By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address last night has sparked debate among U.S. scholars as to whether the United States should carry its war on terrorism to Iraq, Iran and North Korea, Bush’s so-called “axis of evil” (see related GSN story, today).
While analysts agree Iraq poses a dangerous threat not just to the United States, but to the world as a whole because of its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, several were surprised Bush also singled out Iran and North Korea.
“There’s been a lot of talk about going to war with Iraq, but until now I haven’t heard anyone say they would act on Iran or North Korea,” Lawrence Korb, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Global Security Newswire this morning.
“If anything, relations with North Korea are better than they were during the Clinton administration,” Korb said. “The fact of the matter is Iran helped us prosecute the war in Afghanistan.”
Others, however, believe Bush has legitimate reason to put both Tehran and Pyongyang on notice. North Korea is believed to still be trying to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, and Iran is suspected of aiding rebels in western Afghanistan, sending arms to various terrorist groups and possibly providing safe harbor for al-Qaeda fugitives.
“He didn’t say these regimes needed to be taken down, he said they will not be able to have weapons that threaten us,” said Dan Goure, a senior fellow at the Lexington Institute. “I thought it was almost a second declaration of war … It’s necessary. We can no longer rely on defense and deterrence.”
Several analysts believe Bush is treading dangerous ground by indicating the United States may take preemptive military actions against countries that harbor terrorists or try to develop weapons of mass destruction. The consequences of any such actions must be carefully thought out and planned, they said.
“He is trying to make it clear that they can get out of the business of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, or they can stay in it and face our wrath,” said Tony Blinken, who served on the National Security Council from 1994 until last year.
“I’m sure that by singling these countries out the president has good information,” Blinken continued. “As long as you’re prepared to back up your rhetoric with deeds, great. If you don’t the message is going to ring hallow and actually wind up being counterproductive.”
Some analysts believe Bush was too vague.
“I think the president exaggerates the threat and understates the problem” of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, said Joseph Cirincione, director of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace.
“It’s very clear that he’s trying to put America on a permanent war footing,” Cirincione said. “There are real dangers here, but nothing to indicate that they’re so urgent that they require a new war. Yes, Iran and North Korea are pursuing weapons of mass destruction. So are Pakistan, India, Israel and, if you include chemical and biological [agents], about a dozen other countries. It’s a broader and more pernicious problem than he stated.”
The problem, according to Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow with the Center of Strategic and International Studies, is that former President Bill Clinton used the rhetoric of morality to little or no effect and now President Bush is using the rhetoric of force.
“It’s very easy to use the rhetoric of force,” Cordesman said. “The question is whether the president has very concrete plans to act with more force than the Clinton administration.”
For Bush to back up his words with action, particularly military strikes, he has to convince the U.S. public and the world at large that action against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea is warranted — and worth the risks, analysts said.
“He’s trying to psychologically steel the American people for what’s to come,” said Mike Frank, vice president of government affairs for the Heritage Foundation. “Wherever terrorism rears its head, he feels he has a mission to root it out and destroy it.”
The threats of combat missions against Iraq, Iran and North Korea could be perceived two ways, according to Blinken. Bush could be laying the groundwork for actual wars against these countries, or he could simply be trying to build international pressure against them.
Concerning Iran, Bush is likely maneuvering to steer its populous away from the radical Islamic fundamentalism of its influential clerics toward the more moderate beliefs of President Mohammad Khatami, Blinken noted.
“I think the president said what had to be said — the threat of terrorism is not gone and it could grow worse,” said Loren Thompson, vice president of the Lexington Institute.
“We cannot sit still and hope” for positive changes from countries that support terrorist groups or pursue weapons of mass destruction, Thompson said. “We need to tell these countries the consequences of not changing.”
Cirincione expressed dismay that Bush did not mention a single arms control treaty, which he called “the most effective tools in reducing proliferation.”
The administration has come under global criticism for taking an apparently anti-treaty stance, as in recent months it has backed away from outside inspections being considered for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and for announcing its withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
“He has reduced U.S. proliferation policy to export controls and the use of military force,” Cirincione said. “The Bush proliferation policy represents a great leap backward. He’s put us back more than 40 years, back to the Eisenhower administration when we thought export controls alone could control weapons proliferation.”
Goure said that military action might be necessary against Iraq, Iran, North Korea and possibly other countries because they seem determined to develop weapons of mass destruction, the use of which would affect the whole world, not just the United States.
He noted that when Israel felt threatened by Iraq’s development of a nuclear reactor in 1981, its leaders did not rely on their possession of nuclear bombs as a deterrent. Instead Israel launched conventional air strikes that destroyed the Iraqi facility.
