Iraq I:  Powell Defends Pre-Emption Policy Amid Senate Doubts

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. debate over the Bush administration’s newly released doctrine on pre-emptive military action continued yesterday, as Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the policy yesterday afternoon before a Senate committee (see GSN, Sept. 23).

Counterbalancing Powell, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger earlier yesterday told the same committee the administration need not and should not invoke a pre-emptive doctrine to use force against Iraq.

“If a terrorist threat is coming our way, or if there is a nation out there that we know is planning to conduct action against us that we could pre-emptively stop, then I see no reason why the president should not do that,” Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The new doctrine was described in a national security strategy document, released by the administration last week, which called for a reinterpretation of customary international law to allow for pre-emption even when there is no evidence that a threat is imminent (see GSN, Sept. 20).

A number of committee members expressed unease with the doctrine, particularly if it were applied to make war on Iraq.

“I know you don’t want to set a precedent that allows India to say, ‘By the way, Pakistan has done the following, we reserve the right to [act] pre-emptively,’” said committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.).

“I just want to make sure that anything I vote for is not premised upon the notion that this is a pre-emptive doctrine,” he said, referring to a proposed resolution sent by the White House to Congress last week that would authorize the president to use force against Iraq (see GSN, Sept. 25).

Powell said pre-emption was not included in the resolution.

The draft resolution offered by the White House says:  “The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.”

U.N. Resolutions As Justification

Congressional leaders are currently negotiating revisions to the draft resolution with advice from the White House (see related GSN story, below).  With congressional backing, the administration is hoping to persuade the Security Council to pass a new resolution that would authorize force against Iraq if it continued to fail to comply with numerous previously passed resolutions.  Administration officials have said if a new authority is not passed, and the Iraqi regime does not begin abiding by the resolutions, President George W. Bush may choose to make war on Iraq to remove Hussein.

Biden said the new doctrine is not necessary for justifying an attack against Iraq and that Iraqi violations of the U.N. resolutions could provide sufficient justification.

Kissinger and Albright at the earlier hearing agreed on that view. 

“I think the issue of pre-emption is a huge issue” and worth discussing, said Albright, “but I think to load this issue now with a major discussion of change in our whole strategic policy is a mistake.”

Kissinger at length made a case for pre-emptive action to deal with WMD threats posed by terrorists who are based in or are supported by foreign states.

He said, however, it is “not an issue that needs to be settled irrevocably now in order to justify action against Iraq.”

Debate Over the Controversy

Powell argued that the pre-emption doctrine should not be considered controversial, as it is not a departure from past U.S. policy.  He said the administration was simply placing greater emphasis on an approach used by previous administrations.

The secretary offered as an example cruise missile attacks ordered by former President Bill Clinton on a suspected chemical weapons facility in Sudan.

“It’s not a new doctrine.  It’s been around for as long as warfare has been around,” he said.  “I can give you example after example in our own history of pre-emptive actions.”

The change, Powell said, is that “pre-emption rises higher in our hierarchy of options,” in order to address terrorist threats that may not be deterred by traditional U.S. means of deterrence.

Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) questioned Powell’s assertion that there is no dramatic change in the doctrine, asking, “When have we ever launched a war against another country on this basis?”

Powell cited the U.S. invasion of Panama during former President George H.W. Bush’s presidency, which resulted in the removal of Panamian President Manuel Noriega.

Powell further asked, “Where does that document say we’re going to launch a war against a country?” and said the doctrine was “written almost exclusively” to address terrorist threats.

Sarbanes disagreed, saying the document also addresses pre-emption of states, not just of terrorist organizations, “which is a radical change in the heretofore approach to dealing with states.”

The document repeatedly cites new threats posed by “rogue states and terrorists,” and Iraq in particular, as justification for pre-emptive action.

Sarbanes also cited as evidence of the document’s novelty its suggestion international law governing pre-emption be reconsidered.

“I think it’s safe to say that it redefines “imminent threat,” he said.  Since the mid-19^th century is has been a principle of customary international law that a state may attack another if there is evidence of an imminent and overwhelming threat, such as the massing of armies.

Kissinger in his prepared testimony also suggested the doctrine amounts to a significant change.

“At bottom, it is a debate between the traditional notion of sovereignty of the nation-state prevalent since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and the adaptation required by both modern technology and the nature of the terrorist threat.”

Administration officials have described Iraq daily as a threat to U.S. national security, and said Iraq poses a particular threat because it might decide to share its weapons of mass destruction with terrorists.

“There’s no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us,” Bush said at a fundraising event last night.  “There’s no doubt he can’t stand us.  After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.”

Powell Questioned About Other Possible Candidates

Sarbanes asked Powell whether he considered Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia and Iran as candidates for pre-emptive action, noting that Kissinger’s testimony listed those countries as harboring terrorists.

“I’m not putting anybody on a candidate list,” said Powell.

“It depends on what the threat is, the reality of that threat, the proximity of that threat, the danger of that threat, and whether or not a president of the United States should take action to pre-empt or prevent such a threat.  And if he has sufficient information that this threat is coming against the United States, and he can take action to prevent it or pre-empt it,” he said.

Back to top

Iraq II:  United States, United Kingdom Agree on U.N. Resolution

The United States and United Kingdom agreed on strong language yesterday for a U.N. resolution demanding that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (see GSN, Sept. 26).

The new language accuses Hussein of violating past U.N. resolutions and warns of dire consequences, believed to mean military action, if he does not comply with inspections, according to the London Independent.  The United States and United Kingdom are expected to submit the resolution to the U.N. Security Council Monday (David Usborne, London Independent, Sept. 27).

France, Russia, China Coordinate Efforts

Meanwhile, the Bush administration stepped up its efforts yesterday to obtain support for its U.N. resolution from the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — France, Russia and China.  Officials added a British official to a delegation, led by Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, traveling to Russia and France.

The U.N. resolution is still mainly a U.S. draft, “but we will be peddling the same goods,” a British official said.

As part of the U.S. efforts, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke to Russian and Chinese foreign ministers yesterday and British and French foreign ministers Wednesday, according to the Washington Post.  Powell said he also met yesterday with Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Zhou Wenzhong to discuss the resolution.

Even though the draft U.N. resolution has not been publicly released, French and Russian officials reacted skeptically yesterday, according to the Post.  France has said it would veto a single U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, a U.S. official said. 

Instead, France supports the passage of two U.N. resolutions — one that would establish the conditions for renewed weapons inspections and a second in the event Iraq failed to comply, the Post reported. 

French President Jacques Chirac discussed the proposal yesterday with Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji and later with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Zhu supports Chirac’s proposal, the French president’s spokeswoman said.

“China approves the two-step approach proposed by France for the Iraq problem within the framework of the United Nations,” spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said.  Chirac and Putin have also agreed to cooperate on Iraq, she said.

Russia supports using existing U.N. resolutions to resolve disputes with Iraq, Putin said.

“We favor a rapid resolution of the situation around (Iraq) on the basis of existing U.N. Security Council resolutions and in accordance with the principles and norms of international law,” he said (Kessler/Lynch, Washington Post, Sept. 27).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

Back to top

Iraq III:  White House, Congress Compromise on Resolution

White House and congressional negotiators yesterday released a revised version of a draft congressional resolution to authorize military action against Iraq in the event that U.S. President George W. Bush were to determine that diplomatic measures had failed (see GSN, Sept. 25).

The new resolution is a scaled-down version of the Bush administration’s proposal last week, according to the Boston Globe.  In the revised resolution, Bush would be required to first inform Congress that military action against Iraq is “necessary and appropriate” and that diplomatic measures had failed in protecting U.S. interests and in ensuring Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions, the Globe reported.

The revised resolution also specifically cites the War Powers Resolution, of which the White House’s proposal included no mention, the Globe reported.  Under the revised text, Bush would be required to report to Congress every 90 days on “matters relevant to” the resolution.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who has been involved in drafting the revised resolution, called it “a working document.”  No final agreement on a resolution has yet been reached, he said (Susan Milligan, Boston Globe, Sept. 27).

“I’m going to do as much as possible to draft a resolution that can be supported by the broadest coalition of senators,” Daschle said.  “We have, in my view, come some distance.  We’ve got a long way to go before that can be achieved.”

Daschle told fellow Democrats that the current revision is as far as the Bush administration will go in making changes, two Democratic senators said.  White House officials and Senate Republicans also said they saw the revision as “take it or leave it.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and other Democrats in the Senate are expected to propose alterative resolutions that would require U.N. action before Bush would be authorized to use force, CNN.com reported (CNN.com, Sept. 27).

Some Democrats in the Senate said they still have concerns over the revised resolution because it would grant Bush the authority to conduct unilateral military action against Iraq (see GSN, Sept. 20).

