|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Iraq I: United Kingdom Seeks Compromise ResolutionThe United Kingdom has proposed compromise language for the latest draft resolution on Iraq that would give Baghdad more time to comply with inspections, diplomats said yesterday (see GSN, March 4). The main thrust of the British proposal is to provide about a week for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to comply once the resolution is adopted, diplomats said. The compromise language would permit a “last turn around for Iraq” and require Hussein to admit his country still possessed weapons of mass destruction, according to a diplomat. The British proposal would create a “space” between the adoption of the resolution and any military action against Iraq, according to Reuters. It is still unknown whether the British proposal would be incorporated into the current U.S.-British draft resolution or be issued separately, diplomats said. They noted that the United States opposes any change to the current draft resolution (Reuters/MSNBC.com, March 6). A U.S. official said yesterday, however, that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell might “noodle around” with some of the language in the draft resolution. The United States is not averse to having a deadline for Iraqi compliance included in the text, the U.S. official said. “We’re not there yet,” a second U.S. official said. “But there are always ideas,” the official added (CNN.com, March 6). The main purpose of the British proposal is to help increase support for a new resolution on Iraq among the still-undecided nonpermanent members of the U.N. Security Council, according to the London Times. “The theory that the U.S. has the nine votes, the Brits are not buying,” a Security Council diplomat said. “They are looking for a way out,” the diplomat added (London Times, March 6). British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons yesterday that he was confident that such support could be obtained. Blair’s confidence is based, in part, on reports from the undecided council members that they could be persuaded to support a resolution that allowed more time and set clear disarmament tests for Hussein, the London Guardian reported (London Guardian, March 6). France, Russia Harden Opposition Meanwhile, France and Russia reiterated yesterday their willingness to use their authority as permanent Security Council members to block any resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. After a meeting yesterday in Paris, the French, German and Russian foreign ministers issued a joint statement saying they would not “let a proposed resolution pass that would authorize the use of force.” The joint statement called for inspections to be accelerated and for inspectors to create a detailed plan to allow the Security Council to evaluate the pace and scale of Iraqi disarmament. Russia is making a principled stand through its opposition to war on Iraq, said Vladimir Lukin, deputy speaker of the lower house of the Russian Parliament. “There is a principle here, a basic principle, that if someone tries to wage war on their own account, without other states, without an international mandate, it means all the world is confusion and a wild jungle,” Lukin said (John Tagliabue, New York Times, March 6). Explicit Veto Threat France’s threat to use its veto against a draft Iraq resolution is more than just a show, according to the Baltimore Sun. In a meeting yesterday in The Hague with Dutch Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, French Ambassador to the Netherlands Anne Gazeau-Secret said explicitly that her country would use its veto, de Hoop Scheffer said. “I consider it a moment I will always remember,” said de Hoop Scheffer. “The message was that, ‘Yes, France would use its veto.’ She used the word ‘veto.’ I still try not to imagine that it could really happen. It would be historical. It would do great damage to the trans-Atlantic relationship and, I think, will be a real marker in history,” he added. Gazeau-Secret, along with German Ambassador to the Netherlands Edmund Duckwitz, did not ask de Hoop Scheffer during their meeting if the Netherlands would support their position, de Hoop Scheffer said. Instead, the French and German diplomats only appeared to want to make clear they “they were not bluffing,” he said. “I said, ‘You apparently have given up on a common European position,’” de Hoop Scheffer said. “I asked, ‘Do you really think that by threatening with a veto you’ll reach your objective of getting the American administration to wait months before a vote on another resolution?’ They simply stated their position again,” he added (Todd Richissin, Baltimore Sun, March 6). Blix Interview Meeting with U.N. journalists yesterday, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Iraq has improved its cooperation since he drafted the report he will offer tomorrow to the U.N. Security Council (see GSN, Feb. 28). In that report he writes, “Results in terms of disarmament have been very limited so far.” Blix told journalists yesterday, “Maybe I would not have written that sentence in light of what they have done subsequently,” a reference to the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles, the release of new documents, interviews with scientists and the digging up of R-400 shells, buried in 1991, that could contain biological weapons. Blix may also present a preliminary report tomorrow on the “key remaining disarmament tasks,” as required by Security Council Resolution 1284. U.N. inspection officials have been working on an internal document creating 29 “clusters” of outstanding questions concerning Iraq’s various weapons programs, Blix said. “This would indicate what we plan to do and what we would expect the Iraqis to do rather precisely,” he said. He plans, according to the timeline in Resolution 1284, to submit his final report on the remaining tasks by March 27, weeks after the controversy over the U.S.-British-Spanish draft resolution is likely to come to a head. Blix said disarmament was proceeding in varying degrees. The destruction of the al-Samoud 2 missiles, which began on Saturday, is “real disarmament,” with “weapons that can be used in war” being “destroyed in fairly large quantities.” He also welcomed an Iraqi initiative of digging up the R-400 gravity bombs to prove they are not hiding the weapons. Blix said UNMOVIC has carried out seven “interviews completely on our terms,” meaning without minders or tape recorders. “We are not naive,” he added, referring to the impossibility of knowing whether rooms have been bugged or scientists have carried hidden tape recorders. Nevertheless, he said, inspectors have been getting “interesting results,” such as the names of people involved in the alleged destruction of chemical and biological weapons in 1991. The claim by Iraq that it poured into the ground prohibited weapons after the Gulf War has become a focus of UNMOVIC’s work. Iraq admitted to having quantities of agents including anthrax and VX nerve gas, but claims it destroyed the weapons without international supervision. “The big problem is that they claim they destroyed everything unilaterally in 1991,” said Blix. “It has been difficult to establish and get evidence of that contention.” Blix said the destruction Iraq claims would be “actual disarmament, if it took place.” Iraqi officials say it is possible to test the soil in the area to verify their claims. While welcoming these efforts, Blix said U.N. “experts are somewhat skeptical” about proving the destruction took place and about measuring the quantities that might have been destroyed. Blix said UNMOVIC and Iraqi authorities are working on ideas including closer examinations of facilities that could produce both civilian and military items and road checks around the country to seek mobile biological weapons laboratories the United States says exist. Blix said Iraq’s cooperation is “clearly motivated by the threats around them. ... I hope it is not too late” (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire). Powell Criticizes Iraqi Compliance In a speech yesterday, Powell released new U.S. intelligence information that he said contradicted claims made by U.N. inspectors that Iraq has increased its compliance. For example, while inspectors were overseeing the destruction of banned al-Samoud 2 missiles, U.S. intelligence had discovered that Iraq had begun to hide machinery that could “convert other kinds of engines” to power the same rockets, Powell said. While U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday that Iraq had begun to allow inspectors to conduct private interviews with Iraqi scientists, Powell said Iraq had bugged the interview locations or the scientists themselves. “The inspectors are very, very dedicated professionals,” Powell said during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “These are terrific people,” he said, adding that any inadequacy of the inspections was not “any fault of theirs.” The focus on various aspects of the inspection process, however, has distracted attention from the real issue — whether Iraq is complying fully with inspections and whether it has revealed all of its WMD efforts, Powell said. “Has Saddam Hussein made a strategic, political decision to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions?” Powell asked. “That’s the question. There is no other question. Everything else is secondary or tertiary. That’s the issue,” he said (Weisman/Barringer, New York Times, March 6). United States Boots Iraqi Diplomats In New York, the United States has expelled two members of the Iraqi mission to the United Nations for conducting inappropriate activities. Nazih Abdullatif Rahman and Yehia Naeem Suaoud have been asked to leave the United States by midnight tomorrow, according to Reuters. “The two attaches were engaged in activities outside the scope of their official functions. Federal law enforcement authorities deemed the activities to be harmful to our national security,” the U.S. State Department said in a statement. Iraq’s U.N. Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri defended the two men, saying they were only security guards. “They (U.S. officials) are always talking about their activities being in contradiction of their diplomatic duties, but they are inside the mission all of the time and how do they have the time to do this?” al-Douri said (Reuters, March 6). The United States has also asked about 60 countries to expel select Iraqi residents who could be possible agents preparing to attack U.S. interests, officials said. The United States has identified about 300 Iraqi people, some working as diplomats in Iraqi embassies, in 60 countries that it wants expelled, U.S. officials said. They added that the countries are expected to comply with the U.S. request (George Gedda, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 6). United Nations U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday denied recent media reports that the United Nations had begun developing plans for administering a post-Hussein Iraq, saying the United Nations has “no mandate to make these plans.” “There is no U.N. plan for managing or administering Iraq,” Annan said. “There is some preliminary thinking but there is no plan and no document,” he said. What the United Nations has been doing is preparing to help deal with the humanitarian situation likely to arise after an attack on Iraq, Annan said. “We have been doing lots of good work and contingency planning for the humanitarian aspects and obviously some preliminary thinking on what would happen if there were to be war and the other aspects of post-conflict Iraq,” he said (U.N. release, March 5). To help prepare for a possible humanitarian crisis following a war with Iraq, the Bush administration is preparing to ask the Security Council to transfer control of Iraq’s purchases of food and supplies from Baghdad to the United Nations. White House military and civilian agencies have begun to arrange deliveries of food and medicine to Iraq under the assumption that existing networks could be disrupted during war, according to the Washington Post. To prevent delays of such deliveries, U.S. and British officials want the United Nations to take control of the spending of Iraq’s oil revenue, the Post reported. The proposed resolution transferring spending authority to the United Nations is being designed to include “absolutely nothing controversial,” a U.S. official said. The resolution would cover financial arrangements, increase the number of border crossings for humanitarian shipments and modify U.N. monitoring (Peter Slevin, Washington Post, March 6). Inspections U.N. inspectors traveled to al-Taji today to continue supervising the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles, an Iraqi official said (see related GSN story, today; Reuters, March 6). Yesterday, inspectors visited at least eight suspect Iraqi sites, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency press release. Chemical experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission inspected two plants at al-Qa Qaa complex. UNMOVIC biological inspectors traveled to the Bashair Trading Company in Baghdad to assess the site’s involvement in Iraq obtaining mobile biological laboratories. They also inspected the Samarra East Airfield. Inspectors based in Mosul traveled to Salahaddin University in Irbil. Inspectors also went to the Mosul Gas Electric Company. IAEA inspectors visited two sites in central Baghdad — a state-owned trading company and the computer center of a state-owned bank. IAEA inspectors also conducted a radiation survey in an area southeast of Baghdad (IAEA release, March 5). For further information, see:
From March 6, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: Commerce Control List Changes Take EffectA federal rule implementing changes to the U.S. Commerce Control List on dual-use goods and technologies took effect yesterday (see GSN, March 6, 2002). The changes revise list entries controlled for national security reasons in several categories as determined by the Wassenaar List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (see GSN, Dec. 30, 2002). The affected categories of goods and technologies include materials processing, electronics, computers, telecommunications and sensors and lasers. The changes to the list were necessary to implement changes to the Wassenaar List that were finalized in May 2002 (Federal Register, March 5). For further information, see: Wassenaar Arrangement Web site
From March 6, 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 5, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: Experts Debate Bush’s Controversial Nonproliferation StrategyBy David Ruppe Administration actions implementing the strategy include but are not limited to: declaring Iran, Iraq and North Korea to be an “axis of evil” (see GSN, Jan. 30, 2002), calling for an expanded justification for pre-emptive war (see GSN, July 15, 2002), abandoning of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and pursuing national missile defenses (see GSN, June 13, 2002), opposing ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (see GSN, July 31, 2002), and interest in possibly developing and using new nuclear weapons (see GSN, Feb. 19). Various elements of the Bush WMD nonproliferation strategy — which experts generally agree prioritizes the prospect of military solutions over traditional instruments of arms control and nonproliferation — were publicly disclosed last year in several administration policy documents, as well as in policy statements by President George W. Bush. A debate among experts is now growing about the strategy’s wisdom, as it is put to the test with escalating crises in Iraq and North Korea. Critics charge the new approach to combating proliferation is self-defeating, potentially hastening the very behavior it is intended to curb. “Even if U.S. forces succeed quickly in separating [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] from his weapons of mass destruction, the war could accelerate proliferation,” wrote Michael Krepon of the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington in a recent article. Other states may feel threatened by the potential use of force against them as a disarmament tool and conclude that weapons of mass destruction are an effective deterrent, Krepon wrote. Administration officials and