|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Iraq I: Top U.S. Weapons Hunter Cites Progress, Bioweapons FocusBy Joe Fiorill Speaking late yesterday afternoon after a 2«-hour Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, David Kay said U.S., British and Australian weapons hunters are “concentrating initially on biological [weapons programs] and on the role of the intelligence and security services.” However, at an earlier briefing that followed a similarly lengthy hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Kay did not deny that evidence of Iraqi chemical or biological weapons stockpiles is lacking thus far. Asked about a July 15 House of Representatives Intelligence Committee press release indicating that evidence to date did “not point to the existence of large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons,” Kay did not respond directly even though the release came at the end of a committee mission to Iraq and cited Kay as its main source on weapons programs. “I’m sure if they put it out, it was a factual statement,” he said. “Surprise” Could be Ahead; Kay Outlines Evidence Criteria In both briefings to the press, Kay repeatedly indicated a “surprise” announcement may be coming. Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, echoed that thought. “I would not be surprised if there is a surprise, and it would end up changing a lot of people’s minds,” Roberts said. Kay cautioned, though, that no significant find will be made public unless three criteria are met: multiple Iraqis providing information about the find, multiple documents explaining it and physical evidence showing a connection to weapons of mass destruction activities. Progress Cited, but Patience Urged Kay and key members of the two committees referred variously to “solid,” “significant” and “good” progress being made in the hunt for banned arms. The head of the U.S. Iraqi Survey Group, Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, said it is “phenomenal what we’re finding.” All of them cited in particular what they called a new level of cooperation from Iraqis with knowledge of Hussein’s alleged weapons programs. “We are actively exploring sites based on leads from document exploitation and Iraqis who are collaborating with us,” Kay said yesterday morning. “There is not a day that goes by since I’ve been there, for five weeks, that we have not had people out on sites. But it’s not … a sterile list drawn up before the war. We are being led to these sites by Iraqis and documentation from the Saddam Hussein regime. It’s the best-type site exploitation I know that you can conduct,” he added. At the same time, Kay and several senators cautioned that because of Hussein’s alleged efforts to hide his weapons programs and deceive inspectors, patience will be required of those waiting for concrete results in the search. “This was a program that, over 25 years, spent billions of dollars [and] was actively shielded by a security and deception plan, so it is not something that is easy to unwrap, but we are in the process,” Kay said after the morning hearing. “We have found new evidence of how they successfully misled inspections of the U.N. and hid stuff continuously from them. The active deception program is truly amazing, once you get inside it. We have people who participated in deceiving U.N. inspectors now telling us how they did it,” he added. Senators Express Concern Over Prewar Claims Although all expressed some degree of confidence in the current search, some senators suggested the Bush administration’s prewar claims about Iraqi weapons programs may not have been justified. “In the course of the weeks and months prior to the initiation of force,” said Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), U.S. lawmakers “were given facts to the effect that in all likelihood, the discovery of these weapons and the programs supporting them would be somewhat easier than facts and reality now prove to be the case.” The intelligence panel’s senior Democrat, John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), drew a distinction between finding weapons “programs” — the term now in favor at the White House and among the weapons hunters — and actual weapons. “Are they going to lead to what it is we went to war for?” Rockefeller asked. “Programs don’t do it. Programs cannot be fired. Programs can’t get somewhere in 45 minutes. Programs are not weaponized. Programs aren’t what we were told about,” he said.
From August 1, 2003 issue.Iraq II: Army Learns Lesson on Search for WMD in IraqBy David Ruppe “One of the reasons for the attack on Iraq was to expose key weapons of mass destruction facilities,” the report says. “During the transition from combat operations to support and stability operations, we did not attempt to secure these key facilities before looting started,” it continues. The report does not say why Third Infantry forces did not act to secure suspected weapons of mass destruction facilities and did not suggest who might have been responsible for that. The report’s conclusion says that securing the sites might have prevented the looting and prevented the loss of clues to suspected WMD programs and stockpiles. “The looting, in essence, turned the facilities into crime scenes. The visible clues that may have provided a detailed analysis of WMD production, research and development (R&D), or storage were either deployed or carried away by the local populous,” it says. The report recommends: “All future SSE [Secure Sensitive Exploitation] facilities should be secured by ground combat or special forces soldiers. This would allow for a detailed exploitation instead of a crime scene investigation.” The report praises the mechanized division’s overall performance in rapidly reaching Baghdad and helping to take over the country. “Operating considerably beyond existing doctrine, the Third Infantry Division proved that a lethal, flexible and disciplined mechanized force could conduct continuous operations over extended distances for 21 days,” it says in an introduction. “The lessons learned about offensive operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom will enable the Army to grow and further develop its existing capabilities,” it says.
From August 1, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: White House Used Iraq War to Promote Pre-Emption Doctrine, Senator SaysBy Mike Nartker During an address at the Brookings Institution, Biden defended his decision to support a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, saying he “would vote that way again today.” Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he supported the resolution because former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had violated the terms of the surrender agreement reached at the end of the 1991 Gulf War and had failed to comply with U.N. inspections — a condition of that agreement. “When he [Hussein] refused, it became the fundamental right of the international community to enforce those rules,” Biden said. Biden accused “ideologues” within the Bush administration, however, of using the war with Iraq as an attempt to establish a new doctrine of pre-emptive action against those states seen as threats to U.S. security. “Iraq was to be the test case,” Biden said. “In my view, Iraq wasn’t about pre-emption, it was about the enforcement of a surrender agreement,” he said. The United States should maintain a right to use pre-emptive action to ward off an imminent threat, Biden said. However, the result of using Iraq to elevate pre-emption to the level of a “doctrine,” as some supporters have labeled it, resulted in a lack of international support for the overthrow of Hussein, he said. “Making Iraq the case for pre-emption, putting it at the heart of our foreign policy, made it harder to get the world to join us,” Biden said. “Why? Because not one of our allies wanted to validate the pre-emption doctrine,” he said. Biden also said that elevating the concept of pre-emptive action to the level of an official doctrine could jeopardize U.S. nonproliferation efforts. Such a move “sends a message to our enemies that their only insurance against regime change is to acquire weapons of mass destruction as quickly as they can,” he said. In addition, the use of pre-emptive action requires a basis in intelligence able to “stand up to world scrutiny,” he said. Biden criticized Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for saying earlier this week that the United States may have to act on “murky” intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks (see GSN, July 28). “Murky intelligence is hardly enough to meet that standard,” Biden said.
From August 1, 2003 issue.Iraq III: White House Orders New Intelligence ReportThe Bush administration has ordered the CIA to prepare a new national intelligence estimate on Iraq to determine the extent of militia resistance to U.S. forces there and the likelihood of the formation of a stable, democratic government, the Boston Globe reported yesterday (see GSN, July 31). The last NIE, prepared by the CIA in October 2002, focused on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and has come under increased scrutiny due to criticism over the White House’s handling of prewar intelligence. The Bush administration has now asked the CIA to assess the “sources of instability” in Iraq, including the influence of fighters arriving in Iraq from other Arab nations and the attempts of Iran to establish a Shiite Muslim-led government there, a senior intelligence official said. The new assessment is also expected to examine the attitudes of the Iraqi population and whether a democratic government can be formed, intelligence sources said (Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, July 31). No New Evidence Found to Support Aluminum Tubes Claims Meanwhile, no new evidence has been found to support claims made by the White House prior to the war that Iraq attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes for use in centrifuges to enrich uranium, according to USA Today (see GSN, July 16). A claim made by U.S. President George W. Bush in his January State of the Union address that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Africa has been the focus of growing controversy as reports come out that there were doubts within the administration over the strength of the claim. Relatively little attention has been paid to the aluminum tube claim, however, which Bush also made in his address, according to USA Today. Coalition forces in Iraq have so far found no new evidence to support the aluminum tube claim, which was heavily debated prior to the war, USA Today reported. A week after Bush’s speech, however, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made a presentation on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. Security Council, in which he acknowledged that there were “differences of opinion” over the intended use of the aluminum tubes, White House officials said. The administration continues to stand by its assessment that the tubes were intended for use to enrich uranium, USA Today reported. “There was a very open discussion about that,” White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said last week. “It is an assessment which (CIA Director George Tenet) and the CIA stand by to this day,” he said (Nichols/Diamond, USA Today, Aug. 1).
