|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
U.S. Response: Bush Budget Targets WMD Threat, But Shortfalls RemainBy Bryan Bender The budget plan calls for new spending in a variety of areas — including thwarting terrorists seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, preparing the public health system to better deal with a WMD attack and expanding the worldwide dragnet for operatives of the al-Qaeda terror network. Lawmakers and nongovernmental experts, however, contend that while Bush’s $2.23 trillion budget proposal makes significant investments in defending against catastrophic terrorism, many of the White House’s other budget priorities — paramount among them additional income tax cuts — are draining federal resources away from unmet security needs. They contend that the administration’s budget makes significant strides in reducing the threat of a WMD attack, but that those efforts still do not match the enormity of the problem. “We are doing everything in our power to protect the people and to prevent that day from ever happening,” Bush said when he unveiled his budget proposal Feb. 3 at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. “We know that our enemies have been working to acquire weapons of mass destruction. That is a fact,” he said. “We have every reason to believe that terrorists and outlaw regimes would turn these weapons on the United States,” he added. “If their ambitions were ever realized, they would set out to inflict catastrophic harm on the United States, with many times the casualties of September the 11th,” Bush said. Biological Preparations Combined with the specter of a possible war with Iraq to disarm President Saddam Hussein’s regime of its suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, the Bush administration is focusing renewed attention on the possibility that a successful WMD attack could be mounted inside U.S. borders. The most worrisome scenario is a biological attack with the potential to inflict thousands if not millions of casualties. To address this threat, one key new effort proposed in the new budget is called Project BioShield. The effort includes $6 billion over the next few years “to quickly make available safer, and more effective vaccines and treatments against agents like smallpox, anthrax, botulinum toxin, ebola, and plague,” Bush told NIH scientists last week (see GSN, Jan. 30). “Under Project BioShield, the government will have the spending authority to purchase these vaccines in huge amounts, sufficient to meet any emergency that may come,” Bush added. “We’ll have better and safer smallpox vaccine, antibodies to treat botox, sophisticated devices that can confirm a case of anthrax infection almost instantly. We will ensure that promising medicines are available for use in an emergency,” he said. The Health and Human Services Department, headed by Secretary Tommy Thompson, is taking a more active role following the 2001 anthrax attacks to help the nation defend against a variety of bioterrorist threats. In fiscal 2004, Thompson is asking Congress for $3.6 billion to counter bioterrorism. While that figure does not reflect the millions in additional spending allocated immediately after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — for security improvements and laboratory construction — “the budget significantly expands the research funding needed to develop vaccines and medicines that will make these biologic agents much less effective as weapons,” according to department budget documents. “In addition to the substantial increase for this research, the administration will propose legislation that enables the National Institutes of Health to start and complete this work more quickly and efficiently,” the documents state. “HHS will work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that its pharmaceutical stockpiles include proper amounts of effective drugs, vaccines, and other biologics,” said the documents. Homeland Security Department The main line of defense for the United States in the face of catastrophic terrorism is the newly established Homeland Security Department. The agency, headed by Tom Ridge, is seeking $36.2 billion in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, reflecting a 7.4 percent increase in domestic security spending. The department — which includes the Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Secret Service and Coast Guard, among other agencies — plans to allocate $829 million for “information analysis and infrastructure protection,” including a newly announced intelligence division that will serve as a clearing house for domestic and foreign intelligence related to homeland security (see GSN, Jan. 30). Other programs, however, would suffer, according to some observers. For example, spending for the Border Patrol would decrease by 1.5 percent to $18.1 billion. “It’s largely flat,” said Steven Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments of the Bush budget request. The overall homeland security budget “raises concerns about whether there will have to be a trade-off between domestic security and other government priorities,” he said. In some of the harshest criticism, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the budget reflects the “quirky notion of the White House that you can improve homeland security without spending the dollars. It makes no sense.” Representative John Spratt (D-N.C.) agreed more money is needed for homeland security. “The increase in homeland security, as I understand it, is about $4 billion. It comes on top of a net homeland security provision of about $34 billion. “It’s relatively small in the face of the magnitude of the problem,” he said. “People who sat through more of the briefings than I have will tell you that there are all kinds of urgent unmet homeland security needs out there that they don’t talk about in public because they don’t want to invite attention to them. So there are lots of vulnerabilities we have. The question is, which ones get addressed?” Spratt asked. Spratt, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said much of the shortfall is at the local level, where first responders would be on the front line of any mass casualty attack. “If you go to the mayors, they’ll tell you they have yet to see the first cent for first responders, even in our large cities, which are likely to be vulnerable to a terrorist attack again,” he said in a Feb. 3 press briefing. “So $4 billion, I don’t think we’ll have any trouble at all supporting that on our side. We’ll probably try to plus it up a bit on our side,” Spratt said. Securing Nuclear Materials The Bush administration in recent weeks has also highlighted plans for the Energy Department to increase it efforts to stem the proliferation of WMD materials and expertise in the former Soviet Union by securing them at their source. The department’s budget request calls for $1.3 billion to be spent on nuclear nonproliferation programs in Russia and neighboring countries, a 30 percent increase over fiscal 2003 (see GSN, Jan. 29). Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said the additional funding — what he described as the largest such investment to date — would help dispose of additional nuclear material in Russia, secure research facilities that contain radioactive materials, improve techniques to detect the smuggling of nuclear materials and new efforts to consolidate dangerous materials, among a variety of other priorities. However, many believe the so-called Cooperative Threat Reduction program and related efforts to secure former Soviet materials are not moving quickly enough. “The rate at which progress has been made is not enough to secure the materials in a short amount of time,” said Clifford Singer, director of the Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security program at the University of Illinois at Urbana. The new budget does reflect that the administration is “headed in the right direction,” he added, “particularly the safeguarding of nuclear facilities” both in the former Soviet Union and in the United States. “You just can’t expect to be finished in three years no matter how much money you throw at it,” Singer cautioned. “We’re talking about decades,” he said.
From February 11, 2003 issue.Iraq: France, Germany, Russia Call for Peaceful SolutionFrance, Germany and Russia yesterday issued a joint declaration calling for a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis and proposing a “substantial” increase to the number of U.N. inspectors in Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 10). “There is still an alternative to war. The use of force can only be considered as a last resort,” the declaration says. “Russia, Germany and France are determined to ensure that everything possible is done to disarm Iraq peacefully,” it adds. Noting that inspections have already produced some positive results, the three countries called for the continuation of inspections and “a substantial reinforcement of their human and technical capacities.” Although France, Germany and Russia appear to have rejected the U.S. position of a possible attack on Iraq, they still called on Baghdad to “fully accept its responsibilities.” “For the inspections to be completed, it is up to Iraq to actively cooperate with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] and the UNMOVIC [U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission],” the declaration says (Russian Foreign Ministry release, Feb. 11). Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday that increasing the number of inspectors operating within Iraq would not resolve the main problem of whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would fully cooperate with his disarmament responsibilities. “The principal problem is not the number of inspectors but rather the active cooperation of the Iraqi side, as we have said many times,” Blix said (Mark Turner, Financial Times, Feb. 11). The United Kingdom, long the staunchest U.S. ally on Washington’s calls for military action, was dismissive of yesterday’s proposal. “If he [Hussein] maintains his refusal to cooperate, how will higher numbers help? Lethal viruses can be produced in an area the size of the average living room,” British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in a prepared speech to the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. “In the absence of Iraqi cooperation, even a thousandfold increase in UNMOVIC capabilities will not allow us to establish with any degree of confidence that Iraq has disarmed,” Straw added (Associated Press/MSNBC.com, Feb. 10). NATO In another sign of the divide between the United States and some of its European allies, NATO delayed the opening of a meeting held today in Brussels that was intended to resolve the dispute over the alliance’s plans to provided military aid to Turkey, according to the New York Times. Belgium, France and Germany had blocked a U.S.-led move by NATO to begin planning for the defense of Turkey in the event of a war with Iraq. “There’s so much informal consultation going on it was felt we didn’t need the meeting,” a NATO official said, adding that there would probably be a formal session later today. Benoit d’Aboville, the French ambassador to NATO, defended his country’ actions by saying there was no need to prepare for war when diplomatic solutions were still being pursued (Bernstein/Smith, New York Times, Feb. 11). “It would be wrong to assume that the U.N. process and the inspections process are at the end of the road,” d’Aboville said. “We assume that there is still space for diplomacy and we should use this space, and we don’t see any reason NATO should enforce a policy not in line with what we are trying to achieve,” he added. U.S. President George W. Bush said he was “disappointed” at the action. “I am disappointed that France would block NATO from helping a country like Turkey prepare,” Bush said. “I think it affects the alliance in a negative way,” he added (Smith/Bernstein, New York Times, Feb. 11). The actions of Belgium, France and Germany will have little impact on the preparations by the United States and its allies for a possible conflict with Iraq, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. “The planning’s going to go forward outside of NATO if necessary,” Rumsfeld said. “In the event that the three stand out at the end, my guess is that the other 16 nations of NATO would form a coalition to provide that kind of assistance,” he added (London Times, Feb. 11). Several other NATO members also criticized the Belgian-French-German move, saying it could disrupt the solidarity of the alliance. “This is a matter of solidarity with a member country,” said Karel Kovanda, the Czech ambassador to NATO. “Once you realize what Iraq might do in Turkey, you realize that Turkey has a reason to be worried. And not to take Turkey’s worries very seriously raises important questions about the fundamental purpose of the alliance,” Kovanda added. The United States might come out on top, and in an even stronger position, from this dispute with its European allies, according to some experts. “If they futilely attempt to stop the United States from doing this and the United States is able to do it anyway, what does that say: that the United States is too powerful for them to stop,” said Robert Kagan, the Brussels-based author of Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (Smith/Bernstein, New York Times). U-2 Flights Hussein yesterday suggested that for inspectors to fly U-2 reconnaissance aircraft over Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom should end their patrols in the no-fly zones covering sections of northern and southern Iraq. Iraq, however, did not attach any conditions to its permission for the U-2 flights to occur, U.N. officials said. “If the two countries are engaged in daily combat, how can we allow the U-2 aircraft to fly in our airspace to photograph our air defenses and provide information on them with the aim of destroying them?” Hussein said (David Usborne, London Independent, Feb. 11). Inspections U.N inspectors today have visited at least one suspect Iraqi site, according to the Associated Press. Inspectors visited the 17th of Nissan factory in Baghdad, which produces components for the al-Samoud ballistic missile, according to the Iraqi Information Ministry (Associated Press/MSNBC.com, Feb. 10). For further information, see:
From February 11, 2003 issue.Iraq II: Summary of InspectionsExperts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have conducted hundreds of inspections in Iraq since resuming the post-Gulf War inspection regime Nov. 27. More than 100 inspectors are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ reported activities.
From February 10, 2003 issue.Iraq I: Baghdad Officials Make Concessions to U.N. InspectorsIn a letter to U.N. officials delivered this morning, Iraq agreed to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to conduct surveillance flights using U.S. U-2 aircraft. The issue had been a major point of contention when the top U.N. inspectors visited Baghdad Saturday and Sunday. “The inspectors are now free to use the American U-2s as well as French and Russian planes,” said Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Mohamed al-Douri. International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said today that Iraq had agreed to greater cooperation in several other areas as well. “We made progress on all the areas we asked for,” he said (see GSN, Feb. 7; Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 10). Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix cautiously concurred with that assessment yesterday. “I hope I have seen in those days the beginning of taking these remaining disarmament issues more seriously,” Blix said (Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 10). In addition, al-Douri said Iraq would pass legislation next week to criminalize WMD production and other activities (Linzer, Associated Press). During the weekend meetings, Iraqi officials provided documents that included information on Iraq’s efforts to develop anthrax, nerve gas and ballistic missiles, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. The documents still needed to be examined further to determine their value, Blix said, adding that they did not appear to contain new information (Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 10). “This time they presented some papers to us in which they focused upon new issues,” Blix said. “Not new evidence really as far as I can see, but they have nevertheless focused on real open issues and that is welcome,” he added (Reuters/MSNBC.com, Feb. 10). Iraq also supplemented a list of its nuclear scientists, said Iraqi presidential adviser Amir al-Saadi, who led the Iraqi delegation (Philadelphia Inquirer). One important development over the weekend was Iraq’s acknowledgement that there were outstanding disarmament issues, a senior U.N. official said. “They finally acknowledged there were issues that needed to be resolved,” the official said. If Iraq continued to increase its cooperation with inspectors, then disarmament could still be accomplished peacefully, ElBaradei said. “The ball is very much in Iraq’s court,” ElBaradei said. “If we see full cooperation ... on all the issues, then I believe we will be given time we need. As long as we’re registering good progress, I think the Security Council will continue to support the inspection process,” he added (Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, Feb. 10). U.S. Response U.S. officials have openly criticized Iraq’s new efforts to cooperate with inspectors, and have said that time is running out for Iraq to disarm, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. “The Iraqis are playing a game here,” U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said. “They do this every time they feel a little bit of pressure. What they’re trying to do is create a little bit of sense that they’re moving forward so they can release the pressure on themselves. But they have one thing to do and one thing only, and that is to disarm,” she added (Philadelphia Inquirer). If Iraq is still not fully cooperating with inspectors by a Security Council briefing scheduled for Friday, then U.S. President George W. Bush will immediately call for a U.N. resolution authorizing military action, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday. If Blix and ElBaradei report Feb. 14 that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating, “then the Security Council will have to sit in session immediately and determine what should happen next,” Powell said on NBC’s Meet the Press. The council would then have to “start considering a resolution that says Iraq is in material breach and it is time for serious consequences to follow,” he added (Steven Weisman, New York Times, Feb. 10). Bush said yesterday that the United Nations has reached a “moment of truth” in the crisis with Iraq and that the international body’s actions now could determine its future relevance. “You’ll see us over the next short period of time working with friends and allies and the United Nations to bring that body along,” Bush told a gathering of Republican lawmakers at a retreat in West Virginia. “And it’s a moment of truth for the United Nations. The United Nations gets to decide shortly whether or not it is going to be relevant in terms of keeping the peace, whether or not its words mean anything,” he added (Dana Milbank, Washington Post, Feb. 10). France, Germany Propose Alternative Meanwhile, France and Germany have proposed an alternative to the U.S. calls for action against Iraq. Their plan would triple the number of inspectors operating within the country, send U.N. peacekeepers to Iraq and convert the entire country into a no-fly zone, according to the Washington Times (see GSN, Feb. 4). Both countries plan to present their proposal to the Security Council Friday after Blix and ElBaradei give their briefing, the Times reported (Ellen Sorokin, Washington Times, Feb. 10). Germany, which has long resisted military action against Iraq, “could well take” part in the peacekeeping force envisioned in the plan, said German Defense Minister Peter Struck. Already, Russia and Belgium have offered support for the plan, according to BBC News. “I have no doubt that Russia will adhere to it,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said yesterday, referring to the Franco-German plan (BBC News, Feb. 9). Senior U.S. officials, however, have criticized the Franco-German plan, according to the Washington Times. Powell said the plan “misses the point.” “It’s the wrong issue," Powell said on Meet the Press. “The issue is not more inspectors. The issue is compliance on the part of Saddam Hussein. This idea of more inspectors or a no-fly zone or whatever else may be in this proposal that is being developed, is a diversion, not a solution,” he added. If the United Nations chose to adopt the Franco-German plan, such a decision could lead to the United States launching an attack on Iraq without U.N. support, Powell said. “If the U.N. does not face up to its responsibilities as clearly laid out in Resolution 1441, then it would be necessary for the United States to act with a willing coalition,” Powell said, referring to the resolution that established the current inspections regime (Sorokin, Washington Times). NATO France, Germany and Belgium earlier today blocked efforts by other NATO nations to enhance Turkey’s defenses in the event of a war with Iraq, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Jan. 30). France exercised its veto with only an hour to go before the deadline. Representatives from the three countries said the planning was unnecessary because there was still a chance that a peaceful solution could be found to the Iraq crisis. “It [the planning] would signify that we have already entered into the logic of war, that ... any chance, any initiative to still resolve the conflict in a peaceful way was gone,” Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said. Turkey has now requested emergency consultations under NATO’s mutual defense treaty — the first time in the alliance’s history that a nation has done so. Turkey is expected to ask for the defense planning to begin, and diplomats have said they expected the three countries to end their opposition. “What is important, is that we arrive at a consensus and I’m confident we will,” said NATO Secretary General George Robertson. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld criticized the veto. “Shameful, for me it’s truly shameful,” Rumsfeld said in an interview published yesterday in the Italian newspaper La Republica. “Turkey is an ally. An ally that is risking everything ... How can you refuse it help?” he added (Paul Ames, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 10). Exile The United States and the United Kingdom are developing a proposal to offer Hussein 48 hours to voluntarily go into exile or risk an attack, which would be included as a section of any second U.N. resolution, according to the London Sunday Telegraph (see GSN, Jan. 31). The two-day deadline is seen as enough time for Arab diplomats to make a last attempt to convince Hussein to step down or for him to be overthrown in a coup, U.S. officials said. British Foreign Office officials have confirmed that Saudi Arabia has offered to provide a haven for Hussein if he chose to go into exile, according to the Sunday Telegraph (Coman/Brown, London Sunday Telegraph, Feb. 9). Biological Weapons Program Justified, Dr. Germ Says Iraq was justified in producing biological agents in the 1980s and the 1990s to serve as a deterrent, Rihab Taha, a former top Iraqi biological weapons scientist who has been dubbed “Dr. Germ” by the media, said yesterday. “We never wanted to cause harm or damage to anybody,” Taha said in an interview with the BBC’s Panorama program. “Iraq has been threatened by different enemies and we are in an area that suffers from regional conflict. I think it is our right to have something to defend ourselves and to have something as a deterrent,” she added. Taha said she had no plans to submit to a private interview with U.N. inspectors, saying it was her “right” to conduct such an interview with Iraqi officials present. “I do not trust them from the last inspections,” Taha said. “I think it is better for me and for them and for everybody to have witnesses because I think it is our right,” she added (Associated Press/MSNBC.com, Feb. 9). Iraq Counters Powell’s Missile Test Stand Claims Iraqi officials Friday took reporters to the al-Rafah plant, about 50 miles west of Baghdad, in an attempt to counter Powell’s claims that a missile test stand there was designed to test missiles with ranges beyond U.N. limits (see GSN, Feb. 6). In his recent presentation to the Security Council, Powell said the al-Rafah test stand, which is larger than previous test stands, is meant “for long-range missiles that can fly 1,200 kilometers.” The stand is larger, however, because it is meant to test-fire missiles in a horizontal position, rather than vertically as with the old stand, said Ali Jassim, director of the al-Rafah plant. The new configuration is safer, he added. “By constructing this facility, we are taking precautions to keep people from getting burnt,” Jassim said. Jassim also defended the presence of an aluminum roof over the test stand. Powell had alleged that the roof was meant to block satellites from taking images of the stand. The roof is actually meant to protect the stand from “rain and dust,” Jassim said (Ian Fisher, New York Times, Feb. 8). Inspections U.N inspectors Friday conducted private interviews with three Iraqi WMD scientists — two on nuclear and biological weapons and one scientist involved with Iraq’s nuclear program, according to the New York Times. So far, inspectors have been able to talk to four Iraqi scientists without the presence of government minders (Ian Fisher, New York Times, Feb. 9). On Saturday, inspectors visited at least six suspect Iraqi sites, according to an IAEA press release. Chemical experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission inspected the al-Rasheed Water Project in Baghdad. UNMOVIC missile inspectors visited the al-Mutassim Training Institute in northwestern Baghdad. UNMOVIC biological inspectors visited the Djerf al-Naddaf facility. Inspectors based in the northern city of Mosul visited the Mosul Technical Institute. IAEA inspectors conducted a motorized radiation survey in the Baghdad area, according to the agency press release. A second IAEA team deployed two mobile air-sampling units at two locations in Baghdad (International Atomic Energy Agency release, Feb. 8). For further information, see:
From February 10, 2003 issue.Iraq II: Summary of InspectionsExperts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have conducted hundreds of inspections in Iraq since resuming the post-Gulf War inspection regime Nov. 27. More than 100 inspectors are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ reported activities.
From February 7, 2003 issue.Iraq I: Bush Supports Second U.N. ResolutionThe United States is prepared to support a second U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 6). Meanwhile, Iraq appeared to increase its cooperation with inspectors by allowing a scientist to be privately interviewed. While the United States is willing to support a second resolution, it must also be backed by “resolve” from the Security Council members, Bush said. “The United States would welcome and support a new resolution which makes clear that the Security Council stands behind its previous demands, yet resolutions mean little without resolve,” he said in a White House appearance with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. By passing a second resolution, the United Nations can demonstrate that is prepared to meet future challenges, Bush said, one day after Powell presented U.S. evidence to the Security Council outlining Iraq’s alleged efforts to conceal continuing weapons of mass destruction programs. “The United Nations can renew its purpose and be a source of stability and security in the world. The Security Council can affirm that it is able and prepared to meet future challenges and other dangers,” Bush said. “And we can give the Iraqi people their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government,” he added. While Bush expressed support for the idea of a second U.N. resolution, he also indicated that the United States and its like-minded allies might not hesitate to act if one is not approved. “The United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime,” Bush said. “[Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein has made Iraq into a prison, poison factory and a torture chamber for patriots and dissidents. Saddam Hussein has the motive and the means and the recklessness and the hatred to threaten the American people. Saddam Hussein will be stopped,” he added (White House release, Feb. 6). The United Kingdom will probably introduce a new resolution authorizing the use of military action against Iraq, but not until after a briefing by the heads of the U.N. inspections teams scheduled for Feb. 14, a British diplomat said. “We’ve made very clear we want a second resolution, but also all members of the council want to hear back from the inspectors on Feb. 14,” the diplomat said. “After that, the council will need seriously to grip the issue of Iraqi noncooperation. That’s likely to mean work on a second resolution,” the diplomat added (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 7). Iraqi Cooperation Meanwhile, Iraq yesterday allowed one of its scientists to undergo a private interview with weapons inspectors — an issue that had been a previous source of contention between Baghdad and the inspectors, according the Associated Press. The Iraqi biologist allowed a private interview yesterday, but a U.N. official said the biologist had appeared to be coached by Iraqi officials. It is still unknown if other WMD scientists and technicians will also agree to such interviews, AP reported. Inspectors had previously attempted to privately interview 16 Iraqi scientists, but none had accepted (Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 7). U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, who is expected to travel with International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to Baghdad this weekend, said the interview demonstrated a new Iraqi effort to cooperate with inspections. Blix said he welcomed the measure but wanted to see “a lot more” during his and ElBaradei’s visit. “We want to see disarmament of Iraq through the inspection process,” Blix said in a speech to new weapons inspectors being sent to Iraq. “It requires active cooperation from Iraq, not on process but on substance,” he added (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Feb. 7). British Report Used Old Materials A recently released British report that outlined Iraq’s attempts to obstruct inspectors included several sections copied almost verbatim from previously published sources, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corp. (see GSN, Feb. 4). Some sections of the report, Iraq — Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation, appeared to have been taken from a Ph.D. thesis written by Ibrihim al-Marashi that was published in a U.S. academic journal last year. The sections appeared to have been directly copied, including typing and grammatical mistakes that were in al-Marashi’s thesis, the broadcast reported. Al-Marashi said he did not know that the United Kingdom had used his work in its report (Australian Broadcasting Corp., Feb. 8). The British report also appeared to contain material from articles that appeared in Jane’s Intelligence Review in 1997 and November 2002, Jane’s reported today. While the information contained in both the Jane’s articles and the British report is accurate, London’s exact use of the previously published materials made it easier to determine what information had been previously classified, according to Jane’s (Christopher Aaron, Jane’s Intelligence Review, Feb. 7). A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said today “in retrospect we should have acknowledged” that sections of the report were based on al-Marashi’s work. Some British lawmakers, however, said the issue reflected an attempt by Blair to mislead the public on a war with Iraq. The report “is another example of how the government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament on the issue of a possible war with Iraq,” said Labor Party lawmaker Glenda Jackson. “And of course to mislead is a Parliamentary euphemism for lying,” she added (Jill Lawless, Associated Press/Austin American-Statesman, Feb. 7). International Support Several countries have sent, or are considering sending, anti-WMD units to the Persian Gulf, as well as providing other assistance to the United States ahead of any potential military conflict with Iraq, according to reports (see GSN, Jan. 29). Slovakia has approved the use of a Slovak biological and chemical defense unit in a potential war against Iraq, but only if the U.N. Security Council approves a resolution authorizing military action, according to the Bulgarian online news source Novinite.com (Novinite.com, Feb. 7). The Bulgarian Cabinet has recommended to the Bulgarian Parliament that the United States be granted overflight and transit rights for six months and the use of an airbase located in Burgas residential district of the city of Sarafovo, according to Novinite.com. The Bulgarian Parliament is expected to vote on the proposal today (Novinite.com, Feb. 7). Ukraine plans to send a radiological defense team to support coalition forces in Iraq should war break out, the country’s U.S. ambassador, Carlos Pascual, said yesterday. The team is also reportedly equipped to protect troops against biological and chemical attacks (Zhao Yu, Xinhua News Agency, Feb. 7, GSN translation). The United States has approached Spain about providing an anti-WMD unit in the event of war with Iraq, the Spanish newspaper El Mundo reported. While interested, Washington has not yet made a formal request for the unit, a Spanish official said (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 7). About 60 German anti-WMD troops and six “Fox” WMD-detection vehicles are currently stationed in Kuwait, according to the Associated Press. The German troops are there as part of the Combined Joint Task Force for Consequence Management, which also includes 160 U.S. troops and 250 Czech troops. The German troops, however, have no mandate to cross the border into Iraq and will not do so unless the decision is approved by the German Parliament (Steven Gutkin, Associated Press/Newsday, Feb. 7). Inspections U.N. inspectors yesterday visited at least 10 suspect Iraqi sites, according to an IAEA press release. Inspectors based in the northern city of Mosul visited the Arab Company for Detergent Chemicals in Baiji. Missile experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission visited al-Kadhimiya to verify Iraq’s declaration of the site and to establish a comprehensive monitoring mechanism. IAEA inspectors continued their inspection of the Ashakyli Stores and held meetings at the National Monitoring Directorate (IAEA release, Feb. 6). For further information, see:
From February 7, 2003 issue.Iraq II: United States Appears Set on War, Experts SayBy Mike Nartker The only options that could stall U.S. action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein at this point would be either a “bullet in Saddam’s head” or “Travelocity [airline] tickets for a large amount of families,” former senior U.N. weapons inspector David Kay said yesterday during a Brookings Institution briefing. There is increasing evidence that the United States is building up the military force needed for war, said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at Brookings, noting the recent beginning of the deployment of the 101st Airborne Division to the region. Another sign that the United States is close to attacking will be any deployment of the “the first, the first and the first” — the 1st Mechanized Infantry division, the 1st Armored Division, or the 1st Armored Cavalry division, he said. U.S. President George W. Bush’s harsh criticism of Iraq’s human rights record during his State of the Union address last month is another indication of the administration’s intent to attack, said Kenneth Pollack, a member of the National Security Council staff during the Clinton administration (see GSN, Jan. 29). In his speech, Bush said, “International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.” The White House had resisted having Bush present such a strong argument against Iraq’s human rights record, Pollack said, because, once made, such criticism could not be later withdrawn. Even if progress was made on resolving the conflict surrounding Iraq’s WMD efforts, inspections cannot resolve human rights concerns — leaving the need for military action to remove Hussein, he said. U.S. Plans The United States has two impending windows for war in March — the first 10 days and the last 10 days, O’Hanlon said. These low-moonlight periods would give U.S. forces optimal conditions for nighttime operations, he said. The United States could also begin an attack in early or late April for similar reasons, O’Hanlon said. A U.S.-led attack on Iraq would probably combine aspects of both the 1991 Gulf War and the recent war in Afghanistan to root out al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Pollack said, adding that U.S. ground forces would play a large role. Two recent developments — Jordan’s granting of overflight rights and Turkey’s decision to allow the stationing of U.S. troops there — will have strategic advantages, he said. U.S. forces stationed in Turkey could pin down and distract Iraqi forces in the northern part of the country as well as defend the Kurdish population there from retaliation. By being allowed to fly through Jordanian airspace, U.S. fighter aircraft will be able to better hunt down and destroy Iraqi Scud missile launchers in the western desert section of the country. Powell Makes the Case The expert panel yesterday uniformly praised U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s recent presentation to the U.N. Security Council of U.S. evidence demonstrating Iraqi noncompliance with U.N. resolutions, saying it helped bolster the case for military action (see GSN, Feb. 5). “One of the finest performances I’ve ever seen,” Kay said, adding that Powell’s presentation was so effective, no one present claimed afterward that Iraq was complying with inspectors. Ivo Daalder, a senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, agreed, saying the White House chose wisely when it picked Powell to present the U.S. argument. “Powell has more credibility than anyone else in the administration,” Daalder said. One of the strongest sections of Powell’s presentation was his warning that the United Nations needed to act or risk sinking into irrelevance, Kay said. “This body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately,” Powell said in his presentation. Powell’s warning was a powerful threat to the smaller countries of the United Nations, who see the international body as one of their few checks on U.S. power and ability to act on a global stage, Kay said. Pollack said there were three target audiences for Powell’s presentation: the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. public and the international community. Of these, the Security Council is probably the least relevant because the council members will view any decision on whether to attack Iraq as a policy decision and are unlikely to be swayed by speeches, he said (see GSN, Feb. 6). While Powell was effective in increasing U.S. support for an attack by explaining the justification, he was less successful in convincing the international community, Pollack said. For example, most Arab states appear to have completely dismissed Powell’s presentation and the European reaction has been mixed at best, he said. What the United States needs to do now is “follow-through” on Powell’s efforts by continuing to send out administration officials to make the case against Iraq and by continuing to release U.S. intelligence showing Iraqi noncompliance, Pollack said. He added that while the leaders of a number of countries have privately expressed support for U.S. action against Iraq, they have also warned the United States that it needs to do more to increase public support within their countries. “Powell’s presentation was a great start, but it was [only] a start,” Pollack said. Ball in Hussein’s Court Following Powell’s presentation, Iraq might now choose to make a few technical concessions related to inspectors’ concerns, but is likely to continue to deny the bulk of the U.S. claims, said Amatzia Baram, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Haifa in Israel (see GSN, Feb. 4). For example, Iraq could concede on the issue of allowing U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance flights, he said. Iraqi presidential adviser Amir al-Saadi was reported as indicating earlier this week that Iraq might be ready to compromise on this issue. Another area potentially open for compromise is the private interview of WMD scientists and technicians by inspectors, Baram said. The Associated Press reported today that Iraq has allowed a biologist to participate in such an interview. Hussein feels safe in allowing this because Iraqi intelligence services already know what information each scientist could possibly divulge, and even if the interviews are conducted without Iraqi minders present, the scientists and their families remain in “mortal danger,” Baram said. Iraq is not likely to make major concessions to the United States or inspectors, however, before the approval of a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force, according to Baram (see GSN, Feb. 4). That will be the “moment of truth,” for Hussein, he said. Once the threat of an attack is imminent, Hussein will be likely to gather his top advisers and seek their honest advice on what to do next, Baram said. While Hussein has enjoyed a public reputation as being a loose cannon, he often makes rational and calculated decisions at times of crisis, he said. There is a “50.5 percent” chance that Hussein will give in to a small extent on the WMD issue in an attempt to buy more time, Baram said, adding that the decision will be “the most difficult of his life.” Iraq sees its WMD arsenal as important for its survival — a view that would have to be balanced against the threat of a U.S. occupation of Baghdad, Baram said. A second U.N. resolution would be “the moment where they have to rethink the whole thing,” Baram said. The “Samson Option” If war did occur, however, Hussein might attempt what Baram called “the Samson option” — WMD attacks against his enemies in a scorched-earth fashion (see GSN, Oct. 11, 2002). Hussein would probably issue orders for chemical weapons attacks against U.S. forces to at least slow them down, Baram said. It is also possible that Hussein would order using biological weapons against the Shiite community in southern Iraq, which he would then blame on the United States, both in an attempt to slow a U.S. advance and to settle old scores, he said. As part of the Samson option, Hussein could also try to establish a place for himself in Arab history by ordering WMD attacks against Israel in an attempt to inflict mass damage, Baram said, noting that Hussein places a high importance on his future place in history. The United States has begun planning an information campaign to persuade Iraqi military officers to ignore orders to use weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Sept. 30, 2002). Such a campaign would involve the use of leaflets dropped on Iraqi positions, special aircraft messages and even electronic mail communications, according to reports. Baram doubted, however, that most Iraqi officers fully understood the U.S. legalistic approach, by which the United States has warned of war crimes charges against Iraqis who use weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the United States needs to make the Iraqi officers more afraid of U.S. punishment for obeying such orders than they are of Hussein, Baram said, adding that such a task will be difficult. Aftermath Once the United States has overthrown Hussein, the postwar occupation and reconstruction of Iraq will not be easy, the experts said. For example, U.S. troops cannot expect the same warm welcome from the Iraqi Shiite Muslim community that Israeli troops received from the Shiite Muslims in southern Lebanon when they invaded in 1982, Baram said. History has demonstrated that Iraqis are a fiercely nationalistic and difficult people, Baram said. “They’re proud of it,” he added. While the Iraqi population is likely to accept the U.S. presence in the end, the United States will have to be sensitive to Iraqi concerns, Baram said. He said this was a lesson the United Kingdom failed to realize when it occupied Baghdad after World War II. The United States will need to use local leaders who did not actively collaborate with the Baath Party, as well as opposition members in exile, to serve as links to the local population, he said. In the end, however, most U.S. troops should be able to leave Iraq fairly quickly after the fall of Hussein and Iraq should be able to gradually return to self-rule, Baram said. Kay, however, differed with Baram’s view that the Iraqi population would be any more difficult for the United States to oversee after Hussein. “I don’t know anyone in the Middle East who isn’t [difficult],” Kay said. For further information, see:
From February 7, 2003 issue.Iraq III: Summary of InspectionsExperts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have conducted hundreds of inspections in Iraq since resuming the post-Gulf War inspection regime Nov. 27. More than 100 inspectors are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ reported activities.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top