Iraq:  United States Concedes to U.N. Security Council

The United States has dropped its demand that the U.N. Security Council authorize military action if Iraq does not comply with U.N. resolutions, diplomats said today (see GSN, Oct. 16).

A new U.S. compromise would send inspectors to Iraq and give Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a chance to allow weapons inspectors unrestricted access to the entire country.  If Iraq did not cooperate with the inspections, however, the United States would return to the Security Council where it could seek an additional resolution authorizing force.

U.S. officials will not seek a resolution that directly threatens Iraq, but the penalty of noncompliance will be implied, diplomats said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 17).

Two Days of Open Debate

The Security Council yesterday began two days of public debate on Iraq’s noncompliance with council requirements for the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction with the Iraqi ambassador charging that the United States is planning to wage of war to colonize his country.

Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri said, “The United States does not want [U.N. weapons] inspectors to come back because if the inspectors do come back they will prove the Americans to have been repeating one lie after the other.”

He said, “Iraq has pledged to cooperate with [inspectors] in every possible way so as to facilitate their task in ascertaining the fact that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  So, in fact, there is absolutely no need for a new resolution to be adopted in the Security Council.”

Al-Douri charged, “The attempts by the United States to hamper and delay the return of the inspectors and their attempt to make the Security Council adopt a new resolution establishing conditions which are neigh-to-impossible to respect aims at establishing a pretext to cover aggression against Iraq with the purpose of colonizing our country and imposing American domination on our oil as a first step towards imposing American colonialism in the region as a whole, controlling its oil and allowing Israel to continue its war of genocide against the Palestinian people.”

Sitting next to al-Douri and speaking after him, Ambassador Mohammad Abulhasan of Kuwait said he welcomed this council meeting “as yet another proof … that the current question of Iraq is an issue between Iraq and the United Nations and not between Iraq and any particular country or group of countries.”

Despite “Iraq’s persistent rejection of the return of inspectors, Kuwait declared that it was not in favor of the use of military force against Iraq out of our fears of the serious negative implications that would exacerbate the suffering of the brotherly people of Iraq,” Abulhasan said.  “Any use of force must be a last resort and within the United Nations framework and only after all other available means have been exhausted.”

It was Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990 that lead to the council sanctioning the war against Iraq to free Kuwait.  Part of the resolution of the conflict was the requirement that Iraq eliminate all of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

In contrast to emphasis in debates on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Abulhasan focused on other issues including “Kuwaiti and third country detainees held in Iraq.”  He said, “I can safely emphasize and in all sincerity and candor that none of you can comprehend the intransigent Iraqi position regarding this purely humanitarian issue which should not have been allowed to drag on over the past 12 years.”

Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette opened the session saying, “The situation created by Iraq’s failure to comply with the resolutions of this Council since 1991 is indeed one of the gravest and most serious facing the international community today … It is essential that the council face up to it.”

Speaking on behalf of Secretary General Kofi Annan, who is traveling in Asia, Frechette said, “Iraq’s decision to readmit the inspectors without conditions is an important first step, but only a first step.  Full compliance remains indispensable, and it has not yet happened.  Iraq has to comply.  It must implement the disarmament program required by your resolutions.”

“The inspectors must have unfettered access ... [the council] may well choose to pass a new resolution strengthening the inspectors’ hand, so there will be no weaknesses or ambiguities,” she said, quoting Annan, “I consider that such a step would be appropriate. The new measures must be firm, effective, credible and reasonable. If Iraq fails to make use of this last chance, and defiance continues, the council will have to face its responsibilities.”

Frechette added, “It is therefore entirely proper that the council should debate its course of action, not only in private consultations but also in public.”

This meeting was requested by the Nonaligned Movement.  Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo of South Africa, speaking for movement, said, “We are here to voice our concerns regarding the possibility that the United Nations is now being asked to consider proposals that open up the possibility of a war against a member state.”

While saying “Iraq should comply with relevant Security Council resolutions … No member state should be exempted from carrying out obligations as determined by this council,” Kumalo also repeated the movement’s “firm rejection of any type of unilateral action against any member state.”  In light of Iraq’s acceptance of weapons inspectors, he said, “It would therefore be inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter if the Security Council were to authorize the use of military force against Iraq at a time when Iraq has indicated its willingness to abide by the Security Council’s resolutions.”

Speaking today, Canadian Ambassador Paul Heinbecker said, “This council should adopt a new and unambiguous resolution that lays out the terms for compliance against which the council itself will bear the responsibility of measuring Iraq’s response.”

Referring to a potential war on Iraq, Tunisian Ambassador Noureddine Mejdoub said, “This war is useless because its motives are not well-founded. … Not only is it unacceptable to recommend automatic recourse to military force in anticipation of the outcome of the inspections, but we must not forget that it has not even been established that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.”

Mejdoub added, “This war would be more harmful yet because it would unleash a chain of reactions and counter-reactions in Iraq and the region.  It would destabilize much equilibrium.  The conflict would give extremists a pretext for expanding the war even further.”  He continued, “The council must remain vigilant in order to avoid offering a ‘legal cover’ for unilateral tendencies and must prevent the establishment of dangerous precedents that could turn out to be disastrous if ever transposed and applied to the ‘solving’ of other conflicts and areas of tension throughout the world.”

Tunisia was the only country to explicitly endorse the French alternative to the U.S. draft, which requires two parts — one resolution on inspections and a second on consequences if Iraq does not comply.  While saying a new resolution was not needed, Mejdoub added that if the council adopts a new text, “it should scrupulously avoid the belligerent context of a new unilateral conception of the settlement of international disputes.  The French demarche could, in this sense, help the council.”

The 15 members of the council — France, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, and 10 nonpermanent members — are scheduled to speak later today.

Iran, which has a history of enmity for both Iraq and the United States, criticized them both.  Ambassador Javad Zarif said, “Any arbitrary unilateral approach outside international law …should be resisted.  Taking on Iraq unilaterally and outside international law would amount to short-sighted actions that may resolve a part of the problem, but will undoubtedly shake the foundations of the international security system predicated on the rule of law.”  He called the concepts of  “regime change” and “preemptive strike” as “fully alien to and in conflict with international law.” 

“The onus now rests on the Iraqi government to efface every doubt about its intention to allow unfettered weapons inspections everywhere in the country,” he said.  Iraq’s decision to allow inspectors “should now avert the cursory resort to military means and provide an opportunity for diplomacy to work,” said Zarif.

“Attacking Iraq … will inevitably fuel further resentment everywhere — not just in Iraq.  It will sow seeds of new hatred that will feed instability for years to come,” Zarif said.  “Those ideologues who seek to further their own aims and want to remake the world in their own peculiar image should understand beforehand that they, and they alone, would be responsible for any eventual adverse consequences.”

Many of the United States’ key allies — the European Union, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Australia — addressed the council yesterday, but only Australia unequivocally endorsed the U.S. position.  Ambassador John Dauth of Australia said, “This issue is about one thing and one thing only.  Iraq’s continued failure to meet its commitments to the international community embodied in at least nine Security Council resolutions.”  He added, “Australia is convinced that the government of Iraq’s ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction remain undiminished.”

Dauth said doing nothing about Iraq’s violations “would gravely damage the international system.  It would encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to other countries and even to other regions.”  He urged the council “to pass a new and robust … resolution which provides the strongest possible basis for unconditional and unfettered inspections of Iraq.”

Australia was also the only country to endorse the U.S. argument that Saddam and terrorism are part of the same threat.  “It is a risk that a regime that has been indiscriminate in its support for terrorist groups will one day hand one of these groups either a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon or pass on the knowledge to build one,” said Dauth.  “Unless we step up to the mark to address the threat posed to the world by Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction today, we will all come to regret our inaction tomorrow.”

The EU made a joint statement calling for a new resolution, but said nothing about what the resolution should say or what the consequences should be if Iraq does not comply, reflecting the divisions within the union.  Danish Ambassador Ellen Margretha Loj said, “The European Union supports a new Security Council resolution strengthening the rights of inspectors to ensure they can as effectively as possible carry out the disarmament required by the relevant resolutions.”  National positions within the EU are far apart, with the United Kingdom working closely with Washington, France countering the United States in council deliberations and Germany opposing military action against Iraq even if the Security Council authorizes it.

Likewise, Canada limited its statement to support for the return of inspectors and for a new resolution.

Middle East Countries Do Not Support Military Action

Regional allies of the United States, including countries that would be useful to Washington in the event of an invasion of Iraq such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan, all expressed support for the return of inspectors, but no enthusiasm for military action.  Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram said force should be “an option of last resort, not the first policy choice.”  The U.N. Charter “does not provide the authority to one or more member states to resort to force unilaterally and on their own judgment, independently of the Security Council or without its explicit approval,” he said.

Turkish Ambassador Umit Pamir said that over the last decade, his country has “received a raw deal.  Northern Iraq turned into a no-man’s land and quickly into a safe haven for terrorists” for attacks against Turkey.  “We have been living with the manifold consequences of the deterioration of conditions of stability in neighboring Iraq,” he added.  Turkey supports a new resolution, he said, but “the single most important principle is to maintain Iraq’s territorial integrity and national unity.  Any scenario that will question these basic principles should be discarded.”

Egypt and Jordan stressed the need for continuing dialogue.  Egyptian Ambassador Ahmed Aboul Gheit said the current U.N.-Iraq meetings and letters “indicates a positive momentum — based on the mutual goodwill of the parties — towards implementing Security Council resolutions relating to proscribed Iraqi military activities and the speedy return of inspectors to Iraq.” 

Jordanian Ambassador Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein said, “It is the responsibility of the council to use all possible and reasonable means to resolve the Iraq issue and settle it through continuous negotiations and dialogue.”  He added, “A peaceful exit of the current crisis requires Iraq to fully implement relevant Security Council resolutions” (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Oct. 17).

For more on the debate, click here and here.

Back to top

Iraq II:  Reports on Iraq’s Weapons Mostly Agree

Four recently released assessments of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability are in general agreement, according to an analysis by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released last week.

Reports from the British government (see GSN, Sept. 24), the CIA (see GSN, Oct. 7), the Institute for International Strategic Studies and a chapter from the Carnegie publication, Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction (see GSN, July 1), all say that Iraq maintains chemical and biological weapons stocks as well as nuclear weapons aspirations.  The reports differ, however, on the scope of Iraq’s weapons stock, the size of its arsenal and the time needed to build a nuclear weapon if Iraq acquired weapon-grade fissile material.

Nuclear Capability

Each report cited insufficient fissile material as the largest obstacle to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.  The official British study, however, puts significantly more emphasis on Iraq’s pursuit of the “indigenous ability to enrich uranium to the level needed for a nuclear weapon.”

The United Kingdom and IISS allege that Iraq has attempted to procure radiological material from Africa.

The reports differ again on Iraq’s ability to weaponize fissile material, if it could be obtained.  The Carnegie publication and the IISS claim Iraq could manufacture a nuclear weapon in a matter of months.  The CIA document and the British dossier indicate Iraq would take up to a year to gain that capability.

Chemical Weapons

All the reports agree that Iraq has maintained large stocks of chemical weapons — such as VX, sarin and mustard gas — while Carnegie says Iraq could still have 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells capable of delivering chemical weapons.

Iraq also has extensive chemical weapons production capacity, the reports say.  The official British report, however, diverges sharply when discussing Iraq’s offensive capability.  The United Kingdom maintains that Iraq can deliver chemical weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so.  Iraq is not likely to have reached its pre-1991 offensive levels, according to the IISS.

“Iraq’s current CW capability does not appear to pose a decisive threat against opposing military forces,” the IISS report says.  It also noted that the chemical weapons could “threaten unprotected civilian populations within range, but are unlikely to cause mass casualties.”

Missiles

The governmental reports agree on the threat posed by Iraqi missiles and unmanned aerial aircraft.  Both the United States and the United Kingdom warn of Iraq increasing the range of its rockets and developing unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver biological weapons.  The other reports indicate that while Iraq remains a threat, its missile arsenal remains smaller and largely inaccurate (Andrew Krepps, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace release, Oct. 11).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Defense Appropriations Ready for Bush Signature

With a 93-1 vote in the Senate, the U.S. Congress approved a $355.4 billion defense bill yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 16).

The bill, which gives President George W. Bush the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, also includes a 4 percent pay raise for all military personnel.

The House approved the bill, 409-14 and recessed Wednesday until after the November elections.  The Senate should be in session until next week (Jim Abrams, Associated Press, Oct. 17).

Back to top

Iraq:  France Leads U.N. Security Council Opposition to U.S. Resolution

The U.N. Security Council continues to debate a U.S. draft resolution on Iraq, with France, one of the five permanent members of the council, leading the opposition, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Oct. 15).

“No breakthroughs have taken place to date, but the conversations continue,” said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.  U.S. President George W. Bush has said “he was content to wait for days and weeks, not months.  It still is within that days and weeks time frame .... We’ll see if it goes beyond that,” Fleischer said (Associated Press/USA Today, Oct. 16).

So far, France has the support of about seven other U.N. Security Council members, including permanent members Russia and China, to block the U.S. resolution, according to the Los Angeles Times.  The United States only has the support of six U.N. Security Council members, and possibly a seventh, according to U.N. diplomatic calculations.

In order for a resolution to pass, it must receive nine votes with no opposition from any of the five permanent members.  A 15-0 vote on the resolution, however, is seen as being crucial to prevent the divisive effect of a 1999 U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq.  The debate over that resolution, which passed 11-0 with France, Russia, China and Malaysia abstaining, was later used by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to obtain a three-year reprieve from inspections, U.S. officials said.

The Bush administration is under increasing pressure to compromise on four main issues, including the threat of immediate military action if Iraq fails to comply with inspections, according to U.S. and U.N. officials.  France has proposed a two-stage approach — one resolution outlining a new inspections regime and a second, if inspections fail, on possible consequences.

“It’s not just simply a problem of a second resolution, it’s about coming back to the Security Council,” Ginette de Matha, spokeswoman for the French mission to the United Nations, said yesterday.  “The Security Council must weigh the credibility of any failure (to comply) and decide what to do about it.  It could decide to use force.  It could choose some other action, like issuing a warning, but the important thing is that it is the council of 15 that decides.”

The other three issues on which the United States has been called on to compromise include armed escorts for inspectors, the interview of Iraqi scientists outside the country and the right of U.N. Security Council permanent members to send representatives along with inspectors, according to the Times.

These proposals have always been seen as part of the “negotiating fat” of diplomacy, U.S. and U.N. officials said.

The United States, however, has not indicated it will compromise on calling for “serious consequences” if Iraq fails to comply with inspections, language France also opposes (see GSN, Oct. 10).

“For us, ‘serious consequences’ is the same as ‘material breach.’  ‘Serious consequences’ can be interpreted as possible authorization for the use of force without returning to the Security Council.  We are against this,” De Matha said.  “We believe our position — to have the Security Council meet (again) to decide the consequences of any violation — is the correct position, both in principle and in law” (Los Angeles Times, Oct. 16).

White House Officials Discuss U.N. Strategy

Senior Bush administration officials met yesterday in Washington with John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to discuss strategy on accelerating the passage of the U.S. draft resolution, according to U.S. officials.

The meeting, involving Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials, was meant to “take stock” of the U.S. policy on Iraq as the administration decides whether to accept compromises on the U.S. resolution or to offer it to the U.N. Security Council as is, officials said.

There is growing frustration that Security Council negotiations have not produced a compromise resolution that would include a credible threat to attack Iraq if it fails to comply with inspections, administration officials said.  Negroponte was called to brief the assembled officials at yesterday’s meeting on how stringent a resolution the U.N. Security Council would accept.

Diplomatic Efforts

Meanwhile, there has been almost nonstop diplomatic communications between the United States, the United Kingdom and France, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to negotiate a compromise between the U.S. and French positions, diplomatic sources said.

One of the major issues preventing a compromise is trust, a diplomat said.  France does not believe U.S. assurances that the United States will not quickly attack Iraq if an authorization for military force is included in the U.N. resolution.  The United States sees France as attempting to delay, or even stop, what should be the logical result of Iraqi noncompliance, the diplomat and others said (Lynch/DeYoung/Washington Post, Oct. 16).

Blix Calls on Iraq to Accept Inspections

U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix urged Iraq yesterday to agree to terms on inspections that were worked out earlier this month during meetings held in Vienna.  Even if Iraq agrees, however, inspectors will not return to Iraq until they receive new instructions from the U.N. Security Council, he said.

Inspectors are still waiting for Iraqi agreement on several logistical issues, including helicopter flights for inspectors, conditions for interviews with Iraqi scientists and permission for aerial surveillance flights, Blix said before a closed meeting of the U.N. Security Council.  While there is “a large area of common understanding” with Iraq on the logistical terms for inspections, it has not agreed to all the arrangements made during the Vienna meetings, he said.

The “simplest way to clear up remaining points” on the terms of inspections would be for Iraq to give its broad approval, Blix said.  Since inspectors are waiting for the U.N. Security Council to approve a resolution on a new inspections regime, they will not arrive in Iraq on Oct. 19 — the date set by Baghdad for advance inspections teams to arrive, he said (Julia Preston, New York Times, Oct. 15).

Blix told U.N. Security Council members that inspectors “did not see any legal obstacles to deployment” but thought it “prudent to await the adoption of a new text.”

Both Russia and China have called for inspectors to return to Iraq ahead of any new U.N. resolution (see GSN, Oct. 8).

“He [Blix] said he’s ready, legally and technically ... and we said that he should go,” said Sergey Lavrov, Russia ambassador to the United Nations (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Nando Times, Oct. 15).

“We believe that the imperative is to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq as soon as possible to have outside inspection and then submit a report to the U.N. Security Council,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue.  “After reviewing such an objective report, then the U.N. Security Council should take some actions” (Associated Press/USA Today).

John Bolton, U.S. assistant secretary of state for arms control and international security, said he doubted that U.N. inspectors would ever have the opportunity to conduct full inspections in Iraq.

“If the inspectors get back in, it’s essentially a certainty that Saddam Hussein will try and obstruct them,” Bolton said.  “I don’t know whether that will be the first day, or the second day or the day after.  His desire to keep his weapons of mass destruction is an inherent part of his strategy for staying in power” (Preston, New York Times).

Israel to Stay Out of War

Israel has agreed to stay out of any U.S.-led military campaign against Iraq, provided Iraq does not attack Israel with chemical or biological weapons, USA Today reported today (see GSN, Oct. 11).

“We will do our best not to be involved,” a senior Israeli official said.  “The dilemma is if there is an unconventional attack without casualties.”  An attack with weapons of mass destruction, or a conventional attack that causes large numbers of casualties, could prompt Israel to respond, the official said.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is expected to revise Israeli contingency planning for a possible Iraq war when he meets with Bush today in Washington, Israeli officials said.  U.S. officials have told Israel that in exchange for not retaliating, the United States will work to prevent Iraqi missile attacks by searching Iraq’s western desert for missile systems, USA Today reported (see GSN, Oct. 15; Barbara Slavin, USA Today, Oct. 16).

Bush is also expected to promise Israel that the United States will help defend it against Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction, according to the Washington Times.  During the 1991 Gulf War, the United States deployed Patriot missile interceptor batteries in Israel after Iraqi Scud missile attacks caused damage, but few casualties, near Tel Aviv (Joseph Curl, Washington Times, Oct. 16).

Bush to Sign Congressional Resolution

Bush invited about 100 members of Congress to the White House today to witness the signing of the congressional resolution granting him the authority to use force against Iraq, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Oct. 11).  Last week, the House of Representatives voted 296-133 and the Senate voted 77-23 to pass the resolution (Jennifer Loven, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 16).

“De-Nazification”

The U.S. policy of “regime change” in Iraq is targeted toward more than just Hussein, Bolton said.  He indicated that the approach likely to be taken in a post-Hussein Iraq would be similar to the de-Nazification process conducted in Germany after World War II.

“It’s not just the one person, obviously, it’s the top people around him,” Bolton said.  “I think one element that would have to be part of any post-Saddam process would be, in effect, the analog to de-Nazification, to take out the people at the top of the Iraqi regime who are so fundamentally part of Saddam’s entourage that their remaining in power would have the problem persist” (Preston, New York Times).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

IAEA Iraq Action Team

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  Defense Spending Bill Creates Chem-Bio Research Fund

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Congress this week plans to approve the largest defense spending increase in a generation, earmarking billions of dollars toward combating weapons of mass destruction, including new research funding to establish a “Chem-Bio Defense Initiatives Fund.”

House and Senate negotiators have reached final agreement on a $355.1 billion fiscal 2003 defense appropriations bill.  The legislation was approved late last week by the full House of Representatives and is awaiting Senate passage this week before being sent to President George W. Bush for his signature.

The legislation provides $7.4 billion for missile defense programs, $43 million less than the White House had requested, and represents the Bush administration’s first formal attempt to develop new anti-missile technologies free of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see GSN, Oct. 15).  The United States withdrew from the treaty in June (see GSN, June 13).

One setback for the administration in the spending bill, however, was lawmakers’ refusal to approve a $10 billion war contingency fund requested by the Pentagon to fund unforeseen expenses tallied up as part of the international war on terrorism.

Despite the difficulty in predicting the military’s operational expenses between now and October 2003, legislators were unwilling to provide what some critics charged would be a blank check.  Instead, the Pentagon will likely have to continue requesting emergency funds to cover unforeseen war expenses, officials said.

The legislation, however, marks widespread support across the government in substantially beefing up U.S. counterproliferation programs and developing a host of new technologies and defensive tools to address the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

House and Senate conferees, responsible for ironing out differences between the House and Senate versions of the defense appropriations bill (see GSN, Aug. 7), took the added step of establishing a new research fund, totaling $25 million, that gives the military a freer hand in researching novel technologies.

“The conferees agree to establish a “Chem-Bio Defense Initiatives Fund” within the Department of Defense’s Chemical and Biological Defense program, and provide an increase of $25 million for this purpose,” according to the conference report.  “The secretary of defense is directed to allocate these funds among the program proposals listed below in a manner which yields the greatest gain in our chem-biodefense posture.”

Program proposals to be considered for the new research funds include a variety of efforts to enhance the Pentagon’s ability to detect a chemical or biological attack and prevent harm to U.S. personnel.

In addition to these new funds, the defense spending bill allocates hundreds of millions of dollars in procurement and research and development funds to address the WMD threat from a variety of approaches.  For example, of the nearly $2 billion in applied research on what are called “defense-wide” programs, nearly half is earmarked for WMD-related efforts, including under the headings Biological Warfare Defense, the Chemical and Biological Defense program, WMD Defeat Technology and Strategic Defense Technologies.

One anti-WMD technology in particular, a Pentagon proposal to develop a nuclear-tipped bunker buster weapon to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets such as biological weapons facilities, was provided with the requested $15.5 million.  Lawmakers conditioned the money, however, on receiving a Bush administration report outlining how the funds would be used and whether there are conventional alternatives to a nuclear penetrator (see GSN, Oct. 10).

The legislation also earmarks nearly $1.5 billion for the U.S. Army to continue destroying the U.S. stockpile of chemical arms, as required under the Chemical Weapons Convention (see GSN, Oct. 15).

Meanwhile, the bill calls on the Pentagon to provide a status report on the military’s anthrax vaccination program, including the potential need for new production (see GSN, Oct. 4).  The report should “assess the immediate and short-term preparedness and potential future total biowarfare defense need for the FDA-licensed anthrax vaccine, the potential need for expanded production capacity to meet that need, and the need for a separate production capacity to mitigate risks of an event which could result in a halt to current vaccine production.”

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  United States Short on Battlefield Shelters

The U.S. Army does not have enough mobile shelters to provide soldiers with adequate protection from a chemical or biological attack, Bloomberg.com reported today (see GSN, Oct. 2).

Michael Parker, deputy to the commander of the U.S. Army Soldier Biological, Chemical Command said the Pentagon’s shelters “are too large, too heavy and represent a significant logistics burden.”

“More critically, we have very few,” he said.

The shelters are either stand-alone units or attach to larger structures.  Parker said the shelters were essential to allow soldiers to rest while wearing their protective suits and gas masks.

“We need collective protection in order to pull people out and put them into an environment where they can stand down, rest, get re-acclimated and return to the battlefield,” Parker said.

Ray Decker, director of defense capabilities for the General Accounting Office, described the comments as “the strongest Pentagon acknowledgment to date of what could be a serious warfighting shortage” (Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg.com, Oct. 16).

Testifying before Congress, Pentagon Inspector General Joseph Schmitz said the military has only 5 percent of the shelters needed to provide medical treatment if a battlefield has been hit with chemical or biological weapons (Knight Ridder/Baltimore Sun, Oct. 15).

Back to top

U.S. Response III:  Panel Will Check Sensitive Student Visa Applications

Wary of non-U.S. students studying subjects relevant to weapons of mass destruction, U.S. officials announced plans last week for a panel that will evaluate select student visa applications (see GSN, May 21).

John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, described the new panel to the U.S. House Science Committee.  The Interagency Panel on Advanced Science and Security will examine factors such as background, education, country of origin and desired area of study when reviewing applications, he said.

The panel will make recommendations to the State Department, which will still make the final decision on issuing visas.  The panel will, however, replace State policies that pay extra attention to students from countries that sponsor terrorism or students who want to study sensitive subjects, such as missile technology, and biological, chemical or nuclear warfare (Mark Bixler, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Oct. 16).

Back to top

Iraq I:  U.N. Security Council Prepares for Public Debate

The U.N. Security Council plans to hold a meeting on Iraq tomorrow at the request of the Nonaligned Movement.  It is to be the first public meeting on Iraq in the month-long debate over a U.S.-drafted resolution to add rigor to U.N. inspections in Iraq (see GSN, Oct 11).

“We believe that the proposed elements of such a resolution include issues that are of importance to the entire membership of the United Nations,” the movement wrote Friday in a letter to the council, referring to the still unofficial draft resolution by the United States — which demands Iraq’s disarmament, imposes new conditions for permitting weapons inspections and authorizes force in the event of Iraq’s noncompliance.

South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said this morning that the nonaligned wanted the meeting because “it seemed as if the United Nations was being asked to declare war on Iraq ... It is that fundamental.”  If the reports of what is in the U.S. draft were true “it would have contradicted the [U.N.] Charter,” he added.

“The Security Council is on the verge of entering uncharted territory, on the verge on dealing with this peace and security matter in a different way than it has ever dealt with other matters of peace and security,” he said.  “That is of interest to all 191 members.  That is such an important step that it shouldn’t just be left to the views of 15 members.”  Kumalo called the request “unprecedented in the sense that we want to express our views to the Security Council as they make this decision, that we see a decision that is unprecedented … We think they need to hear from all of us.”

“It’s not to take wind out of sails of the United States or anyone else, it is actually to reaffirm the principles of the United Nations Charter,” Kumalo said.

“We are frustrated by the fact that now it seems, that according to Dr. [Hans] Blix [head of the U.N. inspections in Iraq], that he now has the agreement with the government of Iraq … for him to go back with his inspectors and do the job he is qualified to do.  And that is not happening.  We want that to happen, because we want to bring closure to this issue,” he added.

Up until now, the United States and United Kingdom have been debating the issue behind closed doors with the other three veto-holding permanent members of the council:  France, Russia and China.  There has not even been much discussion with the 10 elected members of the council.  Details of the U.S. draft resolution and the French counterproposal have leaked, but no draft resolution has been formally presented to the council.

Kumalo said the nonaligned are concerned that the 10 elected members of the council, most of whom are members of the movement, are “being isolated from the deliberations on this crucial issue ... It is therefore critical that the elected members of the Security Council be fully involved in the deliberations.”  As of this morning, at least 60 countries had requested to address the council (Jim Wurst, UN Wire, Oct. 15).

Russia

Meanwhile, Russia is ready to support new U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iraq, but only to strengthen the inspections regime and not to authorize military action, President Vladimir Putin said Saturday.

Putin said he supports strengthening the inspection regime but that a new round of inspections — for which Iraq and U.N. weapons inspectors have already agreed on conditions — should begin immediately under existing U.N. mandates.

“Russia insists the situation around Iraq should be settled on the basis of U.N. resolutions that were passed before,” Putin said during a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Putin indicated that he does not agree with U.S. and British demands for a new resolution calling for military action against Iraq if President Saddam Hussein were to fail to comply with inspectors.

“Baghdad has made concessions and agreed to receive a U.N. commission without any conditions,” Putin said.  “Bearing this in mind, we believe that there are no formal and legal reasons for adopting any new U.N. resolution” (Steven Lee Myers, New York Times, Oct. 12).

France

France, another opponent of U.S. policy on Iraq, believes the United States must present its case before the U.N. Security Council before launching any attack on Iraq, diplomats said today.

France has called for two new resolutions — one for a strengthened inspections regime and, in the event that Iraq fails to comply, one to authorize military action.  France has used its proposal mainly to persuade the United States to support its position, diplomats said.  Both the United States and France believe they could muster the needed votes from the 15 U.N. Security Council members, according to the New York Times.

U.S. and French diplomats last week worked on a compromise involving language changes to the U.S. resolution that reduced the threat of military action to one of “serious consequences,” U.N. Security Council diplomats said.  The two sides did not reach an agreement, however, because France does not believe the compromise meant that the United States would return to the U.N. Security Council before launching an attack, the diplomats said (Preston/Schmitt, New York Times, Oct. 15).

France opposes any U.S. unilateral military action against Iraq, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said yesterday, calling on the Bush administration to “remain faithful to the vision of collective security that rests on the law.”

“America seems tempted by the solitude of power,” Raffarin said in a speech before the Institute for National Defense Studies, a Paris think tank.  “We cannot accept an intervention that is not a last resort, the final resort” (Associated Press/Globe and Mail, Oct. 15).

White House Split on Compromise

Bush administration officials disagree over how much of a compromise the United States’ should offer in the U.N. Security Council, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Oct. 10).  The split has made official U.S. policy ambiguous and has confused diplomats, the Post reported.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has been assured that he has President George W. Bush’s support to remove contentious language from the U.S. resolution as long as it retains the U.S. demand that Iraq fully comply with inspections and the U.S. pledge to impose “consequences” for failure to do so, sources said.

On the other side, Bush administration officials who advocate military action against Iraq, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believe that Bush will not support any major changes to the language of the resolution, the Post reported.

Since Bush’s speech before the United Nations Sept. 12, the administration has appeared to have two policies on Iraq — “one for New York and one for Washington,” a U.N. Security Council diplomat said.  It is still unknown which is the official U.S. policy, the diplomat added.

Other diplomats have wondered whether Bush was ever serious about developing a solution to Iraq within the United Nations, the Post reported.

“We all want Washington to stay on the U.N. line, and having gotten us all fired up, not walk away,” said another Security Council diplomat.  “Everybody knows we have to take up our responsibilities and make sure the Iraqis disarm.  “We’re prepared to do so.  (But) there is no point putting forward unrealistic proposals that don’t mesh with the U.N. system and what other members want” (DeYoung/Pincus, Washington Post, Oct. 14).

Iraq Holds Out on Agreements

Meanwhile, Iraq has refused to agree on terms set for U.N. inspectors to begin their work, diplomats said Saturday (see GSN, Oct. 9).

In a letter made public Saturday, Iraq did not meet a request to confirm agreements made last week by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix.  Instead, officials called for further discussions on logistical agreements, according to the New York Times.

The Iraqi letter from presidential adviser Gen. Amir al-Saadi was a reply to a letter sent two days earlier by Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Blix and ElBaradei had detailed what they understood to be the agreements made with Iraq on the terms of inspections.

Iraq had earlier said it was ready to readmit an advance team of U.N. inspectors Oct. 19, according to the Times.  Al-Saadi, however, did not confirm Blix and ElBaradei’s letter, agreeing instead to comments he and Blix made after a series of meetings on terms for inspections held in Vienna (see GSN, Oct. 2).  Other logistical difficulties “that might stand in the way of our future work” would be solved through “consultations,” al-Saadi said.

The Iraqi move demonstrated Hussein’s unwillingness to cooperate with inspections, U.S. officials said.

“We are not surprised that once again the Iraqis want to delay and deceive,” said Richard Grenell, spokesman for John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.  “We’ve had 16 resolutions and 11 years of playing this game, and it’s time the Security Council takes action” (Julia Preston, New York Times, Oct. 12).

In a second letter sent to U.N. inspectors Sunday, Iraq indicated that it does not object to inspections.

“I hope you did not interpret my letter as an objection,” al-Saadi wrote in his second letter to Blix and ElBaradei.  Al-Saadi said his first letter had been “an explanation of our understanding for what we had agreed” concerning terms for inspections.

Al-Saadi’s second letter still does not provide requested confirmation, according to the New York Times.  Diplomats at the United Nations and in Vienna have attempted to figure out the meaning of al-Saadi’s comments, the Times reported.

“I think they were saying, ‘Oops!  We shot ourselves in the foot the first time,’” a U.N. Security Council diplomat said.  “They tried to do better.  But conciliatory is not good enough.  What this letter does not do is just say yes” (Julia Preston, New York Times, Oct. 13).

Seven More Years for Saddam

In Iraq, voters overwhelmingly supported Hussein in a recent referendum that gave him, the only candidate, seven more years as president, Agence France-Presse reported today.

“By voting I’ve fired my gun at the head of (U.S. President George W.) Bush and his gang,” said 67-year-old Abdul Majid Janabi.

Several Iraqis voted with their blood after filling syringes, chanting “with our soul, with our blood we will sacrifice ourselves for you Saddam,” AFP reported (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Oct. 15).

United States Backs Away from Force

In a speech before a fund-raising dinner in Michigan yesterday, Bush indicated that he does not want to have to conduct military action against Iraq.

“The military option is my last choice,” he said.  “My first choice is for Saddam Hussein to do what he said he would do and after 11 years disarm.  It’s his choice to make” (Agence France-Presse, Oct. 15).

Other options short of military action, such as a coup within Iraq, are also being examined, U.S. officials said.  So far, there are no signs of dissent within the Iraqi regime, according to senior military and intelligence officials.  Some White House officials, however, have discussed a “pre-emptive” coup that might be launched by Iraqi officials afraid of what would happen to them after a U.S. attack, or a coup that might begin soon after the start of an invasion, according to the New York Times.

“There is no way to put a meaningful percentage on the chances of a coup,” a senior administration official said.  “Remember, there were all sorts of experts in the intelligence community at the end of the Gulf War who thought Saddam would last six months after his defeat, and some of them are still writing our estimates.  But you have to be prepared for the chance, and prepared to take advantage of senior defectors, even if there is not a full, successful coup.”

If Hussein were replaced in a coup with another hard-line military leader or another official from Hussein’s Baath Party, however, that alone would not satisfy the administration’s goal of disarming Iraq, Rumsfeld said.

“If Saddam Hussein were to wake up in the morning and decide he’d prefer to live elsewhere, and took with him his family and his regime — the small number of associates who obviously have been involved with his repression and the development of his programs — and left” it might be a solution, Rumsfeld said.

Iraq, however, would still have to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction, avoid connections with terrorists and be a peaceful neighbor, Rumsfeld added (Preston/Schmitt, New York Times).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

IAEA Iraq Action Team

Back to top

Iraq II:  Former U.N. Inspector Robert Gallucci Assesses Iraqi Situation

Robert Gallucci, the dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, plans a teach-in to educate his students on U.S. policy toward Iraq.  But Gallucci’s knowledge of Iraq is not just academic.  He was the founding deputy executive chairman of the U.N. weapons inspection commission.

The career diplomat later dealt with weapons of mass destruction as U.S. assistant secretary of State for political-military affairs and as U.S. special envoy.  National Journal’s Lee Michael Katz, who has covered the Iraqi weapons issue since 1991, interviewed Gallucci Oct.  4 and 8.  The following edited excerpts reflect Gallucci’s assessment that President Saddam Hussein’s Iraq poses chilling dangers.

National Journal:  Given your experience in dealing with Iraq, what should the ground rules be for the U.N. inspections?

Robert Gallucci:  Iraq is not a normal place.  Yet discussions of the ground rules sometimes appear to me otherworldly.  They don’t take account of seven years of inspections in which the Iraqis lied repeatedly about their holdings in chemical, biological, nuclear weapons capabilities, and/or missiles; did what they could to obstruct inspections and showed absolutely no remorse.

This is not an inspection in Canada.  One cannot allow sanctuaries or allow advance notice and still expect to find things people want to hide.  It’s common sense.  Yet we have colleagues in the [U.N.] Security Council, and in Paris and Moscow, who would settle for an inspections regime obviously inadequate to deal with a determined cheater.

We can expect this president to fulfill his responsibility to defend the citizens of the United States.  That’s not unreasonable and was the message of his speech on Monday [Oct. 7].

NJ:  So you’re backing President [George W.] Bush’s ultimatum of military action if inspections in Iraq don’t satisfy the United States?

Gallucci:  Weapons of mass destruction alone, in the hands of Iraq, do not necessarily imply an imperative to invade.  But having been attacked on Sept. 11, we need to be sure a regime such as Saddam’s does not transfer weapons to a group such as al-Qaeda.  I’m looking for, in the American tradition, some way of dealing with these threats short of military force.  One can design an inspections regime that would give us pretty high confidence.

If the Security Council won’t impose it or Saddam won’t accept it, how comfortable are you with leaving to chance whether Iraq transfers those weapons to al-Qaeda?  Does that mean we have to act tomorrow morning?  No.  But I think we can conclude that under the circumstances, we will not tolerate that risk to the American people.

Saddam should have to accept this resolution immediately or be subject to the certainty, at some point, of military action to separate him from his weapons.

NJ:  Actually, Iraq declared recently that Western reports of its weapons program are overblown.  What’s your response?

Gallucci:  It’s all lies.  It’s a pack of lies.  It’s a big pack of lies.

NJ:  You were part of a Carnegie Endowment group suggesting that military forces accompany inspectors, an idea the administration has embraced.  How would that work?

Gallucci:  You don’t want to have a repeat of those cases in which a guy in a white shirt stands in front of the gate on which there’s a padlock, and tells a team of 30 U.N. inspectors in little blue hats and armbands that they can’t come in today.  The inspectors haven’t any way of pushing the man aside and cutting the padlock off.  That’s not what the United Nations does.

A military special operations unit could provide security for the U.N. team and also allow access where there’s only minimal resistance.  You would force the Iraqis, if they wished to protect a site, to have a more substantial military presence — which would then provide a much clearer trigger for the use of force.

NJ:  If there was deception during those seven years of inspections in Iraq, what makes you think that inspections can succeed this time around?

Gallucci:  The Iraqis know a lot about how to deceive and harass inspectors, and about how to undermine the political basis for inspections.  They learned a lot in those seven years.  But inspectors, too, learned a lot about what works and what does not work against the Iraqis.

Remember, we did not have seven years of failure.  What we had was enormous success initially in finding lots of things the Iraqis didn’t want us to find.  We took apart their nuclear weapons program.  We didn’t kill their weapons scientists, obviously, so they’re there to regenerate the program.  We uncovered their biological weapons program.  We destroyed incredible quantities of chemical weapons, many of their ballistic missiles.  A lot of destruction went on.

But there was the watering-down of the inspections regime.  There was a lack of support within the Security Council for threatening hostilities in the event of Iraqi resistance.

We in the United States, and anybody that wants serious inspections, do not wish to see that inspections regime regenerated.  A weak inspections regime is worse than no regime.  It gives to some a false sense of confidence; to others a cover under which these programs can be pursued.

NJ:  Part of the debate over going to war with Iraq is that a threatened Saddam could unleash chemical and biological weapons against U.S. troops.  Do you think he would?

Gallucci:  In that circumstance, I don’t believe we should have any confidence Iraq would exercise restraint out of fear of American retaliation or some humanitarian concern.  The worst can be quite bad.  I don’t believe Iraq has nuclear weapons to use.  I do believe with some high confidence that it has both chemical and biological weapons to use....  It’s a particular threat for Israel.

NJ:  So basically, you’re saying that Saddam would quite possibly use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops and Israel?

Gallucci:  We have to expect that to be one of the consequences of an invasion aimed at regime change.  Since Saddam has used chemical weapons not only in the war against Iran, but also against his own people, these are for Saddam clearly usable weapons.  For a humanitarian, there might still be a reason not to use weapons of mass destruction in order to spare his people the pain and suffering of an American retaliation.  But I don’t believe anyone would put the label “humanitarian” around the neck of Saddam Hussein.  “Vindictive, totalitarian terrorist,” maybe, but not “humanitarian.”

NJ:  What weapons of mass destruction do you believe are in Saddam Hussein’s arsenal?

Gallucci:  Chemical weapons — you could expect mustard [gas], sarin and VX.  In biological weapons, you could expect toxins, botulinum toxin, bacteriological agents.  You could expect anthrax and ricin.

Our concern is that they’ve gone beyond toxins and bacteriological agents to viral agents.  They had smallpox naturally occurring in the ’70s in Iraq, and they may have taken that advantage to preserve this viral agent.  I think by now everyone knows that as bad as anthrax is — and it can be very bad, indeed — with viral agents, by virtue of their capability to move from person to person, the casualties can be quite a bit larger.  But we don’t know of their work in viral agents.

We can also worry about whether Iraq has done any of the type of research we believe has been done in the former Soviet Union:  in engineering viruses to put together agents that spread very quickly, like smallpox, with agents that are more deadly, like viral hemorrhagic fevers.  I’m talking about what we don’t know that we might worry about.

NJ:  When you say “viral hemorrhagic fevers,” you’re talking about the Ebola virus?

Gallucci:  Marburg and Ebola.  Marburg is just about as deadly as Ebola, just about as ugly and disgusting.  It is like Ebola.  But instead of smallpox, which is about 30 percent deadly, hemorrhagic fevers are close to 90 percent deadly.

NJ:  Do you think that Saddam had a hand in the anthrax that popped up in the United States?

Gallucci:  I think Iraq would be very conservative in attacking the United States with a weapon of mass destruction, for fear of the consequences.  I say that, but I worry that the risk propensity of Saddam is hard for us to fathom.  As a colleague of mine once said, “He’s calculating, but he’s not very good at it.”

NJ:  Could Saddam deliver a radiological “dirty bomb” in the United States?

Gallucci:  It’s very important to draw a bright line between radiological weapons and nuclear weapons as we understand it, which is producing an explosive force by fission.  A radiological weapon is a conventional bomb that is encased in or accompanied by radioactive material that is hazardous to our health.

But what you must please understand is that if a radiological weapon went off in downtown Washington on K Street, it is much more likely that any casualties would occur as a result of the blast from the conventional explosive, rather than from the radiation that would be spread about.

I don’t know any serious analyst who believes Iraq has a nuclear weapon right now.  However, the bad part of this is, Iraq is known to have already done the development work for a nuclear explosive device, produced designs, and has put itself in the position of being able to produce a nuclear weapon relatively quickly — perhaps a month to a year — if it could get its hands on fissile material.

NJ:  Britain issued a comprehensive, but not unexpected, document detailing Saddam’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.  Why is the drumbeat of war so loud right now?  Is there a threat the public doesn’t know about?

Gallucci:  If you can read the British white paper and not worry about the threat, there is nothing in the file cabinets at the CIA or anyplace else that would worry you.  You are not a candidate for invasion advocacy.

It seems to me, you conclude the threat is serious now and growing.  It comes principally from our concern over the transfer of this capability to an entity we cannot deter, such as al-Qaeda.  I, for one, having lived through the 11th of September in Washington, don’t wish to rely on the lighting of candles as a method of dealing with that threat.

Back to top

International Response:  United States, Lithuania Ink Counterproliferation Pact

The United States and Lithuania signed an agreement last week to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Sept. 5).  U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary Ian Brzezinski and Lithuanian Defense Minister Linas Linkevicius signed the bilateral agreement, according to the Baltic news agency BNS.

Under the agreement, the United States will provide Lithuania with investigative and response equipment through the U.S. Defense Department’s international counterproliferation program (BNS, Oct. 10 in FBIS-SOV, Oct. 10).  The United States has already signed a similar agreement with Latvia and expects to do so with Estonia, the U.S. Embassy in Lithuania said in a press release (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2001).

“Consumption of this agreement symbolizes Lithuania’s commitment to join into a new partnership with the United States directed at confronting the problem by working together as equal states,” Brzezinski said in a press statement.

The United States has already provided Lithuania with substantial assistance in strengthening border, transit and export controls, the U.S. Embassy in Lithuania said (U.S. Embassy in Lithuania release, Oct. 9).

Brzezinski was a member of a delegation of U.S. NATO officials, headed by U.S. Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns, that visited NATO candidate countries last week, RFE/RL NewsLine reported Friday (see GSN, Sept. 18; RFE/RL NewsLine, Oct. 11).

Back to top

International Response:  G-8 Countries Tackle Roadblocks to Cooperative Nonproliferation

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — This year’s Group of Eight pledge to allocate $20 billion during the next decade to secure former Soviet weapons is beset with political obstacles as participating governments seek to organize the effort, Bush administration officials told Congress Wednesday (see GSN, Sept. 6).

They expressed confidence, though, that much of the money will materialize and projects will be able to get underway as early as the beginning of next year, despite the lack of a dedicated mechanism to coordinate the effort.

The officials said the United States, Russia and six other countries have begun the process of turning total pledges of $20 billion over the next decade — $10 billion from the United States and $10 billion from others — into viable nonproliferation programs in Russia and the former Soviet Union (see GSN, June 27).

Despite some progress, a series of hurdles remains, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a hearing that examined how the United States plans to work with allies in carrying out the G-8 plan. 

According to Bolton, a recent meeting of partner nations held in Ottawa highlighted a litany of political, economic and bureaucratic impediments in numerous countries that must be removed before the money can be appropriated and applied to a long list of proliferation threats (see GSN, Sept. 11)

The outstanding issues include the need for new and complex legal agreements between Russia and partner countries to pave the way for new cooperation; continued charges in the United States that Russia is providing weapons and nuclear technology to Syria, Iran and other possible proliferation threats; and the bleak economic outlook facing some nations that have yet to specify their contributions.

New “Umbrella Agreement” Needed to Clear the Way

The most immediate hurdle, Bolton said, is getting a new “umbrella agreement” ironed out between Russia and participating nations that provides for liability protection for the proposed threat reduction projects in Russia, transparency into Russian weapons of mass destruction programs so countries can determine how they want their money spent and audit and access rights. 

The United States signed such an agreement with Moscow in the early 1990s when the Cooperative Threat Reduction program began the process of destroying Soviet-era strategic weapons, but that agreement has expired and is in need of renewal.  In addition to Washington, however, Russia has agreed to extend similar provisions to the G-8 members.  “But as we learned in other fora, President [Vladimir] Putin’s biggest obstacle could be his own government bureaucracy,” said ranking Republican committee member Richard Lugar (Ind.), an original sponsor of the CTR program.

Bolton said reaching this new agreement is critical before moving forward — with the G-8 efforts or, for that matter, U.S. nonproliferation programs with Russia.

“It is something we are committed to working on because we don’t want to come to the Evian [G-8] summit in France next summer and find that we’re in the same position that we were last year; that is to say, with projects stopped, without new money being committed, without the expression of support and progress on the Russian side,” Bolton said.

He expressed confidence, however, that the necessary agreements can be reached and that the Russians pledged as much in recent discussions.  “President Putin has committed to provide G-8 member states with the umbrella legal agreements necessary to permit the initiative to go forward,” he assured lawmakers.

A Variety of Potential Impediments

Beyond the legal hurdles, a variety of other factors could delay action.  Politically, Bolton accused Moscow of making future cooperation more difficult by continuing to provide missile and nuclear technology and materials to countries that Washington considers potential threats and supporters of international terrorism.

He called on Russia to “reduce the flow of technology and materials to countries like Syria and others in the field of nuclear weapons cooperation, ballistic missile technology” and to cease “being a source for proliferation by these rogue states.”

Simple economics could hamper the G-8 efforts.  For one thing, some partners have been unable to commit large amounts of funding to the project.  “Many of our international partners will find it difficult to increase nonproliferation funding in a period of stagnating domestic economy,” Lugar said.

Officials said that it is unclear how much of the $20 billion will actually materialize.  Japan, for example has yet to make any commitments, saying it must first resolve a stalled program with Russia to help destroy nuclear submarines, which pose an environmental threat to Japan.  Bolton said Japanese officials told him that their parliament, the Diet, would not allocate more funds until money dedicated to submarine dismantlement is spent.

Another economic impediment could be countries’ unwillingness to relieve Russian debt to free Moscow to allocate more of its own funds for nonproliferation — a proposal gaining steam in the United States.  While Russia owes relatively little to the United States, other G-8 members are owed significant amounts and may be unwilling to go that route.  “It is not a subject that carries a lot of favor with some,” Bolton said.

Nevertheless, Bolton said the United States has “been in the forefront … in considering the option of debt-for-programs swaps, whereby official Russian debt could be converted or utilized in ways that provide additional resources inside Russia.”

On other fronts, however, critical funds and diplomatic support are being provided to back up the G-8 pledge, officials said.  The United Kingdom has said it would earmark as much as $1.17 billion over the next decade, while French officials said in Ottawa that the global partnership would be a priority for president Jacques Chirac, Bolton said.  He singled out Canada for taking a leadership role as president of the G-8, also noting that France will take over the role at the end of this year.  Current U.S. plans call for spending about $1 billion annually, matching levels requested for fiscal 2003, Bolton said.  Since 1991, the United States has spent $7 billion to secure weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.

Officials also said that once a clearer program structure is established — including a new umbrella agreement — officials would be able to go back to their parliaments and get more solid financial commitments.

U.S. Leadership

Bolton said the G-8 partners have decided that each country will pursue its own nonproliferation programs in Russia and are opting against creating a separate organization to oversee the G-8-funded projects.

“We made a very basic decision … that each country would essentially run its own program,” Bolton said.  “We would not set up a new multilateral organization.” 

Some have warned that a lack of an overarching coordinating structure could hamper the joint efforts, but Bolton said the necessary national structures should be in place by the start of the year (see GSN, Sept. 26).

“I am confident that by the time of the Canadian handover to the French at the end of this year, that we will have in place the requisite reporting mechanisms so that countries can lay out in a more common system exactly what programs are involved,” he added.

Bolton and other officials said countries such as Canada have already established internal structures to coordinate their nonproliferation contribution, but acknowledged that the United States will play a unique advisory and leadership role given its decade-long experience of implementing threat reduction programs with Russia. 

“For over a decade of CTR experience, success and lessons learned, the department is prepared to work with our G-8 partners to help them address implementation and government-to-government procedural issues,” such as contracting guidelines, testified Lisa Bronson, deputy under secretary of defense for technology, security and nonproliferation.” 

“We are confident that a common approach to the challenging implementation issues will strengthen our efforts of each participating party.”

In a technical example, she said, U.S. expertise in destroying intercontinental ballistic missiles under CTR could help countries that have expressed interest in destroying short-range Russian missiles.  “We are prepared to share with them what we have learned about the capabilities of a variety of Russian enterprises involved in this area,” she added.

Back to top

Iraq I:  U.S. Congress Approves Presidential Authority Resolution

The U.S. Congress has approved a resolution giving President George W. Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq.  The Senate voted 77-23 early this morning and the House voted 296-133 yesterday in support of the resolution (see GSN, Oct. 8).

“The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally,” Bush said yesterday after the House passed the resolution.  “The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end” (VandeHei/Eilperin, Washington Post, Oct. 11).

The resolution, entitled “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq,” supports Bush’s efforts to enforce past U.N. resolutions on Iraq and supports efforts to secure a new, stricter U.N. Security Council resolution.  The congressional resolution authorizes Bush to use military action to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

Bush would now have 48 hours after launching an attack on Iraq to notify Congress that diplomatic efforts alone would not enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions or would not “adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” 

If the president uses force, the resolution requires him to submit a report to Congress every 60 days concerning the status of military activities against Iraq (Associated Press/Washington Post, Oct. 10).

Not since the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, which expanded the U.S. military role in Vietnam, has a president received such broad authority to conduct an undefined military operation, according to historians.

The threat that terrorists and the countries that harbor them pose as the newest U.S. enemy has prompted a need for a new way of dealing with them, said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.).

“The speed and stealth with which an outlaw state or terrorists could use weapons of mass destruction, and the catastrophic damage they could inflict, require us to consider new ways of acting, not reacting,” he said.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress said military action against Iraq should be only used as a last resort, but said the United States would probably use force if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein continued to defy U.N. inspectors, according to the Washington Post.

“The war on terrorism will be fought here at home unless we summon the will to confront evil before it attacks,” said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).  “Only regime change can remove the danger from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.  Only by taking them out of his hands and destroying them can we be certain that terror weapons won’t wind up in the hands of terrorists.”

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) had previously raised concerns that Bush has gone too far in politicizing the debate on national security, but he voted to support the resolution because, he said, “this resolution is improved, because I believe that Saddam Hussein represents a real threat, and because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment.”

Opponents of the resolution criticized the White House on several issues, including the lack of evidence that Hussein poses a significant threat to the United States and a lack of plans for a post-Hussein Iraq, according to the Post.

“The power to declare war is the most solemn responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution,” said Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).  “We must not delegate that responsibility to the president in advance” (VandeHei/Eilperin, Washington Post).

Russian Support

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair traveled to Moscow yesterday for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to gain Russian support for a new resolution in the United Nations.

After meeting with Blair, however, Putin said, “Russia has no real data about Iraq holding nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction” (see GSN, Sept. 24).

While Putin said he has not been persuaded to support the U.S. draft resolution, he does agree that inspectors needed to return to Iraq.

“Russia’s position has always been that no new resolution is necessary, but we need to take account of the negative experience of the work of U.N. inspectors,” he said.  “In this regard, together with our partners, we are ready to seek out acceptable decisions to ensure without any doubt the proper work of inspectors in Iraq” (Reuters, Oct. 11).

Blair said Russia has legitimate concerns about its economic and commercial interests in Iraq (see GSN, Oct. 3).  Russia has indicated it wants assurances that Iraq’s current contracts would still be honored by a post-Hussein regime, according to the London Times.  During his meeting with Putin, Blair also sought to address Russian concerns that the real goal of U.S. military action against Iraq would be to open Iraqi oil fields to U.S. companies, the Times reported.

“If oil was our concern, then there are a thousand easier ways to do this — we would be doing a deal with Saddam,” Blair said (Tom Baldwin, London Times, Oct. 11).

U.S. Post-Hussein Plans

Regarding a post-Hussein Iraq, the Bush administration is considering plans that would involve a large U.S. military occupation of the country, senior U.S. officials said yesterday.

Under the plan, U.S. troops would take control of Iraq after Hussein is overthrown.  An advisory group of Iraqis and a military officer who would report to the U.S. Central Command would be placed in charge of the country, according to the Washington Post.  The new officials would be responsible for establishing order in Iraq and preventing its breakup.  Humanitarian programs would also be started and the Iraqi oil industry would be developed as a source of income, the Post reported.

The priority of the military government would be to find and destroy Iraq’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, an official said.  In the chaos that could result immediately after the overthrow of Hussein, “these weapons could fall into the wrong hands.”

It would take at least several months, at a minimum, before a civilian regime would begin replacing the U.S. military government, according to the Post.  Only after national institutions were established would elections be held and control given completely over to an Iraqi government, officials said.

The White House is “coalescing” around the plan, a U.S. official said.  Officials noted, however, that no formal decisions have yet been made.

“I think we’re all heading in the same direction,” a senior U.S. policymaker said.  “That does not mean there couldn’t be changes.  This is not carved in stone” (Peter Slevin, Washington Post, Oct. 11).

One purpose of a U.S. military government in Iraq would be to avoid a repeat of the instability that has occurred in Afghanistan with the fall of the Taliban regime, officials said.  The United States is moving away from the type of model used in Afghanistan — the establishment of a provisional government run by local officials, White House officials said.  While some U.S. Defense Department officials supported the idea, the U.S. State Department, CIA, and, in the end, the White House opposed it.

“We’re just not sure what influence groups on the outside would have on the inside,” a Bush administration official said.  “There would also be differences among Iraqis, and we don’t want chaos and anarchy in the early process” (Sanger/Schmitt, New York Times, Oct. 11).

Even if Hussein were overthrown before any U.S. military action, U.S. forces might still go in and create a new government, especially if any new regime appeared willing to follow in Hussein’s footsteps, an official said (see GSN, March 20).

“If it is a new regime that is Saddamism without Saddam, that will not change things,” the official said (Slevin, Washington Post).

Possible Intelligence Influences

Elsewhere in Washington, intelligence and congressional sources have said the White House is pressuring CIA analysts to alter assessments of the Iraqi threat to develop a stronger case against Hussein, according to the Los Angeles Times.  Many analysts have attempted to resist the administration’s pressure, and they are becoming resentful of apparent attempts to contaminate the intelligence process, sources said.

“Analysts feel more politicized and more pushed than many of them can ever remember,” said one intelligence official.  “The guys at the Pentagon shriek on issues such as the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.  There has been a lot of pressure to write on this constantly, and to not let it drop.”

CIA Director George Tenet denied that the agency is being pressured to change its analyses.

“The president of the United States would never tolerate anything other than our most honest judgment,” Tenet said in a statement late yesterday.  “Our credibility and integrity are our most precious commodities.  We will not let anyone tell us what conclusions to reach.”

Much of the pressure has come from administration officials who support military action against Iraq, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, intelligence sources said.  CIA officials who brief Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on Iraq are often given long lists of complaints and demands for new analyses, sources said.

“There is a lot of unhappiness with the analysis,” often because it not seen as sufficiently anti-Iraq, an intelligence official said.  CIA briefers “are constantly sent back by the senior people at Defense and other places to get more, get more, get more to make their case,” a U.S. official said.

A senior defense official denied claims that Rumsfeld is attempting to influence intelligence assessments.  Instead, analysts might be misinterpreting remarks meant to test the conviction of their assessments, the official said.

“He’s a guy who’s constantly challenging assertions and assumptions,” the senior defense official said.

There have been several instances, however, in which the Bush administration has appeared to inflate information to build a stronger case against Iraq, according to the Times.  Wolfowitz and other White House officials have repeatedly made allegations that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi agent in Prague last year (see GSN, May 9).  The CIA, however, has been skeptical of the report.

Rumsfeld recently said there is “bulletproof” evidence of connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but many intelligence officials have said this is an exaggeration (see GSN, Sept. 26).  In a letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence this week, Tenet said the CIA’s “understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability.”

Tenet sent the letter to committee after members of Congress criticized a CIA report that echoed the administration’s view on Iraq too closely, the Times reported (see GSN, Oct. 9).  After the letter was publicized, Tenet released another statement saying there are no contradictions between the administration and the CIA on the Iraqi threat.

Tenet “is in a bad position,” a congressional aide said.  “He’s under fire from the (intelligence) committees.  Then he’s under fire from the White House” (Miller/Drogin, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 11).

Iraq Offers New Invitation

In Iraq, officials yesterday renewed an invitation to the Bush administration to travel to Iraq and see that suspect sites are not involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction, according to Reuters (see GSN, Aug. 19).

“The American administration are invited to inspect these (weapons) sites,” Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Abdul al-Tawab Mullah al-Huwaysh said during a press conference in Baghdad.  “As I am responsible for the Iraqi weapons programs, I confirm here that we have no weapons of mass destruction and we have no intention to produce them” (Reuters/Financial Times, Oct. 11).

Western and Iraqi reporters were invited yesterday to visit the Nassr/Taji Steel Fabrication and Military Production Facility, which the United States has suspected might have been used in Iraq’s nuclear weapons program (see GSN, Oct. 9).  Iraq has said the site is used to produce civilian items such as bases for toothbrushes.

“This shows that this site has nothing to hide.  You can see for yourself,” said Iraqi Gen. Hussan Mohamed Amin.

Western reporters are scheduled to visit a second suspect site, the al-Furat facility, tomorrow, Iraqi officials said.  The site conducts electronics research to be applied to civilian uses, al-Huwaysh said.  The United States has alleged that Iraq has attempted to smuggle in aluminum tubes that could be used to build a centrifuge at the site as part of its nuclear weapons program.

While Iraq has offered to admit U.N. weapons inspectors, the United States is still negotiating for a new U.N. resolution outlining a new inspections regime and the potential consequences if Iraq fails to comply.

The United States doesn’t “want the inspectors to come ... (because) they will visit the accused sites and see that nothing has taken place,” Amin said.  “For Americans, this will create a crisis, a crisis for their credibility” (Ellen Knickmeyer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 10).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)<