Today US Secretary of State Colin Powell will present America's case against Iraq to the UN Security Council. His appearance will come a week after Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei -- the chiefs of the UN inspectors -- demonstrated their inability to fulfill their mandate.
Faced with reports of their failure to cooperate with the heads of the two UN inspection teams, the Iraqis have abandoned their description of the inspectors as independent professionals. Amir Rashid, the former head of the Iraqi military industry and an adviser to President Saddam Hussein, now openly describes the inspectors as spies.
It was this Iraqi attitude of implacable hostility that, in 1998, forced UN weapons inspectors to leave the country, leading to today's confrontation. In view of that precedent, and what has happened in Iraq since Blix and ElBaradei have filed reports that contain some troubling surprises.
The UN's Resolution 1441 requires Iraqi disarmament in terms of actual weapons of mass destruction and the ability to make them. This is where the inspectors have focused so far.
But Resolution 1441 also empowers the inspectors to gather intelligence about Iraq's weapons and weapon-making capabilities through in-depth interviews with Iraqi experts, either inside or outside the country, but certainly without Iraqi-government minders present. To assure the experts that they could talk without fear, the resolution gave the inspectors the authority to bring entire families out of the country.
Control of access to Iraqi experts has always been essential to uncovering the truth about weapons and weapon programs. Without independent access, the Iraqi government retains total control of the information supplied to inspectors. In fact, after inspections were suspended in 1998, Iraq worked tirelessly to build an impenetrable wall around the people responsible for its weapons programs. The small community of Iraqi experts was put under a harsh security regime. Some have been murdered; others have been imprisoned. Security officials keep constant tabs on the whereabouts of family members.
For the most part, these measures have succeeded. The outside world currently knows little about the inner workings of the Iraqi weapons program. Since 1998, there has not been a single defection from the upper levels of the program, despite low pay and substandard living conditions -- deteriorating medical care, erratic electricity supplies and a ban on travel.
Incredibly, neither Blix nor ElBaradei pressed for interviews with scientists outside Iraq, although they are fully aware that this is the only safe way to conduct effective inquiries. Both men understood disarmament as simply the removal of weapons and equipment, if and when they were found. Understanding the system that produces these weapons, and finding the means to disable this system, has not been on their agenda.
As a result, Iraq's refusal to cooperate in making the scientists available for interviews -- the key to its entire strategy of denial -- was mentioned only in passing at the end of the inspectors' reports.
The fact that this entire exercise has told us nothing about Iraq's weapons infrastructure has simply been filed away for future reference.
The inspectors even managed to falter when they stumbled across hard evidence of Iraqi cheating. For example, the inspectors found a dozen chemical weapons warheads in mint condition in a relatively new warehouse, but minimized the significance of their discovery by arguing that the warheads were empty.
Never mind that storing warheads in this way is simply an elementary protocol of proper handling procedures. Storing warheads that are filled with chemicals would be dangerous and wasteful.
Because the chemicals are likely to corrode the warhead over time, extended storage has a high probability of leakage and degradation of the weapon. But Blix dismissed this as "not a serious problem," and did not require Iraq to produce the poisons to be used to arm the warheads.
ElBaradei was even more accommodating.
Relying solely on radiation detection equipment at various sites and some environmental samples -- but without interviewing a single scientist in private, he declared that there was no evidence that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.
This is a lamentable repeat of the International Atomic Energy Agency's performance in both 1990 and 1994, when, under the leadership of Blix, Iraq was given a clean bill of health on nuclear weapons development. Only after the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and head of the Iraqi military industry, did Blix get the clues to uncover the actual workings of Iraq's ambitious program.
Most shockingly, the inspector's reports failed to state clearly and unequivocally that Iraq remains unwilling to disarm. Neither Blix nor ElBaradei was willing to suspend the inspections until Iraq provides forthright, open cooperation.
These gentlemen inspectors fail to understand a fundamental point: to disarm a thuggish, murderous regime you need strict enforcement. Any concession will be interpreted as weakness.
Iraq's government knows exactly what it needs to do to hide its weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the inspectors' reports make one thing clear: they will not take the bold steps that the international community needs to expose Iraqi cheating.
Khidhir Hamza is a former adviser to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Organization and former director of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS