|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Iraq I: U.S., U.K., Spain To Hold Last-Ditch MeetingU.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress yesterday the United States might abandon altogether a resolution in the U.N. Security Council authorizing war against Iraq, even as the United States, United Kingdom and Spain agreed to hold an emergency weekend summit aimed at salvaging the battered resolution. Meanwhile, with no signs of consensus emerging on the Security Council, the United States sped up war preparations in the Persian Gulf in a signal that Washington is prepared to go it alone (see GSN, March 13; Sanger/Hoge, New York Times, March 13). “The options remain: Go for a vote and see what members say, or not go for a vote,” Powell told the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations. “All the options that you can imagine are before us and we will be examining them today, tomorrow and into the weekend,” he said (Arshad Mohammed, Reuters, March 13). Powell’s comments directly countered U.S. President George W. Bush’s declaration last week that “no matter what the whip count is, we’re going for a vote” (see GSN, March 7). After several days of dispute within the administration, the New York Times reports, Powell argued that the political cost of going to war without a U.N. vote would be less than the cost of going to war in defiance of a vote against military action (Sanger/Hoge, New York Times). In a meeting billed by the White House as “an effort to pursue every last bit of diplomacy,” Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar will meet Sunday in the Azores, reportedly to save the second resolution. Bush administration officials said the leaders would be discussing diplomacy, not military strategy (Ron Fournier, Associated Press, March 14). Security Council Keeps Meeting Several Security Council members heading into closed talks this morning said they hoped the weekend summit could bring a peaceful compromise. “If it could in any way contribute to (getting) a consensus on the council, we would welcome it,” said Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram. Pakistan is one of six council members that are undecided about the move to authorize force against Iraq (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 14). Pakistan faces strong domestic opposition to the war (Bokhari/Huband, Financial Times, March 14). U.S. Domestic Opposition The Bush administration faces criticism at home as well. Senior Democratic senators Patrick Leahy and Edward Kennedy lambasted the administration’s “messianic zeal” on Iraq and warned that going to war alone against Iraq would damage U.S. prospects for international support in the future. “The administration’s domineering and simplistic ‘you are either with us or against us’ approach ... has already damaged long-standing relationships, both with our neighbors in this hemisphere and our friends across the Atlantic,” said Leahy. Added Kennedy, “I am concerned that as we rush to war with Iraq, we are becoming more divided at home and more isolated in the world community” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, March 14). A last-ditch effort by British diplomats to win support for a modified resolution that would ease the disarmament deadline by a few days and set forth six specific tasks for Iraq to fulfill or face military attack failed to win support of any members of the Security Council. German and Russian officials reiterated their opposition to using force against Baghdad (London Telegraph, March 14). White House officials said Bush was still making calls in an attempt to sway the six undecided nations on the council, but the support of the three African nations — Angola, Cameroon and Guinea — was described as weak, and Mexico and Chile still had refused to commit to voting for the resolution or against it (Sanger/Hoge, New York Times). U.S. Military Buildup Meanwhile, the U.S. military continued its buildup in the Gulf in preparation for a massive and overwhelming first strike on Iraq meant to encourage a hasty surrender. The first wave of B-2 stealth bombers left yesterday for the Persian Gulf and the British island of Diego Garcia. About a dozen Navy cruisers, destroyers and submarines armed with satellite-guided, 1,000-mile-range Tomahawk missiles left the Mediterranean bound for the Red Sea, from where they could shoot hundreds of missiles across Saudi Arabia into Iraq. Two aircraft carriers currently in the Mediterranean will probably stay there and send aircraft over Israel and Jordan (Barbara Starr, CNN.com, March 14). Iraq to Hand Over VX Report Iraq was scheduled to deliver a detailed report to the United Nations chronicling its destruction of 3.9 tons of the deadly nerve agent VX. A report explaining how it disposed of at least 2,245 gallons of anthrax is to follow in the next few days. Iraq says it produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and 3.9 tons of VX, but weapons inspectors estimate it could have produced almost three times that amount of anthrax (CNN.com, March 14). More Missiles Destroyed; Inspector Dies In Accident U.N. weapons inspectors today supervised the destruction of four banned Iraqi al-Samoud 2 missiles, bringing to 65 — more than half the estimated total — the number destroyed since the March 1 deadline set for starting the process, the United Nations announced (U.N. release, March 14). A U.N. weapons inspector was killed and another injured in a car accident near Baghdad yesterday when their vehicle hit a truck and went into a lake (Agence France-Presse/Dawn, March 13). Leaked Document Refutes “Domino Democracy” A classified report by the U.S. State Department challenges the assumption that installing a new regime in Iraq will begin a chain reaction in the Middle East that spreads democracy. An intelligence official who read portions of the report to a Los Angeles Times reporter said the document’s gist was “that this idea that you’re going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible.” The report, Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes, dated Feb. 26, was distributed to top officials and appears to highlight deep divisions within the Bush administration over the success of spreading democracy through forcible regime change. Bush has said that “A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region,” but the report states that “Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve.” It also speculates that “Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements” (Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, March 14).
From March 14, 2003 issue.Iraq II: Small WMD-Agent Releases Could Cause Heavy Casualties in Iraq, NeighborsBy David Ruppe Use of a nuclear weapon in Iraq by the United States, for retaliation or other purposes, could be just as devastating to the civilian population, depending on the size of the weapon and whether the detonation were near a major city, the analysis suggested. The calculations were performed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which used special software — developed for the Pentagon — to model a number of potential WMD scenarios in a U.S.-led war on Iraq. The scenarios also included various Iraqi chemical weapons attacks against Tel Aviv and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and U.S. nuclear retaliatory attacks on Baghdad and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s home city of Tikrit. The program, called Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability, was created for the military by the Science Applications International Corp. and licensed by the Pentagon to several nongovernmental organizations (see GSN, Nov. 27, 2002). Depending on the scenario, the most serious casualties might occur from an anthrax release. Such a release could be caused an Iraqi attack or by an accidental release caused by U.S. forces bombing an unknown cache, according to Matthew McKinzie, the NRDC analyst who modeled the scenarios. In a potentially worst-case scenario, an Iraqi attack against Kuwait City spraying 30 kilograms of anthrax from an aerial drone under certain wind conditions could infect 800,000 people, McKinzie calculated. “This is one of the most terrible scenarios we looked at … when you start talking about that many casualties, you’re in the range of nuclear weapons scenarios,” he said. The United States has accused Iraq of having drones capable of performing such attacks. McKinzie also calculated the release of a relatively small quantity of anthrax spores, just half a kilogram, from a hypothetical, damaged facility at Abu Ghraib near Baghdad. With a gentle wind blowing over Baghdad, the model showed a resulting spore plume that might produce more than 300,000 infections. “What you find is that even for light damage to such a facility and subkilogram quantities of anthrax that’s released, you actually have a substantial plume that’s produced, a plume that can cause anthrax infections, because only a very low number of anthrax spores can cause an infection,” he said. In the two cases the models assumed that the attacked populations were not widely inoculated against anthrax or treated with antibiotics. While not considered as contagious as smallpox, anthrax is described by a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet as one of the most dangerous diseases because of the relative ease with which it can be mass-produced and disseminated to a large population. Treated early with antibiotics, a fatal infection can usually be prevented. In previous known cases, fatality rates for an infection from inhalation have ranged from 90 percent to 100 percent. U.N. inspectors reportedly expect to receive a declaration soon from Iraq on any existing or destroyed anthrax holdings. Chemical Attacks Less Deadly NRDC, which has not taken an official position on the possible war, calculated that potential Iraqi chemical weapons attacks would probably produce far fewer casualties than biological or nuclear attacks, in part because of the need to concentrate a significant amount of gas on a location. “What NRDC took away from this analysis is really that all weapons of mass destruction are not equal, that the scenarios that we calculated paint very different pictures of chemical, nuclear or biological attacks,” he said. Using the software, NRDC calculated a chemical weapons artillery barrage or ballistic missile attack against a heavily populated area using the deadly nerve agent sarin might cause at most thousands of casualties for unprotected individuals. Iraq is believed by U.S. intelligence agencies to have hidden hundreds of 155 mm artillery shells containing chemical weapons. In addition, Iraq is suspected of possessing some Scud missiles and other, longer-range missiles that could be armed with weapons of mass destruction. U.S. Nuclear Retaliation Considered U.S. President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have both alluded to the possibility of using U.S. nuclear weapons in retaliation for Iraqi chemical or biological weapons use. On Sept. 14, Bush reportedly signed a secret national security directive allowing for the possible use of nuclear weapons for attacking deeply buried facilities or in retaliation for chemical and biological weapons attacks (see GSN, Jan. 31). Low casualties resulting from an Iraqi chemical attack against Israel or U.S. forces, however, would make nuclear retaliation disproportionate and therefore unjustifiable, McKinzie said. “I don’t think any of these scenarios justify a nuclear retaliation. The response would be disproportional and would reopen [the issue of] the use of nuclear weapons, which in my view would probably be more damaging in terms of encouraging others to increase their arsenals or gain arsenals,” said Thomas Cochran, director of NRDC’s nuclear program. A 50-kiloton U.S. nuclear attack on Baghdad might cause 400,000 casualties, with 175,000 deaths, NRDC calculated. A similar nuclear attack on less-populated Tikrit could produce 107,000 casualties, with 68,000 dead. There has been a concern Israel would respond with a nuclear attack if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attacked it with chemical weapons. A ballistic missile attack against Tel Aviv using 225 kilograms of sarin would produce an estimated 3,000 casualties, with more than 31,000 people potentially exposed, according NRDC’s model. Similar numbers would result from the same chemical weapons attack on Kuwait or Riyadh, McKinzie said. U.S. Targeting Considerations Hussein commonly locates militarily significant structures near civilian ones, such as schools and hospitals, with the apparent intent of deterring strikes on those facilities or forcing foreign attackers to risk negative publicity by causing significant civilian casualties, U.S. officials say. The U.S. Defense Department has indicated U.S. military forces will take potential noncombatant casualties, civilian infrastructure damage, culturally sensitive sites, and the proximity of so-called “human shields” into account when targeting bombings in the event of war. “We strike only military targets while taking extraordinary care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties and to minimize collateral damage. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, flaunts the laws of war and co-locates military and civilian facilities, and employs human shields,” a Pentagon spokesman said at a March 3 briefing on targeting. A senior defense official also said at the briefing the military may try to attack suspected WMD facilities, but would use tactics intended to mitigate the release of WMD agents. “We might also target some of those kinds of facilities with special operating forces, as opposed to kinetically, with bombs,” the official said. “There’s also some good studies on the kinetic effect of various types of munitions on various types of chemicals. And so you may be able to incinerate some of those in the actual attack itself,” the official said. The official said, “There are some studies” suggesting similar results could be achieved in striking biological weapons facilities with conventional bombs. Existing weaponry may not be satisfactory, however, as the Bush administration is seeking congressional approval to research the possible development of low-yield nuclear weapons that would incinerate the agents in chemical and biological facilities (see GSN, March 6). Wind an Important Factor NRDC’s modeling showed that wind speed and direction were important factors in calculating the effects of WMD attacks. For the Abu Ghraib scenario, if the winds were blowing where they usually do on a March morning, which is not toward Baghdad, then casualties could be in the range of 1,000 people, the group calculated. A strong wind could also significantly affect the effectiveness of a drone anthrax attack, reducing casualties even if the attack used a much greater quantity of anthrax. McKinzie said Hussein might be more inclined to use chemical or biological weapons against civilians because the weapons would have much less impact on U.S. and allied military forces who are equipped with defensive equipment and are vaccinated against some biological agents. He cited a 1998 book by one expert, former U.S. military officer Albert Mauroni, which argued that weapons of mass destruction could cause “mass destruction” against an unprepared civilian population, but they would probably cause only “mass disruption” against a force with proper equipment and training. U.S. soldiers in the area are reportedly being vaccinated for smallpox, anthrax and a range of other diseases, and have been supplied with suits and other equipment for defense against an attack. Bunker Busters The modeling software was developed in part to aid the Pentagon in planning U.S. attacks against targets housing chemical, biological and nuclear materials. The models assess how and where a biological or chemical agent disperses by incorporating atmospheric conditions such as temperature, wind and humidity, and terrain, and transferring its calculations onto a map of the area in question (see GSN, June 5, 2002). They also incorporate the physical properties and toxic effects of the weapons, as well as data about how the agents might be deployed by Iraq. The software can also calculate the effects of nuclear explosions, including blast, heat, radiation and fallout. NRDC has calculated significant collateral devastation if Bush were to order a nuclear attack against a deeply buried bunker hidden under or near one of Hussein’s presidential palaces. Such facilities are suspected near a presidential facility in Mosul, in northern Iraq, and one in Tikrit, McKinzie said. “Even with a very small yield of a half-kiloton, you have to bury the nuclear weapon tens of meters, 50 meters or more into the ground to contain that fallout,” he said, adding that so far the military has been unable to design an earth-penetrating weapon that can burrow that deep. “You still get a ferocious amount of fallout from low-yield nuclear weapons buried deeply into the ground,” he said.
From March 13, 2003 issue.Iraq I: London Considers Dropping Deadline in Exchange for BenchmarksThe United Kingdom late yesterday offered to drop a deadline for Iraq to demonstrate full compliance with inspections from its draft U.N. Security Council resolution if council members agreed to a list of six disarmament “benchmarks.” Meanwhile, the Bush administration indicated today that it would agree to delay a vote on the draft resolution until next week (see GSN, March 12). Even without a deadline, the resolution would still contain a threat of “serious consequences” if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not comply, according to the Associated Press. “This is a trial balloon, if you like, to see whether this is a way out of our current difficulties ... to see if we can keep the council together,” said British U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 13). The United Kingdom has proposed six disarmament tasks. They include: * requiring Hussein to publicly acknowledge that Iraq has previously attempted to conceal weapons of mass destruction and that it will now fully comply with disarmament; * making at least 30 Iraqi WMD scientists available for private interviews with inspectors outside of Iraq; * surrendering all anthrax and anthrax-production capability or providing credible evidence for their previous destruction; * destroying all prohibited al-Samoud 2 missiles and illegally imported SA-2 missile engines; * fully accounting for unmanned aerial vehicles and remotely piloted vehicles; and * surrendering all mobile chemical and biological laboratories (BBC News, March 13). John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said yesterday that he “commended the proposal” to the council for consideration, but the United States would wait for council members’ reactions “before we embrace it in its entirety” (Linzer, Associated Press). The United Kingdom has proposed the benchmarks in an attempt to further increase support within the Security Council for the draft resolution. The White House said today that U.S. President George W. Bush was willing to delay a vote on the new resolution if such a move would further help increase support. “It may conclude tomorrow. It may continue into next week,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. “The president is willing to go the extra mile for a diplomacy. There is a limit on how far he’s willing to do,” he said (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 13). Some senior White House officials have said, however, that they doubted that the Security Council would approve any new resolution. “I just think the whole thing is a fool’s chase. We’re not going to get a resolution,” a senior Bush administration official told the London Telegraph. “The French and the Russians will veto. It doesn’t matter what changes you make, the question is how long this is going to drag on, how much further political heat we’re going to take,” the official added (Toby Harnden, London Telegraph, March 13). The United States appears to have the support of at least eight Security Council members, according to the Wall Street Journal (see GSN, Feb. 27). The latest indication of support came from Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who told Bush yesterday that, while it will be difficult politically, he is ready to support the resolution. Eight votes, however, is still one less than needed for the resolution to be approved by the council. U.S. officials hope that even a simple majority will provide enough moral authority for the United States to proceed with military action even if the resolution is vetoed by France or Russia, the Journal reported (Wall Street Journal, March 13). France, a permanent council member and a staunch opponent of war, indicated today that it does not support the new British proposals of disarmament