From July 31, 2003 issue.Iraq: Captured Scientists Continue to Deny WMD ProgramsEven after the fall of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime and the death of his two sons, captured Iraqi scientists continue to deny that Iraq was attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, July 30). U.S. officials, under the direction of the CIA, have interviewed four senior Iraqi scientists and more than a dozen lower-level scientists, said senior Bush administration officials and members of Congress who have been briefed on the subject. While some scientists were arrested and others agreed to cooperate, all of them have denied that Hussein rebuilt a nuclear weapons program or developed and stockpiled biological and chemical weapons since U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998 (Pincus/Sullivan, Washington Post, July 31). The heads of the U.S. effort to hunt for evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction — Army Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, head of the Iraq Survey Group, and CIA special adviser David Kay — briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee today in a closed hearing. Speaking to reporters afterward, Kay said Iraqi scientists were actively cooperating with the survey team. While Kay did not announce any new developments or discoveries, he expressed confidence that the team was making excellent progress. “Every day we’re surprised by new advances we’re making,” Kay said. Kay said the team would make no major announcements of WMD discoveries in Iraq unless they could be supported by three types of evidence: multiple human sources, documentary evidence and physical evidence. Dayton and Kay are expected to testify later today before a closed hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Greg Webb, GSN, July 31). Rice Takes Responsibility for Africa Uranium Claim Meanwhile, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice last night became the latest in a growing line of White House officials, including U.S. President George W. Bush, to take responsibility for the inclusion of the now-disputed claim that Iraq sought to obtain uranium in Africa. While Rice took responsibility for the claim’s inclusion, she also said the claim should not detract from the “very strong case” made for war with Iraq, according to the Associated Press. “I certainly feel personal responsibility for this entire episode,” Rice said on PBS’ NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. “What I feel most responsible for is that this is detracting from the very strong case the president has been making,” she said (Will Lester, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 31). CIA Warned London Over 45-Minute Claim The CIA warned the United Kingdom last year against including a claim in a dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqi military could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so, according to the London Guardian. The British Foreign Office yesterday said the CIA had been given a copy of a draft of the dossier in mid-September 2002, according to evidence presented to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. The Foreign Office said the CIA made a number of comments on the dossier, but refused to provide details, the Guardian reported. While the United Kingdom included the 45-minute claim in the final version of the dossier, the CIA did not use it in any of its own reports on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (Norton-Taylor/Leigh, London Guardian, July 31).
From July 30, 2003 issue.Iraq I: Bush Takes “Personal Responsibility” for State of the Union AddressBy Mike Nartker Earlier this month, the White House acknowledged that the claim should not have been included because evidence used to support it — documents that purported to show an attempted Iraqi purchase of uranium from Niger — were fraudulent. Since then, CIA Director George Tenet and deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley have publicly taken responsibility for the address and the claim. Today, however, Bush indicated that he was assuming responsibility for the State of the Union address and defended the U.S. intelligence used to develop it. “I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. Absolutely,” Bush said during a press conference outside the White House. “I also take responsibility for making decisions on war and peace. And I analyzed a thorough body of intelligence, good, solid, sound intelligence that led me to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein from power,” he said. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice has also come under increasing criticism for failing to take more responsibility for the inclusion of the Africa uranium claim in the State of the Union. Hadley has said that he and Rice received memos from the CIA in early October 2002 saying U.S. intelligence on the claim was weak. Yesterday, U.S. Representative Henry Waxman called on Rice to explain whether she had read those memos and to release them (see related GSN story, today). Bush offered strong support today, however, for his national security adviser. “Dr. Condoleezza Rice is an honest, fabulous person, and America is lucky to have her service. Period,” Bush said. During the press conference, Bush brushed aside questions concerning criticism of his administration’s handling of U.S. prewar intelligence on Iraq’s WMD efforts, saying instead: “You know, look, in my line of work, it’s always best to produce results, and I understand that.” Bush did note, however, the importance of producing evidence of such programs, which he said was needed to “placate the critics and cynics about [the] intentions of the United States.” “I’m confident that our search will yield that [evidence] … that Saddam had a weapons program,” Bush said. It will take time to produce such evidence though, he warned. “It’s going to take time for us to gather the evidence and analyze the mounds of evidence, literally the miles of documents that we have uncovered,” Bush said.
