06 May 2002
Libya, Syria, Cuba Need Scrutiny for Weapons Programs, U.S. Says
State's Bolton addresses WMD threats at Heritage Foundation
In addition to North Korea, Iraq and Iran -- President Bush's "axis of
evil," Libya, Syria and Cuba are states that also must be scrutinized for
programs of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the State Department's top
arms control and nonproliferation official says.
Speaking at the Heritage Foundation in Washington May 6, John Bolton said
the United States needs to look beyond a country's "formal subscription to
international counterterrorism conventions or its membership in multilateral
regimes" in defending itself against the WMD threat. The under secretary of
state for arms control and international security, Bolton said this is one
of four fundamental conclusions that must be made in light of today's
changed security environment.
The other three conclusions are that the United States must:
Keep WMD out of terrorist hands
Support international dialogue on weapons of mass destruction and
encouraging countries to educate their publics about the WMD threat.
Continue to exercise strong leadership in multilateral forums and taking
whatever steps are necessary to protect and defend our interests and
eliminate the terrorist threat.
Bolton noted the problems caused by the noncompliance of Iraq, North Korea
and Iran with international agreements designed to prevent the development
and spread of WMD programs and the means to deliver them. But he also
singled out Libya, Syria and Cuba for special mention.
Libya, Bolton said, continues its longstanding pursuit of nuclear weapons
and its biological warfare program, as well as its goal of reestablishing
its offensive chemical weapons ability. Libya also continues to pursue
equipment, materials, technology and expertise for ballistic missiles from
foreign sources, he said.
Syria not only has a chemical weapons program, but also is pursuing the
development of biological weapons and has missiles and a missile-development
program, Bolton said.
As for Cuba, the United States believes it has "at least a limited offensive
biological warfare research-and-development effort," Bolton said. Cuba has
also provided dual-use technology to other rogue states that could support
biological warfare programs, he said.
Following is the text of Bolton's speech, as prepared for delivery:
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John R.
Bolton
The Heritage Foundation Washington, D.C. May 6, 2002
Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction
Thank you for asking me here to the Heritage Foundation. I'm pleased to be
able to speak to you today about the Bush Administration's efforts to combat
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The spread of weapons of
mass destruction to state sponsors of terrorism and terrorist groups is, in
my estimation, the gravest security threat we now face. States engaging in
this behavior -- some of them parties to international treaties prohibiting
such activities -- must be held accountable, and must know that only by
renouncing terrorism and verifiably forsaking WMD can they rejoin the
community of nations.
The New Security Environment
Eight months into the war on terror, the United States and its partners have
made great strides. We have helped the Afghan people overthrow an
oppressive, terrorist-harboring regime in Afghanistan, foiled terrorist
plots in places such as Germany, Yemen, Spain and Singapore, and stanched
the flow of funds that allowed al-Qaida's schemes to come to fruition. We
have captured the number-three man in al-Qaida, and will bring him to
justice. And this is just the beginning.
The attacks of September 11 reinforced with blinding clarity the need to be
steadfast in the face of emerging threats to our security. The international
security environment has changed, and our greatest threat comes not from the
specter of nuclear war between two superpowers, as it did during the Cold
War, but from transnational terrorist cells that will strike without warning
using weapons of mass destruction. Every nation -- not just the United
States -- has had to reassess its security situation, and to decide where it
stands on the war on terrorism.
In the context of this new international security situation, we are working
hard to create a comprehensive security strategy with Russia, a plan
President Bush calls the New Strategic Framework. The New Strategic
Framework involves reducing offensive nuclear weapons, creating limited
defensive systems that deter the threat of missile attacks, strengthening
nonproliferation and counterproliferation measures, and cooperating with
Russia to combat terrorism. It is based on the premise that the more
cooperative, post-Cold War relationship between Russia and the United States
makes new approaches to these issues possible.
Accordingly, President Bush has announced that the United States will reduce
its strategic nuclear force to a total of between 1,700 and 2,200
operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads over the next ten years.
President Putin has made a similarly bold and historic decision with respect
to Russian strategic nuclear forces.