tasks and a possible extended compliance deadline (see GSN, March 6). The British proposals “do not respond to the questions the international community is asking,” French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said in a statement. “It’s not about giving a few more days to Iraq before resorting to force but about resolutely advancing through peaceful disarmament,” he added. Weapons inspections inside Iraq are “producing results” and France supports all council members that want to “give Iraq a realistic delay for reaching effective disarmament,” de Villepin said (Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 13). The United States has criticized France’s public threat that it will veto a new resolution, saying such a stance will make peaceful disarmament less likely. “Unfortunately, President [Jacques] Chirac has said that no matter what, they’re going to veto the resolution. I suppose that factor needs to be taken into account by all those who are proceeding here,” U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. “But, frankly, saying that he’ll veto the resolution no matter what sends precisely the wrong signal to Baghdad, precisely the wrong signal for those who want peaceful disarmament,” Boucher added (Barry Schweid, Associated Press II/Yahoo.com, March 13). Russia, which has threatened to veto earlier proposals, said today that it was still considering the British proposals and has not yet made a decision. “We are not talking about the vote yet, we are still discussing proposals from different nations, and it is still unclear what resolution we are talking about,” Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said. “Until we have a draft resolution on the table, it’s premature to say how Russia will vote,” he said (Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 13). Iraqi Drone Meanwhile, U.N. officials conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake when they said Iraq had not disclosed a recently discovered drone. In a report provided to Security Council members last week, the drone was described as having a wingspan of 24.5 feet and as being previously undeclared. U.N. officials said, however, that Iraq had declared the drone and had described its wingspan as about 13 feet, not the actual 24.5, which led to some confusion among those who prepared the U.N. report. The error was corrected in a letter sent Feb. 18 to inspectors, said Iraqi Air Force Gen. Ibrahim Hussein. “When a man is to prepare a lot of documents or to write a lot of things, it is quite natural that he makes some kind of typing mistakes," Hussein said (Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, March 13). FBI Investigates Fake Iraqi Nuclear Information The FBI has begun an investigation into a set of fraudulent documents that purported to show that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, March 10). Officials are trying to determine if the phony documents were intended to influence U.S. policy or were meant to be part of a disinformation campaign conducted by a foreign intelligence service, the Post reported. “It’s something we’re just beginning to look at,” a senior law enforcement official said yesterday. “We’re looking at it from a preliminary stage as to what it’s all about,” the official said (Priest/Schmidt, Washington Post, March 13). Inspections U.N. inspectors visited at least one suspect Iraqi site today, according to Reuters. They traveled to al-Taji to supervise the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles (Reuters, March 13). Yesterday, inspectors visited at least six suspect Iraqi sites, according to a U.N. press release. Biological experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission visited al-Baghdadyia Co. for Juice Industry and the Iraqi Dairy and Ice Cold Products Company. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the That al-Suwavi Co. International Atomic Energy Agency experts visited two sites in connection with the use of radioisotopes — the Saddam Center for Cancer and Medical Genetics Research and the Saddam Neurosciences Center in Baghdad (U.N. release, March 12). For further information, see:
From March 13, 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, 2002. 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 March 12, 2003 issue.Iraq I: United Kingdom Continues Work on Resolution CompromiseThe United Kingdom continued its efforts today to create a compromise U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq that would contain an agreeable deadline for full compliance by Iraq and include a series of compliance “benchmarks,” according to reports (see GSN, March 11). “We are busting a gut to see if we can get greater consensus in the council,” British U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, said, adding that he expected a vote on the resolution by Friday. “We are going to go on talking until we find a way forward through the Security Council together,” he said. Under the British proposal, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would have 10 days to demonstrate that Iraq had taken a “strategic decision” to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction by fulfilling a set of benchmarks. If Iraq complied, a second phase would begin that would allow more time to verify Iraq’s disarmament, according to the Los Angeles Times. “There is a two-stage process,” Greenstock said. “One is to be convinced that Iraq is cooperating, the other is to disarm Iraq completely,” he added. The six still-undecided nonpermanent council members oppose the 10-day deadline and have instead requested a 45-day deadline. In a compromise proposal, Canada recommended a three-week window. The United States, however, is opposed to extending the deadline much past March 17, the date originally proposed in a U.S.