While Iraq criticized U.N. weapons inspectors, alleging that they were engaged in spying activities, inspectors visited at least four suspect Iraqi sites today, according to Reuters (see GSN, Jan. 3).
Experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency visited the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, believed to be the main facility in Iraq’s nuclear program. IAEA inspectors have visited buildings at the site repeatedly since inspections resumed in late November.
Teams from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission have visited at least three sites today, according to Iraqi officials. Two UNMOVIC teams visited the bin Bitar research center, located about five miles north of Baghdad; and the Fallujah 3 pesticide factory, located about 55 miles northwest of the Iraqi capital, Reuters reported. UNMOVIC inspectors also visited a free-trade zone in Faydah, about 240 miles north of Baghdad (Reuters/MSNBC.com, Jan. 6).
Yesterday, inspectors visited 16 sites within Iraq, setting a one-day record, according to Iraqi officials. The sites included a graphite facility, a hospital in the northern city of Mosul and a university and a hospital in the southern city of Basra, according to Reuters.
Inspectors also visited a food laboratory, a glass research center and four state-owned companies — al-Basel, al-Khawarizmi, al-Tabani and al-Majd — at the National Monitoring Directorate complex in Baghdad (Reuters/Los Angeles Times, Jan. 6). While there, inspectors exercised their authority to close all entrances and exits to a site, according to the New York Times.
The lockdown of the complex detained Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri, who criticized the inspectors’ action. “I think their behavior was unjustified, and the inspection teams could behave in a more civilized way,” al-Douri said.
Gen. Hussam Mohamed Amin, chief Iraqi liaison with the inspectors, said the UNMOVIC chemical team visiting the complex was merely flexing its muscle by locking down the site.
“They wanted to exercise their maximum intrusiveness, the toughest implementation possible of Resolution 1441,” Amin said, referring to the U.N. resolution that established the latest inspection regime.
The directorate complex, which contains about 50 buildings, was locked down so inspectors could make an overall assessment of how the site’s research facilities might be connected, U.N. spokesmen said.
“They froze the entire site because they wanted to do an overall technical assessment of its capabilities, and not just pinpoint here and there,” UNMOVIC spokesman Ewen Buchanan said.
U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is scheduled to update the U.N. Security Council Thursday on the status of the inspections (Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, Jan. 6).
Spying Allegations
Meanwhile, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein accused inspectors today of using their mission to conduct “intelligence work.” The inspectors are trying to acquire the names of Iraqi scientists, asking them questions that indicated “hidden agendas” and trying to obtain information on military facilities, Hussein said in his annual Army Day speech.
“All or most” of such activities “constitute purely intelligence work,” Hussein said.
An IAEA spokeswoman denied Hussein’s charges and said inspectors were collecting information meant solely for the United Nations.
“We certainly flatly reject any accusation that we work for any government or provide direct information to any single government,” IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.
In his speech, Hussein also predicted a victory for Iraq if the United States chose to invade.
“We are in our country and whoever is in his own homeland ... and is forced to face an enemy that stands on the side of falsehood and comes as an aggressor from beyond seas and oceans will no doubt emerge triumphant,” Hussein said (Sameer Yacoub, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Jan. 6).
U.S. Covert Action
About 100 U.S. special forces members and more than 50 CIA operatives have been operating within Iraq for at least the past four months, according to intelligence officials and military analysts (see GSN, Oct. 18, 2002). While the covert Iraqi missions are separate from the actions of U.N. inspectors, the two groups might be conducting parallel operations, a U.S. intelligence official said.
The U.S. operatives are believed to be working in northern Iraq, near the southern city of Basra, in the western desert neighboring Jordan and even close to Baghdad itself, according to analysts. In those areas, U.S. forces are conducting a number of missions, including searching for Scud ballistic missile launchers, monitoring oil fields, identifying minefields and helping pilots attack Iraqi air-defense systems, according to the sources.
In the desert near Jordan, the U.S. mission is “to identify likely areas for mobile missile operations,” said Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute (John Donnelly, Boston Globe, Jan. 5).
