|
- March 3, 2003 (Eric Idle) :
- Yellow Alert (threat level returns to elevated/yellow alert after being on high/orange alert from Feb. 7 to 27)
- al-Qaeda Leader Captured (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who reportedly played a key role in planning the September 11 attacks, was captured on March 1 in Pakistan; information on other captured al-Qaeda figures is available here, and the FBI's most-wanted poster for Mohammed is on-line here)
- Turkey (the United States wants to deploy up to 62,000 troops to this Muslim ally in order to invade Iraq, but Turkey's Parliament denied such access in a vote on March 1)
| 
(updated frequently, but not necessarily every day)
|
Terrorism Warnings (last updated March 3, 2003) (back to top)
The risk of terrorist attack is now back to "elevated" after nearly three weeks at "high" alert. Bush administration officials announced on February 7, 2003 a "high" level of risk due to reports indicating "an increased likelihood" that al-Qaeda would attempt to attack Americans in or around the end of the Hajj, a Muslim religious period ending in mid-February 2003. Bush administration officials then announced on February 27 a return to an "elevated" threat level due to new intelligence and due to the passing of the Hajj.
The country is thus on "orange" alert, according to an advisory system that was unveiled in March 2003. Under this system, red indicates the most severe risk, followed by orange, yellow, blue, and green. The threat level has generally been "yellow", or "elevated"; the Feb. 7, 2003 elevation in threat level is the first since a temporary elevation to "orange" around the first anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Each Threat Condition shown above is associated with suggested protective measures (although the picture above suggests otherwise, the color between elevated and severe risk is actually supposed to be clearly orange, not just a darker yellow). A yellow condition is associated with surveillance and coordination of emergency plans, orange with extra precautions at public events, and red with the closing of public and government facilities. The system is now in effect by presidential directive but may be refined during a public comment period.
In announcing the system on March 12, 2002, Ridge said that the nation "currently stands in the yellow condition, in elevated risk. Chances are we will not be able to lower the condition to green until … the terror networks of global reach have been defeated and dismantled. And we are far from being able to predict that day."
On September 10, 2002, the day before the first anniversary of the attacks on New York City and Washington D.C., Gov. Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the threat level was raised from "elevated" (yellow) to "high" (orange) for the first time since the system was unveiled. Ashcroft said that the information about possible terrorist attacks focused on U.S. interests overseas and was based on "debriefings of a senior al Qaeda operative." In response, the United States closed several U.S. embassies and elevated security at overseas diplomatic and military facilities, among other measures.
Between September 11 and the end of 2001, the Bush administration issued three general warnings of further, imminent, yet unspecified attacks on the United States. These warnings were said to be based on credible but not specific information, and were criticized by some as too vague to be useful and as contributing to an already intense climate of fear and tension.
The time and circumstances of the three warnings announced between September 11 and December 31, 2001 were:
- October 11, 2001. Attorney General John Ashcroft first instructed federal law enforcement to be on "the highest level of alert" immediately after President George W. Bush in early October, and the FBI then reported on Oct. 11 that terrorist attacks on the United States and United States interests were likely "over the next several days."
- October 29, 2001. Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III then announced on Oct. 29 that "there may be additional terrorist attacks within the United States and against United States interests over the next week. The administration views this information as credible, but unfortunately it does not contain specific information as to the type of attack or specific targets."
Gov. Ridge defended this second warning the next day. "It's a difficult and fine line that we walk, but I think America understands, and hopefully, appreciates that when there's that kind of information available to us, we just share it with America, as incomplete as it might be," he said, adding that "if everybody has a heightened sense of alert, we send a signal not only to America, but those who would terrorize us, those who are trying to disrupt our way of life, that we are on guard as a country."
- December 3, 2001. Gov. Ridge announced the third warning of attack on Dec. 3, reporting again that law-enforcement had seen an increased amount of terrorist activity but that the information did not point to any specific target or outline any specific attack. "However, the analysts who review this information believe the quantity and level of threats are above the norm and have reached a threshold where we should once again place the public on general alert."
Sources: A transcript of the Feb. 7, 2003 press conference is on-line here, and of the Feb. 27 statement returning the threat level to yellow is on-line here. A transcript of the September 10, 2002 White House press conference at which Ashcroft and Ridge announced an elevation of threat level is on-line here. The State Department's chronology of September through December 2001 concerning the September 11 attacks and the United States' response is on-line here. The Oct. 29 warning is on-line here, and Gov. Ridge's defense of that warning is on-line here. The December 3 warning is on-line here. The White House announcement of the Homeland Security Advisory System is on-line here, and Gov. Ridge's introductory remarks are on-line here. The graphic used above, complete with a mislabeled "high" threat condition as yellow, is taken from the White House announcement. Philip Shenon, Color-coded system created to rate threat of terrorism, New York Times, March 13, 2002.
Turkey (last updated March 3, 2003) (back to top)
The Muslim country of Turkey has long received the support of the United States and been its ally, but the relationship between the two countries is facing a strain as Turkey balances that relationship against widespread domestic opposition to a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. On March 1, 2003, Turkey's Parliament voted 264-251 against allowing the entry of American forces, but may bring the vote up again for reconsideration.
Turkey has been an ally to the United States since the 1940s and a member of NATO since 1952. Bridging Europe and Central Asia, it is the easternmost member of NATO and the only member that is predominantly Muslim, though the country is officially secular. The country is a democracy under its 1982 Constitution; it was created in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Turkey's precarious position has become more prominent as the United States prepares to invade Iraq for its alleged non-compliance with U.N. resolutions calling for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. The United States wants to deploy up to 62,000 troops to Turkey as a base for invading Iraq, and has reportedly tied $6 billion in economic aid to Turkey's military assistance.
NATO members negotiated throughout February in order to authorize defending Turkey from Iraqi military action. On February 10, 2003, Turkey officially invoked Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which requires that NATO members consult whenever a NATO member's security or integrity is threatened. France, Germany and Belgium initially opposed granting NATO such authorization, but on February 19, 2003, NATO's Defense Planning Committee did authorize defensive measures.
Sources: The State Department's background notes on Turkey are on-line here, and the CIA's World Factbook entry on Turkey is on-line here; the map is adapted from one available via the State Department here. A NATO chronology of the February 2003 discussions about measures to protect Turkey is on-line here. Dexter Filkins, Turkish deputies refuse to accept American troops, New York Times, March 2, 2003.
Iraq (last updated February 17, 2003) (back to top)
International weapons inspectors continued in early 2003 to visit possible weapon sites and to check the accuracy of Iraq's Dec. 7, 2002 declaration that it had abandoned all efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and had complied with its disarmament obligations, even as the United States continued to seek international support and simultaneously to build up its own military forces in the Persian Gulf.
Weapon inspectors reported to the U.N. Security Council on February 14 that Iraq was cooperating with inspections, that they had found no weapons of mass destruction, but that many banned weapons were unaccounted for and could only be resolved with more cooperation from Iraq. UNMOVIC, the commission which looks into biological, chemical, and long-range missile weapons, reported that it had conducted more than 400 inspections since November, and the International Atomic Energy Agency reported conducting a total of 177 inspections.
UNMOVIC head Hans Blix reported that Iraq seemed to be continuing to cooperate, that Iraq had provided some limited interviews, and that the Iraqi legislature was enacting legislation banning weapons of mass destruction. IAEA head Mohamed Elbaradei said that no evidence had been found that Iraq revived its nuclear-weapons program since eliminating it in the early 1990s.
In the debate following the weapon inspectors' report, Security Council members debated what actions were warranted. France, the Russian Federation, China and Germany supported continued and enhanced inspections, while the United States wanted increased pressure on and immediate compliance from Iraq. "So many here would rather not have to face the issue of whether it is time to consider the serious consequences referred to in [Resolution] 1441, but it has to be faced," Secretary of State Colin Powell said.
Powell previously spoke before the United Nations Security Council on February 5 to re-iterate Iraq's failure to reach sincere disarmament and to share additional information possessed by the United States. Powell played audio tapes and satellite images that he said showed Iraqi forces moving and hiding equipment in November 2002 just before inspectors re-entered the country. Blix disputed with Powell's interpretation of some of these images at his Feb. 14 report to the Security Council.
"[T]he information and intelligence we have gathered point to an active and systematic effort on the part of the Iraqi regime to keep key materials and people from the inspectors, in direct violation of Resolution 1441. The pattern is not just one of reluctant cooperation, nor is it merely a lack of cooperation. What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work," Powell told the Security Council on Feb. 5. "My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens. We have an obligation tot his body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war. We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not, so far, taking that one last chance."
Resolution 1441
Recent events revolve around U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 1441, in which the U.N. Security Council gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with disarmament obligations imposed after the Gulf War of 1990-91. Under the Nov. 8, 2002 resolution's terms, Iraq was to make a "full, accurate and complete" declaration of all its weapons of mass destruction in order to avoid further U.N. action and "serious consequences." Iraq agreed on Nov. 13 that it would "deal with" the U.N. resolution and allow inspectors into the country, despite the resolution's "iniquitous contents" and the "bad faith" of the United States and Britain in seeking it. Iraq did not explicitly say it would grant inspectors full access, and indicated that it would supervise inspectors' conduct to ensure that it would be "lawful and professional."
U.N. weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei then began their first inspections since 1998 on Nov. 27, 2002. Iraq then provided to the United Nations on Dec. 7 a 12,000-page document which weapons inspectors are using to guide their work.
The United States has said it will consider a false declaration justification for going to war.
Bush's Campaign to Build an International Coalition
President George W. Bush has long campaigned for military action against Iraq as part of the United States' "war on terror." In his Jan. 29 State of the Union address, Bush described Iraq as one of several states constituting an "axis of evil" because of its search for weapons of mass destruction (see text here). He then took his case to the United Nations in a Sept. 12 speech demanding compliance with weapon inspections and other policy changes.
Within days, Iraq's Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Iraq would allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions," according to a Sept. 16 letter addressed to and publicly released by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Iraq's government "based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction," Minister Naji Sabri wrote.
The Bush administration cast doubt on the validity of Iraq's decision, saying that Iraq was merely seeking further delay, and continued to push for Congressional authorization to use force, which it received with a resolution approved on October 10 and 11. Under that resolution, Bush was given authorization to use force as he deems "necessary and appropriate" to defend the United States and to enforce U.N. resolutions calling for Iraq's disarmament. The Bush administration also continued to push for a stronger U.N. resolution.
The U.N. Security Council resolution thus approved on Nov. 8 was the result of negotiations between the United States and several other countries such as France. During these negotiations, the United States dropped its insistence of calling for "all necessary means" to enforce the terms, and agreed to the two-stage process in which the Security Council would meet to decide what to do if Iraq does not comply with the resolution.
Background
United Nations weapons inspectors began seeking access in 1991, faced difficulties throughout the 1990s, and were forced out of the country in 1998 and have not been allowed access since then. Inspectors have reported that Iraq had a biological weapons program (which Iraq says was destroyed in 1991), chemical weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles. The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have reported that Iraq had a clandestine nuclear program as of late 1998, but that the program had not produced a nuclear weapon at that time. For more on Iraq's weapons, go here.
Led by Saddam Hussein since 1979, Iraq has fought its most recent wars over territorial boundaries. From 1980 to 1988, Iraq and neighboring Iran were at war over territorial boundaries. In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait but were ousted by a US-led coalition acting under UN resolutions in early 1991. Since then, the United States and the United Nations have taken various measures to limit Hussein's power and, ideally, to bring about an internal change in regime.
First, the international community has imposed economic sanctions and taken military actions (most recently with Operation Desert Fox in December 1998) for Iraq's lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Even with the limited access provided by Iraq, inspectors have issued reports concluding that Iraq has been developing chemical and biological weapons, and that it has made major steps towards building a nuclear weapon though it had not done so by December 1998. Aside from the inspections, the embargo and sanctions have been controversial, with many critics, especially in the Middle East, blaming such measures for ruining the Iraqi economy and creating a massive public health crisis; US officials put the blame instead on Iraq, noting that there is no embargo on food or medicines. For more on weapons inspections, go here. For more on sanctions, go here.
Problems over inspections loomed large in 1998, which ended with US and UK military strikes against Iraq. Over the course of 1998, Iraq and the UNSCOM had many conflicts, with Iraq denying full access to monitors. In August 1998, UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter resigned in protest, saying that the US and UK were putting pressure on UNSCOM to abandon planned inspections so as to avoid new confrontations with Iraq. By October 1998, Iraq refused to provide full cooperation until the embargo was lifted. Finally, UN inspectors left the country in December, and then on December 16, 1998, the United States and Britain initiated four days of air strikes against Iraq (Operation Desert Fox). According to the US Department of Defense, the 100 sites attacked were military targets, with only one economic target, a pumping station used in illegal oil exports.
Second, a UN coalition led by the United States and Britain has maintained no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq. These operations were initially justified as ways to protect Iraqi minorities such as the Kurds from attack by the regime, and have also been used to monitor the regime's activities. The UN also maintains a no-drive zone in southern Iraq to prevent a military build-up that could again invade Kuwait. For more on no-fly zones, go here.
For a timeline, go here.
Sources: A U.N. press release of the Feb. 14 briefing is on-line here. The U.N. Security Council resolution approved on Nov. 8, 2002 is on-line here. The CIA's World Factbook entry on Iraq is on-line here. The State Department's December 2001 country background note on Iraq is available via the State Department's website, located here. President Bush's Sept. 12, 2002 speech to the United Nations is available on-line here. Michael R. Gordon and David E. Sanger, Powell says US is weighing ways to topple Hussein, New York Times, February 13, 2002. Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger, U.S. envisions blueprint on Iraq including big invasion next year, New York Times, April 28, 2002. Steven R. Weisman, How Powell lined up votes, starting with his President's, New York Times, Nov. 8, 2002. The International Atomic Energy Agency has made press information on its inspections available on-line here. Julia Preston, U.N. Inspectors criticize Iraqis over arms list, New York Times, January 10, 2003. Eric Schmitt, U.S. force in Gulf is said to be rising to 150,000 troops, New York Times, January 12, 2003.
|
