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

Iraq I:  Security Council Debates Latest U.S. Draft on Weapons Inspections

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council began closed-door consultations this morning on a new version of a draft resolution by the United States and United Kingdom giving Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” or face “serious consequences.”

A U.S. official said Washington “would like a vote on Friday.”

The draft leaves in place the tougher weapons inspection regime, including unrestricted access to eight “presidential sites,” but changes wording to address the concerns of France, Russia and other states that the draft contains “hidden triggers” that the United States could use to justify any military action against Iraq without first getting council approval.

France, Russia and China — the other three veto-holding members of the council — have insisted that there be two resolutions:  the first on inspections and the second on actions to be taken if Iraq does not comply.  The U.S.-British draft would still be a single resolution but, according to a British official, ”it is committing to a second stage.”  Washington and London are signaling that “we will not just grab this resolution and run.  We stay involved in the council.  But if the council cannot produce a decision in the future, this doesn’t bind people into a second resolution, but it does bind them into a second stage,” said the official.

According to the draft, 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.”  The council will then “convene immediately … to consider the situation and the need for full compliance.” 

The new text keeps the references to Iraq being in “material breach of its obligations” to disarm and the threat of  “serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.”  Critics see both phrases as “hidden triggers.”  However, the reference to “serious consequences” has been moved from the beginning of the resolution to the end.  Placing that phrase at the end of the text, meaning it follows the outline 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 mean consequences could follow at any time since Iraq is already in material breach.

The new text “has made quite clear that you have a linear process and there are no hidden pathways that could circumvent coming back to the council,” the British diplomat said.

French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte would not comment on his way into the council meeting today.  Ambassadors from the 10 elected members of the council also would not comment.  Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser said his government is “going to send instructions to us later in the day.”

Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission head Hans Blix, who will oversee the weapons inspections along with the International Atomic Energy Agency, are attending the meeting.

The draft maintains the timeline from the previous draft resolution for Iraq’s compliance.  Baghdad has seven days to accept the resolution and another 23 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 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.”

The revision also includes other elements favored by France and Russia, but missing from earlier versions of the U.S.-British text — commitment to Iraq’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity” and acknowledgement of the efforts of Annan and the Arab League.

Consultations on the draft ended after noon today, and will resume tomorrow.

Back to top

Iraq II:  United Nations Overrules U.S. Objections to Chemical Sale

The United Nations has overruled U.S. objections to an Iraqi purchase of colloidal silicon dioxide, a compound which can enhance chemical and biological agents, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 17).

Iraq ordered the substance in August 2001, but the United States blocked the shipment over concerns of its possible use, according to the Times.  Nevertheless, the chemical was delivered last month after the United Nations approved the sale, said Hasmik Egin a spokeswoman for the U.N. oil-for-food program.

Colloidal silicon dioxide is not included on the program’s Goods Review List, Egin said (see GSN, May 21).  “If it is not a GRL item, it is up for approval,” she said.

The United States had placed the initial contract for the chemical on hold, Egin said.  Once additional information was provided to the U.N. sanctions committee, however, the hold was lifted, she said.

While colloidal silicon dioxide has commercial applications, it can also be used to produce “dusty” chemical and biological agents capable of penetrating protective clothing, U.S. intelligence officials said.

“The U.N. is helping the Iraqis to enhance their biological and chemical weapons,” said a U.S. intelligence official familiar with reports of the chemical sale.

U.S. intelligence agencies have estimated that dusty nerve agents can cause a fatality rate as high as 38 percent in troops wearing full protective gear, Eric Croddy, a chemical and biological weapons specialist at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, said in a recent article (see GSN, Oct. 29).

The U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission is reviewing a second colloidal silicon dioxide contract that had been rejected as “noncompliant” with the Goods Review List, Egin said (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, Nov. 6).

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

U.N. Resolution 706 (Oil-For-Food Program)

Back to top

Iraq:  United States to Introduce Latest Draft of U.N. Resolution

The United States plans to introduce a final revised draft of a U.N. resolution on Iraq by tomorrow and expects the U.N. Security Council to vote on it by the end of the week, Bush administration officials said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 1).  This latest U.S. draft would be the third circulated among all 15 members of the council since early last month, according to the Washington Post.

The final draft of the resolution “has gone a long way to taking into account” the views of other countries, said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.  It still satisfies “core” U.S. goals, he added, including outlining past Iraqi noncompliance with U.N. inspections, establishing a new inspections regime and promising serious consequences for future Iraqi noncompliance (Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, Nov. 5).

The revised U.S. draft does not contain an explicit threat of military action in the event of Iraqi failure to comply with the new inspections, said Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda.  France and Russia, two permanent Security Council members, have vigorously opposed such a threat.

“First, there is no mention of the use of force, not even the euphemism of ‘by all means necessary,’ which is the euphemism that is customarily used,” Castaneda said (Deans/Ferriss, Chicago Tribune, Nov. 5).

The final draft would allow the United Nations to end sanctions against Iraq as an incentive, or “carrot,” for compliance with inspections, Castaneda said.  “It also says that there would be serious consequences if it [Iraq] does not comply,” he added.

Also in the final draft, references to Iraq’s potential “material breach” of U.N. resolutions make clear that Iraq would have one last chance to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction, and that the United States would not have automatic approval to attack, diplomats said.

Negotiators have omitted two previous proposals from the latest draft — one had called for armed guards to support inspectors, and the other would have allowed any of the five permanent Security Council members to include representatives on inspections teams, Castaneda said.  U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is believed to have opposed both proposals, according to the Associated Press (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Nov. 5).

Security Council Vote

Castaneda yesterday indicated that the Security Council might agree on the new resolution.  “I’m optimistic that a deal can be reached soon,” he said.

Over the past several days, Castaneda has had discussions with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.  Yesterday, U.S. President George W. Bush discussed the issue with Mexican President Vicente Fox, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Oct. 25).

“It was important that the two presidents compare notes on all of these conversations to have a sense where each one stood,” Castaneda said.  “We’re very clear on what President Bush’s position is.”

The White House has increased pressure on small Security Council members to support the resolution, according to the Post.  Mauritius, which has signed a U.S. foreign aid agreement requiring that it not “undermine” U.S. national security interests, withdrew its U.N. ambassador last week because he “gave the impression that Mauritius was against the U.S.-drafted resolution on Iraq,” Mauritian Foreign Minister Anil Gayan said.

U.N. diplomats have estimated that nine council members, not including France or Russia, plan to vote in favor of the U.S. resolution, the Post reported (DeYoung, Washington Post).

Castaneda, however, predicted that the revised U.S. resolution would be approved by a Security Council vote of 14-0, with Syria abstaining, according to AP.

Russia now sees “no substantive differences” on the issue of weapons inspections, said Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s U.N. ambassador.  Russian officials are concerned, however, that some language might still be used as an automatic approval of military action against Iraq (Lederer, Associated Press).

Saudi Bases

Meanwhile, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said yesterday that Saudi Arabia has not decided whether to allow the United States to use its bases and airspace in the event of a war with Iraq (see GSN, Nov. 4).

The minister said there had been a misunderstanding about his “no” reply when asked by CNN if Saudi bases could be used in a military campaign against Iraq, according to the New York Times.  If Iraq “refuses the implementation” of the U.N. resolution “concerning inspections,” then Saudi Arabia would be obliged to “cooperate” with the United Nations, he said.

“But that does not mean we have to join the fighting or indeed to leave our bases for use,” the minister said.  “This is a sovereign right of Saudi Arabia to decide when the time comes” (Patrick Tyler, New York Times, Nov. 5).

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

U.S. Response:  Exports, Meet National Security

By William New

National Journal

WASHINGTON — With concern about national security creeping toward Cold War levels, the exporting activities of some of the most innovative and lucrative U.S. industries are coming under increased scrutiny (see GSN, Oct. 28).

“What we’re now seeing in the wake of Sept. 11 is that we have to be concerned not only about nation-states, but also about terrorist groups,” according to Kenneth Juster, Commerce Department undersecretary for the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly called the Bureau of Export Administration.  BIS has oversight, with participation from other agencies, of controls on dual-use products.

Most interested parties agree that U.S. system for controlling exports of dual-use products needs updating.  The 1979 Export Administration Act, which requires licenses and imposes penalties, expired in 1994.  The government is currently operating under emergency powers established by presidential executive order, but the issue of how to proceed has been a stubborn problem.

In recent weeks, just as efforts to overhaul export controls appeared to be gaining steam, several Republicans on the House of Representatives explicitly tied fears of a buildup of weapons of mass destruction in nations such as Iraq and North Korea to the export of U.S. dual-use technologies.  Last week, the General Accounting Office published a report that highlights weaknesses in multilateral export control regimes.  It cited flaws that impede the regimes’ ability to prevent proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological, and conventional weapons.

Another issue complicating the export 0control process is the need to control not just the technologies, but also the knowledge necessary to make and use them.  Transfers of technological know-how involving sensitive technologies to non-U.S. citizens are called “deemed exports.”  The system for controlling them is in sore need of reform, according to officials.

“License conditions for deemed exports are a mess,” said James Jochum, BIS assistant secretary, in a mid-October speech.  Commerce has floated a new set of conditions for deemed exports, and it is now working its way through the interagency review process.  Separately, the GAO published a report in September that found that deemed export controls contain vulnerabilities that could help China and other countries of concern.

China is the most frequently listed destination on export license applications — it appeared on 1,108 of the 11,001 export applications filed in fiscal 2002, according to a Commerce spokesman.  Commerce officials are negotiating with China to conduct spot checks to confirm that U.S. exports are used as they are licensed to be (see GSN, Oct. 31).

Some in the private sector are complaining that security efforts are slowing the approval process for China-bound exports.

“Since 9/11, all of the progress that was made with increased trade with China is being scrutinized,” said William Kroll, president and CEO of New Jersey-based Matheson Tri-Gas, which manufactures gases, chemicals, and equipment for high-tech industries.  “In my mind, they’re really putting the brakes on.”

According to Juster, Commerce is “not making licensing decisions on the basis of any preconceived notions, and we are not driven by any particular ideology,” he said in an interview with National Journal.  “We want to assist industry whenever we think it makes sense, and argue their case as persuasively and effectively as we can.  But we cannot simply lobby blindly for industry.”

Kroll said the U.S. government already puts companies at a disadvantage against international competitors, especially European companies, by unilaterally placing U.S. exports under greater scrutiny than those of other countries.  U.S. diplomatic efforts to get competing countries to increase control efforts and put their companies on the same footing as U.S. firms are not working, he said.

Juster said BIS advanced a proposal to expand the multilateral Australia Group, an international forum on chemical and biological materials, to control items that might be used by smaller scale chemical and biological weapons programs of interest to terrorists.  BIS also worked to make preventing terrorism an objective of the multilateral export control system known as the Wassenaar Arrangement.  The agreement is a voluntary arrangement that critics such as Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) call ineffective.

BIS is taking other steps to improve export security, such as an initiative to stop illegal transshipment of goods in the Middle East and Asia and to strengthen enforcement practices.  The agency is also targeting the major shipping centers and the largest multimodal transportation companies.  The top 40 companies, such as FedEx and UPS, handle about 80 percent of the world’s commerce, a Commerce official said.  U.S. President George W. Bush has proposed an increase in the BIS budget from $68.9 million in fiscal 2002 to $100.2 million in fiscal 2003, the Commerce spokesman said.

Dan Hoydysh, co-chairman of the Computer Coalition for Responsible Exports, said it is in U.S. national security interests to promote the high-tech industry.

“We think having a healthy and vibrant computer industry that dominates the world in terms of technology is absolutely essential to maintaining military superiority,” because the industry creates innovative technologies that are then put to use in military power, he said.

There are three versions of the House bill to overhaul the Export Administration Act; the International Relations and Armed Services committees last year heavily amended the Senate’s bill.  This fall, intensive negotiations between the White House and House leadership came close to producing an agreement.  Key Republican Armed Services members, however, led by Weldon and Representative Duncan Hunter of California, complained in letters to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) that they had been left out of the negotiations, throwing a political wrench into the process.

In the Oct. 8 letter, eight Armed Services Committee Republicans called for debate on the Export Administration Act bill to be postponed until next year to allow for more time to consider new threats facing the nation since Sept. 11.  “The U.S. needs a new EAA,” they wrote, “but we also need an export control regime that reflects a post-9/11 world in which terrorists and rogue states are relentlessly pursuing the dual-use technologies and materials necessary to build weapons of mass destruction, and developing ways to attack Americans and our interests abroad.”

The Sept. 26 letter criticized the changes made by the Senate and by the House International Relations Committee as diminishing the role of the defense secretary.

“The Senate bill is fraught with bureaucratic and technical changes that will lead to the decontrol of scores of high technology items,” the letter said.  It also charged that the bill would weaken standards for determining a product’s availability and whether it is mass-marketed.  The committee members argued that the bill would also allow foreign countries to ignore U.S. export enforcement mechanisms and said it “places our nation’s security in the hands of the Commerce Department.”

The letter said that Iraq’s ability to develop weapons of mass destruction grew out of its acquisition of European and American technologies.  “Now we’re paying the price for all that technology” that got out, Weldon said in an interview.  Weldon said the solution is to focus on companies with bad records and those that sell the most sensitive technologies.

Bill Reinsch, Juster’s predecessor in the Clinton administration and now president of the National Foreign Trade Council, said Weldon’s argument is to “build higher fences around a smaller number” of companies and focus on the “bad guys.”  The problem, Reinsch said, is that beyond fissile material and stealth technology, nobody agrees on what should be controlled.

For many in the high-tech industry, the primary concern is the continued use of a congressionally mandated measurement of computing power for controlling computer exports.  They say the measurement is outdated and cumbersome (see GSN, Aug. 6).

“There is a tremendous misunderstanding and mysticism about computing power,” said a computer industry source who stressed that it is impossible to control fast-changing computer technologies.  “American dominance in the computer field is really an entrepreneurial one, not a technological one.  Anyone, any country with a moderate degree of sophistication, can make a computer,” he added.  “Computers are increasingly interchangeable boxes.  It’s the solutions that matter.”

Bush made a campaign pledge to open the way to changing the computing-power measurement, which is known as MTOPS, or millions of theoretical operations per second.  The administration is divided on what the next computer control metric should be.  Commerce is discouraging use of another performance-based standard like MTOPS.

In January, Bush more than doubled the MTOPS threshold above which computers need a license for export to countries deemed risky, such as China, India and Russia.  Commercial computers for which licenses are sought have not yet caught up with that power level.  But industry is catching up with the separate control level set for microprocessors, and the administration is in the “fact-gathering” stage of considering to raise it, officials said.

A provision in the Senate-passed bill to update and renew the Export Administration Act, which the administration supports, would allow MTOPS to be replaced.  Despite new efforts this fall to dislodge the bill, however, it appears to have run aground again in the House.

For Kroll, industry is facing “sort of a perfect storm” — stronger security efforts, diminished stock values, and less political clout because of its declining fortunes.  That leaves their products vulnerable to maneuvering by those seeking political gain from sounding the security alarm, he said.

“Quite frankly, both government and industry have responsibilities,” said Juster, who has State Department and private sector legal experience.  “If you’re involved in exporting sensitive technology ... you always have the responsibility to make sure that the technology is not misused and cannot be used in ways that threaten U.S. national security.  I think that the events of Sept. 11 have brought this concern into focus.”

Back to top

Iraq:  Seeking Political Support, Bush Asserts Baghdad Link With Al-Qaeda

U.S. President George W. Bush Saturday alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has connections to al-Qaeda, calling Hussein a “dangerous man” and saying there have been known contacts between Hussein and terrorist organizations (see GSN, Sept. 26).

“We know the implications of him [Hussein] having a nuclear weapon,” Bush said during a political campaign stop in Blountville, Tenn.  “We know he’s had contacts with terrorists’ networks like al-Qaeda.”

Hussein “would like nothing more than to use an al-Qaeda-type network, if not al-Qaeda itself, to be the advanced army to utilize his training and his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction on his most hated enemy, the American people,” Bush said during a speech in Marietta, Ga. (Edith Lederer, Associated Press, Nov. 3).

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said Friday that Iraq has allowed al-Qaeda to operate within its borders.

“In terms of support for terrorism, we have established that Iraq has permitted al-Qaeda to operate within its territory,” Bolton said (Washington Times, Nov. 2).

Several European officials and experts, however, have said the evidence is lacking.

“We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda,” said Jean-Louis Bruguiere, a French judge who has spent 20 years investigating Middle Eastern terrorism.  “And we are working on 50 cases involving al-Qaeda or radical Islamic cells.  I think if there were such links, we would have found them.  But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.”

European experts have said they have not yet seen any U.S. evidence of connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, nor have they been able to independently prove such connections.  There is little reason to believe there could be any connection because Hussein represents the type of secular Arab leader that suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden has said he opposes, they said.

Talk of an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection is “nonsense,” a high-ranking German intelligence source said.  “Not even the Americans believe it anymore.”

“I have seen no link to al-Qaeda.  No one has demonstrated it to me,” said Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish magistrate who is prosecuting suspected al-Qaeda operatives in Madrid for the alleged involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.  “And therefore we have to be very careful not to confuse the citizens.  One thing is that you don’t like the Iraqi regime, that Saddam Hussein is a dictator.  But there are many terrible dictators.  That’s not a reason to start a war with all the consequences it could have for millions of innocents.”

While there have been some signs that al-Qaeda operatives traveled through Iraq en route to other countries prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, there is much stronger evidence of al-Qaeda’s presence in other countries, including Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and Iran, according to European investigators.  Since the war in Afghanistan that overthrew the Taliban regime, Iran in particular has become a base for al-Qaeda operatives, according to French investigators.

Saudi Arabia, which is publicly a U.S. ally, has nonetheless been heavily involved in funding al-Qaeda and in the organization’s recruitment efforts, European investigators said (see GSN, Oct. 18).

“If connections to a country are going to be the rationale, the Americans would have to bomb Saudi Arabia,” a Spanish official said (Sebastian Rotella, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 4).

Saudi Arabia Refuses Use of Bases

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia will not allow bases on its soil to be used during an attack on Iraq, nor will it grant the United States flyover rights, even if the United Nations approves military action, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said yesterday.

“We will cooperate with the Security Council, but as to entering the conflict or using the facilities as part of the conflict, that is something else,” he said.

Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter says that U.N. members must implement any measure immediately according to international law, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“Our policy is that if the United Nations takes a decision on Chapter 7, it is obligatory on all signatories to cooperate — but that is not to the extent of using facilities in the country or the military forces of the country,” al-Faisal said.

While the U.S. Defense Department has said it could conduct an attack on Iraq without the use of Saudi bases and airspace, Pentagon planners have said it will be more difficult to do so.

“We can live without Saudi bases, but it obviously makes it tougher,” a U.S. military official said.  “If they don’t at least give us flyover rights, it’s going to be a lot more complex moving supplies and people over there.”

Some Pentagon officials have said the Saudi position is merely diplomatic posturing.  While every Middle Eastern country has publicly rejected the idea of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq, several, including Saudi Arabia, have allowed the United States to conduct military preparations on their territory, according to the Times.

“When push comes to shove, some arrangement will be worked out with Saudi Arabia,” said Owen Cote, a military analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Esther Schrader, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 4).

Kuwait Allows Use of Its Bases              

Saudi neighbor Kuwait has said the United States would be allowed to use its military bases in the event of a U.N.-sanctioned attack on Iraq, Reuters reported today (see GSN, Sept. 27).  The Kuwaiti military, however, will not take part in a military campaign against Iraq, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah said today.

“If a (U.N. Security Council) resolution is issued, the bases will be used, but not the Kuwaiti military,” al-Sabah said (Reuters, Nov. 4).

U.N. Debate

At the United Nations, there will probably be no vote on a U.S. draft resolution on Iraq until later this week because of the time needed to revise the draft and to have the U.N. Security Council make comments, U.S. officials said (see GSN, Nov. 1).

Security Council negotiations last week were “productive” in developing a resolution that would satisfy French and Russian concerns, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.  “Talks are continuing along,” he said Saturday (Lederer, Associated Press).

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

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP