The United States and China failed to reach an agreement on WMD proliferation after U.S. President George W. Bush met with Chinese President Jiang Zemin yesterday in Beijing, said a top U.S. official. Bush had hoped to receive a guarantee that China would stop selling technologies for missiles and weapons of mass destruction to countries that the United States views as threats, particularly North Korea, Iran and Iraq, according to Reuters (see GSN, Feb. 20).
“My government hopes that China will strongly oppose the proliferation of missiles and other deadly technologies,” Bush said yesterday during a joint news conference with Jiang (Reuters/New York Times, Feb. 21).
“The talks are getting a little bit better, but it’s going to take a while,” said U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The two leaders discussed a November 2000 agreement in which China said it would stop exporting missiles and missile technology in exchange for U.S. licenses for companies involved in commercial space programs.
After the agreement, however, the United States said China had continued to sell missile technology, and U.S. officials imposed sanctions on certain Chinese companies. China said it had not agreed to halt weapons projects already underway, but the United States disagreed (Allen/Pan, Washington Post, Feb. 21).
The United States imposed sanctions on a Chinese firm on Sept. 1, 2001, for transferring missile technology to Pakistan (see GSN, Feb. 4). Last month, officials imposed sanctions on two more Chinese firms and one individual for exporting chemical and biological weapons technology to Iran (see GSN, Jan. 24).
“Firms in China have provided dual-use missile-related items, raw materials, and/or assistance to several other countries of proliferation concern — such as Iran, North Korea and Libya,” said a CIA report to Congress in January (see GSN, Jan. 31).
China, which has said the sanctions are unreasonable, said the companies were either exporting technology without government knowledge, or they were exporting information allowed under U.S.-China agreements.
Bush wanted China to agree to develop a list of items prohibited for export under nonproliferation agreements. China will probably issue such a list in the next few months but wants to avoid publicly granting U.S. requests during the high-visibility presidential meeting, said some diplomats. The United States also wants China to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime, according to Reuters.
Nonproliferation was the Bush administration’s No. 1 priority in Chinese relations even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to Reuters (Reuters/New York Times, Feb. 21).
“We’re making it clear that weapons of mass destruction, the missiles that deliver them — it’s all part of an evil web,” said a U.S. official. “You better not be seen as contributing to the construction of that web” (Randall Mikkelsen, Reuters, Feb. 21).
Chinese View
The issue of U.S. support for Taiwan and certain events over the last year that have damaged the U.S.-Chinese relationship have helped make China reluctant to agree to U.S. nonproliferation demands, the Economist reported. Bush has said the United States will do “whatever it takes” to defend Taiwan, and last year he approved the largest arms sale to Taiwan in almost a decade (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2001). China might view nonproliferation cooperation as a bargaining chip to prevent more U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan, according to the Economist.
Last year’s collision of Chinese and U.S. aircraft, which killed the Chinese pilot and resulted in the temporary detention of the U.S. crew in China, also strained relations. Before the plane crash, China had developed a list of goods banned for export under nonproliferation agreements, but the crash slowed cooperation, said Dingli Shen of the Fudan University in Shanghai.
Sanctions “further infuriated the Chinese government, making a resolution [of the proliferation issue] even less possible,” said Shen (Economist, Feb. 21).
Preferential Treatment?
Bush has called North Korea “evil” for its proliferation of missile and WMD technologies, but he has taken a more diplomatic approach toward China, according to the New York Times (see GSN, Jan. 30).
One reason could be Chinese statements that the government cannot control every business transaction.
“This is one of the big differences between North Korea and China,” said Robert Einhorn of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “North Korea sells the technology for hard currency, and the government is involved in every sale.”
“The Chinese system is more complicated now,” said Einhorn, who negotiated earlier missile agreements with China. “They have made some political commitments to nonproliferation, but they also have some longstanding commitments to old customers, and some in China say, ‘We’re going to honor them, no matter what the Foreign Ministry signed.’”
The United States also has more business ties with China, while it has almost no commercial links with Iraq, Iran or North Korea — Bush’s “axis of evil.” U.S. officials have also expressed optimism that China is liberalizing and moving toward a more democratic system (David Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 21).