“It essentially is an authorization for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.  I don’t support that,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).  “This will be the first time in history the nation will have attacked a sovereign country without being attacked.”

The full Senate might vote on the resolution by the end of next week, according to Daschle.  Republican House leaders are also expected to push for a vote by next week, according to the Boston Globe.  Some House Democrats, however, said they want to delay any vote to authorize force.

“The 107th Congress shouldn’t send the 108th Congress to war,” said Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.).

Most Republicans in Congress appear to have chosen to support the resolution or to remain quiet on the issue, according to the Globe.  Democrats appear to want a speedy vote to remove the issue from the November elections, the Globe reported.

“A lot of members of Congress are afraid of stopping the president because of the consequences of getting blamed if things go wrong,” Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said (Milligan, Boston Globe).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

Back to top

Kuwaiti Response:  Kuwait Deploys Early Warning System

In anticipation of a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq, Kuwait has established an early warning system to detect nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, a Kuwaiti official said yesterday.  The system is “part of measures Kuwait adopted some time back to protect itself and residents,” the official said.

U.S. forces also plan to supplement the eight Patriot missile batteries already deployed at key areas in Kuwait, a Kuwaiti defense source said.  The country is taking the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction seriously, Defense Minister Jabir Mubarak al-Hamad al-Sabah said recently.

“History has proved that the Iraqi regime has no moral or political restraint from launching any action against its own people or neighbors,” he said (Fiona MacDonald, Agence France Presse, Sept. 27).

Back to top

North Korea:  U.S. Envoy Schedules Pyongyang Visit for Early October

A U.S. delegation headed by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly is scheduled to travel to North Korea Oct. 3-5, the White House announced yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 26).

“Assistant Secretary Kelly will explain U.S. policy and seek progress on a range of issues of long-standing concern to the United States and the international community,” the White House said in a press release (White House release, Sept. 26).

The trip is the first step in what will probably be a long and involved series of negotiations, a U.S. official said.

“We’ll have wide-ranging discussions on a series of issues including missile production, proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, conventional weapons human rights and humanitarian issues,” the official said.  “We want to pursue these issues in a comprehensive dialogue.  It will require much work to address our long-standing concerns.”

U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to send Kelly to North Korea has not changed his views toward the country, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

Bush still opposes North Korean leader Kim Jong Il’s “starvation of his own people, the militarization efforts that he is leading, the massive number of conventional weapons that he has on the border with South Korea, as well as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” Fleischer said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Sept. 27).

Foreign policy officials within the Bush administration are divided between those who want to further examine North Korea’s new signs of openness and those who think North Korea is merely trying to obtain more international aid, according to the Wall Street Journal.  Some administration officials are encouraged by Pyongyang’s recent moves.  Others, however, are more doubtful, the Journal reported.

“Kim Jong Il is trying to exacerbate tensions between Tokyo, Washington and Seoul,” a U.S. policy-maker said (Murray Hiebert, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 27).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Nuclear Fuel Program Needs More Support, Experts Say

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A U.S.-Russian program to develop fuel alternatives for small nuclear reactors fueled with weapon-grade uranium needs more political and economic support, according to a report released today by the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council (see GSN, Sept. 26).

The U.S.-Russian Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) program works to develop low-enriched uranium fuel for Soviet-designed test and research reactors that currently use highly enriched uranium. Poorly secured HEU could be an attractive target for terrorists seeking material for a nuclear or radiological weapon. 

There are currently about 40 research reactors in Russia that use HEU fuel, plus three in former Soviet states and six in other countries such as North Korea and Libya, according to the report.

“It is vitally important that this effort receive renewed political and financial support in both the United States and Russia,” the report says.  “The program could make an important contribution to the effort to eliminate vulnerable HEU stockpiles in Russia and those other countries that posses Soviet-designed research and test reactors.”

The RERTR program faces several obstacles to its full implementation, however, including financial, political and technical concerns, the report says.  One of the program’s main concerns is a lack of adequate funding, it says.  Currently, the RERTR program’s efforts in Russia are funded through a $1.5 million grant from the U.S. State Department’s Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, but that grant is set to expire soon.

Energy has not attempted to obtain the funds needed to keep the program running at an effective level, the report says.  In fiscal 2003, according to the report, the program will need an additional $3.5 million above the department’s request to continue LEU fuel development and reactor conversion efforts, according to the report.  A large-scale program to convert Russian reactors to use the new fuel would need even more funding, which is unlikely to be available from Russia or other former Soviet states, the report says.

