U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is expected to tell the U.N. Security Council tomorrow that Iraq is still not fully complying with its disarmament obligations, U.N. diplomats said (see GSN, Feb. 12).
One example Blix will likely to refer to in his report is the yesterday’s finding by a panel of international ballistic missile experts that the Iraqi al-Samoud 2 missile violates U.N. resolutions, according to the Los Angeles Times (see related GSN story, today). He is also expected to say that for inspectors to be effective they will need more extensive cooperation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime.
In his report, however, Blix is also expected to note that Iraq has recently increased its cooperation with inspectors, the Times reported. For example, Iraq has recently granted permission for overflights by U-2 reconnaissance aircraft and has begun to allow private interviews with Iraqi scientists and technicians (Wright/Farley, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 13).
The Security Council yesterday decided to make tomorrow’s briefing by Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei a meeting open to non-Security Council members, according to a U.N. press release. This was done because several foreign ministers had expressed an interest in participating in the meeting, said council President Gunter Pleuger, Germany’s U.N. ambassador
“Members will hear the reports of Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei and then have a chance to discuss them first in open meeting, followed by a closed meeting for the members of the Council,” Pleuger said in a statement (U.N. release, Feb. 12).
So far, the foreign ministers of all five permanent Security Council members, along with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fisher, have said they will attend the meeting, according to the New York Times. Until yesterday, the meeting had been set to be a closed session where council diplomats would hear Blix and ElBaradei’s report and then discuss it in private. This new format, however, is likely to allow little time for closed debate, where views are more readily expressed, said U.S. and British diplomats.
Representatives from several nonpermanent council members also said they did not like the idea of holding the open meeting.
“It’s a mess,” one envoy said. “We are supposed to be getting work done,” the envoy added (Preston/Schmitt, New York Times, Feb. 13).
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday that he would confront the assembled foreign ministers at Friday’s meeting as to whether they were prepared to let Iraq “off the hook.”
“This is the question I will put to them Friday,” Powell said before the House International Relations Committee. “We are reaching a moment of truth as to whether or not this matter will be resolved peacefully or will be resolved by military conflict,” he added (Wright/Farley, Los Angeles Times).
The Security Council also decided yesterday to hold another open meeting Feb. 18 to allow members of the U.N. General Assembly to express their views on the Iraq situation, according to Pleuger. At that meeting, non-Security Council members will be given the opportunity to speak first, Pleuger said.
“The idea behind this is that mainly the council members will discuss the reports on Friday — so for more transparency — Council members felt there should be an opportunity to give members of the General Assembly who are not members of the Council the chance to discuss this important issue,” Pleuger said (U.N. release).
U.S. officials have said that they, along with British officials, have increased efforts this week to draft a U.N. resolution declaring Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations. The White House has not yet decided whether to submit the resolution, U.S. officials said (Preston/Schmitt, New York Times). The United Kingdom, however, might distribute the draft language next week, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The United States has determined that Germany and Syria are likely to vote against any new resolution, according to the Times. There are still hopes, however, that Powell can persuade France, Russia and China to at least abstain, rather than veto a new resolution. At that point, such a resolution would probably be narrowly approved, U.S. officials said (Wright/Farley, Los Angeles Times).
NATO
For the second consecutive day, NATO members failed yesterday to resolve an internal dispute over providing defensive planning to Turkey to prepare for possible Iraqi retaliation in the event of war, according to diplomats.
“The meeting is over, they failed to agree. The three reiterated their position,” a diplomat said, referring to the Belgian-French-German opposition to a U.S. request for such planning to begin. There might be another meeting today in order to resolve the dispute, the diplomat said (Reuters, Feb. 12).
Bombed Again
Meanwhile, U.S. military aircraft conducted a second attack yesterday on an Iraqi mobile ballistic missile launcher and its related vehicles located in the southern no-fly zone near Basra, according to the Washington Post. U.S. aircraft returned to the site to attack the launcher’s radar system (Thomas Ricks, Washington Post, Feb. 13).
Inspections
U.N. inspectors have visited at least seven suspect Iraqi sites today, according to Reuters. Chemical experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission visited an agricultural airstrip just north of Baghdad. UNMOVIC missile inspectors visited the Badr State Company and the al-Fida State Company, both located in Baghdad.
Inspectors also went to the Ibn Roshd State Company in Baghdad and to a site in the northern city of Mosul, Reuters reported. IAEA inspectors visited the Ibn al-Haitham State Company on the outskirts of Baghdad and a military depot and firing range at Fallujah (Reuters/AlertNet, Feb. 13).
Yesterday, inspectors interviewed an Iraqi scientist and a retired Iraqi diplomat, according to the Associated Press. Inspectors asked the scientist about Iraq’s past centrifuge program, according to a U.N. statement. The Iraqi Information Ministry said the retired diplomat was asked about allegations that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger after 1998 (Charles Hanley, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 13).
Inspectors also visited at least seven suspect Iraqi sites yesterday, according to an IAEA press release. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the al-Qadissya water treatment plant and the al-Mahmoudiyah water treatment plant to conduct baseline inspections. UNMOVIC missile inspectors visited the Jaber bin Hyan State Company, which produces components for the al-Samoud missile, to verify Iraq’s declaration of the site and to establish a comprehensive monitoring mechanism.
IAEA inspectors conducted a automobile-based radiation survey and installed an air sampler at a facility north of Baghdad. A second IAEA team visited a facility west of Baghdad and installed an air sampler there. IAEA inspectors also met with a senior Iraqi diplomat at the Iraqi Foreign Affairs Ministry in Baghdad (International Atomic Energy Agency release, Feb. 12).
For further information, see:
UNMOVIC
IAEA Iraq Action Team
U.N. Resolution 1441
In case the United States leads a military action against Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department has begun planning to secure, and ultimately destroy, Iraq’s suspected WMD stockpiles both during and after the conflict, a senior Pentagon official said Monday (see related GSN story, today).
“This will be a new mission for the department and for our nation,” U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “It is complex and will take place as part of military operations, continuing into the post-conflict period,” he added.
The first task for the U.S. military will be to find and secure Iraqi WMD sites, Feith said. “This will have to be done in many places and as quickly as possible,” he said (Federal News Service transcript, Feb. 11).
Trained members in U.S. special forces units will handle the bulk of the responsibility of handling discovered Iraqi WMD sites and materials, according to Newhouse News Service. Because Iraqi WMD sites are scattered throughout the country, however, regular U.S. forces will also probably need to secure some sites.
The risks to troops are great, one analyst said. For example, U.S. troops could attack a site that contained smallpox stockpiles and accidentally cause a release. “Then you could become the instigator of a large smallpox outbreak in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley — and that wouldn’t look good in world opinion, not to mention in the Arab world,” said Hal Kempfer, a military intelligence officer and expert in chemical and biological weapons.
The chances of an accidental release are augmented by uncertainty over where Iraqi WMD sites are located, according to Newhouse.
“That’s the chief danger,” said Joseph Cirincione, director of the Nonproliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The real dangers come when you don’t have the intelligence, and you stumble across these weapons and you inadvertently blow up a storage facility,” he added (David Wood, Newhouse News Service, Feb. 12).
Once Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is overthrown, there will still remain a need to dismantle Iraq’s WMD infrastructure and to redirect the country’s dual-use industrial capabilities and scientific expertise to legitimate uses, Feith said Tuesday. He noted that experts from other U.S agencies, and from our allies and international organizations, could all play a role in this effort.
Feith warned, however, that the dismantling of Iraq’s WMD programs would not happen quickly.
“The task of eliminating all nuclear, chemical and biological stockpiles, facilities and infrastructure will take time,” Feith said. “We cannot now even venture a sensible guess as to the amount,” he added (Federal News Service transcript).
Experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have conducted hundreds of inspections in Iraq since resuming the post-Gulf War inspection regime Nov. 27. More than 100 inspectors are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ reported activities.
| Date | Site | Activity | | Feb. 13 | Agricultural airstrip just north of Baghdad | See GSN, Feb. 13. | | Badr State Company in Baghdad | | Al-Fida State Company | | Ibn Roshd State Company in Baghdad | | Site in the nothern city of Mosul | | Ibn al-Haitham State Company | | Military depot and firing range at Fallujah | | Feb. 12 | Al-Qadissya water treatment plant | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors conducted a baseline inspection (see GSN, Feb. 13). | | Al-Mahmoudiyah water treatment plant | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors conducted a baseline inspection (see GSN, Feb. 13). | | Jaber bin Hyan State Company | UNMOVIC missile inspectors worked to verify Iraq’s declaration of the site and established a comprehensive monitoring mechanism (see GSN, Feb. 13). | | Facility north of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a car-borne radiation survey and installed an air sampler (see GSN, Feb. 13). | | Facility west of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors inspected the site and installed an air sampler (see GSN, Feb. 13). | | Foreign Affairs Ministry in Baghdad | IAEA inspectors met with a senior Iraqi diplomat (see GSN, Feb. 13). | | Al-Muthanna, about 90 miles north of Baghdad | Inspectors began destroying four containers of mustard gas and 10 155 mm artillery shells located at the site (see GSN, Feb. 12). | | Feb. 11 | Al-Muthanna, about 90 miles north of Baghdad | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors prepared containers of mustard gas and artillery shells at the site for destruction (see GSN, Feb. 12). | | Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center | See GSN, Feb. 12. | | Two military bases south of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 12). | | 17th of Nissan factory in Baghdad | See GSN, Feb. 11. | | Feb. 10 | Ibn Firnas Company | UNMOVIC missile inspectors worked to verify Iraq's declaration of the site and establish a comprehensive monitoring mechanism (IAEA release, Feb. 10). | | Samarra East Airfield | UNMOVIC missile inspectors worked to verify Iraq’s declaration of the site and establish a comprehensive monitoring mechanism (IAEA release, Feb. 10). | | Al-Mamoun | UNMOVIC missile inspectors worked to verify Iraq's declaration of the site and establish a comprehensive monitoring mechanism (IAEA release, Feb. 10). | | Al-Fekar Factory | UNMOVIC missile inspectors worked to verify Iraq’s declaration of the site and establish a comprehensive monitoring mechanism (IAEA release, Feb. 10). | | Military Hospital | UNMOVIC biological inspectors conducted a ground survey in a section of the hospital’s compound (IAEA release, Feb. 10). | | Seed-processing facility east of An Nu'maniyah. | IAEA release, Feb. 10. | | 7 Nissan stores in southeast Baghdad | | Mosul Raiyard AR Rayanihay RR Siding | | Um al-Maarik | IAEA inspectors worked to establish the current disposition of monitored machine tools (IAEA release, Feb. 10). | | Badr State Establishment | IAEA inspectors worked to establish the current disposition of monitored machine tools (IAEA release, Feb. 10). | | Tigris River section, just south of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a carborne radiation survey (IAEA release, Feb. 10). | | Al-Musaayaib Ammo Depot, south of Baghdad | Inspectors visited the site’s bunkers, warehouses, small buildings and storage areas (IAEA release, Feb. 10). | | Feb. 9 | Agricultural Research Center | IAEA release, Feb. 9. | | Agricultural Research Center breeding station | | School on the western outskirts of Baghdad | UNMOVIC biological inspectors conducted a geo-physical survey of an area of land within the perimeter of the site (IAEA release, Feb. 9). | | Dairy products facility in an eastern suburb of Baghdad | IAEA release, Feb. 9. | | Al-Battani Center | | Al-Mutasim | | Al-Mamoun | | Al Taji Ammunition Depot, north of Baghdad | Inspectors recovered a sample from an empty 122mm chemical warhead previously found at the site. Inspectors also discovered an empty 122 mm al-Burak chemical warhead and an empty plastic chemical agent canister (IAEA release, Feb. 9). | | Nineveh Health Authority Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Unit | IAEA release, Feb. 9. | | Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a mobile radiation survey (IAEA release, Feb. 9). | | Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad | IAEA inspectors held technical meetings with officials (IAEA release, Feb. 9). | | Feb. 8 | Al-Rasheed Water Project in Baghdad | See GSN, Feb. 10. | | Al-Mutassim Training Institute in northwestern Baghdad | | Djerf al-Naddaf facility | | Mosul Technical Institute | | Baghdad area | IAEA inspectors conducted a motorized radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 10). | | Baghdad | IAEA inspectors deployed two mobile air-sampling units at two locations (see GSN, Feb. 10). | | Feb. 7 | Al-Wathba Water Project in Baghdad | IAEA release, Feb. 7. | | Suwaira Stores Plant Protection Division | | Technical Institute | | Combined agricultural and ammunition storage site near al-Kut | | Al-Waziriyah | | Munitions store | IAEA release, Feb. 8. | | Samarra Drug Industry | UNMOVIC biological inspectors conducted an aerial inspection of the site (IAEA release, Feb. 7). | | Salah Ad Din State Company | UNMOVIC biological inspectors conducted an aerial inspection of the site (IAEA release, Feb. 7). | | Jan. 31-Feb. 6 | See GSN, Feb. 7. | |
 |
Although the International Atomic Energy Agency governing board formally sent the North Korean nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council yesterday, there appears to be no push for the council to impose economic sanctions on Pyongyang, according to reports (see GSN, Feb. 12).
“All [IAEA board] members made it clear it is not the time to jump to sanctions,” said IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, expressing his own opposition to such a move (Lim Chang-won, Agence France-Presse, Feb. 13).
“A decision on sanctions is not something we are seeking at this time,” said U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton. “It’s important for the council to show this is a serious situation. It’s important for North Korea to come into compliance,” he added (Schroeder/Cloud, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 13).
Other U.S. officials said they would pursue a mild resolution or a statement rebuking North Korean actions and urging compliance with nuclear treaty obligations, the Washington Post reported (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Feb. 13).
Russia, which abstained from the IAEA vote along with Cuba, criticized the decision to send the issue to the Security Council, but said it would nevertheless work with the council to resolve the situation diplomatically and guarantee North Korea’s security (Russia Journal, Feb. 13).
Russia “thinks that referring this question to the Security Council at this time is a premature, counterproductive step which does not contribute to constructive and trusting dialogue between the concerned parties,” according to a Russian Foreign Ministry statement. “Russia believes it is necessary for North Korea to observe the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and strongly supports resolving the crisis around North Korea’s nuclear program using solely political and diplomatic means,” the statement added (Reuters/MSNBC.com, Feb. 13).
China also questioned the Security Council’s role in the standoff.
“The U.N. Security Council’s involvement at this stage might not necessarily contribute to the settlement of the issue,” China’s ambassador to the United Nations, Zhang Yan, said today. “The only correct and effective approach … is through constructive dialogue and consultations on the basis of equality,” he added (BBC online, Feb. 13).
China said that it has been working to find a solution to the North Korean crisis and Beijing criticized North Korea for the first time since the crisis began. Chinese officials said, however, that the United States and North Korea must find a solution to the standoff.
“Since last October, China has made lots of efforts in our own way,” said Zhang Qiyue, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman. She also criticized North Korea for pulling out of the pact intended to halt Pyongyang’s nuclear development, saying that the 1994 Agreed Framework “should be maintained.”
Analysts questioned China’s influence in Pyongyang.
“China has been quietly playing the role of mediator for many years, but it’s hard to say if its influence is big or middling,” said Xu Wenji, head of the North-South Korea Research Institute at Jilin University in Changchun. “I would say it’s not as much as the U.S., who after all can threaten it with weapons on the one hand and offer peace and money on the other,” Wenji added (Elisabeth Rosenthal, New York Times, Feb. 13).
South Korea said it supported the IAEA decision, calling it “appropriate based on principles and procedures,” but expressed reservations about the Security Council imposing sanctions.
“We hope the U.N. Security Council can prevent the situation from deteriorating and can handle the issue in a way that encourages a diplomatic solution,” said a statement from Seoul’s Foreign Ministry.
“It is inappropriate to discuss sanctions (on North Korea) for now because chances still remains that the issue can be resolved diplomatically,” a Foreign Ministry official said (Jong Heon-lee, United Press International, Feb. 13).
An Internationalizing Move
“Today’s vote demonstrates that this is not a bilateral issue between the United States and North Korea, but this is a dispute between North Korea and the world,” said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (Chang-won, Agence France-Presse).
Former U.S. State Department arms control official Kenneth Quinones said that North Korea reacted “very, very negatively” to the IAEA move and did not want the situation to become “internationalized.”
