|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Iraq I: So Far, Baghdad’s Compliance “Very Limited,” Blix SaysChief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has described Iraq’s efforts to comply with inspections and to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction as only “very limited,” the Financial Times reported today (see GSN, Feb. 27). Blix issued his assessment in a report expected to be presented to U.N. Security Council members today, but a draft was leaked to the press yesterday. In the draft report, Blix said Iraq “could have made greater efforts to find any remaining proscribed items or provide credible evidence showing the absence of such items” (Financial Times, Feb. 28). Blix did praise some Iraqi actions, however, such as allowing prompt access to all sites, helping the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission establish operations and for allowing inspectors to fly surveillance aircraft anywhere within the country, according to report excerpts published by the London Independent (see GSN, Feb. 10). Nevertheless, Blix criticized the continuing lack of private interviews with Iraqi scientists and technicians, Iraq’s December declaration of its WMD programs and the decree recently issued by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein outlawing weapons of mass destruction. “The presidential decree … which prohibits private Iraqi citizens and mixed companies from engaging in work relating to weapons of mass destruction, standing alone, is not sufficient to meet the U.N. requirements,” the draft report says (London Independent, Feb. 28). The report says that UNMOVIC is completing a list of unresolved disarmament issues and measures Iraq could take to address them, such as presenting inspectors with prohibited weapons and equipment or providing evidence that such items do not exist. Even if Iraq chooses to fully comply with inspectors, it will still take time to complete disarmament, Blix said (CNN.com, Feb. 28). Security Council Still Divided Over Next Steps Yesterday’s Security Council meeting ended without any progress in reconciling members divided over what should be the next step in dealing with Iraq. Six of the 10 elected members who have not committed to any position — Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan — said they were not ready to declare support for either of the opposing plans before the council. A draft resolution, sponsored by the United States, United Kingdom and Spain would declare that “Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity” to disarm, a finding that could be used as an authorization to use force against Iraq. France, Russia and Germany have a memorandum calling for “reinforced” inspections on a timeline that could take inspections into the summer before the council makes a decision on the use of force. There is also a Canadian paper circulating among council members that tries to bridge the two positions by calling for a timeframe for compliance, as the French-German-Russian paper proposes, but on a shorter schedule — the end of March rather than July — which is more in line with the spirit of the draft resolution. Bulgaria is the only other council member to publicly support the draft resolution. Syria is opposed to it. China supports the inspection plan. Nine affirmative votes are needed to adopt a council resolution, provided that none of the five permanent members uses its veto. “This divided council is in fact putting a decision on the shoulders of the elected members, while the permanent members stick to their positions without making efforts to adjust their views,” said Chilean Ambassador Gabriel Valdes. Reflecting the language of the French-German-Russian paper, he said, “Inspections cannot be eternal. … We want the inspectors to give us their plan of work. … Only then could the Security Council really take a decision by substantive majority that would express the view of the international community.” German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, the president of the council for February, said putting the matter on the elected members “is not the issue. … It was an excellent discussion, very serious and very much to the point.” He added, “It is being done in a collegial and serious way, it is not the question of building coalitions or asking groups in the council to change their minds.” Valdes said he was “very interested” in the Canadian proposal, but that any declaration of support at this point “is out of the question, we have never indicted to any side that we support them.” Pleuger said the Canadian paper had not been presented to the council and thus “has no status in the Security Council.” Canada is not currently a member of the council and therefore was not present in the closed-door meetings. Although media reports from Mexico suggested that President Vincente Fox was shifting toward the U.S. position, Valdes said, “There is complete coordination with Mexico. We have chosen with Mexico a path [not] to support, at this point in time, one position or the other.” Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser said his government “is examining all options that have been presented to the Security Council” as well as the Canadian plan. Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien discussed Iraq in Mexico yesterday. When asked if the Mexican position was changing, Zinser said, “We expect inspections to be the peaceful way by which we achieve the disarmament of Iraq.” French Ambassador Jean-Marie de la Sabliere said the differences among the nations are very difficult to bridge. … On the one hand, you have those who think that the time has come for war, they are asking the council to authorize war. On the other side, I think the majority of the council, is saying no, we can continue the inspections.” Pleuger said the majority of the council supports continuing inspections. “It would be a paradox to decide at the moment we are witnessing progress that the path has come to war,” said de la Sabliere. British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock would not discuss with journalists the debate, but instead said he had presented new “facts about current [WMD] activities in Iraq, facts about the concealment program, facts about deceiving inspectors. … In other words, we were showing why a claim by Iraq that there is nothing in terms of their WMD holdings is a lie” (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Feb. 28). Outside the council chambers, the United States is continuing its efforts to gain Russia’s support for the new resolution, according to the Financial Times. The Bush administration has informed Russian officials that it will seek congressional approval of two pro-Russian measures prior to a meeting of world leaders in St. Petersburg scheduled for the end of May, the Times reported. There is a good chance that the Jackson-Vanick law —Cold-War era legislation that restricts trade with Russia — could be repealed, a senior U.S. official said in Moscow. In addition, the U.S. Senate will probably soon approve the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, the official said (Andrew Jack, Financial Times, Feb. 27). Despite these possible advances, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said today Russia still opposes any U.N. resolution that would authorize military action against Iraq and might use its veto to block such a resolution. “Russia does not support any resolution which could directly or indirectly open the way to an armed resolution of the Iraq problem,” Ivanov said during a press conference in Beijing. “Naturally, Russia has the right of veto. If the interest of international stability demands it, Russia, of course will exercise its right,” he added (Reuters, Feb. 28). Inspections The first aerial surveillance operation in Iraq using French Mirage 4 aircraft was successfully conducted Wednesday, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency release. Yesterday, inspectors visited at least eight suspect Iraqi sites, the IAEA release said. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the al-Muthana site to continue the destruction of artillery shells filled with mustard gas there. They also visited the Northern Refineries Company in Baiji. UNMOVIC biological inspectors visited al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range and observed the search for R-400 aerial bombs and fragments. UNMOVIC missile inspectors visited the David Bros Company in Baghdad in response to Iraq’s declaration concerning a supplier of specialized missile equipment. Inspectors also conducted aerial surveillance operations over two sites — one west of Baghdad and one southwest of the Iraqi capital. IAEA inspectors visited the State Establishment for Electrical Industries in Baghdad. They also conducted a radiation survey in industrial areas west of Baghdad (IAEA release, Feb. 27). For further information, see: U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)
From February 28, 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. About 100 inspectors are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ recently reported activities.
From February 27, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: Washington Needs New “Strategic Vision,” Senator SaysBy Mike Nartker The optimism for peace and security generated after the end of the Cold War has not been fully realized, Reed said yesterday at a conference held by the Center for Defense Information and Physicians for Social Responsibility. “The global village still has some very tough neighborhoods,” he said. To counter the growing threats of terrorism and WMD proliferation, the United States needs to adopt a new strategic vision that focuses on three areas — pre-emptive action against terrorist groups, the containment and interdiction of WMD proliferation and the encouragement of collective security and arms control agreements, Reed said. Such actions cannot be sustained through a unilateral approach and will need the involvement of U.S. allies, he said. While there has been debate over the necessity of pre-emptive action against Iraq, such a course is needed to defeat the threat of terrorism because it cannot be countered merely by deterrence, Reed said. He noted nostalgia for the Cold War, when the global security environment was akin to a game of checkers, as there were only a few moves each side could play. Now, the current situation, with terrorism a front-line concern, is more similar to a game of chess, where “a pawn can take a king,” Reed said. The Bush administration, however, has gone too far in extending the threat of pre-emptive action to every country the United States has some sort of conflict with, which disrupts the strategy’s usefulness against terrorism, Reed said. He warned that other countries might take a similar approach to the use of pre-emptive action, noting the support Indian officials have offered because of the value of possible pre-emptive action against Pakistan. WMD Proliferation The threat of pre-emptive action could also help increase the risk of WMD proliferation, rather than reduce it, Reed said. For example, North Korea has cited what it perceives as threatening comments by the United States, such as its inclusion in the “axis of evil” as a rationale for the relaunch of its nuclear program. Another proliferation concern is the lack of adequate funding for U.S. nonproliferation programs, such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, Reed said. While such programs were virtually stalled during the first two years of the Bush administration, due to a review and lack of certification, the White House now appears to be taking the issue more seriously and there is an increased momentum, he said (see GSN, Jan. 28). Reed suggested that Bush, as a Republican president, might be able to achieve more success with arms control against a resistant Republican-led Congress, akin to a “Nixon goes to China” moment. A number of Bush appointees, however, seem to view the concept of arms control itself as failed, he said. International Cooperation The United States also needs to work to develop an international consensus to address the threats of terrorism and WMD proliferation, which should be done through international organizations, Reed said (see GSN, Feb. 21). While the Bush administration, has shown an “ideological distrust” of such organizations, it needs to recognize that security requires more collective action and not less, he added. International cooperation is especially needed to address proliferation concerns, Reed said. He noted that arms control treaties often use measures such as sanctions, which would require international cooperation for enforcement, as a method of enforcing compliance. The Bush administration has also made it more difficult to obtain international cooperation and support through its penchant for abandoning treaties, such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Reed said (see GSN, June 13, 2002). Such a stance sends a signal to the international community that the United States does not need its assistance, when in fact, it should be asking for it, he said. The apparent lack of respect for treaties also damages U.S. credibility when Washington is attempting to persuade other countries to abide by such agreements, Reed said. For example, the United States lacks credibility in attempting to convince India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons, when it has itself failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, he said (see GSN, Feb. 21).
From February 27, 2003 issue.Iraq I: Baghdad Still Not Firmly Committed to Disarmament, Blix SaysAs the U.N. Security Council meets today to begin discussions over a U.S.-British resolution against Iraq, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein still has not made a “fundamental decision” to comply with inspections (see GSN, Feb. 26). Blix did say he welcomed several recent letters from Iraq that contained new information about its weapons programs, but he added that these did not represent “full cooperation or a breakthrough.” Blix made his comments prior to delivering a 16-page report on the status of inspections to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. The report had been due Saturday (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Feb. 27). “We have a very long list of disarmament issues and it will require a big effort in order to clarify all of those,” Blix said. “I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision (to disarm), but there is some evidence of some increased activity. There is certainly more activity now,” he added. A source close to Blix described the Iraqi letters, which contained information on the discovery of documents related to the destruction of prohibited items and the discovery of a R-400 bomb, as “peanuts” (James Bone, London Times, Feb. 27). Competing Security Council Measures Meanwhile, the Security Council is scheduled to meet behind closed doors today to begin discussions on both the British-introduced resolution on Iraq and a French-German-Russian counterproposal to extend the inspections process, according to Agence France-Presse. A vote on the resolution is not expected until at least mid-March (Robert Holloway, Agence France-Presse, Feb. 27). Canada proposed Tuesday that the council give Iraq until March 31 to fully comply with inspections, or then authorize military action, according to the National Post. The proposal was contained in a two-page document that Canadian U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker privately gave to council members. The proposal calls for inspectors to prioritize Iraq’s remaining disarmament tasks and to provide time frames to be used as benchmarks. The council would receive weekly briefings throughout March, with a “final report” on March 28, the Post reported. The Canadian proposal offers a timetable for continued inspections past the end of March only if inspectors report to the council “substantial Iraqi compliance” in the March 28 briefing, according to the Post. “If the inspectors have reported continued Iraqi evasion, all necessary means could be used to force them to disarm,” the proposal says. U.S. officials did not comment on the Canadian proposal. Council diplomats who side with the U.S.-British stance on Iraq, however, reacted with caution. “There is a certain amount of appeal in somehow combining the U.S.-U.K.-Spanish proposal and the French-Russian-German proposal,” said a diplomat. “But I am not sure they are combinable. The Canadian one has the advantage over the French of actually having a sense of urgency. But it isn’t really gripping the core problem of Iraq’s failure to comply. It is trying to put the burden on the inspectors,” the diplomat added. The Canadian proposal also failed to find overwhelming support among French and German diplomats. They said they objected to the establishment of any deadlines. “I don’t see how this would bridge the gap,” said a diplomat supportive of the French-German position. “We are not in favor of any type of deadline or showdown,” the diplomat added (Steven Edwards, National Post, Feb. 26). French President Jacques Chirac yesterday once again reiterated his country’s firm opposition to a new U.N. resolution seeking to authorize military action against Iraq. “We are opposed to every new resolution,” Chirac said. “We have a common goal of eliminating the arms of mass destruction in Iraq, but we do not share the same view on the means to attain this goal,” he added (Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, Feb. 27). U.S. Diplomatic Efforts The United States might be having more luck in persuading Russia, another permanent council member, to support the new resolution, according to the Washington Post. Russian lawmaker Mikhail Margelov, as well as other sources, said yesterday that Russia would probably not veto the new resolution. Russian President Vladimir Putin has informed U.S. President George W. Bush and other senior U.S. officials that he does not believe war with Iraq is necessary, officials said, but Putin has also indicated, that Russia would not block such action. “Putin tries to think strategically and longer-term: ‘Whose side do I want to be on when the dust settles,’” a U.S. official said, adding that the White House has made clear to Putin the importance of the Iraqi issue (Slevin/LaFraniere, Washington Post, Feb. 27). The United States also appears to be making headway among the nonpermanent members of the Security Council, according to the Los Angeles Times. Pakistan indicated to the United States yesterday that it would support the new resolution on Iraq, U.S. and Pakistani officials said. “We are very