First Committee:  General Assembly Adopts Resolutions

The U.N. General Assembly yesterday adopted 49 resolutions drafted by the First Committee on Disarmament and International Security (see GSN, Nov. 7). 

One resolution, drafted in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, emphasized a relationship between international terrorism and the illegal movement of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and called on nonproliferation efforts as a means to stop terrorism.  Under the resolution, the General Assembly reaffirmed multilateralism as a core of disarmament and called on member states to renew commitments to multilateral cooperation.

Another resolution called on the United States and Russia, both members of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to renew efforts to preserve and strengthen the treaty through full compliance.  The controversial resolution was adopted by a vote of 82 to 5, with 62 abstentions.  The United States and Israel were among those opposed to the resolution.

The assembly adopted 23 resolutions concerning nuclear weapons, including:

*         A resolution on the importance of verification measures, including the U.N. role in that field;

*         A resolution calling on all African nations who have yet to sign the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty to do so;

*         A resolution on the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East;

*         A resolution on the importance of science and technology in regards to international security, particularly weapons of mass destruction;

*         A resolution on arrangements to protect non-nuclear weapon states against the threat or use of nuclear weapons;

*         A resolution on the prevention of an outer space arms race;

*         A resolution calling for a study on the use of depleted-uranium weapons;

*         A resolution on reducing nuclear danger;

*         A resolution on a need for a nuclear weapon-free world;

*         A resolution calling for a nuclear weapon-free Southern hemisphere;

*         A resolution calling on nations to conclude regional nuclear disarmament agreements;

*         A resolution on a treaty for banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons

*         A resolution on the prohibition of radioactive waste dumping;

*         A resolution on steps toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons;

*         A resolution on the legality of using nuclear weapons;

*         A resolution on establishing a nuclear weapon-free zone in Central Asia;

*         A resolution for a conference to eliminate nuclear dangers;

*         A resolution on a convention banning the use of nuclear weapons;

*         A report on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East;

*         A report on the control regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean and

*         A report on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The General Assembly also adopted resolutions to provide necessary assistance to governments of the Biological Weapons Convention, to praise three countries that recently ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention and to call upon all others to become parties to the Convention as soon as possible (U.N. release, Nov. 29).

Back to top

Iraq:  U.N. Extends Sanctions, Adds Import Controls

The U.N. Security Council yesterday unanimously extended existing sanctions against Iraq for another six months, but in a change from previous extensions, the council’s resolution included a draft list of items that Iraq could not import without council approval.  Formal implementation of the council's new role in reviewing Iraqi imports is expected to begin when the just-extended sanctions expire in May 2002 (U.N. release, Nov. 29).

Yesterday's resolution followed a U.S.-Russian agreement earlier this week resolving a conflict between Russian efforts to move beyond the current sanctions regime and U.S. policy of denying Iraq technology that could be used for military purposes (see GSN, Nov. 28).

The United States agreed to review a 1999 U.N. resolution that outlined the measures required before the United Nations would lift the sanctions, and Russia agreed to a list of items subject to U.N. approval.  Before the agreement, Russia had opposed U.S. and British plans to revise the sanctions (Reuters, Nov. 28).

The draft goods list included several general categories of items subject to U.N. review:  advanced materials, materials processing, electronics, computers, telecommunications and information security, sensors and lasers, navigation and avionics, marine equipment and propulsion.  Some specific items on the list included image intensifier night vision equipment, non-civil certified aircraft, specialized vibration test equipment, unmanned aerial vehicles and certain biological equipment (U.N. release, Nov. 29).  Iraq could import items that the final list would not include without restriction (U.S. State Department release, Nov. 29).

"I think it's a very important step forward in terms of the unity of the Security Council vis-a-vis Iraq, and I think it should send a signal to Iraq that we are determined to press for this program," said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte.

"I'm glad we were able to get consensus without a situation where people would be saying somebody won, somebody lost.  It makes it possible for the international community to continue supporting the Iraqi people and to improve the humanitarian situation," said Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Sergey Lavrov, adding, "the only way to radically solve the Iraq problem is to ensure that international disarmament monitoring resumes in Iraq in conjunction with the suspension and lifting of sanctions" (Associated Press/MSNBC, Nov. 30).

Russia and the United States also called on Iraq yesterday to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to conduct investigations into Iraqi weapons programs (Deutsche Presse-Agentur/European Internet Network, Nov. 30).

Tunisia had said it might oppose the resolution without a provision allowing civilian aircraft stranded in Tunisia and Jordan since the 1991 Gulf War to return to Iraq, but Tunisia dropped its demand, allowing the resolution to pass the council unanimously, according to Western diplomats (Associated Press/Washington Post, Nov. 30).

Does Iraq Have WMD?

Meanwhile, debate has continued about the threat Iraq could pose with weapons of mass destruction.  Iraq has been working on building weapons of mass destruction since the late 1970s, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Iraq said in 1995 it had produced about 6,500 gallons of biological agents, including anthrax.  A CIA report in September of this year said Iraq was developing an unmanned airplane that could deliver toxic weapons (Abraham McLaughlin, Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 30).

The International Atomic Energy Agency said at the end of 1998 that it had found no indications that Iraq had successfully produced nuclear weapons or had the capability to produce significant amounts of weapons-grade nuclear material.  However, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in October that the agency could no longer provide any assurance that Iraq had complied with its obligations since the agency had been unable to conduct inspections in the last three years.

Richard Butler, who previously ran the U.N. inspection program in Iraq after the Gulf War, criticized the United States and United Nations for not taking stronger action against Iraq.  “It’s well established that [Iraq has] weapons of mass destruction.  The question is how much longer the U.N. Security Council will allow this to go on,” he said (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press, Nov. 30).

Iraq has denied that it produced weapons of mass destruction and denied any involvement with al-Qaeda.  Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations Muhammad al-Douri said Iraq had considered al-Qaeda a pro-U.S. organization before the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States and therefore was not on good terms with the organization.  “We are certainly not on good terms with them and certainly we will not have relations in any way with them for the future,” he said (BBC News, Nov. 29).

Will the United States Attack Iraq?

Meanwhile, debate has continued in the United States and among its allies about the wisdom of focusing on Iraq as the next stage of the war on terrorism.  The Bush administration appears to be preparing to widen the war beyond Afghanistan, according to the Economist.  “Afghanistan is just the beginning of the war against terror.  There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them.  We will not be secure as a nation until all of these threats are defeated,” U.S. President George W. Bush said last week.  Earlier this week he demanded that Iraq allow weapons inspectors to return or face unspecified consequences (see GSN, Nov. 27). 

Some U.S. analysts and government officials have pushed for expanding the war to Iraq, the Economist said, but it remained unclear if the United States would militarily intervene in Iraq as part of the next phase in the war.  Saddam Hussein is one of a number of leaders supporting terrorism, but not the only one, said Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. deputy secretary of defense.  The next phase could involve Iraq but could also focus on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Economist said (Economist, Nov. 30).

The Bush administration was divided into two camps, according to Lawrence Kaplan in the New Republic.  One group, including the U.S. State Department, wanted to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but to limit any campaign to destroying Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.  Kaplan advocated the option supported by the other group—which includes the Pentagon leadership—to destroy Hussein all together (Lawrence Kaplan, New Republic, Dec. 10).

U.S. allies, however, have called for caution and generally opposed refocusing military action to Iraq (see GSN, Nov. 28).  “All European nations would view a widening of the conflict with great skepticism, and that is putting it diplomatically,” said German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer Wednesday.  “There is no other nation [besides Afghanistan] whose leaders have been active accomplices of terrorist actions,” said French Defense Minister Alain Richard (Peter Ford, Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 30).

Back to top

Pakistan:  Detained Scientists Not Linked to al-Qaeda

Pakistani authorities had not established any link between two detained Pakistani former nuclear scientists and al-Qaeda attempts to develop anthrax capability, said Pakistani spokesman Maj. Gen. Rashid Qureshi yesterday.  Qureshi confirmed that authorities had detained the two scientists (see GSN, Nov. 26), who were held for questioning about anthrax information found in their organization’s offices in Kabul (see GSN, Nov. 28).  Pakistani officials might share information with U.S. officials, he said. “I am sure the information is shared if it is of any value,” Qureshi said.

Meanwhile, a U.S. spokesman declined to say whether the United States had asked Pakistan to extradite the scientists for questioning (B. Muralidhar Reddy, Hindu, Nov. 29).

