The U.S. Congress is to begin investigating the claims made by the Bush administration prior to the war with Iraq that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction programs, the London Times reported today (see GSN, May 29).
The House Intelligence Committee has sent a letter to CIA Director George Tenet with several questions related to the U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The letter asks for information on the quality and reliability of such intelligence and whether “any dissenting views were properly weighed,” the Times reported.
“My concern is that we did not have enough good intelligence to draw the necessary conclusions that our policy-makers need to be completely confident,” Committee Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) said.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if we gave them better information to base their judgments on?” he asked.
The letter requests that Tenet respond by July 1, and the committee is expected to begin holding hearings on the matter that month, according to the Times. The Senate Intelligence Committee is also expected to hold similar hearings (Reid/Webster, London Times, May 30).
U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday reiterated his belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the war, citing the discovery of suspect mobile biological weapons plants.
“We discovered weapons manufacturing facilities that were condemned by the United Nations,” Bush said. “Biological laboratories described by our secretary of state to the whole world that were not supposed to be there, that are a direct violation of the U.N. resolutions, have been discovered,” he said (Agence France-Presse, May 30).
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday denied that the war was launched under “false pretext.”
“I can assure you that this war was not waged under any false pretext,” Rumsfeld said. “We believed then and we believe now that the Iraqis have, had chemical weapons, biological weapons and that they had a program to develop nuclear weapons but did not have nuclear weapons,” he said (Agence France-Presse II, May 30).
Blair Faces Criticism Over Possibly Exaggerated Intelligence
Meanwhile, British lawmakers have called on Prime Minister Tony Blair to make a statement on the justification for going to war with Iraq amid reports that the government might have exaggerated intelligence information on the threat posed by Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, the London Independent reported today.
A case could be made for launching an investigation into the government’s claims that Iraqi forces could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so, said former British Defense Secretary Lord King of Bridgwater. Such a claim was made in a British dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction released last year.
“These are very serious allegations and if they are true then they would substantially undermine the government’s legal and political case for going to war,” said Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party.
The House of Commons Security and Intelligence Committee has refused to say whether it will conduct an investigation into the government’s claims of the Iraqi WMD threat, the Independent reported. Such an investigation, if it were to occur, would be conducted in secret and any report would be reviewed prior to release.
Members of Parliament yesterday said only a statement by Blair would dispel doubts about the legality of the war.
“The prime minister should make a statement to Parliament on Tuesday to tell MPs and the nation what were the reasons for going to war,” said Doug Henderson, a former armed forces minister. “If he doesn’t do that there will a feeling that there is a cover-up and ultimately he will be forced to make a statement,” Henderson said (Ben Russell, London Independent, May 30).
Blair yesterday rebuffed criticism that there is no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
“When you say there is no evidence that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, there are 12 years of United Nations resolutions about the weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. There’s no doubt about the chemical program, the biological program, indeed the nuclear weapons program,” Blair said. “All that is well documented by the U.N.,” he said (Jon Smith, London Independent, May 30).
By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — Group of Eight countries are expected to next week address fulfillment of a $20 billion pledge to assist nonproliferation projects in Russia during a summit in France (see GSN, May 7).
At Kananaskis, Canada, summit last year, the G-8 countries — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — agreed to create the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction.
The eight agreed to contribute $20 billion over 10 years to the effort, meant to help prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction through nonproliferation projects mainly in Russia, Elizabeth Latham of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Global Security Newswire last week. Latham is the coordinator for the institute’s Strengthening the Global Partnership Project.
Since the 2002 G-8 summit, approximately $16 billion of the initial $20 billion has been pledged, Latham said, including $650 million from Canada, $1.2 billion from the European Commission, $1.8 billion from Germany, $890 million from France, $1.2 billion from Italy, $200 million from Japan, $750 million from the United Kingsom, and $10 billion from the United States.
One area of debate is Russia’s contribution, according to Latham. Currently, Russia has agreed to pledge approximately $2 billion to the effort, which U.S. and Russian officials have argued should not count toward the $20 billion total because the partnership is designed to aid projects in Russia, Latham said. European partnership members, however, have argued that Russia’s contribution should be applied.
In addition, efforts could be made at the Evian summit to urge Japan to increase its contribution, Latham said. Japan has been hesitant so far to increase its contribution to the partnership because of transparency concerns related to a joint Japanese-Russian project to scrap decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines off Russia’s eastern coast, she said (see GSN, May 5).
In testimony before two U.S. House of Representatives International Relations subcommittees earlier this month, Jon Wolfsthal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace called on U.S. President George W. Bush to convince other G-8 members to work quickly to reach the $20 billion goal. Bush should also pledge that the United States would contribute $3 for every dollar contributed by other G-8 members, and $5 for every $1 contributed by Russia, Wolfsthal said.
The G-8 is also expected to announce the addition of several new members, such as Finland, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland, to the global partnership at next week’s summit, Latham said. Norway has already sent a letter of intent on joining the partnership to France, she said, adding that Oslo could also announce a financial aid package. New countries joining the partnership will not necessarily provide financial assistance, but could also provide technical aid in nonproliferation projects, Latham said.
One issue not likely to be addressed at the Evian summit is the expansion of the partnership to include nonproliferation projects in other countries, Latham said, adding that Ukraine had previously expressed interest in being the target of new programs. Such an expansion, however, is currently not a U.S. priority, she said.
Other Concerns
In addition to the Global Partnership, the G-8 nations are expected to address several broader areas of proliferation concern, such as concerns related to Iran’s nuclear efforts and the crisis surrounding North Korea’s relaunched program.
The leaders are expected to discuss ways to ensure that countries that have relations with Iran, such as Russia, do not contribute to Tehran’s nuclear weapons efforts, U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday during a White House press conference (see related GSN story, today).
“I think that the presidents will want to talk about what steps can be taken to make certain that any efforts in which anyone is engaged in with Iran … are not actually contributing to the potential problem of a military nuclear program in Iran,” Rice said.
Bush is also expected to discuss the Iran and North Korea situations with Chinese President Hu Jintao, who has been invited to the Evian summit even though China is not a G-8 member, according to Rice. She said Bush would discuss with Hu China’s involvement with Iran. Last week, the United States sanctioned a state-owned Chinese company for allegedly aiding Iran’s ballistic missile program (see GSN, May 27).
China’s presence at next week’s summit should not be seen as a sign that China could soon become a formal member of the G-8, Rice said.
“As to any restructuring of the G-8, I don’t think that’s on the table at this particular point in time,” she said.
One issue the G-8 summit is not likely to address is the conflict between nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir, Rice said (see GSN, May 23). While the two countries have recently begun working to establish a dialogue to reduce tensions, the process is “not something that can be moved forth by the will of the G-8,” she said.
“I know that members of the G-8 are welcoming what is happening with the Indians and the Pakistanis,” Rice said.
Personal Diplomacy
The Evian summit has also been seen as an opportunity to help resolve any remaining diplomatic grudges stemming from the recent war in Iraq — most notably tensions between the United States on one side and France and Germany, two of most visible opponents of the U.S. invasion, on the other (see GSN, April 10). In his congressional testimony, Wolfsthal called on Bush to “reach out to his French and German counterparts” on implementing the Global Partnership.
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer indicated yesterday that next week’s summit could help the G-8 nations to move past previous diplomatic conflicts.
“This is about making progress as members of the G-8 on issues that unite us,” Fleischer said. “I think that the time has moved beyond us, whether there were recriminations or disagreements about previous issues,” he said.
Bush is expected to cut his stay in Evian short though, according to Rice. She said Wednesday that Bush will only be at the summit for the first two days, after which he is to travel to Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, to meet with Middle Eastern leaders.
Rice denied, however, that Bush’s early departure from the G-8 summit is intended as any kind of snub.
“The French have said … they fully understand why the president needs to take this opportunity to go to the Middle East,” Rice said. “Everybody supports the mission that he is going to undertake,” she said, adding that she had spoken “personally” to her French counterpart on the issue.
While at the summit, Bush only plans to hold bilateral meetings with Hu and summit host French President Jacques Chirac, according to Rice. Bush will still have opportunities to meet with his counterparts, however, during a number of planned working groups and social settings, Rice said, adding that most of these meetings “take place leader-on-leader.”
“There are not many staff there and the like, so they’re in very close quarters,” Rice said of the G-8 leaders.
Recommendations
A number of nonproliferation advocates have recently issued recommendations for additional measures the G-8 nations should address at next week’s summit, saying the G-8 needs to do more quickly to address the threat WMD materials pose.
At a press conference in Paris Wednesday, Sam Nunn, co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, called on G-8 members to develop an agreement on how much funding each will provide to the global partnership and when such funding would be made available, as well as an agreement on the creation of a senior position in each government responsible for efforts to prevent “catastrophic terrorism.” The G-8 should also work to develop international standards for the protection of nuclear materials and an agreement to “take full advantage of the skill and experience” of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Nunn said.
“We are well past the time when we can take satisfaction with a step in the right direction. A gazelle running from a cheetah is taking steps in the right direction,” Nunn said in a statement. “It’s no longer just a question of direction; it’s a matter of speed. We are not moving as fast as we can or as fast as we must,” he said.
Last week, a coalition of 20 security organizations from more than 15 countries, including CSIS, issued a statement containing their recommendations for the summit’s agenda. The coalition called on the G-8 countries to work to develop plans to secure vulnerable nuclear materials and research reactor fuels; to accelerate the blending down of excess stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, as is done in the U.S.-Russian “Megatons to Megawatts” program; and to accelerate the dismantlement of Russian general-purpose nuclear submarines (see GSN, May 15).
The coalition also called for progress in the creation of international standards for the handling of dangerous biological pathogens and in new efforts to engage former Soviet biological weapons scientists in civilian work. In addition, the G-8 should also work to increase assistance to Russia to help Moscow meet its Chemical Weapons Convention obligation to destroy its chemical weapons arsenal by 2012.
“The countries of Asia, Europe and North America must work hand in hand on an urgent basis to reduce the WMD threat. We need to do more — faster and better,” the coalition of security organizations said in its statement. “This is a call to duty for all who seek greater international security — one which we currently ignore at our peril,” it said.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Sam Nunn is co-chairman and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]
| 
Back to top