“They want it to be a bilateral U.S.-North Korea position. I think that’s simply impractical. The North Koreans have effectively challenged not only international security in northeast Asia but the entire international nonproliferation regime, and they’re just simply going to have to accept the fact that they have created an international concern here,” Quinones said on the PBS television show NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (NewsHour transcript, Feb. 12).
Private Backchannels and Public Vitriol
Privately, North Korea has communicated through informal contacts that it will not produce nuclear material and it will “wait and wait” for the United States to come to the bargaining table, according to a senior U.S. official (Kessler, Washington Post).
Publicly, however, North Korea continued to press the United States today by asserting that it can strike U.S. forces anywhere in the world.
“In case there is a self-defensive measure, the attack can be taken to all military personnel and all military commands of the United States in the world,” said Ri Kwang Hyok, a senior North Korean Foreign Ministry official. “Wherever they are we can attack them,” he added.
“There’s no limit to our attack ability. The strike force of the Korean People’s Army will take on the enemy wherever he is,” Ri said (Peter Harmsen, Agence France-Presse, Feb. 13).
International Atomic Energy Agency officials said today they need more money to conduct inspections and warn that nuclear weapons detection could suffer if the organization does not receive a funding boost, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Sept. 25, 2002).
“Over the last 10 years, the commercial knowledge and technology available to conduct a covert nuclear weapons program … have become increasingly sophisticated,” but the agency’s budget has stayed the same for the last 15 years, said Pierre Goldschmidt, the IAEA’s deputy director general for the Department of Safeguards.
Current inspections in Iraq are paid for by Iraqi oil sales under an agreement reached after the 1991 Gulf War.
Goldschmidt said the agency’s annual safeguards budget must increase by $20 million to pay for monitoring improvements, including more inspectors and satellite surveillance. Ronald Cherry, a senior official at the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, said the IAEA needs an additional $30 million per year.
“The credibility of the system is now being threatened by the failure of the agency’s safeguard budget to keep pace with its burgeoning responsibilities,” Cherry said. “The IAEA regular budget for safeguards needs to be increased,” he added.
The agency’s budget for 2004 and 2005 will be discussed at the IAEA board meetings in May and June, according to Goldschmidt (Ryan Nakashima, Agence France-Presse, Feb. 13).
|
 |
After a volunteer turnout that has been much lower than expected, Connecticut is reshaping its smallpox immunization plan, according to a state health official (see GSN, Feb. 6).
Connecticut officials originally planned to vaccinate 6,000 medical personnel by spring, but only 1,000 health care workers have volunteered, according to Christopher Cannon, an organizer of the state’s smallpox response plan. By Tuesday, only 20 people had been immunized in the state, the Associated Press reported.
Officials originally intended to seek volunteers from 32 hospitals, but the effort might now expand to other medical facilities in the state, Cannon said.
“The good news is that every hospital in the state has agreed to participate,” said Cannon, who is a director at the Yale-New Haven Health System’s Office of Emergency Preparedness.
Nationwide, 1,043 people had been immunized as of yesterday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Associated Press/Newsday, Feb. 12).
|
 |
|
 |
A panel of international ballistic missile experts convened this week by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has unanimously determined that Iraq’s al-Samoud 2 missile program violates U.N. resolutions, U.S. and U.N. officials said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 12).
Blix had asked the panel of experts from six countries, including the United States, to resolve the question of whether two Iraqi missile programs — the al-Samoud 2 and the al-Fatah — violated U.N. mandates prohibiting Iraq from possessing missiles ranges greater than 150 kilometers. In its December 2002 declaration to Blix, Iraq said the two missiles slightly exceeded that range in testing, but that this would change once they were equipped with warheads and guidance systems.
“Iraq declared that the missiles are of a range of less than 150 kilometers,” said Iraq’s U.N. Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri. “If that’s the case, no one can ask us to destroy them,” he added.
The panel determined that the al-Samoud 2 was capable of ranges beyond the U.N. limit, according to the Washington Post. The panel was unable to agree, however, on whether the al-Fatah was also in violation of U.N. resolutions.
The two missile systems do not significantly alter the military balance in the Persian Gulf region — one reason why the missile range limit was originally imposed on Iraq, according to U.N. diplomats and missile experts. However, the programs might be part of an effort to greatly extend the ranges of other Iraqi missiles, U.S. and U.N. officials said.
“My understanding is that one of the two missiles that is being analyzed definitely has a capacity that exceeds the range of 150 kilometers,” said John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “That is something that our own intelligence sources have been telling us for months. But, apparently, now it’s a matter of agreement among the experts,” he added (Lynch/Priest, Washington Post, Feb. 13).
Iraq, however, has defended the missile programs and denied that they violated U.N. resolutions, according to CNN.com.
“We are still within limits that are decided by the United Nations,” said Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. “(They are) not very dangerous and must not be exaggerated. There is no serious violation,” he added (CNN.com, Feb. 13).
Even though the missiles had been flight-tested beyond the U.N.-allowed ranges, those results could have been accidental, Aziz said.
“The main problem is that Iraqi missiles which are of a very short range don’t have a guidance system and when a missile doesn’t have a guidance system it goes five, 10, 15 kilometers beyond (target),” Aziz said. “That is not very dangerous and must not be exaggerated,” he added (Reuters/MSNBC.com, Feb. 13).
Officials and experts from countries opposed to the U.S. calls for military action against Iraq, such as France and Russia, have said that the panel’s findings indicate that the inspections process is working and should be continued, according to the New York Times.
“An exceeding of the range was declared,” said Yuri Fedotov, a Russian disarmament specialist. It should be taken “precisely as an example of cooperation” by Iraq, he said.
Blix appears to be preparing to demand that Iraq give up the missiles for destruction, Security Council diplomats said. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, however, is unlikely to comply with such a demand as the likelihood of a U.S.-led attack increases, according to diplomats (Preston/Schmitt, New York Times, Feb. 13).
North Korea can reach the West Coast of the United States with a long-range ballistic missile, top U.S. intelligence officials said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 13).
The untested three-stage version of the Taepodong 2 missile can reach the western United States and possibly points further inland, according to Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. CIA Director George Tenet, joining Jacoby in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, concurred with Jacoby’s assessment.
North Korea has threatened to resume flight tests, but without such tests the reliability of a missile is dubious, the Associated Press reported (John Lumpkin, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 13).
A potential ballistic missile carrying nuclear weapons from North Korea has been discussed in U.S. intelligence reports since the late 1990s, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The 2001 National Intelligence Estimate said that a three-stage Taepodong could carry several hundred pounds about 9,000 miles, which is sufficient to reach all of North America, the Times reported (Richter/Rubin, Feb. 13, Los Angeles Times).
“This old news is why it’s important to proceed with deployment of missile defense and also why the president is focused on multilateral diplomatic talks to deal with North Korea,” said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (Lumpkin, Associated Press/Yahoo.com).
|
 |
By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. efforts to develop a missile defense system could lead to increased tensions in the current standoff between China and Taiwan, according to a report released Tuesday by the Henry L. Stimson Center (see GSN, July 12, 2002).
Missile defense “is a potentially destabilizing factor in the Taiwan Strait where chances for conflict have grown stronger over the past decade,” says the report, China and Missile Defense: Managing U.S.-P.R.C. Strategic Relations. “In a triangular dynamic where the U.S. and the P.R.C. are the two major military vectors, Taiwan is increasingly becoming a wild card,” it says.
In addition to increasing cross-Taiwan Strait tensions, U.S. missile defense plans could also affect China’s military modernization efforts and ultimately lead to increased U.S-Chinese strategic tensions, the report says. It presents a number of recommendations as to how the United States can proceed with missile defense development without increasing tensions with China.
If the United States develops a workable missile defense system, it could lead to the Untied States, China and Taiwan all upgrading and increasing preparations for a possible conflict, according to the report. China, in particular, is likely to be concerned that a U.S. missile defense system will give Washington greater freedom of action in any conflict over Taiwan, because such a system would weaken China’s nuclear deterrence and its effect on U.S. conventional planning, the report says.
The report warns that China is likely to do “whatever is necessary” to maintain a credible deterrent and limit the U.S. freedom of action. For example, China could accelerate the deployment of road-mobile ICBMs and countermeasures in order to overcome a U.S. missile defense system (see GSN, Sept. 25, 2002).
