News

Exporting an Arms Race

The New York Times
February 20, 1996, p. A19

The White House is about to take one of the greatest national security gambles since the end of the cold war. To please the computer industry, the Clinton Administration is preparing to send powerful American supercomputers to Russian nuclear weapons laboratories.

The Convex Computer Corporation, a subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard, wants to send two computers to Arzamas-16, where Moscow’s first atomic and hydrogen bombs were built, and another one to Chelyabinsk-70, the center that developed most of Russia’s nuclear warheads, including the world’s most powerful hydrogen bomb. The three machines, together worth almost $8 million, operate faster than anything now in Russia.

Many experts are convinced that the computers would improve Russia’s nuclear arsenal. “These are the worst places in Russia to send a supercomputer,” a senior American official familiar with the deal told me last week. The economic expediency of the transaction rankles Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who said, “A decision of this magnitude should not be made based solely on commercial interests, but on national security interests as well.”

The United States has always used the most powerful computers available to simulate and design nuclear weapons. Yet Convex has assured the Commerce Department that the computers would be used only for peaceful applications such as “ground water and atmospheric pollution modeling.” A company spokesman assured me that there would be an inspection plan to prevent cheating.

But a senior American nuclear weapons expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity, questioned the security arrangement, citing Russia’s legendary disregard for the environment and the lack of central control over its labs. “I can’t imagine that they won’t be used for nuclear weapons work,” he said of the computers. Last year, the Russian news agency Itar-Tass reported that scientists at Arzamas were still using simulations to develop new warheads.

Such simulations will become critical after the five official nuclear powers ban all testing, as they are scheduled to do this year. The United States is spending $46 million to develop the world’s fastest supercomputer, which Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary said will create “a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent without underground testing.” Obviously the Russians want to do the same thing — using the Convex supercomputers. But if both sides are pursuing the same strategy, supercomputers are not a deterrent: they are part of an arms race.

Convex contends that its deal supports a program begun in 1994 in which the Energy Department pays Russian labs to keep better track of their nuclear materials. But an official familiar with the contracts told me there are no provisions in them involving supercomputers. In fact, the Energy Department initially opposed the Convex deal but was outmaneuvered by the Commerce Department.

The Defense Department could still block the transaction, but it rarely interferes with export agreements. If the Pentagon gives in, Russia will get a strategic boost, even as our nuclear talks with Moscow deteriorate into an extortion game. “We are almost down to paying them off for one clause at a time,” said one United States official.

The Convex agreement could make it impossible to keep other American companies from making similar sales to Russia and other countries. “This Russian deal is part of a disturbing pattern, where we are taking bigger security risks to make money on exports,” said James R. Lilley, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Bush Administration.

With the Communists resurgent in Moscow and extreme nationalists trying to reawaken the Soviet bear, we should not be sharpening Russia’s nuclear claws. The Clinton Administration should kill the Convex deal.

Iran Replies to the Risk Report; Denies It Wants the Bomb

Dr. Mohamed Sadegh Ayatollahi, Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, has written a detailed response to the September issue of the Risk Report, which published allegations that Teheran was pursuing a nuclear weapon capability. Excerpts from Ambassador Ayatollahi’s statement have been edited for publication here.

Nuclear Activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran
by Dr. Mohamed Sadegh Ayatollahi
Nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been given considerable coverage by the international media. Such coverage is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, unfounded allegations by unnamed sources and pure innuendo. Any attempt by the Islamic Republic of Iran for peaceful application of nuclear energy, which in any other state would not even merit news coverage and would be considered an inalienable right, is immediately singled out as part of a plot to acquire nuclear weapons.

On Iran’s nonproliferation record

Iran is a proponent of the peaceful application of nuclear energy and has a record which can be matched by very few states. Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) at an early date and has placed all its nuclear activities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. Iran played an active and constructive role in negotiations toward the indefinite extension of the NPT and supports efforts to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty. As a victim of chemical warfare during its war with Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran abhors the manufacture, stockpiling and deployment of all types of weapons of mass destruction. In 1974, Iran was the first state in the Middle East to propose the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free- zone in the region.

On conventional arms buildup

Iran advocates peaceful relations with the outside world and emphasizes the need to promote “security-building” measures with neighboring states, including Iraq. The painful history of Iran’s 8-year war with Iraq has never prompted Iran to expand even her conventional arsenals, as compared to arms expenditure and imports by other Persian Gulf States with smaller populations and less GNP.

On cooperation with the IAEA

Iran has always supported initiatives aimed at strengthening IAEA safeguards so that the unfortunate lapses which occurred in Iraq and North Korea would not be repeated elsewhere. The records of the IAEA attest to this support. On numerous occasions we have invited the IAEA to visit our nuclear establishment in line with our stated policy of transparency. Visits by IAEA inspectors have never resulted in the slightest hint of any nuclear activity which may remotely be construed as “non-peaceful.” This position has never been challenged by any documented allegation.

On Israel

Israel has a track record in the nuclear field which is diametrically opposed to that of Iran but unfortunately receives less exposure by the same news media which tirelessly perpetrate allegations against Iran. Let us consider the following facts: Israel has never joined the NPT. Israel has never placed its nuclear activities under effective IAEA safeguards. Israel’s activities in applying nuclear technology for military purposes are so well-known and well-documented that they need not be elaborated upon here. Israel’s nuclear threat continues to be the major obstacle to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in the Middle East. Israel has a remarkable record of attacking peaceful nuclear installations of the Middle East States. The Israeli attack on the IAEA-safeguarded Iraqi research reactor was a clear violation of international law and may have encouraged the subsequent Iraqi digressions.

On the decision to complete Bushehr

One of the main focuses of the western, mostly American, propaganda has been the decision to complete Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) and the intention of the Russian Government to assist Iran. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has decided to complete BNPP and further develop its nuclear power industry for several reasons: Billions of dollars have already been invested in this project, whose construction was suspended in 1978. Nuclear power is the inalienable right of all parties to the NPT that have forfeited military nuclear applications in return for the benefits from peaceful applications. Total dependence on fossil fuels for power may not be viable in the future in view of environmental considerations and insecurity of sources of supply. By the year 2010, the domestic demand for oil in Iran will make total internal consumption of this product, and consequently suspension of its export, inevitable.

It is often claimed that the completion of the Bushehr reactor will lead to production of nuclear weapons. This is entirely an over-simplistic and inaccurate statement. Any nuclear expert can attest to the complex and costly facilities required before weapon-grade fissionable material can be extracted from irradiated fuel assemblies of a nuclear power plant facilities and expenses far beyond the capacity of all but a few industrialized states. The Russian and Chinese Governments have stated on many occasions that they will never export to Iran any item which may be considered contrary to its obligations under the terms of the NPT.

On the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI)

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran is the only organization in Iran responsible for the promotion of nuclear activities and the implementation of national policies in the nuclear field. To achieve its objectives, Iran will undertake the following:

  • The construction of Esteghlal Nuclear Power Plant in Bushehr with the cooperation of People’s Republic of China and completion of unit No. 1 of Bushehr nuclear power plant by Russia;
  • Installation of a zero-power research reactor and a training reactor;
  • Completion of the existing radio-isotope laboratories and installation of a cyclotron accelerator for producing industrial, medical and research isotopes;
  • Production of various types of lasers;
  • Expansion of capacity of the existing Gamma-Irradiation Center and establishment of centers for food irradiation in other producing regions of the country;
  • Expansion of dosimetry, film-badge and thermo-luminescence reserves;
  • Performance of exploration activities in the country to identify new sources and establishing their definite reserves;
  • Establishment of a pilot plant for production of fuel and nuclear material;
  • Training of about 300 personnel at Ph.D., M.Sc. and B.Sc. levels, and nearly 300 additional technicians in the field of nuclear science and technology.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has suggested to the International Atomic Energy Agency to organize regional training courses and joint projects with other countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, making use of the facilities of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

South Africa Missile and Nuclear Milestones – 1960-1995

1960s: South African Atomic Energy Board begins research on fissile material production.

1967: U.S.-supplied Safari-1 research reactor at Pelindaba Nuclear Research Center becomes operational; over the next ten years, the U.S. supplies over 100 kilograms of weapon grade fuel.

1972: West German firm transfers enrichment technology to the Atomic Energy Board.

1975: U.S. nuclear fuel shipments to Safari-1 are suspended because of United Nations sanctions.

1977: Pretoria completes first bomb package; Armaments Corporation of South Africa (Armscor) is established.

1978: President P.W. Botha puts Armscor in charge of building a nuclear bomb.

1979: U.S. satellite detects a flash unique to nuclear weapon tests in the South Atlantic; South Africa and Israel deny responsibility.

1989: South Africa tests its first large missile, a modified version of the Israel’s Jericho missile; President F.W. de Klerk orders a halt to the South African nuclear weapon program.

1991: South Africa joins the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon state; U.S. penalizes Armscor for missile cooperation with Israel.

1993: President F.W. de Klerk acknowledges that South Africa built six nuclear weapons but dismantled them in 1990-91; Pretoria cancels ballistic missile development.

1995: South Africa joins the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

South Africa’s Nuclear Autopsy

During the past five years, South Africa has made an astonishing strategic turnaround, voluntarily giving up its nuclear arsenal and surrendering its long-range missile capability, all under pressure from the United States. But questions remain: How did South Africa acquire the technology to build weapons of mass destruction? And how did Pretoria react to international export controls?

Hands down, Israel was South Africa’s most important missile supplier. Pretoria got most of what it needed from Tel Aviv. But the secrecy surrounding its A-bomb efforts often forced Pretoria to make do with low-tech equipment. “These guys were immensely proud of what they achieved under sanctions,” says a U.S. State Department official, “they came up with their own home-spun technology.” But for some tasks more sophisticated equipment was needed, so South Africa resorted to smuggling.

“I am not at liberty to divulge anything that we import…we do not identify our suppliers.” This was all Dr. Waldo Stumpf, the Chief Executive Officer of South Africa’s Atomic Energy Commission, would say as he fielded questions during a 1993 meeting at the South African embassy in Washington.

Dr. Stumpf declared categorically that South Africa “had no help from anybody on nuclear weapons technology…we gave no help to anybody and we received no help. On other things, yes…[but] not on enrichment technology, not on nuclear weapons technology.” He does admit that South Africa imported nuclear materials over the years, including low-enriched uranium, but he won’t say it came from China. Official German audits show it did and he denies that it was used for weapons.

In fact, Pretoria’s nuclear efforts depended on foreign help from the beginning. South Africa started nuclear shopping in the early 1960’s, when it contracted to buy its first research reactor from the United States. The Safari-I reactor at Pelindaba became operational in 1967, and for years the United States supplied its high-enriched uranium fuel and trained South African technicians to operate it.

South Africa’s nuclear program was run by its Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), whose scientists routinely culled open-source literature, including U.S. Navy manuals on nuclear weapon systems, safety and design. Pretoria’s quest for a bomb began in 1971. The AEC was charged with the most difficult task, producing the high-enriched uranium fuel. Armscor was asked to build the actual weapon. Once South Africa decided to “go nuclear,” it took only seven years to build an atomic bomb like the one the United States dropped on Hiroshima. The effort required about a thousand experts, but Dr. Stumpf says that “less than five or ten people had an oversight of the entire program.” Top secret clearance was only granted to persons born in South Africa with no other citizenship.

From the late 1970s through early 1990, South Africa produced highly enriched uranium a nuclear explosive at its pilot-scale enrichment plant at Pelindaba. The key technology, called “split-nozzle gaseous diffusion,” was supplied by West Germany in the early 1970s. Nevertheless, Dr. Abraham Johannes Andries Roux, president of the South African Atomic Energy Board, has claimed that 90 percent of the plant was manufactured in South Africa, and that the foreign content was purchased “through normal channels and was in no way crucial for the completion of the project.”

The need for secrecy made shopping difficult. According to the industry newsletter Nuclear Fuel, South Africa wanted tungsten, useful for making neutron reflectors for bomb packages. Tungsten can be wrapped around the uranium to increase the power of the neutron chain reaction in the bomb core. Tungsten has been controlled for export by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) since the late 1970s. Pretoria was forced to find secret sources in Rhodesia, Zambia and Zaire, according to a U.S. analyst, but no one will say exactly who sold what.

One of the things that surprised U.N. inspectors who visited South African nuclear plants was that much of the equipment was low tech. “These guys were very creative,” says a U.S. inspector, who reported that South African scientists regularly adapted lower-tech equipment to complex tasks. For example, two-axis machine tools normally used for simple manufacturing were reportedly adapted to create complex three-dimensional shapes for South Africa’s gun-type nuclear device.

By mid-1977, the AEC had completed its first bomb package, but the enrichment plant at Pelindaba, known as the “Y-Plant,” did not begin producing the high-enriched uranium fuel until 1978. A second package was built in 1978, and by late 1979 the Y-plant had made enough enriched uranium for a single bomb core. Pretoria says it built only six nuclear devices between 1977 and 1989, and the design for each was essentially the same.

South African officials say they never conducted a full-fledged nuclear test. But Soviet satellites detected preparations for a test site in the Kalahari Desert in 1977. Washington and Moscow pressured Pretoria to shut it down. In September 1979, however, an American satellite detected a distinctive double flash off the southern coast of Africa. The satellite data offered strong evidence that the flash had been caused by a low-yield nuclear explosion.

In June 1980, the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) reported to the National Security Council that the 2-3 kiloton nuclear test had probably involved Israel and South Africa. U.S. intelligence had tracked frequent visits to South Africa by Israeli nuclear scientists, technicians and defense officials in the years preceding the incident and concluded that “clandestine arrangements between South Africa and Israel for joint nuclear testing operations might have been negotiable.” Such speculation was fueled in 1986 when Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu was interviewed by the London Sunday Times. Vanunu said that it was common knowledge at Dimona that South African metallurgists, technicians, and scientists were there on exchange programs.

After Pretoria joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1991, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) started visiting South African nuclear plants to verify that Pretoria had accounted for all its secret bomb material. One of the lead inspectors recently told the Risk Report: “It was a tremendous experience…we enjoyed the highest level of cooperation that you could hope for…we were able to reconstruct the activity of the enrichment facility on a daily basis, and do forensic analysis of the records.”

But no information was provided on the suppliers. The Agency’s mandate was only to assess the “correctness and completeness” of Pretoria’s nuclear material reports. “We couldn’t ask the source of the materials,” says one of the inspectors, “if we had, they would have said: None of your business.'” The South Africans were very careful about suppliers, says the inspector. “There was nothing we saw to indicate Israeli fingerprints,” he adds.

The missile story

Israel and South Africa have a long record of military cooperation, though neither admits to working together on nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. But strong evidence of missile cooperation surfaced in 1989, when a powerful rocket took off from South Africa’s Overberg Test Range and flew nearly 1,500 kilometers. It turned out to be a South African version of Israel’s Jericho-II missile. U.S. officials confirmed later that the CIA had evidence of a full-scale partnership between the Israel and South Africa to develop, test and produce long-range missiles and rockets. A U.S. official who tracks missile proliferation tells the Risk Report that South Africa’s space launcher, the RSA-4, was built around the same engines that power Israel’s Jericho-II missile and its “Shavit” space launcher. In 1990, Washington penalized Armscor for its missile activities by banning trade for two years, but President Bush declined to punish Israel.

With the end of South Africa’s nuclear program, long-range missiles made little sense: there would be nothing nuclear to put on them. Pretoria ended its missile collaboration with Israel in 1992 and then halted all ballistic missile development in mid-1993. The next step was for Pretoria to join the Missile Technology Control Regime. As the price for membership, Pretoria had to vow that it would give up its long-range missiles and cancel its space launch effort. Then the South African companies that had actually built the rockets, such as Kentron, Houwteq and Somchem, were forced to eliminate key technologies.

Houwteq, the main contractor for the space launcher, had to dismantle its largest rockets and even retrieve blueprints and technical files from its many subcontractors. “Today, Houwteq is basically defunct as a company,” says an official from Denel, Houwteq’s parent. “There’s not much there now…it’s just a potential satellite production house.” Most of Houwteq’s engineers have been hired away by other firms such as Siemens Plessey, a company that formerly made transponders for the space launcher. Siemens Plessey was forced to return “two or three cabinets full of technical files” to Houwteq as part of the rocket destruction plan, according to a Plessey engineer.

Somchem, the second most important rocket company after Houwteq, was obliged to destroy the solid propellants and rocket casings it had made for the space launcher. Its filament-winding machines are now used to make large commercial piping, and its propellant batch-mixers can only be used for smaller missiles, says a South African diplomat. U.S. inspectors can visit Somchem to verify these arrangements.

U.S. inspectors also required Denel to destroy its large engine casting pits at Somerset West. One pit was partially filled in, limiting it to small engine production. A second was completely destroyed, according to a State Department official who was involved. Denel also destroyed large X-ray equipment, though two smaller machines remain for developing aircraft parts.

South Africa’s Hangklip test range at Rooi Els, which was equipped for large rocket tests, is reverting to a nature reserve. American inspectors have verified that its static motor test facility was destroyed. South Africa still has the large Overberg Test Range, an ideal spot for launching foreign satellites, but “its future is on hold while South Africa looks for foreign partners,” says a U.S. official who has inspected the site. “With respect to the space launch vehicle (SLV) and its new MTCR membership, South Africa is as clean as a whistle,” the inspector tells the Risk Report. South Africa was allowed to join the Missile Technology Control Regime in September 1995. But not everyone in Pretoria likes the outcome. A South African businessman, who asked to remain anonymous, predicted that “someday the Americans will have to explain why they screwed us over. We had to cancel a strong civil space program and a pending joint venture with Brazil…and a lot of companies lost business.”

Smuggling charges

South Africa is still paying for its decision to smuggle parts for its ballistic missile program. In September 1990, U.S. Customs agents shut down a company in Florida called York Ltd. for illegally shipping computerized guidance equipment for large ballistic missiles to South Africa. According to a Customs spokesperson, the company was selling isolators and circulators built to military specifications to South Africa’s Telecom Industries.

In an incident in 1988, Customs seized five South Africa-bound gyroscopes. According to an affidavit by an undercover agent, Armscor wanted a total of 38 gyroscopes for anti-tank missiles. The government indicted two Americans and three South Africans in what turned out to be an elaborate series of schemes to hide the real end-user. The scheme included shipping equipment to a front company in Israel.

The most flagrant shipments were by a Pennsylvania-based company called International Signal and Control (ISC). From 1984 to 1988, it sent South Africa more than $30 million in military-related equipment, including telemetry tracking antennae to collect data from missiles in flight, gyroscopes for guidance systems, and photo-imaging film readers, all of which would form the “backbone” of a medium-range missile system, according to a U.S. intelligence official. Some of this technology was reportedly transferred to Iraq. Fuchs International, a South African firm, was indicted in 1991 by a federal grand jury for providing Iraq with parts for ammunition fuses, used in artillery shells fired against allied troops during the Gulf War.

Armscor and ISC Chairman James Guerin were also indicted. Guerin pled guilty and is now serving time in prison. U.S. prosecutors hope Armscor will help them convict Guerin’s partner, Robert Clyde Ivy, a former Armscor employee. Mr. Ivy is the last unconvicted American charged in the 1991 indictments. Ivy’s trial has been postponed several times. In 1994, several officials associated with Armscor came to the United States to provide information about the case in return for offers by U.S. prosecutors’ of light sentences. More details about South Africa’s missile suppliers are bound to surface if Armscor is ever brought to trial.

South Africa Gives Up Nukes and Missiles; Now Gets High-Tech Imports

South Africa is the only country in history to build nuclear weapons in secret and then dismantle them voluntarily. In July 1991, Pretoria stunned the world by announcing that it would join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), a pact requiring it to give up its secret arsenal of atomic bombs. South Africa then opened all its nuclear sites to international inspectors and cleared the way toward a nuclear weapon-free zone in Africa.

In 1994, under pressure from the United States, South Africa further agreed not to build long-range missiles and to destroy the plants and equipment it was using to build large space rockets. After it demolished its key rocket sites last summer, South Africa was allowed to join the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a group of 28 countries that agrees to restrict the spread of long-range missiles. The payoff for Pretoria has been access to the high-tech and military markets of the industrialized countries. In June 1994, the U.S. Government elevated South Africa’s trading status to the same level as other formerly proscribed destinations, such as Hungary and the Czech Republic.

But one snag remains: The State Department still bans the sale of defense articles and services to South Africa’s leading defense companies, Armscor and Denel, because of a 1991 U.S. criminal indictment. Armscor is charged with violating U.S. export control laws. And Denel is seen as Armscor’s successor. At the time of the indictment, Armscor was South Africa’s key missile developer.

In an exclusive interview with the Risk Report, Denel’s Managing Director Johan Alberts vents his frustration: “It’s totally unfair that the Americans are preventing business, and it puts my president in a very awkward position.” South African President Nelson Mandela has tried for two years to persuade Washington to drop its restrictions on trade with Armscor, to no avail. Meanwhile, Denel employees are crying foul play, accusing Washington of trying to quash South Africa’s defense industry.

Libya Chemical Milestones – 1970-1995

1970: Libya tries to buy an atomic bomb from China.

1979: German engineers from OTRAG rocket firm start work on a medium-range missile in the Libyan desert.

1983: Soviet-supplied research reactor starts at Tajura Nuclear Research Center.

1984: European firms start construction of Rabta chemical weapon plant.

1985: Libyan-supported terrorists attack Rome and Vienna airports.

1986: United States bans trade with Libya; Libyan-supported terrorists bomb discotheque in West Berlin; U.S. bombers strike targets in Tripoli and Benghazi.

1988: CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) Director says Libya has built the third world’s largest chemical weapon production plant at Rabta; Libyan terrorists suspected of bombing Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland.

1990: German businessman Imhausen receives a five-year prison term for tax evasion and helping to build the Rabta plant.

1991: U.S. intelligence says Libya is building a second chemical weapon plant underground at Tarhuna.

1992: United Nations denies Libyan aircraft landing rights and bans military cooperation with Tripoli.

1993: U.S. authorities thwart a Libyan attempt to buy ammonium perchlorate, used for rocket fuel, from Ukraine.

1994: Washington sanctions three Thai companies for helping Libya make poison gas.

1995: The Central Intelligence Agency says Rabta is inactive but still capable of producing chemical weapons.

Iraq is Still a Threat, U.N. Says

Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are still a threat, say U.N. inspectors, who are now digesting a stunning load of incriminating documents found in a chicken coop on an Iraqi farm in August.

The 680,000 pages of documents were found a few days after Iraq revealed that, before the Gulf War, Iraqis had filled 166 bombs and 25 missile warheads with anthrax, botulinum and aflatoxin all deadly germ warfare agents and had tested missile warheads filled with VX, the most deadly known nerve gas. Some documents indicated that the weapons may have been deployed with a surprise attack in mind.

Iraq had also manufactured and tested its own Scud-type missile engines, and planned to divert nuclear material under international inspection to a crash program to make an atomic bomb. All of this was news to the inspectors. Saddam Hussein, they ruefully admitted, had hidden crucial parts of his mass-destruction war machine from them since the Gulf War, and could be hiding them still.

The revelations came only because one of Saddam Hussein’s sons-in-law, General Hussein Kamel, had defected to Jordan in early August and began divulging state secrets. The Iraqis reacted by taking U.N. inspectors to the chicken house. The Iraqis claimed Kamel had hidden documents from the Iraqi government there. Kamel was responsible for Saddam’s nuclear, chemical/biological and missile programs.

Iraq now says it has already destroyed everything revealed in August. The problem is that there is no documentation to prove the Iraqi claims; Iraq says the work was done under oral orders. The Iraqis have walked the inspectors over the ground where the destruction is supposed to have happened, but the inspectors are not convinced. “We have to assume the worst,” one inspector says. “They have destroyed things in a way that makes verification difficult.”

In an October report, the inspectors said they still did “not believe that Iraq has given a full and correct account of its biological weapons program.” Nor could they exclude the potential existence of stocks of VX nerve gas, its direct precursors and undeclared munitions in Iraq. And Iraq’s previously unknown production of Scud engines meant there was “no firm basis for establishing at this time a reliable accounting of Iraq’s proscribed missiles.” Thus, all the previous accounting for Iraq’s weaponry has to be revised.

The news was equally bad for export controls. The inspectors found that before the Gulf War, foreign companies had sold munitions specifically designed to hold chemical agents, had supplied technical help in making ingredients for VX nerve gas and had sent technical personnel directly to the Muthanna State Establishment, Iraq’s largest poison gas plant. The inspectors also reported in October that Iraq has secretly started to import missile parts again. They found “equipment, technologies, supplies and material” flowing to Iraq through middlemen and front companies. And according to one inspector, the purchases are not confined to missile components: “Why develop missiles without something to put on top?” he asked.

The most alarming revelations in August concerned nuclear material. Iraq planned to divert to bomb-making high-enriched uranium supplied by France and Russia before the Gulf War to fuel Iraq’s research reactors. There was enough in the fuel mix for one weapon. Iraq planned to divert it immediately after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had completed its bi-annual inspection in November 1990. Iraqi officials said they were set to remove the uranium from the reactor fuel by January 1991, but U.S. bombing raids stopped the work. Had the crash program gone according to schedule, the Iraqis said, there would have been enough material for a bomb by the end of 1991.

Libya’s Nuclear Research is Centered at Tajura

Libya operates a Soviet-supplied research reactor at the Tajura Nuclear Research Center, located about 60 kilometers east of Tripoli. The 10-megawatt reactor started operation in 1983 and is open to international inspection.

Libya is a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but the United States Government has determined that Libya wants to build the bomb. In its 1994 Annual Report, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) concludes: “Libya has demonstrated a continuing interest in the acquisition of nuclear weapons, but its nuclear program has not progressed beyond the early stages….”

Over the years, Libya has tried to buy nuclear equipment and technology from suppliers worldwide, but with little success. Today, Libya has virtually no industrial ability in the nuclear field, and international export controls remain the principal barrier to the development of a Libyan bomb.

Libya Has Trouble Building the Most Deadly Weapons

For more than twenty years, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi has tried to buy or build weapons of mass destruction. He has succeeded in making poison gas, but has failed to get his hands on a nuclear bomb and has made little progress building missiles. Qaddafi’s quest has been frustrated by a worldwide effort to deny him the technology he needs.

Nevertheless, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) estimated in 1992 that Libya had produced as much as 100 tons of chemical warfare agents, and earlier intelligence reports said the agents had been used to fill aerial bombs. Libya also has a stockpile of Soviet-supplied Scud missiles, but little or no ability to make missiles on its own. Libya’s indigenous nuclear capability is essentially nil.

Libya’s most famous buying foray was in 1970, when Qaddafi tried to get China to sell him an atomic bomb. After China said no, he tried to buy his way into Pakistan’s secret effort to enrich uranium. Libya even helped Pakistan get secret uranium shipments from Nigeria. But Pakistan severed its nuclear connection to Libya before Pakistan’s A-bomb program succeeded, so there were no nuclear gains for Mr. Qaddafi.

The story on missiles is much the same. In the late 1970s, Libya invited a group of German engineers from a company named OTRAG (Orbital Transport und Raketen, AG) to develop a medium-range missile at a secret camp in the Libyan desert. There were test flights in 1980, but pressure from the West German government caused OTRAG to withdraw in 1981. Some of the German engineers stayed on, but achieved little.

As the 1990s began, Libya was still trying. In 1991, the German press reported that Libya-bound machinery for making missiles had been seized in Hamburg. Nevertheless, knowledgeable U.S. officials say that Libya is still far from having a credible program of its own, and may not even be able to deliver chemical warheads aboard its Soviet-supplied Scuds.

Only in chemical weapons, where the technical challenge is lower, has Libya had success. The first evidence appeared in the early 1980s. U.S. satellites revealed a major construction site at Rabta, about 40 kilometers south of Tripoli. Firms from a dozen nations, led by Germany’s Imhausen-Chemie, were building “Pharma 150,” a giant complex that would house Libya’s first poison gas production plant.

Jurgen Hippenstiel-Imhausen, head of Imhausen-Chemie, had joined forces with Ihsan Barbouti, an Iraqi-born businessman whose engineering firm in Frankfurt was already helping Iraq build chemical weapons. They agreed to send equipment, supplies, construction plans and personnel to Rabta. The operation included nearly 30 German companies, several Austrian engineers and Swiss banks. Belgian and French firms also contributed. Some of the shipments left European ports under false documents, but many of the sales were legal and did not require export licenses in Europe at the time.

Construction began in 1984 and by the fall of 1988 the State Department announced that Libya could manufacture chemical weapons and had probably done so. One report said that Rabta was big enough to produce roughly 40 tons of mustard and nerve gas per month.

At first, the West German government indignantly denied that German firms had played any role in Libya’s chemical weapon efforts. A German government spokesman accused the United States of being on “thin ice.” But a barrage of U.S. and German press reports soon compelled Bonn to reverse its position. On New Year’s Day 1989, New York Times reporters Steven Engelberg and Michael Gordon laid out the details of West German participation in the design and construction of Rabta. The next day, Times columnist William Safire ridiculed Germany’s “sputtering denials” and labeled Rabta “Auschwitz-in-the-sand.”

The effect on German export control laws was dramatic. “Rabta was a real turning point,” says a German export control official. “We now speak of pre-Rabta and post-Rabta controls.” Today, it is illegal for any German national to sell even low-tech items to any weapon of mass destruction program anywhere in the world. Imhausen, however, did not violate any export control laws. He set up a trading company in Hong Kong with a branch in Hamburg. He then sold equipment to the Hamburg branch, which shipped it to Libya via Singapore and Hong Kong. The official destination was a pharmaceutical plant named “Pharma 150” being built in Hong Kong.

Imhausen had not bothered to pay taxes on his millions of profit from the deal, so he was clearly guilty of tax evasion. In a plea bargain in 1990, German officials got him to plead guilty to an export violation as well, in exchange for a five-year prison sentence and permission to keep his profits. His partner Barbouti disappeared and reportedly died in July 1990.

Japanese companies also helped. In May 1988, U.S. officials learned that Japan Steel Works was building Rabta’s metalworking plant. The facility housed precision machines capable of turning out artillery shells as well as corrosion-resistant containers for chemical agents. The company claimed that it had sold only general purpose metal-working tools, designed to make desalinization equipment. But the delivery of specialty steels used in bomb casings convinced U.S. and British intelligence that Libya was manufacturing chemical munitions. Japan later assured the State Department that Japanese firms had ended all of their activities at Rabta by July 1988.

After German and Japanese assistance ended, Thailand stepped in. During the 1990s, U.S. diplomatic efforts have been aimed at persuading Bangkok to recall its large contingent of workers.

Rabta’s current status is unclear. After strong American hints that the plant might be bombed, Libya staged a phony fire in March 1990. Burn marks were painted on undamaged buildings and flammable materials were ignited, all to create the impression of a major conflagration. After U.S. intelligence figured out the truth, U.S. officials reported that the plant had resumed production by mid-May. The plant is now considered “inactive,” but U.S. intelligence estimates that it has produced 100 to 150 tons of mustard gas and sarin nerve gas. Some of this has been place in aerial bombs, but U.S. officials are not sure how much. Estimates of Libya’s actual chemical weapon capability “have been all over the map,” according to one knowledgeable official.

Libya has recently begun a campaign to convince the world that Rabta is purely a commercial enterprise. In October 1995, Qaddafi invited leaders from around the world to attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony to inaugurate a new multi-million dollar pharmaceutical plant there. The new plant is a joint venture with Egypt’s Nasr Companies for Pharmaceuticals and is designed to produce medicines, detergents and cleansers, according to Libyan officials.

This effort to sanitize Rabta has turned the diplomatic spotlight to new, underground chemical plant under construction at Tarhuna, roughly 60 kilometers southeast of Tripoli. Codenamed “Pharma 300” by Libya, it is called “Rabta-II” by U.S. officials because it appears to be a copy of the first Rabta plant.

The exact relationship between Rabta and Tarhuna is cloudy, but U.S. officials tell the Risk Report that Qaddafi is building the second plant underground for an obvious reason to protect it from the American warplanes that destroyed Iraq’s chemical plants during the Gulf War. Tarhuna consists of two giant underground tunnels built into the side of a hill. Testifying before the U.S. Senate in January 1995, then-CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) Director James Woolsey aid that despite international efforts to deny Qaddafi foreign assistance, Libya is likely to complete Tarhuna by the end of the decade.

Once Qaddafi’s second poison gas plant is running, Libya’s production of chemical agents will greatly exceed any potential military need of its own, raising the frightening prospect that Libya could become a poison gas exporter to countries or terrorist groups in the Middle East.

Libya’s Soviet-Supplied Delivery Systems

Libya has Soviet-supplied Scud and Frog missiles and is trying to build its own heavy missile, the Al-Fatah. The most likely delivery system for Libya’s chemical weapons, however, would be Soviet-supplied fighter planes. Libya has 376 warplanes, including Soviet nuclear-capable Tu-22 bombers, MiG-23, MiG-21 and Su-24 fighters, according to the 1994-1995 Military Balance, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

FROG-7

Supplier: Soviet Union
Range: 60-70 kilometers
Payload: 450-550 kilograms
Length: 9-9.5 meters
Weight: 2.3-2.5 tons
Propulsion: Single-stage; solid fuel
Mission: Nuclear, chemical or high-explosive warhead
Status: 40 deployed

Scud-B

Supplier: Soviet Union
Range: 280-300 kilometers
Payload: 800-1,000 kilograms
Length: 11.5 meters
Weight: 6.37 tons
Propulsion: Single-stage; liquid fuel
Mission: Nuclear, chemical or high-explosive warhead
Status: 80 deployed