|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Iraq I: Inspectors Brief Security Council; British Resolution Receives Underwhelming SupportIn a tense battle of wills in the U.N. Security Council today, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw introduced amendments to the U.S.-British-Spanish draft resolution on Iraq that would set a deadline “on or before” March 17 for Iraq to disarm or face military action. The original draft, introduced Feb. 24, would only have the council decide “that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it” to disarm, implying adoption of the resolution would immediately authorize the use of force (see GSN, March 6). The amendment was immediately rejected by French Foreign Minster Dominique de Villepin, the leading proponent of giving inspectors more time. “We won’t accept this resolution,” he told reporters minutes after Straw’s statement. “We cannot accept any ultimatum, any automatic use of force.” He said setting a deadline of only 10 days “is the logic of war, we don’t accept this logic.” While not explicitly saying France would veto the new draft, de Villepin said, “We would not accept a resolution that would lead to war.” The action came following the latest reports to the council from chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, who said Iraq was being more cooperative, if not fully cooperative, and that they had not unearthed evidence that Iraq had a functioning nuclear weapons program. Blix, chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, told the council, “After a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation there has been an acceleration of initiatives on the Iraqi side since the end of January” on revealing its programs of weapons of mass destruction, thus giving ammunition both to countries wanting to continue inspections as well as those who want to abandon inspections in favor of the use of force against Iraq. This new cooperation on Iraq’s part “is welcomed, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear,” said Blix. Iraqi initiatives “cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation, nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance,” but, he added, “they are nevertheless welcomed.” Blix gave indirect support to the position of France, Russia and Germany that inspectors should be allowed to continue their work until July when he said, “While cooperation can, and is to be, immediate, disarmament and verification of it cannot be instant … It will not take years nor weeks, but months.” The United States and United Kingdom argue that Iraq is not cooperating and thus inspections have run their course. Blix helped that case by saying the cooperation has not been “immediate and unconditional,” as called for in Resolution 1441, and that there are many questions regarding the fate of weapons Iraq was known to have at the end of the Gulf War, including anthrax and VX nerve gas, and that it is not known if Iraq resumed weapons programs after inspectors left at the end of 1998. On the other hand, Blix said UNMOVIC has found no evidence “so far” to back up two of the charges the United States has made against Iraq: that Iraq is developing biological weapons in mobile laboratories and that it is conducting illegal weapons production underground. Blix also told the council that UNMOVIC has completed a report that contains clusters of issues that “will identify ‘key remaining disarmament tasks’“ as called for in Resolution 1284, which created UNMOVIC. This cluster list will provide “a more up-to-date review of the outstanding issues” than earlier documents, he said. Each cluster ends “with a number of points indicating what Iraq could do to solve the issues. Hence Iraq’s cooperation could be measured against the successful resolution of issues,” said Blix, again reinforcing the case of those who say more time for inspections will achieve results. ElBaradei, executive director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the council, “After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.” While not able to completely close the books on Iraq’s nuclear program, ElBaradei said there is “no indication” that Iraq has resumed nuclear activities in buildings identified by national intelligence agencies as conducting such work, or that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990 or that the aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to import are, as the United States has said, useful for producing weapon-grade uranium. Powell Unconvinced Following the inspectors’ reports, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said there is “one, very important question before us: ‘Has the Iraqi regime made the fundamental strategic and political decision to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and rid itself of all of its weapons of mass destruction?’” He said he listened to the inspectors “very carefully to see if I were hearing that finally Iraq had reached that point,” but said Iraqi concessions had “been pulled out ... by the possibility of military force by the political will of the Security Council.” He added that cooperation has been given “only grudgingly, rarely unconditionally and primarily under the threat of force.” “Now is the time for the council to send a clear message to [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] that we have not been taken in by his transparent tactics,” Powell said. “We believe that the resolution that has been put forward for action by this council is appropriate and in the very near future, we should bring it before this council for a vote.” Powell called Blix’s cluster report “a category of 12 years of abject failure” by Iraq to disarm. It is “page after page of how Iraq has obstructed the inspectors,” he said. The actions asked of Iraq “could have taken many times over the preceding 12 years.” “How can we rely on assurances now?” he asked. If Iraq was committed to disarmament, the report “would not be 167 pages of issues and questions, it would thousands upon thousand of pages of answers.” Germany Responds Advocates of continuing inspections said there was no need to abandon inspections now that they were succeeding and when the alternative, the use of force, is attended by so many uncertainties. Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany, the first council member to speak this morning, said, “Given the current situation and the ongoing progress, we see no need for a second resolution. Why should we leave the path we have embarked on now that the inspections on the basis of Resolution 1441 are showing viable results?” “Iraq’s cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA does not yet fully meet U.N. demands,” Fischer said. “Baghdad could have taken many of the recent steps earlier and more willingly. In recent days, cooperation has nevertheless notably improved. This is a positive development which makes all the less comprehensible why this development should now be abandoned” (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, March 7). Bush Press Conference U.S. President George W. Bush said last night during a nationally televised press conference that the United States is ready to lead a war against Iraq without the support of the United Nations in order to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. “I’m confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don’t need United Nations approval to do so,” Bush said. “When it comes to our security, we really don’t need anybody’s permission,” he added. In his address, Bush warned that the U.N. Security Council’s reputation is at stake in the debate over Iraq. “I believe it’s an important moment for the Security Council, itself. And the reason I say that is because this issue has been before the Security Council — the issue of disarmament of Iraq – for 12 long years,” Bush said. “And the fundamental question facing the Security Council is, ‘Will its words mean anything?’ When the Security Council speaks, will the words have merit and weight?” he added. The United States has been working over the last few weeks to obtain the support of the nonpermanent members of the Security Council for the draft resolution. While there have been reports that the United States would not call for a vote on the resolution if it did not have guarantees of enough votes for passage, Bush said the Untied States would still push for a vote regardless of stated support (see GSN, Feb. 21). “No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council,” Bush said. “It’s time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam,” he added. Bush laid out several pieces of U.S. intelligence countering Hussein’s claims of disarmament. For example, while Iraq has been destroying its stockpile of prohibited al-Samoud 2 missiles, U.S. intelligence has found that Hussein has ordered their continued production, Bush said. Iraq has also attempted to hide its stockpiles of biological and chemical agents by moving them to different locations every 12 to 24 hours and by placing them within vehicles parked in residential areas, he said. “These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming,” Bush said. “These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world,” he added. Bush last night also promised that the United States would aid in the reconstruction of a post-Hussein Iraq in the event of war, including humanitarian assistance and aid in establishing a democratic government. “In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibility to protect innocent lives in every way possible,” Bush said. “We’ll help that nation to build a just government, after decades of brutal dictatorship. The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein,” he added (Mike Nartker, Global Security Newswire, March 7). Inspectors Not Receiving Best Intelligence, U.S. Senator Says The United States has withheld from U.N. inspectors most of its best intelligence information on Iraq’s suspected WMD sites, U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 28). “I think we have a strong case (for war) in the Security Council,” Levin said. “But the administration has undermined the inspection process and mocked the inspectors. We have reduced the possibility that we catch the SOB with the stuff and galvanize the world community,” he added. Former CIA counterterrorism official Vince Cannistraro said he agreed with Levin’s claims that the United States has not provided the best of its intelligence. This might have been done, however, because the White House has never wanted the inspections to succeed, he said. “The objective is not disarmament, it’s to get rid of Saddam. We won’t take yes for an answer on this,” Cannistraro said. In a letter sent yesterday to Levin and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), CIA Director George Tenet defended the U.S. information-sharing with inspectors, saying that U.S. agencies have given “extensive intelligence and other support to the U.N. on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction for over 10 years” (Dave Moniz, USA Today, March 7). Inspections U.N. inspectors visited at least 13 suspect Iraqi sites yesterday, according to an IAEA press release. Missile experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission traveled to al-Mutasim to observe the final concrete encasing of two destroyed casting chambers. UNMOVIC missile inspectors also visited the al-Samoud Factory to inventory al-Samoud 2 missile components. UNMOVIC biological inspectors traveled to al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range to take samples from excavated R-400 bombs. They also inspected two facilities near Aziziyah owned by the Mesopotamia State Company for Seeds. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors visited the Akashat Phosphate Mine in al-Qaim. Inspectors conducted aerial inspections of three undisclosed sites located in the northern no-fly zone, according to the IAEA release. Inspectors based in the northern city of Mosul visited the North Gas Company in Kirkuk. IAEA inspectors visited the SAAD State Company in Baghdad and conducted a review of a new factory the company is designing. IAEA inspectors also visited a private trading company in the Mansour district of Baghdad and conducted a radiation survey in north Baghdad (IAEA release, March 6). For further information, see:
From March 7, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: Pentagon Certifies Alabama Civil Support TeamThe U.S. Defense Department yesterday said it has certified the Alabama WMD civil support team, bringing the number of certified teams to 31 (see GSN, Feb. 6). 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 department has so far certified four out of the five civil support teams authorized in the fiscal 2001 National Defense Appropriations Act (U.S. Defense Department release, March 6).
From March 7, 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 6, 2003 issue.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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top