good allies of the United States and value our relationship and want to see that blossom,” a senior Pakistani official said in an interview with the Times. “The issue of Iraq will not become a problem between us,” the official added. There are concerns that Pakistan’s support for a war against Iraq could lead to a rise in domestic unrest, which could be reduced if U.N. inspectors find Iraq in material breach of its obligations, the senior Pakistani official said. Even without this, however, Pakistan will still support the resolution, the official added. “It’ll help us politically to have U.N. inspectors come back and say Iraq is in final material breach. But will the (Pakistani) government fall if this does not happen? No,” a second Pakistani official said. “A lot of American flags are being burnt, but we can weather that,” the official added. The United States has not attempted to buy Pakistan’s support, such as through increased economic aid, Pakistani officials said. “We are not asking any price for our support. The U.S. has not leaned on us. We have a principled position. We’re aware of each other’s point of view and agreed on what Iraq has to do,” the senior official said (Farley/Wright, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 27). One way Bush could increase support for the U.S. position on Iraq among European leaders is by keeping a tighter rein on U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said yesterday. Rumsfeld has often been the focus of European opposition to the U.S. position on Iraq, according to the Wall Street Journal. Rumsfeld has come under criticism for a number of remarks, such as by comparing Germany to Libya and Cuba because of Berlin’s approach to the Iraq crisis. “I did tell the president that we need a lot of (U.S. Secretary of State Colin) Powell and not much of Rumsfeld,” said Aznar, who met with Bush over the weekend at his Texas ranch. “Ministers of defense should talk less, shouldn’t they? The more Powell speaks and the less Rumsfeld speaks, that wouldn’t be a bad thing altogether,” he added (Kempe/Vitzthum, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 27). Blair Survives Internal Dissent British lawmakers yesterday approved a government-sponsored motion supporting Prime Minister Tony Blair’s approach to the Iraq situation. More than 100 lawmakers from Blair’s own Labor Party, however, failed to side with him in the vote, according to the Associated Press. The British House of Commons voted 434-124 in favor of a motion supporting Blair’s efforts to resolve the Iraq situation through the United Nations and calling on Iraq “to recognize this as its final opportunity” to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction. British lawmakers also voted yesterday 393-199 against an amendment to the motion that said “the case for military action against Iraq (is) as yet unproven.” In that vote, 122 Labor members supported the amendment, making it the largest internal revolt since the party took control, AP reported. The House of Commons will get another opportunity to vote on military action if the conflict with Iraq continues to escalate, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said. Such a vote might have to occur after a conflict begins, however, in order to maintain the safety of British troops in the region, he added (Beth Gardiner, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Feb. 27). Inspections U.N. inspectors visited at least 11 suspect Iraqi sites yesterday, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency press release. Biological experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission visited al-Aziziyah Range, where they inspected excavated munitions and fragments and conducted an aerial survey. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors traveled to al-Muthana site, where they resumed the destruction of mustard gas-filled artillery shells. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors also visited the Dar al-Salam Sulphuric acid facility and al-Naif Sulphonic Acid facility. An UNMOVIC missile inspections team visited al-Shika Company to verify Iraq’s declaration of the site and to establish a comprehensive monitoring system. A second missile team inspected and tagged equipment that had been previously destroyed by inspectors, but later rebuilt, at al-Amin Factory. Inspectors then traveled to al-Basil Company to tag a piece of equipment there that had been previously destroyed by inspectors but was later rebuilt. Inspectors based in the northern city of Mosul visited two sites — the Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Unit in Mosul and the Badush Cement Factory, the IAEA release said. IAEA inspectors visited the Ibn al-Beythar Research Center in the Taji area, north of Baghdad. They also conducted a radiation survey in the Zafaraniya area of Baghdad (IAEA release, Feb. 26). For further information, see:
From February 27, 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 200 U.N. personnel, including about 100 inspectors, are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ recently reported activities.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top