U.S. and Chinese Presidents George W. Bush and Jiang Zemin today said they would work together to persuade North Korea to negotiate with the United States (see GSN, Feb. 20).
“We would be willing to meet with the North Korean regime, and I asked his help in conveying that message,” Bush said during a joint press conference with Jiang at the Great Hall in Beijing. If Jiang “speaks to the leader of North Korea, he can assure him I am sincere in my desire to have our folks meet.”
Jiang said he supports Bush’s position on talks with North Korea. “We also sincerely hope that the contacts between the United States and North Korea can be resumed,” Jiang said (Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, Feb. 21).
What Will Kim Jong Il Do?
The next step is for North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to decide whether to accept Bush’s offer of negotiations, a decision that could be difficult for Kim to make, according to experts.
“Every option facing Kim Jong Il would lead to his demise,” said Ahn Young-sop, professor of North Korean studies at Myongji University in Seoul. “He is in a Catch-22 situation. Opening up would spell the end of the regime, but they cannot continue like this indefinitely.”
Kim could use Bush’s offer in an attempt to obtain more aid, analysts said. They added, however, that they doubt Kim would quickly accept Bush’s offer because North Korea deeply mistrusts the U.S. leader.
“There is a fear in North Korea that the U.S. intention is hostile and that they have only got things to lose,” said a European diplomat in Seoul. Bush’s speeches “do not offer anything new to bring Kim Jong Il to the table — they do not change his options.”
While talks between the United States and North Korea are inevitable at some point in the future, Kim’s probable immediate reaction is to retreat into further isolation, analysts said. Without the assistance of China and Russia, North Korea’s traditional allies, Kim’s regime cannot survive by itself, they added.
North Korea might threaten to launch military strikes if its economy is on the verge of collapse, said Yeon Ha-cheong, a specialist on the North Korean economy at Myongji University.
“North Korea has traditionally used brinkmanship to win concessions from the international community,” Yeon said.
Even though Bush said the United States has no plans for military action in Korea, Kim may be less willing to attempt to bully Bush than some of his predecessors, Yeon said.
“The North Korean leadership recognizes that brinkmanship would be more risky with … Bush,” he said.
“I used to think Kim Jong Il had a clever long-term survival plan, but these days I’m not so sure,” said a Western diplomat familiar with Pyongyang. “I’m starting to think there is no strategy. He doesn’t know how he is going to get North Korea out of its predicament” (Andrew Ward, Financial Times, Feb. 21).
Federal law enforcement officials yesterday conducted raids in 14 states on the offices of Al-Shafei Family Connect Inc. (AFCI), which is suspected of illegal money transfers to Iraq.
The raids, conducted by officials from several federal, state and local agencies led by the U.S. Customs Service, targeted individuals who have served as money-transfer agents for AFCI, based in Mountlake Terrace, Wash. No one was arrested in the raids, but officers seized evidence from 14 locations, according to the Washington Times. Charges in the case are still pending.
“Federal law prohibits the direct or indirect transfer of funds to the government of Iraq or its people,” said Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner. “The U.S. Customs Service is committed to uncovering and punishing those who violate Iraqi embargo statutes.”
The Iraqi embargo was put into place after the Gulf War. The main condition for ultimately lifting the embargo is a return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq to ensure Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Feb. 13).
AFCI is a company that allows immigrants in the United States to transfer money back to their home countries, the Times reported. The Customs Service has alleged that AFCI has sent millions of dollars to Iraq in violation of the embargo. Bank records showed that from 1999 to 2000, AFCI transferred more than $15 million to Jordanian individuals and companies, which was then later sent to Iraq, Customs officials said (Jerry Seper, Washington Times, Feb. 21).
AFCI might not have come to the attention of the Customs Service if Hussain Alshafei, an Iraqi-American who owns the company, had not filed a lawsuit against Bank of America, according to the Wall Street Journal. Bank of America last year attempted to close AFCI’s account for reasons that are still not known.
In early January, Alshafei filed a declaration in his lawsuit that said, “Approximately 80 to 90 percent of Iraqi refugees in the United States use Alshafei Family Connect Inc. to send money back to their family members in Iraq.”
In his lawsuit, Alshafei accused Bank of America of discrimination when it tried to close AFCI’s account. Custom agents in Seattle learned of the case in local news stories, according to the Journal (Glenn Simpson, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 21).
U.N. Oil-for-Food Program
Meanwhile, the United States has blocked more than $5 billion in contracts under the U.N. oil-for-food program, according to a U.N. report released yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 14).
The blocked contracts include more than $4 billion in humanitarian supplies and more than $700 million in equipment for Iraq’s oil industry, according to this week’s report from the U.N. office of the Iraq program.
A U.N. Security Council sanctions committee approves the contracts in the oil-for-food program, according to Reuters. Any one of the 15 members can block a contract. The United States has been responsible for nearly all the blocked contracts, while the United Kingdom has added its objections to contracts worth $500,000, said members of the sanctions committee (Reuters/London Guardian, Feb. 21).
Iraqi oil exports through the oil-for-food program have been on a steady decline over the last few weeks, according to the U.N. office on the Iraq program (see GSN, Jan. 16).
Iraq traded 10.6 million barrels of oil for $189 million during the week that ended Feb. 15. In the previous week, Iraq exported 11.5 million barrels of oil, and the week before that, more than 13 million barrels, the U.N. office said (Xinhua, Feb. 20).
Let Inspectors in, Sudan Says
Sudan recently attempted to persuade Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, Arab diplomatic sources said yesterday.
Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail met with Hussein to deliver him a message from Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, according to the Iraqi News Agency. Ismail traveled to Baghdad for the opening of a new Sudanese Embassy, according to CNN.com.
“Sudan’s government and people are standing in the face of the ferocious aggression against Iraq and backing efforts aimed at lifting the embargo,” Ismail said, according to the Iraqi News Agency.
At the opening ceremony for the Sudanese Embassy, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said that Iraq has approached the United Nations via Arab League Secretary-General Amre Moussa to start a dialogue on the issue of U.N. inspectors.
“We’re now in contact with the U.N. to appoint a date for the beginning of the dialogue,” Sabri said (CNN.com, Feb. 20).
U.N. officials charged with searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are paring down their list of unresolved issues in order to meet U.N. Security Council requirements, according to the Wall Street Journal (see GSN, Feb. 15).
The U.N. Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission’s 42 full-time employees in New York have developed a 300-page binder on 100 unresolved questions left over in 1998 from seven years of inspections by the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq. The information used to compile the questions — including old inspection reports, defectors’ testimonies, satellite photos and previous Iraqi declarations — fills dozens of filing cabinets and is being entered into a searchable database.
UNMOVIC must begin cutting the 100 unresolved questions down to between five and 20 questions that inspectors would focus on if they return to Iraq, said UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix.
Prioritizing Weapons of Mass Destruction
After Iraq refused in 1998 to allow UNSCOM to return, the Security Council conducted lengthy negotiations that resulted in the creation of UNMOVIC. Russia and France demanded that the new inspection team cut down the list of crucial issues and create specific tasks that Iraq must accomplish to prove it is not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, according to the Journal. UNMOVIC’s mandate gives inspectors 60 days after returning to Iraq to establish a list of targets.
That means Blix and his colleagues must prioritize disarmament issues. For example, the lethal nerve agent Tabun probably could be eliminated from the list of problems, Blix said, because it dissipates quickly and is less toxic than other chemical weapons, such as VX nerve.
Deciding not to focus on some possible Iraqi weapons such as Tabun is difficult, but “there are degrees even in hell,” Blix said. Another UNMOVIC official agreed. “If you’re going to round up the weapons in New York City, you’d go after all the submachine guns, not the hammers,” the official said.
After UNMOVIC decides which weapons and issues to focus on, commissioners will create a list of tasks that Iraq must finish to prove it has ended WMD programs, such as providing purchase orders and inventory records.
