Iraq I:  Iraqi “Intellectual Capacity” Justified War, Official Says

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Iraqi “intellectual capacity” for producing unconventional weapons was sufficient justification for the successful U.S.-led war against the country, a senior Bush administration official said today, addressing criticism that U.S. forces so far have found no illicit weapons there.

In the past year, the administration repeatedly charged Iraq with concealing stocks of chemical and biological weapons — and a nuclear program too — and used those allegations to provide the central justification for the war.

The official, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, spoke here at a luncheon hosted by the National Defense University Foundation.

Explicitly addressing the lack of WMD stocks found in Iraq so far, Bolton said, “There has been a lot of misunderstanding as to exactly what it was we expected to find and when we expected to find it.”

Since the first Gulf War, he said, “The most fundamental, most important thing that was not destroyed [by international weapons inspectors] was the intellectual capacity in Iraq to recreate systems of weapons of mass destruction.”

Bolton said U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors “could have inspected for years and years and years and probably never would have found weapons-grade plutonium or weapons-grade uranium.”

“But right in front of them was the continued existence of what Saddam Hussein called the ‘nuclear mujahadeen,’ the thousand or so scientists, technicians, people who have in their own heads and in their files the intellectual property necessary at an appropriate time … to recreate a nuclear weapons program.”

Bolton said the United States was justified in attacking Iraq because of that alleged capacity.

“I think we will find either weapons of mass destruction or evidence that they were destroyed shortly before or during the war,” he said, adding, “but yes, it’s the capability and particularly if you look at biological weapons and chemical weapons that can be manufactured in devastatingly lethal quantities in fairly short periods of time, and can be disseminated by all kinds of means, by terrorist groups or by the … state itself.  It does represent a substantial threat.”

Bolton said he believed Hussein intended to resume a nuclear weapons program at some point and said with respect to chemical and biological weapons, “so much of the capacity is almost inherently dual-use, and it could be established and run really right in the presence of U.N. inspectors and all have been seemingly for legitimate purposes.”

President Expressed “No Doubt”

Just before the war, President George W. Bush cited Iraq’s unconventional weapons possession as justification for U.S. action.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” the president said in an address to the nation.

“The danger is clear:  using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other,” he said.

Secretary of State Colin Powell in February unsuccessfully argued for U.N. authorization of the war by arguing the United States had evidence suggesting massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear weapons program. 

“We haven’t accounted for the botulinum, the VX, bulk biological agents, growth media, 30,000 chemical and biological munitions,” he said.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the administration’s most outspoken critic on the war, said in a much reported speech this week said U.S. forces “so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons, and the occasional buried swimming pool.”

Byrd alleged the administration overstated the threat and possibly misled the American public and the world to justify the war.

“The Bush team’s extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a pre-emptive invasion has become more than embarrassing.  It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power.  Were our troops needlessly put at risk?  Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and                   maimed when war was not really necessary?  Was the American public                   deliberately misled?  Was the world?” he said.

Byrd alleged the administration had played on U.S. public fears of terrorism generated by the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein’s direct threat to our freedoms.  The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post-traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 9/11.  It was the exploitation of fear.”

“What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat,” Byrd said.

“Difficult Burden”

Bolton today said the administration has been concerned about “the asymmetric threat from countries that don’t come anywhere close to us in wealth and military capability but have even a limited WMD capability that they may use as a terrorist weapon.”

He said such a capability would not pose a strategic threat to the U.S. military, but could be used in terror attacks against civilians, and said that makes questions on how to eliminate such a threat a difficult question.

“None of these weapons have true military threat to the United States.  They are a threat to innocent civilians, which makes their use particularly unacceptable and which it seems to me imposes a very difficult burden on any president of the United States to make sure that our innocent civilian populations are free from the threat of these weapons,” he said.

Back to top

U.S. Response:  House, Senate Pass Defense Bills; Approve Key Elements of Bush Nuclear Agenda

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives yesterday passed separate versions of the 2004 defense authorization bill, largely approving the Bush administration’s proposals for research and development of new nuclear weapons (see GSN, May 20).