The Lahore High Court yesterday adjourned a hearing on the legality of detaining one of the scientists, Sultan Bashiru-din Mehmood.  Justice Khalilur Rahman Ramday asked at the end of the hearing if it would be better for the two detained scientists to wait for their release since government officials had said there was no evidence against them and they would likely be free soon, according to DAWN (Shujaat Ali Khan, DAWN, Nov. 29).

Back to top

Iraq:  U.S. Will Not Attack Iraq, Says Egypt

Egypt received an “understanding” from the Bush administration that the United States would not attack Iraq or any other Arab country accused of harboring terrorists, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 28).  Egypt strongly supports the U.S.-led anti-terrorism coalition, Maher said.

“If we want to keep this consensus … we should not resort, after Afghanistan, to military means,”  Maher said.  Any extension of the war beyond Afghanistan would “cause serious internal problems” for U.S. allies in the Middle East (Norman Kempster, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 29).

Back to top

Al-Qaeda:  U.S. Investigating 40 Possible WMD Sites

The United States has identified more than 40 sites that al-Qaeda might have used to conduct research on weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Nov. 27), U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks said yesterday.  Franks said that as U.S. and anti-Taliban forces have gained territory in Afghanistan, U.S. officials have been systematically visiting each site and taking samples to determine if al-Qaeda was researching or possessed chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Samples were being sent to various U.S. laboratories and would testing take time to complete, Franks said.  “The things that we need to do are not things that we’ll do in 24 or 48 hours.  These are very exhaustive tests,” he said.

The United States has so far discovered laboratory equipment and chemicals at various sites, but those items could have been used to produce fertilizer and other such products, Franks said. 

“We have not found something that we believe is a specific thing,” Franks said, referring to reports that journalists—who later died in an ambush—had discovered sarin gas at one site (see GSN, Nov. 26).  “That’s why we’re going to test them all,” he said (U.S. State Department release, Nov. 27).

Debate Continues on al-Qaeda Nuclear Capability

Meanwhile, experts have continued to debate the likelihood that al-Qaeda possesses nuclear or radiological weapons, although no direct evidence that the organization has such weapons has surfaced (see GSN, Nov. 19).  Terrorists will “inevitably” acquire nuclear weapons, said Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group.

Even if al-Qaeda does not have nuclear weapons, countries should take the threat seriously, experts said.  “Making a bomb and getting it somewhere is a low likelihood scenario, but the consequences if they did are extremely high, so that pushes the risk level up.  So I would say the risk level is medium,” said Clive Williams of Australian National University.

“The Sept. 11 attacks take us a lot closer to a nuclear possibility,” said Paul Wilkinson of St. Andrews University in Scotland, adding that terrorists “might resort to this kind of mass destruction weapon, and we have to take that seriously.”

Some experts have said al-Qaeda is more likely to possess a “dirty bomb”—a conventional explosive laced with low-grade nuclear matter that could spread radioactive material (see GSN, Nov. 12).  “The problems in finding materials for a dirty bomb practically do not exist,” said Dmitry Kovchegin of the Center for Policy Studies in Moscow.

Some pundits have suggested that if al-Qaeda had a nuclear weapon, the organization would have used it already.  Other analysts, however, said terrorists usually increase terror step-by-step.  “They would want to keep things up their sleeves.  Terrorists need to escalate attacks.  They have to notch it up all the time.  The next natural move would be a nuclear terrorist attack,” said Barnaby (Barry Renfrew, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Nov. 28).

Back to top

Iraq:  U.S. and Russia Reach Compromise on Sanctions

The United States and Russia reached agreement to extend the U.N. sanctions against Iraq and the oil-for-food program for another six months, according to a draft resolution circulated to all U.N. Security Council member states last night.  The agreement came shortly after U.S. President George W. Bush demanded Iraq allow weapons inspectors to return or face unspecified consequences (see GSN, Nov. 27).

The United States backed off its proposal to reconfigure the sanctions or extend the current sanctions for only four months, and Russia acceded to U.S. requests to give the Security Council oversight over Iraqi importation of dual-use goods. The United States also agreed to support Russia’s call to clarify a 1999 Security Council resolution that would ease sanctions once Iraq cooperated with weapons inspectors (see GSN, Nov. 14).

Under the agreement the U.N. Security Council would extend the current sanctions regime, which allows Iraq to use oil sale proceeds to buy mostly humanitarian goods, for six months.  During that time, the council would create a list of dual-use goods that would require approval from a U.N. committee before Iraq could purchase them.  The list would go into effect starting June 1, 2002.

The Security Council was expected to discuss the draft today and approve a resolution before the sanctions program expires at midnight Friday (Associated Press/ABC News, Nov. 28).

Russia previously rejected U.S. proposals for “smart sanctions” that would reconfigure the sanctions program to ease the flow of civilian-oriented products into Iraq while tightening loopholes on military goods and creating a dual-use goods list.  Russia had pushed for an end to all sanctions, partly due to commercial interests in Iraq, according to the New York Times and other reports.

Some diplomats at the United Nations speculated that the United States agreed to delay the smart sanctions to provide a potential justification for U.S. military action in Iraq.  The diplomats indicated that it would be difficult for the United States to attack Iraq after implementing more flexible sanctions rules, according to the New York Times (Serge Schmemann, New York Times, Nov. 28).

What Did Bush Mean?

Diplomats and the media have been trying to determine the implications of comments that Bush made Monday. He said Iraq must allow weapons inspectors to return or face the consequences but did not say what those consequences would be.  Bush was reiterating long-standing policy, according to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. 

A senior Bush administration official said yesterday that Bush was keeping all options open and had made no decision about the next stages in the war on terrorism. The official added that administration officials were considering what steps the United States should take after completing the war in Afghanistan.  “It’s important for people to not focus on one country in particular.  There are a lot of different options on the table … Everything does not have to be a military option,” he said.

Military action in Iraq could be less likely than in other countries, such as Somalia or the Philippines, where the United States has sent advisers to help the government fight terrorists, according to the Washington Times (Bill Sammon, Washington Times, Nov. 28).

International Reaction

Some countries publicly agreed with Bush’s call for weapons inspections—which discontinued in December 1998—to resume in Iraq.  Most countries, however, warned the United States not to attack Iraq militarily as part of the war on terrorism.

Operations in Afghanistan were part of “a military campaign specifically directed against those responsible for the mass murders of Sept. 11 … There is no evidence of any state involvement, and in the absence of such evidence, those military objectives remain,” said Ben Bradshaw, a junior minister at the British Foreign Office.

A French Foreign Ministry spokesman said Bush’s comment was “natural and goes in the right direction,” but a senior French diplomatic source said France wanted the United States to limit military action to Afghanistan, according to the Washington Times.

A U.S. attack on any Arab country would be a “fatal mistake,” said Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Sharaa (Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, Nov. 28).

Amre Mahmoud Moussa of Egypt, secretary general of the Arab League, said yesterday that Arabs would not stand by if the United States attacked Iraq as part of the war on terrorism.  “Launching military action against any Arab states would spell the end of consensus in the international alliance against terrorism,” Moussa said (Reuters, Nov. 27).

Iraq, which has said it would only allow inspectors to return if sanctions were lifted, rejected Bush’s demand and said the country did not fear the United States.  “Anyone who thinks Iraq can accept an arrogant and unilateral will of this party or that is mistaken,” said an Iraqi government spokesman (Kralev, Washington Times, Nov. 28).

Butler Says U.S. Has Evidence of Iraqi WMD

The United States currently has enough evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of destruction to justify attacking Iraq, said Richard Butler, former head of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, according to Reuters yesterday.  “When Saddam threw out the inspectors three years ago, I reported that there were still weapons there.  The Security Council conducted an independent investigation and agreed … And in the three years of no inspections, there are multifarious reports saying that he has continued to develop more, so the U.S. knows that quite well,” Butler said.

Butler said Bush’s warning to Iraq Monday was not a declaration of war and needed clarification.  “When the president was asked if [Saddam] doesn’t accept inspectors back what will happen, he said … in a rather Texan way, ‘he’ll find out,’ a bit like when he said of Osama bin Laden ‘dead or alive’—these [are] Texan one liners,” Butler said.

The Bush administration was divided on how to deal with Iraq, Butler said (Reuters, Nov. 27).

Back to top

Pakistan:  Scientists Questioned About Anthrax Plans

Pakistani authorities have again detained retired Pakistani scientists Sultan Bashiru-din Mehmood and Abdul Majid for questioning about information on anthrax discovered in the headquarters of their organization in Kabul.  Journalists or other investigators discovered documents and plans related to anthrax in the headquarters of Ummah Tameer-e-Nau after the building was abandoned when Taliban and al-Qaeda members fled Kabul.  Ummah Tameer-e-Nau was a nongovernmental organization founded by Mehmood devoted to humanitarian efforts, according to the scientists’ families.

Diagrams appearing to indicate ways to use balloons to disperse agents such as anthrax were discovered in the headquarters, although experts said such a method was not very effective.  An unclassified report from an original document describing an anthrax vaccine production program in Michigan was also discovered.  The report was “not a how-to manual of any kind” and did not provide “instruction of how to produce anthrax or anthrax vaccine,” said Zuraidah Hashim, spokeswoman for Science Applications International Corp., which prepared the report.

Documents downloaded from U.S. military web sites describing military applications for anthrax were in the office, as well as gas masks and promotional material from radical Islamist groups.

Mehmood and Majid had previously been detained for questioning about the possibility they shared nuclear information with the Taliban or al-Qaeda, and they were apparently released last week, according to some reports (see GSN, Nov. 26).

The earlier investigation concluded that the scientists lacked sufficient knowledge of nuclear weapons to provide serious assistance to the Taliban or al-Qaeda, a U.S. intelligence official said yesterday.  “These two guys were nuclear scientists who didn’t know how to build [a nuclear weapon] themselves.  If you had to have guys go bad, these are the guys you’d want—they didn’t know much,” the official said.

Pakistani authorities have not charged the two scientists with any wrongdoing (Frantz/Rohde, New York Times, Nov. 28).

Back to top

Iraq:  Bush Issues Warning

U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday called on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to allow U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq to prove that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Nov. 14).  Speaking to White House reporters, Bush said Hussein would “find out” what the consequences were if he refused to allow inspections to resume.

Bush said that developing weapons of mass destruction “that will be used to terrorize nations” was part of his definition of sponsoring terrorism, and added that countries that do so would face consequences.

“If anybody harbors a terrorist, they’re a terrorist.  If they fund a terrorist, they’re a terrorist.  If they house terrorists, they’re terrorists … If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorize nations, they will be held accountable,” Bush said.

U.S. action in Afghanistan was only the first phase of the war on terrorism, he said.  Preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, including from certain states, was part of the war, Bush said (U.S. State Department release I, Nov. 26).

Bush was intentionally vague about the consequences Iraq would face if Hussein continued to refuse the return of inspectors, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday, adding that Bush’s comments reiterated long-standing U.S. policy toward Iraq.

Regarding whether Iraq was a new target in the war on terrorism, Fleischer said Bush was focused on phase one of the war:  Afghanistan.  Bush, however, “has made it plain to the American people that this is a long-term war,” Fleischer said.  Concluding that Bush’s pledge to hold countries that develop weapons of mass destruction for terrorist purposes accountable meant that Iraq was a new U.S. war target would be “inferring what that means to unusual lengths,” Fleischer said.

Bush emphasized that countries that would use weapons of mass destruction and could proliferate weapons to terrorist organizations were countries of concern to the United States (see GSN, Nov. 26), Fleischer said.  Bush likely did not mean that any country that possessed or developed weapons of mass destruction would be a target.  “The president was referring to those nations that are listed on the State Department” list of nations that sponsor terrorism, Fleischer said (U.S. State Department release II, Nov. 26).

Ritter Warns Against Attacking Iraq

Former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter said yesterday on the BBC Radio 4 Today program that the United States should not attack Hussein as part of its war on terrorism because such action would have “devastating” consequences, such as destroying the international coalition against terrorism.

“If the United States expands its war on terror to be inclusive of Iraq, I think you will see that the coalition that we have put together, the international support we have garnered to take on terror—Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda—will dissipate,” Ritter said.

Although Hussein’s regime has supported terrorist organizations in the past, Ritter said he did not believe Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.  Involvement in anti-U.S. terrorism was not Hussein’s “method of operation,” Ritter said, adding, “I think he is focused solely on getting economic sanctions lifted against his country.”

Sharif Ali, spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, one of the main organizations opposed to Hussein, said, however, that Hussein was involved in international terrorism and had contacts with al-Qaeda (Press Association, Nov. 27).

U.N. Unlikely to Impose ‘Smart Sanctions’

Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council was unlikely to revise sanctions against Iraq (see GSN, Nov. 7) by the deadline on Friday, diplomats said yesterday, adding that the council would probably extend the current oil-for-food program, which allows Iraq to use profits from oil sales to purchase humanitarian goods and repair some infrastructure (Agence France-Presse, Nov. 27).

The United States yesterday proposed that the council extend the current sanctions for four months, rather than the usual six months, asking key council members to commit to revising the sanctions at the end of March 2002, according to U.S. diplomats.  Russia, however, has not agreed to the dates in the U.S. proposal, calling for a usual six-month extension.

Russia has blocked U.S. efforts to replace the current sanctions with “smart sanctions” that would ease restrictions on civilian goods while continuing a ban on military products.  The U.S. plan would also create a list of dual-use goods that could be used for military and civilian purposes which would require council approval before Iraq could import them.

Iraq has objected to the proposal (see GSN, Nov. 26), rejecting anything short of a complete end to the sanctions.  Russia has blocked the proposal due to Iraqi objections and Russian commercial interests, according to Reuters (Evelyn Leopold, Reuters/Yahoo.com, Nov. 27).

The United States and Russia were discussing ways to find a resolution that would target Iraqi weapons acquisition, particularly weapons of mass destruction, while allowing a “smoother flow” of civilian goods, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday.  The current U.S. proposal to revise sanctions was “essentially the same proposal” as the one the United States presented six months ago that failed to pass due to Russian opposition, he said (U.S. State Department release III, Nov. 26).

Back to top

Al-Qaeda:  More Plans Found in Abandoned Facilities

USA Today found evidence of efforts to create and use weapons of mass destruction against the West in two abandoned al-Qaeda training camps near Jalalabad last week, including manuals to train students to use biological and nuclear weapons.  Al-Qaeda members left items including plastic containers labeled cyanide, gas masks, weapons, manuals, chemicals and a brochure for a Korean-made chemical agent alarm.  The visit to the camps followed earlier discoveries in former al-Qaeda houses in Kabul (see GSN, Nov. 26).

“These materials provide circumstantial evidence that corroborates the suspicion that Osama bin Laden had been seriously pursuing weapons of mass destruction,” said Rifaat Hussein of Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan.

Abu Khabab from Saudi Arabia conducted nerve gas experiments on animals at one of the camps, according to U.S. officials.  Residents in the area said they saw large trucks with Pakistani license plates deliver chemicals and supplies to the camp and reported an explosion that once left a chemical stench in the area for hours.

Evidence at the camps indicated students came from at least 21 countries, including several friendly to the United States.  Most of the students had orders to return to their countries after training to await instructions to attack the United States.

Over 5,000 students trained at al-Qaeda camps, including at least four of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States (Jack Kelley, USA Today, Nov. 26).

Back to top

Poland:  Troops Committed to Anti-Terrorism Effort

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski said last week that Poland would send 300 elite troops to join the U.S.-led coalition fighting against the Taliban and the al-Qaeda network.  The troops would be deployed January 10 in Afghanistan and the surrounding area for six months, with the possibility of an extension.

The force would include 80 elite troops deployed on the ground to assist with anti-mine, anti-chemical and anti-biological warfare duties.  Kwasniewski estimated the operation would cost over $7 million.

“Until now Poland has offered political and intelligence support for the anti-terrorist coalition, and today the moment has come when we must join in military action not only as a NATO ally, but also as a country which has experienced firsthand misfortune and drama on numerous occasions,” said Kwasniewski.

Poland would join several other U.S. allies who have committed military support (see GSN, Nov. 7), including Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain (Deutsche Presse-Agentur/European Internet Network, Nov. 23).

Back to top

Al-Qaeda:  Taliban Sought Scientists Help

Gul Nazir, head of organic chemistry at Kabul University, said last week he repeatedly turned down offers from the Taliban and Pakistani and Arab delegations to produce substances that could be used in chemical weapons and to help mine uranium.  Nazir and Ahmed Massoud, another chemist, said six delegations of Pakistani scientists visited them in the last three years with offers from the Taliban’s Defense Ministry to fund chemical weapons programs and efforts to purify heroin. 

One delegation from the Taliban defense minister offered to renovate Nazir’s and Massoud’s laboratories in exchange for their work.  Another group asked for assistance to obtain large amounts of sodium cyanide and thionyl chloride, which can be used to produce mustard gas and cyanide gas, although they also have peaceful uses. 

Nazir also said an Arab delegation in August presented a proposal to begin mining for uranium in Afghanistan and offered to pay the wages of scientists who would help.

More Discoveries in Kabul Houses

Nazir’s statement came as journalists and Northern Alliance police discovered more documents in former al-Qaeda houses that suggested al-Qaeda and the Taliban were pursuing weapons of mass destruction (London Times, Nov. 25).

Materials discovered in several Kabul houses abandoned by the Taliban and al-Qaeda indicated al-Qaeda was studying chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (see GSN, Nov. 19).  U.S. officials said the documents they have seen confirm that al-Qaeda was working to develop weapons of mass destruction but did not provide evidence whether the organization had acquired such weapons.

Much of the sensitive material related to al-Qaeda abilities and intentions has disappeared from the houses, mostly taken by the Taliban or by journalists who investigated the houses before Northern Alliance police began guarding them, Northern Alliance Interior Minister Younus Qanouni said last week.  He said his ministry would consider providing copies of the papers they had discovered to the United States (Cottrell/Wolffe, Financial Times, Nov. 25). 

Anthrax Plans Found in Mehmood’s Charity’s Headquarters in Kabul

Plans that suggested efforts to build an anthrax bomb were discovered at the Kabul headquarters of the Foundation for Construction, a relief charity founded by Sultan Bashiru-din Mehmood, according to the London Times.  Pakistani authorities had detained Mehmood, a former top Pakistani nuclear scientist, for questioning regarding his contacts with the Taliban and al-Qaeda (see related GSN story, today).  Mehmood said his meetings with bin Laden and the Taliban only involved discussions of charitable work.  A chart explaining how to distribute anthrax using a hot-air balloon, copies of media articles about anthrax and a computer disk showing former U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen explaining that anthrax could destroy much of Washington were also discovered in the charity’s headquarters.

Sarin Gas Discovery?

Meanwhile, reporters have been unable to confirm the discovery at the Farm Hada training camp near Jalalabad of vials labeled “Sarin/V-Gas” (see GSN, Nov. 20).  Two Spanish reporters who claimed to find the vials were killed in an ambush last Monday (London Times, Nov. 25).

Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that he could not confirm the sarin gas discovery.  Pace said U.S. forces had a list of facilities the United States suspected were used to produce chemical or biological weapons, and U.S. forces would visit the locations and take samples to determine if dangerous biological or chemical materials had been present.  U.S. officials had already taken some samples that were being analyzed, but Pace said he had no results yet (U.S. Defense Department transcript, Nov. 21). 

Back to top

Iraq:  Changes to Sanctions Opposed

Iraq said yesterday it would oppose any changes to the U.N. oil-for-food program and would continue to ban U.N. weapons inspectors from the country.

If the United Nations accepted proposed U.S. and British changes to the sanctions without Iraqi approval, “this means that the other party, that is the U.N., does not want an extension of the [oil-for-food] agreement,” said Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri. 

The United States and Britain have proposed creating “smart sanctions,” which would lift many trade restrictions on Iraq but tighten enforcement of the arms embargo and block smuggling (see GSN, Nov. 7), according to the Associated Press.  The oil-for-food program comes up for its annual six-month review at the end of November, the AP reported.

“The logical thing for the United Nations is to move for an improvement of the situation, not for tightening the sanctions against Iraq as is the case with the smart sanctions,” Sabri said, and added he expected Russia to support Iraq’s position (Waiel Faleh, Associated Press/Washington Post, Nov. 25).

Weapons Inspectors Opposed

The U.N. sanctions against Iraq were put into place after the Gulf War and are conditioned on Iraq dismantling its weapons of mass destruction programs.  Iraq was not ready to reaccept U.N. weapons inspectors who have been banned since the end of 1998, Sabri said, urging the U.N. Security Council to lift the sanctions.  “We have finished the stage of disarmament,” Sabri said.  “The U.N. Security Council [resolution on Iraq] calls for lifting sanctions after Iraq has implemented its own obligations [of disarmament].”

The United States last week said that Iraq, among several other nations, has biological weapons (see GSN, Nov. 19).  Iraq denies the charge, according Reuters (Reuters/New York Times, Nov, 25).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP