Iraq I:  Baghdad Accepts Return of Inspectors “Without Conditions”

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — Iraq this morning accepted Security Council Resolution 1441 on the return of weapons inspectors “without conditions and without reservations.”  Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri said he had delivered the letter accepting the resolution to the office of Secretary General Kofi Annan this morning (see GSN, Nov. 8).

The nine-page letter, signed by Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, says, “We are prepared to receive the inspectors, so that they can carry out their duties, and make sure that Iraq had not developed weapons of mass destruction.”  Calling the U.S. charges that Iraq has such weapons “baseless” and a “most wicked slander,” Sabri wrote, “There are no true, just, or fair reasons behind the adoption of this resolution.”

According to the resolution, the government of Saddam Hussein had until Friday to accept the conditions for a strengthened inspection regime.  Al-Douri said his government accepted the resolution “despite its bad contents.  We are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable.  We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with international law as soon as possible.”

The Security Council unanimously on Friday adopted Resolution 1441, which grants weapons inspectors new powers and warns Iraq of “serious consequences” if it does not comply.  The resolution gives Iraq until Nov. 15 to accept the conditions and until Dec. 8 to provide a full accounting of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.

Speaking outside the Security Council chambers after briefing the council on the government’s decision, al-Douri said, “We are always opting for the path of peace ... to protect our country, to protect the region against the threat of war, which is real.”  He added, “We do not have any mass destruction weapons so we are not worried about the inspectors when they come back.” 

“Iraq is clean,” said al-Douri.

China’s Deputy Ambassador Zhang Yishan said the Security Council “welcomes this correct decision by the Iraqi government and would like to see 1441 implemented fully and effectively.” 

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Threat Reduction Lacks Political Will and Coordination, Report Says

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Poor political support, an uncoordinated strategy and inadequate funding are severely hampering U.S. and Russian efforts to secure and eliminate former Soviet weapons of mass destruction, a forthcoming report says.

The lapses threaten to leave vast WMD stockpiles at risk of theft, according to the report, Reshaping U.S.-Russian Threat Reduction, which is to be released tomorrow by the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The report pulls together the findings of numerous U.S., Russian and European nonproliferation experts, both in and out of government, and identifies a series of common obstacles that they have said are impeding efforts to address perhaps the most serious security threat of the modern age.

“The inability or refusal of these countries to correct these problems threatens to leave vast stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons and biological agents vulnerable to acquisition by terrorists, rogue states and black marketeers,” the report concludes.

Click here after Nov.13 to see the report.

Lack of Political Will

For starters, the report’s authors contend that the necessary political support to ensure successful threat reduction efforts is missing from the current global environment.  Sustained support by political leaders and the expenditure of political capital is critical.  “However, truly robust political support for threat reduction is very rarely demonstrated and is often more rhetorical than real,” the report says.

The lack of adequate political support has resulted in funding limitations and restrictions, bureaucratic battles and delayed implementation of particular programs.  The report urges Russia in particular to improve the overall environment for threat reduction by improving in several areas, including financial transparency, facility access and legal protections.

“The technical nature of much of the threat reduction work, the complexity of its implementation, the intangibility of some of its objectives, its cost and intrusiveness, bureaucratic inertia, the stigma that much of threat reduction is still foreign aid and the still unsettled nature of Western-Russian relations all cut into political support,” the report says.

Lack of a Coordinated Strategy

Further hampering U.S.-Russian cooperation on nonproliferation efforts is the need for a comprehensive strategy, according to the report.  As the threat reduction agenda has expanded over the past decade — to include scores of U.S. agencies, other governments and ministries and international and nongovernmental organizations — the growing number of programs have not been integrated in any cohesive strategy, the report says.

“There is a need to develop a comprehensive strategy that integrates all of these efforts and provides some overall direction and prioritization,” the report says.  Such a strategy would go a long way in improving the effectiveness of threat reduction programs and more quickly reduce proliferation risks.

Evidence of the lack of strategy includes the absence of a central coordinator inside the U.S. administration to oversee all threat reduction activities; the need for organized and streamlined congressional oversight over U.S. programs; and the little discussion to date about how these programs can be expanded outside the former Soviet Union to other countries considered proliferation risks.

More Money Needed

One key factor in improving U.S. and Russian nonproliferation efforts will always be money, according to the authors.

“Over $1 billion a year is being made available for international threat reduction programs,” the report says.  “Still, there are a number of efforts that could accelerate progress if additional funding were made available.”

These include redirecting weapon scientists, eliminating additional quantities of highly enriched uranium, implementing plutonium disposition programs, ending production of weapon-grade plutonium, converting research reactors that currently use highly enriched uranium and improving border, export and customs controls, according to the report.

“Additional funding could also allow for expanding the scope of threat reduction,” the report says.  “The paths forward for financing major activities are unclear and largely depend on a higher degree of political support than currently exists,” it says.