supporters, on the other hand, have argued Iraq must be disarmed by the prospect of force if necessary before it acquires nuclear capability or shares its most dangerous weapons with terrorists. They have asserted, further, that success in Iraq would discourage other potential proliferators by making clear that the United States will not tolerate WMD proliferation. “In the post-Cold War era, otherwise insignificant nations, or even terrorist groups, can vault onto the world stage with readily available technology. That’s why in today’s ugly world the United States needs to be prepared with a tough, effective array of military options — including nuclear options — and plans for their employment to deter, if possible, or to defeat, if necessary,” wrote David Smith, an analyst with the National Institute for Public Policy, in a recent opinion piece. Emphasis on Force The Bush administration strategy has numerous aspects, including an increasing priority placed on “counterproliferation” — the threat and use of U.S. military capabilities to address WMD proliferation — relative to diplomatic, economic, and political tools. While previous administrations have always kept the option of employing preventive war potential enemies, the Bush administration has elevated that tool into a core element of U.S. security strategy and its approach toward Iraq. “Our enemies are seeking weapons of mass destruction. America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed,” said the administration’s September 2002 National Security Strategy. Specific counterproliferation tools could include developing and using nuclear weapons to deter other countries from acquiring or using chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and to strike such enemy weapons buried deeply underground. Another facet of counterproliferation includes developing missile defenses, not just for defense, but also to “preserve U.S. freedom of action, and strengthen the credibility of U.S. alliance commitments,” according to the administration’s January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review. As the role of military solutions is enhanced, traditional U.S. nonproliferation strategies have been downgraded, including arms control agreements, and application of the concepts of strategic containment and mutually assured destruction. The Bush administration over the past year has controversially sought to remove, weaken, or prevent arms control pacts that might compromise U.S. counterproliferation capabilities. The United States, for example, withdrew from the ABM Treaty in June and refuses to ratify the nuclear test ban treaty. Bush emphasized his approach in a major policy speech at West Point last June. “We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key capabilities — detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities — are integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security systems. Approach Called Self Defeating Critics have charged the strategy’s various components may transform the international security system in many negative ways. The strategy could, they say, loosen international standards for using force, undermine the authority of the United Nations in deciding when force is acceptable, weaken the international taboo against renouncing international treaty commitments, and undermine norms prohibiting the development and use of nuclear weapons. North Korea has been cited as an example of the Bush administration’s strategy possibly backfiring. Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty earlier this year and is apparently accelerating its nuclear weapons development activities while citing a growing threat from the United States. “The way they’re committing counterproliferation is actually a stimulus to proliferation,” says Martin Butcher, an analyst with Physicians for Social Responsibility. Nonproliferation “has suffered severe setbacks over the past decade,” wrote the Stimson Center’s Krepon. “The Bush administration inherited this mess, and promptly made it worse by denigrating treaties, deterrence, export controls and multilateral diplomacy,” he wrote. Smith says proliferation occurred even when the United States did not play that role and cannot be pinned on Bush’s approach to dealing with it. “Why are we having this discussion? Because the nonproliferation regime has been undermined. … Then poor George Bush comes to office and hears, ‘Look what you’ve done with your new doctrine here.’ I think it’s just disingenuous. He’s got to do absolutely nothing with it. He’s looking at the situation as it is and trying to deal with it,” Smith said.Application of the strategy places the United States in the role of a global hegemon, wrote Yale professor John Lewis Gaddis last year, in an article praising the policy. “Pre-emption in turn requires hegemony,” he wrote, and cited the administration’s National Security Strategy goal of having U.S. forces “strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.” Krepon contends hegemony, though perhaps intended to discourage proliferation, actually encourages it. “I think the counter to a hegemon is proliferation, and we’re seeing that happen,” he said. Gaddis and others say the international community has generally accepted U.S. hegemony, viewing it as “relatively benign.” Krepon says the pre-emption policy, however, has precipitated reactions abroad and at home that are undermining U.S. efforts to gain international support. “This is not something that has gone down very well internationally and it is not something that the American public feels terribly good about. It’s very hard in a democracy to get consensual agreement on waging a preventive war, even after 9/11. And it’s 15 times harder to do this in the U.N. Security Council,” he said. “The controversy in this area stems in part from the way in which the possibility of pre-emptive or preventative attack outside the confines of war undermines traditional notions of international sovereignty,” says Butcher. Smith acknowledges the dissatisfaction but contends the alternative is to continue to pursue strategies that have been proven ineffective. “What’s being tested here, the Bush doctrine or the United Nations? The real issue here is the people who have been criticizing us don’t take responsibility for their own words,” he said. New Era Requires New Strategy Advocates of the Bush strategy contend changes in the international system since the Cold War have brought new types of security challenges that warrant a new approach to international security. Administration officials have made a key assertion that unlike the former Soviet Union, some countries — particularly Iran, Iraq and North Korea — cannot be deterred by the massive U.S. nuclear and conventional superiority from attempting, or perhaps from cooperating with terrorists, to destroy the United States. “Some states” in the international community seek weapons of mass destruction not for deterrence, but “as tools of coercion and intimidation,” said the administration’s December 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. “For them, these are not weapons of last resort, but militarily useful weapons of choice intended to overcome our nation’s advantages in conventional forces and to deter us from responding to aggression against our friends and allies in regions of vital interest,” it said. Critics of the administration’s strategy disagree that countries such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea cannot be deterred, arguing that Iraq was successfully deterred from using weapons of mass destruction during the 1991 Gulf War. They contend, furthermore, that threatening such countries with a pre-emptive, regime-ending attack, will encourage the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. A new approach to nonproliferation is therefore required to match the times. We need a new strategy to deal with proliferation and terrorism “that is not dominated by military strategy, but rather by what [Harvard University international security expert] Joseph Nye has described as ‘soft power,’ that is built around the economic and diplomatic strength of the United States and our allies,” Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, said recently. It is doubtful, however, that the Bush administration would adopt such a strategy. “There is no such soft power strategy in evidence so far that really could compete persuasively in a coherent way with the military strategy that’s been promoted as the solution to proliferation and terrorism,” Blair said.
From March 5, 2003 issue.Iraq I: Blix Likely to Present Negative Report on CooperationU.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix will probably present a negative report on Iraq’s cooperation with inspections when he briefs the U.N. Security Council Friday, a senior U.N. official said yesterday (see GSN, March 4). During his report to the council, Blix is expected to say that Iraq typically increases its cooperation with inspectors only when pressured by the Security Council, the senior U.N. official said. As such pressure later decreases, so does Iraqi cooperation, the official said. “They are still not open,” the senior U.N. official said. “There is always an element of trying to bargain down,” the official added (Suzanne Goldenberg, London Guardian, March 5). Blix’s briefing is also expected to note that Iraq has begun to destroy its arsenal of al-Samoud 2 ballistic missiles, according to United Press International. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called the Iraqi action a “positive development” (see related GSN story, today). “I think Blix has indicated a positive development,” Annan said. “He has indicated there is much more to be done, but this is a positive development,” he added. Iraq’s decision to abide by the U.N. order to destroy the missiles will not be the only aspect of Iraqi cooperation that the Security Council members will consider as they decide whether to authorize military action, Annan said. “I think the council’s decision will be based on the totality of the presentation by the inspectors and the information they have in front of them,” Annan said. “Let’s not forget that in accordance with Resolution 1441 (unanimously approved Nov. 8, 2002) the council has the right to declare further material breach at any time based on the reports of the inspectors and then move on to ‘serious consequences,’” he added, referring to the resolution that established the current inspections regime. Both France and Germany announced yesterday that their foreign ministers would attend Friday’s Security Council briefing. Other council members said they were still awaiting notice from their respective governments as to whether their foreign ministers would also attend (William Reilly, United Press International, March 4). Shuttle Diplomacy Meanwhile, leaders from Security Council nations have continued to meet amongst themselves to seek a solution to the Iraq crisis, according to reports. British Prime Minister Tony Blair met today with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov to dissuade Russia from vetoing the latest draft resolution on Iraq, according to CNN.com. Ivanov said yesterday that Russia would not abstain on a future vote over the draft resolution, but he did not indicate whether Moscow would support or veto it. “The Iraq question is precisely that sort of question when permanent members of the Security Council should not abstain,” Ivanov said (CNN.com, March 5). Ivanov, along with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fisher and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin are expected to convene a quickly scheduled meeting today in Paris, a German Foreign Ministry spokesman said. The three officials are expected to discuss international developments at the meeting, the spokesman said, refusing to provide more details (John Leicester, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 5). Elsewhere, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference met in Qatar today to discuss the Iraq situation. Muslim officials at the meeting could discuss several proposals put forward by various Islamic countries to avert a U.S.-led attack on Iraq. One such proposal, created by United Arab Emirates President Zayid bin Sultan al-Nuhayyan, calls for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to voluntarily step down from power and go into exile, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Feb. 12). During the meeting, Kuwait offered support for the UAE proposal. “Kuwait ... calls on the Iraqi leadership to think in depth about offering the ultimate sacrifices,” Kuwaiti Foreign Affairs Minister Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah said during the conference’s opening session. Iran has also made a proposal, calling on both Hussein and Iraqi opposition groups to participate in U.N.-sponsored elections. An Iranian diplomat at the meeting did not say today whether the proposal would be discussed. “We believe that the initiative has a good chance to succeed because it is different from the U.A.E. initiative as it allows the regime to stay in power, but with national reconciliation,” the Iranian diplomat said. The conference got off to an inauspicious start with a vitriolic exchange between Iraqi and Kuwaiti officials, according to AP. During a speech by Iraqi Vice President Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, criticizing al-Sabah for supporting the United States, the Kuwaiti official interrupted with an inaudible remark. At that point, al-Douri responded with “Shut up you monkey! Curse be upon your moustache (honor), you traitor!” The exchange escalated when Kuwaiti Information Minister Ahmad Fahd al-Ahmad rose to his feet and began waving a small Kuwaiti flag that had been on the desk, AP reported. “The Iraqis always behave like this,” he later said. Iraqi officials briefly stormed out of the meeting, but returned within an hour after mediation by Qatari delegates (Salah Nasrawi, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 5). The Bush administration rejected yesterday an argument put forth by Pope John Paul II that there is no moral justification for pre-emptive action against Iraq. The pope has called such a pre-emptive war a “defeat for humanity.” U.S. President George W. Bush, however, does see the use of military action as a “matter of legality” and respects the opinions of those who might differ from him, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said yesterday. “The president thinks the most immoral act of all would be if Saddam Hussein would somehow transfer his weapons to terrorists who could use them against us,” Fleischer said. “And so, the president does view the use of force as a matter of legality, as a matter of morality and as a matter of protecting the American people,” he added (Associated Press/Boston Globe, March 5). War and Post-War Plans A new U.S.-led attack on Iraq would have little in common with the 1991 Gulf War — the last time the two countries faced off on the battlefield, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 21). While in 1991 U.S. forces conducted a prolonged bombing campaign followed by a relatively short ground operation, a new attack places a high priority on speed and the massive and early use of precision-guided weapons, Myers said. “The template of Desert Storm will not fit very well,” Myers said. “What you would like to do is have it be a short conflict ... The best way to do that is to have such a shock on the system that the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on that the end is inevitable,” he added. The purpose of any potential attack on Iraq, however, is not to seek regime change, Myers said. “The ultimate objective is not Saddam Hussein,” but instead, to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, he said (Ann Scott Tyson, Christian Science Monitor, March 5). The United Nations has begun drafting plans for a post-Hussein Iraq — a move that could be in violation of the international body’s own charter, according to the London Times. The plan, ordered by Annan’s deputy Louise Frechette and created by a six-member preplanning group, calls for the United Nations to establish a new government in Iraq about three months after the end of conflict, with an ultimate goal of steering the country to self-government, the Times reported. The plan also warns the United Nations against establishing a full-scale administration and against taking full control of the country’s oil supply. Instead, the plan proposes that a U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) be created to help set up a new government, according to the Times. The U.N. planning for a post-Hussein Iraq is a controversial gesture, according to the Times. The U.N. charter forbids the international body from interfering in a member’s internal affairs (James Bone, London Times, March 5). Inspections U.N. inspectors visited at least three suspect Iraqi sites today, according to the Associated Press. Inspectors traveled to al-Taji to continue to observe the destruction of prohibited al-Samoud 2 missiles. They also traveled to al- Mutasim, where al-Samoud 2 engines and casting chambers have been destroyed. Inspectors traveled to al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range, where Iraqi workers have excavated bombs filled with biological agents (Associated Press/MSNBC.com, March 5). Yesterday, inspectors traveled to at least six Iraqi sites, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency press release. Missile experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission observed the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles at al-Taji. They also observed the destruction of a second casting chamber at al-Mutasim. UNMOVIC biological inspectors visited the Ibn Fernas Center in northern Baghdad. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited al-Basil Nawaran. Inspectors also conducted an aerial inspection of a North Oil Company-owned oilfield in the northern city of Kirkuk. Inspectors based in the northern city of Mosul visited the Northern Region Customs (IAEA release, March 4). For further information, see:
From March 5, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: U.S. Official Acknowledges Threat Reduction Problems, Defends ProgramBy David Ruppe The U.S. taxpayer funded program helps fund efforts to safeguard Russian WMD stockpiles and materials. Assistant Secretary of Defense J.D. Crouch, appearing before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday, was responding to information disclosed by its chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) that two major projects spent a total of at least $185 million for neutralizing Russian strategic rocket fuel that produced no results. In one instance, the $100 million was spent to construct a facility at Krasnoyarsk for neutralizing the fuel, heptyl, but then Russian government officials informed that the fuel had been transferred to their space program. In another instance, according to Hunter, about $84 million provided for site development for a facility at another site in Votkinsk was “wasted” because the local planning authority never issued a permit for the site. “These are remarkable stories of massive waste of American taxpayer dollars,” said Hunter. A Pentagon Inspector General’s office investigation found that the U.S. agreements with Russia “did not require Russia to provide the heptyl and amyl for conversion, including remedies for nonperformance, and did not provide the department with adequate access rights to where the heptyl and amyl were stored,” said an official testifying from that office. The General Accounting Office also yesterday released a report saying the program continues to be hindered by bureaucratic obstacles in both Moscow and Washington. “U.S. threat reduction and nonproliferation programs have consistently faced two critical challenges,” said a GAO official, adding, “the Russian government has not always paid its agreed-upon share of program costs” and “Russian ministries have often denied U.S. officials access to key nuclear and biological sites.” Wake-up Call Crouch acknowledged the incidents. “The year since the last time I testified to Congress on CTR has been a difficult one for the program,” he said. He told Hunter his description of the Krasnoyarsk incident was “on the mark.” The waste, he said, was “inexcusable. This was a major wake-up call for us.” He said the agency is implementing now semi-annual reviews with Russia to re-evaluate project plans, assumptions and schedules. Defending the program, he said, “The U.S., I think, does have a continuing interest in speeding the destruction of Russia’s mobile ICBM’s, and that interest remains.” He also said the administration was requesting a presidential authority to use up to $50 million of threat reduction funding for use to address “critical” proliferation threats outside the former Soviet Union. Concerns About Russian Treaty Violations Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Paula DeSutter, also at the hearing, said her office remained concerned Russia that might be violating its 1972 Biological Weapons Convention commitment to eliminate its biological weapons programs and early its 1990s commitment to eliminate chemical weapons stocks and programs. While elements of its biological programs have been dismantled, she said, “We … believe that some key components of the former program may remain intact.” “Of particular concern is the possibility that some facilities, in addition to being engaged in legitimate activity, may be maintaining the capability to produce biological weapons and agents,” she said. She said the Untied States requires “greater access to and implementation of elimination of the biological weapons program.” Despite recent steps to strengthen its chemical weapons destruction program, she said, “progress has been slow, however, and Russia has had to request extensions on it chemical weapons destruction deadlines.” Russia also, so far, has only allowed U.S. visits to sites of declared stocks, and it continues to change its assessment of total nerve agent stocks, she said.
From March 5, 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 4, 2003 issue.Iraq I: U.S., U.K. Look for U.N. Resolution Vote by End of Next WeekThe United States and the United Kingdom have decided that a vote on their latest draft U.N. resolution on Iraq should occur by the end of next week, but the two countries will not push for such a vote unless they are confident the draft resolution will receive the nine votes it needs to pass, U.S and diplomatic officials said yesterday (see GSN, March 3). President George W. Bush said in late January that “this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said yesterday. “Nothing has changed that timetable,” Fleischer said. The impending Security Council briefing by U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, scheduled for Friday, is seen as the beginning of the final debate period over the draft resolution and the ultimate use of force against Iraq, officials said. “I think that … meeting will mark the final open break between council members,” a Security Council ambassador said. The United States believes that Russia and China, two permanent council members that oppose the use of force against Iraq, will abstain rather than veto a new resolution, leaving only France, according to the Washington Post. If the United States and the United Kingdom can round up the necessary nine votes among the nonpermanent members, and assure the Russian and Chinese abstentions, then a vote might be held by the end of next week, even under the threat of a French veto, U.S. and diplomatic officials said. “We could let them veto it and then turn on them,” an official said. If nine votes cannot be guaranteed, however, “then there will be no vote,” the official added. In his report to the Security Council Friday, Blix is expected to say that Iraq has still not made a full commitment to disarm, but it has made some progress, such as beginning to destroy its prohibited al-Samoud 2 missiles, according to the Post (see related GSN story, today; Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, March 4). The White House yesterday criticized Iraq’s new cooperation efforts, however, suggesting they were “the mother of all distractions.” While the United Nations has praised Iraq for agreeing to destroy its al-Samoud 2 missiles, the Bush administration said that, by doing so, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was admitting to lying in the declaration Iraq provided the United Nations in December concerning its WMD efforts. “Here’s the Catch-22 that Saddam Hussein has put himself in," Fleischer said yesterday. “He denied he had these weapons, and then he destroys things he says he never had. If he lies about never having them, how can you trust him when he says he has destroyed them?” Fleischer added. The White House also appeared unimpressed with Iraq’s pledge to provide a new report soon to inspectors on the destruction of its stockpiles of VX and anthrax, according to the New York Times. “How do you know this is not the mother of all distractions, diversions, so the world looks in one place while he buries them in another?” Fleischer asked (Sanger/Shanker, New York Times, March 4). The 10 nonpermanent Security Council members yesterday met with Canadian U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker to discuss a his proposed compromise between those pushing for military action against Iraq and those calling for an extension to the inspections process (see GSN, Feb. 27). The Canadian proposal calls for the Security Council to authorize military action against Iraq at the end of March if Baghdad was found to be still not complying with inspections, according to United Press International. The proposal also includes a timeline for continued, enhanced inspections if inspectors reported “substantial Iraqi compliance” by March 28. While there was division among the 10 nonpermanent council members over the Canadian proposal, there were no negative comments, Heinbecker said. “We’ve been offering ideas and I think it has been appreciated,” Heinbecker said. “Whether or not there will be a sufficient agreement even among the elected members to take the issue forward is for them to answer,” he added (William Reilly, United Press International, March 3). Some council diplomats indicated that the Canadian proposal represented the best chance to maintain some sort of Security Council unity on the Iraq issue, according to the Globe and Mail. “If you want to obtain some sense of agreement … you would have to look at the Canadian alternative, probably in a modified way,” said Deputy Chilean U.N. Ambassador Cristian Maquieira (Paul Knox, Globe and Mail, March 4). U.S. Spying Controversy Meanwhile, Security Council diplomats yesterday were unimpressed by recent reports of a U.S. National Security Agency memo that ordered an increase of surveillance on them to help determine how they might vote on the new U.N. resolution on Iraq, according to the Washington Post. “The fact is, this sort of thing goes with the territory,” said Pakistani U.N. Ambassador Munir Akram. “You’d have to be very naive to be surprised,” Akram added. Espionage is consi | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top