PREPARED STATEMENT BY
DR. KHIDHIR HAMZA

HEARING OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY,
VETERAN AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE

September 24th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members,

I will comment briefly on two points.

1)      Nuclear and radiation weapons and terrorism. And

2)      Safeguarding nuclear sources from terrorists.

1-Terrorism in this day and age is at the cross roads of changing from old style technologies of  guns and explosives to new means of terrorism that include turning local resources into weapons as happened in 9-11. But the advent of suicide terrorists adds another dimension of risk and require more serious attack at the source than the usual law enforcement style used against terrorist activities. Thus the prospect of a country like Iraq fully protected by a nuclear umbrella training and empowering more suicidal attacks through surrogate groups against the US and its interests is worth serious consideration and requires pre-emptive action on a fundamental scale. Otherwise a future in which the government restricts itself to putting out the fire is a future full of danger and uncertainty. The only solution is to deal with the root causes as much as possible.

I believe that 9-11 is indicative of the type of intelligence and planning we face. Limiting access to technology is the political equivalent of containment and as such bound to fail. Leaving at work an international system that nurtures and provides safe haven to terrorism and then trying to control it through various measures is asking for a disaster. However removing a major base through the invasion of Afghanistan is already a success. Instead of being the attackers terrorists are now scurrying for cover and are trying desperately to keep their system functioning. The correct policy is to keep them under siege and remove all their bases of operations. Iraq is the next major base. Its removal will send a signal to all terrorist supporting states that the game is up. We already see some change in the Attitudes of both Syria and Iran. The latter though declared its unhappiness about the looming action against Saddam stated that it will stay neutral during this conflict.

The weapons used by the 9-11 terrorists was knowledge and training. This is the weapon a nuclear terrorist needs most. Radioactive materials are aplenty in the US. Two possible means are either to use them or blow them up where they are. This can include attacks against reactor sites or spent fuel reprocessing or storage sites. Slipping nuclear materials acquired somewhere else also remains a possibility though it is harder to do and requires a lot of support.

What remains is the safe base were training and higher level coordination and organization and support are provided. So far no serious attack using WMD materialized because no serious state sponsor for this type of activity emerged. With the emergence of Iraq as a nuclear power however this situation can change drastically. Terrorism using WMD against both Iran and Iraqi citizens was carried out coldly and with deliberate precision by Saddam. Saddam assassinated his political opponents both inside and outside Iraq with total disregard to world or regional opinion. With a large number of training camps and extensive connections to terrorists worldwide he is in a position to provide nuclear know how to these groups and a plan of action that can provide him with total deniability. The low level of training and simple literature found in al-Qaeda hideouts indicate that you need state sponsors to put together serious nuclear operations. Loose in various countries it is difficult for terrorists to get enough training and gather enough information without a safe base and real hands-on experts. The only expert known to be inclined to support bin Laden was a former director of one of the reactors. He was easily identified and promptly dealt with. Thus without state sponsor nuclear terrorism remains a very problematic area for terrorists.  Iraq can fill this role easily.

2- Controlling access to nuclear technology and materials has been the concern of the major nuclear powers especially the US since the early 1950s with the introduction of Atoms for Peace program. Though successful to a degree by slowing down the spread of nuclear weapons it did not prevent determined states from going nuclear or being border nuclear states. I believe a determined opponent will eventually acquire enough materials and know how for a radiation or a nuclear weapon if a state sponsor provide him with the needed support. I do not think it is that easy for renegade groups working underground somewhere due to the difficulties of dealing with this particular technology.

Thus the axis of evil policy statement is probably the best measure taken so far in the prevention regime against the new proliferants. The idea remains that a state with definite intent and the means to carry them can acquire nuclear materials and technology no matter what. Thus a regime change or threat against the regime’s power base is the only serious measure that will prove effective.

Thank you Mr. Chairman