|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
This weeks Weapons of Mass Destruction stories for Monday, July 1, 2002.
Iraq: Vienna Showdown Expected Over Outlawed Weapons ProgramsBy Bryan Bender Iraq’s suspected continuing development of weapons of mass destruction — despite U.N. sanctions in place since the Gulf War ended in 1991 — has set the stage for a July 4 showdown in Vienna that will more firmly place Baghdad on a collision course with Washington if it does not agree unconditionally to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq. The U.N. delegation, led by Secretary General Kofi Annan and Hans Blix, executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, will seek Iraqi agreement to return international inspectors that were pulled out of the country in 1998 following Baghdad’s refusal to cooperate with the U.N. team. The much-anticipated meeting is expected to have a narrow agenda focusing on the return of weapons inspectors despite Iraq’s desire to also discuss the lifting of sanctions as well as an end to the U.S.- and British-enforced no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq (see GSN, May 6). Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Mohammad al-Douri said last week he did not believe all issues could be resolved in one meeting and Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri yesterday expressed hope that the meeting would begin a process leading to a comprehensive settlement. “Iraq wants a comprehensive settlement and will not accept partial solutions,” Sabri told reporters in Baghdad before leaving for Vienna. “The Iraqis may try to stall,” said a U.N. official who asked not to be named. The United States, however, has made it clear that further delays are unacceptable and a full accounting of the destruction of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and missiles must be completed before sanctions can be lifted, as required by U.N. resolutions dating back to the Gulf War. “We continue to work with our allies in the international community to get Iraq to comply with U.N. Security Council obligations, including acceptance and full cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said earlier this month. According to U.N. officials, the Bush administration in recent weeks has told Annan that it will veto any deal that makes concessions on the immediate return of inspectors. Annan said earlier this month he was seeking “a decisive meeting” in Vienna. U.N. officials also said other U.N. Security Council members, including Russia and France — who have been sympathetic to Iraq in the past — have sent Baghdad a clear message that it must give in to U.N. demands on inspections without restrictions. “They realize that Bush will move quickly against Iraq if they don’t get what they want,” said one U.N. official. “If the Iraqis want qualifications, the U.S. has said it would veto any agreement. This is a make-or-break meeting. Even the Russians say no restrictions.” U.S. intelligence officials, however, said that Iraq still has much to hide and they have no reason to believe they will cooperate fully. “They are pursuing a WMD program,” said one intelligence official, citing recent intelligence reports. “They are able to get stuff they really want and we can’t inspect,” the official said, citing the opening in recent years of a number of overland routes between Iraq and Turkey, Syria and Jordan, as well as the return of commercial airline flights to Baghdad. “They have an effective deception and denial program and conceal their programs in civilian structures,” the official said. “They don’t have any fissionable material, but if they were to acquire them a nuclear bomb would only be a few years off. And they never lost the brain trust from the chem-bio program. They have maintained the programs and over time made improvements.” Yesterday, the official al-Iraq newspaper reported that Hussein praised military scientists for making a “new and important scientific achievement.” U.N. officials predicted that if the meetings this week fail to reach the desired solution, they could pave the way for U.S. military action against Hussein’s regime. “If they get stiffed, there could be a U.S. attack sooner rather than later,” said the U.N. official, predicting cruise missile and air strikes similar to the four days of air strikes during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. Moreover, the officials said, Washington could have more leverage than usual at the United Nations, as the United Kingdom will hold the rotating Security Council presidency in July and Washington will preside in August. “What we’re concerned about with Iraq is its intentions and capabilities to develop weapons of mass destruction and the merger of that capability with terrorist groups,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-Fla.) said during a hearing last week. The United Nations is ready to move quickly if it gets the green light from Iraq. Blix has said the inspectors’ abandoned weapons monitoring headquarters in Baghdad could be operating within seven to 10 days.
Threat Assessment: Carnegie Book Describes Diminishing WMD ThreatsBy Kerry Boyd Speaking at the launch of a new book analyzing WMD arsenals around the world, Cirincione said there are fewer long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction in the world today than there were 10 years. The Cold War marked the peak of WMD proliferation, he said, and arsenals have declined in quantity and size, largely due to arms reduction agreements between the United States and the former Soviet Union. In the 1990s, only India and Pakistan openly joined the “nuclear weapons club,” making a total of eight nuclear-armed states, but six countries left the club, Cirincione said. According to the book — Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction by Cirincione, Jon Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar — Ukraine (see GSN, Dec. 5), Belarus and Kazakhstan gave up their nuclear inheritance after the Soviet Union dissolved. South Africa destroyed the six nuclear weapons that its former apartheid government had secretly constructed, and Argentina and Brazil both halted nuclear weapons programs and signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since the Chemical Weapons Convention was signed in 1996, many chemical weapons stocks have been destroyed, the authors wrote. Despite delays, the United States (see GSN, June 24) and Russia (see GSN, June 18) are in the process of destroying their chemical arsenals, they wrote. The news on biological weapons is more mixed, according to Cirincione. More than 160 countries have signed the Biological Weapons Convention, and “most of the world’s biological weapons have been destroyed,” the authors wrote. However, there are 12 states today that are suspected of having biological weapons programs. Most are possible research programs — in Egypt, India, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan and Syria — but Iran, Iraq and Russia are believed to have arsenals, and China, Israel and North Korea might also have weapons, according to the book. Finally, the risk that an enemy would launch an ICBM against the United States is also down, the authors wrote (see GSN, March 12). There are 57 percent fewer missiles capable of striking the continental United States today than in the mid-1980s, according to Deadly Arsenals. There are also far fewer intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the world. The number of medium-range missiles has declined, but there is concern that new missile programs in certain countries — although they do not directly threaten the United States — might endanger international stability, the authors wrote. Concerns about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction today are down to a few hard cases that pose a “relatively confined threat,” Cirincione said. His book identifies the Middle East and Northeast Asia as the two major regions where concern over biological and chemical weapons remains high. Fewer Weapons But Higher Risk Although the trend of WMD proliferation is definitely in decline, the risk of actual WMD use has increased, partly due to the risk of terrorist attack, Cirincione said. Countries concerned about proliferation and WMD warfare must work to ensure that the downward trend in WMD proliferation continues and to prevent any “new wave of proliferation” in the future, he said. In Deadly Arsenals, the authors wrote the bottom line on proliferation trends is that “first, the current global situation is dangerous; second, it could have been much worse; and third, the right government policies could make the situation much better.” The Right Policies It is up to countries to continue making progress, Cirincione said. The United States must work to “sustain and even expand” nonproliferation regimes to maintain the trend of diminishing WMD arsenals, the authors wrote. “The regime works,” Cirincione said. Appropriate diplomacy, nonproliferation agreements and controls could help the United States and other countries address the remaining hard WMD cases, the authors wrote in Deadly Arsenals. Active U.S. and international diplomacy might improve relations with North Korea and Iran and decrease concerns about their WMD arsenals (see GSN, June 28). Tensions between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India might pose “the most difficult challenge,” but there is a possibility that negotiators could construct agreements similar to the NPT to ease that situation, the authors wrote. International leaders have been able to prevent certain crises from turning into WMD nightmares in the past, and current leaders should be able to continue to avoid such nightmares if they use the nonproliferation tools at hand, Wolfsthal said. For further information, see: Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Status Map
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP |
|
|||||||||||||||
Back to top