must be flexible.

“We ought to say to the industry, ‘Look, here's where we need to go,’” Chertoff said at a chemical industry forum. “Now, there are a lot of different roads to get there. And you can choose the road that best fits your particular kind of chemical, or your particular type of operation. We're not going to micromanage.  What we do insist, though, is that you get to the place you need to be.”

The secretary said he wants Homeland Security to set performance standards by which chemical companies would abide. These standards would not dictate specific measures, such as fences or gates, but would demand the development of adequate safety plans.

Auditors working for the department would then check the plans to ensure they met federal requirements, according to AP.

Major chemical companies lauded Chertoff’s proposal. The plan largely focused on smaller companies that have not made security improvements due to the significant price tag.

“What we're doing at Dow falls very much in line with what the secretary was talking about,” said Tim Scott, chief security officer at Dow Chemical. “We approach security from a risk management perspective, and we try to identify the right level of risk and the right approach to reduce that risk at all of our sites.”

Chertoff added that federal regulations should not meet environmentalists’ demands to require substances that would be less dangerous if released into the environment during a terrorist attack or accident (Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press/Santa Fe New Mexican, March 21).

Back to top

Russia Begins Second Phase of Chemical Weapons Destruction at Kambarka Facility

Russia yesterday initiated the second phase of chemical weapons disposal at its Kambarka facility, ITAR-Tass reported yesterday (see GSN, March 2).

The first phase began on March 1 and has disposed of 28 tons of lewisite, according to facility information center chief Gennady Knyazev. The start of the second phase puts the process on an industrial footing in which 360 kilograms of chemical agent is to be eliminated each hour, ITAR-Tass reported. The facility is scheduled to dispose of as much as 2,500 tons of the lewisite annually.

Kambarka is one of seven chemical weapons arsenals in the country. Germany, a primary investor in the destruction facility, donated more than $190 million for the project (ITAR-Tass, March 21).

Back to top

Lawyers Urge Japan to Care for Chinese CW Victims

Lawyers are calling on Japan to take responsibility for Chinese citizens harmed by chemical weapons left in the country during World War II by the retreating Japanese army, the Xinhua News Agency reported today (see GSN, March 21).

According to a joint declaration issued by the lawyers, the Chinese and Japanese governments are in talks on how to fully eliminate the remaining munitions. The declaration said Japan, however, has moved too slowly to recover and process the weapons, putting Chinese citizens at risk.

The Japanese government should quickly retrieve the weapons and apologize to people victimized by the arms, the Chinese and Japanese lawyers said. The declaration also asks for Japan to provide treatment and necessities for the victims. 

In the past three days, 51 Chinese victims have undergone medical checkups. Lawyers said these patients were experiencing ongoing eyesight, skin and breathing problems. Others have comprised immune systems, said Li Xiaojun, vice president of a hospital in the Heilongjiang Province.

A Japanese physician said many of these victims could be saved if they receive treatment quickly (Xinhua, March 22).

Back to top

Mustard Gas Leak Discovered at Deseret CW Depot

Workers at the Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah on Monday discovered that approximately two tablespoons of liquefied mustard gas had leaked from a container valve in a storage igloo, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 15).

The employees discovered the leak while monitoring the igloo. Workers donned protective gear to decontaminate the container and then moved it to another building where the valve was replaced, according to AP.

No mustard agent escaped the igloo, and the public was not in danger (Associated Press/Deseret Morning News, March 21).

Meanwhile, a fire broke out early Sunday morning at the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Oregon during destruction of a rocket containing the nerve agent sarin, the Tri-City Herald reported.

The fire began at 2:06 a.m., after the agent had been drained from the munition. Weapons disposal restarted around 4 p.m. Sunday.

The fire — the seventh this year at Umatilla — began when the fifth of seven cuts was being made in the rocket. It occurred in a room meant to contain explosions (Tri-City Herald, March 21).

Back to top

North Korea Reportedly Upgrades Mobile Missiles

North Korea is improving its mobile missile arsenal but does not have a missile capable of reaching the continental United States, Reuters reported today (see GSN, March 10).

Pyongyang this month launched two or three short-range missiles that used solid fuel rather than liquid fuel. Ease of transportation and deployment, as well as accuracy, are improved by such a technological advance, the Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies said in a report released today.

“With solid fuel, the missiles can be launched more quickly. The surprise element increases and they are much more difficult to defend against,” said Daniel Pinkston, director of the center’s East Asia nonproliferation program.

The report says Pyongyang’s foreign currency revenues are greatly enhanced by its missile exports.

“North Korea’s earliest and most loyal customer for missiles and missile technology has been Iran,” the document says.

Pyongyang possesses more than 800 ballistic missiles, some capable of carrying chemical or biological agents, the report states.

The researchers found that North Korea does not yet have an operational missile that could reach the United States (see GSN, March 8). However, U.S. military officials have said it is developing longer-range missiles, including a solid-fuel Taepodong-X that has a potential range of up to 4,000 kilometers. The missile’s reliability has yet to be proven in flight tests, but if it worked it could reach Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Reuters reported.

Pyongyang has also failed to miniaturize a nuclear weapon for use in a warhead, the report says.

“North Korea has not demonstrated the capability to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be part of a missile warhead or the capability to produce a re-entry vehicle,” it says.

The paper adds that Pyongyang has two or three missiles that could reach Japan. Among them is the Rodong.

“Given the missile’s relative inaccuracy, the Rodong is more useful as a ‘terror weapon’ against population centers than as a significant military system — unless it is armed with a nuclear warhead,” the report says (Jon Herskovitz, Reuters, March 22).

Back to top