From July 30, 2003 issue.Iraq II: U.S. Representative Targets Rice in African Uranium ControversyBy Mike Nartker Earlier this month, CIA Director George Tenet took responsibility for the CIA’s approval of Bush’s address and the inclusion of the Africa uranium claim (see GSN, July 17). Blame began to shift to the National Security Council, however, after reports that a CIA expert on weapons of mass destruction had told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that NSC nonproliferation director Robert Joseph had pressed for claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger and from other African countries to be included in the State of the Union (see GSN, July 18). Last week, deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley took responsibility for allowing the African uranium claim to be included in the State of the Union, according to reports (see GSN, July 23). Hadley said he had received two memos from the CIA on Oct. 5, 2002, and Oct. 6, 2002, saying that intelligence on Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium in Africa was weak, but had forgotten them during the preparation of the address. “I should have asked that the 16 words be taken out” of the State of the Union address, Hadley was quoted by the New York Times as saying. “I failed in that responsibility,” he added. In a letter to Rice, Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, asked whether she had read the Oct. 5 memo sent to Hadley or the memo sent the following day, which Hadley said had been addressed to both him and Rice. Waxman also called on Rice to declassify and release the two CIA memos. Waxman also urged Rice to explain what actions, if any, she took after a key piece of evidence that supported the African uranium claim — documents that purported to show an attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium in Niger — became discredited. In March, International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed ElBaradei publicly announced that his agency had determined that the documents were, in fact, forgeries. Waxman asked Rice to describe if she had any discussions with Hadley or other NSC or White House officials over how the Nigerien documents had been analyzed. Waxman also asked Rice to describe if any other investigation into the documents was conducted. “The statutory purpose of the National Security Council is to give the president accurate advice on important national security matters such as Iraq’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons,” Waxman said in his letter. “It is difficult to imagine that you would not have taken this breakdown in the process seriously and asked for a full investigation of the matter,” he said.
From July 30, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: State Department Warns of Violations to Nonproliferation RegimesBy Mike Nartker Covering 2001, but released only late last month, the report was prepared by State’s Verification and Compliance Bureau and it examines both U.S. adherence to its arms control commitments and the compliance of other nations with various multilateral nonproliferation agreements. While the United States has made “some errors” in meeting its treaty obligations, it is generally in compliance with all of its international arms control obligations, the report says. It warns, however, that some states have violated their nonproliferation obligations and have developed — or are currently pursuing — WMD programs. The United States believes that several parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, most notably Iran, are conducting activities in violation of their treaty obligations, the report says (see GSN, July 29). In addition, the report found that North Korea was in violation, as well. North Korea’s current status as an NPT member, however, has been in dispute since early this year when Pyongyang announced its withdrawal from the treaty (see GSN, July 29). The report also says that while China is believed to be “seriously prepared” to implement its treaty obligations, the United States is still concerned about Beijing’s commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. According to the report, a number of states participating in the Biological Weapons Convention are conducting activities not in compliance with their treaty obligations. For example, the report says that Iran is believed to have developed an offensive biological weapons program, in violation of its treaty obligations, and that North Korea has a “dedicated, national-level effort” to develop a biological weapons program, and may have already done so (see GSN, May 16). The report also says that China may have maintained some elements of the biological weapons program it began in the 1950s and that Cuba (see GSN, March 13) and Libya (see GSN, June 23) may have developed smaller, limited biological weapons programs. In addition, Russia is believed to have maintained an offensive biological weapons program based, in part, on unconfirmed reports of weapons research activities and concern that work on biological agents beyond defensive needs is being conducted at select Russian facilities, the report says (see GSN, March 24). While Syria is not a member of the BWC, according to the report, the United States believes Damascus is developing a biological weapons program that would violate the convention if it were a member (see GSN, July 16). Washington also believes that China, Iran and Russia — in addition to violating the BWC — are conducting activities in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, according to the report. It also says that Sudan has launched a chemical weapons research program designed to develop an indigenous production capability and has continued to seek foreign assistance in developing such weapons — both of which violate its CWC obligations. Besides examining compliance with the three main international WMD nonproliferation regimes, the treaty also examined Chinese and Russian compliance with the Missile Technology Control Regime, which seeks to reduce missile proliferation by establishing common export-control regulations among members. Even though China is not an MTCR member, it agreed in 1992 to abide by the regime’s “guidelines and parameters,” the report says. The United States has found, however, that China has provided missile-related items and assistance to several countries of concern, such as Iran, Libya and North Korea, it says, adding that such activities “call into serious question China’s stated commitment to controlling missile proliferation” (see related GSN story, today). China’s missile-related exports are the “most significant proliferation concern” Washington has with Beijing, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Paula DeSutter said last week (see GSN, July 28). While Russia is an MTCR member, Washington is concerned about Moscow’s efforts to crack down on Russian companies engaged in missile proliferation activities, the report says. It also says that Russia plays down the role of private companies in proliferation, believing instead that the limited capabilities of states of concern will prevent them from developing weapons of mass destruction. “That view is shortsighted and dangerous,” the report says. U.S.-Russian Arms Control Agreements The report also examined U.S. and Russian compliance with two arms control treaties developed during the Cold War — the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. While the United States believes it has complied with all of the treaties’ obligations, Russia has noted several compliance concerns, the report says. Under the INF Treaty, all U.S. and former Soviet ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers were to be destroyed, along with all related equipment. Russia has expressed concerns over U.S. compliance with the treaty regarding certain procedures used during past inspections in the United States, as well as the treaty status of specific missiles and a silo test launcher, the report says. After examining the concerns, the United States has determined that it is in full compliance with the treaty, it says. For its part, the report says, Washington has found no compliance issues with INF treaty members. Russia has also raised concerns regarding U.S. compliance with START, according to the report (see GSN, July 24). Most of the Russian concerns have been related to the treaty’s verification regime, such as concerns over inspection procedures, flight tests of sea-launched ballistic missiles and telemetry, the report says. Russia has also raised “a few substantive disagreements” with the United States over the equipping and positioning of heavy bombers and the nature of some ICBM launchers, it says. The United States has been able to resolve most of the Russian concerns related to START compliance through the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission, the report says. It adds that the United States has determined that it is in full compliance with the treaty. Washington has found that Russia — along with Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine — are in compliance with START’s strategic offensive arms central limits, and that Russia has complied with the treaty’s ceilings, the report says. While no new compliance issues related to the accountability of ICBMs, SLBMs or heavy bombers were raised during the period covered by the report, the United States and Russia have expressed differing views over how to count road-mobile missile launchers under the treaty, it says. The report adds that U.S. inspectors have had difficulties in ascertaining whether Russian missiles are equipped with no more re-entry vehicles than the number of warheads attributed to them. “Russia’s implementation of the START Treaty with respect to achieving the central limits is treaty compliant,” the report says. “Notwithstanding this achievement, a number of compliance issues remain unresolved,” it says.
From July 29, 2003 issue.Iraq: Libya Behind Forged Nigerien Documents, Italian Sources SayItalian sources have said that Libyan intelligence services are responsible for a set of forged documents that purported to show an Iraqi attempt to purchase uranium in Niger, Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily reported today (see GSN, July 25). According to Italian sources, the Libyan External Security Organization passed the documents to an Italian intelligence agency through a Libyan source in an attempt to discredit U.S. decision-making, according to Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily. The documents were later distributed to the United States and the United Kingdom, where they were used to bolster claims that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Africa. Once the International Atomic Energy Agency discovered the Nigerien documents were forgeries, however, those claims were disputed. Sources have said that Libya was, in fact, purchasing uranium from Niger for Iraq during the U.N. embargo, according to Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily. The uranium was used in joint Libyan-Iraqi nuclear weapons research conducted at two Libyan facilities (Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, July 29). Niger Denies Uranium Claims Meanwhile, Nigerien Prime Minister Hama Hamadou has called on the United Kingdom to offer evidence of its continuing claims that Iraq sought to purchase uranium there. While the United States has backed away from the Niger uranium claim since its documentation was proven false, the United Kingdom has maintained that intelligence received from other sources supports the claim, according to the London Sunday Telegraph. In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Hamadou criticized the United States and the United Kingdom for the claim. He noted that Niger had been one of the first African nations to participate in the 1991 Gulf War in Iraq. “We were the first African country to send soldiers to fight against [former Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] after the invasion of Kuwait in 1991,” Hamadou said. “Would we really send material to somebody whom we had fought against and who could … destroy half the world with a nuclear bomb? It is unthinkable,” he said (David Harrison, London Sunday Telegraph I, July 27). In addition, executives and workers at Niger’s two uranium mines — Somair and Cominak — also denied any attempt to provide uranium to Iraq. “We were amused and a bit puzzled when we first heard about this,” said Bernard Debacque, the production director at Somair. “We wondered what it was all about. It is impossible for anything to go missing from here. Everything is strictly controlled,” he said. In the more than 40 years that uranium has been mined from the two Nigerien facilities, there has never been a “single case of uranium being lost or stolen,” said Somair Director General Serge Martinez. He also denied that uranium from the mines could be illegally sold to Iraq, noting that they are closely monitored by both the international consortiums that own them and the IAEA. “It is checked again and again, in Niger, in Benin and in France. If any were to go missing, it would be known very quickly. We are not talking about moving consignments of peanuts,” Martinez said (David Harrison, London Sunday Telegraph II, July 27).