The chambers also approved the administration’s request for an initial deployment of 20 ground-based and 20 sea-based national missile defense interceptors by October 2005, while requiring the Pentagon to begin testing the system for operational performance.

The two versions of the bill, however, differ in a number of ways that will need to be reconciled during a House-Senate conference.  Furthermore, the bills do not reflect the administration’s proposals exactly, as Democrats in both houses with Republican cooperation were able to pass several amendments tailoring the legislation.

Similarities

Both bills approved the administration’s request for $15 million for research of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a nuclear weapon intended to destroy deeply buried and hardened targets.  That program, already underway, includes the study of potentially using an existing nuclear weapon developed for that purpose in the 1990s.

The chambers, which both approved the administration’s request for a repeal of a 10-year prohibition on research of low-yield nuclear weapons, also approved $6 million for nuclear weapons research in a program called the Advanced Concepts Initiative.  The money could be used for research of new low-yield nuclear weapons intended for potential use also against deeply buried targets, as well as chemical and biological weapons facilities.

Both bills authorized funding to reduce the preparation time for resuming nuclear weapons testing from 32 months to 18 months.

Differences

In a bipartisan compromise, the House bill — but not the Senate legislation — did not authorize the administration’s request to repeal a ban on the development of low-yield nuclear weapons, provoking an expression of disappointment from the White House.

“Maintaining the prohibition on development will hinder the ability of our scientists and engineers to explore technical options to deter national security threats of the 21^st century,” the administration said yesterday in a critique of the bill.

The Senate bill, on the other hand, granted a partial repeal by allowing the United States to develop such weapons, but only with specific Congressional approval.

The Senate bill also differs from the House version in that it requires the same sort of approval for engineering development work on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator program and for spending on design, development and deployment of hit-to-kill interceptors or other weapons to be deployed in space.  The Bush administration has indicated plans for developing space-based interceptors over the coming decade (see GSN, Jan. 22).

Threat Reduction

Both bills approved in full the administration’s request for money to Pentagon and Energy Department programs to dismantle and secure weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.

The House bill though, unlike the Senate, did not contain authorization for using Pentagon funds outside the former Soviet Union, which the administration has advocated.

The bill, according to the White House analysis, “would limit the President’s flexibility to apply CTR [Cooperative Threat Reduction] resources to the most pressing nonproliferation challenges in support of the global war on terrorism and would not clarify that DOE has authority to carry out such activities outside states of the former Soviet Union.”

The House bill did, however, contain an amendment introduced by Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) to authorize the State Department to expand existing nuclear material security activities outside the former Soviet Union.

Bush Missile Defense Deployment Approved

Both bills approved the administration’s $9.1 billion request for missile defense programs, including authorization of the White House request for an initial deployment of the national missile defense system by October 2004.

Although the system is still under development and has not yet been proven through operational testing, as major systems normally are before deployment, the administration is planning to deploy an initial element, consisting in part of 10 land-based interceptors by October 2004 and 10 more the following year, as well as 20 sea-based interceptors.

Both Houses also passed Democrat-sponsored amendments requiring the setting of performance criteria for developing missile defense systems that will be evaluated through operational testing.

“Currently, none of the missile defense programs under development, under the Missile Defense Agency, have established performance criteria, meaning essentially there are no standards for when a system reaches any particular milestone or has completed its development.  These standards did exist under the Clinton administration but were removed by the current administration,” said Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

The House went a step further, however, requiring that prior to any subsequent deployments the president must rigorously test and comply with initial test and operational evaluation requirements.

Back to top

Iraq II:  Baghdad May Not Have Possessed Banned Weapons, Blix Says

U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said he is beginning to suspect that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, the Straits Times reported today (see GSN, May 22).

“I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none,” Blix said in an interview with the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel.

Instead, Iraq’s evasive behavior could have been a result of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s fixation with Iraqi honor and his wish to control the conditions by which people could enter Iraq, Blix said (Straits Times, May 23).