“We’re coming much closer to preemptive action,” Goure said. “The logic of deterrence does not hold up here.”
U.S. President George W. Bush last night told Congress and the country that the United States would not allow countries or terrorists to threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction and listed North Korea, Iran and Iraq as states that posed such threats (see GSN, Jan. 29).
In Bush’s first State of the Union speech, he also said that al-Qaeda had planned additional attacks against the United States, and he urged Americans to be vigilant against future terrorist attacks.
Bush clearly stated his intentions to wage war against terrorism and the states that support terrorists. “So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it,” he said.
“We must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world,” Bush said. “By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States.”
Iraq
Bush mentioned Iraq more extensively than any other country, save Afghanistan.
“Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade,” he said. “This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors (see GSN, Jan. 28). This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world” (White House transcript, Jan. 29).
Bush has earlier made similar remarks about Iraq (see GSN, Nov. 27, 2001), but last night’s speech was the strongest rhetoric yet, according to the New York Times. The comments indicated an ambitious policy of diplomacy and perhaps military action against Iraq and certain other countries that develop weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Jan. 7), the Times reported (Michael Gordon, New York Times, Jan. 30).
Bush referred to Iraq, North Korea, Iran and other states combined with “their terrorist allies” as “an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world” (White House transcript, Jan. 29). His terms constitute a major change from the Clinton administration, which referred to the three countries as “rogue states” or “states of concern” (Gordon, New York Times, Jan. 30).
The administration has not yet decided how to deal with Iraq, but Bush indicated that he would expand the war against terrorism to states that could threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction and that he had sided with administration and military officials who have advocated a hard-line policy, the Times reported.
Senior U.S. officials have been debating how the United States should deal with Iraq since Bush became president (see GSN, Jan. 24).
“The hard-liners have been arguing that after Sept. 11 it is intolerable to live in a world in which Iraq, Iran and North Korea have weapons of mass destruction. Bush has now fully embraced this paradigm,” said Ivo Daalder, a foreign policy analyst at the Brookings Institution (Gordon, New York Times, Jan. 30).
Iran
The president also addressed Iran: “Iran aggressively pursues [weapons of mass destruction] and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom” (White House transcript, Jan. 29).
The criticism of Iran was more surprising than comments against North Korea and Iraq, according to the Washington Post. U.S.-Iranian relations generally had been improving, and senior U.S. officials had expressed appreciation for Iran’s condemnation of the Sept. 11 attacks, Iran’s offer to help U.S. pilots downed over Afghanistan who ended up in Iran and the country’s participation in discussions to create a new Afghan government.
Relations had cooled lately, however, particularly over an arms shipment that Israel intercepted on its way to the Palestinian territories that Israel and the United States said came from Iran. The United States also recently included Iran in a list of countries (see GSN, Jan. 16) it accused of having a biological weapons program (Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, Jan. 30).
Action Against the “Axis of Evil”
Regarding the alleged “Axis of Evil,” Bush said that “in any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.”
“We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: Americans will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security.
“We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons,” Bush said (White House transcript, Jan. 29).
Although Bush did not mention any specific military actions, a senior White House official said people should not “read anything into any [country] name in terms of the next phase” of the war on terrorism.
“We’ve always said there are a number of elements of national power” in the U.S. arsenal, and “this is not a call to use a specific element,” the official said (DeYoung, Washington Post, Jan. 30).
Thanks, Pakistan
Bush expressed gratitude to Pakistan. “My hope is that all nations will heed our call and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own,” he said. “Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President [Pervez] Musharraf” (see GSN, Jan. 9).
Al-Qaeda Plans Mass Destruction; Threats Remain
Bush said the United States has evidence that al-Qaeda planned to attack the United States to cause mass destruction.
“We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world,” he said (see GSN, Jan. 25).
“What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning … Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning,” Bush said (White House transcript, Jan. 29).
Bush was referring to previously classified evidence that had alarmed top officials, said a senior Bush administration official.
“We had circumstantial evidence in the past of this, that they were directly targeting America: monuments and things like that. But now we know that it was all true,” the official said. “We know from fragmentary intelligence that they were interested in this kind of thing. But the fact that the president has mentioned it in a State of the Union indicates the quality of the evidence.”
Bush is attempting to prepare the U.S. public for possible future attacks and the need for continued vigilance by making the information public (see GSN, Jan. 4), the official said (Meyer/Zitner, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 30).
Current and Future U.S. Action Against Terrorism
Bush outlined U.S. actions and plans to counter threats of terrorism. “While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere,” he said.
“We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country’s armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American and still hold hostages (see GSN, Nov. 26, 2001). Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons (see GSN, Jan. 18) and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia (see GSN, Jan. 19),” Bush said.
The president said his budget proposal for fiscal 2003 would provide more money to conduct the war on terrorism abroad and defend the homeland, including “the largest increase in defense spending in two decades” (see GSN, Jan. 22).
The war in Afghanistan costs more than $30 million a day, “and we must be prepared for future operations,” Bush said. “Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace again aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely … Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay,” Bush said.
The United States also needs to act to protect its homeland against future attack, the president said.
“My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism, emergency response, airport and border security and improved intelligence,” he said. “We will develop vaccines to fight anthrax and other deadly diseases (see GSN, Jan. 24). We’ll increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our heroic police and firefighters (see GSN, Jan. 24). We will improve intelligence collection and sharing, expand patrols at our borders, strengthen the security of air travel and use technology to track the arrivals and departures of visitors to the United States.
“Homeland security will make America not only stronger, but, in many ways, better. Knowledge gained from bioterrorism research will improve public health. Stronger police and fire departments will mean safer neighborhoods. Stricter border enforcement will help combat illegal drugs. And as government works to better secure our homeland, America will continue to depend on the eyes and ears of alert citizens,” Bush said (White House transcript, Jan. 29).
By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — A month after the Patriot Act took effect, its anti-money laundering provisions have had success, but Congress needs to amend the law to more effectively tighten the financial noose around terrorist groups, the head of the Justice Department Criminal Division told U.S. senators yesterday.
Tracking “clean money” bound for illicit organizations must be strengthened to combat the widespread “reverse money laundering” techniques used by terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
“We need to change the way we think about money laundering,” Chertoff testified, noting that the Justice Department wants to restrict the interstate transfer of more than $10,000 to so it can track — and, it is hoped, crack down on — organizations and individuals who might try to fund terrorists.
“Since 1986, when the money laundering laws were first enacted, law enforcement has looked backward to determine the source of the money and how it has been concealed,” Chertoff said.
“In this age of international terrorism, if we are to protect our citizens and prevent future terrorists acts, we must be forward-looking,” he continued. “What are the funds going to be used for and why are steps being taken to conceal the identity of the originator or the source of the funds?”
The United States has recently frozen $80 million in suspected terrorist funds worldwide, Representative John LaFalce (D-N.Y.) told the committee. Of that, between $15 million and $20 million was prevented from reaching al-Qaeda’s terrorist network when the United States shut down an al-Barakaat hawala in Somalia last year, according to U.S. Treasury Secretary Kenneth Dam. Hawalas are informal organizations that transfer money throughout the world.
“We remain focused on finishing off al-Qaeda,” Dam said. “We believe that al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are suffering as a result of our actions. We also believe that potential donors are being more cautious about giving money to organizations where they fear that the money might wind up in the hands of terrorists.”
Committee Chairman Paul Sarbanes (R-Md.) indicated the panel supports legislative moves that further hinder terrorist funding.
The Patriot Act, which in addition to squeezing financial transfers of suspected criminals outlaws the “attempted wrecking of a mass transportation vehicle,” a provision that calls for the death penalty, has only been used once thus far, without going to trial yet. Richard Colvin Reid, accused of trying to use a homemade shoe bomb to blow up an American Airlines flight over the Atlantic Ocean, was recently indicted by a Boston grand jury on this and eight other counts, including attempted murder and another untested provision in another law that covers “attempted use of weapons of mass destruction” (see GSN, Jan. 17).
While the new law has been used to freeze the assets of nine New Jersey and Florida bank accounts apparently associated with the Sept. 11 strikes, it has only been used once to successfully seize overseas assets of an indicted suspect. U.S. authorities recently retrieved $1.7 million from the Belize bank account of James R. Gibson, a lawyer accused of defrauding Illinois tort victims by siphoning funds from their settlement agreements.
While the Gibson case is unrelated to terrorism, it highlights how crucial it is for U.S. authorities to have financial laws on the books that other countries might recognize and uphold, as Belize did, Chertoff said.
Legal investigators also want Congress to amend the Patriot Act so authorities can track domestic bank accounts believed to support terrorists groups, particularly those of hawalas, Chertoff said. By making the interstate transfer of $10,000 or more illegal without cause, investigators might be able to better track or crack down on the U.S. finances of terrorists, he added.
In order to pinch the finances of terrorists who aim to organize and conduct mass casualty attacks, the Justice Department wants Congress to give it power to more closely scrutinize hawalas and other groups making large transactions with apparently “clean money,” Chertoff testified.
“In terrorism cases it is now clear that terrorists engage in so-called ‘reverse’ money laundering in which they transport large quantities of cash that is not derived from any illegal source but which is intended to be used to finance a terrorist act,” Chertoff said.
“Not only do we need the legislation addressing the use of ‘clean money’ intended to be used for the promotion of terrorism and other serious crime, but we need new tools to deal with the concurrent and dependent transactions involving ‘clean money’ washed through hawalas to support criminal activity.”
The U.S. Defense Department recently certified weapons of mass destruction civil support teams from the national guards of Arkansas, California, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Virginia, officials told Congress Monday.
Congress has authorized a total of 32 teams to prepare to assist civil authorities respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. Legislators appropriated funds in fiscal 2000 to certify 17 teams — the seven certified this week, seven others previously certified and three that remain to be certified. All 10 teams funded in fiscal 1999 have been certified, and five teams funded in fiscal 2001 are being created (Defense Department release, Jan. 28).
Canadian officials are split over plans to create a unified North American defense structure with the United States, according to reports today (see GSN, Jan. 29). The Canadian debate has centered around the balance between security and sovereignty, with the military generally supporting an integrated command and the Foreign Affairs Ministry, joined by some members of parliament, expressing deep skepticism.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a plan last week to create a regional commander in chief for North America to defend the continent from air, sea and land threats (see GSN, Jan. 28). The new command, if the United States implements it, would expand beyond the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which the United States and Canada created in 1958, according to the Calgary Herald (Mike Trickey, Calgary Herald, Jan. 30).
NORAD operates as a binational command that controls warplanes from Canada and the United States for mutual defense purposes. The U.S. Defense Department proposal could create an integrated command between the two countries — probably based at Colorado’s Cheyenne Mountain — to command air, sea and land forces protecting North America, the Globe and Mail reported.
Discussions on defense structure changes, however, have only recently begun. A Canadian delegation was in Washington last week to receive a U.S. briefing on the proposal.
“We’ve made no decision with respect to any changes,” said Canadian Defense Minister Art Eggleton.
Command Structure Could Change
Some Canadian officials said changes could mean extending NORAD to cover land and sea operations in addition to air forces.
“We declared ourselves ready to consider an arrangement that could extend to land and sea,” Canadian Vice Chief of Defense Staff George Macdonald said Monday (Allison Dunfield, Globe and Mail, Jan. 29).
U.S. officials also said the easiest way to change the structure would be adding land and sea forces to the NORAD structure. The United States, however, would probably require Canada to agree to U.S. national missile defense plans before agreeing to that change, according to the Herald.
The U.S. plan could also end up cutting Canada out of most of the decisions regarding cooperative defense efforts, the Herald reported. Under NORAD, Canada always has one of its own air force generals as deputy commander, but a new system might not continue that practice.
“If there’s a new Homeland Command, we’re concerned about where NORAD fits into that because right now it’s a binational command that reports to Canadian authorities as well as American authorities,” Eggleton said yesterday.
Critics Express Concern
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley has expressed serious concern about the plan.
“I don’t personally see how you put all of North American land, sea and air under one command structure that we could be part of,” he said (Trickey, Calgary Herald, Jan. 30).
Some Canadian analysts and legislators said the plan might jeopardize Canadian sovereignty. New Democratic Party House Leader Bill Blaikie said increased defense integration with the United States could be step toward union.
Canada could lose its ability to make its own decisions about nuclear weapons and other issues, said Steven Staples of the Council of Canadians. “Mutual defense is founded upon mutual trust, and the U.S. really doesn’t trust us. These discussions have been happening without Canada’s full involvement,” he said.
Several legislators said the Canadian government needed to be more forthcoming with information about possible structure changes.
“These are issues which go to the heart of Canadian sovereignty and Canadian security, and there is simply to excuse for denying the facts to the people and Parliament of Canada,” said Progressive Conservative Party Leader Joe Clark in a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
Chretien said if there was any agreement, the government would inform the House of Commons, and there would be debate (Chase/Foss, Globe and Mail, Jan. 30).
Military Supports Potential Changes
Despite the criticism, some Canadian analysts and military officials said Canadian participation in a more integrated defense is essential to maintaining Canadian input.
“Either you’re part of it, and you accept the reality that you’re the junior partner, or you’re not and you accept the reality the U.S. will set up a command structure operation over Canadian territory or off our shores without involving us,” said Gordon Smith of the University of Victoria’s Center for Global Studies.
“There’s not a military force in the world that could guarantee 100 percent protection of Canada’s land mass and airspace … it’s just too big. So it have to be done with a coalition force,” said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis Mackenzie (Chase/Foss, Globe and Mail, Jan. 30).
| 
Back to top