In preparation for the summit meeting in Moscow and St. Petersburg later
this month, we have been working closely with the Russians to embody the
reductions in offensive warheads into a legally binding document that will
outlast the administrations of both presidents. We are also working to draft
a political declaration on the New Strategic Framework that would cover the
issues of strategic offensive and defensive systems, nonproliferation and
counterproliferation. We are optimistic that we will have agreement in time
for the summit in Moscow, May 23rd to 25th.
Strengthening the U.S.-Russian relationship has been a priority of the Bush
Administration, even prior to the September 11 attacks. In the current
security climate, cooperation with Russia becomes even more important, so
that we can work together to combat terrorism and the spread of weapons of
mass destruction, which threaten both our countries.
Preventing Terrorism's Next Wave
President Bush believes it is critical not to underestimate the threat from
terrorist groups and rogue states intent on obtaining weapons of mass
destruction. As he said on the six-month anniversary of the attacks, "Every
nation in our coalition must take seriously the growing threat of terror on
a catastrophic scale -- terror armed with biological, chemical, or nuclear
weapons." We must not doubt for a moment the possible catastrophic
consequences of terrorists or their rogue state sponsors who are willing to
use disease as a weapon to spread chemical agents to inflict pain and death,
or to send suicide-bound adherents armed with radiological weapons on
missions of mass murder.
Every nation must commit itself to preventing the acquisition of such
weapons by state sponsors of terrorism or terrorist groups. As President
Bush said: "Our lives, our way of life, and our every hope for the world
depend on a single commitment: The authors of mass murder must be defeated,
and never allowed to gain or use the weapons of mass destruction." To this
end, we use a variety of methods to combat the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, including export controls, missile defense, arms control,
nonproliferation and counter-proliferation measures.
In the past, the United States relied principally on passive measures to
stem proliferation. Arms control and nonproliferation regimes, export
controls, and diplomatic overtures were the primary tools used in this
fight. But September 11th, the subsequent anthrax attacks, and our
discoveries regarding al-Qaida and its WMD aspirations has required the U.S
to complement these more traditional strategies with a new approach. The
Bush Administration is committed to combating the spread of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons, missiles, and related equipment, and is
determined to prevent the use of these deadly weapons against our citizens,
troops, allies, and friends. While diplomatic efforts and multilateral
regimes will remain important to our efforts, we also intend to complement
this approach with other measures, as we work both in concert with
likeminded nations, and on our own, to prevent terrorists and terrorist
regimes from acquiring or using WMD. In the past, we looked at proliferation
and terrorism as entirely separate issues. As Secretary Powell said in his
Senate testimony April 24, "There are terrorists in the world who would like
nothing better than to get their hands on and use nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons. So there is a definite link between terrorism and WMD.
Not to recognize that link would be foolhardy to the extreme."
America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror. States that
sponsor terror and pursue WMD must stop. States that renounce terror and
abandon WMD can become part of our effort. But those that do not can expect
to become our targets. This means directing firm international condemnation
toward states that shelter -- and in some cases directly sponsor --
terrorists within their borders. It means uncovering their activities that
may be in violation of international treaties. It means having a direct
dialogue with the rest of the world about what is at stake. It means taking
action against proliferators, middlemen, and weapons brokers, by exposing
them, sanctioning their behavior, and working with other countries to
prosecute them or otherwise bring a halt to their activities. It means
taking law-enforcement action against suspect shipments, front companies,
and financial institutions that launder proliferator's funds. And it
requires, above all, effective use, improvement, and enforcement of the
multilateral tools at our disposal -- both arms control and nonproliferation
treaties and export control regimes.
The Problem of Noncompliance
Multilateral agreements are important to our nonproliferation arsenal. This
administration strongly supports treaties such as the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention
[CWC], and the Biological Weapons Convention. But in order to be effective
and provide the assurances they are designed to bring, they must be
carefully and universally adhered to by all signatories. Therefore, strict
compliance with existing treaties remains a major goal of our arms control
policy.
This has been our aim in particular with the Biological Weapons Convention
(BWC). In 1969, President Nixon announced that the United States would
unilaterally renounce biological weapons. The U.S. example was soon followed
by other countries, and by 1972 the BWC was opened for signature. This
international treaty, to which more than 140 countries are parties,
prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition or retention
of biological and toxin weapons.