Politics

Political concerns have always hampered the RERTR program, according to the report.

“Perhaps more than any other U.S.-Russian cooperative nuclear security program, the RERTR effort has been directly impacted by larger U.S.-Russian disputes,” the report says.

An example of this involves the Russian Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering, Russia’s chief institute for RERTR efforts, according to the report.  In 1998, the institute was banned from participating in any U.S. nonproliferation activities over concerns that the institute was aiding Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  The sanctions ended the institute’s role in managing Russia’s side of the RERTR contract and has stopped the institute from taking part in any U.S.-Russian cooperation under the program, the report says.

Another political problem is the differing ways U.S. and Russian officials view the program, according to the report.  The United States sees the program as primarily a nonproliferation activity.  Russia, however, also anticipates commercial benefits such as more international nuclear sales, some of which the United States might oppose, the report says.

Technical Issues

RERTR participants have had success in developing LEU alternatives for small reactors, but they have had difficulties in converting reactors to use the new fuel, according to the report (see GSN, April 16).  Some Russian reactor operators are skeptical of the idea of reactor conversion, while some Russian nuclear officials oppose cooperating with the United States on secrecy grounds, the report says.

Russian nuclear experts have also noted dissatisfaction among some Western reactor operators and have said the Energy Department is reluctant to convert some of its own reactors to use LEU fuel, the report says.  These developments have increased fears among Russian nuclear specialists that using LEU fuel would increase their costs and offer poor reactor performance, the report says.

Russian research reactor operators might be persuaded to begin using LEU fuel, if offered a package of incentives, according to the report.  Those incentives could include a guaranteed supply of LEU fuel, assistance in transporting spent fuel off site and payment for and disposal of unused highly enriched uranium fuel, the report says. 

The U.S.-Russian “Megatons to Megawatts” program, under which the Untied States is committed to purchasing HEU taken from Russian nuclear weapons, could be expanded to include small HEU stockpiles from test and research reactors, according to the report (see GSN, June 20).

While the RERTR program is already playing an important role in nonproliferation efforts, increased support could help broaden the program’s scope, the report says.

“The U.S.-Russian RERTR program is serving a critical role in reducing the nonproliferation and security threat associated with the HEU-fueled research reactors in Russia and other countries with Soviet-built reactors,” the report says.  “With adequate funding, political support and coordination with other U.S. nuclear threat reduction efforts, the program could be an effective tool in eliminating highly vulnerable HEU stockpiles in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.”

Back to top

U.S. Testing:  Scientists Conduct Successful Subcritical Test

Scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory successfully conducted the “Rocco” subcritical nuclear experiment yesterday at the Nevada Test Site (see GSN, Sept. 26).  The test, designed to collect data to help maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal, was the 19^th conducted since the subcritical testing program began in 1997 (Associated Press, Sept. 26).

Back to top

United States I:  Officials Prepare to Dismantle Peacekeeper ICBMs

The U.S. Air Force is expected to begin dismantling 50 MX Peacekeeper ICBMs next week at Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming (see GSN, Aug. 2).  The dismantlements will help the United States reduce to the 2,200 deployed warhead limit called for by the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty.  The Peacekeeper dismantlement is expected to take at least three years.

Air base officials received the order last month to dismantle, according to the Associated Press.  Missile sections are slated to be shipped to an Air Force base in Utah and to an unknown U.S. Energy Department location.  The warheads from the Peacekeepers will be used to replace aging warheads on Minuteman 3 ICBMs, base spokesman Sgt. Bryan Gatewood said (see GSN, Aug. 12).

“The Peacekeeper did its job,” said Col. Thomas Shearer, commander of the 90^th Space Wing, responsible for the Peacekeepers at the base, along with 150 Minutemen 3 missiles.  “There’s no doubt it helped win the Cold War, and its place in history is undisputed” (Sarah Cooke, Associated Press, Sept. 27).

For further information, see:

U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)

Back to top

United States II:  General Dynamics Wins Contract to Convert  Submarines

Defense company General Dynamics has won a $443 million U.S. Navy contract to convert four nuclear submarines to carry non-nuclear missiles, Bloomberg.com reported yesterday (see GSN, Apr. 8).

The four Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines will be converted to carry non-nuclear Tomahawk missiles (see GSN, Feb. 22).  The Navy expects the work to be completed by September 2007.  The submarines will be able to carry 154 Tomahawk precision guided missiles and 66 Navy SEALs (Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg.com, Sept. 27).