From July 28, 2003 issue.China: Beijing Must Improve Nonproliferation Efforts, U.S. Official SaysBy Mike Nartker During a hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, DeSutter outlined China’s efforts to stem WMD and ballistic missile proliferation, as well as continuing U.S. concerns. China is of particular concern to the United States because of its advanced technological capabilities, DeSutter said. “While there are many buyers in the market for WMD and missiles, there are only a handful of states with the capability to be dealers in that market,” DeSutter told the commission. “China’s sophistication with many of these technologies has made it possible for Chinese entities to become key exporters of WMD and missile technology,” she said. Missile Proliferation In August 2002, China released its missile export control list, a move that came as a “significant and welcome step,” DeSutter said (see GSN, Sept. 3, 2002). She added, however, that the United States has several concerns about remaining deficiencies in China’s missile export control system. For example, the Chinese control list is not as comprehensive as the annex of the Missile Technology Control Regime, which seeks to reduce missile proliferation by establishing common export-control regulations among members. In addition, DeSutter said, the Chinese regulations do not prohibit the export of complete missile-production facilities, as does the MTCR. The United States is also concerned with China’s implementation of its missile-related export regulations, DeSutter said. China is apparently not enforcing controls at its borders, allowing illegal transfers to go undetected, she said. China also lacks an effective end-use verification system to ensure that legitimate transfers are not diverted, DeSutter said, adding that effective implementation could be a field of cooperation between Beijing and Washington. China has not done enough to crack down on so-called “serial proliferators” — those Chinese entities that have a record of proliferation activities, DeSutter said. One such entity is the North China Industries Corp. (Norinco), which the United States has sanctioned several times for alleged exports of missile technologies to Iran, she said. “For some time, we have been alerting the Chinese government to our concerns about the activities of Norinco,” DeSutter said. “Nonetheless, the Chinese government appears to have taken no action to halt Norinco’s proliferant behavior,” she added. Underscoring the various U.S. concerns with China’s attempts to prevent missile proliferation is a concern that China does not take the issue seriously, according to DeSutter. “The Chinese government appears to view missile nonproliferation, at least in part, not as a goal in and of itself, but as an issue that needs merely to be managed as part of its overall bilateral relationship with the United States,” she said. WMD Proliferation The United States also has concerns regarding China’s WMD nonproliferation efforts, according to DeSutter. There is concern that Beijing has joined international nuclear nonproliferation regimes in such a way as to allow it to continue to “lawfully circumvent” those regimes’ intentions, DeSutter said. For example, while China has joined the Zangger Committee, it has not joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group — a “significant” distinction, since this allows China to continue to export nuclear-related items to safeguarded nuclear facilities in countries of concern, such as Pakistan, she said. Concerning chemical weapons, the United States believes that China has both not revealed the full extent of its chemical weapons program and that it possesses a “moderate inventory” of chemical weapons agents, DeSutter said (see GSN, Oct. 21, 2002). She said the United States plans to soon discuss with China a proposal, developed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, to increase industrial inspections at facilities that produce chemicals not directly covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention. In addition, there is also concern that China has maintained a biological weapons program despite its membership in the Biological Weapons Convention, according to DeSutter (see GSN, Oct. 18, 2002). “The United States believes that China’s consistent claims that it has never researched, produced or possessed BW [biological weapons] are simply not true,” she said.
From July 28, 2003 issue.British Response: WMD Proliferation Set to Gain Priority in British DefensesBritish Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon has said that combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is set to become an increasing duty of the British military, Navy News Week reported today (see GSN, July 18). Hoon is expected to publish a report this fall outlining British plans for the military over the next 30 years. The white paper predicts that the proliferation of WMD-related technologies will make it easier for countries and terrorist organizations to develop such weapons, Hoon said. “Countering proliferation and terrorism will continue to take up more of the armed forces’ effort,” Hoon said. “The threat from nonstate actors will continue to require multilateral responses. There is a danger that the next 30 years will see the emergence of new WMD powers as the technology proliferates and technical advances make production easier,” he said. Increased WMD proliferation and its impacts will require the British military to be able to respond quickly to unforeseen events, Hoon said. “We do not have an infallible ability to read the future,” Hoon said. “We can therefore be clear that the overriding characteristic that we shall look for in our armed services over the next 30 years is the ability to respond to events and security challenges with speed, precision and flexibility,” he said (Gene Koprowski, Navy News Week, July 28).
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top