Iraq:  Blix Attacks U.S. Critics

U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday openly criticized members of the Bush administration, saying some within the U.S. Defense Department had orchestrated a smear campaign against him (see GSN, June 10).

“I have my detractors in Washington.  There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media.  Not that I cared very much,” Blix said in an interview with the London Guardian.  “It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant,” he added.

While describing his overall relationship with the United States as “good,” Blix said the Bush administration “leaned” on inspectors to prepare reports that would gain the United States support within the U.N. Security Council for attacking Iraq.  For example, the United States was angered that inspectors did not “make more” of discovered cluster bombs in Iraq, he said.

Blix said he was convinced that there were officials within the Bush administration that “say they don’t care if the U.N. sinks under the East River, and other crude things.”  Instead of seeing the United Nations as a collective body, the United States now sees it as an “alien power, even if it does hold considerable influence within it.  Such (negative) feelings don’t exist in Europe where people say that the U.N. is a lot of talk at dinners and fluffy stuff,” Blix said (Helena Smith, London Guardian, June 11).

Blix yesterday also defended U.N. inspectors’ efforts prior to the war in Iraq.  “I would say that I think the criticism that was directed to us was misdirected,” he said in an interview with the Associated Press.

With no weapons of mass destruction found so far in Iraq, Blix said an important question now is why Iraq chose not to cooperate with the United Nations for so long.

“I have speculations, one could be pride,” Blix said.  “Saddam Hussein regarded himself as an emperor of Mesopotamia, some said, and he regarded inspectors as impostors,” he said.

Blix nevertheless praised Hussein’s ouster.

“He was an ancient-type ruler who got control of a country with an oil income and could use 21st century weapons,” Blix said.  “That was a very dangerous combination, and I think we all feel a great relief that he is put out of action,” he said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 10).

Opposition Leader Defends Intelligence

Meanwhile, Iraqi opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, yesterday defended information he provided to Washington on Iraq’s WMD programs, denying that he had exaggerated the threat (see GSN, May 27).

“We gave very accurate information, and we produced people who we handed over to the United States who told them very significant things,” Chalabi said.  “The only tangible things they have found are the mobile labs, which our defectors talked about,” he said.

U.S. authorities will find Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction once they find Hussein, who Chalabi claims is still alive, he said. “The weapons and Saddam are one and the same thing,” he said (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, June 11).

DIA Defends Report

U.S. Navy Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, last week denied that a 2002 DIA report indicated that the agency did not believe Iraq possessed a chemical weapons program prior to the war (see GSN, June 6).

The classified report, which was leaked to the media June 6, said there is “no reliable information” as to whether Iraq at the time was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons.  All the report meant, however, was that the DIA could not identify specific facilities that were involved in producing chemical weapons, Jacoby said.

“It is not, in any way, intended to portray the fact that we had doubts that such a program existed … was active, or … was part of the Iraqi WMD infrastructure,” Jacoby said.  “We did not have doubts about the existence of the program,” he said (U.S. State Department release, June 9).

United Nations Appoints New UNMOVIC Acting Head

The United Nations yesterday appointed Demetrius Perricos as acting executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. 

Perricos, currently serving as Blix’s deputy and director of planning and operations, will assume his position July 1.  Diplomats believe U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan will not appoint a new executive director to UNMOVIC until the United States agrees to allow inspectors to return to Iraq, Reuters reported (Reuters/Business Recorder, June 11).

Back to top

International Response:  Australia Group Adds New Pathogens to Control List

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A group of 33 industrial nations agreed last week to restrict the export of a number of human pathogens that could be used to create biological weapons, the Australian Foreign Ministry announced Friday (see GSN, Oct. 28, 2002).

The Australia Group — an informal network of countries that coordinate export controls on dual-use items that could be used to create biological or chemical weapons — agreed at its annual meeting in Paris to add 14 pathogens to the group’s biological control list, the ministry said in a press release.  The pathogens include 12 types of viruses, such as encephalitis and hemorrhagic fever, as well as two types of bacteria, according to the U.S. State Department.  The pathogens were selected because they are sufficiently dangerous to humans to pose the risk of being used as biological weapons, a State Department official told Global Security Newswire yesterday.

At last week’s meeting, the group also agreed to several additional nonproliferation measures.  Group members endorsed a cooperative program to engage countries in the Asian-Pacific region on biological and chemical export-control issues, according to the Australian Foreign Ministry.  The plan could also include group members helping Asian-Pacific countries to develop or strengthen national biological and chemical export control laws, the State Department official said.

The official denied that the Asian-Pacific region posed a greater risk for biological and chemical proliferation, saying that Australia’s position as chair of the group was a factor in the region being chosen as the target of the first action plan.  The United States hopes similar plans for other regions will also be developed, the official said.

Australia Group members agreed to new procedures to improve transparency and information sharing, the ministry said in its release.  These new procedures include mandatory information-sharing among members on the implementation of group-related export controls, the State Department official said.  In addition, group members approved a new guide to help national compliance and enforcement officers to detect and prevent illegal transfers of controlled items.

“I welcome the continued high priority placed by members of the Australia Group on preventing the spread of CBW in the fight against terrorism and their commitment to strengthening export-control measures,” Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said in a statement.

The United States believes, however, that more work remains to be done through the group to address chemical weapon-related issues, according to the State Department official.  The group was unable to reach a consensus at this year’s meeting on adding additional chemical precursors to the group’s control list, the official said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security has modified the U.S. Export Administration Regulations to incorporate decisions made by the Australia Group at its annual meeting last year, according to a final rule published yesterday in the Federal Register (see GSN, June 21, 2002).