The recent pledge of $20 billion over the next decade by the Group of Eight economic powers is one possible solution, as is the proposal to exchange Russian debt to the West for nonproliferation efforts.

Remaining Threats

The report’s authors are quick to highlight the substantial progress that has been made over the past decade to reduce the threat of Russian weapons and technologies.  On the other hand, they also provide a stark reminder of the enormous effort that lies ahead for the world’s governments to fully reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Russia and elsewhere.

“Although significant progress has been made in key areas, more remains to be done in reducing the dangers posed in all of the [Russian] weapons complexes,” the report says.

For example, roughly half of the weapon-grade nuclear material in Russia remains inadequately secured, the painstaking destruction of tens of thousands of chemical weapons has just begun and much remains unknown about past biological weapons activities.

On the nuclear question, as many as 40,000 scientists are looking for work, while only 40 to 50 percent of the work to secure Russian nuclear material is completed, according to the report.

Meanwhile, up to 7,000 scientists in the Russian biological weapons complex are now seeking new employment, according to the report.  “There is a particular concern about the former Soviet biological weapons complex,” it says. “The security of existing pathogen libraries, the past scope of work, the current whereabouts of BW and BW-related experts, and the future disposition of the … biological weapons capability are all critical concerns within the threat reduction agenda.”

“One significant political problem is that there is no baseline understanding of the old Soviet BW complex and its full range of activities,” the report adds.

Meanwhile, the thousands of chemical weapons in Russia provide their own proliferation challenge.  “The key proliferation dangers in the chemical weapons (CW) complex are the security of the existing weapons, brain drain, and the inability to destroy the existing stockpile,” the report says. 

In addition, the Russian missile complex is also a potential proliferation concern.  Some scientists reportedly have been assisting other countries considered proliferation risks and comparatively little has been done to transition these scientists to other employment, according to the report.

One proposal included in the report for strengthening threat reduction would be to more directly tie such efforts to arms control treaties.  “New agreements such as the Moscow Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty currently have no relation to threat reduction, but threat reduction could be instrumental in facilitating the implementation of these treaties in the future and these linkages should be explored.”

Back to top

International Response:  Annan Says Need Never Greater for United Nations

By Steve Hirsch
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan last night cited threats of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism as indications that the world has rarely needed the United Nations as much as it does now, and cautioned that the underlying causes behind those problems cannot be ignored.

Annan made the comments at a dinner at which he received the United Nations Association of the United States International Visionaries Award.

“The threats and challenges we face require as never before multilateral cooperation if they are to be dealt with successfully — cooperation in areas such as weapons of mass destruction and terrorism; cooperation of the kind we have just witnessed in the negotiations leading to the resolution on Iraq adopted last Friday,” he said (see GSN, Nov. 8).

He called Friday a “very good day” for the United Nations, one that “showed what a central role the U.N. can — and must — play in the quest for a world free from weapons of mass destruction.”

“In short,” he said, “the U.N. played its proper role as the only universal instrument of global cooperation.”

He also cited the U.N. role in the broad fight against terrorism.  Annan called terrorism a “global threat with global effects,” and said the United Nations “has an indispensable role to play in providing the necessary legal and organizational framework within which the international campaign against terrorism can unfold.”

While terrorism “must never be excused,” he said, “so must genuine grievances never be ignored.”

“True, it detracts from the justice of a cause when a few wicked men commit murder in its name.  But it does not make it any less urgent that the cause is addressed, the grievance heard, the wrong put right,” he added.  “Otherwise,” he said, “we risk losing that most central of wars — the war for the hearts and minds of much of mankind.”

As the United Nations works against terrorism in coming months and years, he said, “we must act with equal determination to solve the political disputes and longstanding conflicts which generate an atmosphere conducive to support for terrorism.”

“To do so is not to reward terrorism or its perpetrators; it is to deny them the opportunity to find refuge or recruits, in any cause, any country.  Only then can we truly say that the war on terrorism has been won,” he said.

Back to top

Iraq II:  U.S. Officials Brief U.N. Inspectors

U.S. officials recently shared intelligence information on Iraq’s suspected WMD programs yesterday with the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in preparation for possible inspections, the Baltimore Sun reported today (see GSN, Nov. 8).  The U.N. Security Council and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, have requested that countries share any information they have on Iraqi weapons programs (see GSN, Nov. 12).

U.S. officials said they believe they have identified a few sites that would test Iraq’s willingness to allow unfettered access to inspectors.  For example, Iraq’s Special Security Organization — an intelligence agency led by President Saddam Hussein’s son, Qusay Hussein — offers significant opportunities for inspectors, according to the Sun.

“It’s more a matter of a half-dozen [sites] where, if [UNMOVIC chief Hans] Blix is aggressive, he will bring it to a head quickly and expose Iraqi deception,” an official said (see GSN, Oct. 30; Matthews, Bowman, Baltimore Sun, Nov. 13).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Collapse Illustrates Difficulties of WMD Protection

An incident during a Pentagon press briefing yesterday illustrated one of the major concerns in planning for war in Iraq — the effect of the desert heat on U.S. soldiers wearing chemical and biological protective suits (see GSN, July 18).

U.S. Army Sgt. Kerrethel Avery fainted under the heat of television lights while wearing a full protective suit for a media event, United Press International reported.  Moments before Avery fainted, another member of the Army’s Technical Escort Unit, which is trained to identify enemy chemical and biological agents, had explained to the assembled journalists that the unit’s members are accustomed to working in the suits, even under extreme conditions.

“I’ve never felt anything like that light before,” Avery said after the briefing.

After Avery was revived and escorted away from the briefing, officials told the other unit members, who also were perspiring, to unzip their suits and stand at ease, according to UPI.

Unit member Capt. Regan Edens said he had worn the suit in temperatures as hot as 137 degrees Fahrenheit.

“It’s tough but it’s nothing we can’t handle,” he said.

New Army protective suits for chemical and biological weapons are lighter and more durable than previous versions, but still they have some flaws, according to UPI.  For example, Newsday reported last week that the carbon lining in the suits could break down when exposed to sweat.  For that reason, the suits are expected to be replaced every 45 days, according to military officials.

Unit team leader Lt. Col. George Lecakes said, however, that he is confident that the suits provide good protection.

“I can tell you with 100 percent confidence they will protect my life,” he said.  “There’s no doubt whatsoever,” he added (Pamela Hess, United Press International, Nov. 12).

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  War Could Forge Iraqi Links With al-Qaeda

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime is not directly linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, but an assault to unseat Hussein could prompt secular Iraq to arm al-Qaeda or other Muslim fundamentalist organizations with weapons of mass destruction, two former senior counterterrorism officials said last week.

The experts — Daniel Benjamin, head of counterterrorism for the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, and Stan Bedlington, a senior analyst at the CIA’s Center for Counterterrorism until 1994 — disputed repeated claims by Bush administration officials who say that al-Qaeda is supported by Iraq.  Some of the allegations include reports that a senior Iraqi intelligence official met with a key al-Qaeda operative and that the some al-Qaeda members have found refuge in Iraq.

In a press briefing last week, Benjamin and Bedlington said that Hussein and Osama bin Laden, while sharing some of the same enemies, have little in common and even disdain each other’s approach — Hussein’s Baath political and anti-religious roots and bin Laden’s militant form of Islam.

Prior to or in the immediate aftermath of a military assault, however, the risk would be high that stocks of Iraqi chemical or biological agents now stored in unknown locations would disappear, smuggled out of the country and into the hands of terrorists, the experts said.

Weak Links

To build support for deposing Hussein, the Bush administration has argued that Iraq, with its historic sponsorship of anti-Israeli terrorist groups, will provide al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, Benjamin and Bedlington said.  Experts generally believe, however, that there is still little proof.

“There has been, to my mind, no persuasive evidence that these two entities, Saddam’s Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, have a record, a substantive record of cooperation or any long term, noteworthy relationship,” said Benjamin, who completed a study on possible links between al-Qaeda, Iraq and Iran for the White House in 1998.

According to Bedlington, U.S. allegations about the linkages between Iraq and al-Qaeda may be an attempt to build political support for a war with Iraq, but rely on a selective use of intelligence information.  Earlier this month, Undersecretary of State John Bolton said,  “In terms of support for terrorism, we have established that Iraq has permitted al-Qaeda to operate within its territory.”

Bolton, however, “didn’t provide any details,” Bedlington said.  “This is where I think the administration’s case falls down.  The best evidence that there is some contact between al-Qaeda and Iraq,” he added, “comes from one or two detainees at Guantanamo Bay [in Cuba], and to the extent that they say that some al-Qaeda members, including those who were of Iraqi descent, fled Afghanistan to Iraq to escape U.S. pressure.”

Repeated statements that a senior al-Qaeda leader has been living in Baghdad, Benjamin said, may be referring to an al-Qaeda member seeking medical care without the Iraqi regime’s knowledge.  That individual “has since been forced from the country,” he added.

Perhaps the biggest allegation of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda has been disputed reports that Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the summer of 2001 in Prague (see GSN, Aug. 2).  The Czech president recently reconfirmed the meeting, but even if it did occur, a single meeting does necessarily reflect state sponsorship, the experts said.

“Historically, we’ve never seen any major channeling of funds, material, or men,” Benjamin said.  “Saddam Hussein would give weapons to al-Qaeda, as he knows it, at his own great peril, because it would make them quite happy if he were removed from the scene, because they view him as one of the sort of pharaonic rulers who have brought Islam into a historic catastrophe,” he said.

War Could Force Cooperation

If push comes to shove, however, and the U.S. military is poised to topple Hussein, the Iraqi regime might indeed lock arms with al-Qaeda or other terrorists groups and provide them with weapons of mass destruction to unleash against the United States and its allies, the experts warned.

“What I’m much more worried about is that … faced with an existential threat that he would indeed transfer weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda, which does have an international presence and might be able to use them,” Benjamin said.

In a recent analysis leaked to the media, the CIA outlined that possibility.  The intelligence agency concluded that Hussein, under the status quo, would be unlikely to provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups for fear of the potential consequences.  If the regime were faced with extinction, however, it would have few reasons to hold back (see GSN, Oct. 9).

“Under those circumstances, as I believe the CIA has also said, the possibility that he would hand over powerful weapons, including weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons, to a transnational group such as al-Qaeda, grows considerably,” Benjamin said.

Uncontrolled Weapons

Another growing worry is that even if Saddam did not provide al-Qaeda with the weapons directly, the ensuing chaos in the country after a U.S.-led invasion could allow hidden WMD stocks to be smuggled out and sold on the black market.

“There are mobile BW labs traversing Iraq,” said Benjamin.  “I’ve taken to thinking of these as the Winnebagos of death.  And there’s absolutely nothing to prevent any one of them from pulling off by the side of the road and having the most lethal pathogens loaded into, you know, a cooler, a rucksack, or something like that, and disappearing,” he said.

The challenge facing U.S. and allied military forces in securing the weapons is enormous, according to other experts.

“I think that would have to be one of the issues you would be trying to address in the weeks after the dust settled,” said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org.  “It’s sort of a junior version of the post-Soviet loose nukes concern.  There is no reason to assume Saddam’s entire residual chemical and biological inventory will immediately head for the border, but reassuring yourself that everything is accounted for may take some time,” Pike said.

Added Benjamin, “The U.S. military has never faced a task such as this, where it would have to literally take control of hundreds of different sites all over a country the size of California.”

Some Iraqi forces remaining after an invasion “would have a big incentive to sell these weapons and the technology, and perhaps their own know-how, to people who they know would value it and would pay well for it.  And that would be, at the top of the list, al-Qaeda,” Benjamin said.

Back to top

Iraq:  Parliament Urges Hussein to Reject U.N. Resolution

The Iraqi Parliament unanimously encouraged President Saddam Hussein to reject the new U.N. resolution that demands Iraq’s disarmament, Parliamentary speaker Saadoun Hammadi said today (see GSN, Nov. 11).

After criticizing the resolution in two days of debate, members of parliament approved a motion that urges Hussein to keep inspectors out.

“Parliament recommendations are to reject the U.N. resolution in accordance with the opinion of our people, who put their confidence in us, and authorize the political leadership to take the appropriate decision to defend Iraq’s independence, sovereignty and dignity,” the resolution says.

Hussein must make a decision by Friday or face “serious consequences,” according to the U.N. Security Council (see GSN, Nov. 8).  If he accepts the resolution, inspectors hope to be in Baghdad by Nov. 18, armed with a list of 100 sites that are the most likely to hold illicit weapons, Reuters reported (see GSN, Oct. 23).

“Parliament authorizes President Saddam Hussein to take the appropriate decision and will stand by our leadership in any decision it takes,” the resolution says.  Hussein heads the Revolutionary Command Council, which holds final authority (Hassan Hafidh, Reuters, Nov. 12).

Hussein rarely ignores the recommendations of his parliament, the Washington Post reported today.  Members are all supporters of Hussein’s regime and parliamentary decisions are usually rubber stamps, primarily used to demonstrate that the Iraqi leader is acting in accordance with the will of the people, according to the Post.

The tone of the parliamentary debate, however, surprised many observers in the Arab world.

“We were expecting some criticism, but nothing like this,” an Arab diplomat said.  “It’s difficult to say what Saddam’s strategy is,” the diplomat added.

“You never know what he’s going to do until the very last minute, when he actually makes the decision,” another Arab official said of Hussein (Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, Nov. 12).

The vote was all the more confusing because Hussein’s son Uday — a member of parliament — urged his colleagues to accept the U.N. resolution.

“What is required from us as a national assembly is to take clear decisions.  We should, as a national assembly, accept the U.N. resolution,” the younger Hussein said in a paper submitted to parliament.

The members were not swayed, however.

“This U.N. resolution looks for a pretext [for war] and not for a comprehensive solution.  It seeks to create crises rather than cooperation and paves the way for aggression rather than peace,” Hammadi said during Monday’s debate (Hafidh, Reuters).

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:  Baghdad Debates U.N. Resolution

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has convened an emergency parliamentary session to consider the recently approved resolution in the United Nations to inspect Iraqi sites with suspected weapons of mass destruction, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Nov. 8).

“The National Assembly is expected to express support for Iraq’s leadership and mandate it to take the decision it deems to be in the interest of the Iraqi people,” a source close to the Iraqi Parliament said.

The Parliament is expected to criticize the new U.N. resolution, echoing official comments that it is “bad and unfair,” as a source said to the official Iraqi News Agency Saturday.  The source also said that Baghdad is “quietly studying” the resolution, indicating that Hussein might agree to it by the Nov. 15 deadline (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Nov. 11).

Arab League Urges Iraqi Support

Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo yesterday said that Iraq would probably comply with the new U.N. resolution.  After a day-long meeting, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said “no decision has been taken” on Iraq’s acceptance of the new resolution.  Arab League sources, however, said Sabri had told them that Iraq would probably comply.

In a statement, the participants of yesterday’s meeting urged Hussein to accept the new resolution as part of an effort “to solve all standing issues peacefully in preparation for the lifting of sanctions and the end of the (U.N.) embargo as well as the suffering of the Iraqi people.”

Also in the statement, the Arab League foreign ministers asserted their “absolute rejection” of military action against Iraq.  Several Arab states see the U.N. resolution as a means of avoiding war in the region, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“The U.N. resolution provides the opportunity for a peaceful settlement,” Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said.  “The resolution has pushed the phantom of war into the distance for several weeks or several months.  Our goal is to spare Iraq and the region from a military strike,” he said.

At yesterday’s meeting, Arab leaders indicated to Sabri that they would not support Iraq if it were ignore the resolution, the Times reported.

“We’re telling Iraq the Americans are really serious and this time we’re not with you,” said a senior adviser to one Arab delegation.  “If you reject the resolution, you’re on your own.  You’ve got no choice,” the source said (David Lamb, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 11).

Syria Votes Yes

Meanwhile, Syria voted to support the new U.N. resolution on Iraq because of assurances from permanent Security Council members that it would not be used as a pretext for military action, Syrian Deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad has said.  The resolution also reaffirmed the council’s primary role in dealing with Iraq and preserved Iraq’s sovereignty, he said.

Some experts said that Syria gave its support to the resolution because it feared being on the losing side of the vote.  Syria voted yes because once France, Russia and China — which had each opposed the U.S. draft — gave their support, Syria did not want to be seen as “the odd one out,” said Walid Kazziha, a professor of politics at the American University in Cairo.

“For Syria, the priority is the Israeli-Palestinian issue,” Kazziha said.  “Syria does not want to be in the U.S.’s bad books on this point” (Edith Lederer Associated Press/Jordan Times, Nov. 10).

U.S. View

U.S. officials have begun to urge Hussein to comply with the U.N. resolution, raising the threat of military action if he does not, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“If (Hussein) doesn’t comply this time, we are going to ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on CNN’s Late Edition.  “If the U.N. isn’t willing to do that, the United States, with like-minded nations, will go and disarm him forcefully.”

Under the new resolution, Hussein has until Dec. 8 to declare or surrender all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs and U.N. inspectors have a Feb. 21 deadline to report to the Security Council.  Powell indicated, however, that the United States might not wait until the February report to determine whether Iraq is complying.

“We’re not going to wait until February to see if Iraq is cooperating or not,” Powell said.  U.S. and U.N. officials “will be able to make a judgment as to cooperation very quickly, not sometime in February,” he added.

Hussein “knows if he violates this resolution, military force is coming in to take him and his regime out,” Powell said (Lamb, Los Angeles Times).

U.S. War Plans

Senior U.S. military officials have said that the Bush administration has decided on an invasion plan for Iraq based on capturing most of the country quickly and isolating Baghdad, but the administration is also envisioning that Hussein will be overthrown before U.S. troops attack the city, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Oct. 29).

The Defense Department is preparing for possible protracted urban combat in and around Baghdad, according to the Post.  White House military planners believe there could be bloody skirmishes in Baghdad and in Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit even if he is overthrown, the senior military officials said.

The U.S. war plan, which is still in development, tries to consider regional sensitivities by seeking to inflict the minimum amount of damage needed to achieve U.S. goals, the Post reported.  To do so, the plan involves a relatively small U.S. force quickly launching focused attacks.  Taking into account the possibility that Iraqi resistance will be higher than expected, however, it includes deployment of enough troops — 150,000 U.S. and allied soldiers — to combat the Iraqi Republican Guard.

“The point is that if things don’t go as we hope, there will be enough forces on hand to deal with it,” said a Pentagon official who was briefed on the plan late last month.

The U.S. plan is also designed to cause Iraqis to revolt against Hussein, according to the Post.  The plans seeks to “create the conditions” needed for the Iraqis to do so, a White House official said.

“I think ultimately this is more of a revolution that’s going to happen, rather than something brought about by U.S. military power,” the official said.

To ferment a revolt, a U.S. attack on Iraq would begin with a campaign of simultaneous air strikes, ground attacks and psychological operations meant to destroy the Iraqi security police and other pro-Hussein institutions, the Post reported.

“You have to shake the regime to its core,” one defense expert said.  “You’ve got to pursue the pillars of the regime across the board,” the expert added.

If Hussein were quickly overthrown, then U.S. troops would not have to assault Baghdad, according to military planners.  “The feeling is, they’ll be successful in the first phase, and then the next phase won’t be necessary, because the regime will fall and a new regime will take over,” one planner said.

The current U.S. plan for an attack on Iraq better resembles planning for the 1989 invasion of Panama than the 1991 Gulf War, some experts have said.

“This is looking more and more like a Panama-style takedown, a special operation writ large, but with significant follow-on forces … to pacify any bypassed pockets, prevent too many reprisal killings of the Baathists and reduce any holdouts,” said Tom Donnelly, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who is co-author of a history of the invasion of Panama (Thomas Ricks, Washington Post, Nov. 10).

Iraqi Reconstruction

The Bush administration has also begun planning for a post-Hussein Iraq, envisioning deployment of thousands of U.S. troops within the country and the creation of an international civil authority, possibly headed by a U.S. official, that would control Iraq for at least two years, the Wall Street Journal reported today.

The U.S. military is expected to directly control Iraq for up to four months following the overthrow of Hussein, according to officials.  During that time, the U.S. military would work to deliver humanitarian supplies, secure Iraqi WMD stockpiles and maintain law and order.  Several thousand Iraqi exiles would be trained to serve as police to assist U.S. troops, officials said.

After a few months, military control would be replaced by a civil administration supported by U.S. troops, and possibly by an international force, according to the Journal.  According to the White House plan, Iraqi officials who were not closely attached to the Hussein regime could take an active public role as advisers, the Journal reported.

A full Iraqi-controlled government would not take control for at least two years or longer after the overthrow of Hussein, according to the Journal.  Before an Iraqi government could be created, a new constitution would have to be drafted and elections held, officials said.  Plans are still being made for possibly prosecuting regime members for war crimes, U.S. officials said (see GSN, Oct. 30).

One outstanding question is the role of Iraqi exile groups such as the Iraqi National Congress in a post-Hussein Iraq, the Journal reported.  While INC leader Ahmed Chalabi has supporters among Pentagon officials and aides to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, he is mistrusted by the U.S. State Department.

Some Pentagon officials have said the United States should support an INC-led provisional government.  If the United States were to wait until Iraqi elections to choose new leaders to support, it may have little control over who emerges, they said.

“It would be a very good idea to bring in Iraqis as quickly as possible” once Hussein is removed from power, a Pentagon official said.  “And of all the opposition groups, the only one really interested in establishing a democracy is the INC” (Cloud/Robbins, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 11).

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.-Russia:  Senior Diplomats Meet, Discuss Security Issues

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov met in Moscow yesterday to discuss several joint security issues (see GSN, Sept. 25).

The meeting precedes a proposed U.S.-Russian summit between U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, which might occur sometime between Nov. 20 and Nov. 30, according to Interfax.  Bolton is also expected to meet with Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev before leaving “in a day or two,” said a U.S. Embassy spokesman (Agence France-Presse, Nov. 10).

Both Russia and the United States “have good prospects” to ratify to the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, Mamedov said after meeting with Bolton (see GSN, Oct. 11).

“The Russian Foreign Ministry expects [the] Russian Parliament to ratify the treaty in December,” Mamedov said.  “We would like the U.S. Congress not to lag behind,” he added (Bayev/Pyanykh, ITAR-Tass, Nov. 10).

Bolton and Mamedov noted during yesterday’s meeting that the recent approval of a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq should assist U.S.-Russian efforts to strengthen and improve international nonproliferation regimes for weapons of mass destruction, according to Interfax (see related GSN story, today; Interfax/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Nov. 10).

The two officials also discussed missile defense programs, which are a potential topic of discussion for the proposed Bush-Putin summit, Mamedov said.

A joint U.S.-Russian working group designed to achieve “transparency and cooperation” in missile defense was recently held in Geneva, Mamedov said.  “We analyzed the work of the group, and will brief our superiors and they will brief our presidents,” he said (Xinhua news agency, Nov. 10).

For further information, see:

U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)

Bush Announces Moscow Treaty

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Moscow Treaty

Back to top

Indian Response:  New Unit to Respond to Nuclear, Biological Incidents

India is training 400 military personnel for a rapid reaction force that would respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction, Xinhua reported yesterday (see GSN, July 11).

Senior defense officials said the new units would be the “first responder in the event of a nuclear or biological attack,” according to the Press Trust of India.

Specialists at an eight-week program in the United States have already trained 13 officers who plan to serve in the unit, and seven more officers plan to complete the U.S. training before returning to prepare more officers in India.

“The unit would be highly specialized force equipped with sophisticated equipment which is being procured by the CISF [Central Industrial Security Force] from abroad,” Indian defense officials said.

Four companies taken from the security force make up the group, which should eventually grow by six more companies.  Units are to be stationed in Ghaziabad to cover northern areas, Ranchi for eastern areas, Kota for the west and Chennai for the south (Xinhua, Nov. 10).

Back to top

Iraq:  Security Council Unanimously Gives “Final Opportunity” to Iraq

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — The Security Council this morning unanimously adopted a new resolution giving Iraq “a final opportunity” to disarm or face “serious consequences.”

The resolution, sponsored by the United States and United Kingdom, creates a tougher weapons inspection regime, including unrestricted access to eight “presidential sites.”  Last-minute changes last night took into account the concerns of France, Russia and other states that earlier drafts contained “hidden triggers” that the United States could use to justify any military action against Iraq without first getting council approval. 

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said that at the ”core [of the resolution] is immediate and unimpeded access to every site, including presidential or other sensitive sites, structure, or vehicle [inspectors] choose to inspect and equally immediate and unimpeded access to people they wish to interview.  In other words, ‘anyone, anywhere, any time.’”

British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said the unanimous support “sends the most powerful signal to Iraq that this is the only choice. ... There is at last a chance that Iraq will finally comply with its obligations and that military action can be averted.”

After the meeting, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he would have an advance team in Iraq by Nov. 18.

Blix, the head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency — the men who will lead the inspections — were in the council chambers.

While the last-minute changes in wording brought all council members on board, governments nevertheless stressed their belief that the “hidden triggers” had been removed. 

“War can only be a last recourse,” said French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte.  “The rules of the game set by the Security Council are clear and demanding.  They require full cooperation by the Iraqi leaders.  If Iraq wishes to avoid confrontation it must understand that this opportunity is the final one.”  He added, “France welcomes the elimination from the resolution of all ambiguity on this point and the elimination of all ‘automaticity.’”

Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said the deliberations were “guided by the need to direct a settlement onto the diplomatic and political path not to allow for any military scenarios.”  The resolution “does not contain any provision for any automatic use of force.  It is important that  the sponsors of the resolution today officially confirmed … that that was their understanding.  And they gave an assurance that the resolution sought the goal of implementing existing decisions by the Security Council on Iraq through inspections.”

Negroponte told the council, “As we have said on numerous occasions to council members, this resolution contains no ‘hidden triggers’ and no automaticity with respect to the use of force.  If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a member state, the matter will return to the council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.  The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed.  And one way or another … Iraq will be disarmed.”

He added, “If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant U.N. resolutions and protect world peace and security.”

“Every act of Iraqi noncompliance will be a serious matter, because it would tell us that Iraq has no intention of disarming,” Negroponte said.

The resolution retained references to Iraq being in “material breach of its obligations” to disarm and to the threat of  “serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.”  Critics had seen both phrases as “hidden triggers.”  However, the reference to “serious consequences” was moved from the beginning of the resolution to the end.  Placing that phrase at the end of the text, meaning it follows the details of the new inspection regime and the procedure for reporting violations to the council, suggests action would have to follow in that order.  The earlier placement of the phrase could be interpreted to means consequences could follow at any time since Iraq is already in material breach of U.N. resolutions.

Consensus Hinged on Replacing “Or” With “And”

The culmination of eight weeks of debate, draft resolutions and counterproposals ended up hinging on a single word:  replacing an “or” with an “and.”

According to paragraph 4 of the resolution, if Iraq makes “false statements or omissions in the declarations” or fails to cooperate with inspectors, this “shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12.”  Yesterday’s version said “paragraph 11 or 12.” 

Paragraph 11 “directs” Blix and ElBaradei “to report immediately to the council  any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations,” while paragraph 12 says the council will ”convene immediately … in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance.” 

By replacing the “or” with “and,” France and others were satisfied that the council must meet after a reported violation.  In other words, the report alone would not be enough to trigger military action.  Last night, Greenstock said, “Paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 become a clearer nexus of paragraphs with the word ‘or.’”

Addressing the council, Lavrov said, “In the event of any kind of dispute or disagreement matters, it is the heads of  UNMOVIC and the IAEA that will report this to the Security Council and it is the Security Council that will consider the situation. … That is the sequence that is set forth clearly in paragraph  4, 11, and 12 of the resolution.”  

Syrian Deputy Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said his government has received “reassurances that this resolution would not be used as a pretext to strike Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq.”  He added that the resolution “reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in dealing with all phases of the Iraqi file.”

The resolution includes a specific timeline for Iraq’s compliance and the inspection regime. Baghdad has until Nov. 15 to accept the resolution and another 23 days to provide “a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects” of weapons of mass destruction programs, and well as declarations of all its other nuclear, chemical and biological programs.  UNMOVIC and the IAEA will resume inspections no later than 45 days after the council adopts the resolution and will “update the council 60 days thereafter,” meaning Feb. 21, 2003.

Secretary General Kofi Annan commented following the vote.  “This is a time of trial — for Iraq, for the United Nations and for the world,” he said.  “The goal is to ensure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq in compliance with Security Council resolutions and a better, more secure future for its people,” he said.

Annan added, “I urge the Iraqi leadership — for the sake of is own people, and for the sake of world security and world order — to seize this opportunity. … If Iraq’s defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities.”

In Washington, U.S. President George W. Bush applauded the unanimous passage of the resolution.  Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s “cooperation must be prompt and unconditional, or he will face the severest consequences,” Bush told reporters at the White House following the Security Council vote.

“The outcome of the current crisis is already determined:  the full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq will occur,” Bush said.  “The only question for the Iraqi regime is to decide how.  The United States prefers that Iraq meet its obligations voluntarily, yet we are prepared for the alternative.  In either case, the just demands of the world will be met,” Bush said.

Back to top

Iraq:  France Closer to Supporting Revised U.S. Draft U.N. Resolution

After weeks of opposing the United States in U.N. Security Council discussions over a new resolution on Iraq, France yesterday offered limited support for the latest U.S. draft (see GSN, Nov. 6).  Other U.N. diplomats and officials, however, varied in their levels of support (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, Nov. 7).

The council resumed its discussion of the U.S. draft this morning as U.S. and British officials pressed for vote tomorrow (Jim Wurst, UNWire, Nov. 7).

“Very important progress has been achieved” in addressing France’s demand that the Security Council have a role in determining the use of force against Iraq in the event it fails to comply with inspections, French U.N. Ambassador Jean David Levitte said, praising the revised U.S. draft.  “We want to give Iraq a last chance to disarm through U.N. inspections,” he said.

France did not endorse the draft completely, however, as French President Jacques Chirac believes “certain ambiguities need to be cleared up” in the U.S. draft regarding the use of force against Iraq, Chirac’s spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said.  France still plans to pressure the United States into easing some of the toughest inspections measures outlined in the resolution, such as a provision giving inspectors the right to remove Iraqi scientists from the country to conduct interviews, Levitte said.

Diplomats from Russia and China, both permanent Security Council members with veto power, as well as Syrian diplomats expressed concerns the U.S. draft still has a “hidden trigger” for war.

“We don’t believe we can agree with automaticity, and we don’t believe that we can agree with unimplementable demands,” Russian U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said, referring to language Russia fears could give the United States the authority to attack Iraq if it decides Baghdad is not complying with the resolution.  “It’s a work in progress,” he said.

U.S. and British diplomats attempted to address concerns the resolution would be used to provide automatic approval for an attack on Iraq.

“[U.S.] President [George W.] Bush has said on repeated occasions that as far as he is concerned, war would be a last resort, that he wants to give the United Nations and the Security Council a chance,” John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said.  “We believe the resolution that we ... laid down this morning is the best way to achieve the disarmament of Iraq by peaceful means.”

The Security Council is making “progress,” U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said, urging council members to support the revised U.S. draft.  “I have always maintained that it is important that the council speaks with one voice,” Annan said.

Problems Remain

U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said, however, there were still several problems with the revised U.S. draft.  He said he had concerns about a provision giving him and inspectors the authority to interview Iraqi scientists outside the country.  A seven-day deadline for Iraq to accept the terms of the resolution was also unnecessary and it could be impossible for Baghdad to meet a 30-day deadline to declare all the components of its civilian chemical and biological industries, Blix said.

“To declare a program of a whole petrochemical industry might be difficult to put together in 30 days,” he said.  “We’ll see whether there will be some further modifications (in the U.S. draft) made here and there,” Blix added (Lynch, Washington Post).

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

German Response:  Berlin Considers Keeping Anti-WMD Unit in Kuwait

Germany is considering deploying an anti-WMD unit in Kuwait for an additional year, government sources said Tuesday (see GSN, Feb. 19).  The unit of 52 troops and six armored vehicles equipped to detect weapons of mass destruction were sent to Kuwait last year to aid the U.S. war on terrorism.

The lower house of the German Parliament is expected to debate the extension today and to vote on it next week, according to Agence France-Presse. The unit’s deployment was originally set to end Nov. 15 (see GSN, Dec. 3, 2001; Agence France-Presse, Nov. 5 in FBIS-WEU, Nov. 5).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP