Iraq:  U.S., U.K. Press for New Resolution After Blix Briefing

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — The United States and the United Kingdom are using yesterday’s briefing by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors to press their case for rapid passage of a new, tougher Security Council resolution on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Oct. 2).

Hans Blix, head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), and Mohammed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, briefed the council yesterday on technical talks that they had with Iraqi officials in Vienna earlier this week.  Blix’s analysis that “there are still various loose ends that should be picked up” was cited by the U.S. and British ambassadors as proof that inspections to locate all of Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities cannot be effective under the current Security Council mandate.

“We have stated that we do not wish to deploy inspectors until practical arrangements have been talked through.  In large measure this has not been done.  Some loose ends remain which should be tied up,” Blix said, according to the talking points of his closed-door presentation to the council.  Unresolved issues include freedom for inspectors to interview Iraqis, safety in no-fly zones and access to presidential palaces.

After the briefing, U.K. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock told reporters that all “relevant” matters are not clear, therefore “it is going to mean another resolution, a resolution that makes it unequivocally clear what the duties of Iraq are in meeting the requirements of disarmament.”

Deputy U.S. Ambassador James Cunningham said, “These terms of reference aren’t good enough to get the job done that we need to have done.  We repeated that we are seeking a further resolution with additional guidance and authority for them that will strengthen their efforts and enable them effectively to pursue the goal of disarmament.”

Another U.S. official said, “Blix was perfectly clear … there are loose ends that remain.  The access to presidential sites has not even been discussed, so the Iraqis have not agreed to full and unfettered access. … If you do not have access to presidential sites, you do not have access.”

Access to the eight presidential sites is regulated by a 1998 memorandum of understanding negotiated by the United Nations and Iraq.  The sites are not off-limits, but inspectors must give advance notice before examining them and diplomats must accompany the inspectors.  The memorandum, and therefore access to the sites, did not come up in the Vienna talks.

Later yesterday, the five permanent members of the council — the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China — met without coming to any firm decision on the U.S.-U.K. draft resolution.

While speaking with reporters after their briefing, Blix and ElBaradei hinted that they might back off from original plans to send inspectors to Iraq by mid-October — which rely on their existing mandate from Resolution 1284, the December 1999 resolution establishing UNMOVIC — and instead wait until the council passes a new resolution.

“We can go back there, no one denies that we have a legal basis for doing that,” Blix said.  “The question was whether one should solve every practical arrangement — we solved a good deal in Vienna — but there are matters and some loose ends that need to be resolved before we go to Baghdad.”

ElBaradei told reporters, “We need to align our dates with the deliberations of the council and I think there was an agreement in the council that both the council and us should proceed without a great deal of delay.”

Blix added, “We have not purchased the air tickets yet, but we have plans to go, yes. ... I hope we wouldn’t be delayed long, I think the council would want us to go early.  We are ready to go at the earliest practical opportunity.”

The United States and United Kingdom repeated the view that Blix should wait.  According to Cunningham, “It would be desirable to have clarity about the outcome of that debate prior to the return of inspectors, rather than having the inspectors go back under the existing situation.”

Greenstock said, “I think [Blix] wants full clarity from the council before he begins to deploy his inspectors … It would be practical and I would say politically wise for those discussions to finish so that he is 100 percent clear across the full range of his business.”

Blix and ElBaradei are meeting U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other officials in Washington today.  Blix told reporters, “I hope to hear something of what their planning is and we’ll tell them what our planning is.”

“New Opportunity” to Verify Disarmament

According to Blix’s talking points, he told the council, “For progress on key remaining disarmament tasks, it will not be enough that Iraq open doors promptly and widely to inspectors.  More evidence is needed to erase question marks and whatever proscribed items may exist should be declared and eliminated under supervision.  There is now a new opportunity.”

In UNMOVIC terminology, there are “sensitive” and “presidential” sites, each with their own terms of reference for inspections.  Blix said the agreement on access to sensitive sites — ministries, military camps, offices of security services — “could be without prior notice and … it would be immediate.”

Blix said there had been progress in establishing procedures for the use of UNMOVIC aircraft.  However, Blix said, “Iraq was not in a position to provide full guarantees about safety in the no-fly zones.”  The two no-fly zones, which cover more than half the country, are controlled by the United States and United Kingdom.

Concerning procedures for interviewing Iraqis, Blix said that in the past there were “highly unwelcomed incidents in which the interviewed person was clearly intimidated” by Iraqi officials.  Blix wants to be able to interview people “without any official presence,” he said.  He did not get a commitment on this point from the Iraqis.

Blix told the council that many of the practical arrangements that were followed from 1991 to 1998 “remain viable and useful and can be applied.”  These arrangements include that inspectors will have diplomatic status, which means, among other things, their nationalities do not have to be revealed and communications equipment may be brought into Iraq without declarations.  Blix also said “there was a readiness to accept” field offices in the cities of Basra and Mosul.

In Vienna, Blix received four CD-ROMs from Iraq containing the backlog of monitoring declarations for sites and items that have dual-use capabilities, meaning that they have both civilian and military applications, covering June 1998 to July 2002.  Blix told the council the data “will show us changes in facilities and equipment.  We will be able to better select sites for [inspections] with this documentation.”

For further information, see:

U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission

International Atomic Energy Agency

U.N. Resolution 1284

Back to top

Iraq I:  United States Seeks More U.N. Security Council Votes

A majority of the U.N. Security Council appeared reluctant yesterday to support a U.S. draft resolution calling for “all necessary means” to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspections (see GSN, Sept. 2).

To be adopted, the proposal would need the support of nine council members and no veto by any of the five permanent members.  So far, only the United Kingdom has supported the proposal, with Colombia indicating possible support, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“Right now, the U.S. and U.K. don’t have enough votes in favor of their proposal,” said Ginette de Matha, France’s spokeswoman at the United Nations.  “The automatic use of military force is not acceptable” (Farley/Wright, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 3).

“The baby is still in the belly,” said Cameroonian Ambassador Martin Belinga Eboutou, the council president (Bumiller/Mitchell, New York Times, Oct. 3).

A Chinese diplomat said yesterday that “cosmetic changes will not be enough” to satisfy China’s concerns over the U.S. proposal.  “The U.S. will have to decide to go on alone” or “compromise,” the diplomat said (CNN.com, Oct. 2).

Several council members appear to support an alternative French proposal, which calls for two resolutions — one on a new inspections regime and one authorizing military force in the event that Hussein still fails to comply.

U.S. diplomats have not yet introduced the U.S. resolution to the council because of the apparent lack of support.  They have said, however, that they are still pushing for its acceptance.

“We’ll work it out,” a senior U.S. State Department official said.  “We have a history of prevailing, and we intend to.”

Bush administration officials yesterday outlined a strategy to increase support for the proposal by first obtaining Russia’s support and then using it to influence France, the Los Angeles Times reported.  Russia yesterday indicated it might be easing its opposition to the U.S. proposal.

“If additional decisions are necessary for the efficient work of the inspectors, we, of course, are ready to consider them,” Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said.

U.S. officials are offering Russia economic benefits and a major role in a post-Hussein Iraq, according to Bush administration sources.  A chance for Russia to be involved in establishing a new Iraqi government would help Moscow secure a long-term relationship, according to the Times.

The United States is also negotiating a guarantee that any new Iraqi government would repay an $8 billion debt to Russia, the Times reported.  As much as 40 percent of that debt might come from purchases made since U.N. sanctions were imposed in 1991, U.S. officials said.  If so, a new Iraqi government could choose not to pay for any purchases that violated sanctions, officials said (Farley/Wright, Los Angeles Times).

Inspections Might Begin Oct. 19

Meanwhile, U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has made preliminary plans for inspectors to return to Baghdad Oct. 19, U.N. sources said yesterday.  Blix was scheduled to meet with the Security Council today to discuss an agreement made earlier this week with Iraqi officials on renewed inspections (see GSN, Oct. 1).  Blix has also been asked to brief Bush administration officials tomorrow, U.S. officials said (Elizabeth Neuffer, Boston Globe, Oct. 3).

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:  Bush and House Reach Deal on Resolution

Leading lawmakers from the U.S. House of Representatives agreed yesterday on a resolution allowing President George W. Bush to order an attack on Iraq (see GSN, Oct. 2).

Bush is still expected to face considerable challenges getting the resolution through Congress as the Senate plans to debate it tomorrow.

The White House has said it wants the strong backing of Congress as it asks the U.N. Security Council for a tough resolution on weapons inspections (see related story GSN, today).

In the House resolution, Bush agreed to report to Congress within 48 hours of any attack and explain why diplomacy was no longer a viable option.  The president would also be required to report back every 60 days that military action continues and to report on plans for rebuilding Iraq.

“On his [Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s] orders, opponents have been decapitated and their heads displayed outside of their homes,” Bush said.  “The dictator is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own Cabinet, within his own army, even within his own family.”

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) was not among lawmakers who gathered around Bush to show support as he announced the resolution.

“I continue to believe that a final resolution should include greater emphasis on eliminating Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, a stronger statement that operations against Iraq will not undermine the ongoing international effort against al-Qaeda, and a clearer assessment of the administration’s plans for the political and economic reconstruction of a post-Saddam Iraq,” Daschle said (Bumiller, Mitchell, New York Times, Oct. 3).

The resolution cites Iraq’s “demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction,” complicity with al-Qaeda, refusal to account for an American pilot missing from the 1991 Gulf War and “continuing threat to the national security of the United States” (New York Times, Oct. 3).

Back to top

Chinese Reponse:  Beijing Pledges Controls for Biological, Chemical Exports

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — China will soon issue new regulations over exports of chemical and biological items that could have dual civilian and military uses, a Chinese diplomat said Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly’s First Committee on disarmament and international security.

Once China establishes the regulations, the country’s export control system for weapons of mass destruction will be comprehensive, Ambassador Hu Xiaodi said.  Officials have recently enacted export controls for ballistic missiles and related technologies (see GSN, Sept. 3).

“China has always been firm in its policy of not supporting, encouraging or assisting other countries to develop WMD,” Hu said.  “As a country with certain scientific technological and industrial capabilities, China is fully aware of its international nonproliferation responsibility.”

Hu also praised Cuba’s intentions to accede to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to ratify the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which established a nuclear weapon-free zone in Latin America and the Caribbean (see GSN, Oct. 2).  China also supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and urges its early entry into force, Hu said. 

“It is critical for all the nuclear-weapon states to maintain the nuclear testing moratorium before the treaty enters into force,” he said.

For further information, see:

CTBT Text

States Parties to the CTBT (Federation of American Scientists)

NPT Text

States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)

Treaty of Tlatelolco Text

Back to top

North Korea:  U.S. Envoy Arrives in Pyongyang

A nine-member U.S. delegation arrived today in Pyongyang, North Korea, for the first high-level talks between the two countries since U.S. President George W. Bush took office (see GSN, Oct. 2).

James Kelly, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, said he plans to discuss North Korea’s missile proliferation and nuclear program during the three-day trip, which he described as a “working visit” (Kim Kyoung-wha, Reuters, Oct. 3).

North Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok Ju is expected to meet with Kelly (BBC, Oct. 3).

The trip comes as five U.S. senators have asked the Bush administration to make any support for North Korean nuclear power reactors contingent weapons inspectors from the United Nations gaining access to suspected nuclear sites (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2001).

In a Sept. 26 letter Senators Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Robert Smith (R-N.H.) and Mike Dewine (R-Ohio) told Bush they fear that North Korea is working “clandestinely on its nuclear weapons program.”

The letter cited a National Intelligence Council report indicating that Pyongyang has produced “one, possibly two, nuclear weapons” (Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, Oct. 3).

Back to top

Iraq I:  Technical Talks End as Security Council Continues Deliberations

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — Talks between the United Nations and Iraq ended yesterday in Vienna with agreement on technical matters relating to the return of weapons inspectors, as more details emerged about the proposed U.S. resolution that would set new conditions for the inspections (see GSN, Oct. 1).

According to Hans Blix, head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, “There is a readiness [on the part of Iraq] to accept the inspections that did not exist before.”

“On the question of access, it was clarified that all sites are subject to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access,” he said.  “However, the Memorandum of Understanding of 1998 establishes special procedures for access to eight presidential sites.”  That memorandum, negotiated by the United Nations and Iraq, requires UNMOVIC to provide advance notice of its intention to inspect any of eight specific sites.

The Iraqi delegation also turned over to Blix four CD-ROMs containing the backlog of monitoring declarations for sites and items that have dual-use capabilities — both civilian and military applications — covering June 1998 to July 2002.  Blix said the CDs “will be very important in the months to come for our analytical staff to see what has changed in various sites and items and they will be also important for deciding where we will go and what we will inspect.”

Blix will brief the Security Council tomorrow on the talks.

“We are happy to reach this agreement and we expect the advance party to arrive in Baghdad in about two weeks and we expect no difficulty regarding that,” said General Amir al-Sadi, head of the Iraqi delegation.

The Financial Times and other media today published the draft Security Council resolution that the United States and United Kingdom have presented to Russia, France and China, the other three permanent members of the council.  The draft text lays down new rules for inspections, including negating the 1998 memorandum of understanding, granting inspectors the right to declare no-fly and no-drive zones in areas where they are working and giving inspectors the right to bring Iraqi citizens out of the country for interviews.  Military action would be automatically authorized if Iraq is found to make “false statements or omissions” in the reports of its weapons of mass destruction.

Despite the publication of the text, the 10 elected members of the council have not been given the draft and a U.S. official said there were no immediate plans for formally releasing it.  This morning, Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser said, “We will be very open to discuss a new resolution if the United States presents a text we can discuss.  But meanwhile, we do not have another resolution.”

“Mexico would like to see inspections,” as soon as possible, he said.  “If there is another set of rules for inspections because it is agreed in the council, we are open to that, too.  But meanwhile, we want these inspections to take place.”

Norwegian Ambassador Ole Peter Kolby said this morning, “I believe Blix will not send the inspectors back in before the Security Council has said OK to that.  It doesn’t necessarily have to be a resolution, but the inspectors need now to have the backing of the council.”  He said he was not concerned that the 10 have not received the draft.  “I think it’s most important that the Americans and the British try to work things out with the other permanent members,” Kolby said.

U.S. Reaction

A few hours after the Vienna meeting concluded yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington will continue to push for a new Security Council resolution.  The inspectors “are deserving of the strongest possible authority and the ability to do their job and to do it right.  That will only come from a new resolution that keeps the pressure up on Iraq,” he said.

Powell said the United States opposes the return of inspectors without a new resolution.  “UNMOVIC cannot simply go back in under the former terms of reference,” he said.  “There are still issues in debate.  So we don’t want to get into a negotiating situation with the Iraqis under the old terms.  That’s why we need a new resolution with clear terms, tough terms, high standards.”

He added, “There’s no magic calendar on when they should go in.”

Last month, Blix gave the Security Council a schedule based on the requirements in Resolution 1284.  According to this plan, an UNMOVIC advance team should be in Iraq by Oct. 15.  The resolution also calls on UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency “not later than 60 days after they have both started work in Iraq” to submit to the council “a work program for the discharge of their mandates.”

Powell said Blix’s talks in Vienna “cleared out quite a bit of the underbrush that existed with the old resolutions and might give us something to work with on a new resolution,” but he added,  “Not one inspector has set foot in Iraq and not one thing has changed since 1998,” when inspectors left Iraq.

Concerning the negotiations with China, France and Russia, Powell said, “We have made some progress .… Everyone understands this is not something we can turn away from.”

Details of the U.S. Draft

The draft resolution recalls that earlier resolutions “authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement” council decisions.  The text would have the council deplore “the fact that Iraq has never provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure … of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles” and deplores “further that Iraq repeatedly refused to allow access to sites designated by” weapons inspectors.

The draft would declare that “Iraq is still, and has been for a number of years, in material breach of its obligations under relevant [council] resolutions,” and as a first step in fulfilling its obligations, “Iraq shall provide to the Security Council prior to the beginning of inspections and no later than 30 days from the date of this resolution an acceptance of its programs to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles … as well as all other chemical, biological and nuclear weapons production or material.”

Citing “the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and IAEA,” the draft would impose new conditions on Iraq including the “unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including unrestricted access to presidential sites notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154,” the resolution that endorsed the memorandum of understanding.

The draft also says inspectors “shall have the right to the names of all personnel associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programs and the associated research, development and production facilities” and “immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or IAEA wish to interview [and] may at their discretion conduct interview inside or outside Iraq.”  The inspectors also “shall have the right to declare for the purposes of this resolution no-fly/no-drive zones, exclusion zones, and/or ground and air transit corridors.”  In addition, “Any permanent member of the Security Council may request to be represented on any inspection team with the same rights and protections accorded other members of the team.”

The triggering mechanism for military action is the paragraph that “decides the false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq to the [Security] Council and failure by Iraq at any time to comply and cooperate fully in accordance with the provisions laid out in this resolution, shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations, and that such breach authorizes member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area.”

Asked about access to presidential palaces, al-Sadi said, “Quite honestly, I don’t understand why it is so critical.  Anyway, it was not a subject on the agenda.”  He added, “It is regulated by a memorandum of understanding and it is also referred to in the Security Council resolutions and that remains valid.”

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Officials Say U.S. Forces Not Ready for WMD Attack

U.S. troops are vulnerable to a chemical or biological attack because of poor training and a lack of effective equipment, officials told a hearing of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 30).

Despite increased efforts and funding “serious problems still persist,” an official from the General Accounting Office said (Ron Martz, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Oct. 2).

A GAO report submitted to the subcommittee also highlighted problems that the Defense Department faces in the event of a chemical or biological war.  In particular, the GAO said the Pentagon could not account for up to 250,000 defective chemical protection suits and officials feared that the some of those suits could end up in the hands of deployed U.S. forces.

The report faulted the military’s inventory system, in which some unit commanders kept inventories of the suits with computer spreadsheets, some with chalkboards and some not at all.  George Allen, head of the Defense Logistics Agency, told Congress he could not guarantee that all front-line units would have working protective suites.

Representative Chris Shays (R-Conn.) accused the Pentagon of playing “Russian roulette” with soldiers in the field (John Hendren, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 2).

Pentagon Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, however, testified that front-line units were well equipped and prepared to fight.

Schmitz praised the U.S. Navy and the Central Command on their preparation for chemical and biological attacks and said any problems that his office has identified in front-line units can be corrected (Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg.com, Oct. 1).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Pentagon Prepares for Chemical, Biological Weapons Attack

The U.S. Defense Department recently sent five biological weapons detection systems, known as “Portal Shields,” to bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the Wall Street Journal reported today.  As part of an overall effort to defend against a possible biological weapons attack from Iraq, the Pentagon has also extended tours of chemical and biological reserve units by one year and ordered 35,000 gallons of a recently developed decontamination foam (see GSN, Sept. 26; Jaffe/Robbins, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 2).

Coalition Holds WMD Response Exercise

Meanwhile, U.S., German and Czech troops are holding a two-day exercise in Kuwait to prepare for a biological or chemical weapons attack, the U.S. Embassy said Tuesday.

The military personnel, all of whom are stationed in Kuwait, are preparing to support that country’s response to a potential attack from Iraq.  A unit of German vehicles is stationed in the country to detect biological, chemical and nuclear materials (see GSN, Feb. 19).  There are 10,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Kuwait and 250 Czech troops who are trained in dealing with weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 30).

“If called upon, coalition forces are well prepared to help Kuwait deal with the effects of a chemical or biological incident,” U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones said.

The emirate’s Interior Ministry plans to hold separate exercises later this week (see GSN, Sept. 27; Agence France-Presse, Oct. 2).