-British-Spanish draft resolution circulated Friday, according to the Times (see GSN, March 7). Possible Benchmarks Council members are beginning to agree, through negotiations one diplomat described as “gradual, painful and unproductive,” on what benchmarks Iraq would have to meet to show compliance. Those tests include allowing inspectors to interview Iraqi WMD scientists, the destruction of VX and anthrax stocks and possibly the full destruction of Iraq’s supply of prohibited al-Samoud 2 ballistic missiles. “We’re talking at the Bush-Blair level, to (France, Russia and China), to the middle six and others,” said a senior diplomatic source close to the negotiations, noting the six undecided Security Council members. “You get an inch from one side, and you use that to get an inch from the other,” the diplomat said (Farley/Richter, Los Angeles Times, March 12). Other proposed tests include a public admission by Hussein that he has concealed WMD stockpiles and will now destroy them; full disclosure of Iraq’s drone aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles; and a commitment to give up all mobile biological weapons laboratories, according to Reuters (Reuters/MSNBC.com, March 12). The United States indicated support for the compromise resolution yesterday, urging the Security Council to vote on it this week. U.S. officials said, however, that they opposed any extension of the deadline for full Iraqi compliance beyond a few days. “The vote will take place this week,” said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. “There’s room for a little more diplomacy here but not much room and not much time,” he added (Mark Matthews, Baltimore Sun, March 12). In a paper distributed yesterday, however, the White House said that the Security Council is still divided over any resolution on Iraq and “peaceful disarmament looks less and less likely.” U.S. President George W. Bush’s frustration with the United Nations has reached the point to where it could lead to long-term effects, White House aides said. “He [Bush] said it was a test of credibility, and the council passed a resolution that says immediate and complete disarmament but now will not enforce its own resolution,” a senior Bush administration official said. “It sends a message,” the official added (CNN.com, March 12). British Politics U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that the United States could launch an attack on Iraq even without the aid of British troops. If Blair was unable to commit British forces because of domestic political problems, there were “work-around” scenarios in place that would allow the United States to still proceed, Rumsfeld said (see GSN, Feb. 27). These scenarios involve the use of British troops in noncombat missions, such as occupying oil fields or humanitarian work, U.S. officials said. The British government has denied that there have been any talks on British troops not fully participating in a war with Iraq. “Donald Rumsfeld has got that wrong, we will be actively engaged if we have to be,” said a British government spokesman. “We continue to work for a second resolution,” he added. Graham Allen, a member of Parliament who opposes war with Iraq, said Rumsfeld’ comments were a “heaven-sent opportunity” to provide political cover for Blair. “He has been franker with the British people than the government,” Allen said. “The cat is out of the bag. They can do it without us and given Tony Blair the chance to get out of the hole if he wishes,” he added. The Pentagon has issued a “clarification” statement saying that Rumsfeld did expect the United Kingdom’s full support. “I have no doubt of the full support of the United Kingdom for the international community’s efforts to disarm Iraq. In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom,” Rumsfeld’s statement said (Watson/Webster, London Times, March 12). U.S. officials have said that Washington has allowed the diplomatic process within the Security Council to go on this long to provide political aid for Blair. “We’re hanging on to diplomacy because of the need to give credence to Blair’s promise to pursue diplomacy as far as he could,” a U.S. official said yesterday. “It’s not in our interest to have Tony Blair fall as prime minister over his commitment to help us,” the official added (Matthews, Baltimore Sun). Bush Diplomacy The Bush administration focused its diplomatic efforts yesterday on five of the six still-wavering nonpermanent council members, involving the use of veiled threats of the consequences of their lack of support, according to U.S. diplomats. For example, the United States has suggested to Angola that $20 million in annual humanitarian aid might be reduced if it does not support the United States. U.S. diplomats have also indicated to Chile that the approval of a pending free-trade agreement could be delayed in the U.S. Congress and suggested to Cameroon and Guinea that the United States might not push strongly for those countries to receive loans from international lenders, according to U.S. diplomats. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has charged that the White House has threatened a boycott of Mexican goods and services if Mexico does not side with the United States on Iraq. Fleischer, however, dismissed the complaint, calling it “nonsense.” Pakistan has been fairly immune to U.S. diplomatic pressures because the United States still needs Islamabad’s help in the war on terrorism, according to USA Today. Pakistan has indicated that it will abstain on a vote on a new resolution (McQuillan/Squitieri, USA Today, March 12). U.S. State Department officials said today they believe the United States is only lacking one vote to have the necessary nine for a new resolution to pass. The United States is now confident it has the support of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, one official said (CNN.com II, March 12). Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov yesterday reiterated his country’s decision to use its veto if necessary to block the U.S.-British-drafted resolution. In his comments during a press conference in Tehran, Ivanov did not address, however, the new British compromise proposal. “Russia is very much against this resolution which is in the works,” Ivanov said during the press conference, held jointly with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi. “We will vote against this,” Ivanov added (Reuters, March 11). U.S. Troops, Experts Train to Recover Iraqi WMD Meanwhile, the U.S. Army’s 75th Exploitation Task Force has begun training to follow U.S. and allied troops into Iraq to document discovered WMD stockpiles and to recover samples for further examination, according to the Washington Post. “The objective of this specific task force is to prove to the world what Saddam actually has,” said Army Col. Richard McPhee, who heads the unit. The unit is made up of soldiers from all four branches of the U.S. armed services, along with British military experts and personnel from several U.S. civilian agencies, the Post reported. “Everyone understands the importance of this,” McPhee said. “It’s a great mission,” he added (Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post, March 12). Iraqi Drone Iraq said today that a recently discovered drone aircraft, which the United States has claimed was meant for use in chemical weapons attacks, was only a model intended for reconnaissance missions. “It is a prototype,” said Gen. Ibrahim Hussein, director of the Ibn Firnas site, where inspectors discovered the drone. “It has not reached the stage of production. It has not the capability whatsoever to carry chemical or biological weapons,” he added (Agence France-Presse, March 12). Iraqi authorities took journalists to the site in an attempt to prove that the drone was not part of Iraqi WMD efforts. One Associated Press journalist described the drone as appearing to be constructed from balsa wood and duct tape, with propellers connected to what appeared to be the engines of a weed whacker. Brig. Imad Abdul Latif, director of the drone project, accused U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell of intentionally misleading the Security Council as to the purpose of the drone. “He’s making a big mistake,” Latif said. “He knows very well that this aircraft is not used for what he said,” Latif added (Niko Price, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 12). U-2 Flights The U-2 surveillance flights currently being carried out over Iraq as part of the inspections regime caused a minor crisis yesterday when two simultaneous flights raised concerns among Iraqi officials, who said they had not been properly informed, according to the Los Angeles Times (see GSN, Feb. 18). Iraq scrambled fighter aircraft to respond to the second U-2 flight, which was considered suspicious, according to U.S. sources. An Iraqi official in Baghdad said, however, that the second plane was only monitored and that Iraqi officials telephoned U.N. officials for clarification. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison to the inspectors, called the incident a “technical mistake” by the United Nations and said a U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission official in Baghdad had apologized. “He promised that the mistake would never be repeated,” Amin said. U.N. officials denied the apology, however, saying it was not necessary because there is no limit as to how many U-2 surveillance flights can occur at the same time (John Daniszewski, Los Angeles Times, March 12). Inspections U.N. inspectors have visited at least one suspect Iraqi site today, according to Reuters. Inspectors traveled to al-Taji to continue supervising the destruction of banned al-Samoud 2 missiles (see related GSN story, today; Reuters, March 12). Yesterday, inspectors traveled to at least eight suspect Iraqi sites, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency press release. UNMOVIC missile inspectors traveled to the Taji Technical Battalion and supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles. They also traveled to the Waziriyah plant and inventoried destroyed al-Samoud 2 components. UNMOVIC biological inspectors visited the Kerbala for Canning Foods Co. Ltd in Kerbala. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited three factories owned by the State Company for Battery Manufacturing — two located in Baghdad and one located west of Baghdad. Inspectors visited the Mosul branch of the Mesopotamia Seed Company, the IAEA release said. IAEA inspectors visited the Ur General Establishment, near Nasiriyah (IAEA release, March 11). For further information, see:
From March 12, 2003 issue.Iraq II: Negative Consequences of War Outweigh Positive Benefits, Report SaysBy Mike Nartker The report examines several scenarios each for both the favorable and negative consequences of a war with Iraq, but ultimately concludes that the potential negative security benefits of war and occupation outweigh the potential benefits. “On balance, quashing Iraq’s WMD ambitions by force is an unnecessary gamble whose probable benefits do not warrant taking the inherent risks,” the report says. “A more effective course of action for reducing mass-destruction terrorism and weapons threats would be to bolster existing constraints on Iraq’s WMD potential,” it adds. Potential Benefits The report details several scenarios examining potential positive and negative consequences of a war on Iraq (see GSN, Oct. 29, 2002). Monterey researcher Michael Barletta authored the report and based the scenarios on a number of underlying assumptions, including Iraq’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as delivery systems; a lack of Iraqi restraint in using such weapons; and an ultimate U.S. victory over Iraq should war occur. According to the report, the probable benefits of the defeat of Hussein include the fall of his regime, the capture and destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, the prevention of Iraq exporting WMD to other rogue states or terrorists groups, and the experience gained by U.S. troops by learning how to disrupt WMD attacks. In addition, a successful war with Iraq could result in possibly discovering and later destroying Iraqi smallpox stockpiles, relocating Iraqi WMD scientists to Western countries, and demonstrating the U.S. military’s ability to withstand WMD attacks, thereby dampening the interest of other countries to acquire WMD, according the report. It also says, however, that is unlikely that a war with Iraq could end state-sponsored terrorism or lead to other rogue states voluntarily ending their own WMD efforts. Possible Costs Despite such benefits, even a successful U.S. war with Iraq would have some negative consequences, according to the report. For example, North Korea would probably exploit the U.S. focus on Iraq to further expand its own nuclear capabilities, Iraqi WMD expertise and knowledge could leak into the hands of other rogue states and terrorist groups through a lack of centralized control and the scattering of Iraqi scientists seeking to avoid war crimes prosecution; Iraqi forces would probably use chemical and biological weapons to inflict at least limited casualties on U.S. troops, and a post-war Iraq would retain at least some WMD expertise and dual-use infrastructure. It is also possible, though not probable, that war with Iraq could spur Iraqi WMD attacks on Israel, the report says, adding that if such attacks were large enough, Israel could be forced to respond. The report also warns of post-conflict attacks on U.S. occupation troops, possibly with chemical and biological weapons, and the possibility that other rogue states might accelerate their own WMD programs over fears of potential U.S. pre-emptive attacks. The report does play down the possibility of some “nightmare” scenarios. These unlikely scenarios include a post-Hussein Iraq still armed with substantial quantities of WMD; other states, such as China or India, developing their own pre-emption doctrines; and U.S. or Israeli nuclear retaliation against Baghdad. Before launching an attack on Iraq, the United States needs to consider both the positive and negative consequences of such an attack, according to the report. It finds, however, that the “disastrous” negative security consequences tip the balance in favor for a more restrained approach. “In sum, the impending war is a risky venture,” the report says.
From March 12, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: Washington Sanctions Two Foreign EntitiesBy Mike Nartker The Indian company Protech Consultants Private, Ltd. and Jordanian national Mohammed al-Khatib were found in violation of the nonproliferation act for providing support to Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons efforts over the last few years, according to a U.S. State Department official. The sanctions, which took effect Feb. 13, prohibit the United States from purchasing goods from or providing an export license to the two entities for two years.
From March 12, 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, 2002. 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