While the vast majority of the BWC's parties have conscientiously met their
commitments, the United States is extremely concerned that several states
are conducting offensive biological weapons programs while publicly avowing
compliance with the agreement. To expose some of these violators to the
international community, last November, I named publicly several states the
U.S. government knows to be producing biological warfare agents in violation
of the BWC.
Foremost is Iraq. Although it became a signatory to the BWC in 1972 and
became a State Party in 1991, Iraq has developed, produced, and stockpiled
biological warfare agents and weapons. The United States strongly suspects
that Iraq has taken advantage of more than three years of no U.N.
inspections to improve all phases of its offensive BW [biological weapons]
program. Iraq also has developed, produced, and stockpiled chemical weapons,
and shown a continuing interest in developing nuclear weapons and
longer-range missiles.
Next is North Korea. North Korea has a dedicated, national-level effort to
achieve a BW capability and has developed and produced, and may have
weaponized, BW agents in violation of the Convention. Despite the fact that
its citizens are starving, the leadership in Pyongyang has spent large sums
of money to acquire the resources, including a biotechnology infrastructure,
capable of producing infectious agents, toxins, and other crude biological
weapons. It likely has the capability to produce sufficient quantities of
biological agents for military purposes within weeks of deciding to do so,
and has a variety of means at its disposal for delivering these deadly
weapons.
In January, I also named North Korea and Iraq for their covert nuclear
weapons programs, in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This
year, North Korea did not meet congressional certification requirements
because of its continued lack of cooperation with the International Atomic
Energy Agency, its failure to make any progress toward implementing the
North-South Joint Denuclearization Declaration as called for under the
Agreed Framework, and for proliferating long-range ballistic missiles.
Finally, we believe that North Korea has a sizeable stockpile of chemical
weapons [CW], and can manufacture all manner of CW agents.
Then comes Iran. Iran's biological weapons program began during the
Iran-Iraq war, and accelerated after Tehran learned how far along Saddam
Hussein had progressed in his own program. The Iranians have all of the
necessary pharmaceutical expertise, as well as the commercial infrastructure
needed to produce -- and hide -- a biological warfare program. The United
States believes Iran probably has produced and weaponized BW agents in
violation of the Convention. Again, Iran's BW program is complemented by an
even more aggressive chemical warfare program, Iran's ongoing interest in
nuclear weapons, and its aggressive ballistic missile research, development,
and flight testing regimen.
President Bush named these three countries in his State of the Union address
earlier this year as the world's most dangerous proliferators. "States like
these, and their terrorist allies," he said, "constitute an axis of evil,
arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass
destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger."
Trouble Ahead
Beyond the axis of evil, there are other rogue states intent on acquiring
weapons of mass destruction -- particularly biological weapons. Given our
vulnerability to attack from biological agents, as evidenced recently in the
anthrax releases, it is important to carefully assess and respond to
potential proliferators. Today, I want to discuss three other state sponsors
of terrorism that are pursuing or who have the potential to pursue weapons
of mass destruction or have the capability to do so in violation of their
treaty obligations. While we will continue to use diplomatic efforts and
multilateral regimes with these countries, it is important to review the
challenges we face and to underline the issues that these states must
address. As the president has said, "America will do what is necessary to
ensure our nation's security. We'll be deliberate. Yet time is not on our
side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as
peril draws closer and closer."
First, Libya. There is no doubt that Libya continues its longstanding
pursuit of nuclear weapons. We believe that since the suspension of U.N.
sanctions against Libya in 1999, Libya has been able to increase its access
to dual-use nuclear technologies. Although Libya would need significant
foreign assistance to acquire a nuclear weapon, Tripoli's nuclear
infrastructure enhancement remains of concern. Qaddafi hinted at this in a
recent (25 March) interview with Al-Jazirah when he said, "We demanded the
dismantling of the weapons of mass destruction that the Israelis have; we
must continue to demand that. Otherwise, the Arabs will have the right to
possess that weapon."
Among its weapons of mass destruction programs, Libya -- which is not a
party to the CWC -- continues its goal of reestablishing its offensive
chemical weapons ability, as well as pursuing an indigenous chemical warfare
production capability. Libya has produced at least 100 tons of different
kinds of chemical weapons, using its Rabta facility. That facility closed
down after it was subject to media scrutiny, but then re-opened as a
pharmaceutical plant in 1995. Although production of chemical agents
reportedly has been halted, CW production at Rabta cannot be ruled out. It
remains heavily dependent on foreign suppliers for precursor chemicals,
technical expertise, and other key chemical warfare-related equipment.
Following the suspension of U.N. sanctions in April 1999, Libya has
reestablished contacts with illicit foreign sources of expertise, parts, and
precursor chemicals in the Middle East, Asia, and Western Europe.
Conversely, Libya has publicly indicated its intent to join the CWC. While
our perceptions of Libya would not change overnight, such a move could be
positive. Under the CWC, Libya would be required to declare and destroy all
chemical weapons production facilities and stockpiles, make declarations
about any dual-use chemical industry, undertake not to research or produce
any chemical weapons, and not to export certain chemicals to countries that
have not signed the CWC. Libya would also be subject to challenge
inspections of any facility, declared or not.
Significantly for predictive purposes, Libya became a State Party to the BWC
in January 1982, but the U.S. believes that Libya has continued its
biological warfare program. Although its program is in the
research-and-development stage, Libya may be capable of producing small
quantities of biological agent. Libya's BW program has been hindered, in
part, by the country's poor scientific and technological base, equipment
shortages, and a lack of skilled personnel, as well as by U.N. sanctions in
place from 1992 to 1999.
Libya is also continuing its efforts to obtain ballistic missile-related
equipment, materials, technology, and expertise from foreign sources.
Outside assistance -- particularly Serbian, Indian, North Korean, and
Chinese -- is critical to its ballistic missile development programs, and
the suspension of U.N. sanctions in 1999 has allowed Tripoli to expand its
procurement effort. Libya's current capability probably remains limited to
its Scud B missiles, but with continued foreign assistance it may achieve an
MRBM [medium-range ballistic missile] capability -- a long desired goal --
or extended-range Scud capability.
Although Libya is one of seven countries on the State Department's list of
state sponsors of terror (1) the U.S. has noted recent positive steps by the
Libyan government that we hope indicate that Tripoli wishes to rejoin the
community of civilized states. In 1999, Libya turned over two Libyans wanted
in connection with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie,
Scotland, for trial in the Netherlands. In 2001, it condemned the September
11 attacks publicly and signed the 12 terrorist conventions listed in U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1273. And, as I have already mentioned, Libya
has also announced its intention to accede to CWC.
However, as I have also said, words are not enough. The key is to see clear,
hard evidence that Libya will, in fact, live up to the public standards it
has set for itself. Libya can make a positive gesture in this regard by
fulfilling its obligations under WMD treaties and becoming a party to the
CWC. Moreover, Libya must honor the relevant U.N. Security Council
Resolutions relating to the resolution of Pan Am 103, arguably the worst air
terrorist disaster prior to September 11. Libya has yet to comply fully with
these resolutions, which include accepting responsibility and paying
compensation. It is past time that Libya did this.
The United States also knows that Syria has long had a chemical warfare
program. It has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and is engaged in
research and development of the more toxic and persistent nerve agent VX.
Although Damascus currently is dependent on foreign sources for key elements
of its chemical warfare program, including precursor chemicals and key
production equipment, we are concerned about Syrian advances in its
indigenous CW infrastructure which would significantly increase the
independence of its CW program. We think that Syria has a variety of aerial
bombs and Scud warheads, which are potential means of delivery of deadly
agents capable of striking neighboring countries.
Syria, which has signed but not ratified the BWC, is pursuing the
development of biological weapons and is able to produce at least small
amounts of biological warfare agents. While we believe Syria would need
foreign assistance to launch a large-scale biological weapons program right
now, it may obtain such assistance by the end of this decade.
Syria has a combined total of several hundred Scud B, Scud C and SS-21 SRBMs
[short-range ballistic missiles], It is pursuing both solid- and
liquid-propellant missile programs and relies extensively on foreign
assistance in these endeavors. North Korean and Russian entities have been
involved in aiding Syria's ballistic missile development. All of Syria's
missiles are mobile and can reach much of Israel, Jordan, and Turkey from
launch sites well within the country.
In addition to Libya and Syria, there is a threat coming from another BWC
signatory, and one that lies just 90 miles from the U.S. mainland-namely,
Cuba. This totalitarian state has long been a violator of human rights. The
State Department said last year in its Annual Report on Human Rights
Practices that "the government continued to violate systematically the
fundamental civil and political rights of its citizens. Citizens do not have
the right to change their government peacefully. Prisoners died in jail due
to lack of medical care. Members of the security forces and prison officials
continued to beat and otherwise abuse detainees and prisoners.... The
government denied its citizens the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and
association."
Havana has long provided safe haven for terrorists, earning it a place on
the State Department's list of terrorist-sponsoring states. The country is
known to be harboring terrorists from Colombia, Spain, and fugitives from
the United States. We know that Cuba is collaborating with other state
sponsors of terror.
Castro has repeatedly denounced the U.S. war on terrorism. He continues to
view terror as a legitimate tactic to further revolutionary objectives. Last
year, Castro visited Iran, Syria and Libya -- all designees on the same list
of terrorist-sponsoring states. At Tehran University, these were his words:
"Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its
knees. The U.S. regime is very weak, and we are witnessing this weakness
from close up."
But Cuba's threat to our security often has been underplayed. An official
U.S. government report in 1998 concluded that Cuba did not represent a
significant military threat to the United States or the region. It went only
so far as to say that, "Cuba has a limited capacity to engage in some
military and intelligence activities which could pose a danger to U.S.
citizens under some circumstances." However, then-Secretary of Defense
William Cohen tried to add some balance to this report by expressing in the
preface his serious concerns about Cuba's intelligence activities against
the United States and its human rights practices. Most notably, he said, "I
remain concerned about Cuba's potential to develop and produce biological
agents, given its biotechnology infrastructure...."
Why was the 1998 report on Cuba so unbalanced? Why did it underplay the
threat Cuba posed to the United States? A major reason is Cuba's aggressive
intelligence operations against the United States, which included recruiting
the Defense Intelligence Agency's senior Cuba analyst, Ana Belen Montes, to
spy for Cuba. Montes not only had a hand in drafting the 1998 Cuba report
but also passed some of our most sensitive information about Cuba back to
Havana. Montes was arrested last fall and pleaded guilty to espionage on
March 19th.
For four decades Cuba has maintained a well-developed and sophisticated
biomedical industry, supported until 1990 by the Soviet Union. This industry
is one of the most advanced in Latin America, and leads in the production of
pharmaceuticals and vaccines that are sold worldwide. Analysts and Cuban
defectors have long cast suspicion on the activities conducted in these
biomedical facilities.
Here is what we now know: The United States believes that Cuba has at least
a limited offensive biological warfare research-and-development effort. Cuba
has provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states. We are concerned
that such technology could support BW programs in those states. We call on
Cuba to cease all BW-applicable cooperation with rogue states and to fully
comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.
Conclusion
America is leading in the fight to root out and destroy terror. Our goals
are to stop the development of weapons of mass destruction and insure
compliance with existing arms control and nonproliferation treaties and
commitments, which the Bush Administration strongly supports, but experience
has shown that treaties and agreements are an insufficient check against
state sponsors of terrorism. Noncompliance can undermine the efficacy and
legitimacy of these treaties and regimes. After all, any nation ready to
violate one agreement is perfectly capable of violating another, denying its
actual behavior all the while.
And so I close with four fundamental conclusions. First, that global
terrorism has changed the nature of the threat we face. Keeping WMD out of
terrorist hands must be a core element of our nonproliferation strategy.
Second, the administration supports an international dialogue on weapons of
mass destruction and encourages countries to educate their publics on the
WMD threat. We must not shy away from truth-telling.
Third, the administration will not assume that because a country's formal
subscription to U.N. counterterrorism conventions or its membership in
multilateral regimes necessarily constitutes an accurate reading of its
intentions. We call on Libya, Cuba, and Syria to live up to the agreements
they have signed. We will watch closely their actions, not simply listen to
their words. Working with our allies, we will expose those countries that do
not live up to their commitments.
Finally, the United States will continue to exercise strong leadership in
multilateral forums and will take whatever steps are necessary to protect
and defend our interests and eliminate the terrorist threat. Thank you.
"Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000," U.S. Department of State, April 30,
2001. |