Under the final rule, which took effect yesterday, eight new toxins have been added to the U.S. Commerce Control List.  The bureau has also lowered volume limits for controlled fermenters from 100 liters to 20 liters.

In addition, the bureau has also modified licensing policy provisions in the Export Administration Regulations to make them more consistent with guidelines the Australia Group adopted last year.  Now, the bureau will consider several new factors before an export license will be granted, such as the reliability of the parties involved in the transfer, relevant information about proliferation or terrorism activities, the risk of diversion of the transferred items and the applicability of other export control or nonproliferation agreements.

Back to top

German Response:  Berlin Withdraws WMD Team From Kuwait

Germany is pulling a specialized WMD detection team out of Kuwait, German Defense Minister Peter Struck said today (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2002).

The German unit includes 60 personnel and six modified armored vehicles.

“This was a combined joint task force — the United States, the Czech Republic and Germany posted defense forces against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to Kuwait,” Struck said.  “Now that the Americans and Czechs have left, there is no longer a combined joint task force,” he added (Associated Press, June 11).

Back to top

Iraq:  Bush Says WMD “Program” Will be Found, Refines Previous Claims

U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday said coalition forces would find evidence that Iraq had WMD programs prior to the war, moving away from earlier claims that Iraq possessed actual weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, June 9).

“Iraq had a weapons program,” Bush said.  “Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program.  I am absolutely convinced, with time, we’ll find out that they did have a weapons program,” he said.

Critics, however, have said the word “program” is too imprecise, according to Newsday.

“It can mean anything,” said Mel Goodman, a retired CIA analyst.  “It can mean documents, anything; no matter how benign, they will find some various purpose for it,” he said (Knut Royce, Newsday, June 10).

Prior to the war in Iraq, Bush often made concrete claims that Iraq possessed actual biological and chemical weapons, according to the Los Angeles Times.  For example, in an Oct. 7 speech, Bush said Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons” (see GSN, Oct. 8, 2002).

“If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today ð— and we do —does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?”  Bush said then.

Shortly before the war, Bush again made claims that Iraq possessed actual weapons, the Times reported.  On March 17, Bush said “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” (see GSN, March 18).

Bush yesterday denied that a failure to find actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would damage U.S. credibility.

“The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful, and the world is now more peaceful after our decision” to remove Hussein, Bush said.

The lack of concrete proof of the death of Hussein is making it more difficult to obtain evidence that could aid the WMD search, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday.

“To the extent it’s not proven that he’s not alive, there are a lot of people who might fear that he could come back,” Rumsfeld said, referring to Hussein.  “And if they fear that he could come back, they might be somewhat slower in an interrogation to say what they know,” he said (Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, June 10).

Bush yesterday also defended prewar administration claims that Hussein and al-Qaeda were connected. 

The New York Times reported yesterday that two captured senior al-Qaeda operatives have denied any such link during interrogations.  Bush said yesterday, however, that the Times had ignored evidence that an al-Qaeda operative hiding in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was responsible for the murder last year of Laurence Foley, a U.S. aid official, in Jordan.

“I guess the people that wrote that article forgot about al-Zarqawi’s network inside of Baghdad that ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen named Foley,” Bush said (David Rennie, London Telegraph, June 10).

Iraq Survey Group to Begin Search Soon

Meanwhile, the Iraq Survey Group could begin Saturday to search for evidence of Iraq’s WMD efforts, according to Reuters.

The group will replace the U.S. military’s 75th Exploitation Task Force, which so far has found no conclusive evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  The Iraq Survey Group, headed by Army Maj. General Keith Dayton, director of operations for the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, will have a staff of 1,400, consisting mainly of Americans, officials said.  A British national may be named as the group’s second-in-command, they said.

While the United States has long opposed a formal U.N. role in the WMD search, up to 50 former U.N. inspectors have been recruited to join the group, a defense official said.  It is “hugely important” that the group include “a large number of people with all the historical experience with previous inspections,” said former U.N. chief weapons inspector Terence Taylor (Reuters/Boston Globe, June 10).

The U.S. military units that made up the 75th Exploitation Task Force are now being given time off or being assigned to other duties than the WMD search because there are no more sites to investigate, according to the Associated Press.

“It doesn’t appear there are any more targets at this time,” said Lt. Col. Keith Harrington, whose team has been cut by more than 30 percent.  “We’re hanging around with no missions in the foreseeable future,” he said (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, June 10).

British Intelligence

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell, Blair’s communications director, will not allow themselves to be questioned by the British Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee regarding allegations that the government exaggerated prewar intelligence on Iraq, the prime minister’s office said yesterday.

The committee last week asked if Blair and Campbell would answer questions in their inquiry as to whether intelligence was exaggerated to boost support for war, according to the London Independent.  A spokesman for Blair said, however, that neither man would appear before the committee.  Instead, Blair will meet with members of the Intelligence and Security Committee when they publish an annual report on the British intelligence services today, the Independent reported.  That committee, which has also announced that it will conduct an inquiry into Iraq-related intelligence, conducts its work in private and can have its reports censored by the government (Paul Waugh, London Independent, June 10).

Iran Backs United States on WMD Claims

In a rare moment of agreement with the United States, Iran has concurred with the U.S. assessment that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the war, according to an Iranian official with ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“Yes, we agree with the Americans,” the Iranian official said.  “Our intelligence indicated that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction and was hiding them from the U.N.,” the official said.

While Iran does not know what happened to such weapons, there are concerns that they might have been smuggled into local black markets, according to the official.

“We know other items, once under military control (such as broadcast transmission equipment), have found their way onto the black market,” the official said.  “We have people coming to Tehran from Baghdad with catalogs of items (stolen from the Iraqi government) offering them for sale,” the official said, adding that no chemical or biological weapons have so far been discovered (Stewart Stogel, Washington Times, June 10).

Back to top

Iraq:  IAEA Begins Survey of Tuwaitha Nuclear Complex

An International Atomic Energy Agency team yesterday began inspecting parts of the Tuwaitha complex, the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program, to determine the extent of looting of radioactive materials there (see GSN, June 6).

The seven-member team surveyed a three-building storage center at the complex known as Site C, according to Reuters.  The IAEA team was accompanied by U.S. troops (Reuters/Business Recorder, June 9).

Area residents said that looters emptied barrels taken from the complex and then sold them to people who knew nothing about Iraq’s former nuclear efforts.  The barrels were then used to store food and water, and were also washed in the nearby Tigris River, all of which has raised health concerns, according to Agence France-Presse.

A U.S. military spokesman said, however, that the Tuwaitha site posed minimal health risks.

“Our initial assessment is that the risk for health effects is not large,” the spokesman said.  “We have had folks there at the site, my deputy went there and his teeth are still there, and his hair is still in,” the spokesman added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, June 7).

Weapons Programs

Meanwhile, a former senior Iraqi intelligence officer has said the Iraqi intelligence services established a network of small laboratories after 1996 with a goal of someday resuming full biological and chemical weapons production.

Each weapons team consisted of up to four scientists who were unknown to U.N. inspectors, the officer said.  The teams worked on computers and conducted experiments in bunkers and safe houses around Baghdad, the officer said.

The former intelligence officer said he worked mainly “on the money side” of the effort since the 1980s, which helped to fund a network of local trading companies that were covertly operated by Iraqi intelligence operatives to obtain materials for weapons programs.  The officer said he made several trips between the mid-1990s and 2001 to help oversee the clandestine acquisition network.  He also said he obtained money for the effort from secret bank accounts in Egypt, Jordan, Switzerland and other countries.

The small weapons laboratories did not produce any actual weapons, nor do any weapons now exist in Iraq, the officer said.  The teams did, however, create plans to quickly begin WMD production if U.N. sanctions were lifted, the officer said.

“We could start again anytime.  It’s very easy.  Especially biological,” the officer said.  “The point was, the Iraqis kept the knowledge,” he said.

U.S. troops, however, “will never find anything here.  Only oil,” the officer said (Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times, June 8).

Mobile Laboratories Questioned

Some U.S. and British intelligence analysts are skeptical of the Bush administration’s claims that two trailers discovered in Iraq were mobile biological facilities, according to the New York Times.  Instead, they said the White House claims were marked by a rush to judgment (see GSN, May 29).

“Everyone has wanted to find the ‘smoking gun’ so much that they may have wanted to have reached this conclusion,” said one intelligence expert who has seen the trailers.  “I am very upset with the process,” the expert said.

The trailers lacked equipment for steam sterilization, normally required for any type of biological agent production, analysts said.  The lack of such a piece of equipment would increase the risk of contamination, thereby producing failed weapons agents, according to the Times.  The trailers also only had the ability to produce small amounts of biological agents in liquid form, which would then have to be furthered processed at another facility, according to analysts.  In addition, the trailers lacked equipment to easily remove germ fluids from the processing tanks onboard.

The CIA stands by its assessment, made in a white paper released last week, that the trailers were most likely for use to produce biological weapons agents, according to an agency spokesman.

Skeptics “are entitled to their opinion, of course, but we stand behind the assertions in the white paper,” CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said (Miller/Broad, New York Times, June 7).

U.S. Intelligence

A number of top Bush administration officials have recently defended the U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction prior to the war, according to reports.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice yesterday said the White House had made the best judgment on Iraq’s suspected WMD efforts as it could with the information it had, and that previous CIA directors had made the same assessments since 1996.

“Successive CIA directors, successive administrations, have known that we had every reason to judge that he had weapons of mass destruction,” Rice said on NBC’s Meet the Press, referring to ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Both Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday denied that the Bush administration had exaggerated Iraq-related intelligence in order to increase support for war.  They both said more time is needed to find evidence of Iraq’s WMD programs, according to the New York Times.

“The fact is this was a program that was built for concealment,” Rice said.  “We’ve always known that.  We have always known that it would take some time to put together a full picture of his weapons of mass destruction programs,” she said (David Sanger, New York Times, June 9).

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week also defended U.S. intelligence on Iraq, saying the current weapons search in Iraq will validate a presentation made by Powell in February to the U.N. Security Council.

“(The intelligence has) been enriched as they’ve gone through this past period of years, and that I believe that the presentation made by Secretary Powell was accurate and will be proved to be accurate,” Rumsfeld said, adding that the Pentagon would cooperate if the U.S. Congress began an inquiry into Iraq-related intelligence (U.S. Defense Department release, June 6).

Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) yesterday criticized the U.S. intelligence on Iraq’s WMD efforts, saying U.S. credibility was at stake if such weapons were not found.

The likely presence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction “was turned into a certainty over and over and over again by the administration,” Levin said.  If such weapons are not found, “the credibility and reliability of our intelligence is going to be challenged in the future, and it’s going to be much more difficult for us to lead the world,” he said (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, June 9).

British Intelligence

Meanwhile, British intelligence officers have said they have a “smoking gun” that proves that British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s staff pressured them on Iraqi WMD-related intelligence, according to the London Independent.

“A smoking gun may well exist over WMDs, but it may not be to the government’s liking,” a senior source said.  “Minuted details will show exactly what went on.  Because of the frequency and, at times, unusual nature of the demands from Downing Street, people have made sure records were kept.  There is a certain amount of self-preservation in this, of course,” the source added (Sengupta/McSmith, London Independent, June 8).

In addition, British Home Secretary David Blunkett said yesterday that a dossier on Iraq’s efforts to conceal WMD programs should not have been published (see GSN, Feb. 7).

The dossier, which included information taken from a graduate student’s thesis that had been published online, was prepared by Alastair Campbell, Blair’s communications director, Blunkett said.  Campbell had previously written the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service to apologize for discrediting the service by releasing the dossier, according to the London Telegraph.

Campbell promised the British intelligence services that the government would take “far greater care” in using material prepared by them in the future (George Jones, London Telegraph, June 9).

Al-Qaeda Operatives Deny Iraqi Connection

Two high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody have separately denied that their organization worked with Hussein, according to several intelligence officials.

Abu Zubaydah, captured in March 2002, said during interrogations that the idea of working with Hussein had been discussed among al-Qaeda leaders, but terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden rejected the proposal because he did not want to be beholden to Hussein, according to an official who has read the CIA classified report on the interrogation (see GSN, Nov. 18, 2002).  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was captured in March of this year, also has said during interrogations that al-Qaeda had no desire to work with Iraq, according to the New York Times (see GSN, May 12).

The CIA has refused to comment on what the two men might have said during interrogations.  A senior intelligence official played down the reports, saying that statements made by captured al-Qaeda operatives must be taken with a high degree of skepticism (James Risen, New York Times, June 9).

Back to top

South Africa:  “Dr. Death” Seeks Reinstatement in Military

Wouter Basson, the former head of apartheid-era South Africa’s “Project Coast” biological and chemical weapons program, has begun seeking reinstatement in the South African military, the South African Press Association reported last week (see GSN, April 12, 2002).

Basson — dubbed “Dr. Death” by the media — said his reinstatement would make him the highest-ranking general in terms of experience and academic qualifications.  He is currently employed as a cardiologist at a private Cape Town hospital, according to the Press Association.

Basson was acquitted last year of 46 criminal charges, including murder and attempted murder, stemming from his involvement with Project Coast.  Last week, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal refused to grant the state an opportunity to retry Basson (South African Press Association, June 5 in FBIS-AFR, June 5).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Russia Complains of Continuing Aid Restrictions

Russia’s Foreign Ministry expressed frustration Friday with restrictions placed on U.S. nonproliferation aid to Moscow (see GSN, Jan 14).

Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko began by praising $450 million in U.S. aid recently approved by each house of Congress, in particular the congressional authorization to fund a chemical weapons destruction plant in Shchuchye.  Yakovenko disagreed with some regulations, however, including a U.S. requirement that $100 million in funds for Shchuchye be matched with a $50 million donation from Russia or a third party.

“We could not but take note of the fact that the American side continues the policy of setting forth additional unjustified conditions pertaining to the expansion of its assistance to the Russian projects.  Particularly disquieting is the fact that the list of these conditions is not decreasing, but on the contrary increasing,” he said.

Yakovenko said the restrictions were in place despite a “considerable buildup” in Russian funding.

“The American decisions are creating some additional difficulties for us,” he added (Russian Foreign Ministry release, June 6).

Back to top

Iraq I:  IAEA Inspectors to Return to Tuwaitha Nuclear Site Today

A team of International Atomic Energy Agency experts is scheduled to return to Iraq today to determine the extent of looting of radioactive materials from the Tuwaitha complex, the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program  (see GSN, June 3).

“Their job will be to do an inventory to see what’s missing and, if possible, to re-collect and reseal the material,” agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.

The United States, however, has set a number of conditions on the IAEA team’s visit, according to the Los Angeles Times.  For example, the team is limited to only seven members and may only visit the Tuwaitha complex — they are barred from visiting six other looted Iraqi nuclear sites.  The team was also originally required to sleep in tents at the complex, but now will be able to stay in a hotel in Baghdad (Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times, June 6).

The IAEA team will also be accompanied at all times by U.S. troops during the visit to the Tuwaitha complex, U.S. Defense Department officials said.  Fleming said, however, that the team would operate independently.

“We’re not going to conduct any activities with the military,” she said (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 6).

The IAEA team’s visit is a one-time event to help enforce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Pentagon officials said, adding that the visit should not be seen as a type of weapons inspection (Betsy Pisik, Washington Times, June 6).

U.S. military commanders this week said they are unequipped to sufficiently monitor the Tuwaitha complex.

“I know that the Tuwaitha facility is larger than the assets we have now in country to deal with it,” said Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, commander of U.S. ground troops in Iraq (Linzer, Associated Press).

Pentagon officials have also said they have found more radioactive material at the Tuwaitha complex than originally expected (Matt Kelley, Associated Press/London Guardian, June 6).

U.S. officials have so far recovered more than 100 containers believed to have been taken from the complex, according to the Washington Times.  None of the people who returned the containers, and were paid $3 per container, have shown elevated levels of radiation, officials said (Pisik, Washington Times).

U.N. Security Council Members Call for Return of Inspectors

Meanwhile, U.N. Security Council members yesterday called for the United States to allow experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission to return to Iraq to certify whether it possessed biological or chemical weapons.

The calls for the return of U.N. inspectors to Iraq appear to reflect a growing belief within the Security Council that inspectors should be allowed to test the U.S. and British claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the war, according to the Washington Post.

“The disarmament of Iraq must be verified and confirmed by UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground and in conjunction with the (U.S.-led military) coalition,” French U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere told the Security Council, according to a copy of his speaking notes.

John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the Iraq Survey Group, a Pentagon-established group of weapons experts, is capable of searching for evidence of Iraq’s WMD programs by itself, and that the United States is unlikely to permit U.N. inspectors to return anytime soon (Lynch/Graham, Washington Post, June 6).

“What we’ve said all along is that since March 17 or 18, the coalition has taken on responsibility for inspections and the search for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” Negroponte said.  “But for the time being, we have undertaken this mission of searching for WMD and I would expect that situation to continue for the foreseeable future,” he added (Evelyn Leopold, Reuters, June 6).

DIA Reported Last Year No Evidence of Chemical Weapons

The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency reported in September — at the same time the Bush administration was building the case for war — that there was no reliable evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons, officials said today.

In its report, the DIA said there was no evidence that Iraq had deployable chemical weapons.  There was evidence, however, that Iraq had stockpiles of banned chemical agents, the agency said.

Two Pentagon officials who had read a summary of the report released yesterday by Bloomberg News said today that the report said the DIA had no solid evidence that Iraq possessed useable chemical weapons (Robert Burns, Associated Press/Boston Globe, June 6).

British Intelligence

British intelligence officers have said that the MI6 intelligence service inadequately evaluated information on Iraqi WMD efforts that was passed on to the British government, according to the London Independent (see GSN, June 5).

Most of the Iraq-related intelligence given to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office was from “raw” MI6 intelligence, according to senior government sources.  Other information came from U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, according to security sources.

Officers in the British intelligence services said that MI6 wanted to please the prime minister’s office over Iraq to the point where “short cuts” were taken.  For example, MI6 officers are believed to have approached the prime minister’s office directly with information, without having first passed it through the Joint Intelligence Committee, the Independent reported.  While MI6 was allowed to do so, such actions resulted in a lack of filtering for the information (Kim Sengupta, London Independent, June 6).

A source described by the BBC as being  “close to British intelligence” has said the prime minister’s office asked intelligence services at least six times to rewrite a dossier released last year on Iraq’s WMD efforts, according to the Press Association.  Blair was personally involved at one point in the decision to have the dossier rewritten, the source said (Press Association, London Guardian, June 6).

Niger Claim Defended

British claims that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger prior to the war were not based on falsified information, according to the Financial Times.

The United States provided the IAEA with documents purporting to illustrate the attempted sale, but those documents were later revealed to have been forgeries.  The British government, however, never possessed those documents and did not base its claims about the attempted uranium purchase on them, the Times reported (Huband/Turner, Financial Times, June 6). 

Iraqi Officials — Dead or Alive?

Pentagon officials have said that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is probably alive and behind a recent series of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, according to ITAR-Tass.  The attacks, which have so far killed nine U.S. soldiers over the past month, may have been coordinated by former senior Iraqi officials, according to intelligence reports (ITAR-Tass, June 6).

In addition, Rumsfeld said yesterday that Ali Hassan al-Majid — known as “Chemical Ali” for ordering a 1998 chemical weapons attack on Kurdish rebels in Northern Iraq — may still be alive (see GSN, April 24).

U.S. officials had previously believed that al-Majid was killed during a U.S. airstrike on the southern Iraqi city of Basra in April.

“There was some speculation afterwards that they thought that he had been killed.  Now there’s some speculation that he may be alive,” Rumsfeld said.  “But I just don’t know,” he added (New York Times, June 6).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Experts Continue to Question U.S. WMD Intelligence

By Peter H. Stone

National Journal

WASHINGTON — You cannot call it “WMDgate” yet, but the chorus of criticism aimed at the Bush administration for overselling, or misleading, the public and lawmakers about the existence and threat of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction is climbing rapidly up the decibel meter.

Six weeks after the war, the search for biological and chemical weapons in Iraq is still fruitless.  Members of Congress, foreign governments, the media, and, perhaps most ominously, a growing number of intelligence insiders are questioning the accuracy of prewar intelligence on Iraq’s weapons and whether it was hyped to build support for going to war.

The adjectives used to describe key parts of the administration’s intelligence-some of them uttered on the record and some of them without attribution-are getting stronger and stronger with each passing day.  They range from “spurious” and “intellectually dishonest,” to “fraudulent” and “completely unscrupulous.”

Vince Cannistraro, a 27-year veteran of the CIA who left in 1991, is one of several former agency officials who say that the administration’s intelligence on Iraq’s unconventional weapons capabilities now looks way off base.  “It was at least incorrect and at the worst fraudulent,” says Cannistraro.  “The real story is the politicization of intelligence.”

Other agency alumni hold similar views.  “I don’t like the fact that the U.S. government exaggerated that Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction were an imminent threat against U.S. forces or allies in the region,” says Robert Baer, a 21-year CIA operative in the Middle East who retired in 1997.  “People died.  As an American, I’m mad, and I want to know why we’re there.”

Members of Congress, too, are asking, “Where are the WMD?”  The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence this week began examining the issue at its weekly briefings on intelligence.  Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, says he’s “still inclined to believe that some weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq,” but he has “grave misgivings” about the administration’s prewar claims.  “We’ll continue to press and probe and try to get people who know the information,” Rockefeller added.  In addition, the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services panels are expected to work together on reviews of CIA documents relating to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and could launch a broader joint investigation later this year.

Meanwhile, in a May 22 letter, Representatives Porter Goss (R-Fla.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the chairman and ranking Democrat respectively on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, asked CIA Director George Tenet some tough questions.  The House committee, the letter said, is “interested in learning, in detail, how the intelligence picture regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was developed,” and it asked for answers by July 1.  The letter also pressed Tenet to explain “how the CIA’s analysis of Iraq’s linkages to terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda, was derived.”

Now some Republicans are accusing the Democrats of making partisan hay out of the situation.  Goss, for instance, told National Journal, “There’s no question that partisan politics has crept into the debate....  This is largely a media event so far.”  But Goss, a former CIA official himself, said the administration’s intelligence product warranted a committee review, which will likely lead to hearings later this year.

The administration is starting to mount a defense, albeit with conflicting messages and some backtracking from its broader prewar claims.  On his recent European trip, President Bush went on Polish television and declared that two mobile trailers found in Iraq, which contained fermenters capable of making biological weapons, proved the administration’s case.  “We found the weapons of mass destruction,” he said.  “We found biological laboratories.”

Moreover, in a highly unusual move, Tenet in a written statement defended intelligence on Iraq, saying that the “integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong.”  The CIA had earlier announced that it had started a review to analyze how its prewar assessments of the Iraqi threat measured up against what was being discovered after the war.

Tenet’s statement came in response to a memo written to Bush, and posted on some Internet sites, by a group of retired CIA and State analysts known as Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.  The memo declared that there was “growing mistrust and cynicism” among professionals about the intelligence that the administration’s top officials, including Bush, cited to justify the war against Iraq.

These concerns certainly weren’t allayed when Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, told Vanity Fair last month that although there were three fundamental worries about Iraq’s regime — its support for terrorism, criminal treatment of its own citizens, and weapons of mass destruction — “the truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason” for the war.

Indeed, senior administration officials hammered that theme home constantly in the months preceding the war.  Last Aug. 26, for instance, Vice President Dick Cheney, addressing a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, flatly declared, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.  There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”  Further, Secretary of State Colin Powell in his Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations stated, “We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, he’s determined to make more.”  And last October, Wolfowitz said that Hussein “will not easily give up those horrible weapons that he has worked so hard and paid such a high price to develop and retain.”

For many critics, the primary problem with the prewar assessments of the Iraqi threat was that the administration slighted more-conservative and more-nuanced intelligence reports on Iraq from the CIA, while relying too heavily on more-aggressive and more-pessimistic intelligence provided by a small and secretive unit that the Pentagon set up in late 2001 called the Office of Special Plans.  The real mission of OSP, critics allege, was to amass intelligence to help administration hard-liners make their case that the threat posed by Iraq was imminent.

Cannistraro, along with other former CIA officials, charges that the OSP “incorporated a lot of debatable intelligence, and it was not coordinated with the intelligence community.”  Other intelligence veterans also point out that the Pentagon unit relied a great deal on the Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi, who were far from impeccable sources.  “Chalabi never provided the CIA anything that could be corroborated,” Baer says.  “Chalabi had an agenda — he wanted to go back.  You can take his information, but you need to caveat it.”

Other former intelligence hands say that the caveats didn’t happen because of pressures to reach certain conclusions.  Larry Johnson, who did stints in counterterrorism at both the CIA and the State Department, says he’s been told by people still in intelligence that what “they’re experiencing now is the worst political pressure” they’ve ever faced.  “Anyone who attempted to challenge or rebut OSP was accused of rocking the boat.”  Johnson adds that the OSP analysts “came in with an agenda that they were predisposed to believe.”

Ken Pollack, a former CIA analyst who is research director at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, says, “One of the lessons to take away from the Iraq experience is that defectors are often biased and willing to tell the United States what they think we want to hear.”  The Pentagon and its special unit, he continues, “Fought constantly with the CIA.  They beat the crap out of the agency and their own analysis.  It was a war of attrition, and they ground the agency down.”

The real issue, Pollack concludes, “isn’t overreliance on defectors or opposition groups, but that some officials in the administration seem to have run with defector reports and opposition-group claims that other intelligence analysts believe were spurious or of dubious accuracy.”

In developing good intelligence, intelligence veterans and others say that competition among agencies can be useful, but poses risks.  “Competition is good, up to a point,” Rep. Goss says.  But “I’m very much opposed to competition going to the point of obfuscation.  This is a race that has to be run freely; you can’t trip your opponent in the next lane.”

That’s what some CIA veterans now say happened in the Bush administration’s effort to build its case against Iraq.  Particularly troubling to former analysts are the British intelligence reports cited by Bush in this year’s State of the Union speech on Iraq’s supposed efforts to buy uranium from the Republic of Niger for a nuclear weapons program.  The documents, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, are now considered forgeries, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has asked inspectors general at the CIA and the State Department to investigate.

Looking back, weapons experts are skeptical of America’s prewar intelligence on Iraq.  “I think it’s increasingly unlikely that Iraq was the imminent threat which was at the heart of the administration’s case for pre-emptive action,” says Jonathan Tucker, a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the author of Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox.  “The administration gave the impression that those weapons were deployed and ready to use,” he said.

Veteran intelligence operatives fear that the growing doubts about the administrations prewar intelligence will harm U.S. credibility, especially in the conflict that everyone acknowledges is a direct threat to Americans — the war against terrorism.

“How good other countries believe our intelligence was about Iraq will color how they view our intelligence on other issues,” Pollack warns.  “If they believe our intelligence on Iraq was greatly exaggerated, either intentionally or unintentionally, then they’re likely to be even harder to persuade next time around.” 

Back to top

International Response:  Five Countries Join G-8 Effort to Prevent WMD Spread

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The White House announced earlier this week the addition of five new countries to an effort by the Group of Eight to help address WMD prolferation concerns in the former Soviet Union (see GSN, June 2).

Finland, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland have chosen to join the G-8 Global Partnership to Prevent the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, according to a White House fact sheet.  The partnership calls for G-8 members — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — to pledge $20 billion over 10 years to help fund nonproliferation projects, primarily in Russia.  The effort was launched at the 2002 G-8 summit in Kananaskis, Canada.

G-8 members are also set to begin new projects in Russia through the partnership, the White House said.  For example, France is expected later this year to launch three projects to help dispose of nuclear fuel and solid waste recovered from dismantled Russian submarines.  In addition, Germany is expected to begin this month new projects to help improve physical protection at 17 Russian sites housing fissile materials.

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Washington Wants to “Roll Back” Illicit Weapons from “Rogue” States

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States aims to “eliminate or roll back” suspected nuclear, chemical and biological weapons possessed by certain states and terrorist groups, potentially by using force, a senior Bush administration official said yesterday.

The statement was delivered even as administration officials are increasingly pressed to defend the U.S. justification for the March invasion of Iraq, where U.S.-led occupation forces have so far found no unconventional weapons.

Speaking at a House International Relations Committee hearing, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said the use of force would not necessarily be the first or only option for addressing suspected proliferation, but said it would be a consideration.

“We aim ultimately not just to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, but also to eliminate or roll back such weapons from rogue states and terrorist groups that already possess them or are close to doing so,” he said.

“While we stress peaceful and diplomatic solutions to the proliferation threat, as [U.S.] President [George W.] Bush has said repeatedly, we rule out no options.  To do so would give the proliferators the safe haven they do not deserve, and pose a risk to our innocent civilian population and those of our friends and allies,” he said.

In his prepared testimony, Bolton described Iran and North Korea as “axis of evil” countries and Libya, Syria, Cuba and Sudan as “beyond the axis of evil” countries either possessing such weapons or having a program, or “effort,” to acquire such weapons.

“The logic of adverse consequences must fall not only on the states aspiring to possess these weapons, but on the states supplying them as well,” he said.

Interdiction Plan

Bolton described a new U.S. plan, the Proliferation Security Initiative, through which the United States and allies would cooperate to interdict transfers of internationally restricted weapons and related technologies “at sea, in the air, and on land” (see GSN, June 2).

He said the United States plans to work with other countries using “a broad range of legal, diplomatic, economic, military and other tools,” and has begun working with “several close friends and allies to expand our ability to stop and seize suspected WMD transfers.”

The plan received endorsements from both Republican and Democratic committee members.

Criticism of Iraq Approach

Bolton’s comments were delivered as the administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair receive continuing criticism over the fact that no unconventional weapons have yet been found in occupied Iraq.  Several Democrats on the committee yesterday restated the criticisms.

“Like millions of Americans, I’m wondering where the hell the weapons of mass destruction are.  I think the administration faces a growing credibility gap regarding the weapons of mass destruction,” said Representative Joseph Hoeffel (D-Pa.).

Bolton said he anticipates that finding such weapons and their production means “will occur in due course.”

The invasion of Iraq and the administration’s policy of threatening force against unconventional weapons proliferators are controversial, in part, because the U.N. Security Council did not specifically authorize the Iraqi war and customary international law permits a pre-emptive attack only when there is evidence of an imminent threat.

Bolton said the “inextricable link between weapons of mass destruction capabilities and [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s regime meant that the only way ultimately that we could be secure both in ourselves and in terms of our friends and allies, that the intent of Resolution 687 be carried out, was to resort to military force.”

He said the United States was motivated because of Hussein’s “desire” to acquire unconventional weapons.

Bolton said, “it was his desire to have these weapons, his desire to conceal them from U.N. weapons inspectors, his desire to evade U.N. sanctions over more than a decade to procure the prerequisites to having weapons of mass destruction and his repeated and insistent violation of numerous Security Council resolutions that brought us to the conclusion that there was no option other than the use of military force to change the regime in Baghdad and deny them the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Bolton reiterated a statement in an earlier speech that a suspected Iraqi capacity for developing and producing unconventional weapons offered justification for a military attack (see GSN, May 23).

“It’s the weapon, it’s the delivery system, it’s the means of production, it’s the research and development, it’s the intellectual capacity, all of                         which are points on a spectrum,” he said.

“I think it’s very unlikely that we will find weapons-grade                        uranium or weapons-grade plutonium in Iraq.  But what we will find, what we know is there now, is the cadre of nuclear scientists and technicians, whom Saddam Hussein himself called his nuclear mujahadeen, who are                       the possessors of the intellectual know-how of how to construct nuclear weapons,” he said.

Representative Chris Bell (D-Texas) said the threatened use of force against proliferators could be counterproductive, potentially instigating an acceleration of the very proliferation activities it is intended to address.

“Our country’s pre-emptive actions, overwhelming military strength, and unprecedented projection of power capabilities have engendered distrust, resentment and hostile feelings in countries around the world and I’m afraid that in the interest of possessing some kind of leverage against what may be seen as overwhelming force, we have not provided a disincentive for nonproliferation, but rather an incentive,” he said.

Bolton responded, “It seems to me the lesson for the proliferators is that we don’t think that these weapons that you seek are things that you should have when they threaten us and our friends and our allies, and we are determined either to prevent you from getting them or to roll back the capacity if you have it.”

Back to top

Iraq I:  Blix Says Many Open Questions Remain on Weapons Programs

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — In his final briefing to the U.N. Security Council before his contract ends this month, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said this morning there are still many unanswered questions concerning Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and urged the council to keep the door open for the return of international inspectors (see GSN, June 3).

“The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items,” Blix said, referring to the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which he heads.  “This does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist.  They might — there remain long lists of items unaccounted for — but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for.”

Blix was presenting to the council his report, issued Monday, covering UNMOVIC activities in March, April and May.  Secretary General Kofi Annan withdrew the UNMOVIC inspectors along with all other U.N. personnel on March 18, just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Blix said that neither UNMOVIC nor its predecessor, the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, “made significant finds of weapons.  The lack of finds could be because the items were unilaterally destroyed … or effectively concealed” by the Iraqi authorities.  Blix said he hoped that “in the new environment” in Iraq “it should be possible to establish the truth we all want to know.”

The United States is now conducting all weapons inspections in Iraq and has repeatedly said U.N. inspectors will not be allowed to return.  Despite this, Blix said, “UNMOVIC remains ready to resume work in Iraq as an independent verifier or to conduct long-term monitoring, should the council so decide.”  Blix, who will retire when his contract with the United Nations expires June 30, added, “The core expertise and experience available within UNMOVIC remain a valuable asset.”

He said the “long list” of weapons and other items unaccounted for had not been reduced by the inspections so it was still necessary for Iraq to present those items or proof of their destruction. If this is not done, he said, “the international community cannot have confidence that past programs or any remaining parts of them have been terminated.”

Much attention is currently focused on two mobile laboratories the United States has found in Iraq that Washington claims were used for the production of biological or chemical weapons (see GSN, June 2).  Blix said these laboratories do not match the trucks found by UNMOVIC — and found not to be used for weapons — nor do they match photos provided by Iraq before the war, so UNMOVIC “cannot make a proper evaluation” of the new finds.

Until the day before they withdrew from Iraq, the U.N. inspectors were destroying al-Samoud 2 missiles that Blix had determined were illegal according to Security Council resolutions.  He said 25 of the 75 missiles remained intact, as did half of the declared warheads and 98 percent of the missile engines.  He said there had not been time to determine if a second missile system, the al-Fatah, violated Security Council resolutions.

Looking beyond Iraq, Blix reminded the council of the “strong commitment among nations … to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — to terrorists as well as to states — and to eventually achieve the elimination of these weapons.”

Back to top

Iraq II: Cheney’s CIA Visits May Have Influenced Reports, Analysts Say

Over the last year, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and his most senior aide made a number of trips to the CIA to question analysts examining Iraq’s suspected WMD programs — trips that created an environment that led some agency officials to feel they were being pressured to create analyses that supported White House policy objectives, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, June 4).

While not entirely unheard of, visits to CIA headquarters by a vice president are unusual, according to intelligence officials.  The exact number of trips Cheney made to the CIA has not been disclosed, but one agency official described them as “multiple.”

Because Cheney was one of the leading White House advocates of military action in Iraq by claiming it possessed weapons of mass destruction, the visits by him and his chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, “sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here,” a senior CIA official said.

Other CIA officials said, however, they were not bothered by Cheney’s visits, and some CIA officials even welcomed them, according to the Post.

A spokeswoman for Cheney yesterday refused to comment on the issue.

“The vice president values the hard work of the intelligence community, but his office has a practice of declining to comment on the specifics of his intelligence briefings,” said spokeswoman Cathie Martin (Pincus/Priest, Washington Post, June 5).

Yesterday, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith held a rare press briefing to counter charges that senior civilian policy makers had politicized intelligence on Iraq to support the case for war, according to the New York Times.

Feith said he had created a small intelligence team within his office shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to investigate possible connections between terrorist groups and other countries, such as Iraq.  Some intelligence analysts, however, have said Feith’s team provided an alternative, hard-line view on Iraq-related intelligence that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used during briefings with President George W. Bush.

“This suggestion that we said to them, ‘This is what we’re looking for.  Go find it,’ is precisely the inaccuracy that we are here to rebut,” Feith said.  “I know of nobody who pressured anybody,” he added (Eric Schmitt, New York Times, June 5).

Truth Will Be Revealed Soon, Bush Says

Bush said today that the United States would “reveal the truth” about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

“We’re going to look.  We’ll reveal the truth,” Bush said.  “But one thing is certain:  No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because the Iraqi regime is no more,” he added (Associated Press/New York Times, June 5).

Blair Faces Increasing Criticism

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing increasing criticism over British intelligence that claimed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Iain Duncan Smith, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, said “nobody believes a word now that the prime minister is saying.”

“The whole credibility of his [Blair’s] government rests on clearing up these charges,” Smith added.

More than 70 lawmakers in the British Parliament’s House of Commons from Blair’s Labor Party have signed a petition demanding that Blair publish his evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.  One Labor Party lawmaker, Malcolm Savidge, said the issue was “potentially more serious than Watergate.”

In addition, a Commons committee Tuesday approved an investigation into the matter.  Blair said yesterday that he would cooperate with the investigation (Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, June 5).

One of the most controversial claims of British intelligence, that the Iraqi military had the ability to deploy biological or chemical weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so, was based on information provided by a senior Iraqi military officer, according to the Associated Press.

The 45-minute claim was included in a dossier released by London last year prior to the war.  Officials in two departments described the source as having provided reliable information for years, AP reported (Michael McDonough, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 5).

Back to top

International Response:  G-8 Leaders Decry Use of Force

Leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations meeting in France this week said they were not considering the use of force against suspected nuclear transgressors North Korea and Iran, the Associated Press reported Tuesday (see GSN, June 3).

North Korea says it has developed nuclear weapons, but other countries are skeptical, while Iran says that it is not developing such weapons — although the United States insists that it is.

A G-8 declaration mentioned “other measures” that might be used to dissuade the development of nuclear weapons — language that many observers believe to mean military action.

“This interpretation, my dear sir, seems to me to be extremely daring,” said French President Jacques Chirac.  “There was never any question of using force against anybody, in any area,” Chirac added.

Leaders also pushed for a peaceful solution to the North Korean crisis.

“What is the solution for a situation like North Korea?  We don’t have the solution,” said Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien.  “The best course is always diplomacy, the United Nations and international organizations.  But you’re dealing with a government there that is not well known by anybody and not very well understood,” he added (John Leicester, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 3).

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi agreed with Chretien.

“We shall pursue through and through peaceful and diplomatic solutions to the North Korean problem,” he said.  “I think that was agreed upon last evening,” he added (John Tagliabue, New York Times, June 4).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP