The United States is offering rewards to any Iraqi who comes forward with information on Iraq’s WMD programs, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday (see GSN, April 9).
“We’re asking people to come forward and help in this effort,” Rumsfeld said. “Rewards are available to those who help us prevent the disappearance of personnel, documentation and materials,” he added.
Iraqi officials, technicians and scientists who were involved in WMD programs could face “carrots and sticks” — rewards for helping the United States track down banned weapons, or punishments if they refuse, Rumsfeld said. “Just to have the opportunity for people to improve their lives and get off a blacklist is important,” he said (Matt Kelly, Associated Press/Salon.com, April 9).
Rumsfeld yesterday also raised concerns that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction might have been transferred to another country or a terrorist group.
“We still need to find and secure Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction facilities,” Rumsfeld said. The possibility that “some of those materials could leave the country and (get into) the hands of terrorist networks would be a very unhappy prospect,” he said (Pascal Barollier, Agence France-Presse, April 10).
U.S. forces might be able to discover more information on the fate of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as they consolidate their control over Baghdad, a U.S. Central Command spokesman said today.
“We’ve said a couple of times that we believe that many of the sources of information would be in and around the Baghdad area,” said Maj. Gen. Victor Renuart. “And so as we move into that area and establish more and more control, we hope to gain access to more and more of the facilities that may yield some of that information,” he said.
Firm U.S. control of Baghdad could also free forces to search other parts of the country in the hopes of finding WMD sites that “are not going to be obvious to the eye,” Renuart said.
“Certainly as you stabilize Baghdad, the force requirements to be in the city will adjust slightly, and I would hope that would give us some additional capability to get out to some of the other outlying areas that may not yet have been visited,” he said (Federal News Service transcript, April 10).
U.S. military officials now believe that Iraq is unable to conduct chemical weapons attacks because its missile systems have been destroyed, according to the Baltimore Sun. They are concerned, however, that independent Iraqi agents may obtain chemical weapons agents and attempt to use them in a nonconventional attack (Baltimore Sun, April 10).
Al-Tuwaitha Concerns
Meanwhile, U.S. military commanders said yesterday they have increased security at al-Tuwaitha — Iraq’s main nuclear facility. U.S. Marines, who have occupied the site since Sunday, have entered several bunkers at the site and recorded high levels of radiation, according to reports from embedded journalists.
Such reports have also raised concerns among U.S. and international nuclear experts that the International Atomic Energy Agency seals at the site, placed during years of monitoring, may have been broken, leaving the radioactive materials inside vulnerable to the theft and U.S. forces vulnerable to radiation exposure.
“There is a risk to troops who might enter these secure areas, and there’s a risk of looting that could allow the material to be spread around,” said one nuclear expert close to the IAEA’s Iraq nuclear inspection team.
Coalition forces are familiar with the materials stored at al-Tuwaitha and have increased security to prevent theft, a Central Command spokesman said (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, April 10).
Blix Lashes Out
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has criticized the United States and the United Kingdom for rushing into war with Iraq and failing to provide inspectors with enough time to complete their mission (see GSN, April 3).
The United States and the United Kingdom appeared to place a higher emphasis on the approaching Iraqi summer, rather than allowing inspectors to complete their work, Blix said in an interview printed yesterday in the Spanish El Pais newspaper.
“It seemed the high temperature in Iraq came at a point where they needed to launch attacks,” Blix said. “Unfortunately, the two governments were very impatient during the first days of March, and they didn’t let us finish our job. A few more months would have been enough to affirm — as asserted by the Americans and British — whether Iraq really possessed the arms,” he said.
Blix criticized U.S. intelligence reports that suggested Niger had sold uranium to Iraq, calling them “absolutely false” (see GSN, March 28). He also said that the United States itself might be beginning to have doubts that Iraq ever possessed weapons of mass destruction.
“I think the Americans started the war thinking” they would find weapons of mass destruction, Blix said. “Today, I think they believe less in this possibility,” he added (Elizabeth Bryant, United Press International, April 9).
By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — Although Russian legislators have delayed approving a U.S.-Russian nuclear arms treaty because they oppose the U.S.-led war in Iraq, such opposition is unlikely to have greater ramifications for U.S.-Russian nonproliferation efforts, experts told Global Security Newswire this week (see GSN, April 9).
They expected the U.S. threat reduction programs — in which the United States funds efforts to dismantle or secure WMD materials in the former Soviet Union — to continue because both countries benefit from the national security improvements. U.S.-Russian efforts to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenals will also continue, despite the Russian Parliament’s delayed consideration of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, experts said (see GSN, April 9).
The threat reduction effort is one “where we’re getting something out of it,” said Clay Moltz of the Monterey Institute of International Studies’ Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
Russia appears to have been able to avoid the same levels of political backlash in the United States that have befallen France and Germany, in part, because its opposition to the war was not as vocal, said Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the CATO Institute. Such backlash — especially against France, the staunchest opponent of the U.S.-British efforts last month to obtain new U.N. authority to attack Iraq — reached symbolic highs when the U.S. House of Representatives leadership ordered the House cafeteria to change its menu from carrying “French fries” and “French toast” to “Freedom fries” and “Freedom toast.”
“No one’s talking about banning Russian vodka or Russian dressing,” Pena said.
Pena also described Russia as being a “different political animal” than France or Germany, noting U.S security concerns over Russia’s stockpile of former Soviet weapons of mass destruction. “We cannot turn our back on Russia,” he said. Pena warned, however, that there is “always some political fallout” for opposing the United States.
There is more than enough support within the U.S. Congress for the threat reduction programs to ensure that they will remain adequately funded despite current U.S.-Russian friction, Moltz said. Such support is especially high within the Senate, where Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) heads the Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar was one of the original architects of the threat reduction efforts and is unlikely to allow any serious funding cuts for the program, Moltz said.
Russia’s stance on Iraq could have more of a potential influence on support for nonproliferation programs among House members, however, according to experts. There have been previous examples where U.S.-Russian tensions have led to attacks on threat reduction programs in the House, according to David Culp, a legislative representative with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a nuclear nonproliferation advocacy group. For example, in the late 1990s, House Republicans attempted to cut threat reduction funding because of allegations that Russia was providing Silkworm antiship cruise missile technology to China, Culp said. He said that while there has currently been little outright display of animosity toward Russia in the House, the mood in the chamber could best be described as “suspicion.”
The war on Iraq has appeared to have more of an effect on U.S.-Russian relations from the Russian side, particularly with the strategic arms treaty (see GSN, March 26).
“Maybe now is not the right moment psychologically to bring this document up for ratification,” Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said last month. “If we wait for some time, and concentrate all our efforts on ending the war and switching over to a political settlement (of the Iraq crisis), then at a more quiet moment we can quickly deal with this issue,” he said.
Many experts played down any potential significance in Russia’s decision to delay ratification of the treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to delay the treaty’s ratification in order to prevent a negative vote in the Russian Parliament due to the current tense political situation, and not because of a lack of support for the treaty’s aims, Moltz said. He said the situation would be akin to the Bush administration attempting to have the Senate approve a new arms control treaty while Russia was engaged in heavy fighting in the disputed Chechnya region.
The delay is “part of the fallout from making a decision that not all your friends and allies agree with,” Pena said.
Russia also views threat reductions programs as being in its own national security interests, said Rose Gottemoeller, a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nonproliferation Project. Moscow has historically viewed the program as “sacrosanct,” she said.
If the current U.S.-Russian political tensions are going to have any impact on nonproliferation efforts, it will be on the day-to-day level of U.S.-Russian cooperation, such as access to WMD sites, Culp said. He noted that in 1998, while Russia reacted to U.S. airstrikes on Iraq with a delay in the ratification of START 2, nonproliferation activities did not come to a halt. Russia is unlikely to shut down current threat reduction projects, he said, but it is also likely that no new projects will begin.
Russia’s reluctance to expand cooperation with the United States was demonstrated last month when Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said Russia would not allow international access to some of its nuclear sites, citing national security reasons (see GSN, March 27). Rumyantsev’s comments came shortly after the release of a U.S. General Accounting Office report that said a lack of such assess has severely hindered U.S. efforts to secure Russian WMD materials (see GSN, March 24).
Ultimately, however, experts were optimistic that whatever tensions might have been caused by Russia’s decision not to support the war in Iraq, it would have little impact on either Washington’s or Moscow’s view of the value of threat reduction efforts. Charles Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, said a “global coalition” is needed to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists; a coalition of which Russia would be an “essential partner.” He said he was optimistic that U.S. President George W. Bush and Putin would take advantage of a summit scheduled to held in St. Petersburg in late May to repair the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship and to re-emphasize nonproliferation efforts.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire which is published independently by the National Journal Group, Inc.]
U.S. officials yesterday warned that Washington would not look favorably on countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, Reuters reported (see GSN, April 7).
“With respect to the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the post-conflict period, we are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest,” said U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton
In Rome to meet with Vatican and Italian officials, Bolton singled out Syria, Iran and North Korea (Phillip Pullella, Reuters, April 10).
Elsewhere, U.S. conservative commentators pushed for further military action, Reuters reported.
“It’s time to bring down the other terror masters,” Michael Ledeen, of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote Monday. “Iran, at least, offers Americans the possibility of a memorable victory, because the Iranian people openly loathe the regime, and will enthusiastically combat it, if only the United States supports them in their just struggle,” he added.
Others suggested that regime change could occur nonviolently.
“I hope we could change the regimes without military force and I would not contemplate using military force in those places,” said Kenneth Adelman, a former Pentagon aide, referring to Syria and Iran. “The combination of totalitarianism and weapons of mass destruction is a deadly combination for the world,” he added (Arshad Mohammed, Reuters, April 10).
Last Sunday, in an NBC television interview, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said that Syria should “get the message” from the situation in Iraq (Timothy Phelps, Newsday, April 10).
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that Syria has been helping Iraqis flee from invading U.S. forces.
“We are getting scraps of intelligence saying that Syria has been cooperative in facilitating the move of the people out of Iraq and into Syria,” Rumsfeld said. “Then, in some cases they stay there and find safekeeping there. In other cases, they move from Syria to some other places,” he added.
Rumsfeld said that he was not discussing “very senior, senior people” (Charles Aldinger, Reuters, April 13).
Rumsfeld also said he was worried that chemical and biological weapons had been secreted out of Iraq, but he said he had no evidence of that taking place (Wall Street Journal, April 10).
U.S. troops consolidated their control of Baghdad yesterday, capturing the last few remaining government ministry buildings, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, April 9).
As U.S. Army units took control of the main government area of western Baghdad, U.S. Marine forces occupied the eastern residential section of the city, according to the Post. U.S. forces experienced only scattered and light resistance as they moved throughout Baghdad.
The capture of Baghdad means the war is now entering into its final phase, a U.S. military officer said.
“Not every area in Baghdad is secure, but the central part of the city, the heart of the city, is secure,” said Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division. “The end of the combat phase is days away,” he said (William Branigin, Washington Post, April 10).
There have also been reports that Kurdish militiamen have captured several northern Iraqi cities, including the key city of Kirkuk, according to al-Jazeera (Al-Jazeera, April 10).
Now that Baghdad has been captured, U.S. forces are preparing to move on the city of Tikrit, a stronghold of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, according to the Washington Times.
“We certainly are focused on Tikrit ... to prevent the regime from being able to use it as a place to command and control, to restore command and control, or to hide,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said yesterday.
