In a tense battle of wills in the U.N. Security Council today, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw introduced amendments to the U.S.-British-Spanish draft resolution on Iraq that would set a deadline “on or before” March 17 for Iraq to disarm or face military action. The original draft, introduced Feb. 24, would only have the council decide “that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it” to disarm, implying adoption of the resolution would immediately authorize the use of force (see GSN, March 6).
The amendment was immediately rejected by French Foreign Minster Dominique de Villepin, the leading proponent of giving inspectors more time. “We won’t accept this resolution,” he told reporters minutes after Straw’s statement. “We cannot accept any ultimatum, any automatic use of force.”
He said setting a deadline of only 10 days “is the logic of war, we don’t accept this logic.” While not explicitly saying France would veto the new draft, de Villepin said, “We would not accept a resolution that would lead to war.”
The action came following the latest reports to the council from chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, who said Iraq was being more cooperative, if not fully cooperative, and that they had not unearthed evidence that Iraq had a functioning nuclear weapons program.
Blix, chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, told the council, “After a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation there has been an acceleration of initiatives on the Iraqi side since the end of January” on revealing its programs of weapons of mass destruction, thus giving ammunition both to countries wanting to continue inspections as well as those who want to abandon inspections in favor of the use of force against Iraq.
This new cooperation on Iraq’s part “is welcomed, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear,” said Blix. Iraqi initiatives “cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation, nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance,” but, he added, “they are nevertheless welcomed.”
Blix gave indirect support to the position of France, Russia and Germany that inspectors should be allowed to continue their work until July when he said, “While cooperation can, and is to be, immediate, disarmament and verification of it cannot be instant … It will not take years nor weeks, but months.”
The United States and United Kingdom argue that Iraq is not cooperating and thus inspections have run their course. Blix helped that case by saying the cooperation has not been “immediate and unconditional,” as called for in Resolution 1441, and that there are many questions regarding the fate of weapons Iraq was known to have at the end of the Gulf War, including anthrax and VX nerve gas, and that it is not known if Iraq resumed weapons programs after inspectors left at the end of 1998.
On the other hand, Blix said UNMOVIC has found no evidence “so far” to back up two of the charges the United States has made against Iraq: that Iraq is developing biological weapons in mobile laboratories and that it is conducting illegal weapons production underground.
Blix also told the council that UNMOVIC has completed a report that contains clusters of issues that “will identify ‘key remaining disarmament tasks’“ as called for in Resolution 1284, which created UNMOVIC. This cluster list will provide “a more up-to-date review of the outstanding issues” than earlier documents, he said. Each cluster ends “with a number of points indicating what Iraq could do to solve the issues. Hence Iraq’s cooperation could be measured against the successful resolution of issues,” said Blix, again reinforcing the case of those who say more time for inspections will achieve results.
ElBaradei, executive director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the council, “After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.”
While not able to completely close the books on Iraq’s nuclear program, ElBaradei said there is “no indication” that Iraq has resumed nuclear activities in buildings identified by national intelligence agencies as conducting such work, or that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990 or that the aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to import are, as the United States has said, useful for producing weapon-grade uranium.
Powell Unconvinced
Following the inspectors’ reports, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said there is “one, very important question before us: ‘Has the Iraqi regime made the fundamental strategic and political decision to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and rid itself of all of its weapons of mass destruction?’”
He said he listened to the inspectors “very carefully to see if I were hearing that finally Iraq had reached that point,” but said Iraqi concessions had “been pulled out ... by the possibility of military force by the political will of the Security Council.” He added that cooperation has been given “only grudgingly, rarely unconditionally and primarily under the threat of force.”
“Now is the time for the council to send a clear message to [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] that we have not been taken in by his transparent tactics,” Powell said. “We believe that the resolution that has been put forward for action by this council is appropriate and in the very near future, we should bring it before this council for a vote.”
Powell called Blix’s cluster report “a category of 12 years of abject failure” by Iraq to disarm. It is “page after page of how Iraq has obstructed the inspectors,” he said. The actions asked of Iraq “could have taken many times over the preceding 12 years.”
“How can we rely on assurances now?” he asked. If Iraq was committed to disarmament, the report “would not be 167 pages of issues and questions, it would thousands upon thousand of pages of answers.”
Germany Responds
Advocates of continuing inspections said there was no need to abandon inspections now that they were succeeding and when the alternative, the use of force, is attended by so many uncertainties. Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany, the first council member to speak this morning, said, “Given the current situation and the ongoing progress, we see no need for a second resolution. Why should we leave the path we have embarked on now that the inspections on the basis of Resolution 1441 are showing viable results?”
“Iraq’s cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA does not yet fully meet U.N. demands,” Fischer said. “Baghdad could have taken many of the recent steps earlier and more willingly. In recent days, cooperation has nevertheless notably improved. This is a positive development which makes all the less comprehensible why this development should now be abandoned” (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, March 7).
Bush Press Conference
U.S. President George W. Bush said last night during a nationally televised press conference that the United States is ready to lead a war against Iraq without the support of the United Nations in order to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction.
“I’m confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don’t need United Nations approval to do so,” Bush said. “When it comes to our security, we really don’t need anybody’s permission,” he added.
In his address, Bush warned that the U.N. Security Council’s reputation is at stake in the debate over Iraq.
“I believe it’s an important moment for the Security Council, itself. And the reason I say that is because this issue has been before the Security Council — the issue of disarmament of Iraq – for 12 long years,” Bush said. “And the fundamental question facing the Security Council is, ‘Will its words mean anything?’ When the Security Council speaks, will the words have merit and weight?” he added.
The United States has been working over the last few weeks to obtain the support of the nonpermanent members of the Security Council for the draft resolution. While there have been reports that the United States would not call for a vote on the resolution if it did not have guarantees of enough votes for passage, Bush said the Untied States would still push for a vote regardless of stated support (see GSN, Feb. 21).
“No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council,” Bush said. “It’s time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam,” he added.
Bush laid out several pieces of U.S. intelligence countering Hussein’s claims of disarmament. For example, while Iraq has been destroying its stockpile of prohibited al-Samoud 2 missiles, U.S. intelligence has found that Hussein has ordered their continued production, Bush said. Iraq has also attempted to hide its stockpiles of biological and chemical agents by moving them to different locations every 12 to 24 hours and by placing them within vehicles parked in residential areas, he said.
“These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming,” Bush said. “These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world,” he added.
Bush last night also promised that the United States would aid in the reconstruction of a post-Hussein Iraq in the event of war, including humanitarian assistance and aid in establishing a democratic government.
“In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibility to protect innocent lives in every way possible,” Bush said. “We’ll help that nation to build a just government, after decades of brutal dictatorship. The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein,” he added (Mike Nartker, Global Security Newswire, March 7).
Inspectors Not Receiving Best Intelligence, U.S. Senator Says
The United States has withheld from U.N. inspectors most of its best intelligence information on Iraq’s suspected WMD sites, U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 28).
“I think we have a strong case (for war) in the Security Council,” Levin said. “But the administration has undermined the inspection process and mocked the inspectors. We have reduced the possibility that we catch the SOB with the stuff and galvanize the world community,” he added.
Former CIA counterterrorism official Vince Cannistraro said he agreed with Levin’s claims that the United States has not provided the best of its intelligence. This might have been done, however, because the White House has never wanted the inspections to succeed, he said.
“The objective is not disarmament, it’s to get rid of Saddam. We won’t take yes for an answer on this,” Cannistraro said.
In a letter sent yesterday to Levin and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), CIA Director George Tenet defended the U.S. information-sharing with inspectors, saying that U.S. agencies have given “extensive intelligence and other support to the U.N. on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction for over 10 years” (Dave Moniz, USA Today, March 7).
Inspections
U.N. inspectors visited at least 13 suspect Iraqi sites yesterday, according to an IAEA press release.
Missile experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission traveled to al-Mutasim to observe the final concrete encasing of two destroyed casting chambers. UNMOVIC missile inspectors also visited the al-Samoud Factory to inventory al-Samoud 2 missile components.
UNMOVIC biological inspectors traveled to al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range to take samples from excavated R-400 bombs. They also inspected two facilities near Aziziyah owned by the Mesopotamia State Company for Seeds. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the Akashat Phosphate Mine in al-Qaim.
Inspectors conducted aerial inspections of three undisclosed sites located in the northern no-fly zone, according to the IAEA release. Inspectors based in the northern city of Mosul visited the North Gas Company in Kirkuk.
IAEA inspectors visited the SAAD State Company in Baghdad and conducted a review of a new factory the company is designing. IAEA inspectors also visited a private trading company in the Mansour district of Baghdad and conducted a radiation survey in north Baghdad (IAEA release, March 6).
For further information, see:
UNMOVIC
IAEA Iraq Action Team
U.N. Resolution 1441
The U.S. Defense Department yesterday said it has certified the Alabama WMD civil support team, bringing the number of certified teams to 31 (see GSN, Feb. 6). The teams, part of states’ National Guard units, are ready to respond in the event of a domestic incident involving weapons of mass destruction, the Pentagon said (see GSN, Feb. 8, 2002). The department has so far certified four out of the five civil support teams authorized in the fiscal 2001 National Defense Appropriations Act (U.S. Defense Department release, March 6).
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, 2002. 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 | | March 6 | Al-Mutasim | UNMOVIC missile inspectors observed the final concrete encasing of two destroyed casting chambers (see GSN, March 7). | | Al-Samoud Factory | UNMOVIC missile inspectors inventoried al-Samoud 2 missile components (see GSN, March 7). | | Al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range | UNMOVIC biological inspectors took samples from excavated R-400 bombs (see GSN, March 7). | | Two facilities near Aziziyah owned by the Mesopotamia State Company for Seeds | See GSN, March 7 | | Akashat Phosphate Mine in al-Qaim | | Undisclosed site in northern no-fly zone | Inspectors conducted aerial inspections of the sites (see GSN, March 7). | | Second undisclosed site in northern no-fly zone | | Third undisclosed site in northern no-fly zone | | North Gas Company in Kirkuk | See GSN, March 7. | | SAAD State Company in Baghdad | IAEA inspectors reviewed designs for a new factory (see GSN, March 7). | | Private trading company in the Mansour district of Baghdad | See GSN, March 7. | | North Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, March 7). | | Al-Taji | UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles (see GSN, March 6) | | March 5 | Al-Qa Qaa | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors inspected two plants at the site (see GSN, March 6). | | Bashair Trading Company | UNMOVIC biological inspectors worked to assess the site’s role in Iraq obtaining mobile biological laboratories (see GSN, March 6). | | Samarra East Airfield | See GSN, March 6. | | Salahaddin University in Irbil | | Mosul Gas Electric Company | | State-owned trading company in central Baghdad | | Computer center of a state-owned bank in central Baghdad | | Area southeast of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, March 6). | | Al-Taji | UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles (see GSN, March 5). | | Al-Mutasim | See GSN, March 5. | | Al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range | | March 4 | Al-Taji | UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles and missile engines (see GSN, March 5). | | Al-Mutasim | UNMOVIC missile inspectors observed the destruction of a second casting chamber for al-Samoud 2 components (see GSN, March 5). | | Ibn Fernas Center in northern Baghdad | See GSN, March 5. | | Al-Basil Nawaran | | North Oil Company-owned oilfield in the northern city of Kirkuk | Inspectors conducted an aerial inspection (see GSN, March 5). | | Northern Region Customs | See GSN, March 5. | | March 3 | Al-Muthanna | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors observed the destruction of 14 empty 155 mm artillery shells, 10 of which had once been filled with mustard gas agent (see GSN, March 4). | | Mesopotamia State Company for Seeds in Baghdad | See GSN, March 4. | | Biology Department at the College of Science at Mosul University | | Al-Taji | UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of six al-Samoud 2 missiles (see GSN, March 4). | | Al-Mutasim | UNMOVIC missile inspectors completed the destruction of a casting chamber and began the destruction of a second casting chamber (see GSN, March 4). | | Al-Furat State Company | See GSN, March 4. | | Anti-aircraft missile component storage facility outside of Baghdad | | Construction agency related to spray irrigation systems | | Area north of Baghdad, near the town of Tarmya | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, March 4). | | Chemical and explosives plant | See GSN, March 3. | | Rocket factory | | Al-Aziziya | | State-owned trading company in the Sadoon district of Baghdad | IAEA release, March 3. | | Private trading company in the Mansoor district of Baghdad | | National Chemical Plastics Industries plant in Baghdad | | March 2 | Al-Taji | UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of six al-Samoud 2 missiles (IAEA release, March 2). | | Al-Mutasim | UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of a casting chamber (IAEA release, March 2). | | Al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range | UNMOVIC biological inspectors took samples from R-400 bombs at the site reported to have been filled with biological agents (IAEA release, March 2). | | Fallujah 2 | IAEA release, March 2. | | SA-2 missile support facility near Kadhimiya, Baghdad | | Private trading company in central Baghdad | | Area north of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (IAEA release, March 2). | | Feb. 21-28 | See GSN, Feb. 28. | |
 |
The U.S. Senate voted 95-0 yesterday to approve the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which would limit each former Cold War rival to no more than 2,200 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by the end of 2012 (see GSN, March 6).
The pact, also known as the Moscow Treaty, is “evidence that the U.S.-Russian relationship has turned the corner,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said (Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, March 7).
The treaty’s ratification could even help the White House obtain Russian support for the U.S.-British-Spanish-supported draft U.N. resolution on Iraq, Lugar said (see related GSN story, today).
“It’s the reason why Russia might eventually work with the United States in the Security Council on Iraq, because they value the relationship,” Lugar said in an interview with the Associated Press. “They understand something new and important is happening here,” he added (Ken Guggenheim, Associated Press/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 7).
The Senate defeated two amendments to the treaty ratification resolution offered by Democrats, according to the Washington Post. One, rejected 44-50, would have required Senate approval before the United States could withdraw from the treaty. The second amendment, defeated 45-50, would have required annual intelligence reports on treaty compliance (Helen Dewar, Washington Post, March 7).
Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said he had “many reservations” about the treaty. Biden also said, however, that “the reason I’m for this treaty is, failure to ratify (it), I believe, would be read as bad faith” (Richter, Los Angeles Times).
Russia today praised the Senate for approving the Moscow Treaty.
“Russia is certain that after the ratification of the Moscow agreement in the (upper-house) Russian Federation Council and after it takes effect, it will become an important strategic factor for stability and global security in 21st century international relations,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a press statement.
Some Russian lawmakers, however, warned that the treaty’s ratification in Moscow could be disrupted if the United States goes to war with Iraq (see GSN, Jan. 16).
There “could be some complications if the United States launches a military operation against Iraq,” said Andrei Nikolayev, head of the lower house of the Russian Parliament’s defense committee (Agence France-Presse, March 7).
For further information, see:
U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)
Bush Announces Moscow Treaty
U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Moscow Treaty
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon yesterday made its case to Congress for its requested repeal of a 9-year-old ban on developing low-yield nuclear weapons intended for targeting deeply buried enemy bunkers and chemical and biological weapons stores (see GSN, March 6).
The Air Force, meanwhile, is planning to request congressional funding within a week to develop new high-yield nuclear weapons for a separate, but possibly overlapping mission to destroy deeply buried, hardened bunkers, the Washington Post reported today.
The request said the research ban impedes exploration of weapons concepts that could offer capabilities both for earth penetration weapons and for defeating chemical and biological agents.
These developments are “another piece of evidence the administration is willing to pursue new nuclear weapons of all kinds,” said Stephen Young, an analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Arguments Provided for Low-Yield Work
In a draft version of its fiscal 2004 budget request sent to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees this week, the Pentagon argued for repealing the ban on research into a low-yield, “mini-nuke.”
The ban was created by Congress in 1994 and bars research and development on nuclear weapons with yields below five kilotons.
The request said the repeal is needed to “train the next generation of nuclear weapons scientists and engineers,” and to “restore a nuclear weapons enterprise able to respond rapidly and decisively to changes in the international security environment or unforeseen technical problems in the stockpile.”
The military seeks a “revitalized nuclear weapons advanced concepts effort” and said the ban has had a “chilling effect” on that effort “by impeding the ability of our scientists and engineers to explore the full range of technical options.”
It said the ban “does not simply prohibit research on new, low-yield warheads, but prohibits any activities ‘which could potentially lead to production by the United States’ of such a warhead.”
“It is prudent national security policy not to foreclose exploration of technical options that could strengthen our ability to deter, or respond to, new or emerging threats,” it said.
In comments on the Senate floor yesterday, Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said the Pentagon was seeking to repeal the low-yield nuclear weapons ban “even though there is clearly no military requirement for such a weapon.”
Representative John Spratt, (D-S.C.) who drafted the legislation that created the 1994 ban, questioned yesterday whether low-yield nuclear weapons would even work as intended. He cited quotes by former national laboratory scientists who argued it would be difficult to develop a miniature nuclear weapon that could destroy chemical and biological agents instead of dispersing them.
Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists challenged the Pentagon’s reasoning that a repeal of the low-yield nuclear weapon development ban is needed for training scientists and engineers.
“What is needed now is scientists and engineers who are capable of maintaining the existing stockpile of nuclear weapons,” he said.
“The problem they face is that it’s a less exciting challenge than developing new nuclear weapons. If they can’t blow things up in the labs or at the live test site, they might have trouble attracting top scientists to do the work. It doesn’t mean they should do that to fulfill that goal.”
Democratic Criticism
Critics have charged that the Bush administration’s pursuit of new nuclear weapons, and suggestions it may use such weapons missions in combat, undermines the international norm against using nuclear weapons, as well as the treaties designed to discourage nuclear proliferation, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
“Frankly, this adds up to a very disturbing path of legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons in a world in which we are dramatically concerned with the possibility that Iraq is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, a world in which the North Koreans are beginning to flaunt their ability to produce nuclear weapons, in which India and Pakistan are on the brink of conflict with nuclear weapons,” said Reed.
Senior Senate Democrats, including three presidential candidates, yesterday proposed but withdrew a resolution that offered a lengthy indictment of a range of Bush administration policies related to WMD proliferation.
It said a policy “that moves toward the goal of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and away from the increased reliance on and the importance of nuclear weapons” would further the U.S. goal of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation.
“Development of new and theoretically at least more useable nuclear capabilities by the greatest nuclear power on earth sends the clear message to other countries that they should develop their own nuclear weapons programs,” said Kathryn Crandall, an analyst with the British American Security Information Alliance.
Possible Earth Penetrator Testing
The Energy Department has requested $21 million for research on “advanced concepts,” $15 million of which would be allocated for continued study of options for the high-yield “earth penetrator” weapon.
Everet Beckner, deputy administrator for defense programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said yesterday in congressional testimony the money would support “theoretical and engineering work” that “might culminate in an integral flight or laboratory test” of a prototype weapon, he said.
Experts say such testing would not require a nuclear explosion. The United States has adhered to a nuclear testing moratorium since 1992 and former President Bill Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, but the Bush administration has made clear it will not ratify the treaty.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday denied reports that the White House has accepted the idea of a nuclear-armed North Korea, but he said direct negotiations would yield little (see GSN, March 6).
“I don’t know of any basis for the report that we have decided to live with a nuclearized North Korea,” Powell said in testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and State. “We’re working with all of our friends in the region to see that North Korea does not become nuclearized, or even more nuclearized than it may be,” Powell said.
Powell complained that direct negotiations were being depicted as an easy way out of the current nuclear standoff.
“Now, every time you pick up the paper in the morning it says, ‘Oh, a quick solution is just — why don’t you just call them up and go talk to them?’ Well, that’s what happened some years ago and we came up with the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework served a useful purpose in capping the Yongbyon facility so that it wasn’t producing any more fissionable material. And I give credit to the Agreed Framework for having done that for eight years,” he said.
“But at the same time, the potential for developing fissionable material was left in place,” he added.
Powell said the answer now lies in multilateral negotiations and involvement of regional powers.
“We’re making it clear to the North Koreans that we do want to talk, but we want to talk in a multilateral forum,” he said. “It is not just a problem between the United States and the D.P.R.K. That’s the way they want to see it. It’s a problem with the D.P.R.K. and the international community; the D.P.R.K. and the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Powell added.
He also testified that the United States is pushing a diplomatic solution the problem. Washington wants a peaceful resolution to the crisis and is involved in several initiatives to start a multilateral dialogue, Powell said.
“Some of them are very, very quietly underway,” he added (Federal New Service transcript, March 6).
Experts testifying elsewhere in Congress yesterday, however, called for direct dialogue.
Even if nuclear-armed North Korea were prevented from exporting nuclear material, the regime could collapse and “loose nukes could fall into the hands of warlords or factions,” said Ashton Carter, a former assistant defense secretary and now a Harvard professor.
“The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,400 years,” Carter told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. “I don’t know how long the North Korean regime will last, but it’s not that long,” he said (Sonni Efron, Los Angeles Times, March 7).
President George W. Bush echoed Powell’s comments during his press conference last night.
“This is a regional issue. I say a regional issue because there’s a lot of countries that have got a direct stake into whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons,” Bush said. “We’ve got a stake as to whether North Korea has a nuclear weapon. China clearly has a stake as to whether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon. South Korea, of course, has a stake. Japan has got a significant stake as to whether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon. Russia has a stake. So, therefore, I think the best way to deal with this is in multilateral fashion, by convincing those nations they must stand up to their responsibility,” he added.
Bush said he was buoyed by the fact that Chinese President Jiang Zemin supported a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula (White House transcript, March 6).
Possible U.S. Pullout From South Korea
The United States is examining options for redistributing, or removing, military forces in South Korea, according to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. New South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has asked the United States to “look at how we might rebalance our relationship and our force structure,” Rumsfeld said.
“I suspect that what we’ll do is we’ll end up making some adjustments there,” he said. The Pentagon can make such a move, Rumsfeld said, because South Korea’s armed forces provide “the kind of upfront deterrent that is needed” (Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, March 7).
“Whether the forces would come home or whether they’d move farther south on the peninsula or whether they’d move to some neighboring area are the kinds of things that are being sorted out,” he added.
The Pentagon is conducting a similar re-evaluation with its forces in Western Europe, Rumsfeld said. The potential realignment is not a result of changing political situations or the U.S. relationship with South Korea and Germany, defense officials said (Jaime McIntyre/Reuters, CNN.com, March 7).
KEDO Work Continues
The political standoff has not, however, stopped the preparation of the two nuclear reactors that were to be built for North Korea allowed under the 1994 Agreed Framework.
“Work continues at the site,” said Brian Kremer, a spokesman for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. The project is 20 percent complete, he told Global Security Newswire today.
The site preparation is funded by loans from South Korea and Japan, and is not contingent on U.S. financial support, according to Kremer (see GSN, Feb. 4; David McGlinchey, Global Security Newswire, March 7).
The Bush administration has so far passed up opportunities to terminate the Agreed Framework, despite White House criticism of the agreement, which was signed under former President Bill Clinton, the Boston Globe reported. In May 2001, the Bush administration authorized the transfer of some nuclear power safety information to North Korea.
“They’ve engaged in rhetorical hostility, but policy continuity with the Clinton administration’s North Korea policy from the very beginning,” said Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.).
In a March 4 letter, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told Markey that the department had sent 300 nuclear-related documents to North Korea, the Globe reported. The documents include a safety analysis report, training documents, quality assurance documents and construction documents, according to the Globe.
In light of the current crisis, however, the White House is “now considering appropriate courses of action, possibly to include suspension or revocation of the May 2001 authorization,” according to Abraham (Wayne Washington, Boston Globe, March 7).
|
 |
By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) yesterday said a White House plan to resolve compensation issues in the national smallpox immunization plan would move “very quickly” through the U.S. Congress and he warned that vaccinated health workers are urgently needed to protect the United States against a potential biological weapons attack (see GSN, March 6).
Gregg, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said that the proposed legislation would move to the full Senate by the end of the month.
“We need to do this one fast,” he told a press conference hosted by the Health and Human Services Department to introduce the Bush administration’s smallpox vaccine compensation plan.
Held back by concerns over the vaccine’s side effects and the lack of related compensation, fewer than 13,000 medical workers have been vaccinated out of an anticipated 500,000. The legislation would provide $262,100 to vaccine recipients, or their families, who die or suffer permanent disability. It would also provide limited compensation, after five missed days of work, for those who suffer less serious side effects.
“People should certainly sign up because this legislation is going to pass,” Gregg said.
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee’s senior Democrat, believes the White House plan is a “step in the right direction” but he has some areas of concern, according his aide Jim Manley.
The new proposal “falls short of what is needed to compensate injured workers adequately,” Manley said. As examples of shortcomings, he cited the absence of funding for states to carry out their immunization plans, the cap on compensation and the five-day period before sickened workers begin to receive lost wages.
“Senator Kennedy shares Senator Gregg’s desire to move quickly. That being said there are some concerns,” Manley said.
In a statement yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) gave his support to the administration plan.
“As majority leader, I’m committed to moving legislation quickly through the Senate so that a strong smallpox compensation program is in place for our nation’s health care workers,” Frist said.
Gregg said he could not predict when the legislation would become law.
“I can’t speak for the House of Representatives, I wish I could,” he said.
Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) recently proposed a bill in the House that would provide a more generous compensation plan than the White House is championing.
Waxman yesterday applauded the attention given to the compensation issue, but questioned whether the plan went far enough.
“It doesn’t seem fair for a worker who we ask to take the vaccine to bear the cost of up to five days lost wages if they are injured by the vaccine, or to face this cap on wages,” Waxman said in a statement.
Gregg joined top U.S. health officials at the Washington press conference yesterday to say that the United States must quickly improve its ability to respond to a smallpox attack.
“Now more than ever, we really need to scale up and speed up,” said Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Also speaking at the press conference, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced that hundreds of federal health workers would be immunized to augment the regional and state efforts. He said also that the second phase of the immunization plan, in which millions of emergency workers are to be vaccinated, could begin soon.
New Bioterrorism Center
Thompson took Gregg, and a group of reporters, on a tour of the department’s newly finished command and control center. The $3.5 million facility, a large room designed to monitor the United States for the possible outbreak of dangerous pathogens, was built in 59 days, according to a department official. The center was ready for operations Dec. 1, and is now staffed around the clock.
The center is filled with communications equipment and features floor-to-ceiling screens displaying regional maps and television stations. Thompson told Gregg that the center has access to 4,000 television stations across the United States and can record up to 90 hours of footage.
Gregg noted that the center must be useful during college basketball season.
It would be “great during the Final Four,” Thompson said.
|
|
Back to top