Post-Hussein Iraq
The White House national security team is finalizing a plan for the administration of Iraq and its transition to a democratic government after the fall of the Hussein regime, according to the New York Times (see GSN, Nov. 11, 2002).
The plan, which has been discussed in detail with U.S. President George W. Bush, envisions a large U.S. military presence in Iraq for a period of time following Hussein’s ouster, war crime trials for only the most senior Iraqi officials and a quick capture of the country’s oil fields to help fund its reconstruction, the Times reported.
The Pentagon has begun preparing to maintain military control of Iraq for at least 18 months — with U.S. troops searching for senior Iraqi officials, weapons of mass destruction and working, as a White House adviser said, to “keep the country whole.” The plan also calls for a civilian administrator, possibly chosen by the United Nations, to head Iraq’s economy and reconstruction, the Times reported.
While those sections of the Iraqi government most closely linked to Hussein, such as the special security organization, would be discarded, “much of the rest of the government will be reformed and kept,” the White House plan says.
The White House has also given up the idea of establishing a provisional Iraqi government prior to any possible military action, according to the Times.
The plan is likely to include a number of contingencies that will depend on how Hussein is overthrown, officials said. “So much rides on the conflict itself, if it becomes a conflict, and on how the conflict starts and how the conflict ends,” one of Bush’s senior advisers said.
There are no plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq any longer than is absolutely necessary, White House officials said.
“I don’t think we’re talking about months,” one of Bush’s top advisers said. “But I don’t think we’re talking a lot of years, either,” the adviser added (Sanger/Dao, New York Times, Jan. 6).
For further information, see:
UNMOVIC
IAEA Iraq Action Team
U.N. Resolution 1441
Inspectors from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have now visited more than 100 Iraqi sites in the round of post-Gulf War inspections that resumed Nov. 27 after a four-year lapse. The following chart summarizes some of their reported activities.
| Date | Site | Activity | | Jan. 6 | Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center | See the Dec. 20 entry. | | Bin Bitar research center, about five miles north of Baghdad | See GSN, Jan. 6 | | Fallujah 3 pesticide factory | See the Dec. 9 entry. | | Faydah free-trade zone, located about 240 miles north of Baghdad | See GSN, Jan. 6 | | Jan. 5 | Graphite facility | See GSN, Jan. 6 | | Hospital in the northern city of Mosul | | University in the southern city of Basra | | Hospital in the southern city of Basra | | Food laboratory at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Glass research center at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Al-Basel company at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Al-Khawarizmi company at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Al-Tabani company at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Al-Majd company at the National Monitoring Directorate in Baghdad | | Jan. 3 | Al-Mamoun Plant | UNMOVIC missile inspectors tagged several pieces of declared equipment (IAEA release, Jan. 3). | | Former ammunitions depot | UNMOVIC inspectors visited the site, which has been a previously used as a chemical weapons storage site (IAEA release, Jan. 3). | | Adjacent area to the former ammunitions depot | UNMOVIC inspectors visited the site, which had been used for chemical weapons tests (IAEA release, Jan. 3). | | Al Basil Narawan site, part of the al-Basil Center | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the site, which produces several types of chemicals (IAEA release, Jan. 3). | | Dec. 21- Jan. 2 | See GSN, Jan. 2 | |
Kuwaiti officials are buying 2 million gas masks and trying to educate residents on how to respond to a chemical or biological weapons attack, the New York Times reported Saturday (see GSN, Dec. 31, 2002).
Officials are conducting attack drills at schools, amusement parks and oil facilities in the wake of a poorly executed exercise last month, the Times reported.
Kuwait is distributing the gas masks through local supermarkets and residents are being told to stock up on food and tape windows to prepare for an attack from Iraq.
Photographers hindered the December drill at a beachside hotel, the Times reported, by instructing emergency workers to stage good pictures.
Police and civil defense authorities reportedly were engaged in heated discussions on where to direct escaping hotel guests and workers, and “survivors” of the drill were sent to a dessert table for coffee and cookies instead of being directed to a decontamination tent.
“This is rubbish,” said Maj. Abdulaziz Malallah, of the Kuwait City Fire Department. “It may be all right for the movies, but this really won’t do,” he added.