Coalition aircraft have conducted large numbers of airstrikes against Iraqi troops deployed outside of Tikrit in advance of the planned attack, U.S. military officials said. There are more than 10 Iraqi regular army divisions still deployed north of Baghdad, along with one Republican Guard brigade, said Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“They have been subjected to bombing by air power and will continue to be dealt with in that way for some time,” Myers said (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, April 10).
“The Game Is Over”
Iraq’s U.N. Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri conceded yesterday that the war is all but over.
“The game is over,” Aldouri said. “My hope now is peace, for everybody. I hope that peace will prevail and the Iraqi people at the end of the day will have a peaceful life,” he said (Evelyn Leopold, Reuters, April 10).
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned yesterday, however, that U.S. troops in Iraq could still experience some heavy resistance, even though Baghdad has fallen.
“More people are going to be killed, let there be no doubt,” Rumsfeld said. “This is not over, despite all the celebrations on the street,” he said (Bob Kemper, Chicago Tribune, April 10).
Today, a suicide bomber in Baghdad seriously wounded four U.S. soldiers (CNN, April 10).
Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
Meanwhile, Iraqi opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, said yesterday that he has information that Hussein survived a second recent U.S. airstrike.
In addition to remaining alive, Hussein was able to flee Baghdad for the city of Baqubah, northeast of the capital, Chalabi said.
“We have no evidence they have been killed in that attack,” Chalabi said. “We know at least that Qusay, his son, has survived and he is occupying some houses in the Diyala area,” he added.
Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as “Chemical Ali” for ordering a 1998 chemical weapons attack on Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, is also reported to still be alive, Chalabi said (CNN.com, April 9).
Covert CIA and military teams operating in Iraq, as well as surveillance equipment set up to track Hussein and other senior Iraqi officials, all reported yesterday that almost all Iraqi officials have disappeared.
“All of a sudden, all communications ceased and the regime didn’t come to work,” a senior Bush administration official said. “Even the minders for (foreign) journalists did not go to work,” the official said.
The capture, or death, of Hussein is still a top U.S. priority, according to U.S. officials.
“In order to come to closure” psychologically, “we need to demonstrate he’s not in control anymore,” a senior administration official said. “It will make it easier to start afresh,” the official added (Priest/Pincus, Washington Post, April 10).
Rumsfeld yesterday refused to comment on Hussein’s fate, suggesting it was irrelevant.
“He’s either dead or he’s incapacitated, or he’s healthy and cowering in a tunnel someplace,” Rumsfeld said. “Saddam Hussein is now taking his rightful place alongside Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Ceausescu in the pantheon of failed, brutal dictators — and the Iraqi people are well on their way to freedom,” he said (Goering/Dellios, Chicago Tribune, April 10).
The U.S. Congress was unable to make progress on a spending bill yesterday that would provide $62 billion to Defense Department operations in Iraq, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, April 4).
The House and the Senate have each approved their own versions of the bill and are now negotiating to resolve differences. In addition to military funding, the competing bills contain measures for homeland security efforts and provide aid to U.S. allies.
House Republicans said the several Senate measures were not acceptable, but Senate Republicans said they were necessary to get approval for the bill.
“It’s held up on a bunch of extraneous stuff,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.).
Among other issues, the House objected to an effort by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to have salmon caught by Alaskan fishermen labeled as organic food. Other measures added by the Senate include language on grazing rights for Western U.S. cattle ranchers and funding for a dam repair project in Vermont, according to the Post.
Lawmakers cancelled a negotiating session yesterday after House Republicans made it clear they would not accept the amendments.
“I’m just sorry we repealed the law on dueling — I’d have shot a couple of them,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
White House Budget Director Mitchell Daniels criticized the bill Monday for “restrictions placed on the use of those funds.”
Specifically, the White House is frustrated that the bill prevents the U.S. Defense Department from using $2.4 billion in reconstruction funds for Iraq (Dan Morgan, Washington Post, April 10).
| 
Back to top