Based on such information and inspections, Blix must decide if Iraq has cooperated and report his findings to the Security Council. If he reports that Iraq has successfully completed its duties, the council could vote to suspend sanctions against Iraq for 120-day periods (see GSN, Feb. 14). Eventually, if Iraq cooperates and UNMOVIC determines the country has sufficiently met U.N. requirements, the council could end sanctions permanently.
If Iraq refuses to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into the country or fails to comply with the inspectors, the United States has strongly indicated it would take serious — and possibly military — action, the Journal reported (see GSN, Feb. 14).
A Difficult Job
UNMOVIC faces many challenges. One problem is that the commission still lacks much essential information, despite its huge amounts of data, the Journal reported. There is little sound evidence of Iraq’s WMD programs since UNSCOM inspectors left in 1998, although UNMOVIC has collected some information from satellite photos.
“We can see new roofs. But we won’t know what’s going on under those roofs until we get inside,” Blix said.
Inspectors believe Iraq has maintained its capabilities to produce chemical and biological weapons (see GSN, Jan. 31). UNMOVIC will probably need 80 to 100 inspectors at all times to visit 700 sites, including 50 to 100 new sites, Blix said.
Other recent information indicates that Iraq continues to pursue WMD programs. An Iraqi defector last year said Iraq has rebuilt WMD facilities since 1998 and has disguised them under homes, wells and a hospital (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2001). U.S. satellites have also discovered construction at suspected weapons facilities.
Another challenge is that Iraq has a history of thwarting international inspectors. Iraqi officials gave UNSCOM false declarations, hid weapons and refused to allow inspectors access to facilities once they were discovered. They are very skilled at showing enough cooperation to split the Security Council while never surrendering their main stockpiles, said Charles Duelfer, former UNSCOM deputy chief.
In 1998 UNSCOM inspectors thought they had located most of Iraq’s long-range missiles and chemical weapons, but they were only beginning to investigate the country’s biological weapons program, the Journal reported.
Despite the many challenges facing UNMOVIC, the commission’s officials have said inspections would be viable because historically, Iraqi officials tend to keep all records.
“There’s always somebody who has a log book or a diary. There’s information spread all around,” said Demetrius Perricos, UNMOVIC’s planning and operations chief.
UNSCOM-lite?
Several Security Council members, particularly France and Russia, have insisted that UNMOVIC be less aggressive than UNSCOM. They want a smaller list of issues, specific guidelines for Iraq to meet and a clear indication of when inspections and sanctions would end, according to the Journal.
UNMOVIC has the right to search anywhere if it goes to Iraq, and inspectors could continue to investigate until they are satisfied that Iraq has ended its WMD programs. The council, however, is pressuring the commission to be more sensitive to Iraqi feelings and to finish quickly. UNMOVIC inspectors have even completed cultural sensitivity training.
Due to such pressure and compromises over developing UNMOVIC, some critics have called it “UNSCOM-lite,” according to the Journal. Some critics have charged that the 1999 council resolution which created UNMOVIC places responsibility on inspectors to prove Iraq has disarmed, rather than expecting Iraq to prove it has ended its programs. Blix, however, said he intends to conduct serious inspections.
“Cosmetic inspections are worse than none,” he said. Iraq must allow inspectors “immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access,” he said.
Blix said he would honestly report any doubts he has about Iraqi cooperation.
“I am very firmly of the view that no inspection organ should report more than they actually can verify,” he said (Carla Anne Robbins, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 21).
British authorities have determined that the risk to the United Kingdom of a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction is low. A low risk classification means that an attack could occur, but its likelihood is lower than the threat from bombs or bullets, according to today’s London Telegraph.
British security authorities decided to reassess the risk of WMD terrorism after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, but they determined that the difficulty of obtaining and using weapons of mass destruction puts serious restraints on terrorists’ capabilities.
Authorities also decided that the Irish Republican Army has little interest in using chemical weapons, particularly because its militants plan to escape, unlike al-Qaeda suicide terrorists.
The United Kingdom has increased security measures (see GSN, Dec. 11, 2001), including placing fences and guards around public water facilities, monitoring suspicious imports and purchases and fortifying certain areas with concrete blocks to prevent suicide attacks using vehicles (John Steele, London Telegraph, Feb. 21).
| 
Back to top