While officials insist that the new steps will better prepare Kuwait for an attack, some Kuwaiti lawmakers are skeptical.
“There may be enough gas masks, but people aren’t trained to use them,” said Abdullah Nibari, a liberal member of the National Assembly. “It’s a question of organization. And maybe they don’t want to get the people too worried,” he added (Clifford Krauss, New York Times, Jan. 4).
 |
The International Atomic Energy Agency today gave North Korea one more chance to reverse its decision to bar international inspectors from the Yongbyon nuclear facility and to threaten to restart a nuclear reactor there (see GSN, Jan. 3).
North Korea must comply within weeks or the IAEA will be forced to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council, according to agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.
“All cases of noncompliance must be consistently addressed in a uniform fashion, namely zero-tolerance,” ElBaradei said. He held out hope, however, that a diplomatic solution can be achieved.
Meeting in a special session today, the agency’s Board of Governors approved a resolution outlining North Korea’s nuclear obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the 1994 Agreed Framework.
“Unless the [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] takes all necessary steps to allow the agency to implement all the required safeguards measures, the DPRK will be in further noncompliance with its safeguards agreement,” the resolution says.
Analysts said the decision to give North Korea one more chance to turn back reflects the belief at the United Nations as well as in Washington that an armed confrontation with North Korea must be avoided at all costs. The last time the IAEA threatened to report North Korean nuclear violations to the U.N. Security Council, in 1993, Pyongyang said such a move would be considered a declaration of war.
The Yongbyon reactors had been mothballed under a 1994 deal with the U.S. in which North Korea agreed to end its weapons program in exchange for fuel oil supplies and two nuclear reactors that would be more difficult to use for the development of nuclear weapons.
Washington halted the oil shipments in December after saying Pyongyang had admitted to a covert nuclear program.
The IAEA resolution calls for the reestablishment of surveillance measures at North Korea’s nuclear facilities and the “full implementation of all the required safeguards measures, including the return of IAEA inspectors.”
The IAEA initiative was welcomed in Washington, where President George W. Bush has repeatedly called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Increased administration focus on Iraq is a primary reason for Washington’s intent to defuse the confrontation through diplomatic channels. But reclusive North Korea’s suspected possession of nuclear weapons and a fearsome military facing off against its democratic neighbor South Korea is cause enough to approach with caution (Bryan Bender, Global Security Newswire, Jan. 6).
South Korea Continues Diplomatic Push
South Korea, meanwhile, is expected to present a compromise solution to the nuclear dispute during talks with Japan and the United States today in Washington, AP reported.
A potential solution is for North Korea to give up its nuclear program in exchange for resumption in fuel oil shipments from the United States, although verifying North Korean nuclear inactivity would probably be contentious, AP reported.
Talks between South Korea and the United States are slated to continue, with South Korean national security adviser Yim Sung-joon visiting Washington this week and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly heading to Seoul. Yim will also visit Japan to discuss his consultations with U.S. officials, AP reported (Paul Shin, Associated Press, Jan. 6).
The compromise will ask U.S. President George W. Bush to write a letter guaranteeing that the United States will not attack North Korea, the New York Times reported Sunday. In return, Seoul will ask Pyongyang to restore international controls on its nuclear program, the Times reported (James Brooke, New York Times, Jan. 5).
Washington, however, has said it will not negotiate with North Korea until that country’s leadership abandons efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The United States alleges that North Korea already abandoned a similar agreement — the 1994 Agreed Framework that gave Pyongyang the promise of two light-water nuclear reactors and free fuel oil in exchange for closing a plant that could generate weapon-grade plutonium — the Times reported.
“We have no intention to sit down and bargain again, to pay for this horse again,” said State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher.
“We are not entering into a negotiation,” he said, “in order to get them to commit to something that they’ve already committed to,” he added (Brooke/Rosenthal, New York Times, Jan. 4).
White House officials said, however, that Bush would not reject the new proposal automatically. Bush has said that the United States will not attack North Korea and an agreement to confirm that might be acceptable.
“The new guys in South Korea want to introduce some new ideas, and that’s not unhealthy,” said a White House official. He agreed with the State Department that old negotiations with Pyongyang should not be redone.
“We can’t get caught making concessions to get them to meet the commitments they’ve already made,” he said.
U.S. Food Aid Slow to Arrive
Although U.S. officials have said that humanitarian food shipments to North Korea would not be impeded by the nuclear dispute, those shipments have been suspended, the Times reported today.
The suspension of food aid by the United States and Japan and the curtailment of shipments from South Korea have resulted in a situation in which the U.N. World Food Program will miss its distribution goals “by a wide margin,” according to the program.
“We’re very concerned about it,” said a program official. “We understand that there are political considerations. But this is a population that is suffering, with women and children the most vulnerable,” he added.
White House officials said they are not withholding the food for political reasons, but that the shipments have stopped because of lapses in monitoring where the food is sent.
“Our intention is to go forward, but we do need to solve these monitoring problems first,” said a Bush administration official.
World Food Program officials, however, said they believe that food is reaching civilians and is not being redirected to feed North Korea’s military.
“We have relatively good confidence that the food is reaching the people who need it,” said a program official (Steven Weisman, New York Times, Jan. 6).
Official Says Russia Will Help Defuse Crisis
Russia agreed to “make joint efforts to ease the crisis,” after talks between South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Hang-kyung and his Russian counterpart, Alexander Losyukov, AP reported.
Russian officials will attempt to convince the parties to meet for talks but did not promise to mediate them.
“The slide to unacceptable actions must be stopped,” Losyukov said. “Obviously, our contacts with North Korean colleagues will be intensified,” he added (Hans Greimel, Associated Press/Washington Times, Jan. 6).
India Saturday unveiled its newly formalized command-and-control structure for its nuclear arsenal and restated its “no-first-use” nuclear weapons policy (see GSN, Dec. 31, 2002).
India’s nuclear weapons are now under the control of the two-layered Nuclear Command Authority, the Cabinet Committee on Security announced after meeting to review the readiness of India’s nuclear arsenal. The NCA is made up of a political council and an executive council, according to The Hindu. The political council, headed by the prime minister, has the sole authority to order use of nuclear weapons, the security committee said. The executive council, headed by the national security adviser, participates in the NCA’s decision-making process and carries out the orders of the political council, the security committee said (C. Raja Mohan, The Hindu, Jan. 5).
The security committee also approved the creation of a commander in chief for India’s strategic forces. Indian Air Marshall T.M. Asthana is expected to be appointed to the position, the Times of India reported (Rajat Pandit, Times of India, Jan. 4).
India has worked since 1998 to establish a formal nuclear command-and-control structure and its creation demonstrates that India is a responsible nuclear power, defense analysts said.
“When you join the nuclear club, these are the rules of the game,” said Aswini Ray of the Center for Political Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. “This is about assuring the international community that India is behaving in a responsible fashion,” Ray added (Edna Fernandes, Financial Times, Jan. 6).
The formalized nuclear command structure will also help to reduce the risk of an accidental weapons launch, weapons specialists said.
“Until now, India’s nuclear weapons doctrine was seen as more of a draft. There was an ambivalence, and the announcement removes that,” said Uday Bhaskar, deputy director of the Institute of Defense Studies and Analysis. “It enhances regional stability and sends a positive signal,” Bhaskar added (Unni Krishnan, Reuters/Washington Times, Jan. 5).
Nuclear Doctrine
In its announcement, the security committee also reaffirmed several aspects of India’s nuclear weapons policy, including pledges not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states and to limit India’s nuclear capability to a “credible minimum deterrent” (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2002).
While India has decided to maintain its no-first-use policy, its retaliation to a nuclear attack would be “massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage,” the committee warned (Mohan, The Hindu).
India also retains the right to respond to a biological or chemical weapons attack against its troops with nuclear weapons, even if the attacker does not possess nuclear weapons itself, the committee said.
“In the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons,” the committee said (Pandit, Times of India).
For further information, see:
Indian Government
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Israel successfully fired a complete Arrow missile and three unarmed rockets yesterday in a test of the missile defense system that would be called upon if Iraq were to launch Scud missiles at Israel, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 2).
The missiles were fired seconds apart at computer-simulated targets, according to Arieh Hertzog, director of Israel’s missile defense efforts.
“It did everything it could have done to intercept those targets,” Hertzog said. “We know how to simulate the real thing,” he added (Dexter Filkins, New York Times, Jan. 6).
The three other rockets were fired to measure the effect that launches would have on missiles that remain in the launcher. The launcher is able to hold six missiles, United Press International reported yesterday (Joshua Brilliant, United Press International, Jan. 5).
Israeli and U.S. forces will test Israel’s entire missile defense system in coming days, the Associated Press reported yesterday (Eitan Hess-Ashkenazi, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Jan. 5).
Previously, officials have only fired one Arrow missile at a time during tests, AP reported (Associated Press/Washington Post, Jan. 6). Four incoming missiles were simulated in yesterday’s test (Brilliant, UPI).
This marked the 10th Arrow firing and the fifth time that the complete system was tested, the Jerusalem Post reported (Margot Dudkevitch, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 6).
For further information, see:
MDA Terminal Defense Segment
Federation of American Scientists Background on Arrow
The costs of a layered U.S. national missile defense system, championed by the Bush administration, could reach up to $1.2 trillion, according to a report released Friday by the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation and the Economists Allied for Arms Reduction (see GSN, Dec. 20).
The costs of a full missile defense system, including boost-phase, midcourse and terminal defense systems, is estimated to be between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion, says the report. The cost estimates by the Bush administration focus more on development and acquisition costs and neglect long-term operations and maintenance expenses, the report says.
If the Bush administration plans to meet its goal of having a missile defense system fully deployed by 2015, about half of the costs — up to $500 billion — could be incurred within the next 13 years, leading to rapid spending increases, according to the report. The remaining $300 billion to $800 billion would apply to operating the missile defense system until 2035.
Because of the need to accelerate short-term spending, missile defense outlays could account for up to 12 percent of U.S. defense spending by 2011, it says.
Kenneth Arrow, a Noble prize-winning economist, warned that the high costs of a missile defense system could lead to tougher spending decisions in the future.
“Some might say ‘when it comes to national security, costs don’t matter.’ But, of course, what economists tell us is that costs always matter,” Arrow said in the preface to the report. “Something else has to be given up, and when the magnitudes are those found in this study, a lot has to be given up,” he added (Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation release, Jan. 2).
For further information, see:
MDA Basics of Missile Defense
MDA Missile Defense System
MDA Boost Defense Segment
MDA Midcourse Defense Segment
MDA Terminal Defense Segment
A modified Boeing 747-400, designed to carry the Airborne Laser missile defense system, arrived at Edwards Air Force Base in California Dec. 19 for the laser to be installed, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported today (see GSN, Nov. 26). Base technicians are assembling the laser in a laboratory that contains a separate 747 fuselage, where the laser will be tested before being installed in the modified aircraft, the magazine reported (Michael Dornheim, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Jan. 6).
For further information, see:
MDA Basics of Missile Defense
MDA Missile Defense System
Airborne Laser Fact Sheet
The U.S. Defense Department last week dispatched about 100 pieces of Patriot missile interceptor system equipment from Biggs Army Airfield in Texas to the Persian Gulf region, base officials said. Up to 400 soldiers from Fort Bliss in Texas are to follow within the next two weeks (see GSN, Jan. 3).
The troops being sent to the Persian Gulf region, taken from the 108th and 35th Air Defense Artillery brigades, were originally scheduled for a rotation in the region in the spring, but that was canceled and replaced with the new deployment, Lt. Col. Rod Burke, 2-43 ADA battalion commander, said.
“The deployment is earlier than anticipated, but we constantly talk to our soldiers about being prepared and to keep their families informed,” Burke said (Laura Cruz, El Paso Times, Jan. 3).
|
 |
|
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
© Copyright
2002 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
HOME |
CONTACT US |
GET INVOLVED
|
SITE MAP
|
 |
Back to top
