Hard Questions Re: Serbian-Libyan Missile Cooperation

This is the third in a series of
Center for Security Policy Transition
Briefs intended to
identify critical, looming challenges
to U.S. national interests. The
Center believes that these issues
must be given immediate
attention by President Clinton’s new
national security team and by the
Congress that will be asked to
confirm his senior appointees and
oversee their activities.

(Washington, D.C.): A story in today’s
Washington Times raises
troubling questions that demand immediate
answers from the Clinton Administration
as the President puts together the
foreign and defense policy team he hopes
will serve him for the next four years.
According to the Times’ national
security correspondent Bill Gertz — who
has done more than any other reporter to
expose the reckless nature of the Clinton
Administration’s approach to national
security during its first term and seems
ready to continue to perform that vital
role in the second Clinton Administration
— Serbia is providing valuable
technical support for Libyan leader
Moammar Gadhafi’s ballistic missile
program.

In his article entitled, “Serbia
is Helping Libya With Ballistic Missiles,
CIA Says,” Gertz writes:

“Details of the
Serbian-Libyan missile agreement were
disclosed in a secret report sent to
the Pentagon last month by officials
of the CIA’s office of transnational
security and technology issues. According
to the [unnamed CIA] officials, a
Serbian company known as JPL Systems
in July signed a $30 million contract
with officials of Libya’s Al-Fatah
missile-development program to
provide technical support….The
Pentagon estimates [the Al-Fatah
missile] could have a range of up to
590 miles, enough to hit targets
throughout southern Europe.”

Today’s revelations demand answers in
particular to three questions with which
the Center for Security Policy has long
been concerned. These answers should be
forthcoming at the earliest possible
moment — if not from the Clinton
Administration’s current national
security team, then from the President’s
nominees for Secretary of State and
Defense when they appear before relevant
Senate committees for their confirmation
hearings:

• In the face of yet
  another revelation about a
  dangerous rogue nation that is
  the avowed enemy of the United
  States frantically trying to
  develop ballistic missiles
  capable of reaching American
  troops and allies in the Middle
  East and the Mediterranean Basin,
  what does President Clinton plan
  to do during his second term to
  end the vulnerability to
  ballistic missile attack that
  currently afflicts this Nation,
  its troops and allies overseas?
  If the Clinton Administration’s
  existing track record is any
  indication, the President’s
  answer to this question may be:
  “Nothing for the foreseeable
  future, at least.” In that
  case, Members of Congress may be
  forced, once again, to seek a
  court order to compel Mr. Clinton
  to abide with an existing law
  regarding the prompt development
  and deployment of effective
  theater missile defenses. href=”96-T113.html#N_1_”>⁽¹⁾
• Why does the Clinton
  Administration continue to treat
  Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic
  with kid gloves?
  According to Gertz, “the
  Clinton Administration…has not
  blamed the arms trade on Serbian
  President Slobodan
  Milosevic.” This de
  facto acquiescence to
  Serbia’s military assistance to
  Libya is only the latest example
  of the Clinton Administration’s
  appalling support for the man who
  bears the greatest resonsibility
  for Serbian genocidal campaigns
  in Croatia and Bosnia. For
  example, according to a 4
  November Washington Post
  account of the recent Yugoslavian
  election campaign: “U.S.
  envoys visited state-run
  factories and met with
  high-ranking officials from
  Milosevic’s Serbian Socialist
  Party, leaving a strong
  impression that Washington backed
  the Socialists. Leaders
  of the powerless pro-Western
  opposition complained about Washington’s
  alleged pro-Milosevic tilt,
  turning it into a campaign issue.“
  (Emphasis added.) href=”96-T113.html#N_2_”>⁽²⁾
• Does this report not call
  into question the wisdom of
  pursuing a “global” ban
  on chemical weapons when Libya —
  among other rogue states
  (notably, Iraq, North Korea and
  Syria) — has made it clear that
  it has no intention of ever
  becoming a party to such a ban? If
  anything, Libya’s accelerating
  ballistic missile program
  suggests that it is intent on
  expanding its capability to
  deliver chemical weapons (and
  perhaps other weapons of mass
  destruction) across great
  distances.

This question should be considered not
only by the President and potential new
members of his national security team. It
should also be considered by every member
of the United States Senate, which will
no doubt be asked once again to give its
approval to the fatally-flawed Chemical
Weapons Convention. href=”96-T113.html#N_3_”>⁽³⁾

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy
applauds the Washington Times
and Bill Gertz for shedding important
light on yet another emerging foreign
policy crisis which will confront both
the second Clinton Administration and the
new Congress. Failure to address this and
similar challenges directly and
effectively may mean that not only
American forces and interests overseas
are unnecessarily put at risk but, in due
course, that the security of the U.S.
homeland itself will be jeopardized.

– 30 –

1. For more on the
Clinton Administration’s lack of support
for effective missile defenses, see Smoke
and Mirrors: Even by Clinton Standards,
the President’s Misrepresentations on
Missile Defense Are Scandalous
(No. 96-D 49,
23 May 1996).

2. For more on the
Clinton Administration’s Bosnia policy,
see ‘What’s Wrong With This
Picture?’ Even the ‘Office for Securing
Clinton’s Election’ Cannot Obscure His
Failure in Bosnia ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=96-D_102″>No. 96-D 102, 25
October 1996).

3. For more on the
CWC’s flaws, see Center-Sponsored
Debate Helps to Illuminate the Chemical
Weapons Convention’s Fatal Flaws
(No. 96-P 77, 1
August 1996).