Back to top

North Korea:  U.S. Envoy Arrives in Seoul

A U.S. delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly arrived today in Seoul to meet with South Korean officials before a three-day visit to North Korea scheduled to begin tomorrow (see GSN, Sept. 27).

Kelly’s visit to North Korea is a first step by the United States to determine how serious Pyongyang is about restarting a dialogue and resolving differences, officials and analysts said.  Recent North Korean gestures such as a summit with Japan have helped lead to Kelly’s visit, the first by a U.S. official since 1999 (see GSN, Sept. 18).

It is unknown whether Kelly will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il or with other North Korean officials, U.S. and South Korean officials said.  Kelly is scheduled to meet with South Korean officials Saturday and with Japanese officials Sunday before returning to Washington.

“We hope special envoy Kelly’s visit to North Korea will serve as a launching pad for improving ties between the North and the United States,” said Park Sun-sook, spokeswoman for South Korean President Kim Dae Jung.  “We also hope the visit will produce best results to help bring about peace and stability to the Korean Peninsula” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Oct. 2).

Back to top

Iraq I:  U.N., Iraq Agree on Renewed Inspections

U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials agreed tentatively on inspection terms today in Vienna following two days of talks at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna (see GSN, Sept. 30).  Iraqi officials said the United Nations would send an advance team of inspectors to Iraq in two weeks.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Iraq has accepted “all the rights of inspections that are laid down” in previous U.N. resolutions.  Iraq also handed Blix four disks containing reports on Iraqi dual-use facilities, thus filling a backlog of reports not made since 1998.

Under today’s agreement, limits to the rights of U.N. inspectors to visit presidential sites in Iraq will remain in effect, as they are provided for in existing U.N. Security Council resolutions (William Kole, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 1).

During previous rounds of inspections, Iraq created logistical problems, experts said.  Inspectors’ hotel rooms were broken into, they were provided poor transportation to sites and, on a few occasions, even had food dumped on them during meals, experts said.

“Even if you’re only talking about logistics, the Iraqis can put up hurdles that make the inspectors’ lives very difficult,” said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control (Mark Landler, New York Times, Oct. 1).

Draft U.N. Resolution

Meanwhile, more details emerged today on a U.S. draft resolution to the U.N. Security Council calling for a new inspection regime in Iraq.

Included is a proposal that would give U.N. inspectors the authority to establish “no-fly” and “no-drive” zones around suspected sites with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, according to the Washington Post.  These zones could be “enforced by U.N. security forces or U.N. member states.”

The Bush administration has not yet decided whether to keep the proposal in the resolution when it is formally submitted to the U.N. Security Council, which could happen as early as Thursday, U.S. and U.N. diplomats said.  The proposal is “still very much in play,” a U.S. official said.

The resolution also says Iraq is in “material breach” of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement and would require Iraq to allow weapons scientists and other officials to leave the country to be interviewed by weapons inspectors, the Post reported.  Under the resolution, Iraq would be required to provide a list of personnel connected to suspected WMD programs.

The U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the IAEA “may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside Iraq or facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that such interviews shall occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government,” the resolution says.

The resolution would force Iraq to allow the United Nations to station security forces in key areas to safeguard inspectors, the Post reported.  It would also give U.N. Security Council members the right to recommend sites for inspection and to request permission to have their representatives be included in inspections (Washington Post, Oct. 1).

Consulting the Security Council

Although there is not yet agreement among the five permanent Security Council members, U.S. and British officials yesterday briefed the 10 elected members of the council for the second time without showing them the actual wording of the draft resolution. 

A diplomat at the meeting said the U.S. Deputy Ambassador James Cunningham told the 10 that this is the “last chance for peace” and that British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said, “Iraq will not move unless the pressure is real.” Cunningham described the resolution as “the legal basis for disarmament,” according to the diplomat, “Only through genuine disarmament can war be less likely.”  The diplomat described the draft as “a serious resolution, it’s tough, but it’s not unreasonable.”

Since details of the draft started circulating last week, the 10 states have only made general comments on their governments’ position until the actual wording was in hand.  The 10 had their first briefing on Friday.  Greenstock said Washington and London had hoped to have the draft then, the diplomat said, but they wanted “a unified position” among the permanent five members of the council first.

The five — the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and China — are scheduled to hold another meeting today.

A normal procedure within the council, especially on contentious issues, is for the permanent five members to work out a draft resolution among themselves and after they reach agreement, present it to the 10 elected council members. But it is clear from their public statements that the divisions among the five have not yet been bridged.  This raises the possibility that a vote in the council on a final version of the draft may be weeks away.

Hans Blix, the U.N.’s chief weapons inspector, is working on a timeline that would place inspectors in Iraq by Oct. 15.  Blix is operating under the mandate of Resolution 1284, one of the resolutions the U.S.-British draft would override.  U.S. officials have said they do not want inspectors in Iraq until a new mandate is in place. (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Oct. 1)

United Kingdom Reaches Compromise

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed today to a resolution in the British Parliament calling for a U.N. mandate before launching a military strike on Iraq, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Sept. 27).  The resolution is expected to help ease concerns within Blair’s Labor Party over his support for the United States.

The resolution, which passed by a show of hands during the Labor Party’s annual conference, says that British military forces should participate in an attack on Iraq only “after the exhaustion of all other political and diplomatic means.”  The conference later voted 60 percent to 40 percent against a motion to condemn military action, according to the Post.  The two votes indicated the high amount of concern within the Labor Party over Blair’s support for military action against Iraq, party officials said.

“The party is reasonably anxious about military action and this is good,” said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.  “It’s an anxiety which I share and the prime minister shares.”

The votes also demonstrated to Blair that he might risk his political future if he were to commit British troops to an attack on Iraq without U.N. backing, some conference participants said.

“He’s got to be worried about the party, but he should be even more concerned about the country as a whole,” said Tony Benn, a former member of the Parliament.

“President [George W.] Bush is determined to go to war,” said Alice Mahon, a current member of the Parliament.  “I believe it’s a disgrace our government is the only one in the Western world willing to back him” (Washington Post, Oct. 1).

Senators Propose Alternative Resolutions

In the United States today, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and ranking Republican committee member Richard Lugar (Ind.) released an alternative to a White House resolution authorizing U.S. military action against Iraq (see related GSN story, today).

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she plans to introduce an amendment that would authorize U.S. military action only if Iraq were to fail to comply with U.N. resolutions within 30 days.  The amendment would also require Bush to certify that all diplomatic measures had failed, according to Feinstein.

The various changes and alternatives to the White House draft resolution are unlikely to be supported if brought up for consideration on their own, according to the Times.  Senate leaders have estimated that between 75 and 80 senators would probably vote for the White House draft resolution, and the House of Representatives is also likely to support it, the Times reported.  Any changes accepted by the Bush administration, however, could help reduce the number of votes and amendments against the White House draft resolution during congressional debate, according to the Times.  Congressional aides have said they want this to happen to demonstrate a united front against Iraq.

“Our goal from the outset has been to construct a resolution that helps the president attract strong bipartisan support,” Biden and Lugar said in a joint statement (David Firestone, New York Times, Oct. 1).

[EDITOR’S NOTE:  Richard Lugar is a Nuclear Threat Initiative board member.  NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]

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:  Pre-Emptive Attack Would Be Unprecedented, Report Says

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States has never in its history attacked another country to pre-empt a suspected attack, says a report recently released by a research arm of the Congress, apparently contradicting recent assertions by top Bush administration officials.

“The historical record indicates that the United States has never, to date, engaged in a ‘pre-emptive’ military attack against another nation,” says the report, published Sept. 18 by Congressional Research Service analyst Richard Grimmett and released online Thursday by the State Department.

In attempting to build a case for a possible war against Iraq, senior U.S. officials in the past week have argued the contrary — that there are precedents in U.S. history for pre-emptive military action.

“It’s not a new doctrine.  It’s been around for as long as warfare has been around,” Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing Thursday.  “I can give you example after example in our own history of pre-emptive actions,” he said, citing the U.S. action in 1989 to arrest Panamanian President Manuel Noriega and cruise missile attacks ordered by former U.S. President Bill Clinton against a suspected chemical weapons facility in Sudan (see GSN, Sept. 27).

At a press briefing the same day, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld contended that the U.S. blockade ordered by former President John F. Kennedy during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis offers an example of pre-emptive military action.

“In my view, establishing what he called a quarantine, what the world thought of as a blockade, and preventing, if you will, the Soviet Union from placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, that was certainly self-defense, it was certainly anticipatory self-defense, it was certainly preventative, and we were very close to a crisis of historic proportion,” Rumsfeld said.  “And I think it’s not unfair or inaccurate to say that he … engaged in pre-emption.”

Questions of Definition

The CRS analysis argues that none of those actions constitutes pre-emption, though it does not specifically address the cruise missile attacks ordered by Clinton.  It defines pre-emptive use of military force as that taken against another country to “prevent or mitigate a presumed military attack or use of force by that nation against the United States.”

While the United States did attack Spanish forces prior to an attack from them during the 1898 Spanish-American War, the report says, the principal U.S. goal for action “was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its political independence.”

A case using “a less stringent definition” of a pre-emptive attack might be made for U.S. action during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the report says, but it rejects that, saying the blockade did not constitute an attack.  The missile crisis, the report says, represented “a threat situation which some may argue had elements more parallel to those presented by Iraq today — but it was resolved without a ‘pre-emptive’ military attack by the United States.”  Pre-emptive force then was contemplated, but ultimately not used, the report says.

In other cases — such as World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the 1990-91 Gulf War and the Bosnian and Kosovo operations in the 1990s — U.S. military action occurred in response to attack and was not pre-emptive in nature, the report says.

U.S. military interventions in Latin America, specifically in the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983 and Panama, the report says, were based on concerns that U.S. citizens or other U.S. interests were being harmed by the political instability in those countries at the time of the interventions, the report says.  Those were not pre-emptive actions, it says, because those countries were not expected to attack the United States militarily.

The United States has attempted covert action, the report says, to prevent foreign groups or figures from gaining or maintaining political power, citing Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954 and Cuba in 1961.  It adds, however, that none of those instances qualify as pre-emptive acts because the sizes of U.S. forces were much smaller than a major conventional military operation.  “It seems more appropriate to view U.S. ‘covert actions’ as adjuncts to more extensive U.S. military actions,” it says.

An Expanded Definition

In their statements, Rumsfeld and Powell appear to be making a case for a more expansive definition than that used in the CRS study.  For example, Kennedy in 1962 “decided to engage in pre-emptive action, preventative action, anticipatory self defense, self defense, call it what you wish,” Rumsfeld said Friday.

According to customary international law dating to the mid-19^th century, pre-emptive force is allowed if a threat is deemed imminent and overwhelming, for instance, if armies are seen massing on a border.  The administration released a major national security strategy document last month arguing for pre-emptive action, calling for a reinterpretation of the customary law in order to address challenges posed by attackers using weapons of mass destruction, which might not exhibit tangible signs of an attack (See GSN, Sept. 20).

Search for Consensus

The question of definitions and precedents for pre-emptive action has potential implications for the Bush administration’s case for attacking Iraq to remove the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and eliminate the threat posed by the country’s weapons of mass destruction.

The administration has been struggling to persuade three permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to authorize force against Iraq if it continues to defy previous Security Council resolutions.  Meanwhile, administration officials have been attempting to build a case under customary international law by asserting a new understanding of that law, according to Frederic Kirgis, a law professor at the Washington and Lee University.

“They are essentially trying to say that there are precedents for this and that since we got away with it, I don’t think Rumsfeld would put it that way, we created law already and it would authorize us to do what we’re trying to do now,” he said.

The administration has encountered opposition from U.S. senators of both major political parties and from foreign governments.  Administration officials are going to the trouble to obtain justification under international law, Kirgis said, because, “We have to get along with the rest of the world.  We have to have other governments on our side if we want to be effective with terrorism, and for international diplomacy.  So there are pressures to comply,” he said.

There also is a concern about setting a precedent for other governments to act pre-emptively, Kirgis said.  Some Russian analysts have suggested that pre-emptive action against Iraq, despite a lack of public evidence that the country is planning an imminent and overwhelming attack, could provide justification for Russian action in the republic of Georgia.

Israel is said to have used pre-emptive force twice, one approved by much of the international community and one rejected.  The U.N. Security Council and General Assembly rejected proposals to condemn Israel for launching a pre-emptive attack in 1967 on Egypt and other Arab countries after Egyptian forces were moved toward Israel.  The Security Council unanimously condemned Israel after it bombed a partially built Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

Back to top

Iraq II:  Leading U.S. Senators Propose Modified Resolution

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Two senior U.S. senators today released an alternative resolution to the one proposed by the White House to authorize force against Iraq (see GSN, Sept. 20).

The proposed resolution, drafted by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) and senior Republican committee member Richard Lugar (Ind.), would authorize the use of force, but it differs from the administration’s resolution in several ways.

In particular, it would authorize the use of force specifically on Iraq, as opposed to the entire Middle East region as requested by U.S. President George W. Bush.

The alternative resolution specifies that force would be allowed in the event that Iraq continues to defy U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 and prevents the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction.  The White House version would allow for the use of force, for instance, if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein continues to defy U.N. resolutions on human rights violations and fails to return detainees and property seized during the Gulf War.

Further, the Biden-Lugar proposal requires that the Bush administration either obtain a U.N. resolution authorizing force or a presidential determination that the Iraqi threat is so grave it requires the use of force.  It says specifically that force may be used if it is determined “that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary despite the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution.”

The resolution also says that force can be used “in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.”  The right of self-defense already is guaranteed under the U.N. charter.

The Bush administration’s proposal was introduced as a resolution last week by Senators Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

“Our goal from the outset has been to construct a resolution that helps the president attract strong bipartisan support in Congress,” said Biden and Lugar in a statement released today.  “We believe our proposal best comports with the president’s stated objectives.”

[EDITOR’S NOTE:  Richard Lugar is a Nuclear Threat Initiative board member.  NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]

Back to top

U.S. Export Controls:  Commerce Accuses Sun Microsystems of Illegal Sales

The U.S. Commerce Department has accused Sun Microsystems Inc., which makes high-performance computing hardware, of violating export regulations in sales to Egypt and China, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2001).

Sun — which is based in Santa Clara, Calif., and relies on overseas sales for more than half of its revenue — disclosed the allegations in an annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The 1998 sale to Egypt involved improper notification, said Sun spokesman Andy Lark.  The 1997 sale to China took place through a Hong Kong reseller, according to the Times (Joseph Menn, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 1).

The Commerce Department’s Office of Export Enforcement sent letters in February 2002 to Sun and two subsidiaries, accusing them of violating export control regulations, according to the SEC filing.  The department has given Sun until Nov. 1 to respond to the letters, and U.S. officials have also told Sun that more charges will probably be added.

Sun, which is in settlement discussions with authorities, could be subject to fines or denial of export privileges, according to the filing.  The evidence does not support denial of export privileges, Sun said, and a fine would not have a “material adverse effect” on the company (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission release).

Back to top

Iraq I:  Powell Defends Pre-Emption Policy Amid Senate Doubts

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. debate over the Bush administration’s newly released doctrine on pre-emptive military action continued yesterday, as Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the policy yesterday afternoon before a Senate committee (see GSN, Sept. 23).

Counterbalancing Powell, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger earlier yesterday told the same committee the administration need not and should not invoke a pre-emptive doctrine to use force against Iraq.

“If a terrorist threat is coming our way, or if there is a nation out there that we know is planning to conduct action against us that we could pre-emptively stop, then I see no reason why the president should not do that,” Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The new doctrine was described in a national security strategy document, released by the administration last week, which called for a reinterpretation of customary international law to allow for pre-emption even when there is no evidence that a threat is imminent (see GSN, Sept. 20).

A number of committee members expressed unease with the doctrine, particularly if it were applied to make war on Iraq.

“I know you don’t want to set a precedent that allows India to say, ‘By the way, Pakistan has done the following, we reserve the right to [act] pre-emptively,’” said committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.).

“I just want to make sure that anything I vote for is not premised upon the notion that this is a pre-emptive doctrine,” he said, referring to a proposed resolution sent by the White House to Congress last week that would authorize the president to use force against Iraq (see GSN, Sept. 25).

Powell said pre-emption was not included in the resolution.

The draft resolution offered by the White House says:  “The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.”

U.N. Resolutions As Justification

Congressional leaders are currently negotiating revisions to the draft resolution with advice from the White House (see related GSN story, below).  With congressional backing, the administration is hoping to persuade the Security Council to pass a new resolution that would authorize force against Iraq if it continued to fail to comply with numerous previously passed resolutions.  Administration officials have said if a new authority is not passed, and the Iraqi regime does not begin abiding by the resolutions, President George W. Bush may choose to make war on Iraq to remove Hussein.

Biden said the new doctrine is not necessary for justifying an attack against Iraq and that Iraqi violations of the U.N. resolutions could provide sufficient justification.

Kissinger and Albright at the earlier hearing agreed on that view. 

“I think the issue of pre-emption is a huge issue” and worth discussing, said Albright, “but I think to load this issue now with a major discussion of change in our whole strategic policy is a mistake.”

Kissinger at length made a case for pre-emptive action to deal with WMD threats posed by terrorists who are based in or are supported by foreign states.

He said, however, it is “not an issue that needs to be settled irrevocably now in order to justify action against Iraq.”

Debate Over the Controversy

Powell argued that the pre-emption doctrine should not be considered controversial, as it is not a departure from past U.S. policy.  He said the administration was simply placing greater emphasis on an approach used by previous administrations.

The secretary offered as an example cruise missile attacks ordered by former President Bill Clinton on a suspected chemical weapons facility in Sudan.

“It’s not a new doctrine.  It’s been around for as long as warfare has been around,” he said.  “I can give you example after example in our own history of pre-emptive actions.”

The change, Powell said, is that “pre-emption rises higher in our hierarchy of options,” in order to address terrorist threats that may not be deterred by traditional U.S. means of deterrence.

Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) questioned Powell’s assertion that there is no dramatic change in the doctrine, asking, “When have we ever launched a war against another country on this basis?”

Powell cited the U.S. invasion of Panama during former President George H.W. Bush’s presidency, which resulted in the removal of Panamian President Manuel Noriega.

Powell further asked, “Where does that document say we’re going to launch a war against a country?” and said the doctrine was “written almost exclusively” to address terrorist threats.

Sarbanes disagreed, saying the document also addresses pre-emption of states, not just of terrorist organizations, “which is a radical change in the heretofore approach to dealing with states.”

The document repeatedly cites new threats posed by “rogue states and terrorists,” and Iraq in particular, as justification for pre-emptive action.

Sarbanes also cited as evidence of the document’s novelty its suggestion international law governing pre-emption be reconsidered.

“I think it’s safe to say that it redefines “imminent threat,” he said.  Since the mid-19^th century is has been a principle of customary international law that a state may attack another if there is evidence of an imminent and overwhelming threat, such as the massing of armies.

Kissinger in his prepared testimony also suggested the doctrine amounts to a significant change.

“At bottom, it is a debate between the traditional notion of sovereignty of the nation-state prevalent since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and the adaptation required by both modern technology and the nature of the terrorist threat.”

Administration officials have described Iraq daily as a threat to U.S. national security, and said Iraq poses a particular threat because it might decide to share its weapons of mass destruction with terrorists.

“There’s no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us,” Bush said at a fundraising event last night.  “There’s no doubt he can’t stand us.  After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.”

Powell Questioned About Other Possible Candidates

Sarbanes asked Powell whether he considered Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia and Iran as candidates for pre-emptive action, noting that Kissinger’s testimony listed those countries as harboring terrorists.

“I’m not putting anybody on a candidate list,” said Powell.

“It depends on what the threat is, the reality of that threat, the proximity of that threat, the danger of that threat, and whether or not a president of the United States should take action to pre-empt or prevent such a threat.  And if he has sufficient information that this threat is coming against the United States, and he can take action to prevent it or pre-empt it,” he said.

Back to top

Iraq II:  United States, United Kingdom Agree on U.N. Resolution

The United States and United Kingdom agreed on strong language yesterday for a U.N. resolution demanding that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (see GSN, Sept. 26).

The new language accuses Hussein of violating past U.N. resolutions and warns of dire consequences, believed to mean military action, if he does not comply with inspections, according to the London Independent.  The United States and United Kingdom are expected to submit the resolution to the U.N. Security Council Monday (David Usborne, London Independent, Sept. 27).

France, Russia, China Coordinate Efforts

Meanwhile, the Bush administration stepped up its efforts yesterday to obtain support for its U.N. resolution from the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — France, Russia and China.  Officials added a British official to a delegation, led by Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, traveling to Russia and France.

The U.N. resolution is still mainly a U.S. draft, “but we will be peddling the same goods,” a British official said.

As part of the U.S. efforts, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke to Russian and Chinese foreign ministers yesterday and British and French foreign ministers Wednesday, according to the Washington Post.  Powell said he also met yesterday with Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Zhou Wenzhong to discuss the resolution.

Even though the draft U.N. resolution has not been publicly released, French and Russian officials reacted skeptically yesterday, according to the Post.  France has said it would veto a single U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, a U.S. official said. 

Instead, France supports the passage of two U.N. resolutions — one that would establish the conditions for renewed weapons inspections and a second in the event Iraq failed to comply, the Post reported. 

French President Jacques Chirac discussed the proposal yesterday with Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji and later with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Zhu supports Chirac’s proposal, the French president’s spokeswoman said.

“China approves the two-step approach proposed by France for the Iraq problem within the framework of the United Nations,” spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said.  Chirac and Putin have also agreed to cooperate on Iraq, she said.

Russia supports using existing U.N. resolutions to resolve disputes with Iraq, Putin said.

“We favor a rapid resolution of the situation around (Iraq) on the basis of existing U.N. Security Council resolutions and in accordance with the principles and norms of international law,” he said (Kessler/Lynch, Washington Post, Sept. 27).

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

Back to top

Iraq III:  White House, Congress Compromise on Resolution

White House and congressional negotiators yesterday released a revised version of a draft congressional resolution to authorize military action against Iraq in the event that U.S. President George W. Bush were to determine that diplomatic measures had failed (see GSN, Sept. 25).

The new resolution is a scaled-down version of the Bush administration’s proposal last week, according to the Boston Globe.  In the revised resolution, Bush would be required to first inform Congress that military action against Iraq is “necessary and appropriate” and that diplomatic measures had failed in protecting U.S. interests and in ensuring Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions, the Globe reported.

The revised resolution also specifically cites the War Powers Resolution, of which the White House’s proposal included no mention, the Globe reported.  Under the revised text, Bush would be required to report to Congress every 90 days on “matters relevant to” the resolution.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who has been involved in drafting the revised resolution, called it “a working document.”  No final agreement on a resolution has yet been reached, he said (Susan Milligan, Boston Globe, Sept. 27).

“I’m going to do as much as possible to draft a resolution that can be supported by the broadest coalition of senators,” Daschle said.  “We have, in my view, come some distance.  We’ve got a long way to go before that can be achieved.”

Daschle told fellow Democrats that the current revision is as far as the Bush administration will go in making changes, two Democratic senators said.  White House officials and Senate Republicans also said they saw the revision as “take it or leave it.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and other Democrats in the Senate are expected to propose alterative resolutions that would require U.N. action before Bush would be authorized to use force, CNN.com reported (CNN.com, Sept. 27).

Some Democrats in the Senate said they still have concerns over the revised resolution because it would grant Bush the authority to conduct unilateral military action against Iraq (see GSN, Sept. 20).

“It essentially is an authorization for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.  I don’t support that,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).  “This will be the first time in history the nation will have attacked a sovereign country without being attacked.”

The full Senate might vote on the resolution by the end of next week, according to Daschle.  Republican House leaders are also expected to push for a vote by next week, according to the Boston Globe.  Some House Democrats, however, said they want to delay any vote to authorize force.

“The 107th Congress shouldn’t send the 108th Congress to war,” said Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.).

Most Republicans in Congress appear to have chosen to support the resolution or to remain quiet on the issue, according to the Globe.  Democrats appear to want a speedy vote to remove the issue from the November elections, the Globe reported.

“A lot of members of Congress are afraid of stopping the president because of the consequences of getting blamed if things go wrong,” Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said (Milligan, Boston Globe).

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

Back to top

Kuwaiti Response:  Kuwait Deploys Early Warning System

In anticipation of a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq, Kuwait has established an early warning system to detect nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, a Kuwaiti official said yesterday.  The system is “part of measures Kuwait adopted some time back to protect itself and residents,” the official said.

U.S. forces also plan to supplement the eight Patriot missile batteries already deployed at key areas in Kuwait, a Kuwaiti defense source said.  The country is taking the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction seriously, Defense Minister Jabir Mubarak al-Hamad al-Sabah said recently.

“History has proved that the Iraqi regime has no moral or political restraint from launching any action against its own people or neighbors,” he said (Fiona MacDonald, Agence France Presse, Sept. 27).

Back to top

International Response I:  Merge Export Control Regimes, Experts Say

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The four major export control regimes to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related technologies need to be combined into a unified and more effective super-regime, says a report released this month by the University of Georgia’s Center for International Trade and Security (see GSN, Sept. 20).

“Failure to seek a new institution or institutions to replace and/or complement existing multilateral proliferation controls is to place the security of the United States and its allies in great jeopardy,” the report says.  “If export controls are not improving, they are getting worse, because proliferants continue to seek new channels for acquiring sensitive, WMD-relevant technologies.”

Currently, there are four informal export control regimes — the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which establishes guidelines to govern nuclear transfers so that civilian trade does not aid weapons production; the Australia Group, which covers dual-use items that could be used to produce biological and chemical weapons (see GSN, June 21); the Missile Technology Control Regime, which regulates exports of missile systems and related technologies (see GSN, May 21); and the Wassenaar Arrangement, which covers exports of conventional weapons and sensitive dual-use items such as high-performance computers (see GSN, June 6).

These regimes have helped reduce the threat of WMD proliferation by raising international awareness and delegitimizing various countries’ attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction, according to the report.  Issues concerning membership and consensus-based decision making, however, have weakened their effectiveness, leaving a need for a single overarching regime, the report says.

According to the report, a new, unified Multilateral Nonproliferation Export Control Regime should consist of:

*         Countries that are major suppliers of WMD-related technologies, to the extent that they are committed to fighting WMD proliferation;

*         Decision making procedures that do not hinder efforts to create more binding multilateral requirements;

*         Agreement on countries seen to be proliferation concerns that should be prevented from obtaining sensitive technologies;

*         Strong enforcement measures to ensure that regime members are complying with unambiguous standards;

*         Information-sharing requirements or incentives; and

*         Demonstrations by regime members that they have the needed resources in place to implement and enforce export controls.

The four existing regimes should merge through a series of steps, the report says.  First, all plenary meetings of the current regimes should move to a single city such as Vienna.  This could increase coordination and reduce administrative costs and personnel requirements, according to the report.

Next, regime members should hold multilateral coordination forums before each individual annual plenary meeting, the report says.  Members could then address common concerns and attending officials could work on a more formal super-regime, according to the report.

Eventually, the report says, the current regimes could become working bodies that focus on such issues as control list maintenance and the study of new list items, while the overarching regime would focus mainly on policy issues.

Weaknesses of Existing Regimes

While existing export control regimes have helped reduce WMD proliferation, several internal problems hinder their ability to “tackle an increasingly complex global political and economic environment,” the report says.  One flaw is the informal nature of the regimes, which has led to vague regulations that allow members to alter their export policies so that they might be contrary to the regime as a whole, according to the report.

The regimes have also been expanded to include several countries that lack effective export controls, weakening the entire regime, according to the report.  Because members do not heavily monitor intraregime trade, a terrorist group based in a member country might obtain WMD-related technology relatively easily, the report says.

Several countries have been allowed to join the regimes without establishing strong national export control regulations, the report says.  “In some cases, countries seeking membership have done little more than copy regime control lists and issue export control regulations, afterward paying little or no attention to implementation and enforcement,” it says.

An increasing membership of the current regimes also helps illustrate flaws in their consensus-based decision making processes, according to the report.  Because the regimes often require unanimous votes to change polices or control lists, they are ill-equipped to handle large numbers of countries with divergent interests, the report says.

“Because of consensus rules, efforts to further enhance the effectiveness of these regimes can be effectively blocked by any member, and unfortunately, this is not uncommon,” the report says.

The members of existing export control regimes have poorly enforced the regimes’ export control regulations, the report says, adding that the regimes themselves lack enforcement procedure standards.  The report cites studies conducted by the Center for International Trade in Security in more than 24 countries, which indicate that export control enforcement is one of the “least harmonized elements” among regime members.

“The lack of concrete standards for enforcing export controls undermines the efficacy of efforts to construct control lists and guidelines in the first place,” the report says.

The current export control regimes were designed to help coordinate export polices among a small number of supplier countries sharing a common goal to stop WMD proliferation, the report says.  Now, however, the regimes are being pressed to address challenges for which they are ill-suited and poorly equipped, it says.

“The compelling nature of the threat posed by continued WMD proliferation and lightly regulated military exports is such that controls are no longer a matter for informal organizations,” the report says.  “A terrorist organization armed with a nuclear, biological or chemical device is a threat that cannot be effectively addressed by four separate regimes operating on the hobbling basis of consensus rules.”

For further information, see:

Australia Group Web Site

U.S. State Department MTCR Summary

Wassenaar Arrangement Web site

Pentagon Executive Summary of the Wassenaar Arrangement

U.S. State Department Nuclear Suppliers Group Fact Sheet

Back to top

North Korea:  Bush Says He Will Send Envoy to Pyongyang

U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday confirmed his decision to send an envoy to North Korea, the White House said (see GSN, Aug. 1).  Bush reaffirmed his intentions in a telephone call with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

The main focus of the visit will be to help reduce U.S.-North Korean military tensions, Fleischer said.  Bush and Kim “agreed that real progress with the North depends on full resolution of the security issues on the Korean peninsula, including the North’s possession and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles,” he said.

The envoy will probably be Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, according to the Los Angeles Times.  Kelly had been scheduled to travel to North Korea in July, but that trip was canceled after a naval clash between North and South Korea (see GSN, July 3).

Several recent measures taken by North Korea, such as an indefinite extension of its missile testing moratorium, have helped create a new climate for more diplomatic contacts, said Michael Armacost, an Asian studies expert at Stanford University and a former U.S. ambassador to Japan and the Philippines (see GSN, Sept. 18).

Any suggestions of improved relations with North Korea, however, might contrast with the Bush administration’s harsh criticism of Pyongyang, according to the Times.

“Nothing has changed in the president’s thinking about North Korean President Kim Jong Il and the North Korean leader’s starvation of his own people, the militarization efforts that he’s leading, the ... proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” Fleischer said (James Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 26).

Bush might be able to use new diplomatic overtures to North Korea, even if they fail, as a means of demonstrating a willingness to negotiate with adversaries, excluding Iraq, according to the New York Times.

“We are determined to make it clear we don’t think one size fits all,” a senior Bush administration official said.   “We’re not looking for confrontation” (David Sanger, New York Times, Sept. 26).

Back to top

Iraq I:  United States Is Unlikely to Submit Draft U.N. Resolution This Week

The United States and the United Kingdom are finishing work on a U.N. resolution to set a two-month deadline for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to demonstrate Iraq’s cooperation with weapons inspections and other previous U.N. resolutions, Bush administration officials and U.N. diplomats said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 25).

A draft resolution has essentially been completed, a Bush administration official said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 23).  U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, however, is still negotiating with the three other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — Russia, France and China — to authorize military force against Iraq if inspections were to fail, according to the administration official.

“The secretary is going to prepare this one very carefully before he slaps something on the table,” a senior State Department official said (Patrick Tyler, New York Times, Sept. 26).

The British Influence

The United Kingdom has worked to persuade the United States to tone down the draft resolution to make it acceptable to other U.N. Security Council members, according to the London Independent.  One draft of the proposed resolution states that any “failure” to comply will result in “international action” under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, which allows for military actions to enforce decisions, the Independent reported.

The United Kingdom believes that Russian support will be crucial to pass the resolution, and that Russia will not support open threats of military action.   British Prime Minister Tony Blair wants the U.N. Security Council to support any new U.N. resolution unanimously because he believes past abstentions have made it easier for Hussein to violate certain resolutions, according to the Independent.

“The most crucial task is to get something that all five countries can agree on,” a British source said yesterday.

British officials are aiming to reach agreement on the level of a military threat by the end of the week, the Independent reported.  As a compromise, the resolution might indicate that military action would be the result of noncompliance, but would not include “triggers” as pretexts.

“In no way can it contain triggers that would allow one member state to rush off to war,” a Western diplomat said.

Russia, France and China

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin called today for a quick, diplomatic end to the Iraq crisis and indicated there is no need for new U.N. resolutions (see