Health Survey to Be Conducted Near Tuwaitha

Meanwhile, Iraqi and foreign doctors plan to conduct a major health survey in areas near the Tuwaitha complex, the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program, after reports of people becoming sick from radiation poisoning after looting materials from the site, the Iraqi Health Ministry announced yesterday.

There is a growing panic over radiation poisoning in the neighborhoods near the site, residents said.

“People are sick now — what is being done to help people right now?” said Bashir Abdul Majeed, a resident of the Mansia village about 20 feet from the Tuwaitha facility (Patrick Healy, Boston Globe, May 23).

Syria Weighs In on Resolution

Syria yesterday said it instructed its U.N. ambassador to register a “yes” vote for a resolution to end sanctions in Iraq several hours after the council had approved the resolution.

The ambassador could not take part in the council’s vote on the resolution because “consultations over the content of the draft resolution were not completed,” the Syrian Foreign Ministry said.  At the time of the vote, the Syrian government was in the midst of a meeting and had requested additional time to reach a position on the resolution, Syrian Deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said (Thanaa Imam, United Press International, May 22). 

Back to top

Iraq I:  Security Council Lifts Sanctions; Authorizes Roles For U.S., U.K., U.N.

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — The Security Council this morning voted to lift the economic sanctions against Iraq, grant the United States and United Kingdom wide authority over the running of the country — including control over its oil revenues — and authorize a role for the United Nations in rebuilding Iraq.

Fourteen of the 15 Security Council members voted in favor of the measure.  Syria, a nonpermanent council member, did not attend the meeting.

Syrian Deputy Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad told reporters after the session that Syria’s absence was a question of the timing of the vote, not the substance of the resolution.  He said the Syrian Cabinet was meeting on the issue as the vote was taken this morning.  “The issue of time was the basis element in not participating,” he said.  

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte called the decision “the turning of a historical page that would brighten the future of a people and a region.”  He added, “By recognizing the fluidity of the political situation and that decisions will be made on the ground, the Security Council has provided a flexible framework … to assist the Iraqi people in determining their political future.” 

British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said, “The resolution gives a sound basis for the international community to come together, in the interests of the Iraqi people, consistent with international law.”

Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere of France, which was a vocal critic of the invasion, called the resolution “a credible framework in which the international community will be able to lend support to the Iraqi people.” 

“The resolution fleshes out the essential role of the United Nations,” he added.  “More than ever before, the strong, independent involvement of the United Nations in defining and conducting the political process will condition the success of this process.”

The new measure, Resolution 1483, recognizes the United States and United Kingdom as the occupying powers in Iraq and grants them control over most aspects of life in Iraq until a legitimate government is established.  The resolution does not spell out a time frame for this to happen.

The resolution also authorizes Secretary General Kofi Annan to appoint a special representative to Iraq who will have specific responsibilities to assist in humanitarian relief and economic and political reconstruction in the country.

Annan told the council he intends to appoint the special representative “without delay,” but gave no indication of whom that might be.  Press reports have suggested Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, as a likely candidate.  Vieira de Mello, a Brazilian, served as the U.N. special representative during East Timor’s transition to independence.

The resolution went through four revisions as the sponsors — the United States, United Kingdom and Spain — sought to address concerns that the United Nations had a greater and better defined role in post-war Iraq and that the occupying powers not be given too free a hand in running the country.

All sanctions, except the arms embargo, end immediately.  The oil-for-food program, which was established to ensure civilian needs were met despite sanctions, will stay under Annan’s control for six months to ensure basic civilian needs are met.  However, most oil revenues will be controlled by the Development Fund for Iraq, a fund authorized by the resolution.  Negroponte said it would be established immediately.  The United States and United Kingdom will control the fund. 

Negroponte said there will be “transparency in all processes and United Nations participation in monitoring the sale of Iraqi oil.”  He added,  “The authority will disburse the fund only for purposes it determines to benefit the Iraqi people.”  

In contrast to the debates that led up to the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq and the failure to achieve agreement on authorizing military action during which diplomats did not hide their impatience with fellow council members, delegates this morning highlighted their new-found agreement.  “The United States is appreciative of the constructive spirit with which the council has considered and strengthened the provision of the text,” Negroponte said.  “In this resolution we have left behind the divisions of the past for the sake of the people of Iraq,” said Pleuger, who called it “a compromise reached after intensive negotiations” that contains “very substantial improvements” from the first draft. 

Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov said the decision “definitely was a compromise … made possible only on a collective basis.” 

However, the council members most critical of the invasion and most supportive of a strong U.N. role in post-war Iraq, including Russia, France and Germany, focused on how the resolution grants the United Nations responsibilities, not how it legitimizes the actions of the occupying powers. 

“The significance of it [the resolution] is primarily that it creates an international legal basis for joint efforts to be made by the entire international community to deal with the crisis and it outlines clear guidelines and principles for these efforts,” Lavrov said.

Pleuger said, “The resolution provides the framework in which the United Nations has been strengthened and can take a central role in the political and economic process.”

Speaking to reporters after the session, Annan said the resolution provides “a legal basis for [U.N.] activities in Iraq … I do not want to get into the debate of is this ex post facto legitimization of what has happened.  We do have a legal basis to move forward.”

Negroponte added that the United States and United Kingdom would submit quarterly reports on implementing the resolution.

After the meeting, the council began another session with a briefing by Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette on the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

Back to top

Iraq II:  United States Agrees to Permit Return of IAEA Inspectors

The Bush administration is making final arrangements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct “joint inspections” of the looted Tuwaitha complex, the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program, U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday (see GSN, May 21).

Inspections could begin as early next week, a senior Bush administration official said (James Dao, New York Times, May 22).  “We’re ready to have them as soon as they are ready to go,” Boucher said.

The IAEA’s resumed role in Iraq would be pursuant to its responsibilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Boucher said.  He added that the agency’s new role would be different than the one created for the IAEA in the U.N. Security Council resolutions that established weapons inspections regimes in Iraq (U.S. State Department release, May 21).

An IAEA spokesman said that several details still needed to be finalized on how the joint inspections would be conducted, such as the U.S. role and the scope and objective of the inspections (Dao, New York Times).

CIA Reviewing Prewar Intelligence Assessments

Meanwhile, the CIA has started to compare prewar intelligence reports on Iraq with information discovered on the ground during and after the war, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, May 15).

CIA Director George Tenet has prepared a team of retired CIA officers to review intelligence reports on Iraq that were circulated within the Bush administration prior to the war and compare them with what has been learned since then, according to the Times.  The review will include reports from several agencies, including the CIA, National Intelligence Council and Defense Intelligence Agency, officials said, adding that it is the first such internal review.  The review will not assess all Iraq-related intelligence information, but instead focus on a small number of sensitive issues, including whether the United States exaggerated the threat of Iraq’s WMD efforts, according to officials.

The decision to conduct the review was initially prompted by a request made in October 2000 from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a senior intelligence official said Monday.  Rumsfeld had become agitated by disagreements among intelligence analysts over the possible connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, an intelligence official said.  Prior to the war, some Defense Department officials were irritated over what they perceived to be excessive caution by CIA analysts who found too little to make such a connection, according to several intelligence officials.

The review is not meant to be a formal investigation; rather, it is an attempt to improve the intelligence community, a senior intelligence official said. 

“This is not a report card,” on Iraqi intelligence, the official said.  “We really want to find ways to make the intelligence community work better,” the official added (James Risen, New York Times, May 22).

Byrd Slams Bush

Also in Washington, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) yesterday lashed out at the White House’s handling of the war in Iraq, saying that the Bush administration took the United States into war “under false premises.”

“This house of cards built of deceit will fall,” Byrd said on the Senate floor.

In his remarks, Byrd criticized the Bush administration for working to merge the respective threats posed by ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in the eyes of the public “until they virtually become one.”  He also said the United States still has not been able to find evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

“The Bush team’s extensive hype of (weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq as justification for a pre-emptive invasion war has become more than embarrassing — it has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power,” Byrd said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 22).

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Funds WMD Programs by Selling Drugs, Counterfeit Currency

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Since the late 1970s, North Korea has produced and trafficked millions of dollars worth of heroin and methamphetamines throughout Northeast Asia to gain badly needed hard currency to help fund its military, a high-ranking North Korean defector told a Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee yesterday (see GSN, May 16).

Two North Korean defectors — a former high-ranking official and a missile engineer testifying under the alias Lee Bok Koo — appeared before the Financial Management, Budget and International Security Subcommittee.  They said North Korea has raised money through illicit export programs, which include trade in counterfeit currency and arms sales, as well as drug exports.  U.S. officials and experts told the committee that the funds gained through these illicit exports are channeled into Pyongyang’s military efforts, including its WMD programs.

“North Korea is essentially a criminal syndicate with nuclear bombs,” said subcommittee Chairman Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.).  “The role of a government is to protect its citizens from criminals.  But, in the case of North Korea, it appears the government is the criminal,” he said.

Every month, North Korea produces one ton each of heroin and methamphetamine, said the former high-ranking North Korean official, who testified behind a screen after entering the chamber wearing a black hood to protect his identity.  North Korea began its heroin production efforts in the late 1970s and stepped up its program in the late 1980s when a local province party committee established an experimental poppy farm near the town of Yonsah in the Hamkyung Province, the former official said.  Later, poppy fields were cultivated at several other collective farms throughout North Korea, with the entire crop going to the regime to be processed into heroin, he said.

In late 1997, Pyongyang ordered that all North Korean collective farms had to allocate 25 acres each to poppy production beginning in 1998, the former official said.  U.S. satellite imaging missions over North Korea in the mid- and late-1990s, however, could not detect wide-scale poppy production, said William Bach, director of the of the Office of African, Asian and European Affairs in the U.S. State Department’s International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Bureau.  The former North Korean official said he was “flabbergasted” that the United States had been unable to detect the extent of North Korea’s poppy production.

All poppy plants produced since the late-1990s in North Korea are sent to a pharmaceutical plant in Chungjin City to be produced into heroin under the supervision of as many as eight Thai drug experts, the former official said.  “This is all done under the direct control and strict supervision of the central government,” he said. 

In addition, North Korea began in 1995 to import significant quantities of ephedrine, a crucial ingredient in methamphetamine production, Bach said.

After production, North Korean heroin is packaged into boxes containing 330 grams of the drug and marked with a Thai label, the former official said, adding that methamphetamine is packed in 1-kilogram boxes with no label.  The drugs are then exported throughout Northeast Asia, including China, Hong Kong, Russia and the “major market” of Japan, for up to $15,000 per kilogram, the former official said.

In addition, there are also reports that North Korea is re-exporting heroin produced in Southeast Asia, Bach said.

“North Korea must be the only country on Earth to run a drug production-trafficking business on a state level,” the former official said in his prepared testimony.

Since 1976, there have been at least 50 arrests and drug seizures involving North Koreans in more than 20 countries, Bach said.  A number of the arrests involved either North Korean diplomats or intelligence agents, according to a fact sheet prepared by the Congressional Research Service.  There are no reports, however, of North Korean heroin and methampheatmine exports making their way into the United States, Bach said.

Missile Trade

In addition to its illegal drug exports, North Korea has also pursued a vigorous ballistic missile export program, according to Lee, the former North Korean missile scientist who also testified behind a screen to protect his identity.  He described for the subcommittee one such export that he was personally involved with — the transport and demonstration of a missile guidance vehicle to Iran.  In exchange, North Korea received 220,000 tons of crude oil, he said.  After the trip to Iran, Lee said, North Korea increased its production of the demonstrated missile guidance vehicle, with nine of them ultimately being exported to Arab countries. 

Lee also said North Korea’s missile program is “entirely dependent” on foreign imports, with almost 90 percent of missile-related items being smuggled in from Japan.  Involved in the smuggling effort is the General Association of Korean Residents, which represents Koreans residing in Japan, Lee said.  The group uses a passenger ship to smuggle in missile-related items, he said, adding that such shipments arrive every three months.

The association has denied such allegations, saying it only transports supplies and humanitarian aid to North Korea.

“The General Association of Korean Residents has never once been involved in such activity,” association officials told Agence France-Presse today.

Where Does the Money Go?

The capture last month of a North Korean vessel attempting to smuggle 50 kilograms of heroin into Australia “heightens concerns that North Korean officials may be using illicit trading activities to provide much-needed hard currency to fund its army and weapons of mass destruction programs,” said Andre Hollis, deputy assistant defense secretary for counternarcotics.

The income Pyongyang receives from its illicit export programs far outweighs any it receives from legitimate exports, according to Larry Wortzel of the Heritage Foundation.  Citing media reports, he told the subcommittee that in 2001, North Korea’s legitimate exports totaled $650 million, while estimates of its income from drug and missile sales ranged from $1 billion to $1.5 billion.

According to Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute, an apparatus of the North Korean Workers’ Party known as Bureau 39 oversees much of Pyongyang’s illicit narcotics trade.  This would suggest that the hard currency obtained through such exports would be directed to Pyongyang’s top priorities, including WMD-related research, Eberstadt said. 

Another concern is that the same network of North Korean officials currently involved in illicit narcotics and counterfeiting operations could also distribute nuclear materials throughout the world, Wortzel said.  “North Korea’s behavior would be much more deadly if, instead of drugs and counterfeit money, Kim Jong Il was shipping weapon-grade nuclear material or nuclear weapons to terrorists and other failed states,” he said.

While North Korea’s illicit exports do pose concerns for the United States and the international community as a whole, stopping them will not necessarily have an impact on North Korea’s WMD programs, said Robert Gallucci of Georgetown University.  If North Korea has placed a high value on the acquisition of fissile materials, as is currently believed, then the lack of income from illicit trade practices will not stop its efforts, he said.

“Moreover, there is no reason to believe that Pyongyang would not also make brutal trade-offs against the need of the civilian sector to fund the nuclear weapons program,” Gallucci said.

Back to top

Iraq:  Washington and IAEA Negotiate Agency’s Return

The United States has begun negotiating with the International Atomic Energy Agency on arrangements for agency teams to return to Iraq to determine what materials may be missing from Iraqi nuclear sites, a U.S. State Department official said yesterday (see GSN, May 20).

The U.S.-IAEA talks, being held the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, are being held in the context of the agency’s responsibilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and are separate from U.N. Security Council negotiations over a new resolution on Iraq, the State official said (see related GSN story, today).

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indicated yesterday that he supported a return of IAEA inspectors to Iraq, according to the Washington Post.  During a Pentagon press conference, Rumsfeld said he had discussed the issue with Army Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command.  Franks’ “attitude is he has no problem with their going in and that’s been communicated within our government,” Rumsfeld said.

An IAEA official said the agency teams being prepared to return to Iraq are trained to determine not only what may be missing from Iraqi nuclear sites, but to also determine where missing items may have gone (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, May 21).

Radioactive Materials Missing

Meanwhile, approximately 20 percent of the radioactive materials stored at the Tuwaitha complex — the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program — are missing, according to the Associated Press.

It is unknown how many storage barrels, which had been previously inspected and sealed by the IAEA, are missing from the site, AP reported.  A U.S. nuclear assessment team that began a survey of the complex Monday found radioactive patches of ground at the site where it is believed that looters dumped materials.

“We found no radiation outside except for in two small spots where some materials were probably dumped,” said Col. Tim Madere, a specialist in unconventional weapons in the Army’s V Corps.

Most radioactive materials housed at the Tuwaitha complex, however, remain secure, Madere said.  “Eighty percent of the barrels are where they were before,” he said (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 21).

Back to top

Iran:  Bush Administration Unsure How to Handle Tehran, Expert Says

While some senior Bush administration officials have said Iran poses an equal or greater threat to the United States than Iraq did, they are unsure as to the best way to handle the situation, Knight Ridder News Service reported today (see GSN, May 16).

The unexpected success Iran has had in its nuclear efforts, combined with Tehran’s links to terrorism and other developments, have led to a consensus within the Bush administration that Iran is a major threat, a longtime Iran expert said.  Administration officials, however, “haven’t yet figured out what they’re going to do about it,” the expert said.

One major difficulty in dealing with Iran is the divided nature of its government, Bush administration officials said.  While Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and his supporters in the Iranian Parliament deny their country supports terrorism, the clerical regime that holds ultimate power in Tehran and the Revolutionary Guard continue to support terrorist groups, according to Knight Ridder.

“When we ask the Iranians we talk to about these activities, they say they don’t know anything about them,” a senior U.S. official said.  “The ones who do know about them are not the ones we talk to,” the official said.

The best approach for the United States to take with Iran is a policy of “managed tensions,” said Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the U.S. Defense Department’s National Defense University.  Under such a policy, the United States would cooperate with Iran on issues of common interest, while opposing Tehran in other areas.

“Despite themselves, the administration has sort of stumbled onto this policy,” Takeyh said (Infield/Strobel, Knight Ridder/San Jose Mercury News, May 21).

Iran Denies Harboring Al-Qaeda

Meanwhile, the United States has been in contact with Iran over the alleged presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Iran, warning Tehran that it must do more against terrorism, U.S. officials said Monday.  There is evidence that al-Qaeda’s operations chief, Saif al-Adel, is currently in Iran and may have been involved in the recent set of bombings in Saudi Arabia, senior U.S. sources said (see GSN, May 15).

Iran yesterday denied such allegations.

“In case of confronting al-Qaeda, Iran will act according to its programs and within the U.N. framework, as it did in extraditing the operatives of the group to their countries of origin that in several cases included Western states,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said.  “Iran is ‘very serious’ in confronting al-Qaeda and the likes of the network,” he said (CNN.com, May 20).

Back to top

Iraq:  United States, United Kingdom Table Revised U.N. Sanctions Resolution

The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain yesterday offered a revised U.N. resolution to lift sanctions against Iraq, which includes provisions suggesting a future role for U.N. weapons inspectors in the country, according to the London Times (see GSN, May 20).

The revised resolution does not explicitly say that inspectors would return to Iraq.  It does, however, reaffirm “the importance of … the eventual confirmation of the disarmament of Iraq.”  The revised resolution also says the U.N. Security Council would “revisit the mandates” of the two main inspection bodies — the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency (James Bone, London Times, May 20).

French President Jacques Chirac yesterday indicated that his country would abstain in a Security Council vote on the revised resolution if the United Nations was not given more authority in Iraq.

“The president said he was convinced the text can be markedly improved so everyone can look upon it favorably,” said Chirac spokeswoman Catherine Colonna.  “As it stands, the role envisaged for the United Nations is unsatisfactory,” she said.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, whose country has often said that U.N. inspectors must first return to Iraq to verify it no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction before sanctions can be lifted, said progress had been made on the resolution.

“All sides are in active talks,” Ivanov said.  “On some issues we managed to make good progress, but there are disagreements,” he added (Gary Younge, London Guardian, May 20).

The Security Council is expected to hold consultations later this afternoon to discuss the revised resolution, according to a U.N. press release.

“It is an important resolution and therefore I expect that there will be important discussions after all Council members’ governments have had an opportunity to study the text,” Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram said in a statement (U.N. release, May 20).

ElBaradei Reiterates Need for IAEA in Iraq

Meanwhile, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei yesterday reiterated concerns of possible radioactive contamination in Iraq due to looting of nuclear sites and the need for agency personnel to return to the country.

ElBaradei said he was concerned that “nuclear and radioactive materials may no longer be under control” in Iraq.  An IAEA safety and security team should be allowed to travel to the country to help prevent “a potentially serious humanitarian situation,” ElBaradei said in a statement (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, May 20).

U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that a decision on whether IAEA inspectors would be allowed to return to Iraq alone or as part of a new U.N. mission would not be made for some time.  Neither U.N. inspectors nor IAEA inspectors have the authority and resources to work in postwar Iraq, he said.

“Coalition forces are best positioned to do this work and we will continue to do the work,” Boucher said (Agence France-Presse/Bangkok Post, May 20).

Back to top

Iraq:  ElBaradei Expresses Concern Over Nuclear Site Looting Reports

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday that he was “extremely concerned” about reports of looting at Iraqi nuclear sites (see GSN, May 16).

“(There are) a lot of radioactive sources that people have been exposed to, and that obviously is a major worry for us,” ElBaradei said before giving a commencement speech at Tufts University.

There have been a number of media reports that agency seals at Iraqi nuclear sites have been tampered with and that radioactive sources have been stolen, ElBaradei said (see GSN, May 6).

“We do not know where they are, we do not know the impact on the civilian population, we do not know whether nuclear materials under safeguard have been looted,” ElBaradei said, adding that looted radioactive sources could also pose security concerns.

ElBaradei said that he has been writing to U.S. officials for months to obtain permission for IAEA inspectors to return to Iraq.  “I am getting frustrated that we haven’t heard their response yet,” he said.

ElBaradei also said yesterday that agency teams would be more qualified than U.S. troops to inspect Iraqi nuclear sites and search for radioactive materials. 

“We have the most field experience.  We know who to interview, what to do,” ElBaradei said.  “We would be much more efficient in completing that job,” he said (CNN.com, May 18).

The recent war in Iraq should serve as a warning to world of the need to strengthen international law, ElBaradei said.

“The war in Iraq is a wake-up call that we need to stick together ... and we need to move forward and build a better society," ElBaradei said.  “We need to continue to see and learn that we are best served by solving our problems through dialogue and interaction.  I don’t think that resorting to war every time we have a dispute is going to solve our problems,” he said (Robert O’Neill, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 18).

Tuwaitha Radiation Poisoning

Meanwhile, residents near the Tuwaitha nuclear research facility — believed to be the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program — have made a number of illness complaints which doctors believe could be linked to radiation poisoning, according to CNN.

The Tuwaitha complex was looted near the end of the recent war in Iraq.  While some of the stolen items were discarded, other items were used by the looters.  For example, Amar Jorda said he became ill after drinking water that was stored in a plastic barrel stolen from the complex.

“My skin itches.  I can’t breathe well, and my nose bleeds at least four times a day,” Jorda said.

Jaafar Nasser, a senior physician at a nearby hospital, said he has seen six people within two days with symptoms similar to Jorda’s, including rashes, frequent nosebleeds, shortness of breath and vomiting.  “This is called acute radiation sickness,” Nasser said.

A “nuclear disablement team” from the U.S. Army’s V Corps will assess the Tuwaitha complex to review “the quantity and condition of the nuclear material stored there,” U.S. Central Command officials said Friday (Karl Penhaul, CNN.com, May 16).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  U.S. Company Developing New Radiation Sickness Treatment

The U.S. company Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals is developing a new drug that could help protect against radiation exposure from a nuclear blast or “dirty bomb” detonation, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Feb. 3).

The drug, HE-2100, appears to offer significant protection against radiation sickness, which would kill many more people than a nuclear blast, military officials and experts said.  Radiation damages the body’s immune system, leading to fatalities from infections occurring one to six weeks after exposure, medical experts said.  HE-2100 strengthens the immune system, especially the infection-fighting abilities of bone marrow, which is most vulnerable to radiation, according to the Post.

HE-2100 appears to offer protection against radiation sickness when given before exposure, as well as a few hours after exposure or even later, according to the Post.  Currently, there are no treatments available for administration post-exposure, according to experts.

With its apparent ability to prevent radiation-caused infections in the time span following a nuclear blast, the drug can apparently “bring people over that hump in time, where, without it, they would die,” said David Grdina, a professor of radiation and cellular oncology at the University of Chicago.

More research still needs to be conducted on HE-2100 to prove its effectiveness and safety in humans, experts said.  Animal testing conducted with the drug has indicated that it will work in humans and not be toxic, radiation experts said.

U.S. military officials are enthusiastic about HE-2100, the Post reported.

“We want it on the fast track,” said Navy Adm. James Zimble, president of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md.  “We’ve been very encouraged by the very positive results” of animal testing, he said (John Mintz, Washington Post, May 19).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP