Iraq I:  Bush Gives Hussein 48 Hours to Leave Iraq or Face War

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons, Uday and Qusay, have 48 hours to step down from power and leave Iraq or face the threat of U.S. military action, U.S. President George W. Bush said last night (see GSN, March 18).

“All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end.  Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours,” Bush said in a televised address to the nation.  “Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing,” he said.

In his remarks, Bush indicated that previous U.N. resolutions gave the United States the legal authority to use force to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.  The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain yesterday withdrew a proposed resolution on Iraq from U.N. Security Council consideration.

“The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction,” Bush said.  “This is not a question of authority.  It is a question of will,” he said.

Bush also issued veiled criticism of France and Russia, two permanent Security Council members who had publicly indicated their intention to veto any resolution that could authorize military action.  British U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock yesterday cited France’s veto threat as one reason the resolution was withdrawn.

“These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it,” Bush said of the permanent Security Council members opposed to a new resolution, declining to name them.

Bush laid the blame for the failure to disarm Hussein on the Security Council itself.  “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities.  So we will rise to ours,” he said.

Noting that many people in Iraqi were able to hear his remarks through a translated broadcast, Bush promised the United States would provide humanitarian aid and help rebuild the post-Hussein Iraq.

“If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you,” Bush said in his remarks aimed at the Iraqi population.  “As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.  We will tear down the apparatus of terror, and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free,” he said.

Bush also warned Iraqi military and civilian personnel to not obey orders calling for the sabotage of oil facilities or the use of weapons of mass destruction, promising war crimes prosecutions for those who chose to do so.

“War crimes will be prosecuted.  War criminals will be punished,” Bush said.  “And it will be no defense to say ‘I was just following orders,’” he said (White House release, March 18).

Reaction on Capitol Hill

Members of Congress were mixed in their reactions to Bush’s speech, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) said that while he doubted Hussein would voluntarily leave Iraq, he praised Bush for “giving him this one last, clear option.”

Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said he was sure Bush would make a second address to the nation, “the going to war speech,” if Hussein did not step down.

The Bush administration is expected to send a request to Congress as early as Friday for as much as $90 billion to fund a war with Iraq, congressional and White House aides said. 

Representative John Lewis (D-Ga.) said that while he still opposed war, he would support U.S. troops.

“I am against the rush to war,” Lewis said in a statement.  “I believe that our president has an obligation to give diplomacy more time.  However, I will stand behind our troops regardless of what happens.  Our brave men and women positioned in the Persian Gulf deserve our unconditional support,” he added.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) offered harsh criticism for Bush, saying he failed “miserably” at diplomacy, resulting in war.

“I’m saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war,” Daschle said in a speech to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, “saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn’t create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country” (Shepard/Lindell, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 18).

Iraqi Response

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri yesterday rejected any idea that Hussein would go into exile and instead called for Bush to resign.

“He should go away from the presidency and let the Americans lead an ordinary life with other nations, not a life of aggression, a policy of aggression against other nations,” Sabri said prior to Bush’s speech.  “This policy has brought about disasters to the U.S.  So for the U.S. to live properly with the world and for the world nations to live in peace, this crazy man should go,” Sabri added (CNN.com, March 18),

Many analysts, and even some White House officials, have said it is highly unlikely that Hussein will choose to step down.

Instead, the Iraqi leader will probably attempt to hide in one of his many bunkers or in the home of an Iraqi family, officials and analysts said.  Hussein was reported to have used these two strategies during the 1991 Gulf War, according to the Boston Globe.  Even if the Iraqi security services turn against Hussein, he still might attempt to hide in one of the many bunkers unknown even to those closest to him, analysts said (Geneive Abdo, Boston Globe, March 18).

Blows to Blair

In the United Kingdom, three British ministers resigned yesterday over the apparent decision to go to war with Iraq without U.N. approval, according to the London Telegraph.

The first was former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, leader of the House of Commons.  In a statement last night, Cook said the United Kingdom was heading to war without international support and questioned the claims that Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction.

In his resignation letter, Cook praised British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “heroic” attempt to obtain a new resolution within the Security Council, saying it was not the British government’s fault that such an effort failed.

For his part, Blair said Cook had been a “good friend and colleague” and that he regretted that Cook would not be part of the government “that leads the country through this difficult and dangerous crisis” (George Jones, London Telegraph, March 18).

In addition to Cook, two other ministers have also resigned — Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, junior health minister; and John Denham, Home Office minister, according to the Telegraph.

“I’m under no illusion about the nature of the regime led by Saddam Hussein.  I recognize the tremendous efforts made by the prime minister and other ministers to try and secure a second resolution,” Lord Hunt said after his resignation.  “But I do not feel we are justified in taking pre-emptive action without broad international support, or the clear support of the British people.  I’m also concerned about the long-term consequences for international stability of such pre-emptive action,” he said (London Telegraph, March 18).

The British Parliament is expected to vote today on a resolution that would authorize the use of “all means necessary” to disarm Iraq.  As many as 160 of the 411 Labor Party members of Parliament, however, could choose to instead vote for an amendment that says there is no justification for war, according to the Globe and Mail.

“A large number of colleagues, many of whom loyally supported the government last time, are now deeply unhappy about what they see as Britain going to war without sufficient cause on the coattails of the United States, and without proper United Nations authorization,” said Chris Smith, a Labor member of Parliament and a war opponent (Alan Freeman, Globe and Mail, March 18).

French Reaction

France said today that the international community does not support the U.S. 48-hour deadline for Hussein to step down.

“This unilateral decision is contrary to the wishes of the Security Council and of the international community, who wish to pursue the disarmament of Iraq in accordance with (U.N.) resolution 1441,” said a statement released by the office of French President Jacques Chirac.  “Whatever the objective pursued, France recalls that only the Security Council has the authority to justify the use of force,” the statement said (Al-Bawaba, March 18).

Back to top

Iraq II:  U.N. Weapons Inspectors Begin to Withdraw

U.N weapons inspectors began leaving Iraq today over concerns that U.S.-led military action was imminent (see related GSN story, today).

About 80 of the 134 inspectors and support staff deployed in Iraq landed in Larnaca, Cyprus, which has been a base for the inspectors since November.  More inspectors were expected to arrive on a later flight, according to Reuters.

“It is unfortunate, but we have to leave.  It was a high-level decision,” said Hiro Ueki, spokesman for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).  “There is a sense of sadness that the job we came to complete was not completed.  It is a decision beyond our control,” Ueki added (Samia Nakhoul, Reuters, March 18).

A spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversaw nuclear inspections in Iraq, said the agency expects its inspectors to someday return.

“We expect that any new government (in Iraq) would also be a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said.  “We expect to be back, but when and under what circumstances, what terms, is not certain,” he said (Agence France-Presse, March 18).

Blix Presents “Key Disarmament Tasks” Report

As inspectors made their preparations yesterday to leave Iraq, UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix distributed to the Security Council his long-awaited report on Iraq’s “key remaining disarmament tasks.”

The report, mandated by Resolution 1284, lists the tasks under 12 headings, most of them dealing with fate of chemical and biological weapons agents Iraq was known to have before inspectors first left at the end of 1998.  Iraq maintains that these agents have been destroyed but UNMOVIC is demanding proof of this.

Blix’s proposed program of work would require Iraq to “present any remaining quantities” of anthrax, botulinum toxin, mustard gas, VX, sarin, binary agents or “credible evidence” that these agents have destroyed or spoiled.  Iraq would also be required to “present any remaining chemical and/or biological munitions, including aerial bombs, rockets or missile warheads, artillery shells, cluster munitions and fragmentation rounds.”

The report seeks that Iraq account for its research into producing Scuds and other long-range missiles, its import of missile fuel and to “explain with credible evidence which missile systems, and their specifications, it intended to be tested” at a major test site.  UNMOVIC also wants Iraq to explain the purposes of various programs for the production of unmanned drones.

The report is a distillation of a lengthy document Blix presented to the council on March 7.

Echoing an earlier statement to the council, Blix wrote that the time needed to complete this program of work “is months rather than weeks or years” assuming “a proactive Iraqi cooperation.”

German U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, one of the council’s key advocates of continuing inspections, said this morning, “it makes sense” to hear from Blix tomorrow because “the inspection system will remain and it might be useful in the future.”  The report “is going to be discussed in the council as it should be,” Pleuger said, adding that the Blix report is mandated by Resolution 1284 and the resolution “has not been repealed and cannot be repealed by things that are happening outside of the United Nations.”

“It is wrong to say diplomacy and the United Nations have failed because the United Nations and diplomacy have created the instruments to achieve the common goal of the peaceful disarmament of Iraq,” Pleuger added, referring to the inspections regime.

Germany and France had suggested the council meet tomorrow at the ministerial level to receive the new report.  At least six foreign ministers, including France and Germany, but not the United States, are planning to attend (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, March 18).

Kurds Flee to Avoid Chemical Weapons Attacks

Fearing retaliatory Iraqi chemical weapons attacks, Kurds in the northern section of the country have begun fleeing urban areas to seek shelter in mountain villages, according to the Boston Globe.

“We know what Saddam is capable of.  He is the most dangerous man in the world,” said Najat Shafiq Sadiq.

Rizgar Ali, governor of the Kurdish region, said he was frustrated that the United States had not provided the same kinds of protective equipment to the Kurds as it had to other allies in the Persian Gulf region.

“We should be angry with the Americans and the U.N. for this, for not providing gas masks or any other protection,” Ali said.  “We have been victims of this before, so why have they left us undefended?” he added (Charles Sennott, Boston Globe, March 18).

Inspections

U.N. inspectors visited three last suspect Iraqi sites yesterday, according to a U.N. press release.  Inspectors supervised the destruction of prohibited al-Samoud 2 missiles at al-Taji (see related GSN story, today).  They also visited the Tikrit Dairy Factory and al-Sina Center (U.N. release II, March 17).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

IAEA Iraq Action Team

U.N. Resolution 1441

Back to top

Israeli Response:  Israeli Residents Directed to Seal Rooms

The Israeli Home Front Command today urged Israeli residents to seal rooms to prepare for a possible chemical or biological attack from Iraq, Ha’aretz reported today (see GSN, March 4).

The probability of an Iraqi attack on Israel, however, is very low, according to Israeli intelligence reports.

The announcements came after much debate yesterday among senior officials.

“If this is how things are run before the campaign begins, I shudder to think what will happen in a real case if, heaven forbid, a missile does fall on us,” said a military source (Amos Harel, Ha’aretz, March 18).

Information for sealing rooms and guarding against attacks is available on the command’s Web site (Jerusalem Post, March 18).

Sealed Room Deaths

Meanwhile, a mother and two of her children suffocated when they slept in a sealed room adjacent to a coal-fueled heater, Israeli police reported yesterday.

Fearing Iraqi missile attacks, the family had begun routinely sleeping in a sealed room, a police spokesman said.

The family’s father and two other children survived (Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle, March 17).

Back to top

Iraq III:  Summary of Inspections

Experts 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.  Inspectors began withdrawing from the country today over concerns of an imminent U.S.-led attack.  The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ recently reported activities.

 

Date	Site	Activity
March 17	Al-Taji	UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles and related equipment (see GSN, March 18).
	Tikrit Dairy Factory	See GSN, March 18.
	Al-Sina Center
March 16	Al-Taji	UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles and related equipment (U.N. release, March 16).
	Al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range	UNMOVIC biological inspectors supervised the excavation of R-400 bombs (U.N. release, March 16).
	Al-Rashidiyah military stores	U.N. release, March 16.
	Technical Institute of Kerbala
	Kerbala Health Centre Respiratory and Chest Diseases Consultation Clinic
	Al-Habbaniyah and al-Fallujah Missile Facility
March 15	Taji Technical Battalion	UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles and related equipment (U.N. release, March 15).
	Al-Qaid Warhead Filling Plant of the al-Qa Qaa State Company	UNMOVIC missile inspectors placed tags on five al-Fatah warheads (U.N. release, March 15).
	Daura Oil Refinery	UNMOVIC chemical experts worked to identify the changes made to the site over the last four years (U.N. release, March 15).
	Al-Rhashidyah Military Store	U.N. release, March 15.
	Site in the area of Jabal Hamryn, north of Baghdad
	Large underground facility
	Daura SEHEE
	Tho al-Fekar Plant
	Area northwest of Baghdad	IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (U.N. release, March 15).
March 14	Taji Technical Battalion	UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles and related warheads (U.N. release, March 14).
	Al-Muthanna	Inspectors destroyed chemical waste left over at the site (U.N. release, March 14).
	Site west of the northern city of Mosul	Inspectors inspected a destroyed ballistic missile launcher (U.N. release, March 14).
	Northeast Baghdad	IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (U.N. release, March 14).
March 13	Fasten Frozen Foods Co. Ltd.	U.N. release, March 13.
	State Company for Canned Foods
	Al-Taji	UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles (see GSN, March 13).
March 7-12	See GSN, March 13

Back to top

From March 17, 2003 issue.

Iraq I:  U.S., U.K. End Diplomatic Efforts to Disarm Iraq

The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain announced today that they would not submit their draft resolution on Iraq for a vote in the U.N. Security Council, and the United Nations plans to withdraw all of its staff from Iraq beginning tomorrow, according to reports (see GSN, March 14).

France’s persistent threat to veto the resolution led to decision to hold no vote, British U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said.

“We have had to conclude that council consensus will not be possible,” he said.

John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said he believed a council vote on the resolution would have been “close.”

Soon after Negroponte and Greenstock spoke, French U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said that during individual consultations with council members during the previous several hours, “the majority of the council confirmed they do not want a use of force” (Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 17).

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said today U.S. President George W. Bush would speak tonight to demand that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, certain family members, and other senior Iraqi government officials leave Iraq or face a U.S.-led war.

Powell said Bush will issue “an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, that the only way to avoid the serious consequences that were built into Security Council 1441 is for Saddam Hussein and his immediate cohorts to leave the country and for this matter to be resolved through the peaceful entry of force and not conflict,” he said.

Powell said the United States believes it does not need a new resolution to conduct a war on Iraq, saying that Security Council Resolution 1441, which threatened “serious consequences” if Iraq did not give up suspected weapons of mass destruction, provides sufficient authority.

“We believe, and I think that you’ve also heard an opinion from British legal authorities within the last 24 hours that there is a sufficient authority in 1441, 678, and 687, earlier resolutions, for whatever military action might be required,” he said.

“We believe that our actions now are supported by international law, whatever actions we might take in the future, and the president will talk to this issue tonight,” Powell said.

“The resolution that we are not taking to a vote today is a resolution that we do not believe is necessary,” Powell said (David Ruppe, Global Security Newswire, March 17).

“Moment of Truth”

Today’s developments followed yesterday’s meeting of U.S., British, Spanish and Portuguese leaders in the Azores, where Bush said that today would be a “moment of truth” for the world to support the disarmament of Iraq.

“Many nations have voiced a commitment to peace and security,” Bush said, following the meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar and Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso.  “And now they must demonstrate that commitment to peace and security in the only effective way, by supporting the immediate and unconditional disarmament of Saddam Hussein,” Bush said.

Blair echoed the belief that time had run out for continued discussions concerning a new resolution on Iraq.

“The truth is that without a credible ultimatum authorizing force in the event of noncompliance, then more discussion is just more delay, with Saddam remaining armed with weapons of mass destruction and continuing a brutal, murderous regime in Iraq,” Blair said.

In his remarks, Bush outlined his vision for a post-Hussein Iraq, which included a “swift close” to the current sanctions imposed on the country.

“Iraq’s liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people,” Bush said.  “We will supply humanitarian relief, bring economic sanctions to a swift close, and work for the long-term recovery of Iraq’s economy.  We’ll make sure that Iraq’s natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the Iraqi people,” he added.

The United States will not be alone in rebuilding Iraq, Bush said.  “We’ll quickly seek new Security Council resolutions to encourage broad participation in the process of helping the Iraqi people to build a free Iraq,” he said (White House release, March 16).

Inspectors to Leave

Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council today that he has ordered all U.N. personnel to leave Iraq, following a U.S. recommendation (CNN, March 17).

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said today that he had received the suggestion from U.S. officials yesterday.

“Late last night … I was advised by the United States government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad.  Similar advice has been given to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC),” ElBaradei said in a statement.  “Naturally, the safety of our staff remains our primary consideration at this difficult time.  I earnestly hope — even at this late hour — that a peaceful resolution of the issue can be achieved, and that the world can be spared a war,” he said (Associated Press II/Yahoo.com, March 17).

U.N. inspectors are expected to begin pulling out, via air, tomorrow, according to CNN.  The process is expected to take one day (CNN, March 17).

The United Nations has about 135 staff inside Iraq, including 56 inspectors (CNN II, March 17).  Even before returning to Iraq, they developed contingency plans in the event of the need to evacuate, according to the Associated Press.

“A lot depends on the Iraqis,” a senior U.N. inspector said.  “If they let us use aircraft to get out, we could be gone in 48 hours or even less.  If they won’t let us fly out, we would have to drive to a border, and that could mean an eight-hour journey across hot desert.  It would take longer, but we would get out,” the inspector said (Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 17).

Already, five of the U.N.’s eight U.S.-supplied helicopters in Iraq have departed after their insurer canceled coverage, apparently because of the imminent conflict, according to the London Times.  Three Russian Mi-8 helicopters still remain for use in any future inspections, according to the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, the country’s liaison with the inspectors (James Bone, London Times, March 17).

The U.N. observers stationed in the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait have ceased all operations and have begun to withdraw, according to CNN.com.

Staff from the U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission began leaving their posts on both sides of the border today.  The withdrawal is expected to continue throughout today, mission spokesman Daljeet Bagga said (CNN.com, March 17).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

IAEA Iraq Action Team

U.N. Resolution 1441

Back to top

Iraq II:  Critics Say U.S Mistakes Led to Diplomacy Failure

Since President George W. Bush took office, his administration is seen as having made a series of diplomatic mistakes that have made a war in Iraq backed by only a few allies all but inevitable, the Washington Post reported yesterday (see related GSN story, today).

The seeds of the U.S. inability to reach a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis can be traced back almost to the day Bush took office, according to diplomats, analysts and some administration officials.  They highlighted Bush’s belief in the supremacy of U.S. power and his administration’s skepticism about international agreements and organizations as major causes.

Problems worsened, however, after a number of mistakes the White House made once it decided to seek U.N. approval for its position on Iraq, such as the poor diplomatic campaign the administration conducted, the officials said.  One of the biggest mistakes was the Bush administration’s apparent position that it would not be swayed from what many countries saw as a preset timetable for war, according to some U.N. Security Council members.

“Could we have done the diplomacy better?  Absolutely,” an administration official said.  “We were perceived as heavy-handed,” the official said (Kessler/Allen, Washington Post, March 16).

One of the hardest diplomatic battles the United States fought in its attempt to gain Security Council approval for military action was with its own ally France, another permanent council member and a staunch opponent of military action, according to the New York Times. 

Early in the crisis, France pushed for the Security Council to approve a proposal involving two resolutions — one calling on Iraq to disarm and a second that would authorize military action if Iraq failed to do so.  Many U.S. officials have now said, however, that France never intended to support military action.  For their part, French officials have said that the United States never intended to pursue a peaceful solution.

In the fall of last year, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was able to persuade Bush to support the French two-resolution proposal.  While many senior administration officials were skeptical, Powell attempted to convince them that once the process had been completed, France would see that inspections had failed and would then choose to support war, Bush administration officials said.

“Condi was the tipping factor," said an administration official, referring to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.  “Powell convinced her that the French would be with us.  It was wrong then, and it is wrong today,” the official added.

The apparent U.S.-French agreement on how to handle the Iraq situation started to fall apart in December of last year and ultimately collapsed by the end of January, according to U.S., French and U.N. diplomats.

One blow was when U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix began circulating among council members in mid-January a timetable for inspections, French officials said.  Blix proposed a timetable used by inspectors during the 1990s that established a step-by-step process that included the introduction of inspectors, establishing their infrastructure and a number of disarmament tasks that Iraq would need to complete, according to the Times.  These tasks were set to be listed on March 27.

The United States, however, objected to Blix’s timetable, the Times reported.  Senior U.S. officials, including John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the March 27 date was too long a delay.

“That was the moment of truth, when we suddenly realized we were going to war,” said a French official.

Another telling blow was dealt on Jan. 20, when Powell attended a Security Council session on terrorism headed by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, the Times reported.  After the meeting, de Villepin held a press conference where he said that “Nothing! Nothing!” would justify war with Iraq.  U.S. officials did not learn about the press conference, however, until the next day.

“We looked at each other and said, ‘What the hell is going on here?’” said an aide to Powell.  “I think it all started to come apart after that moment,” the aide added (Steven Weisman, New York Times, March 17).

The U.S. diplomatic campaign was also damaged by a number of disputed U.S. and British intelligence claims on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction efforts, according to analysts and some diplomats.

The biggest mistake was the U.S. claim, apparently supported by British intelligence, that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger.  The documents that purported to show such an attempt were later discovered to be forgeries.  A number of other U.S. claims, however, have also come under criticism from U.N. officials and diplomats, including Iraq’s purchases of high-strength aluminum tubes for use in a nuclear weapons program and the development of mobile biological laboratories.

Now, some at the Security Council question any U.S. claim regarding Iraq, according to the Boston Globe.

“When you hear anything that Iraq is not cooperating, I suggest you double-check it,” said Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations.

The doubt over U.S. intelligence is one reason why a number of Security Council members have come out in favor of “benchmarks” through which Iraq can show its compliance with inspections, diplomats said.

U.S. officials, however, have defended U.S. claims that Iraq has continued with its WMD efforts, calling for doubters to look at the totality of the evidence.

“Those points individually, even if all true, fall far short of exonerating the Iraqi regime,” an official said, referring to the disputed claims.  “We have reams and reams of documents on unaccounted-for biological or chemical materials,” the official added (Donnelly/Neuffer, Boston Globe, March 16).

Even with all the missteps, the United States still might have been able to obtain enough support for a second resolution authorizing military action if it had had more patience and willingness to address the concerns of other Security Council members, according to the Washington Post.

“The bottom line is the U.S. will not move,” a Security Council diplomat said.  “Even the French might move if there was something to move to,” the diplomat added.

Former U.S. officials also disapproved of the Bush administration’s tactics.

“They’ve used unilateral tactics with a multilateral strategy,” said a former senior official in President George H.W. Bush’s administration.  “If your strategy is to go for U.N. support, you need to use U.N. tactics,” the former official added.

Yet another complication was that while the United States attempted a diplomatic campaign, it also began preparing for military action, which led many diplomats to believe the United States was only attempting diplomacy as a cover, the Post reported.  Many countries believe the United States sabotaged the inspections process by arguing that its military buildup in the Persian Gulf region had gone too far for war to be avoided, according to the Post.

“Back in August, wittingly or unwittingly, the president accepted two totally incompatible strategies,” Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said (Kessler/Allen, Washington Post).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Pentagon Certifies Kansas Civil Support Team

The U.S. Defense Department Friday said it has certified the Kansas WMD civil support team, bringing the number of certified teams to 32 (see GSN, March 7).  The teams, part of states’ National Guard units, are ready to respond in the event of a domestic incident involving weapons of mass destruction, the Pentagon said (see GSN, Feb. 8, 2002).  The Kansas WMD civil support team is one of five such teams authorized in the fiscal 2001 National Defense Appropriations Act (U.S. Defense Department release, March 14).

Back to top

Iraq III:  Summary of Inspections

Experts 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 50 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.

 

Date	Site	Activity
March 15	Taji Technical Battalion	UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles and related equipment (U.N. release, March 15).
	Al-Qaid Warhead Filling Plant of the al-Qa Qaa State Company	UNMOVIC missile inspectors placed tags on five al-Fatah warheads (U.N. release, March 15).
	Daura Oil Refinery	UNMOVIC chemical experts worked to identify the changes made to the site over the last four years (U.N. release, March 15).
	Al-Rhashidyah Military Store	U.N. release, March 15.
	Site in the area of Jabal Hamryn, north of Baghdad
	Large underground facility
	Daura SEHEE
	Tho al-Fekar Plant
	Area northwest of Baghdad	IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (U.N. release, March 15).
March 14	Taji Technical Battalion	UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles and related warheads (U.N. release, March 14).
	Al-Muthanna	Inspectors destroyed chemical waste left over at the site (U.N. release, March 14).
	Site west of the northern city of Mosul	Inspectors inspected a destroyed ballistic missile launcher (U.N. release, March 14).
	Northeast Baghdad	IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (U.N. release, March 14).
March 13	Fasten Frozen Foods Co. Ltd.	U.N. release, March 13.
	State Company for Canned Foods
	Al-Taji	UNMOVIC missile inspectors supervised the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles (see GSN, March 13).
March 7-12	See GSN, March 13

Back to top

From March 14, 2003 issue.

Iraq I:  U.S., U.K., Spain To Hold Last-Ditch Meeting

U.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).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Small WMD-Agent Releases Could Cause Heavy Casualties in Iraq, Neighbors

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A fairly small release of Iraqi anthrax over Kuwait City or Baghdad could infect hundreds of thousands of people under certain conditions, according to computer models by a nonprofit research organization and described in a press briefing here yesterday.

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.

Back to top

Iraq I:  London Considers Dropping Deadline in Exchange for Benchmarks

The 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:

UNMOVIC

IAEA Iraq Action Team

U.N. Resolution 1441

Back to top

Iraq II:  Summary of Inspections

Experts 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.

Date	Site	Activity
March 13	Al-Taji