Back to top

Pakistan:  U.S.-Pakistani Defense Officials Hold Meeting

The relaunched U.S.-Pakistan Defense Consultative Group yesterday held its first formal meeting since 1998, when the United States imposed sanctions after Pakistan conducted nuclear weapons tests (see GSN, Sept. 24).  U.S. and Pakistani defense officials began informal meetings in Pakistan Tuesday.

During yesterday’s meeting, Pakistani officials outlined their military needs.  Pakistani Defense Secretary Lt. Gen. Hamid Nawaz Khan said the meeting would help improve U.S.-Pakistan ties and would help formalize military cooperation efforts.

Heading the U.S. delegation, U.S. Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith said the meeting would help improve relations between the United States and Pakistan through the development of joint military training exercises and exchanges (Dawn, Sep. 27).

U.S. members of the group also met with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf yesterday.  He praised the history of U.S.-Pakistani military cooperation and said he hoped for increased efforts (Dawn, Sept. 27).

For further information, see:

Pakistani Government

Pakistani Embassy to the United States

Back to top

China:  Beijing Prepares for ICBM Test

China has begun preparations to test-fly a Dongfeng 31 intercontinental ballistic missile, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Sept. 3).  A U.S. spy satellite detected preparations taking place at the Wuzhai missile test center in central China, according to the Times.

The Dongfeng 31 would be the first truck-mounted ICBM developed since the Russian SS-25, the Times reported (see GSN, July 15).  A previous Dongfeng 31 test conducted in January failed, officials said (Gertz/Scarborough, Washington Times, Sept. 27).

For further information, see:

Carnegie Endowment World Missile Chart

Back to top

Smallpox:  U.S. Officials Prepare to Offer Vaccine to the Public

In an abrupt change from earlier plans to inoculate only emergency first responders, U.S. officials are preparing to offer an unlicensed smallpox vaccine to all U.S. residents, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, June 26).

Officials have not yet made a final decision or announcement, but the consensus in the Bush administration is that the vaccine will be offered to hospital workers, then nonhospital health workers and eventually to the general public, AP reported.

“You start with one group and based on their potential risk, you keep expanding,” an administration official said.

As recently as this summer officials were recommending that only emergency responders including 20,000 hospital workers — who are at the greatest risk of encountering an infected patient — receive the vaccine.  The company that is supplying the vaccine to the United States has announced, however, that it is making swift progress and has produced the first doses ordered to add to the U.S. stockpile (see GSN, Sept. 19).  U.S. officials have said they anticipate being able to inoculate a large segment of the population as soon as early next year.

The vaccine poses health risks to many and officials are still weighing who should receive the vaccine before it is licensed (Laura Meckler, Associated Press, Sept. 27).

In an uninoculated community, 30 percent of the population would die in a smallpox outbreak, according to Joshua Epstein of the Brookings Institution, who yesterday presented the results of a simulation.  If the same population were given the vaccine, only five percent would die.

Giving the vaccine to the entire community is not the only option, he said.  Inoculating hospital workers before an attack and giving the vaccine to members of a patient’s family immediately after the disease is detected would “provide substantial protection,” Epstein said (Pascal Barollier, Agence France Presse, Sept. 27).

For further information, see:

Journal of the American Medical Association on Smallpox

Back to top

International Response:  Biological Security Convention Needed, Expert Says

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

A multilateral convention to improve security over biological agents in laboratories would reduce the threat of bioterrorism, former U.N. arms inspector to Iraq Jonathan Tucker said in a recently released proposal.

In Preventing Terrorist Access to Dangerous Pathogens:  The Need for International Biosecurity Standards, Tucker said an agreement that helps countries prevent theft or diversion of biological materials would be an effective and “politically realistic” solution.  Tucker currently directs the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation program at Monterey Institute of International Studies.

A biological security convention modeled on the 1994 Nuclear Safety Convention would make acquiring dangerous biological agents more difficult, the proposal said.  The nuclear convention is an “incentive instrument” that does not enforce compliance but relies on member states recognizing the mutual benefit of nuclear safety.

Participants of a biological security convention would recognize that “international standards for the physical protection, control and accounting of dangerous pathogens and toxins would put significant obstacles in the path of would-be terrorists and proliferators,” the proposal says.

Inspecting biological development facilities has proven contentious, as demonstrated last year when the United States rejected an inspection protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, Tucker argued.  U.S. officials said inspections might expose legitimate military and commercial secrets without uncovering biological weapons activities of rogue regimes (see GSN, Sept. 6).

The proposed convention would be a “simple document because it would lack on-site verification provisions and avoid politically contentious topics such as export controls on dual-use equipment or technology transfer,” according to the proposal.

The convention would include a commitment by member parties, a set of universal controls for the “physical protection, control, licensing, and reporting of dangerous pathogens and toxins” and periodic meetings to review progress on implementing standards.

The convention would also require member states to take other steps such as providing a specific list of agents of concern; establishing guidelines for registering and licensing laboratories that work with listed toxins, although a country could keep its list of such facilities confidential; conducting “personnel vetting” procedures on scientists who work with listed toxins; requiring member states to establish import and export controls and a national body to implement those controls; establishing procedures to help some member states achieve security standards and creating a small international body to organize meetings and perform administrative duties.

If the convention is to be effective, it would need to include “all states involved in ‘germ commerce,’” Tucker said.  It would assist international research cooperation as import and export regulations would be standardized.

The convention would also appeal to U.S. companies, Tucker said.  U.S. firms that deal with biological agents already face tight regulations and the convention would ensure that overseas competitors are on a “level regulatory playing field” enforced by their own governments, according to the proposal.

“The limited number of agents subject to regulation should not impose major constraints on legitimate scientific research and drug development, although academic researchers will have to bear additional costs,” Tucker said.

For further information, see:

BWC Text and Associated Documents (U.S. Defense Department)

BWC States Parties (U.S. State Department)

U.N. Background on BWC

Pentagon Executive Summary of BWC

Fifth Review Conference of BWC

Back to top

CWC:  Request Challenge Inspections, Experts Say

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

Members of the Chemical Weapons Convention should exercise a critical “challenge inspections” clause of the agreement soon to prevent the provision from becoming worthless, according to a recent report from the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California (see GSN, Sept. 23).

A treaty party that has a concern about another’s compliance can request a challenge inspection for which no minimum level of evidence is required.  Five years after the convention was enacted, however, no challenge inspections have been requested, according to the report — The Conduct of Challenge Inspections Under the Chemical Weapons Convention, edited by researcher Jonathan Tucker and compiled from a workshop of government and private nonproliferation experts from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, South Africa and Switzerland.

Framers of the treaty intended that members should call for challenge inspections routinely, the experts said.

“Unless the convention’s challenge inspection provisions are exercised in the near future, they will lose all political credibility and hence effectiveness in deterring treaty violations,” the report says.

Challenge inspections might detract from the hundreds of routine inspections for which the convention is responsible, but finances should not be a deciding factor, the experts said.

“Because such inspections are mandated by the CWC, member states will simply have to find the funds to carry them out,” the report says.

Although there have been no challenge inspections to date, the United States has repeatedly accused Iran of violating its treaty obligations, and Cuban officials have made the same allegations regarding the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Workshop participants agreed that one or two challenges per year would give the procedure a sense of normalcy.  The first one used, however, will carry political considerations and possible retaliatory inspections, the experts said.

The convention would also be pressured to conduct the first challenge inspection successfully, the report says.  If the inspection is poorly executed or does not address the compliance concern, it could undermine “the credibility and deterrent value of the CWC.”

Back to top

India:  Officials Fault British Dossier for Reference to Firm

A British dossier designed to offer proof that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction should not have accused only one firm — NEC Engineers in India — of supplying illegal material, Indian government officials said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 24).

If Iraq has rebuilt its weapons program it was with the help of many illicit procurements from a variety of countries, yet the firm from India was the only one identified, a spokeswoman for India’s Foreign Ministry said.

“Such a selective reference to an Indian firm is liable to create a totally wrong impression in the public mind,” she said.  “No detail of actual procurement from specific country or countries has been given except the reference to an Indian firm against whom India has already acted.”

Government officials had already suspended the company’s export license, the spokeswoman said (United Press International, Sept. 26).  Indian authorities arrested NEC Engineers’ chief executive and suspended the firm’s export license in June, the South China Morning Post reported today.

“We’re just a small trading company with a tiny office and about a dozen employees,” general manager of NEC Engineers C.P. Ahuja said.  “I have no idea what Britain is on about” (Amrit Dhillon, South China Morning Post, Sept. 27).

Back to top