By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — A panel of experts Tuesday urged the Bush administration to work to strengthen a range of multilateral arms control regimes, arguing that such mechanisms should be considered a more important tool in the war on terrorism.
“It is better to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction than trying to stop them after they have them,” said Jim Walsh, a research fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, in prepared testimony for a hearing of the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services.
Multilateral regimes “provide a way to build the first line of the defense against nuclear terrorism. Moreover, they do so in a way that is financially and politically prudent. The United States cannot single‑handedly improve the security of all the world's nuclear installations,” he said.
The Bush administration has been criticized by many arms control advocates for rejecting traditional arms control approaches and favoring a unilateral approach. Critics have cited administration decisions to pull the United States out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to reject a mandatory inspection mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention and to oppose ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Heightened multilateral cooperation and pressures are also needed for deterring transfers of materials and expertise that could be used for chemical and biological weapons from government programs around the world to terrorists, wrote Amy Smithson, director of the Henry L Stimson Center’s Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Project, in her testimony.
“For the foreseeable future, such government-run weapons programs are likely to present the most serious unconventional weapons threats to this nation,” she wrote, citing technical obstacles she said could hinder the development of advanced weapons by terrorists.
“If the complete panoply of tools that these treaties embody (e.g., inspection, multilateral export controls) is utilized fully, effectively, and with determination, nations can be compelled, one by one, to abandon these weapons programs,” Smithson wrote.
Elisa Harris, of the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies, similarly argued that government programs, both in the United States and abroad, are the most probable way terrorists could get sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, because of technological hurdles.
“Assistance from national programs is likely to be critical to terrorist efforts to acquire and use chemical or biological weapons successfully,” said Harris.
A former Clinton administration nonproliferation official, Harris praised the Bush administration’s recent emphasis on the possibility that countries that seek or have weapons of mass destruction may assist terrorist networks in obtaining them.
“This emphasis is on the mark,” she said.
She added, however, that such a danger also applies to U.S. WMD programs, as demonstrated in the deadly anthrax attacks last year in the United States.
“Although the perpetrator of these attacks has not yet been apprehended, the anthrax itself almost certainly originated in the U.S. biological defense program, she said.
Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) said commercial enterprises also can be source of such technology.
“We know now that the al-Qaeda network was busy trying to develop biological, chemical, and so-called dirty nuclear weapons. These were not weapons that al-Qaeda could develop on its own — they needed access to foreign technology and foreign scientists,” he said.
“This demonstrates why it is so important that we choke off the proliferation of WMD technology at its source: government labs and commercial enterprises,” Akaka said.
Nuclear Nonproliferation Measures Suggested
Harvard’s Walsh said multilateral nuclear nonproliferation regimes have been unexpectedly effective in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities to states and others.
“Indeed, the absence of widespread proliferation may be the greatest policy success of the 20th century,” he said, citing the establishment of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a key factor.
“Archival documents, interviews with former country leaders, and the general pattern of state behavior suggest that the NPT had a decisive impact on the spread of nuclear weapons,” Walsh said.
Walsh said the administration and Congress have provided insufficient funding toward WMD nonproliferation efforts.
“This year, billions of dollars will be devoted to new weapons systems and other activities whose purpose is to respond to a terrorist attack. Only a tiny fraction of this amount will [be] expended on activities that would prevent WMD terrorism from happening in the first place,” he said.
He noted a recent announcement the administration will donate a little over $1 million to the International Atomic Energy Administration for use in its work to prevent nuclear terrorism.
“There is something seriously wrong when out of billions of dollars for terrorism, only a million dollars in new money — the equivalent of loose change in the federal budget — goes to the one agency that has worldwide responsibilities for preventing nuclear terrorism,” Walsh said.
BWC, CWC Recommendations
Harris said insufficient funding is being provided for elimination of U.S. chemical weapons stocks, in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Both the United States and Russia have said they will be unable to meet the 2007 deadline for destroying their stocks and the treaty organization, which organizes inspection activities, is in a “financial crisis,” she said.
Export controls should be tightened on countries that do not abide by the convention, challenge inspections should be conducted to pursue noncompliance concerns, and the United States should eliminate U.S. legislative “treaty-weakening exemptions” and other obstacles to the inspections, said Smithson.
Harris urged a resumption of negotiations for a mandatory inspection regime for the Biological Weapons Convention and urged amending that convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention to require national outlawing of offensive chemical and biological weapons activities — making individuals, not just governments accountable.
She also recommended that Congress hold oversight hearings on the U.S. biological defense program to ensure that its scientific, legal and foreign policy impact are consistent with U.S. nonproliferation interests.
Delivery Systems
Dennis Gormley, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said multilateral regimes have failed to adapt to restrict emerging threats from terrorists using cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles as delivery vehicles.
“Considering the enormous benefits accruing to the delivery of biological payloads using unmanned air vehicles, their proven record of going undetected, their extremely low cost and the minimal technical barriers to transforming manned into unmanned attack means, kit airplanes, other modified UAVs, or ship-launched cruise missiles could become the terrorist’s weapon of choice for WMD delivery against the American homeland,” he wrote.
The United States is interested in cooperating with other countries to persuade Iraq to stop developing weapons of mass destruction, but it will act alone if necessary, U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday amid continuing speculation that the United States is planning war with Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 13).
“Make no mistake about it. If we need to, we will take necessary action to defend the American people,” Bush said. “I think one of the worst things that could happen in the world is terrorist organizations mating up with nations which have had a bad history and nations which develop weapons of mass destruction” (Alan Sipress, Washington Post, Feb. 14).
Although Bush emphasized his intention to act alone to defend U.S. interests, he also said he would consult with other countries, according to the London Times. Bush looks “forward to working with the world” to pressure states to stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction, he said (Roland Watson, London Times, Feb. 14).
Powell Also Says U.S. Will Consult with Allies
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell also said the United States would consult allies before taking serious action against Iraq.
“When [Bush] acts, he acts after considering all the alternatives and options. He acts after listening to all his advisers. He acts after consulting with his friends and allies … and I think our European friends will continue to see him acting in that regard and in that manner,” Powell said in today’s Financial Times.
Powell confirmed his support for Bush’s statement that Iraq, Iran and North Korea form an “axis of evil” and said European leaders who had criticized Bush’s remarks misunderstood the U.S. president.
“Our European friends should have come to appreciate after a year now that the president tends to do this. He speaks the truth as he sees it,” Powell said.
Powell rejected criticism from French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine and European Union Commissioner for External Affairs Chris Patten, but the secretary said the United States is “sensitive” to European concerns (see GSN, Feb. 6).
“Chris did manage to work himself up a bit last week, and I shall have to have a word with him, as they say in Britain,” Powell said, regarding Patten’s remarks that the United States is taking an “absolutist” approach.
“I have the greatest respect and admiration for Chris, but let’s look at what the president said. The president wasn’t speaking in absolutist, simplistic terms. I think he was speaking in very direct, realistic terms,” he said.
Attack Against Iraq Not Imminent or Specifically Planned
Powell repeated previous statements that U.S. military action against Iraq is not imminent (see GSN, Jan. 31).
“We will watch them, and if there is ever a point where we believe it’s necessary to do something else, we’ll do it,” he said. “But one shouldn’t think that there is some plan on the president’s desk now waiting for him to sign off on. There is not” (Baker/Wolffe, Financial Times, Feb. 13).
U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also said yesterday that there is no definite plan, although he refused to give details (see GSN, Feb. 13). “There’s a bit too much loose talk on the subject, and I don’t want to add any embellishments of my own,” he told the Senate Budget Committee.
Bush has not determined specific plans for dealing with Iraq, Iran and North Korea, Wolfowitz said. Grouping the countries in an “axis of evil” does not mean Bush has “the same policy for all three of them,” he said.
“I don’t think he has drawn conclusions on any of them about exactly what to do,” Wolfowitz said (Sipress, Washington Post, Feb. 14).
Canada Wants Proof
Meanwhile, Canada added its voice to the group of allies who have criticized possible U.S. intentions to confront Iraq militarily. Canada will not support military action against Iraq unless evidence surfaces proving Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister William Graham said yesterday.
Canada also does not support a policy of overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Graham added. He is expected to meet with Powell today. “I want to talk to him about this,” Graham said, regarding Iraq.
He added, however, that Canada remains “very concerned” about Iraqi attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq Vows to Defy United States
Meanwhile, Iraqi officials continued to say that Iraq would fight U.S. attempts to affect the Iraqi leadership. “Iraq will defy American Zionist plots against it in all their forms,” Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 12).
“These statements reflect the criminal and terrorist nature of the American administration,” Ramadan said (Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, Feb. 14).
The United States and Russia have nearly reached agreement on new “smart sanctions” against Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Financial Times Tuesday (see GSN, Feb. 8).
“We are this close” to obtaining Russian support, Powell said. Russia has many commercial interests in Iraq, which has made it more difficult, but Russian negotiators are coming around on the idea of the tightened sanctions, Powell said (see GSN, Jan. 18).
“Iraq is not an easy friend to have, I keep reminding the Russians,” he said.
The “smart sanctions” are part of the Bush’s administration’s efforts to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power, Powell said.
“We believe that Iraq would be better served with a different ... regime, so we have had a policy of regime change,” he said.
A policy of regime change in Iraq, however, does not mean an invasion is forthcoming, Powell said (see GSN, Feb. 12). He said that the smart sanctions are one part of a strategy that also includes measures such as support for opposition forces within Iraq and other unilateral and multilateral options.
Some work is still needed on the smart sanctions plan before U.N. sanctions on Iraq are scheduled to be renewed in May, Powell said. There is still work to be done on a goods review list and on the best way to implement U.N. resolution 1284, which determines when sanctions on Iraq can be removed, he said.
“But we have come a long way and I do hope that we will be able to get that action in May which will put in place smart sanctions and the Iraqis will no longer have the excuse — a false excuse, one that doesn’t really work — that we are hurting innocent people,” Powell said. “They are hurting innocent people. So I think that will happen” (Gerard Baker, Financial Times, Feb. 13).
No Pressure for Syria Over Iraqi Oil
The Bush administration has decided not to pressure Syria over its imports of Iraqi oil, even though there has been a large increase in the amount exported in violation of U.N. sanctions, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Jan. 29).
Syria is importing 150,000 to 200,000 barrels of Iraqi oil per day via a pipeline it reopened in 2000, industry analysts and U.S. officials said. They said Syria is paying Iraq $1 billion per year for the oil, which makes Syria Iraq’s largest source of income outside of the U.N. oil-for-food program. Iraq has probably offered Syria discounts of $2 to $3 dollars per barrel of oil to persuade Syria to break the U.N. restrictions, analysts said.
U.S. officials, however, expressed little criticism over Syria’s imports of Iraq oil during two recent visits to Syria, according to the Post. In his visit last month, John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, briefly stated U.S. opposition to Syria’s Iraqi oil imports, according to diplomats.
In a visit to Damascus in December, Assistant Secretary of State William Burns mentioned the U.S. displeasure over the Iraqi oil purchases, but chose instead to focus much of his visit on U.S.-Syrian cooperation in the war on terrorism, officials said. Syria has increased its sharing of intelligence on Islamic militant groups with the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks, they said.
“Make no mistake about it, the pipeline issue is a serious topic and a point of contention,” said a U.S. official. “Are we willing to make it a sticking point so that it affects the relationship between our two countries? No. We have to be pragmatic.”
Syria has received only “some quantities” of Iraqi oil through the pipeline in order to test it, and has not paid for the oil, said Rostom Zoubi, Syria’s Ambassador to the United States. When the pipeline is operational, Syria will apply to the U.N. Security Council for approval to operate it under the oil-for-food program, Zoubi said. He said Syria plans to open a second, more economical oil pipeline to Iraq that will also be operated under U.N. requirements.
“Syria has always complied with United Nations Security Council resolutions,” Zoubi said. “Syrian trade with Iraq is always based on the oil-for-food program” (Sipress/Lynch, Washington Post, Feb. 14).
The U.S. Defense and Energy departments have developed a plan to create test beds for defenses against weapons of mass destruction delivered by means other than missiles or military aircraft, Homeland Security & Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 13).
Under the plan, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the National Nuclear Security Administration will develop “test beds at four installations of a varied nature,” said DTRA spokeswoman Maj. Linda Ritchie.
“The test beds will operate like an advanced concept technology demonstration test bed for weapons of mass destruction defense and force protection concepts, equipment and innovation,” Ritchie said. The proposed test beds “will enable the rapid transition of vetted ideas to high value installations.”
The first two test beds are expected to be set up by Oct. 1. The first will be established at the Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, Ritchie said. The second test bed will be at a U.S. military seaport, she said. Officials will create two more test beds at other installations with high traffic levels and security needs, Ritchie said.
Congress allocated $50 million for the plan in the current fiscal year, according to Homeland Security & Defense. Out of that, $20 million is allocated for the test beds and $30 million is for related projects by the Energy Department, FBI and other agencies (Rich Tuttle, Homeland Security & Defense, Feb. 13).
| 
Back to top
