Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has described Iraq’s efforts to comply with inspections and to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction as only “very limited,” the Financial Times reported today (see GSN, Feb. 27).
Blix issued his assessment in a report expected to be presented to U.N. Security Council members today, but a draft was leaked to the press yesterday. In the draft report, Blix said Iraq “could have made greater efforts to find any remaining proscribed items or provide credible evidence showing the absence of such items” (Financial Times, Feb. 28).
Blix did praise some Iraqi actions, however, such as allowing prompt access to all sites, helping the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission establish operations and for allowing inspectors to fly surveillance aircraft anywhere within the country, according to report excerpts published by the London Independent (see GSN, Feb. 10). Nevertheless, Blix criticized the continuing lack of private interviews with Iraqi scientists and technicians, Iraq’s December declaration of its WMD programs and the decree recently issued by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein outlawing weapons of mass destruction.
“The presidential decree … which prohibits private Iraqi citizens and mixed companies from engaging in work relating to weapons of mass destruction, standing alone, is not sufficient to meet the U.N. requirements,” the draft report says (London Independent, Feb. 28).
The report says that UNMOVIC is completing a list of unresolved disarmament issues and measures Iraq could take to address them, such as presenting inspectors with prohibited weapons and equipment or providing evidence that such items do not exist. Even if Iraq chooses to fully comply with inspectors, it will still take time to complete disarmament, Blix said (CNN.com, Feb. 28).
Security Council Still Divided Over Next Steps
Yesterday’s Security Council meeting ended without any progress in reconciling members divided over what should be the next step in dealing with Iraq. Six of the 10 elected members who have not committed to any position — Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan — said they were not ready to declare support for either of the opposing plans before the council.
A draft resolution, sponsored by the United States, United Kingdom and Spain would declare that “Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity” to disarm, a finding that could be used as an authorization to use force against Iraq. France, Russia and Germany have a memorandum calling for “reinforced” inspections on a timeline that could take inspections into the summer before the council makes a decision on the use of force. There is also a Canadian paper circulating among council members that tries to bridge the two positions by calling for a timeframe for compliance, as the French-German-Russian paper proposes, but on a shorter schedule — the end of March rather than July — which is more in line with the spirit of the draft resolution.
Bulgaria is the only other council member to publicly support the draft resolution. Syria is opposed to it. China supports the inspection plan.
Nine affirmative votes are needed to adopt a council resolution, provided that none of the five permanent members uses its veto.
“This divided council is in fact putting a decision on the shoulders of the elected members, while the permanent members stick to their positions without making efforts to adjust their views,” said Chilean Ambassador Gabriel Valdes. Reflecting the language of the French-German-Russian paper, he said, “Inspections cannot be eternal. … We want the inspectors to give us their plan of work. … Only then could the Security Council really take a decision by substantive majority that would express the view of the international community.”
German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, the president of the council for February, said putting the matter on the elected members “is not the issue. … It was an excellent discussion, very serious and very much to the point.” He added, “It is being done in a collegial and serious way, it is not the question of building coalitions or asking groups in the council to change their minds.”
Valdes said he was “very interested” in the Canadian proposal, but that any declaration of support at this point “is out of the question, we have never indicted to any side that we support them.”
Pleuger said the Canadian paper had not been presented to the council and thus “has no status in the Security Council.” Canada is not currently a member of the council and therefore was not present in the closed-door meetings.
Although media reports from Mexico suggested that President Vincente Fox was shifting toward the U.S. position, Valdes said, “There is complete coordination with Mexico. We have chosen with Mexico a path [not] to support, at this point in time, one position or the other.”
Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser said his government “is examining all options that have been presented to the Security Council” as well as the Canadian plan. Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien discussed Iraq in Mexico yesterday. When asked if the Mexican position was changing, Zinser said, “We expect inspections to be the peaceful way by which we achieve the disarmament of Iraq.”
French Ambassador Jean-Marie de la Sabliere said the differences among the nations are very difficult to bridge. … On the one hand, you have those who think that the time has come for war, they are asking the council to authorize war. On the other side, I think the majority of the council, is saying no, we can continue the inspections.” Pleuger said the majority of the council supports continuing inspections.
“It would be a paradox to decide at the moment we are witnessing progress that the path has come to war,” said de la Sabliere.
British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock would not discuss with journalists the debate, but instead said he had presented new “facts about current [WMD] activities in Iraq, facts about the concealment program, facts about deceiving inspectors. … In other words, we were showing why a claim by Iraq that there is nothing in terms of their WMD holdings is a lie” (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Feb. 28).
Outside the council chambers, the United States is continuing its efforts to gain Russia’s support for the new resolution, according to the Financial Times. The Bush administration has informed Russian officials that it will seek congressional approval of two pro-Russian measures prior to a meeting of world leaders in St. Petersburg scheduled for the end of May, the Times reported.
There is a good chance that the Jackson-Vanick law —Cold-War era legislation that restricts trade with Russia — could be repealed, a senior U.S. official said in Moscow. In addition, the U.S. Senate will probably soon approve the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, the official said (Andrew Jack, Financial Times, Feb. 27).
Despite these possible advances, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said today Russia still opposes any U.N. resolution that would authorize military action against Iraq and might use its veto to block such a resolution.
“Russia does not support any resolution which could directly or indirectly open the way to an armed resolution of the Iraq problem,” Ivanov said during a press conference in Beijing. “Naturally, Russia has the right of veto. If the interest of international stability demands it, Russia, of course will exercise its right,” he added (Reuters, Feb. 28).
Inspections
The first aerial surveillance operation in Iraq using French Mirage 4 aircraft was successfully conducted Wednesday, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency release.
Yesterday, inspectors visited at least eight suspect Iraqi sites, the IAEA release said. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the al-Muthana site to continue the destruction of artillery shells filled with mustard gas there. They also visited the Northern Refineries Company in Baiji. UNMOVIC biological inspectors visited al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range and observed the search for R-400 aerial bombs and fragments.
UNMOVIC missile inspectors visited the David Bros Company in Baghdad in response to Iraq’s declaration concerning a supplier of specialized missile equipment. Inspectors also conducted aerial surveillance operations over two sites — one west of Baghdad and one southwest of the Iraqi capital.
IAEA inspectors visited the State Establishment for Electrical Industries in Baghdad. They also conducted a radiation survey in industrial areas west of Baghdad (IAEA release, Feb. 27).
For further information, see:
UNMOVIC
IAEA Iraq Action Team
U.N. Resolution 1441
U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)
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. About 100 inspectors are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ recently reported activities.
| Date | Site | Activity | | Feb. 28 | Al-Muthana | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors continued the destruction of mustard gas-filled artillery shells (see GSN, Feb. 28). | | Northern Refineries Company in Baiji | See GSN, Feb. 28. | | Al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range | UNMOVIC biological inspectors observed the continued search for R-400 aerial bombs and fragments (see GSN, Feb. 28). | | David Bros Company in Baghdad | UNMOVIC missile inspectors sought information concerning a supplier of specialized missile equipment (see GSN, Feb. 28). | | Site west of Baghdad | Inspectors conducted an aerial survey of the sites (see GSN, Feb. 28.). | | Site southwest of Baghdad | | State Establishment for Electrical Industries in Baghdad | See GSN, Feb. 28. | | Industrial areas west of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 28). | | Feb. 27. | Al-Aziziyah Range | UNMOVIC biological inspectors inspected excavated munitions and fragments and conducted an aerial survey (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Al-Muthana | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors resumed the destruction of mustard gas-filled artillery shells (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Dar al-Salam Sulfuric Acid facility | See GSN, Feb. 27. | | Al-Naif Sulfonic Acid facility | | Al-Shika Company | UNMOVIC missile inspectors worked to verify Iraq’s declaration of the site and to establish a comprehensive monitoring system (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Al-Amin Factory | UNMOVIC missile inspectors inspected and tagged equipment that had been previously destroyed by inspectors, but later rebuilt (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Al-Basil Company | UNMOVIC missile inspectors tagged piece of equipment there that had been previously destroyed by inspectors but was later rebuilt (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Unit in Mosul | See GSN, Feb. 27. | | Badush Cement Factory | | Ibn al-Beythar Research Center in the Taji area, north of Baghdad | | Zafaraniya area of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Feb. 25 | Al-Rasheed Company | See GSN, Feb. 26. | | Al-Fatah Factory | | Electronic Base factory | | Al-Kadhimiya Company | | Al-Qa Qaa Storage | | Al-Falha Egg Production Company | | Baji underground refinery | | Department of Food Technology of the College of Agriculture and Forestry at Mosul University | | Department of Plant Protection of the College of Agriculture and Forestry at Mosul University | | Khalil customs post | | Mosul Ammunition Storage Facility | | Al Tahdi electronics research and electrical repair factory | | Nida | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 26). | | Feb. 24 | Al-Rasheed Company | See GSN, Feb. 25. | | Al-Qaid Factory | | Al-Eyz State Company | | Al-Mutasim Factory | | Baghdad Institute of Technology | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors conducted a rebaselining inspection (see GSN, Feb. 25). | | Airfield southwest of Baghdad | See GSN, Feb. 25. | | Munitions test range southwest of Baghdad | | Old munitions destruction site | UNMOVIC biological inspectors inspected munitions fragments (see GSN, Feb. 25). | | Environmental Engineering Laboratory at Mosul University’s Department of Civil Engineering | See GSN, Feb. 25. | | Mosul Airfield | UNMOVIC biological inspectors inspected shelters and bunkers related to the site (see GSN, Feb. 25). | | Area southwest of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a car-borne radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 25). | | Al-Midlad State Company | IAEA inspectors inspected the use of high-strength magnets at the sites (see GSN, Feb. 25). | | Al-Karama | | Al-Razzi State Company | | Al-Yarmook | | Missile engine and guidance system production plant | See GSN, Feb. 24. | | Missile engine and guidance system production plant | | Chemical and explosives plant | | Anti-aircraft missile maintenance facility | | Feb. 23 | Al-Rafah | UNMOVIC missile inspectors observed a static test of an al-Samoud 2 missile (see GSN, Feb. 24). | | Al-Quadissiya | See GSN, Feb. 24. | | Al-Melad | | Al-Murage Company for Perfume Production in Baghdad | | Tabook State Company, formerly known as the Karbala Ammunition Filling Plant | | Veterinary College at Mosul University in Mosul | | Ninevah Food Industrial Company in Mosul | | Al-Muthanna area | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 24). | | Feb. 22 | Ibn al-Haytahm | UNMOVIC missile inspectors inventoried al-Samoud 2 missile components and subassemblies (IAEA release, Feb. 22). | | Undisclosed area | UNMOVIC missile inspectors inspected the remains of a liquid engine propellant test stand and tagged two pieces of manufacturing equipment (IAEA release, Feb. 22). | | Al-Nasser | IAEA release, Feb. 22. | | Iraqi Army Liquid Propellant Analytical Laboratory in west Baghdad | | Research center in the Baghdad area | UNMOVIC biological inspectors observed the destruction of a small amount of previously monitored out-of-date bacterial growth media (IAEA release, Feb. 22). | | Testing laboratory in the Baghdad area | | Yarmouk GE Site area | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (IAEA release, Feb. 25). | | Al-Kadessiya General Establishment | IAEA release, Feb. 22. | | Al-Nahrawan munitions factory | | Feb. 21 | Musaayib Power Station | UNMOVIC missile inspectors checked for possible storage of missile-related items (IAEA release, Feb. 21). | | Area west of Baghdad | UNMOVIC biological inspectors conducted an aerial inspection of an undisclosed site (IAEA release, Feb. 21). | | Area northwest of Baghdad | UNMOVIC biological inspectors conducted an aerial inspection of an undisclosed site (IAEA release, Feb. 21). | | Feb. 14-20 | See GSN, Feb. 21. | |
 |
Following news accounts yesterday that North Korea has restarted its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, U.S. officials said yesterday that Pyongyang has reactivated a steam plant linked to North Korea’s nuclear spent-fuel reprocessing facility, Reuters reported (see GSN, Feb. 27).