There are concerns that if China believes that a missile defense system gives the United States a large military advantage, then China could accelerate conflict escalation with Taiwan, the report says. Such escalation could even lead to the point where China pre-emptively attacks Taiwan before the United States is able to put much of its missile defense system in place, it says.
Taiwan itself might become more emboldened with a U.S. missile defense system in place, according to the report. Such a system, along with more concrete assurances from the United States that it will aid Taiwan if attacked by China, could lead Taipei to further move away from Beijing toward independence. Major Taiwanese purchases of U.S. missile defense systems are also likely to be viewed by China as an attempt to integrate with the larger national U.S. missile defense system and would increase U.S.-Chinese tensions, the report says.
Strategic Planning
U.S. efforts to develop a missile defense system could also influence China’s strategic planning and the development of its strategic forces, according to the report. For example, China could choose to develop a smaller, but more modern, strategic capability that would include mobile tactical systems to limit the U.S. missile defense system’s ability to support a U.S. first strike against China’s nuclear arsenal. China could also choose to develop an “assured minimum deterrence,” the report says. This would involve developing mobile ICBMs and sea-launched ballistic missiles, as well as increasing multiple-warhead systems and deploying decoys to spoof U.S. defenses.
In July of last year, the U.S. Defense Department released a report warning that China was working to strengthen its ballistic missile arsenal to counter a U.S. missile defense system (see GSN, July 15, 2002). As China continues to upgrade its ballistic missile arsenal, it will likely “take measures to improve its ability to defeat the defense system in order to preserve its strategic deterrent,” the Pentagon report said. Such measures could include increased penetration packages for Chinese ICBMs, an increase in deployed ICBMs and the development of multiple warhead technologies (see GSN, Feb. 11).
If China felt significantly threatened, Beijing could choose to undergo a strategic doctrinal change and pursue a limited nuclear deterrence capability, which would give Beijing the option to respond to any kind of attack and be enough of a deterrent to avoid an escalation to a nuclear war, the report says. There would be political drawbacks to this approach, however, as it would signal a much more aggressive posture and an intent to dominate East Asia, it says.
Under a limited nuclear deterrence strategic doctrine, “any claim that its [China’s] nuclear forces support a purely defensive posture would be unconvincing,” the report says.
There would likely be several brakes on China’s strategic planning response to a U.S. missile defense system, according to the report. For example, one such brake might be regional considerations. Beijing would probably not be quick to abandon the image it puts forth as a peace-loving nation, it says.
“China also is wary of not being drawn into a self-defeating arms race with the U.S.,” the report says, noting that Beijing has learned from the example of the U.S.-Soviet arms race.
China has also not put much faith in assurances from the United States that it is not building a missile defense system with the purpose of ending China’s deterrent capability, according to the report. One reason for this is a lack of information on what missile defense components the United States plans to deploy, it says. In addition, even if U.S. missile defense efforts were not directly targeted at China, any system the United States deploys would have the capability of defeating China’s missile force.
“China sees its small nuclear ICBM force as directly threatened by even a limited U.S. missile defense program,” the report says.
Recommendations
For U.S. missile defense efforts to not escalate tensions with China or in the greater East Asian region, the United States needs to better determine the relationship it wishes to have with Beijing, according to the report. For example, Washington needs to decide if it could live with a China that possesses a small, but evolving, strategic deterrent or if the United States needs a missile defense system capable of nullifying China’s deterrent capabilities. The report warns, however, that the latter option could trigger a “defensive versus offensive race” with China — a constant escalation of U.S. defenses and Chinese efforts to overcome them.
“U.S. relations with China will be better served if Washington views China as a rising power whose future is uncertain rather than a presumptive strategic competitor,” the report says.
The United States also should attempt to begin a series of substantial talks with China on strategic issues and concerns in order to have an influence over the future of Chinese strategic deployments, according to the report. In order to prevent U.S. missile defense efforts from nullifying its deterrent capability, and to preserve a diplomatic relationship akin to that shared by the United States and Russia, China could attempt to establish some sort of undertaking with the United States, the report says. This could be in the form of expressed reassurances or parallel statements, it says, adding that China is not likely to seek formal agreements.
Both countries will also have to proceed with a policy of restraint, in order to prevent the rise of suspicions and resultant build-up | |
Back to top