“They could start (reprocessing) on fairly short notice, but they haven’t yet,” said an official. “There also seems to be some effort to make sure they have the necessary chemicals in stock for reprocessing,” according to the official.
“There have been railroad cars full of chemicals arriving at Yongbyon,” the official added (Paul Eckert, Reuters, Feb. 28).
The International Atomic Energy Agency yesterday strongly criticized the restarting of the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.
“If this is true, the IAEA deplores the operation of the D.P.R.K.’s nuclear facilities without the presence of safeguards inspectors,” a statement from the IAEA said. “Restarting this now-unsafeguarded nuclear facility will further demonstrate the D.P.R.K.’s disregard for its nuclear nonproliferation obligations,” the statement added.
Without inspectors at the plant, the agency cannot confirm the restarted nuclear facility, but the IAEA said it still considers Pyongyang’s safeguards agreement to be “binding and in force” (U.N. release, Feb. 27).
U.S. officials said the reactor’s restart is clearly intended to produce nuclear weapon material.
“The only reason to operate a reactor like this is to produce spent fuel that can then be turned into plutonium for weapons,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday (Josef Hebert, Associated Press/Arizona Daily Sun, Feb. 28).
U.N. Envoy Scheduled to Visit Pyongyang
Maurice Strong, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s envoy, said he would bring ideas to Pyongyang in an attempt to resolve the standoff.
“I will present some ideas to [the] North Koreans in my facilitating role and will help them (North Korea and the United States) find a formula in which they can move toward peace,” Strong said. The envoy pushed for negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang.
“As long as they are not engaging, there are always possibilities that the situation could lead to renewed conflict on the peninsula. And the danger will increase as long as the parties are not engaged,” he added (Seo Hyun-jin, Korea Herald, Feb. 28).
By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — India and Pakistan should look to the sea to help reduce tensions between them, according to a paper released this month by the Henry L. Stimson Center.
The paper, written by Rajesh Pendharkar, a senior Indian Navy officer and a visiting fellow at the Stimson Center, proposes that the nations begin to engage in maritime confidence-building measures as a starting point for further development of bilateral relations.
In the 55 years of conflict between India and Pakistan, centered mainly on the disputed region of Kashmir, most of the fighting was conducted with land and air forces. This has left the maritime arena as the least-contentious dimension of the India-Pakistan conflict, the paper says.
“The maritime arena ... thus offers the greatest prospects for building upon the previous trust that may not be present in other arenas,” it says.
Naval confidence-building measures also have a greater chance of succeeding where others, such as humanitarian and conflict resolution measures, have failed because India and Pakistan have an broader obligation to the international community to ensure the safe traffic of neutral trade, such as oil, through the region, according to the paper. In addition, there are number of mutually beneficial areas of cooperation, including search-and-rescue operations, smuggling interdiction and marine environment protection, it says.
The Stimson Center paper proposes a “two-pronged approach” toward establishing maritime condifence-building measures. First, the two countries should work to develop a multilateral framework among Arabian Sea countries based on a search-and-rescue agreement and regional maritime security management, which could then lead to a bilateral agreement between the Indian and Pakistani navies, the paper says.
India and Pakistan should also use an incidents-at-sea agreement, such as the one called for in the Indian-Pakistan 1998 Lahore Declaration, to construct a bilateral framework for continued engagement, the paper says. In the 1998 declaration, the two countries agreed to “conclude an agreement on the prevention of incidents at sea in order to ensure safety of navigation by naval vessels, and aircraft belonging to the two sides.”
An incidents-at-sea agreement has the best chance of beginning a sustained India-Pakistan engagement, according to the paper.
“An incidents-at-sea agreement is the ideal practical mechanism for ensuring a continued form of bilateral engagement free from politicization and media sensationalism,” the paper says. “Continued dialogue or activity that engages adversaries in working together is a powerful catalyst for confidence,” it adds.
India and Pakistan could look to the U.S-Soviet Cold War relationship for guidance in developing an incidents-at-sea agreement, according to the paper. In 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union signed such an agreement and the agreement promoted maritime engagement because it had a number of confidence-building measures built into it, including communication, transparency and verification, the paper says. Washington and Moscow successfully maintained the measures even during such flare-ups as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
After creation of an incidents-at-sea agreement, India and Pakistan should work to create a framework in which to hold regular consultative meetings and establish a maritime risk reduction center to exchange incident-related information and notifications of major naval exercises and naval ballistic missile tests, the paper says.
The investigation into theft and fraud charges at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico could result in “a huge national security problem” if it triggered the departure of the facility’s scientists, a top U.S. nuclear official said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 4).
“What’s irreplaceable is what’s in the minds of the people,” said Linton Brooks, acting head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Energy Department agency responsible for nuclear weapon design and maintenance. He added that he is worried about the effect the investigation is having on the morale of Los Alamos scientists. Many of them could choose to retire or work at another facility, which would result in “a huge national security problem if we don’t get this behind us,” Brooks said (Dan Stober, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 28).
Because of the number of theft and fraud reports at Los Alamos, the Energy Department is considering whether to allow other institutions to compete with the University of California to manage the facility, according to the Associated Press. Such a change in management, however, could harm the facility’s national security work, a university official said Wednesday.
The most experienced Los Alamos scientists are close to retirement age and might choose to leave if there were a change in management, said Bruce Darling, a senior university official, told the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. “Turning over the contract on a regular basis creates a real threat of disruption to our nation’s security,” Darling said.
While Los Alamos did appear to suffer from a lack of financial controls, there are no signs that weapons secrets were lost or that national security was compromised, Energy Inspector General Gregory Friedman told the subcommittee. That cannot be guaranteed, however, with 400 of the facility’s computers having been stolen over three years, he said (Robert Gehrke, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 27).
|
 |
By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — Public health experts said this week that the single largest factor preventing implementation of the U.S. smallpox immunization plan is the lack of compensation for those sickened by the vaccine, but legislation is now being drafted to address the problem, according to congressional sources (see GSN, Feb. 26).
Medical workers have stayed away from the program in droves over fears of the well-advertised and potentially dangerous side effects of the vaccine. Over a month into the immunization campaign, fewer than 7,500 emergency workers nationwide have received the vaccine (see related GSN story, today).
On Feb. 13, Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) introduced the Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act and staffers are negotiating a bill in the Senate to provide compensation for those who suffer adverse vaccine side effects.
“I have heard from public health officials and vaccination experts that many health care workers are understandably reluctant to accept a vaccine to protect the public while being forced to face the consequences of an adverse reaction alone. These consequences can include large medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and death. There can be no doubt that a compensation plan is urgently needed,” Waxman said.
Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee’s senior Democrat, are drafting legislation to address obstacles to the smallpox immunization plan, according to their staff.
“We need to reassure people that need to receive the vaccine that they will be protected,” said Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Gregg’s committee. Legislation will be brought to the Senate “hopefully in the next month,” Iverson said.
Gregg, Kennedy, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and other lawmakers are negotiating to produce a bill that resolves the vaccine compensation issue, according to Kennedy aide Jim Manley.
“Everyone, in the end, would prefer to have a bipartisan proposal,” Iverson said. Although it is not yet clear what the final product will look like, she said that Gregg and Kennedy have been “working closely” on the issue.
The U.S. health care community’s reluctance to accept the vaccine surprised experts, some of whom complained about exaggerated reports of the possible side effects.
“People have wildly overstated the risks of the vaccine. Wildly,” said Ed Kaplan, a Yale University professor who has criticized the CDC’s smallpox vaccine plans. He said that sensationalized reports are keeping volunteers away.
“In part it’s because there were a lot of scare tactics being used,” according to Kaplan.
While some experts said the chances of suffering vaccine side effects are remote, they also said that public concerns must be addressed.
“All of us, I certainly did, underestimated the impact of the compensation issue,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. Benjamin said that issues of compensation and liability protection are “showstoppers,” and Congress still has “a huge way to go.”
Waxman’s Bill
Waxman’s bill proposes a “no-fault compensation program modeled on the existing childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The purpose of this bill is to compensate people … for their unreimbursed medical expenses and lost wages,” according to a summary of the bill released by Waxman’s office.
The bill would also provide up to four days of medical leave for emergency and medical workers who “suffer transient but significant reactions.” The bill calls for Washington to reimburse employers for the missed days.
Waxman also proposes federal grants for the smallpox immunization program, which has been a large and unfunded mandate, according to some state and local officials. Waxman’s proposal would send federal grants to states that “provide adequate education and screening for potential vaccines,” as well as testing and post-immunization monitoring.
Senate Legislation
Kennedy’s proposal provides federal grants to help fund state immunization efforts and establishes a compensation program, according to Kennedy aide Manley.
The bill also “ensures that people receive medical treatment … free medical care” if they suffer side effects, he said.
“There are indications that the White House is willing to support it, we have to wait and see,” according to Manley.
Gregg is pushing legislation to provide compensation for smallpox vaccine patients as well as liability protection for those who develop and administer other vaccines, according to Iverson, the committee spokeswoman.
The Homeland Security Act, which became law in November, does not provide sufficient liability protection for makers of vaccines other than smallpox, Iverson said (see GSN, Nov. 25, 2002). This is an issue that needs to be addressed to encourage companies to develop other vaccines without fear of lawsuits, Iverson said, because the United States might need to “vaccinate people down the road” against anthrax or botulinum toxin.
By the end of last week, more than 7,000 U.S. health workers had received the smallpox vaccine and about 25 experienced significant side effects, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (see GSN, Feb. 21).
CDC officials said that 7,345 health workers had been immunized as of Feb. 21, and experts said the rate of adverse reaction was not high.
“This is consistent with what we expected,” said Michael Lane, former chief of the CDC’s smallpox eradication program (M.A.J. McKenna, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb. 27).
Three health care workers in Florida became seriously ill after receiving the smallpox vaccine, but only one of the sicknesses is likely to be connected to the immunizations, U.S. officials said yesterday.
A 39-year-old Florida nurse developed headaches, malaise and other symptoms indicating a reaction to the live virus vaccine. Officials treated her with antihistamines and she is recovering, according to Eric Mast, an immunization specialist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, Feb. 28).
|
 |
|
 |
Iraq agreed “in principle” yesterday to destroy its stockpile of more than 120 al-Samoud 2 ballistic missiles, which experts have determined can fly farther than U.N.-mandated range limits (see GSN, Feb. 27; Tyler/Barringer, New York Times, Feb. 28).
Hans Blix, the chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, said this morning that if Iraq completes the missiles’ dismantlement, it will be "a very significant piece of real disarmament."
Yesterday, UNMOVIC received a letter from Iraq saying “in principle Iraq accepts the request for the destruction of the missiles.” Blix said he asked in his letter for clarification as to what “in principle” means. “They say the accept in principle. It’s to start tomorrow, so maybe tomorrow or Su | |
Back to top
