***************************************************************** 02/21/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.40 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Demands Action From Iran and Syria 2 Guardian Unlimited Slovak Leader: Bush, Putin to Discuss Iran 3 Guardian Unlimited: Putin defends Iran and eyes up nuclear fuel deal 4 [NYTr] N.Korea Sets Conditions for Nuclear Talks 5 Hankyoreh: [Editorial] Don't Link Fertilizer to NK Nuclear Issue 6 Guardian Unlimited: Chinese Envoy Urges N. Korea to Join Talks 7 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Said Hints at Return to Talks 8 Korea Herald: China envoy meets N. K. leader Kim on six-way nuclear 9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Chinese Envoy Discusses Nuke Issue with N 10 YWS:N.K. Announcement of Nuke Possession Only Negotiation Tactic - F 11 BBC: North Korea 'U-turn' on US talks 12 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: IAEA Chief Ready to Mediate N. Korean Nuk 13 Xinhua: Seoul not to link fertilizer aid to DPRK with nuclear issue 14 Japan Times: Machimura, Rice to stress resuming six-party talks 15 Japan Times: Nightmare choice set to confront China 16 Japan Times: Pyongyang toeing 'red line' 17 Japan Times: No vision of North Korea's future 18 Korea Times: Trilateral Meeting on Nukes Due This Week 19 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Said to Shun Talks With U.S. 20 Guardian Unlimited: China Steps Up Efforts on Nuclear Talks 21 US: The Inevitability Trap 22 deseret news: Nuclear dilemma 23 US: Tennessean: Missile defense fizzles again - 24 WorldNetDaily: Targeting nonexistent nukes? 25 [southnews] Flirting with Armageddon 26 TIME.com: An Ominous Pairing -- 27 TIMES OF INDIA: Pak may use nuke weapons against India - CIA 28 Interfax: USA and NATO do not intend to control Russian nuclear arse 29 Press Herald: A Cold War relic fails test of time 30 Longmont: FYI - Nighthorse of a different color 31 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Begins Five-Day Trip to Europe NUCLEAR REACTORS 32 US: NRC Admission Re Probability Of Meltdown 33 UK The Times: 'Clean' nuclear power? 34 US: Daily Press COMMENTARY: Nuclear power our best bet 35 South Africa Sunday Times: 'End spending on pebble bed' 36 FT.com: Utilities - EDF could offer Enel nuclear role NUCLEAR SAFETY 37 US: [DU-WATCH] third N.C based soldier dies after exhibiting 38 North County Times: Book describes the demise of the Kursk 39 US: Herald Tribune: American Beryllium case sparks legislation NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 40 US: The State: WHAT IS MOX? 41 Accountancy Age: Auditors clear BNFL of losing nuclear material - 42 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada attorney general says nuclear-waste dump won't 43 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Jeff German: Tide may wash away advocates o 44 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: So, why is Yucca work continuing? 45 US: Las Vegas SUN: EPA revises perchlorate evaluation 46 US: deseret news: Huntsman wants Moab tailings moved now 47 US: Arizona Daily Sun: Colorado River threatened by radioactive wast 48 US: World Peace Herald : Analysis: Nuclear waste pile worries wester NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 49 lamonitor.com: Risk Assessment cleanup team ready to go public 50 The State: SRS slated for new surplus plu 51 ABQjournal: Weapons Design Enters New Era OTHER NUCLEAR 52 [DU-WATCH] Camilo Mejia on DU - and the rest 53 [DU-WATCH] US Military, President Out of Control 54 BBC: Rays to nab nuclear smugglers ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Demands Action From Iran and Syria From the Associated Press [UP] Monday February 21, 2005 7:31 PM AP Photo BELD103 By TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - President Bush appealed to Europe on Monday to move beyond animosities over Iraq and join forces in encouraging democratic reforms across the Middle East. He also prodded Russia to reverse a crackdown on political dissent, demanded that Iran end its nuclear ambitions and told Syria to get out of Lebanon. Bush did not rule out using military force in Iran, saying all options remain on the table. But, addressing widespread concerns in Europe that Iran is the next U.S. target after Iraq, Bush said: ``Iran is ... different from Iraq. We're in the early stages of diplomacy.'' Bush's speech on a five-day fence-mending trip to Europe was aimed at both U.S. and European audiences. ``In a new century, the alliance of America and Europe is the main pillar of our security,'' he said. He used the word ``alliance'' 12 times in his speech to underscore his aim to repair relations frayed by the war in Iraq. But not all his speech was conciliatory. Bush had pointed criticism for Russia three days ahead of a meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Slovakia. Referring to Putin's recent steps to consolidate power, rollback democratic reforms and curb press and political freedoms, Bush said: ``We must always remind Russia that our alliance stands for a free press, a vital opposition, the sharing of power and the rule of law. The United States should place democratic reform at the heart of their dialogue with Russia.'' Bush's speech was delivered in an ornate ballroom of Brussels' Concert Noble hall before an audience of business leaders, academics and diplomats. It was greeted mostly by subdued applause. Bush and French President Jacques Chirac, one of his harshest critics on Iraq, said they were committed to patching up differences and restoring good relations despite their disagreement. ``I'm looking for a good cowboy,'' Bush joked when a French reporter asked him whether relations had improved to the point where the U.S. president would be inviting Chirac to the U.S. president's ranch in Texas. Chirac said that U.S.-French relations have been ``excellent for over 200 years now.'' Chirac added, ``That doesn't necessarily mean we agree on everything at every time.'' The two leaders made the comments before they sat down to a private dinner. Bush's trip also included stops in Germany and Slovakia. Bush urged greater ``tangible political, economic and security assistance to the world's newest democracy,'' Iraq. And he called for European allies to stand by fledgling democracy movements throughout the world, and especially in the Middle East. On the same day that he spoke, European Union foreign ministers decided to open a Baghdad office to coordinate the training of more than 700 Iraqi judges and prosecutors. The office will be the first EU representation in Iraq since the war, and European officials said it reflects their willingness to take on a more active rebuilding role and help smooth relations with Bush. Bush said he recognized that full democracy could take awhile to root. Even in the United States, democracy came slowly, Bush said, pointing out that women and minorities were not treated equally ``and that struggle hasn't ended.'' Bush had sharp words for Syria, calling on leaders in Damascus to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. As Bush spoke, thousands of opposition supporters in Beirut shouted insults at Syria and demanded the resignation of Lebanon's pro-Syrian government, marking a week since the assassination of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's most prominent politician. The United States has withdrawn its ambassador from Syria for consultations to protest a suspected link between the assassination and Syria. ``The Lebanese people have the right to be free, and the United States and Europe share an interest in an independent, democratic Lebanon,'' Bush said. On Iran, Bush said the United States was working with European allies Britain, France and Germany on a diplomatic solution to end Iran's nuclear program. His administration, however, has been skeptical of the Europeans' approach to offer Iran economic and political incentives not to develop nuclear arms. ``The results of this approach now depend largely on Iran,'' Bush said. ``The time has arrived for the Iranian regime to listen to the Iranian people and respect their rights and join in the movement toward liberty that is taking place all around them.'' And he had pointed advice for two pivotal U.S. allies in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia and Egypt. ``The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future,'' Bush said, urging greater move toward giving Saudi more political freedom. ``The great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East,'' Bush said. Addressing the long-running conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis, one of keen interest to Europe, Bush said a future Palestinian state must be ``contiguous'' because a state ``on scattered territories will not work.'' This appeared to signal Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that he may have to be more forthcoming on giving up Israeli settlements in the West Bank when peace negotiations on a Palestinian state reach their final stage. Before the speech, the president made a courtesy call on King Albert II and Queen Paola, Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. Verhofstadt, who introduced Bush at the speech, said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was divisive - but with pressing problems in Africa and other parts of the world, ``It makes little sense arguing about who was right.'' Bush sought to minimize past differences on Iraq. ``Some Europeans joined the fight to liberate Iraq, while others did not,'' Bush said. ``All nations now have an interest in the success of a free and democratic Iraq, which will fight terror, which will be a beacon of freedom and which will be a source of true stability in the region.'' Despite Bush's appeal to bury past differences, divisions remain over other issues, including the U.S. decision not to enter the Kyoto climate change treaty, which many European nations supported. ``All of us expressed our views on the Kyoto Protocol, and now we must work together on the way forward,'' Bush said. He suggested the answer lies in ``the power of human ingenuity'' and emerging technologies. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited Slovak Leader: Bush, Putin to Discuss Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Monday February 21, 2005 10:31 AM By ANDREA DUDIKOVA Associated Press Writer BRATISLAVA, Slovakia (AP) - Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Ukraine are likely to dominate this week's summit between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Slovakia's prime minister said. Bush arrives in Slovakia late Wednesday after visiting Belgium and Germany. He will meet with Slovak officials on Thursday before his talks with Putin - Bush's first meeting with the Russian leader since he began his second term. In an interview with The Associated Press, Slovak Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda said on Sunday that he believed everyone involved in the nuclear standoff with Iran had a common goal to ease tensions. ``So if the goal is common ... I'm sure that we are able to discuss and look for common approach,'' Dzurinda said. The prime minister, a staunch supporter of the United States whose country has deployed about 100 troops to Iraq, said he prefers ``to use the space for negotiations, for diplomacy,'' adding he was sure ``this space is still open.'' Dzurinda said he regretted the rift that has widened between some European countries and the United States over Iraq. But he refused to budge in his support of Washington. ``I want to tell President Bush that I highly appreciate his policy, his strong and courageous leadership,'' Dzurinda said. ``It was not easy to decide to go to Iraq, to Afghanistan ... but reality shows that it was the right decision at the right time.'' ``I'm very happy that President Bush showed such a strong leadership,'' Dzurinda said. ``Slovakia is and will be a strong ally of the U.S.'' Bush will be the first U.S. president to visit this ex-communist country since it gained independence following the 1993 split of former Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Describing the forthcoming visit as ``very, very emotional,'' Dzurinda recalled the many generations of Slovaks who have emigrated to the United States or have looked up to the country while they endured 41 years or communist rule. ``America was and still is still a symbol of freedom and democracy,'' he said. Dzurinda, a two-time prime minister who led Slovakia out of international isolation under his authoritarian predecessor, Vladimir Meciar, said his country - a new member of NATO and the European Union - was chosen to host the upcoming summit because of its success in making the transformation to democracy. Bush echoed that sentiment in a recent interview with European reporters, including a journalist from the Slovakian daily Sme, which published excerpts Monday. Bush told the reporters he wanted to congratulate Slovaks for what they have done ``for democracy and freedom.'' He said he was coming to Slovakia because he liked the country's leaders and its story, and to hold the nation up as an example to other countries. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Putin defends Iran and eyes up nuclear fuel deal Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow and Julian Borger in Washington Saturday February 19, 2005 The Guardian President Vladimir Putin openly defied Washington yesterday by announcing a visit to Iran less than a week before a summit with President Bush. Mr Putin welcomed Iran's national security chief, Hassan Rohani, to the Kremlin and declared that Tehran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, flatly contradicting repeated allegations by the US. Moscow has also signalled that Alexander Rumyantsev, head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, will fly to Tehran next Saturday to sign a deal that would open the way for delivery of nuclear fuel to a Russian-built reactor in Bushehr. Ahead of the US-Russian summit in Bratislava on Thursday, Mr Putin has also defied Washington over Syria, another state the Bush administration is trying to isolate. Russia has announced the sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Damascus. Under the Iranian nuclear deal, spent fuel would be returned to Russia, but only after 10 years. Nuclear proliferation experts fear that without adequate safeguards the spent fuel could easily be converted to plutonium for bombs. The spent fuel repatriation deal would also open the way for nuclear fuel deliveries to the Bushehr reactor. The fuel is ready for delivery within weeks, officials have said, and the plant could be operational by 2006. After his meeting with Mr Rohani, President Putin declared: "The latest steps by Iran convince Russia that Iran indeed does not intend to produce nuclear weapons and we will continue to develop relations in all sectors, including peaceful atomic energy." He added: "I have received an invitation from the Iranian leadership to visit your country and we are preparing for a visit to Iran". If signed, the nuclear fuel deal could upset European efforts to persuade Iran to cease uranium enrichment - another possible route to a nuclear warhead. Tehran has agreed only to suspend enrichment until next month. President Bush refused again yesterday to rule out military action, but said diplomacy was his preferred course. "First of all, you never want a president to say never, but military action is certainly not, is never, the president's first choice," he told Belgian television. "Diplomacy is always the president's, or at least always my first choice, and we've got a common goal, and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon." David Albright, a nuclear expert and director of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), said: "Russia should respect the uncertainty of the situation and hold back until this is clarified, but people [in the Russian nuclear power industry] may just want to make money and they're thinking, "Let's do this now'." ISIS published satellite photographs yesterday which showed the construction of big tunnels near a uranium conversion plant in Iran. The tunnels have been shown to the International Atomic Energy Agency, but Mr Albright said they could be used to move equipment underground with the intention of processing uranium away from international scrutiny and sheltered from a possible air strike. Russia is not only building Iran an $800m nuclear plant at Bushehr, but training hundreds of Iranian scientists across Russia, a transfer of materials and knowledge that has infuriated Washington. The US has long maintained that Iranian nuclear energy development is a front for a weapons programme, while Israel has said Iran is six months away from having the knowledge to make a nuclear bomb. · The Syrian president, Bashar Assad, has appointed his brother-in-law, Brigadier-General Asef Shawkat, to replace the chief of military intelligence, General Hassan Khalil. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] N.Korea Sets Conditions for Nuclear Talks Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:49:29 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Reuters via Yahoo - Feb 18, 2005 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=5&u=/nm/20050218/wl_nm/korea_north_envoy_dc N.Korea Sets Conditions for Nuclear Talks - Report SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea will return to talks on ending its nuclear programs "in any form" if the United States pledges "coexistence and non-interference," the North's envoy to the United Nations told a South Korean newspaper. Deputy Ambassador Han Song-ryol also told the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper that the North wanted an assurance by the United States that there would be substantive results from negotiations in order to return to stalled nuclear talks. North Korea dealt a blow to an already complicated diplomatic process on its nuclear programs by declaring on Feb. 10 that it had nuclear arms and was pulling out indefinitely from six-country talks set up to negotiate an end to the standoff. "We need some kind of justification if we were to return to the talks," Han said in the article published on Saturday. He said recent statements by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice undermined the position of those in Pyongyang who advocated dialogue because they indicated a plan to overturn the North's government by force. "We are willing to respond to dialogue in any form including the six-party talks if the United States promises coexistence and non-interference and guarantees substantive results from the talks," Han was quoted as saying. "If the United States withdraws its hostile policy, we will drop our anti-U.S. policy and become allies, and why would we then need nuclear weapons?" Han said. South and North Korea, the United States, China, Russia and Japan met for three rounds of the talks on ending Pyongyang's nuclear programs in return for aid and security guarantees. A fourth round was planned in September but never materialized. North Korea's demand for non-interference generally refers to calls by the international community to improve its human rights conditions. Pyongyang reacted harshly to a U.S. law enacted last year that provided for measures aimed at improving human rights in North Korea and said it was a ploy to overthrow its socialist government. Bush and Rice said in January Washington was committed to ending "tyranny." Rice singled out North Korea as among "the outposts of tyranny." "Secretary of State Rice's statement on 'the outposts of tyranny' is the most (serious) problem," Han said. Bush and Rice said Washington was committed to a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear standoff but have rejected Pyongyang's demand for one-on-one negotiations. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday that North Korea must return to the talks without preconditions. South Korea and the United States are looking to China -- the North's largest benefactor and its sole remaining ally -- to press the North back to the talks. A senior Chinese communist party official is expected to begin a visit to Pyongyang on Saturday. * Search the NYTr Archives at: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 5 Hankyoreh: [Editorial] Don't Link Fertilizer to NK Nuclear Issue Updated : Feb.21.2005 07:01 KST The international community is busy trying to convince North Korea to come back to the six-party talks now that is has declared it possesses nuclear weapons and does not want to participate in those six-party process. A lot of hope is being put in effort being taken on the part of China, which is known to have a lot of influence with North Korea. That is why the world is watching Wang Jiarui, head of the international liaison department of the country's Communist Party, with his visit to Pyongyang to meet with leaders there to try to ascertain the North's true intentions and have them return to the negotiations. Given how North Korea places so much importance on maintaining face it is doubtful that its hard-line approach will change because of one visit from a high-ranking Chinese official, but it clearly will have been an opportunity to figure out what exactly the North is after. Because of the interruption in intra-Korean dialogue, the situation we find ourselves in is one in which we have no channel through which to know what the North's real views are, and we are left to on the one hand put hope in China's efforts while on the other hand we have no other effective leverage other than to press the Bush Administration to not take a hard-line response to the North Korean foreign ministry's announcement. The situation is all the more reason why we need to consider timely measures such as the sending of a special envoy to Pyongyang for direct dialogue. This is why we should not slow the speed of economic cooperation in areas such as the Gaeseong industrial complex project and of course the fertilizer the North says it wants. We must not miss the timing for spring fertilization. Fertilizer aid must not be linked to the North Korean nuclear issue and we should not be overly sensitive to the US on the issue, as doing so would significantly risk running things by losing what is left of the trust between North and South. We should refrain from being too calculating about the fertilizer since doing so could initiate a vicious cycle that would hurt the strategy of encouraging intra-Korean dialogue, but it would also not be right to do so when you think of the humanitarian need to help brethren in the North avoid starvation. That is why it is regrettable that US delegate to the six-party talks Christopher Hill recently made comments that seemed to suggest the US and Korea need to iron out their positions regarding fertilizer aid. The Hankyoreh, 21 February 2005. Copyright 2005 Hankyoreh Plus inc. ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Chinese Envoy Urges N. Korea to Join Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Monday February 21, 2005 1:46 PM By STEPHANIE HOO Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - A top Chinese envoy Monday sought to persuade North Korea to rejoin nuclear disarmament talks, while Japan, South Korea and the United States planned their own meeting to discuss how to deal with Pyongyang's claim to have nuclear weapons. Wang Jiarui, head of the Chinese Communist Party's international department, had planned to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Il over the weekend, the official China Daily newspaper reported, although there was no word on whether that meeting took place. China's Foreign Ministry and the Communist Party's press office had no comment on Wang's trip. He arrived Saturday in North Korea for a four-day visit and has met the country's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong Nam, Chinese and North Korean state media reported. The Russian ITAR-Tass news agency reported from Pyongyang that Wang met Sunday with Kim for nearly three hours. It cited unidentified foreign experts in the North's capital as saying that the length of the meeting suggested the ``sides might have had serious contradictions.'' Meanwhile, Japan, the United States and South Korea were planning their own talks on how to handle the standoff, although no date had been set. ``Naturally, we think it's necessary to hold talks among Japan, the United States and South Korea as soon as possible,'' Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda told reporters in Tokyo on Monday. Seoul also reached out directly to Pyongyang during a meeting in New York last week between diplomats from both Koreas, said South Korean opposition lawmaker Won Hee-ryong. At the meeting, the deputy chief of North Korea's U.N. mission, Han Song Ryol, said his government wouldn't return to the negotiating table because of what it sees as a ``hostile policy'' by the United States, Won said. China is trying to get North Korea to rejoin six-nation talks on its nuclear program. The task was made more urgent by Pyongyang's unconfirmed declaration earlier this month that it has built nuclear weapons. Pyongyang also said it would boycott six-nation talks with China, the United States, South Korea, Japan and Russia. During three rounds of talks in Beijing since late 2002, North Korea has demanded more aid and a peace treaty with Washington in exchange for giving up its nuclear program. The talks have made little progress amid deep distrust between Washington and Pyongyang. The United States wants a verifiable nuclear freeze and weapons dismantlement as part of any deal. North Korea says it remains convinced that Washington wants to topple its communist regime and it needs a nuclear deterrent. In a dispatch from Pyongyang, the North's official Korean Central News Agency carried a report Monday that accused Washington of plotting to ``turn the Korean peninsula into an outpost for U.S. military supremacy in northeast Asia.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Said Hints at Return to Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday February 22, 2005 12:16 AM AP Photo NY117 By SANG-HUN CHOE Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korean leader Kim Jong Il told a visiting Chinese envoy that his government will return to six-party nuclear disarmament talks if the United States shows ``sincerity,'' the communist state's official news agency said Tuesday. The announcement - the latest in more than two years of conflicting statements over North Korea's nuclear program - came less than two weeks after Kim flouted Washington and its allies by claiming that it had nuclear weapons and would boycott the talks. ``We will go to the negotiating table anytime if there are mature conditions for the six-party talks thanks to the concerted efforts of the parties concerned in the future,'' Kim said Tuesday, expressing the hope that the United States would show ``trustworthy sincerity,'' according to the Korean Central News Agency. Kim spoke of his government's new position in over the nuclear issue in a meeting with Wang Jiarui, head of the Chinese Communist Party's International Department, KCNA said. Kim also said that North Korea ``would as ever stand for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and its position to seek a peaceful solution to the issue through dialogue remains unchanged,'' the news agency said. KCNA did not elaborate on what conditions Kim cited during his talks with the envoy from China, which is his impoverished country's only remaining major ally. In Washington, State Department spokesman Lou Fintor said that U.S. officials were ``aware of the report'' about Kim's remarks, and the U.S. position on resuming the six-party talks is well known. ``The United States remains ready to resume the six party talks at an early date without preconditions,'' said Fintor. He said, ``The six-party talks are the best way to resolve through peaceful diplomacy the international community's concerns about North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and to end the North's international isolation.'' In its rejection of further meetings over the nuclear issue on Feb. 10, North Korea said it would only return to the talks that include South Korea, China, Russia and Japan if the United States drops what it called a ``hostile'' policy toward the North. In his meeting with Kim Monday, Wang relayed a verbal message from Chinese President Hu Jintao, KCNA said. ``Hu Jintao in his verbal message clarified that it is in the fundamental interests of the Chinese and DPRK sides to maintain the stand of realizing the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and protecting its peace and stability, settle the nuclear issue and clear the Korean side of its reasonable concerns through the six-party talks,'' KCNA said. DPRK stands for the North's official name - Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Wang expressed ``the hope that thanks to the concerted efforts of each side the six-party talks would resume soon,'' the report said. ``China has consistently stood for the protection of the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula ... and held that the parties concerned should settle the nuclear issue of Korea through dialogue,'' KCNA said. During three rounds of talks in Beijing since late 2002, North Korea has demanded more aid and a peace treaty with Washington in exchange for giving up its nuclear program. The talks have made little progress amid deep distrust between Washington and Pyongyang. The United States wants a verifiable nuclear freeze and weapons dismantlement as part of any deal. North Korea says it remains convinced Washington wants to topple its communist regime, and that it needs a nuclear deterrent for protection. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 8 Korea Herald: China envoy meets N. K. leader Kim on six-way nuclear talks Chinese Ambassador to South Korea Li Bin said China's chief delegate Wang Jiarui met North Korean leader Kim Jong-il yesterday and tried to persuad the North to return to the six-party disarmament talks. Speaking to South Korean reporters, Li also said China can put pressure on North Korea to rejoin the nuclear talks. "Wang is inducing Kim Jong-il to (come to the dialogue table)," the ambassador said. But he declined to elaborate on how the North Korean leader responded and where the meeting took place. Wang, head of the Chinese Communist Party's international department, arrived in Pyongyang on Saturday for talks with North Koreans officials about its nuclear program. The Chinese chief delegate has met the North's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong-nam. The Russian news agency Itar-Tass reported from Pyongyang that Wang's talks with Kim Yong-nam lasted nearly three hours suggesting the "sides might have had serious contradictions." China dispatched the delegation after South Korea and the United States asked for its active role in persuading the North to withdraw its earlier decision not to take part in the six-party talks. The North also made a surprise announcement that it possesses nuclear weapons. China, South Korea and the United States agreed that the North must come back to negotiations and the Korean Peninsula must free of nuclear weapons. The Chinese delegation's visit to the North comes as three countries - South Korea, Japan and the United States - are planning to discuss North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The six-party talks have been stalled for months because of the standoff between the North and the United States. During three rounds of six-way talks in Beijing since late 2002, North Korea has demanded more aid and a peace treaty with Washington in exchange for abandoning nuclear development. North Korea had also sought one-on-one talks with Washington but withdrew the offer on Saturday, citing what it called the United States' persistent attempts to topple the communist regime, Chinese media reported. (bluelle@heraldm.com) By Choi Soung-ah 2005.02.22 ***************************************************************** 9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Chinese Envoy Discusses Nuke Issue with N. Korean Leaders > Updated Feb.20,2005 19:38 KST Chinese Envoy, N. Korean Official In Marathon Nuke Meeting Kim Jong-Il: North Korea May Return to Talks Wang Jiarui, the head of the Chinese Communist Party's international liaison department, on Friday kicked off a series of meetings with high-ranking North Korean officials to resolve the stalemate in Pyongyang's nuclear issue. Wang met first with North Korean Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly President Kim Yong-nam. A diplomatic source in Beijing said Wang would meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il before leaving Pyongyang and would discuss details of Pyongyang¡¯s Feb. 10 announcement that it has nuclear weapons and the reclusive Stalinist country's return to the six-party talks. On his first day in Pyongyang, Wang also met Vice Foreign Minister Kim Hyong-jun. In the meetings he conveyed Beijing¡¯s concerns about North Korea's nuclear declaration and announcement that it is boycotting six-party talks on its atomic program, and urged an early return to the talks. A Chinese source said Wang would likely pay a courtesy call on North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to convey the concerns of the Chinese leadership. He said Wang had met Kim last January when he visited North Korea at the invitation of the Korean Workers Party and was likely to do so again on this trip. Diplomatic sources said Wang¡¯s meeting with Kim was virtually a forgone conclusion, but added if the North Korean leader refused to see the envoy, his country's relationship with Beijing would deteriorate radically. Beijing watchers are privately raising the possibility that China may not actively persuade North Korea to rejoin the talks. A researcher at a Chinese policy research institute who asked to remain anonymous said Beijing's influence on Pyongyang's policy decisions was much more limited than many believed. He said Wang¡¯s visit was unlikely to be a major turning point in resolving the nuclear stalemate. Meanwhile, the New York Times on Saturday reported a number of experts as saying Beijing was hesitant to take on the diplomatic burdens and risks associated with putting pressure on North Korea. (Cho Jung-shik, jscho@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 10 YWS:N.K. Announcement of Nuke Possession Only Negotiation Tactic - Feulner YONHAPNEWS WORLD SERVICE::ENGLISH NEWS www.yonhapnews.co.kr 2005/02/21 09:34 KST By Byun Duk-kun SEOUL, Feb. 21 (Yonhap) -- North Korea's announcement of its possession of nuclear weapons may only be an attempt to raise the ante for its return to the stalled talks on nuclear disarmament, said Edwin Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, Monday. "This is a very exciting time right now. North Korea indicates they will not participate in nuclear talks. This is not a helpful statement," the head of the conservative U.S. think tank said in a meeting of legislators from the United States and South Korea. ***************************************************************** 11 BBC: North Korea 'U-turn' on US talks Last Updated: Saturday, 19 February, 2005 [Satellite image of North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Centre] North Korea says it has nuclear weapons A North Korean official has said his government no longer wants even bilateral talks with the United States over its nuclear weapons programme. Pyongyang had been demanding direct negotiations with the US for two years. Earlier this month, North Korea confirmed it had nuclear weapons and withdrew from discussions with its neighbours and the US. The US and Japan on Saturday urged North Korea to resume the six-party talks, expressing their concerns. Pyongyang said earlier it would stay away from the talks for an "indefinite period" and "bolster" its nuclear arsenal. Patience The North Korean foreign ministry official told China's Xinhua news agency that Pyongyang no longer wanted direct talks with the US, citing what he described as Washington's persistent attempts to topple the communist regime. [North Korea] has justification to take bilateral talks... on the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula with the United States North Korean official "[North Korea] has no justification to take bilateral talks... on the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula with the United States now," the official said. The news came as a top Chinese envoy arrived in North Korea to urge it to return to six-party talks. China is North Korea's closest ally and has coaxed it back into talks before. Later on Saturday, the US and Japan called on Pyongyang to return to the negotiating table. "We share a concern about events on the Korean Peninsula," US Secretary of State Condoleezza said after talks in Washington Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura and Defence Agency chief Yoshinori Ono. "The ministers and I urge North Korea to return to the six-party talks as the best way to end nuclear programs and the only way for North Korea to achieve better relations," Ms Rice said. Diplomats trying to formulate a response to North Korea's latest nuclear claims are struggling to understand its motives in withdrawing. Sometimes contradictory statements from officials are adding to the confusion, says the BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul. Earlier, North Korea's ambassador to the United Nations said there could be a future for negotiation, but only if the US dropped its hostile policy and stopped trying to bring down the government of Kim Jong-il. The Chinese envoy, Wang Jiarui, is head of the ruling Communist Party's international department and is expected to be in the North until Monday. China has sponsored three previous rounds of talks and is keen to retain the diplomatic initiative concerning a country it sees as a key ally. Diplomatic sources say Chinese officials were taken aback by North Korea's claim to have made nuclear weapons, but they have since called for patience and calm and ruled out sanctions. ***************************************************************** 12 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: IAEA Chief Ready to Mediate N. Korean Nuke Dispute Home> National/Politics Updated Feb.20,2005 16:59 KST Mohamed ElBaradei has hinted that he might mediate to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. In an interview in the latest edition of the German magazine Der Spiegel, to be released Monday, ElBaradei said he was most concerned about the North Korean nuclear issue, and he pressed Kim Jong-il to re-allow IAEA inspection teams to enter North Korea. He said it seemed North Korea believes nuclear weapons are its only negotiating card, and he said that in order to resolve the issue, he was prepared to go to North Korea himself as a special gesture. As for North Korea¡¯s nuclear declaration, the IAEA head said he had no specific information on whether North Korea possessed nuclear weapons or not. He did claim, however, that North Korea has enough plutonium to produce 6~8 nuclear weapons, along with the know-how to put them together. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 13 Xinhua: Seoul not to link fertilizer aid to DPRK with nuclear issue www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-02-21 18:40:26 SEOUL, Feb. 21 (Xinhuanet) -- South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-yong said that Seoul would not link Seoul's fertilizer aid to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) with the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. "Fertilizer aid is humanitarian aid but it requires working-level consultation between South and North Korea (DPRK)," Chung was quoted by South Korean Yonhap News Agency as saying Monday. He also said the government is cautiously reviewing the DPRK's request of 500,000 tons of fertilizer aid but made it clear no decision has been made yet. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon recently said Seoul will continue "economic cooperation" based on "humanitarian grounds" with the DPRK. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is ***************************************************************** 14 Japan Times: Machimura, Rice to stress resuming six-party talks Sunday, February 20, 2005 WASHINGTON (Kyodo) Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were set to agree during talks Saturday to focus on diplomatic efforts to convince North Korea to return to the six-party talks and resolve the nuclear standoff, a Japanese official said. Yoshinori Ono (right), Defense Agency director general, speaks to reporters Friday in Washington as Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura looks on. The official said Machimura would call for holding a meeting of senior officials from Japan, South Korea and the United States as soon as possible, while expressing "deep concern" about North Korea's declaration Feb. 10 that it possesses nuclear weapons and is pulling out the six-party talks indefinitely. The official asked not to be named. Machimura was to invite Rice to visit Japan at the earliest possible date when he meets for the first time with the new U.S. secretary of state, the official said. Rice replaced Colin Powell last month for President George W. Bush's second term. The two were also expected to reaffirm the importance of the bilateral alliance on the "global level" in their meeting shortly before they join defense chiefs for a "two-plus-two" top security meeting. The official said Machimura would convey appreciation for U.S. support and explain the "difficult" situation involving Tokyo's lingering dispute with Pyongyang over the whereabouts of Japanese abducted by North Korean agents, the official said. Machimura and Rice would discuss issues related to China, with the Japanese minister stressing that Beijing must become a "responsible player" in the international community, the official said. Machimura was expected to emphasize the importance of maintaining "peace and stability" across the Taiwan Strait, with China and Taiwan soon resuming direct dialogue, the official said. On Friday, Rice had reiterated that the U.S. States maintains a "one-China" policy recognizing Beijing as the sole government but keeps unofficial ties with Taiwan and is legally committed to defending it. "We have cautioned all parties that there should be no attempt to change the status quo unilaterally," Rice said. "That means no attempt by China to change the status quo unilaterally, no attempt by Taiwan to change the status quo unilaterally." U.N. Security Council reform was also expected to be highlighted during their meeting Saturday, as the United States maintains a policy of supporting Japan's bid to become a permanent council member, the official said. The Japan Times: Feb. 20, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 15 Japan Times: Nightmare choice set to confront China Sunday, February 20, 2005 AMERICA OR NORTH KOREA? By FRANK CHING HONG KONG -- North Korea's surprise announcement last week that it possesses nuclear weapons and would indefinitely boycott the six-party talks immensely complicates the Korean nuclear problem and puts additional pressure on China as host of the multilateral talks to get them started again. In a statement issued Feb. 10, Pyongyang accused the United States of having a policy of "regime change" in North Korea, asserting that Washington had rejected North Korea's proposal for peaceful coexistence. It is vital at this point for the five other parties to the six-party talks -- the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and South Korea -- to remain united. It is important not to overreact. For one thing, North Korea has not said it will no longer take part in the talks. What it said was that it would "indefinitely" suspend its participation until such time as Pyongyang feels it has reason "to expect positive results from the talks." North Korea had said its attitude would depend on the Korea policy adopted by the second Bush administration. Interestingly, on Jan. 14, less than a week before Bush's inauguration, North Korea announced that it had decided to "resume the six-way talks" and "respect and treat the United States as a friend" unless Washington "slanders" the North Korean system and "interferes in its internal affairs." From last the Feb. 10 announcement, it would appear that North Korea feels that it has been "slandered" by U.S. President George W. Bush and his new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. While Bush did not mention North Korea in his inaugural address, the speech did contain tough language about "ending tyranny" in the world. And at her confirmation hearings, Rice called North Korea an "outpost of tyranny." Putting the two statements together, North Korea may well have concluded that Washington's goal was, indeed, regime change rather than peaceful coexistence. The North Korean announcement clearly took Beijing by surprise. However, in a telephone conversation Feb. 12, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told Rice that China would "stay in touch with all relevant parties and strive to make the situation develop in a positive direction so that the six-party talks could be resumed as soon as possible." China's annoyance is evident, with the official media allowing numerous critical comments of North Korea to appear in public. But Beijing is in a dilemma. While China and North Korea were allies during the Korean War, fighting side by side against American and other United Nations troops, Beijing now sees its interests lying in better relations with the U.S. and the developed world and does not want to be dragged into another war on the Korean Peninsula. A recent development suggests that the need for action may well be urgent. The U.S. possesses technical evidence that suggests that North Korea is already actively engaged in proliferating nuclear materials. China appears to be taking this seriously, with Chinese President Hu Jintao himself receiving the American specialist sent to present evidence to leaders in China, South Korea and Japan. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, China in 2003 even studied the possibility of launching a preemptive strike on North Korea to halt a strike by Pyongyang on South Korea, but the Chinese military reported that it could not reach the Demilitarized Zone quickly enough. In theory, China is in a position to put pressure on Pyongyang, since it is a big provider of food and fuel to North Korea, but threatening to cut that off could worsen the situation. For one thing, China does not want to see the collapse of the North Korean regime, which would result in its border areas being inundated by refugees. But if the nuclear issue is prolonged -- or, worse, aggravated by a North Korean nuclear test -- then it is conceivable that the U.S. would bring the issue before the U.N. Security Council. In that event, China would face the choice of either vetoing an American proposal for sanctions or joining Washington in a move against a fellow socialist state. That is a nightmare scenario that Beijing no doubt wants to avoid, which is why it is likely to work very hard indeed to get the six-party talks restarted, if not by threatening to withhold aid then by offering to provide more assistance to North Korea. At this point, there is little that other countries -- except the U.S. -- can do. Washington can help immensely by agreeing to a step-by-step approach whereby North Korean benefits economically as it gradually disarms. Insisting on complete, verifiable, irreversible disarmament first will only strengthen Pyongyang's suspicions that Washington really wants regime change. Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator The Japan Times: Feb. 20, 2005 ***************************************************************** 16 Japan Times: Pyongyang toeing 'red line' Monday, February 21, 2005 By KEIZO NABESHIMA North Korea shocked the world with its announcement Feb. 10 that it will "indefinitely" stay away from the six-party talks on its nuclear arms program and that it already has nuclear weapons. Resorting to its notorious brinkmanship for raising the stakes when negotiations are stalled, North Korea has strengthened its "nuclear card" in an effort to force concessions from the United States. But the move is likely to cause further isolation for the reclusive state. Japan, the U.S., South Korea, China and Russia must cooperate closely to get North Korea to return to negotiations. Otherwise, North Korea will progress further in its nuclear arms program and stockpile more nuclear weapons and materials, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation to other countries and terrorist groups. North Korea has played its nuclear card often. In 1993, it announced its intention to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. After it signed, with the United States, the 1994 Agreed Framework for freezing its nuclear arms development, it continued clandestine efforts to build nuclear weapons. In March 2003, Pyongyang officially withdrew from the NPT. In August 2003, the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear ambitions started under China's chairmanship. North Korea's nuclear gamesmanship has culminated in the latest announcement. What does North Korea want? The North Korean regime of Kim Jong Il is looking for security guarantees from the U.S. It has been pushing its nuclear arms program to secure those guarantees. Moreover, it wants direct negotiations with Washington. In the six-party talks aimed at eliminating Pyongyang's nuclear threat, three sessions were held between August 2003 and June 2004. Since then, North Korea has ignored calls to resume the talks as it awaited the results of the U.S. presidential election and then watched for policy clues in the new administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Seeing little change in the new administration, North Korea apparently has made a new gambit to drive wedges among Japan, the U.S. and South Korea. In his State of the Union message, Bush said the U.S. is working closely with Asian governments "to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions." The comment was conciliatory, in contrast to his 2002 message that branded North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, as the "axis of evil." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has repeatedly said the U.S. has no intention of invading or attacking North Korea. Despite Washington's conciliatory approach, North Korea has announced a hardline stance because it is under pressure to respond at the next session of the six-party talks to specific U.S. proposals on a process to abolish its nuclear program. The proposals were made in the third session eight months ago. White House spokesman Scott McClellan played down the North Korean announcement, saying "we've heard of lot of rhetoric from them in the past." He also rejected direct talks with North Korea, saying the nuclear arms issue is "a regional matter that affects the countries in the region." How much progress has North Korea made in its nuclear arms program? The South Korean Defense Ministry says in its latest white paper that North Korea is likely to have built one or two nuclear bombs. North Korea claims it reprocessed 8,000 nuclear fuel rods in 2003, prompting speculation that it had enough plutonium for several nuclear devices. North Korea's latest announcement demonstrates that it is pushing strategies to build a nuclear arsenal. North Korea's nuclear arms development poses a direct threat to Japan and an increasing risk of nuclear proliferation in the world. As North Korea's nuclear development makes headway, exports of nuclear arms and materials will become a real possibility. The New York Times reported early this month that the U.S. government has obtained evidence indicating that North Korea is likely to have sold weapons-grade uranium to Libya. Washington calls transfers of nuclear materials from a certain country to foreign countries and terrorist groups the "red line." North Korea's acknowledgment of possessing nuclear arms and reported transfers of nuclear materials to Libya could prompt calls for a tougher U.S. policy stance against the state. In its statement, North Korea left open the possibility of resuming the six-party talks by indicating its readiness to solve the nuclear issue through "dialogues and negotiations" and reaffirming its commitment to the ultimate goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. This is a very crafty tactic. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who signed the 2002 Pyongyang Declaration with Kim Jong Il, must have been stunned by the North Korean announcement. In answering questions before the Diet, he said Kim obviously was not adhering to the declaration. The document said both sides pledged to comply with international law and not to take action that would threaten the security of the other side. Pyongyang's announcement that it owns nuclear arms plus its moves to expand its arsenal of mid-range Nodong missiles capable of hitting Japan represent a serious threat to this nation. In Japan, calls have mounted for economic sanctions against Pyongyang in connection with the unresolved issue of Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea in the past. Diplomatic normalization between Japan and North Korea must be based on a comprehensive settlement of all problems with North Korea, including the nuclear arms and missile issues. There is little support for North Korea's unilateralist strategies in the international community. To move North Korea, close cooperation is essential among the five other countries in the six-party talks, especially China, Russia and South Korea, which have tended to take a softer approach toward the state. After all, the five are players, not spectators. Keizo Nabeshima, former chief editorial writer for Kyodo News, writes on political and international affairs. The Japan Times: Feb. 21, 2005 ***************************************************************** 17 Japan Times: No vision of North Korea's future Sunday, February 20, 2005 READERS IN COUNCIL Regarding the Feb. 11 article "Pyongyang's nuclear move weakens threat of sanctions over abductions": The North Koreans know that in announcing that they have nuclear weapons they are extending the life of their corrupt and defunct regime. From the perspective of the Free World, just waiting and passing the buck to either the next U.S. administration or even the next generation has proved to be a total policy failure. Fifty years ago, South Korea was at high risk from a ground attack from North Korea. Ten years ago Japan was, and remains so. Now, California is at high risk from a nuclear attack. The North Koreans know that complexity divides the views of Russia, South Korea, China, Japan and the United States. America's policy of procrastination is merely a delaying action. No administration since the Korean War ended in the 1950s has really wanted to tangle with North Korea. In fact, America has no idea of how things should turn out. We do not have a grand vision of how a post-Kim Jong Il North Korea should develop. The North Koreans have effectively extended the 38th parallel to California. Any problem between North and South Korea at their common border could bring destruction to San Francisco or Los Angeles. Should Californians really be forced to trust themselves to the bizarre whims and fantasies of Kim Jong Il? Will the baseline of this struggle have to reach the Potomac River before American leaders feel subject to his threats? KEN C. ARNOLD Santa Monica, California The Japan Times: Feb. 20, 2005 ***************************************************************** 18 Korea Times: Trilateral Meeting on Nukes Due This Week Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter Top nuclear negotiators from South Korea, the United States and Japan will meet in Seoul this week for consultations on measures to drag North Korea back to the multilateral negotiations on its nuclear weapons program, officials said Monday. While a high-ranking Chinese official has been visiting Pyongyang to persuade its leaders since last weekend, the tripartite meeting will likely be a venue for the negotiation partners to discuss future steps after reviewing recent developments. Wang Jiarui, head of the Chinese Communist Party¡¯s international department, flew to the North Korean capital on Saturday on what many experts call a mission to lure the North back to the six-party talks aimed at ending its nuclear standoff with the U.S. He had a ``friendly conversation¡¯¡¯ with Kim Yong-nam, No. 2 leader of the Stalinist country who chairs its rubber-stamp legislature, according to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), one of the North¡¯s official mouthpieces. Accompanied by Ning Fukui, China¡¯s special envoy on the North Korean nuclear issue, Wang was expected to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-il before he leaves the North today. Diplomatic sources in Beijing and Seoul hinted that when Wang meets with the North Korean leader, he might deliver a letter from Chinese President Hu Jintao strongly urging the North to return to the negotiation table. ``If he carried a letter from Hu to Kim Jong-il, it might contain China¡¯s promise of firm support for North Korea, including large-scale economic aid,¡¯¡¯ a government official said on condition of anonymity. Another source, however, thought that Beijing might be taking a stronger approach on Pyongyang this time, making it clear that it would become more difficult for China to support the North in the future if it continued to boycott the six-party talks. The closest ally of the isolated North, China is believed to wield significant influence _ both politically and economically _ over the poverty-stricken country. Since North Korea made an announcement on Feb. 10 that it possesses nuclear weapons and will boycott the six-party talks indefinitely, the U.S. and its Asian allies have been calling for a more active role for Beijing in persuading Pyongyang. Last week prior to Wang¡¯s Pyongyang visit, South Korea dispatched Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon to China while the U.S. sent Ambassador to Seoul Christopher Hill. ``Chief nuclear negotiators, including Japan¡¯s Kenichiro Sasae as well as Hill and Song, will meet in Seoul, possibly on Thursday or Friday,¡¯¡¯ a diplomatic official said. ``They will focus on ways to resume the six-party talks as soon as possible.¡¯¡¯ Hill, recently named as an assistant U.S. secretary of state for Asian affairs, called for ``coordinated approaches¡¯¡¯ between Seoul and Washington last Friday, indicating the allies slightly differ on ways of pressuring the North. jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr 02-21-2005 17:49 ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Said to Shun Talks With U.S. From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday February 20, 2005 2:31 AM AP Photo TOK802 By ALEXA OLESEN Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - A top Chinese Communist Party official met with North Korea's No. 2 leader Saturday seeking a change of heart after Pyongyang reportedly rejected any further negotiations over its nuclear weapons program. The head of the party's international department, Wang Jiarui, who flew to Pyongyang on Saturday, had a ``friendly conversation'' with Kim Yong Nam, the North's official news agency, KCNA, said without elaboration. Wang also planned during his stay to meet the country's reclusive leader, Kim Jong Il, to give a ``strong recommendation'' that Pyongyang return to the six-party disarmament talks, South Korea's Munhwa Ilbo newspaper reported, quoting diplomatic sources in Beijing. Meanwhile, Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reportedly has appealed to Kim to allow the watchdog U.N. agency to return to North Korea, which expelled agency inspectors on New Year's Eve 2002. ``If it requires a special gesture, I am ready to go myself,'' ElBaradei told Germany's Der Spiegel magazine in an interview published Saturday. ElBaradei said his agency has no concrete information that North Korea has nuclear weapons, but added that Pyongyang has the know-how and enough plutonium to make ``at least six to eight bombs.'' Reviving the stalled talks has taken on greater urgency since North Korea's explosive but unconfirmed declaration earlier this month that it has become a nuclear power. Xinhua, quoting an unidentified North Korean foreign ministry official, said earlier Saturday that the North no longer wanted to negotiate directly with the United States to ease the ongoing standoff over Pyongyang's nuclear program. The official reiterated the communist regime's decision on Feb. 10 to indefinitely suspend its participation in six-party nuclear disarmament talks with the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia, Xinhua said. The United States and other countries are seeking to use what leverage they have - including the good will between North Korea and its last major ally, China - to persuade Pyongyang to resume multilateral negotiations. North Korea had demanded one-on-one meetings with the United States after saying it would withdraw from the six-party talks - a move Washington rejected. The North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said his country was withdrawing its offer of direct talks with Washington because of what the official described as the United States' persistent attempts to topple the communist regime, Xinhua said. ``The DPRK has no justification to take bilateral talks ... on the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula with the United States now,'' Xinhua quoted the spokesman as saying. DPRK is the acronym for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Washington hopes Beijing will use its economic influence on the North to persuade Pyongyang to return to the negotiating table. Beijing has insisted it has little influence over Kim's regime, though China is an indispensable source of fuel and trade for the impoverished North. In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld as well as their Japanese counterparts urged North Korea to resume the six-party talks. ``We share a concern about events on the Korean Peninsula,'' Rice said at a news conference at the State Department following talks with Rumsfeld and the Japanese. ``The ministers and I urge North Korea to return to the six-party talks as the best way to end nuclear programs and the only way for North Korea to achieve better relations.'' Meanwhile, the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations said in an interview published Saturday that his government had ``burned its bridges'' in the escalating nuclear standoff. Han Sung Ryol said his nation was forced to build nuclear weapons because of plans by Washington for a regime change in North Korea, and said the North would never abandon them until the United States promises to end hostility. ``We have no other option but to have nuclear weapons as long as the Americans try to topple our system,'' South Korea's JoongAng Ilbo newspaper quoted Han as saying. ``If the United States withdraws its hostile policy, we will drop our anti-Americanism and befriend it. Then why would we need nuclear weapons?'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: China Steps Up Efforts on Nuclear Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday February 20, 2005 3:16 PM By STEPHANIE HOO Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - A top Chinese Communist Party official was in North Korea's capital Sunday seeking to draw Pyongyang back into six-nation talks on its nuclear weapons program after the North reportedly rejected further negotiations. The visit by the Chinese official, Wang Jiarui, came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld met with their Japanese counterparts and urged North Korea to rejoin the stalled negotiations. Rice called the six-party talks ``the best way to end nuclear programs and the only way for North Korea to achieve better relations.'' Chinese state media said Wang ``exchanged views ... on international and regional issues'' with North Korea's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong Nam. China's effort to persuade North Korea to rejoin negotiations has taken on greater urgency since Pyongyang's unconfirmed declaration earlier this month that it has become a nuclear power. Beijing is a key source of food and energy aid to the impoverished North but fears that cutting off supplies might risk instability and send a flood of refugees across the border into China. Wang, who arrived in Pyongyang Saturday for a four-day visit, also planned to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, according to South Korea's Munhwa Ilbo newspaper. China's state news agency, Xinhua, reported Saturday that the North had reiterated its Feb. 10 decision to indefinitely suspend participation in six-party talks with the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. During three rounds of talks in Beijing since late 2002, North Korea has demanded more aid and a peace treaty with Washington in exchange for abandoning nuclear development. North Korea had also sought one-on-one talks with Washington but withdrew that offer on Saturday, citing what it called the United States' persistent attempts to topple the communist regime, Xinhua said. In Washington, Japan's foreign minister, Nobutaka Machimura, said he hoped China ``will serve the role not just as a mere moderator, but also as a player actively at work on the North Koreans'' to rejoin the talks. In response, North Korea criticized Japan's new defense guidelines, which singled out North Korean missiles as a threat and allowed Japan to pursue a missile defense program with Washington. According to Pyongyang, the guidelines adopted in December were a sign that Tokyo has joined ``U.S. vicious hostile policy'' toward its communist state. U.S. naval vessels, including a nuclear-powered submarine, joined South Korean ships in a weeklong exercise on South Korean waters off the east coast, according to a news report Sunday. South Korea's navy said Sunday the anti-submarine exercise took place Feb. 12-18 in the East Sea. U.S. military officials could not immediately confirm the report, but South Korea's Yonhap news agency said a Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine and other U.S. vessels joined the exercise. Fears of North Korean submarines run high in South Korea. In 1996, South Korea launched a massive military operation to hunt down 26 North Korean commandoes and crew who came ashore when their submarine ran aground on the South's east coast. All but two of the intruders were either killed or found dead. Thirteen South Koreans also were killed. South Korea captured a North Korean spy submarine entangled in fishing nets off its east coast in 1998. Nine North Korean soldiers and crew were found inside, believed killed in a murder-suicide to avoid capture. North Korea routinely condemns joint military exercises between the United States and South Korea, calling them preparations to invade the communist state. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 21 The Inevitability Trap Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:00:02 -0600 (CST) `If the proponents of a particular course can get a critical mass of folks to believe that it's a foregone conclusion, pretty soon it will be. Those who assert that conservation, renewables and environmental protection are at their inevitable end are using the only strategy available to them. They propound the myth of inevitability because they know that few of us would actually choose more waste, dependence on fossil fuels, and environmental degradation.' The Inevitability Trap by K.C. Golden http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0219-26.htm It's time to rally around an embattled concept: free will. Having aligned myself against a battalion of irresistible forces over the years, I've become a student of inevitability. How do environmentally destructive choices become inevitable? Near as I can tell, it starts when the people who will benefit from these choices simply begin to assert their inevitability. People seem especially receptive to inevitability right now. We're comforted by the notion that amid all the uncertainty and confusion, the restructuring and rightsizing and layoffs and insecurity-some larger forces are at work toward a predetermined outcome. We're sort of relieved to hear that something's inevitable, even if it's not necessarily something we like. It clarifies things. It's more pragmatic to be resigned to the inevitable than to chart a new course through the chaos. So the myth of inevitability spreads and the prophecy fulfills itself. If the proponents of a particular course can get a critical mass of folks to believe that it's a foregone conclusion, pretty soon it will be. Those who assert that conservation, renewables and environmental protection are at their inevitable end are using the only strategy available to them. They propound the myth of inevitability because they know that few of us would actually choose more waste, dependence on fossil fuels, and environmental degradation. Having no chance of convincing people that these outcomes are desirable, perhaps, they reason, we can be persuaded that we have no choice in the matter. But inevitably we do have choices to make. Failing to make them consciously isn't failing to make them at all: It's just falling for the inevitability trap. It's just giving ourselves an excuse for allowing the wrong choices to be made, and a feeble excuse at that. Among all the reasons for making the wrong choice, I think the least satisfying, the least noble, the hardest one to forgive ourselves for is: "It wasn't up to me." Well, it is up to somebody. Who's it gonna be? From The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear edited by Paul Loeb (Basic Books, www.theimpossible.org), named the #3 political book of Fall 2004 by the History Channel and American Book Association. KC Golden is policy director of Climate Solutions (www.climatesolutions.org), which promotes clean and efficient energy sources. He's former director of energy policy for the State of Washington. ***************************************************************** 22 deseret news: Nuclear dilemma Sunday, February 20, 2005 N. Korea's arms ambitions put China in tough position By Nina Hachigian Christian Science Monitor SANTA MONICA, Calif. — North Korea's declaration that it has nuclear weapons is bad news not just for the United States, but for China. Already sharing borders with nuclear-armed Russia, India and Pakistan, the last thing China wants is an expansion of Asia's nuclear neighborhood. Christie Jackson, Deseret Morning News China's leaders must now decide how far they are willing to go to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle in North Korea. China has significant leverage, because it supplies much of the fuel and food that North Korea needs to survive and is the North's major trading partner and closest ally. China's policy toward North Korea's nuclear program has long been based on two principles: that the Korean peninsula must be free of nuclear weapons, and that the dispute over the North's nuclear policies must be resolved peacefully. The six-party talks involving China, the United States, North and South Korea, Japan and Russia hold the only hope of achieving both aims. But if North Korea's withdrawal from the talks stands, or if a resumption of the talks ultimately fails to persuade the North to give up nuclear weapons, China will be forced to make a tough choice about which of its two principles is more important. Each path is fraught with peril. For Beijing, the strategic stakes involved with North Korea going nuclear are extremely high. A nuclear-armed North could produce a cascade effect, leading South Korea, Japan and even Taiwan to consider developing nuclear weapons programs in response. More nuclear powers would make East Asia less stable. With Japan's bloody invasion of China during World War II an ever-present memory for many Chinese, a nuclear Japan would be a particularly threatening outcome for China. Moreover, the Chinese know that if North and South Korea eventually reunited, the resulting country would eventually become a powerful force in the region that would decide its own geopolitical destiny. China would like to prevent that future country from having nuclear weapons. China also wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States when it can. China's strategy for growing its own economy is heavily dependent on a strong American relationship, both economically and politically. Leaders of China's Communist Party know that a strong domestic economy is what allows them to retain power. For all these reasons, China may decide to align with those in the United States and Japan who insist that the only way to solve the nuclear weapons crisis is to put the economic squeeze on Kim Jong Il's North Korean regime. But if China were to cut off food and fuel shipments, the North's economy would be crippled and its government might even collapse. The resulting situation could be very destabilizing for China. For example, a Chinese economic cutoff of North Korea could create a flood of refugees, perhaps numbering in the millions, streaming across the 880-mile North Korean-Chinese border. If China lets the refugees in, they would pour into an area of Northeast China already very poor and the site of frequent worker protests. If Chinese security forces used violence to stop the Korean refugees from entering, it would deal a serious blow to the image Beijing is carefully crafting as a peaceful and cooperative member of the world community — and the host of the 2008 Olympics. But there are also grave dangers for China if it refuses to apply economic pressure and pushes instead for gradual change in the North. Economic sanctions against North Korea can have a major effect only with Chinese participation. So if America advocates sanctions and China refuses to join in, U.S.-Chinese relations would suffer. In virtually every discussion of the U.S.-China relationship, American and Chinese officials and analysts hold up the close cooperation on North Korea's nuclear program as proof China and the US can work cooperatively as partners in an area of mutual security concern. China's choice could spell the end of that cooperation and could have a ripple effect in the relationship — empowering those, for example, who advocate economic measures against China to rectify the trade imbalance. China would like to avoid such tensions in the relationship with its second-largest trading partner — and the country that has more say than any other about many aspects of its security. Though they have been on different sides in the past, the United States and China have a mutual interest in a nonnuclear and stable Korean Peninsula. It is this mutual interest that could prompt the two nations to work closely together to get North Korea to return to the negotiating table and eventually give up nuclear weapons. China and the United States would both be winners with that outcome. Nina Hachigian is director of the Center for Asia Pacific Policy at the nonprofit RAND Corp., which seeks solutions to world problems. © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 23 Tennessean: Missile defense fizzles again - Monday, 02/21/05 The Bush administration should not lead Americans toward a false sense of security with a missile defense system that has failed. Another missile defense test failed last week when an interceptor intended to thwart a rocket failed to get off the ground. The rocket the device was supposed to destroy went untouched and fell into the Pacific Ocean. It was only the latest in a series of failures in what remains a fantastic notion at the Pentagon. The current system being tested is a scaled-down version of the broader ''Star Wars'' proposals of the Reagan years, but there seems to be little more confidence now than before that it could possibly lead to an effective defense system. Scientists on the project continue to look for the good news in the tests. In the latest attempt, they found consolation that the malfunction was in the support system, not the interceptor itself. But does it really matter why the test failed? The people who would be unprotected in the event of an attack would hardly care about the technical explanation. There may be a desire to consider missile-defense tests in the same vein as the trial-and-error realities of ambitious programs like space exploration. But the stakes are completely different in a missile defense plan. And those who look upon a missile defense program as the ultimate safeguard, even if it could be perfected, are missing the fact that a nuclear weapon does not have to be delivered to a target on a rocket anyway. Defense authorities may be giving their all, but it's not enough just to try to show some progress. In the end, the system might offer hope, but it could never offer complete assurance. It would be irresponsible to lead the public to believe there could ever be the sort of success in a missile defense plan that thus far science has simply been unable to demonstrate. Copyright © 2005, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 WorldNetDaily: Targeting nonexistent nukes? SATURDAY FEBRUARY 19 2005 © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com On March 19, 2003, President Bush informed Congress that Saddam posed "a continuing threat to the national security of the United States" by "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." However, only days before, U.N. inspectors had reported that after four months of the go-anywhere see-anything inspections mandated by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, they had found no evidence that Saddam had nukes or chem-bio weapons, nor had he made any effort to reconstitute programs to produce them. Bush totally ignored their reports, advising U.N. inspectors to get out of Iraq before he launched his pre-emptive invasion. The U.N. inspectors have not, as yet, been allowed to return. Instead, the job of finding the weapons the U.N. couldn't find was entrusted to the 75th Exploitation Task Force. When they couldn't find them either, the "occupying powers" established in June 2003 the Iraq Survey Group, whose principal mission was to find out why no one could find them. David Kay – who had been a bureaucrat at the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1983 to 1991, but had spent several months in 1991 in Iraq at the head of an IAEA inspection team – was picked by Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet to head the ISG. Three months after taking on the job, David Kay reported to Congress that he hadn't found any of Saddam's WMD, but was not yet prepared to say that they didn't exist. Three months after making that first report to Congress, David Kay resigned. Why? Because, he told Congress, he now realized that "we were almost all wrong" about Saddam's WMD weapons. They didn't exist. Who were "we"? Well, the intelligence weenies who put together the highly classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction – and Blair's Dossier – and the on-to-Baghdad weenies who accepted them as God's Truth. David Kay has frequently claimed that he was one of the "we" who accepted them. And, alarmed by what he sees as a reprise of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq – this time with Iran targeted – Kay recently had this to say: A National Intelligence Estimate as to Iran's nuclear activities should not be a rushed and cooked document used to justify the threat of military action. Now is the time for serious analysis that genuinely tries to pull together all the evidence and analytical skills of the vast U.S. intelligence community to reach the best possible judgment on the status of that program and the gaps in our knowledge. That assessment should not be led by a team that is trying to prove a case for its boss. Now is the time to reach outside the secret brotherhood and pull in respected outsiders to lead the assessment. Respected outsiders? Who do you suppose Kay has in mind? Well, last August, David Kay was interviewed by Lois Ember, a reporter for Chemical and Engineering News. Ember noted that Kay left the IAEA at the end of 1991 and had presumably no further connection to the U.N. inspectors in Iraq. But Kay replied: "I believe I had up-to-date information. One of the nice things [Rolf] Ekeus did was meet with me continuously while he was executive chairman of UNSCOM. I think there was very little that took place that I wasn't briefed on or was privy to, even though I was a private citizen and not associated with IAEA." So, that means David Kay knew all about the defection in 1975 of General Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the man in charge of Iraq's WMD programs. Kamal was extensively interrogated by the CIA, the Brits and by Rolf Ekeus. Basically, Kamal claimed – and the U.N. inspectors were subsequently able to verify the accuracy of his claims – that all Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" and the makings thereof had been destroyed on Saddam's orders in the early 1990s and that no attempts – or plans – had been made to reconstitute them. Quoth Kamal: "Nothing remained." But U.S. and Brit intelligence weenies never accepted the on-the-ground reports of the U.N. inspectors in Iraq, reports that the ISG has now confirmed to be valid. Now the IAEA has the same kind of go-anywhere see-anything authority in Iran they formerly had in Iraq. According to the IAEA, there is no indication that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Will the intelligence weenies accept those IAEA reports? Will their "boss" let them? Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. webmaster@worldnetdaily.com --> news@worldnetdaily.com--> Contact WND ***************************************************************** 25 [southnews] Flirting with Armageddon Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:37:38 -0600 (CST) The threat of nuclear strikes is now greater than during the Cold War, report Paul Harris in New York and Jason Burke in London Flirting with Armageddon: welcome to a new arms race Paul Harris in New York and Jason Burke in London Sunday February 20, 2005 Observer It was 1.22am last Monday on the frozen Alaskan island of Kodiak when the missile flared upwards into the night sky. As the rocket's flames disappeared into darkness, United States military chiefs waited with baited breath to see if their multibillion dollar 'Son of Star Wars' defence shield would work. Thousands of miles away on the Pacific island of Kwajalein another missile was primed to intercept the Alaskan launch, soaring to destroy its target in the upper atmosphere and thus 'save America from nuclear devastation'. It never made it. The test failed. On Kwajalein metal supports holding the interceptor rocket failed to disengage. If it had been real the enemy nuke would have hit its target. The system has now failed in six out of nine tests. Many experts believe it simply does not work. But this does not deter the Pentagon. It is in a frenzy to put a missile shield around America. The threat from nuclear attack is now once more at the centre of strategic planning. The missile defence shield is not seen as a throwback but as a vital part of defence. Nuclear weapons too remain in US plans, it is now looking at developing a whole new range of 'bunker buster' nukes. A new nuclear arms race is gripping the world. Many experts believe the likelihood of such an attack is greater now than it was during the Cold War. North Korea has already claimed it has nuclear weapons, Iran could be on the brink of building them. Both nations could trigger arms races among their neighbours. The international system set up to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons has sprung a series of leaks. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has warned of a 'cascade' of states going nuclear. But that might not even be the biggest threat. Behind the ambitions and fears of nations lurk terrorist networks bent on acquiring weapons. Few doubt the most extreme groups would love to use them. It is a bleak picture that makes the Cold War look almost safe. 'We are in an extremely dangerous time right now,' said Natalie Goldring, a proliferation expert at the University of Maryland. At the moment the world's nuclear club is eight strong. There are the original big five of the US, China, Russia, Britain and France and three newcomers of India, Pakistan and Israel. That has now changed. If the pronouncements coming out of Pyongyang are to be believed, the reclusive and impoverished Stalinist state of North Korea has now become the club's newest member. Some disbelieve the official rhetoric. North Korea is desperate for foreign aid and wants face-to-face talks with America. It is possible that this latest move is just a bluff. 'I would not take anything the North Koreans say at face value,' said Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute. But most experts accept such sentiments afford little comfort. Now the focus of dealing with North Korea has become working out what sort of nuclear devices North Korea might possess and how it could deliver them. Though it has no missiles that could reach America, South Korea lies just over the border. Tokyo is just a short flight over the Sea of Japan. It could easily use a plane or a boat to deliver a nuclear device. That could see the triggering of a regional nuclear arms race in Asia, a continent already scarred by the nuclear standoff between Indian and Pakistan. With North Korea boasting a nuclear arsenal, South Korea is under enormous pressure to follow suit as a deterrent. Japan too could see nuclear weapons as its only insurance against assault. With its hi-tech economy many people believe Japan could develop weapons in a matter of weeks or months, not years. But if this happens then China, motivated by longstanding fears over its advanced neighbour, will likely move to increase its own nuclear weapons arsenal and develop more advanced delivery systems. Suddenly, the nuclear club will start to look very crowded. Certainly Iran appears to want to join despite intensive diplomacy from a trio of European nations. Many experts put that down to a failure of US policy. Iran's leaders have looked at the contrasting fates of Iraq, which was invaded for weapons it did not have, and North Korea, which has confessed to developing nuclear weapons and now appears immune to any military threat. With the Bush administration openly bent on 'regime change' in Iran, the safest route for the country's reigning mullahs seems obvious. 'Iran has learned that lesson. They want to go the North Korea route, not the Iraq route,' Goldring said. That has led to a dangerous game of brinkmanship in a Middle East destined to become a theatre of conflict where nuclear weapons are suddenly a real possibility. Israel already has the bomb. Iran, surrounded by American allies and soldiers, wants it too. Some experts think it is too late to stop Iran from going nuclear, no matter how many official denials Tehran puts out about its intentions. Others believe there is still hope. 'We need to make a concerted effort and engage with the process,' said Peter Pella, a former proliferation expert at the US State Department. The Bush administration is taking an opposite tack. In an international version of 'good cop, bad cop' European nations are holding discussions with Iran about its nuclear programme, while the US makes hostile noises. Few experts failed to notice Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent remarks that attacking Iran was '...not on the agenda at this point'. That has some US hawks on the Iranian situation delighted. 'We need a stick to use,' said Leventhal. 'The Europeans will have heard the 'not on the agenda' part, but the Iranians will have head the 'at this point' part.' Whatever the approach, few believe that the Iranian nuclear issue is anything but a potentially catastrophic powder keg. If Iran pushes ahead, then Israel could launch strikes against possible nuclear facilities, just as it did in Iraq in the 1980s. Such a move could easily ignite a major war across the region. The crisis is brewing to a boil and no real solution is yet in sight. But the nuclear threat of the 21st century comes from terrorist groups, not just rogue states. It is no longer governments who are the most likely to spread nukes or the technology to make them. And it is no longer states who are most likely to use them. Militants such as Osama bin Laden have said that they would use nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda are known to have acquired plans for the manufacture of nuclear arms. Intelligence services know meetings occurred between al-Qaeda representatives and nuclear scientists before 11 September. Islamic militants have since negotiated to buy what they thought was weapons-grade uranium from criminals. 'The intent is there,' said one Western intelligence source. 'The question is whether any militant organisation - particularly one that is being chased by the most powerful nation in the world - could build the facilities to create and weaponise a nuclear armament, even some kind of "suitcase bomb" style device. The answer is "probably no".' Instead, most experts agree, the main threat comes from a basic radiological device - or dirty bomb. This would be a conventional bomb laced with radioactive material - perhaps only an element from a hospital x-ray machine. According to a report to be published next week by the British American Security Information Council, the radiological impact of a dirty bomb is uncertain. In 1987 the Iraqi army tested a large radiological bomb for possible use in the Iran-Iraq war, but abandoned the plan because the radiation levels produced were not considered high enough. But dirty bombs do have two advantages for terrorists. First, they could cause widespread panic and chaos. Second, the cost of the cleanup, and the implications of having large parts of a city centre rendered unusable, would be massive. There are also fears that North Korea or Iran may give nuclear technology to militants, or rogue scientists selling secrets or nuclear materials. A recent example is that of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear programme, who reportedly made himself a fortune of more than $400m in a 15 year career of selling nuclear secrets to North Korea, Libya and, quite possibly, Iran. Working through scores of offshore accounts and cut-out companies, Khan's network stretched from South Africa to Morocco to Singapore. Turkish and Malaysian workshops made parts for centrifuges, Italian factories made furnaces, a German supplier provided vacuum pumps. Though the CIA have claimed they had penetrated the network, it is still thought Khan was able to visit North Korea more than a dozen times to swap Pakistani centrifuge technology for local missile know-how, pass uranium enrichment technology to Iran and to give Libya blue prints for a bomb. There are dangers everywhere. Many fear General Pervaiz Musharraf's pro-Western government in Pakistan, which already has the bomb, could be replaced by a harder line Islamic regime. And there are problems with former Soviet stocks. Russia alone has hundreds of metric tonnes of weapons grade materials such as enriched uranium. The prospect of a nuclear attack by terrorists on a Western city is more possible now than at any time. 'If a nuclear weapon went off in a city somewhere, it would not surprise me at all,' said Leventhal. It is not all doom and gloom. Libya has come in from the diplomatic cold, giving up its nuclear ambitions. And there is now little possibility of a nuclear-armed Iraq threatening the Middle East. But in general the situation looks bleak. It has been more than 30 years since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was created. It was designed to discourage nations from developing nuclear weapons in return for access to nuclear power and an obligation on behalf of the big powers to work towards nuclear disarmament. The treaty will be reviewed this May in New York at a time when it seems no one is abiding by it. It is likely that the issue of Iran will dominate the meeting. One senior Western European diplomat told The Observer the atmosphere was likely to be 'poisoned' by the acrimonious debate over policy towards Tehran. 'It is a treaty concerned not only with stopping the further spread of nukes but also about their complete elimination,' said Dr Stephen Pullinger, of Saferworld, an independent foreign affairs think tank. 'Instead, it is clear that none of the five declared nuclear states are thinking about abandoning their nukes for the foreseeable future.' As Iran and North Korea stand in the dock in May it may well be worth remembering the Non-Proliferation was meant to work both ways. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5130952-102275,00.html Guardian Unlimited ) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 _______________________________________________ A nuclear Pandora's box By Ze'ev Schiff Ha'aretz 2/21/05 The Washington Institute for Near East Policy published its fifth report last Friday. The institute traditionally publishes a report every four years, to coincide with a new presidential term, with recommendations for United States policy in the Middle East. The publications by the institute, which is headed by Dr. Robert Satloff, a successor to Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, are widely disseminated, and the institute is known as pro-Israel and as one that seeks to nurture Israel-U.S. relations. Therefore, it is unusual that this time, Israeli officials made an effort to express their reservations about one of the important recommendations in the report, going so far as to call it an annoyance for Israel. A committee of more than 40 experts and figures with various political positions prepares the report. The steering committee that prepared the latest one included, among others, Madeleine Albright, Alexander Haig, Samuel Berger, Newt Gingrich, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Sam Lewis, Howard Berman, Mort Zuckerman and James Wolsey. The full plenum included another 35 people. In addition to holding discussions in Washington, the committee sent some of its members to meet with key officials in Israel, Jordan and Egypt. The suggestion that upset the senior Israeli officials appears in the chapter concerning the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region, in the context of American policy toward Iran. The report's authors recommend that Israel examine a proposal to cease the production of fissionable materials used for the development of nuclear weapons, on the assumption that all the other states in the region will do the same. Official Israel is bothered by the proposal, first because its coming from an institute that is sympathetic to Israel and conducts a dialogue with its leaders could be interpreted to mean that Israel is somehow behind it. Secondly, at this stage of the international dispute with Iran over the nuclear issue, it is a mistake to turn Israel into part of the Iranian equation. In other words, it is a mistake to demand that Israel pay the price for an Iranian retreat from its military nuclear project, and in this way divert some of the international pressure on Iran to Israel as well. This is a Pandora's box that, if opened, could harm Israel. Due to the prevailing conditions of war, Israel has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The proposal to cease manufacturing fissionable material used for nuclear weapons will certainly require Israeli agreement to international inspections, which Israel is currently not obliged to allow because it is not an NPT signatory. Israel should oppose any attempt to include itself in the same package with the efforts to halt Iran's secret program, which violates the NPT, which it has signed. The report's authors treated the proposal they made to Israel as part of an overall proposal to the American administration regarding the proper approach toward Iran. On that issue, the report proposes that the U.S. step up its involvement in the negotiations being conducted by three EU countries with Iran, concerning its nuclear program. The report also recommends that the U.S. make tempting economic officers to Iran, including in the energy field, if the latter agrees to end its nuclear program. The Iranian nuclear program is not perceived as defensive. If Iran reaches nuclear armament, the report's authors say, it will absolutely upset the balance of power in the Middle East and have a negative impact on the global effort against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In the event that Iran refuses the proposals, tough sanctions should be applied and a military option should even be considered. Iran must be made to understand that if it does not give up its nuclear program, its security situation will worsen. The report emphasizes the importance of coordination with Israel, which faces a special danger from the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Four of the committee members expressed opposition to a military move, though not to sanctions. There are other chapters in the report of interest to Israel. The chapter on Syria, for example, calls on the administration to strengthen Israel's deterrent capabilities. It emphasizes that the administration must make clear that Israel has the right to respond, including by taking retaliatory operations, to Hezbollah attacks. The report calls on Washington to help make peace between Israel and Syria - if the latter throws the terror command centers out of Damascus. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/542615.html ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/5F6XtA/.WnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 26 TIME.com: An Ominous Pairing -- Notebook An Ominous Pairing By ELAINE SHANNON Sunday, Feb. 20, 2005 The two countries whose nuclear programs have raised alarms of late may be cooperating more closely than previously known. North Korea agreed six years ago to stop flight-testing longer-range ballistic missiles, which could deliver nuclear or chemical warheads, in exchange for relief from U.S. economic sanctions. Pyongyang still claims it is sticking to the deal, but some Administration officials think it may be cheating by using Iran as its proxy. Iran's new Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile is closely based on North Korea's Nodong missile. After Iran test-fired the Shahab-3 last summer, there have been indications, a top U.S. official says, that Tehran is giving North Korea telemetry and other data from its missile tests and that North Korea is using the data to make improvements in its own missile systems. In exchange, the official says, Pyongyang may be supplying Iran with engineering suggestions for further testing. Even before the missile firings in August, Under Secretary of State John Bolton had told Congress that Iran's Shahab-3, which has a range of about 800 miles, is "a direct threat to Israel, Turkey [and] U.S. forces in the region." If its research and development program goes unchecked, Bolton warned, Iran could soon have missiles capable of delivering payloads to Western Europe and the U.S. And if that isn't scary enough, CIA director Porter Goss said in congressional testimony last week that North Korea's new, untested Taepo Dong-2 missile "is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear-weapon-sized payload." The implications of a North Korea--Iran deal to share and test these missiles are grim. Equally ominous, Goss said, intelligence shows that North Korea is seeking to raise hard currency by peddling its missile technology to new clients beyond Iran. To blunt that effort, U.S. officials say, the CIA and other U.S. agencies are redoubling their efforts to track and intercept North Korean shipments and covert communications about advanced missile technologies. --By Elaine Shannon Copyright © 2005 Time Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 TIMES OF INDIA: Pak may use nuke weapons against India - CIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2005 PTI NEW DELHI: Pakistan could use nuclear weapons to counter India's larger conventional forces if a war breaks out, though both countries know the likely price to be paid for starting a conflict, a threat assessment report of the CIA has said. "India and Pakistan appear to understand the likely prices to be paid by triggering a conflict. But nationalistic feelings run high and are not likely to abate. "Under plausible scenarios, Pakistan might use nuclear weapons to counter success by the larger Indian conventional forces, particularly given Pakistan's lack of strategic depth," the report, brought out by the National Intelligence Council and the CIA, said. The report, titled 'Mapping the Global Future: Pervasive Insecurity', also pointed out that several countries without nuclear weapons in Asia and the West Asia could decide to seek them. "The assistance of proliferators, including former private entrepreneurs such as the A Q Khan network, will reduce the time required for additional countries to develop nuclear weapons," it said. Over the next 15 years, a number of countries will "continue to pursue their nuclear, chemical (CW) and biological (BW) weapons programmes and in some cases will enhance their capabilities." The report said that developments in CW and BW and proliferation of related expertise would "pose a substantial threat particularly from terrorists". "Given the goal of some terrorist groups to use weapons that can be employed surreptitiously and generate dramatic impact, we expect to see terrorists use some readily available biological and chemical weapons," the NIC-CIA report observed. It predicted that over the next 15 years, a number of countries will "continue to pursue their nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes and in some cases will enhance their capabilities." On the nuclear side, countries without these weapons, especially those in the West Asia and North-east Asia, "may decide to seek them as it becomes clear that their neighbours and regional rivals are already doing so." The report said the advances in modern weaponry -- longer ranges, precision delivery, and more destructive conventional munitions -- would create circumstances encouraging the pre-emptive use of military force. Observing that the increased range of new missile and aircraft delivery systems provided sanctuary to their possessors, the report said should a conflict involving one or more great powers occurred, "the consequences would be significant". The report projected that the current non-proliferation regime would be "further discredited" by the "open demonstration of nuclear capabilities by any State". This, it said, would "cause a possible shift in the balance of power and increase the risk of conflicts escalating into nuclear ones". ***************************************************************** 28 Interfax: USA and NATO do not intend to control Russian nuclear arsenals - Shea Interfax.com Text version Site map Feb 21 2005 5:45PM MOSCOW. Feb 21 (Interfax) - The United States and NATO do not intend to control Russia's nuclear arsenals, NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for External Relations, Jamie Shea, told the Ekho Moskvy radio on Monday. The only thing we want is strategic stability, he said, adding that the alliance and Russia had common interests, namely to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of shadow syndicates and terrorists. © 1991-2004 Interfax All rights reserved News and other data on this web site are provided for information purposes only, and are not intended for republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Interfax. ***************************************************************** 29 Press Herald: A Cold War relic fails test of time A huge radar installation in Maine will be scrapped as outdated defense needs give way to new technology. --> Monday, February 21, 2005 By RYAN LENZ, Associated Press ©Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This MOSCOW, Maine — It's a dinosaur of the Cold War: a 3-mile-long radar system designed to detect Soviet bombers screaming across the Atlantic. The Over-The-Horizon Backscatter Radar, often described as the world's largest radar, was developed over 25 years for $1.5 billion and occupies an area nearly twice the size of New York's Central Park. When operational, it could monitor a massive swath of ocean and warn of threats nearly 2,000 miles away. Built in both Maine and Oregon, the radars picked up readings as far as 1,700 miles off both coasts. But like outdated warhead silos and other relics of the arms race, the military is scrapping the wire-and-steel monoliths. "The world changed," said Steve Hinds, manager of the OTH-B radar program at Air Combat Command, which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings. "This will not be used for what it was intended. Ever." The backscatter radars bounced a beam off the ionosphere, sending a scattered signal back to the Earth's surface. They were so sensitive, they could detect changes in ocean currents, a useful tool for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which debated acquiring the radars for research. The radar in Maine, nestled in the woods in a place that bears little resemblance to the Russian capital for which the nearby town was named, was operational for only a year in the early 1990s before being mothballed. Military officials had planned to install additional over-the-horizon radars to oversee other hemispheres, but only installations in Maine and Oregon were built before the program was scrapped in favor of more advanced Navy technology. The Air Force maintained the ability to restart the radars to protect against a new threat before beginning to dismantle the facilities late last year. Other agencies also wondered if they could use the radar to detect ocean-bound drug shipments. David Winkler, a historian with the Naval Service Museum, studied the radars for a report to the Defense Department on the legacy of the Cold War in the late 1990s. They were designed to deter countries with nuclear capabilities, he says. "They are out there to deter anybody who has a bad day and decides to launch against us," Winkler said. "But who are we deterring now? Al-Qaida?" While many Cold War military installations have closed in the past decade - some military experts expect the factor to weigh heavily in this year's base closings - decommissioning the radar marks to some a change in homeland defense. But not everyone shares the assessment that the radar is useless. John Pike, a military expert with globalsecurity.org, says he is puzzled by the decision to dismantle the Backscatter radar during an age when nuclear proliferation remains a concern and countries such as North Korea are developing long-range nuclear warheads. "North Korea's missiles may or may not be able to get to the United States if they were launched from North Korea. But they could if they were launched by tramp steamers 1,000 miles off the coast," he said. "Korean cargo ships, each with one missile and one atomic bomb, would blend into the traffic." Military officials counter that it's not defense they are leaving behind; it is a matter of how they are going to defend. New radar technologies, including a relocatable version of the backscatter radar, have replaced the massive structure. The Air Force in the months ahead plans to begin shopping the nearly 1,200 acres to industrial clients who could lease the land and benefit from such expansive, unencumbered landscape. "It was a gracious piece of machinery. We saw it come and we saw it go, but it may have some other uses after all," said Dean Smith, Air Combat Control chief of quality assurance. "We haven't got that far yet, but there could be another tale here after all." Copyright© Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. ***************************************************************** 30 Longmont: FYI - Nighthorse of a different color www.longmontfyi.com Publish Date: 2/20/2005 Retired U.S. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell jokes with his wife, Linda, on Jan. 11 in their home near Ignacio. The two met as teachers in California and moved to Ignacio in 1977.AP/David Zalubowski Former senator to enjoy quieter life By Judith Kohler The Associated Press IGNACIO — Budget deficits. Social Security. The war in Iraq. Pressing matters for Americans, but former Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell doesn’t miss his front-row seat on the debates. For the first time in 22 years, Campbell doesn’t have to leave his ranch in the mountains of southwestern Colorado and drive hundreds of miles to Denver or fly off to Washington. The only American Indian in the Senate before he retired last year — a man considered a shoo-in for a third term — is finally getting some downtime after a health scare convinced him it was time for a change. “I thought it was a heart attack — it wasn’t,” Campbell said, wearing a pearl-snap-button Western shirt and his long silver and black hair pulled back in a ponytail. “But when I was lying on that table in the hospital looking up at all those doctors’ faces, I decided then, ‘Do I really need to do this six more years after I’ve been gone so much from home?’ I have two children I didn’t get to see grow up, quite frankly,” Campbell said while sitting at the dining room table in his rambling log house on a snow-covered hill overlooking Ignacio. Not wanting to have the same thing happen with his grandchildren, the 71-year-old Campbell has embarked on a new phase of his life. He hopes to have more time to work on the Indian jewelry that helped make him wealthy and is on temporary display in the National Museum of the American Indian. He has more time to work on a line of outdoor gear with a California-based company, Kiva Designs. He has more time to ride the Harley-Davidson motorcycles that, like his ponytail and bolo ties, contributed to his image as a Capitol Hill maverick. The Northern Cheyenne also has a new job: senior policy adviser with the powerhouse law firm of Holland &Knight in Washington. During a visit to the Senate in January, he said his former colleagues told him that they would introduce bills on issues he didn’t get a chance to finish: reauthorization of Indian health legislation and energy projects on reservations. Spokeswoman Kate Dando said Campbell didn’t bring up the subject and wasn’t lobbying senators. Under congressional rules, he cannot lobby members of Congress for one year after his retirement. “It’s been kind of interesting to see (Washington) from a distance,” Campbell said. • • • Seeming contradictions made Campbell a perpetually popular Colorado politician and one of its most colorful. He’s an Indian who’s at ease wearing cowboy boots or ceremonial headdresses on special occasions. Campbell is as quick with a laugh or good story as he is with sharp words for political foes. He once called then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt a “forked-tongued snake” for opposing the Animas-La Plata water project near Ignacio, which Campbell promoted as a way to honor the water rights of the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes and is probably his most obvious legacy. Campbell switched from Democrat to Republican in the middle of his first term and clashed with environmentalists on everything from mining law and grazing reforms to setting aside land for national monuments. Despite all this — or perhaps because of it — voters loved him. In 1998, Campbell won re-election by routing Democrat Dottie Lamm, the wife of former Gov. Dick Lamm, his switch to the GOP costing him nothing at the polls. Campbell insisted his principles didn’t change, only his party. He said he was criticized as a Democrat for voting with Republicans, and then pilloried by some newspapers for his stances after the switch. “It didn’t change me; I didn’t change my voting record. For instance, I had a sterling voting record as a Democrat on labor. I still do as a Republican. And on minorities and women’s issues,” he said. “When I was a Democrat, I was one of the few who would vote with the Republicans,” he added. “As a Republican, on a number of things, I was one of the few — sometimes the only one — that voted with the Democrats.” His values — liberal on social issues, conservative on fiscal ones — were shaped by his life. Children’s causes are dear to him because he and his sister spent time in an orphanage when his father was in jail and his mother had tuberculosis. Organized labor won his backing because hooking up with the Teamsters and learning to drive a truck got him out of the California tomato fields. He still has a commercial driver’s license and used a truck to take a Christmas tree from Colorado to the U.S. Capitol in 2000. His time as a Sacramento County sheriff’s deputy in California in the late 1960s and early ’70s made him a supporter of law enforcement. He is viewed by many Indians as a champion. “Clearly, he’s one of our own. It was just great to have him (in Congress). He understood our issues, and we didn’t have to educate him,” said Jacqueline Johnson, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians. Not only was Campbell a strong ally on specific issues — health care, housing — he also guided tribal leaders on more effectively presenting their cases to Congress, Johnson said. Campbell wrote several measures “that sought to improve the social and economic conditions of American Indians,” Tim Johnson, executive editor of the Indian Country Today newspaper, wrote in a prepared statement. “The editors of this newspaper hold the senator in high esteem as a self-made man of many talents who reached the highest levels of achievement,” he added. Campbell’s announcement last spring that he wouldn’t run again surprised people from the East Coast to Ignacio, population 791, on the Southern Ute reservation and the town nearest his home. Prostate cancer, successfully treated in 2003, didn’t deter him from seeking re-election, but twice landing in the hospital with severe chest pains did. The decision to retire, Campbell said, had nothing to do with allegations that his former chief of staff solicited kickbacks from another staffer and that his office lobbied for a contract for a technology company with ties to the former senator. He referred both matters to the Senate Ethics Committee. He said the Justice Department has asked him not to discuss its investigation of the alleged kickbacks. " " " Campbell’s jewelry studio is in a small building tucked behind his house. He and his wife used to raise horses and cattle in the fields of sagebrush and scrub oak on their land, but now they just lease the pastures to others. Campbell was a teacher in California when he met his wife, Linda, also a teacher. They moved to Ignacio in 1977 because she was from Montrose and wanted to be near her family and his father was from neighboring Pagosa Springs. Entering politics was a kind of accident. In 1982, Campbell had planned to deliver some of his jewelry to California, but bad weather grounded his plane. He was killing time in Durango when he went to a county Democratic meeting and wound up giving a speech for a friend running for sheriff. Democrats were looking for someone to challenge a GOP legislative candidate and sounded out Campbell during the meeting. “Like a fish, I was hooked,” he said. His opponent, Don Whalen, was a popular former college president who “looked like he was out of a Brooks Brothers catalog,” Campbell recalled. “And I come stumbling off the (reservation) with long hair and no necktie. I don’t think anybody gave me any kind of a chance,” he said. “I just think I expended a whole lot of energy to prove them wrong.” Campbell hit the streets, ripping the town maps out of the Yellow Pages and walking door to door to talk with people. He recalls leaving a note at a house in Cortez where no one was home when he heard a car roar into the driveway, gravel flying and brakes squealing. The driver jumped out, tire iron in hand, and screamed that Campbell couldn’t have his furniture. “Aren’t you the repossession company?” the man asked. “And I said, ‘No, man, I’m just running for office.’ We got to talking, and I think the guy voted for me.” Campbell went on to win what he called the “most gentlemanly, friendly” race he was ever involved with. He never lost an election, moving from the Colorado House to the U.S. House and then the Senate. During all that time, Campbell was a strong promoter of typical Western interests, including water, tourism and agriculture, said Bob Loevy, a political science professor at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. “I also think you have to note that he was a success as a U.S. senator from both parties. It’s not the easiest thing in the world to switch parties like he did,” Loevy said. It helped that Campbell switched to the state’s dominant party, he said. It was also helpful that he “could give a great speech and a good handshake” and cut a colorful, vintage Colorado image with his Western attire and Indian ancestry. Campbell recalls opposing turning Yucca Mountain in Nevada into a national nuclear waste dump not out of principle but because he saw the power of atomic weapons firsthand. He was a military police officer when nuclear weapons were tested in the Nevada desert at night. “We’d take a newspaper with us to see how long we could read it by the light of the atomic blast. This thing was almost 90 miles away, and you could read the newspaper almost a full minute,” Campbell said. As a Roman Catholic, Campbell opposes abortion but doesn’t believe it should be illegal because of what he saw while a cop. He responded twice to calls involving young women who had tried to give themselves abortions. “I thought, ‘My God, that could’ve been my sister or daughter or something,’” he said. Campbell, a 1964 Olympian in judo, also took a keen interest in the turmoil of the U.S. Olympic Committee in Colorado Springs in 2003. Now, he’s enjoying being a private citizen. He laughed and shook hands with people during a recent lunch at a restaurant in the Sky Ute Casino in Ignacio and strode through town, cowboy hat and boots on. At home, he proudly showed off his Harleys, pickup trucks and a silver Sterling 18-wheeler with a matching Mini Cooper S car at the back of the trailer. He hopes to use them often. Politics, though, are never far away. He has expressed interest in running for governor in two years. Republican incumbent Bill Owens can’t seek a third term because of term limits. “I’ve thought about it because people have called about it,” Campbell said. “I want to be out for a while. I don’t have to make up my mind for another half-year.” He added: “I have no intention of retiring from life, just retiring from the Senate.” Copyright © 2005 The Daily Times-Call ***************************************************************** 31 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Begins Five-Day Trip to Europe From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday February 20, 2005 1:31 PM AP Photo DCMC102 WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush set out Sunday on a European trip to strengthen ties with allies after sharp disagreements over the war in Iraq. He waved and called out, ``See you all,'' as he crossed the South Lawn to his helicopter, waiting to take him to Air Force One at nearby Andrews Air Force Base. The president was accompanied by his wife, Laura. The president is making stops in Belgium, Germany and Slovakia over five days. He will attend NATO and European Union meetings and hold separate meetings with three of the most vocal critics of the U.S.-led war in Iraq: French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Other prickly issues on the agenda will be European negotiations aimed at persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear program and Europe's plans to scrap its 15-year ban on selling weapons to China. Bush was to arrive in Brussels Sunday evening, local time, with no events on his schedule. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 32 NRC Admission Re Probability Of Meltdown Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:02:44 -0500 NRC is charged with protecting us although we all know that's a joke[deadly joke]. Anyone allowing this kind of potentially catastrophic technology to exist is in complete dereliction of their duty and needs to be replaced with an agency that will truely protect the public. De facto this means the shutting down of ALL nuclear power facilities immediately or as close to immediately as is possible. The logical measure to take for supplying us with the energy we need and protecting us is a Manhattan Project for clean, renewable energy. Please call and/or fax [ http://www.senate.gov & http://www.house.gov ] your Rep and your two Senators now calling for the dismantling of the entire nuclear power industry and it's being replaced with wind, solar, geothermal and any/all other renewables deemed appropriate. Please spread this e-mail to other lists and interested individuals. The Congressional switchboard can be reached at: 1-877-762-8762 or 202-224-3121. http://www.mothersalert.org/probability.html This dosen't even address the issue of terrorism. One single attack on a spent fuel pool will be MUCH worse than Chernobyl to sat nothing of what it will do to the economny and environment. For some old statistics re economic damage as the result of a Class-9 meltdown see: http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html -Bill Smirnow ***************************************************************** 33 UK The Times: 'Clean' nuclear power? February 22, 2005 From Mr John Busby Sir, Papers delivered to the World Nuclear Association’s annual symposiums show an industry in crisis in that primary supplies of uranium provide only 55 per cent of the current demand, the balance coming from the so-called secondary sources of ex-weapons material, inventories and reworked mine tailings. The papers indicate that the secondary sources are running down. The 36 reactors under construction (letter, February 17) can only be supplied by the scheduled closing of many of the 430 existing reactors, whose life is in some cases being extended by ignoring the safety implications associated with the deterioration in the materials of their construction as a result of irradiation. Even if nuclear power is “carbon dioxide clean”, which it is not, the contribution it makes to global energy supplies is a mere 2½ per cent. Using the lower grades of uranium ore as the higher grades are depleted leads to even more carbon dioxide being released from the less efficient mining, milling and enrichment involved. Nuclear power offers neither sustainability nor a “clean” overall fuel cycle and cannot contribute to an alleviation of global warming. There is no “nuclear option”. Yours faithfully, JOHN BUSBY, Oakwood, Melford Road, Lawshall, Bury St Edmunds IP29 4PY. February 17. Copyright The Times - timesonline.co.uk ***************************************************************** 34 Daily Press COMMENTARY: Nuclear power our best bet Monday, February 21, 2005 BARRY GANAPOL It seemed a great idea to most people, back in 1990, when Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require significant reductions in three harmful smokestack emissions from coal-fired power plants: sulfur dioxides, nitrous oxide and particulate matter. Almost immediately, electric utilities chose another fuel for new power plants with long-term consequences for U.S. energy security: They shifted from coal to natural gas, which is cleaner burning and was generally thought to be in ample supply. The problem is that in the past five years, natural gas prices have soared. Imports from Canada leveled off and domestic production failed to keep up with demand. advertisement The reason for the rapid run-up in gas prices is clear: the frantic race to use natural gas as a fuel for electric power plants. Electricity companies have accounted for more than 90 percent of the increase in gas consumption and are largely responsible for the sharp rise in gas prices, which have tripled to more than $7 per 1,000 cubic feet from just $2 in 1999. The increased price of natural gas has cost U.S. consumers more than $143.7 billion since prices began to rise in June 2000, according to Industrial Energy Consumers of America, an organization of large industrial gas users. The jump in gas prices began to affect manufacturing plants immediately. Tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost as industries requiring large amounts of natural gas shut down facilities in the United States and moved them abroad to take advantage of cheaper gas. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight to our high natural gas prices, which are now the highest in the world. The gas crisis is a burden on every person and business in the country because gas is used as both a fuel and a raw material for the production of everything from fertilizer and pesticides to plastics for computers. Consider the impact on the cost of food. As the price of natural gas rose, it drove up the price of fertilizers; farmers had to cut back their use of fertilizers, and that resulted in lower crop yields. This, in turn, has led to higher food costs for every American. The cost of many other consumer products will continue to rise as our country tries to meet our growing gas demand by importing liquefied natural gas from the Middle East and other politically volatile regions. Indeed, there are indications that major gas-producing nations, led by Russia, are forming a cartel to fix prices. In other words, to avoid burning coal, because of environmental problems, we turned to a fuel that is becoming much more expensive and that we have to import. So an important question: Is it necessary to continue burning ever-greater amounts of natural gas for electricity production to meet air-quality requirements? Don't we have an option? The Energy Information Administration forecasts continued large annual increases in gas use for electricity production. This is unacceptable, since electricity demand is expected to grow 40 percent by 2020, and additional pressure on gas demand would cost Americans billions of dollars in higher natural gas and electricity prices. There is an alternative method of producing large amounts of electricity without polluting the air. Nuclear power is a reliable and safe technology. Nuclear plants like Palo Verde in Wintersburg produce zero pollution, not even greenhouse-gas emissions. For that matter, nuclear power compares favorably with renewable energy sources like solar and wind, and its increased use is one reason the nation's air quality has improved over the past 20 years. Nuclear power generates a fifth of all the electricity Americans use. It is ready to play a much greater role in the future as we realize we can't continue relying totally on natural gas for new power plants. What we need is a national commitment for an energy strategy aimed at developing a diversified mix of clean energy sources. Undoubtedly, natural gas will continue to be an important part of the fuel mix, but we must be very careful not to get too addicted. And we should consider our best alternative: nuclear power. Barry Ganapol is professor in the departments of aerospace and mechanical engineering and hydrology and water resources at the University of Arizona. ***************************************************************** 35 South Africa Sunday Times: 'End spending on pebble bed' Monday February 21, 2005 14:43 - (SA) By Donwald Pressly Government spending should be redirected from the military and the pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) programme should be halted, says the South African People's Budget. The People's Budget was presented at Parliament on Monday by the South African Council of Churches (SACC), the South African Non-Governmental Coalition (SANGOCO) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), which is an alliance partner of the ruling African National Congress (ANC). This was proposed on the various organisations behalf by SANGOCO's Zanele Twala - but she was flanked by Cosatu's Elroy Paulus and the SACC's Rev Molefe Tsele and Doug Tilton. Recently Earthlife Africa won a stay on the construction of the pebble bed at Koeberg - after the Cape Town High Court ruled that there were certain irregularities concerning the environmental impact assessment procedure. The environmental affairs and tourism department has opted not to appeal this ruling - but it does not mean that the government does not wish that the programme should go ahead. The People's Budget noted that government intended allocating 500 million rand to the pebble bed in 2005/06 while only slightly more than a billion rand was to be spent on the national electrification programme. "The spending on the PBMR is almost half of the projected spending to achieve universal access," said the People's Budget report. It noted that the ultimate cost of around 10 billion rand is suggested for the pilot project. "However, this estimate could not be verified as the cost is deemed to be commercially confidential." The organisations noted that the first commercial modules "are only planned for 2013. "Moreover, once the plant is decommissioned, recurrent costs of storing nuclear waste remain with the possibility that future governments could bear this cost." The PBMR "seems likely to become a long-term drain on public resources even though the potential returns of this experimental technology are uncertain". Eskom Holdings had planned that building would begin on the pilot PBMR at Koeberg, near Cape Town, in 2007. Environmental Affairs and Tourism director general Chippy Olver said the court's decision had "quite serious implications" for the environmental impact assessment process and it opened up "a seemingly endless round of consultations and judicial reviews. Government intended instead to address concerns through new EIA regulations which had already been published for public comment. I-Net Bridge © Johnnic Media Investments Limited 1996-2005. All Rights ***************************************************************** 36 FT.com: Utilities - EDF could offer Enel nuclear role By Peggy Hollinger in Paris, Adrian Michaels in Milan and Leslie Crawford in Madrid Published: February 21 2005 21:05 | Last updated: February 21 2005 21:05 [edf] Electricité de France may offer Enel of Italy a partnership in nuclear power, in order to break the stalemate over its investment in Edison, Italy's second-largest electricity producer. The French utility is "ready to look at" involving Enel in the planned European pressurised water reactor, launched by the French government late last year and due to start in 2007, according to people close to the group. [ height=] © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. ***************************************************************** 37 [DU-WATCH] third N.C based soldier dies after exhibiting Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:12:27 -0600 (CST) http://www.wral.com/news/4209862/detail.html Third N.C.-Based Soldier Dies After Exhibiting Flu-Like Symptoms Sgt. Clay Garton Reportedly Dies From Infection POSTED: 6:49 pm EST February 17, 2005 UPDATED: 9:04 am EST February 18, 2005 RALEIGH, N.C. -- The mysterious death of a third soldier with North Carolina ties is raising questions. All three died from flu-like symptoms after returning from overseas deployments. Sgt. Clay Garton was a flight medic at Fort Bragg. He spent 16 months in Iraq and returned home in July. Then, he got sick. His family said he had symptoms like the flu. He fought it for three weeks, but his fever soared to 106 degrees. The day after Christmas, he died. "They came out in five minutes and said, 'He's gone,'" said Duane Garton, Clay's father. According to a preliminary autopsy report, Garton's liver and spleen were swollen. His wife said doctors told her he died from infection. It is the third recent example of soldiers dying after exhibiting flu-like symptoms. Capt. Gilbert Munoz was a special forces soldier at Fort Bragg who was deployed to the Middle East. After he got back, he died from a bacterial infection. Video Sgt. Christopher Rogers was a reservist from Raleigh. He went to Afghanistan. After he came home, his temperature hit 109 degrees. His widow, Windy Rogers, wonders whether he had what Munoz had. "Chris was admitted with flu-like symptoms. Whatever it was, it shut all of his organs down -- shut them all down -- and I want to know what happened," she said. Garton's family has questions, too. His wife said while Garton was in Iraq, he treated someone exposed to depleted uranium. Garton's father wonders if that had something to do with his death. "He went through 16 months of hell and he came back and they didn't do nothing for him," he said. WRAL called Fort Bragg, the Department of the Army and some congressional offices. At this point, it does not appear that anyone is investigating the deaths or trying to determine if there is a common cause. ---------- Previous Stories: February 15, 2005: Doctors Try To Determine Cause Of Death For Raleigh Army Reservist --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give the gift of life to a sick child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.' http://us.click.yahoo.com/3iazvD/6WnJAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 38 North County Times: Book describes the demise of the Kursk Features: Books Last modified Saturday, February 19, 2005 9:05 PM PST By: NORMAN N. BROWN - Associated Press In "Cry From the Deep: The Submarine Disaster That Riveted the World and Put the New Russia to the Ultimate Test" (HarperCollins, $25.95), Ramsey Flynn offers an interesting and well-written book about the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk in the Barents Sea during naval maneuvers in August 2000. The loss of the ship was caused by the internal explosion of an experimental torpedo, which set off other similar weapons aboard ship. The entire bow section of the gigantic submarine was destroyed, but the midships and stern compartments initially remained watertight, sparing 23 of the submarine's 118-man crew from immediate death. The Kursk was a twin-hulled behemoth of 14,700 tons, powered by two nuclear reactors and capable of carrying 28 torpedoes and 24 cruise missiles. It sank 380 feet to the flat ocean bed. The explosions were heard aboard other Russian ships participating in the exercise, and aboard two U.S. Navy subs that were covertly monitoring it. The detonations were so powerful that several seismic observatories in northern Europe believed they were strong earthquakes. If the Russian navy had immediately investigated the cause of the explosions and determined it to have been from within the sub, at least some of the survivors trapped aboard might have been rescued. "Cry From the Deep" details how naval authorities, both afloat and ashore, procrastinated and released no information public, and later improvised and lied about the accident. The U.S., British and Norwegian governments soon surmised what had happened but were reluctant to offer aid until it was asked for ---- which did not occur until many days later ---- because they did not want it known that they had been spying. Eventually, divers reached the sunken ship and examined it from the outside. By then, the interior had been flooded and everyone aboard had perished. The Kursk was raised and towed to port in October 2001. The crew's remains were given heroic and honored burial. The families of the 23 men trapped aft wondered how long they had lived before succumbing and what their chances of survival might have been if rescue efforts had been started immediately. Flynn approaches the story from a close-up and immediate perspective: He interviewed relatives of the crews of the Kursk and other Russian submariners, and naval officers in Russia, the United States, Norway and Great Britain. He closes with reflections on the immediate effects the Kursk tragedy had on the Russian people, their everyday lives, and their attitudes toward the government and the post-Soviet military establishment. © 1997-2005 North County Times - ***************************************************************** 39 Herald Tribune: American Beryllium case sparks legislation Monday, February 21, 2005 NEWS NEWS COMMUNITY BUSINESS SPORTS A&E heraldtribune.com By DALE WHITE dale.white@heraldtribune.com TALLAHASSEE -- State regulators would have no more than 10 days to notify residents after they suspect properties may have been contaminated by a nearby chemical spill, according to a bill filed by State Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, on Monday. The legislation stems from ongoing concerns about the health of Tallevast residents whose drinking wells were contaminated with carcinogens that spread from a nearby defense contractor, the former American Beryllium Co. Current law does not require residents to be notified of a spill until the industry and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection agree on a clean-up plan. By 2000, Lockheed Martin, which now owns the American Beryllium site, discovered that heavy-metal contamination there had spread off site. Tallevast residents were not aware of the concerns until October 2003, when they questioned Lockheed officials who were taking soil and water samples in their neighborhood. Last modified: February 21. 2005 6:31PM ***************************************************************** 40 The State: WHAT IS MOX? 02/20/2 Mixed oxide fuel is a blend of plutonium and uranium that Duke Energy Corp. hopes to use regularly for the first time in U.S. nuclear power plants. • If approved by the government,MOX would be fabricated at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, then shipped to Duke plants in the Carolinas. • MOX has been used for decades in Europe to fuel power plants and has been experimented with in U.S. plants. • Nuclear power plants in the U.S. historically have been fueled by uranium. Supporters say • The MOX program is a good way to accomplish the nations goal of disposing of nuclear stockpiles, while also fueling power plants in the Carolinas. Opponents say • All excess plutonium should be turned into waste and disposed of because of suspected environmental and health dangers associated with plutonium. TheStateOnline ***************************************************************** 41 Accountancy Age: Auditors clear BNFL of losing nuclear material - Site map | Tue 22 Feb 2005 Accountancy Age Paul Grant, Accountancy Age21 Feb 2005 Losses down to 'uncertainties inherent in the measurement systems' according to report. The auditors of British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield complex have cleared the company of losing nearly 30kg of plutonium, enough to make several nuclear bombs. The UK Atomic Energy Agency Authority said the loss was due to 'uncertainties inherent in the measurement systems used to produce basic data'. It added that 'there is no evidence to suggest that any of the apparent losses reported were real losses of nuclear material'. BNFL claimed that some years had shown a gain in radioactive material, rather than a loss. It said 'Negative numbers do not mean material has disappeared; positive numbers don't mean material has been created. These uncertainties exist in all industrial processes,' reported the Financial Times. Business Publications] © 1995-2005 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 42 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada attorney general says nuclear-waste dump won't open By BRENDAN RILEY ASSOCIATED PRESS CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Lawmakers were told Monday that a proposed federal nuclear waste dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain will never open because of major problems - including its creation over time of "the world's largest septic field" of radioactive material. Attorney General Brian Sandoval added that proposed storage tanks in which the waste would be stored probably would fail within 100 years, causing the high-level waste material to leach into groundwater. Sandoval said he was surprised to hear dump advocates tell lawmakers last week that the project in the southern Nevada desert is inevitable. The advocates included former Gov. Bob List - a strong dump opponent while in office but now a Nuclear Energy Institute consultant and lobbyist. The dump location, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is "literally a volcano that sits on an earthquake fault, above an aquifer, next to the Nevada Test Site, next to one of the nation's largest organic farms, next to the state's largest dairy, adjacent to ... the United States' fastest growing metropolitan area, next to one of the busiest Air Force bases in the country," Sandoval said. "If you could choose a worse place to store nuclear waste, I really challenge you to do so." "My best analysis is that it's a matter of time before this project fails," Sandoval told the Senate Finance Committee, adding that its's behind schedule, funding from Congress and the Bush administration has been cut, and Nevada won a key legal battle over required radiation standards. While Sandoval said he had heard rumors of a possible attempt in Congress to legislate a new standard, he was "very confident with the strength of our congressional delegation" and its ability to stop such an effort. The five-member delegation includes Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Sen. Bob Coffin, D-Las Vegas, praised Sandoval for his legal efforts against the effort to bring some 77,000 metric tons of waste from the nation's reactors, adding, "We have to keep the full-court press right up to the last buzzer." "They didn't know what was underground until they started digging," Coffin said, adding, "If our people hadn't kept them honest they would have just blown it right by us - just like they did the nuclear tests above ground that threw radiation everywhere." Sandoval said there's proven technology for recycling radioactive wastes, adding, "I can't think of a more primitive way to deal with this waste ... than to dig a hole in the ground and cover it up." List told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that "the likelihood of this project is greater than it has ever been" despite a valiant fight by state officials and the state's congressional delegation. List was joined by Michael Bauser, associate general counsel for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which sets policy for the nuclear industry and includes companies that operate nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel suppliers. Bauser said that out of 13 legal cases, nine of which were initiated by the state, all but one of the challenges were rejected. The successful challenge involved the Environmental Protection Agency's radiation standard. A federal appeals court found the standard inconsistent with a National Academy of Science recommendation and told the EPA that it can either revise its regulations or go to Congress for legislation to clear up the matter. While that will take time, Bauser said the U.S. Department of Energy still plans to submit its application for a dump license sometime this year. Bauser also said holdups on the project - the DOE is putting the opening date at 2012, two years later than originally scheduled - have nothing to do with the litigation and are results of the "inability of DOE to complete tasks in a timely fashion." -- ***************************************************************** 43 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Jeff German: Tide may wash away advocates of Yucca Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.comor (702) 259-4067. WEEKEND EDITION February 19 - 20, 2005 There is no doubt in my mind now that the forces pushing the stalled Yucca Mountain project are in a panic mode. "They're desperate to hold back the tide of public opinion that this thing is dead on arrival," says one Nevada congressional source fighting to keep the nation's high-level nuclear waste out of the state. How desperate? Well consider that, for the first time in the history of this 22-year battle, the pro-Yucca Mountain forces felt the need last week to travel into the heart of enemy territory in Carson City to spread their disinformation. In the face of Yucca Mountain's growing troubles, there was former Gov. Bob List, the nuclear industry's well-paid mouthpiece in Nevada, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee, "the likelihood of this project is greater than it has ever been." Are you kidding me? Only two days earlier the Los Angeles Times had published an in-depth story on how Nevada's tenacity in the fight is paying dividends and raising questions about whether the multibillion-dollar project will ever go forward. List's incredulous words once again reminded me of that Iraqi information minister, known as "Baghdad Bob," who boasted that his country was winning the war with the United States as American troops surrounded Baghdad. I'll bet List even drew chuckles from his nuclear industry bosses, who are starting to consider alternatives to burying waste at Yucca Mountain, as the project heads toward a meltdown. "It was like, holy cow, Bob. Give it up," says Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, an anti-Yucca Mountain group. "Even people in the industry are saying it's in big trouble." Just in case lawmakers had trouble believing him last week, List introduced them to Michael Bauser, a top lawyer with the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's influential Washington lobby, which has been working for 22 years to stick us with nuclear waste. Bauser reminded the senators that Nevada has lost most of its legal battles to fend off the dump, and he suggested this was as good a time as any to give up the fight. But Bauser didn't talk much about the legal battle Nevada won that has turned out to be the Achilles heel of the project -- its inability to meet a scientific standard for storing the waste safely. Ever since a federal appeals court last July tossed out the government's inadequate standard, the project has taken a nose dive. "It's sort of in a death spiral," says Bob Loux, Nevada's top Yucca Mountain watchdog. "And I don't think there's anything that anyone can do to stop it." Loux and others in the Nevada camp say there's a growing lack of confidence in Washington in the project's ability to move ahead. Look at the mounting evidence: + The Bush administration recommended a mere $651 million for Yucca Mountain's budget this year, about half of what had been projected. + The Energy Department missed a December deadline to file its complicated license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It still has to pore over a mass of scientific papers about the size of Yucca Mountain. + Margaret Chu, the assistant energy secretary overseeing the project, decided to seek a less stressful job and announced her resignation. + The Energy Department acknowledged that Yucca Mountain is now at least two years behind its scheduled opening in 2010. + Pro-nuclear members of Congress began voicing frustration with the way Nevada has put up roadblocks to the project. + Utilities put the word out that burying the waste in Nevada no longer is crucial to building more long-awaited nuclear power plants. So here's a thought. Maybe it's time for Bob List and his fellow Yucca Mountain mouthpieces to start waving the white flag. ***************************************************************** 44 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: So, why is Yucca work continuing? February 18, 2005 LAS VEGAS SUN February 19 - 20, 2005 In the years that the federal government was steamrolling along on its plans to open Yucca Mountain, it offered ready justification for its unrelenting determination. The deadly nuclear waste piling up at the nation's power plants was becoming dangerous, the Energy Department warned, echoing nuclear power officials. It said the plants were running out of room, making a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain an urgent national priority. The waste will be safe at one, secure location, instead of being scattered around the country offering multiple targets for terrorists, Americans were told. Of equal concern was the nation's power supply. Until Yucca Mountain was operating, offering a solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal, no new nuclear power plants could be built, the Energy Department and nuclear power officials argued. But where are those arguments now -- now that the government's steamroller has all but ground to a halt against the obstacles this newspaper and other critics of the Yucca Mountain project have foreseen all along? The Energy Department has largely gone silent while the eager-to-expand nuclear power industry speaks loudly of alternatives to Yucca Mountain, located 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Today, the word is that onsite storage of nuclear waste at power plants can continue. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing a plan presented by a group of utilities to store waste above ground on the Goshute Indian Reservation in Skull Valley, Utah. This kind of talk is gaining momentum as the Yucca Mountain project sinks deeper into its rut. It is mired in millions of documents that do not satisfactorily answer all of the scientific questions about the mountain's safety. A federal court ruling rejecting the project's plan to contain radiation has the Energy Department stymied. The project's opening date has been pushed back two years. The prospects for Yucca Mountain ever to open are dwindling. So how are Congress and the Bush administration reacting? By pushing aside the old standby that Yucca Mountain is needed before building more nuclear power plants. The nuclear power industry expects a federal go-ahead -- and federal subsidies -- in time so that new plants can be under construction by 2010. Waste be damned, Congress and President Bush seem to be saying. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., an ardent supporter of Yucca Mountain and chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, spoke to about 200 nuclear power executives last week in Washington. "Despite difficulties and concerns about whether it ultimately will work, we still have to move step by step toward Yucca Mountain," he told the gathering. But why? The reasons for building it are crumbling by the minute. ***************************************************************** 45 Las Vegas SUN: EPA revises perchlorate evaluation Today: February 21, 2005 at 9:28:43 PST By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday declared that the amount of perchlorate that is safe is much greater than the agency had previously recommended. The EPA says up to 24.5 parts of perchlorate per billion parts of water are safe for consumption. That matches what the National Academy of Sciences recommended last month, but it is higher than what the agency suggested earlier. The EPA had recommended a 1 part per billion protection standard two years ago. The EPA's ruling will factor into guidelines for clean-ups of the chemical and will be used to determine whether the agency will regulate perchlorate in drinking water. EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman called the ruling, known as a reference dose, "a first step" for the agency as it begins to regulate perchlorate, a toxic chemical used in rocket fuel and explosives. If ingested in high doses, perchlorate can decrease the thyroid gland's functions, which can lead to health problems. The chemical leaked into the Las Vegas Valley's water supply from two Henderson chemical plants, one owned by Kerr-McGee, a Defense Department contractor. Perchlorate was first detected in Lake Mead in 1997. Kerr McGee stopped making perchlorate in 1998 and a cleanup project began in 1999. The other plant, owned by American Pacific, moved to Utah in 1989. J.C. Davis, spokesman for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said the new EPA rule will not change anything for or impact the valley's water supply. He said the perchlorate levels in Lake Mead have dropped by about 85 percent. "It should encourage people who live here that our standards are one-fifth of it," Davis said. "We don't have to do any better. Nevada was very proactive on this." Davis said the authority will continue to try to remove as much as the chemical as possible from drinking water. Before the EPA can set a drinking water limit for the chemical, Bergman said the agency needs to consider whether the source of people ingesting it comes from food or water. The chemical can get into water supplies, but it can also be in lettuce and milk, according to studies by the Food and Drug administration. In the next month, Bergman said the agency is likely to issue new clean-up rules for contaminated sites using the new level. This is higher than the 4 parts per billion to 18 parts per billion recommended cleanup level the agency has now. ***************************************************************** 46 deseret news: Huntsman wants Moab tailings moved now [deseretnews.com] Sunday, February 20, 2005 He warns that a flood could sweep them into Colorado River By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News Move 'em — pronto! That's the message from Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. to the U.S. Department of Energy concerning the hazardous uranium mill tailings piled beside the Colorado River near Moab. Huntsman sent a letter this past week to Don Metzler of the DOE's Moab Project Office, warning that a flood could sweep radioactive material into the river and along its banks. "Recent flooding in the St. George and Santa Clara regions of Utah also demonstrated the swift and immense force of moving water in the desert," he wrote in the letter, which was copied to Utah media outlets. "We cannot afford to assume the risks associated with having uranium tailings strewn along river banks and bars of the Colorado River below Moab. Good science and good sense tell us the tailings must be moved." He called for the construction of a repository at Klondike Flats, near Moab, which could be reached by the existing rail line. The mill site should be cleaned up and groundwater should be treated at the site to ensure contamination doesn't move off-site or into the Colorado River, Huntsman wrote. "This work should be commenced immediately, and federal funding should be sought to complete the work as promptly as possible," he wrote. "Now is the time to act — to move the tailings pile." Studies show the Colorado has migrated and that at both a maximum flood event and a 100-year flood it "will generate forces sufficient to erode the adjacent banks of the river and undercut the tailings pile," Huntsman added. Diane Nielson, executive director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, said in 1993 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said there would be no significant impacts if the tailings were left where they were. (Since then, studies have indicated otherwise.) After all these years, to finally have DOE issue a draft environmental impact statement considering options to move the pile, she said, "We are thrilled." Her department hopes the DOE "will understand the importance of moving the tailings off the bank of the Colorado River," Nielson told the Deseret Morning News. The DOE has been accepting comments on a draft identified impact statement concerning the tailings pile. Alternatives it has considered include doing nothing; disposing of the tailings where they are; or moving them to one of three off-site disposal areas. Disposal facilities could be at Klondike Flats; Crescent Junction, near the town by that name in Grand County, about 20 miles east of Green River; and the White Mesa Mill near Blanding. DOE officials have not yet chosen a preferred option. E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 47 Arizona Daily Sun: Colorado River threatened by radioactive waste Monday, February 21, 2005 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 02/21/2005 SALT LAKE CITY -- Gov. Jon Huntsman is warning the U.S. Department of Energy that a flood could sweep radioactive material piled beside the Colorado River near Moab into the water. "Recent flooding in the St. George and Santa Clara regions of Utah also demonstrated the swift and immense force of moving water in the desert," he wrote in the letter, which was copied to Utah media outlets. "We cannot afford to assume the risks associated with having uranium tailings strewn along river banks and bars of the Colorado River below Moab." The 94-foot-tall waste pile came from Moab's rich uranium deposits, which were mined in the 1950s for nuclear bombs. The Uranium Reduction Co. sold its mill in 1962 to Atlas Corp., which ran it sporadically until declaring bankruptcy in 1998. The Energy Department took over the site in 2001. Huntsman called for the construction of a repository at Klondike Flats, near Moab, which could be reached by the existing rail line. "This work should be commenced immediately, and federal funding should be sought to complete the work as promptly as possible," he wrote. "Now is the time to act -- to move the tailings pile." Diane Nielson, executive director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, said her department hopes the DOE "will understand the importance of moving the tailings off the bank of the Colorado River." The DOE has been accepting comments on a draft identified impact statement concerning the tailings pile. Alternatives it has considered include doing nothing, disposing of the tailings where they are or moving them to one of three offsite disposal areas. Disposal facilities could be at Klondike Flats; Crescent Junction, near the town by that name in Grand County, about 20 miles east of Green River; and the White Mesa Mill near Blanding. DOE officials have not yet chosen a preferred option. ***************************************************************** 48 World Peace Herald : Analysis: Nuclear waste pile worries western U.S. By Hil Anderson UPI Western Region Editor Published February 21, 2005 WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is risking yet another nuclear controversy in the West as the president's Energy Department hems and haws over what to do about a huge pile of radioactive waste rock heaped uncomfortably close to the Colorado River. The Energy Department and its incoming secretary, Samuel Bodman, have yet to give any solid reassurances to area governors that their concerns that the Moab, Utah, site won't be pushed aside as they were when the president pushed ahead with the controversial nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. "We cannot afford to assume the risks associated with having uranium tailings strewn along river banks and bars of the Colorado River below Moab," Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman insisted in a letter sent last week to the Moab project manager. "Good science and good sense tell us the tailings must be moved." The tailings consist of a towering pile of waste from an old uranium mill that rests virtually a stone's throw from the upper Colorado River, which is, as any westerner is keenly aware, a primary source of water for the growing downstream urban areas in Nevada, Arizona and Southern California. Environmentalists, and more importantly to the White House, state lawmakers of both parties, point out that the Colorado provides water for around 25 million people who would no doubt prefer that it not be mixed with radioactive material on a molecular level as it flows south. The idea that the Colorado would some day erode its way to the Moab tailings pile and cause the material to crumble into the waterway has officials in Utah and other states sounding a clarion alarm, even if such an event were to occur decades down the road. Dianne Nielson, executive director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, told the Deseret News in an interview last week: "What do you think 10 million tons of radioactive and poisonous waste would do to the water? It would be bad. The only thing we don't know is just how bad." The worried rhetoric is similar to that heard a few years ago as the federal government endlessly dithered over a plan to make Yucca Mountain the one and only spot in the nation to store nuclear waste. Warnings of possible geological flaws in the Nevada site were discounted, however, by President Bush, who announced in 2002 that the project was going ahead -- regardless of Nevada's feelings on the matter. The phrase "easier said than done" applies in earnest to the Moab project as much as it does to Yucca Mountain. Congress passed a law in 1999 mandating that the federal government, specifically the Department of Energy, do something about the growing problem in Utah. The Energy Department late last year completed the draft of the environmental impact study of the project. It is about 1,000 pages long and requires 24 pages just for the table of contents. But what has western politicians and officials worried is that the study includes possibly leaving the tailings where they are simply placing a cap over them rather than hauling them to a new resting place well away from the river. Further, they found it unusual that the EIS did not declare that moving the tailings was the "preferred alternative," a step that is common in the EIS process. The very idea that Washington was considering leaving the pile in place then set off political Geiger counters in the West where the unpleasant possibility arose that the White House might take the easy way out and let the Moab pile sit and simmer where it is. "My concern is that short-term cost considerations are going to trump the right decision," Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, told Bodman last week during a House Science Committee hearing. Bodman, who is considered in Washington to be a consummate administration company man, did not do much to mollify Matheson's concerns by responding blandly that he was aware of Moab and would follow through on the 1999 law to mitigate the problem. "I can assure you that the department will not knowingly violate the law," he said. "There may be some differences of opinion as to what the law says, and I can't speak to that." Bodman could be excused for not yet being up to speed on Moab; however, Matheson and other Utah officials have every reason to suspect that the department might opt for the cheaper alternative and leave the tailings in place. Removing the tailings would require either the construction of a rail line or slurry pipeline or the expansion of nearby US-190 to accommodate a stream of trucks that would run for eight years. In short, the EIS predicted, moving the tailings would cost anywhere from $329 million to $464 million depending on the site; putting a cap on the pile and leaving it where it is would run about half that. The study stated that Energy Department officials wanted to wait for the end of the public comment period on the draft before selecting a preferred alternative. The comment period concluded Feb. 18, and the department has 30 days to make its choice. The agency could indeed commit to the more expensive option of moving the tailings, although with the current federal budget deficit running at around $400 billion there is ample ground for suspicion in the West that the Moab tailings will be left like a cancerous tumor on the banks of one of the region's most important sources of water. Copyright © 2005 News World Communications Inc. ***************************************************************** 49 lamonitor.com: Risk Assessment cleanup team ready to go public 2-18-05 The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor SANTA FE - A process for evaluating and making recommendations on cleanup operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory is making headway, according to reports at a public meeting Wednesday night. Doug Stavert, a manager with LANL's Environmental Stewardship Project said the technical issues have now been largely solved and that he hoped the structures for community input would be in place within a year. "The lab is changing," he told an audience of about 50 people, acknowledging that openness about data and decisions about how to spend money did not come easily to an institution steeped in secrecy. If successful, the project, called RACER (Risk Assessment, Communication, Evaluation and Reduction), will have an independent existence for the next 15 years or so. The processes established will help officials grapple with contamination priorities and clean-up alternatives, while giving the community an active voice in the process. Officials of the Risk Assessment Corporation had little new substance to discuss since the team's last meeting in October, but as the project has become elaborated, continuing reviews of the basic assumptions and components and practice explanations are called for to bring newcomers up to speed. Audience response and degrees of bewilderment are used as a reality check by the process designers. A group of high school students, apparently on assignment from Santa Fe Prep, played the role of the initiates, asking the prerequisite questions like "What is risk?" John Till, RAC's president and the principal investigator of the Los Alamos risk assessment process, has methodically found ways to consolidate the disparate and formerly incompatible pools of measurements concerning chemicals and radionucleides in the environment at LANL. These include data from LANL and the regulatory agents at New Mexico Environment Department and any other data collectors in the area. With a little bit of training, most people in the public, at least those who understand how a database works, can use the search tools the RAC team has developed to figure out what sources of pollution and what contaminated areas might be of greatest concern. Database tools include the ability to see a contaminant source in proportion to its effects, to see results through time, how pollution sources wax and wane, to compare data sets as collected by different organizations, and to focus on results that exceed environmental standards. To a large extent, risk is a sum of how these comparisons and graphic illustrations of hazardous materials are perceived by various elements of the public, not so much a number as an informed judgment. So, in order to reach a set of recommendations, a formal steering committee composed of public stakeholders must go through a decision loop, taking in the raw information and weighing its significance. Fleshing this group out and giving it credibility and endurance, will be the next major challenge for the process. A confluence of objective science and subjective hopes and fears on the part of the public are acknowledged in RAC's designs. The complications were illustrated by RAC team member, Jim Rocco, who passed out a sheet of paper with some choices of cars and trucks from which members of the audience were asked to choose. On the reverse of the sheet were a list of qualities the person was looking for in a car - cost, safety, mileage, and so forth. The point of the exercise was that people chose certain cars, but if the selection had been based on the qualities they were looking for, a different selection would have been indicated. A similar situation is likely to arise in assessing a real-life environmental clean-up decision, in which the features may be identified, but factors like the importance of one feature over another and the choice and evaluation of options, become matters of preference or personal conviction. One participant wanted to know why the question couldn't simply be put in the hands of the technical people who were supposed to know what to do. The short answer, Rocco said, was that not all decisions are driven by technology. What if one had to choose between practically destroying a piece of the environment or patching it up as much as possible, but leaving some risk in place? To act as stewards in the process, RACER has enlisted the Northern New Mexico Community College to manage the database and the steering committee and New Mexico Community Foundation to develop informed participants through stipends and training workshops. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 50 The State: SRS slated for new surplus plu 02/20/2 Supporters, critics disagree on impact on S.C. and future of MOX plant By LAUREN MARKOE Washington Bureau WASHINGTON  President Bush wants to revive plans for building a first-of-its-kind plutonium disposal plant at Aikens Savannah River Site. Politicians, nuclear energy boosters and environmentalists alike applaud the idea, called immobilization, which involves encasing in glass the surplus, weapons-grade plutonium left over from weapons production in decades past. But they disagree on the meaning of the plants sudden resurrection. And critics say any new mission that would bring more dangerous, radioactive material to South Carolina is risky  both for the states environment and its people. Some, such as former Gov. Jim Hodges, suggest the project is once again important to the Bush administration because its other plans to dispose of surplus plutonium at SRS are failing. Two weeks ago, Hodges noted, the Department of Energy announced that it would once again delay construction of a mixed oxide  or MOX  factory at SRS. Its job: to turn weapons-grade plutonium into fuel suitable for commercial nuclear reactors. The delay  coupled with the $10 million for immobilization that the Bush administration recently inserted in its proposed 2006 budget  should tell South Carolinians something, Hodges said. Its a sign theyre concerned about their ability to do MOX, said Hodges, a Democrat who was governor from 1999 to 2003. Department of Energy officials say that, despite the delays, MOX is on track. There have been problems, however. The planned SRS MOX plant is part of an agreement that requires Russia to build a similar plant and obligates each nation to turn 34 metric tons of surplus plutonium into MOX. One of the main goals is to make sure the Russian plutonium doesnt fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations.But the Russian plant is running into financial and legal difficulties. If the Russians dont uphold their end of the MOX deal, the Bush administration wont feel obligated to proceed with the U.S. MOX plant, Hodges said. As governor, Hodges warned that the Department of Energy is not committed to a plan to dispose of all the high-level nuclear waste being held at SRS. My suspicions have proven true, he said. For years, both MOX and immobilization have been discussed as ways to handle surplus plutonium. Immobilization was rejected by the Bush administration in 2002 as too pricey. Tom Clements, an adviser to Greenpeace International on nuclear issues, said he knew Bushs advisers eventually would have to revive immobilization. The reason is not necessarily tied to the difficulties launching a MOX program, he said, though those problems are considerable. Immobilization is back on the table, Clements argues, because of the persistent need to dispose of that portion of surplus plutonium that is too contaminated to be moxed. Its revival has been inevitable, since they have no other disposition pathway for dirty plutonium, said Clements, long an advocate of immobilization as the safest way to get rid of the material. It doesnt necessarily detract from the MOX program, but it does provide an alternative path if MOX falls apart. Former SRS scientist Mal McKibben said Hodges shouldnt conclude that delays in MOX and new money for immobilization add up to a federal government that is any less committed to MOX. They are not related at all, he said. MOX supporters remind that the money for the program continues to flow. In addition to the $10 million for immobilization, the 2006 Bush budget asks for more than $300 million for MOX. With that, more than $700 million will have been set aside for the program in recent years. In total, the MOX project will cost about $4 billion. And the Department of Energy notes that the plutonium slated for immobilization  about 10 metric tons  is separate from the plutonium that could be turned into MOX. Paul Golan, acting U.S. assistant secretary of energy for environment management, said the plutonium that would be immobilized is partly material produced at SRS  a DOE facility that made much of the nuclear material for the nations nuclear arsenal during the Cold War. Last summer, the DOE reported that 13 metric tons of surplus plutonium were without a disposition path.That included surplus plutonium from the departments Hanford nuclear weapons facility in Washington state and from the DOE site in Rocky Flats, Colo. This is material that would be too impure for us to use as (MOX) fuel, DOE spokesman Rick Ford said. A new immobilization plant would cost far less than one originally envisioned for SRS, which was priced at more than $1 billion, said McKibben. Rather than build a separate plutonium immobilization factory, the plan is to piggyback on an SRS facility that has been immobilizing liquid nuclear waste in glass since 1986. The final resting place for the vitrified surplus petroleum would be the national nuclear waste depository at Nevadas Yucca Mountain. It wouldnt be a major construction, said Ford. Studies funded by the $10 million in the presidents budget would help determine the scope of the project and the number of jobs it would create, he said. South Carolinians should feel good about plans for the new plant, McKibben said. It will further make SRS the place in the United States where plutonium is safely stored or processed. Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or lmarkoe@krwashington.com. TheStateOnline ***************************************************************** 51 ABQjournal: Weapons Design Enters New Era Albuquerque Journal newspaper. Monday, February 21, 2005 Albuquerque Journal--> By Adam Rankin Journal Staff Writer The head strategic planner for nuclear weapons at Los Alamos National Laboratory said it's the beginning of a new era in weapons design and manufacturing. The process that had been accomplished through test explosions and, after a 1992 moratorium, bolstered by decades of institutional experience will soon be guided only by models developed and designed by new scientists without the benefit of nuclear testing experience. One consequence of the change, explained LANL deputy director John Immele, is that the processes for ensuring the viability and safety of the nation's nuclear weapons will have to be carefully formalized through quality-assurance reviews. This is necessary so the weapons design and manufacture work is defensible each year, and the next generation of weaponeers have confidence in their assessments. As part of the natural evolution of the lab's mission of stockpile stewardship, Immele said, a quality-assurance program will be applied for the first time to developing the computer codes used to model nuclear weapon designs, rather than applying just to their manufacture. "It is right to do in an era where more formality is demanded," he said, adding that review of the computer codes isn't new, but the formal protocol will be. He said the focus will be on process, and reviewers will retain independent reporting authority should concerns arise: "The director's door is open, my door is open." For six decades, quality-assurance programs have helped indicate to officials that weapons were built to the proper specifications. Before 1992, scientists knew a weapon had a good design because they could test it, Immele said. Now, they can only infer a design is good through complex predictive computer models. "Nobody doubted that the nuclear weapons worked," when the United States still tested its weapons prior to the 1992 moratorium, Immele said. "Now we are in an era where we don't have that final test." A more formalized design process is necessary for the new crop of weaponeers, who must yearly assess the weapons stockpile and soon, oversee the re-manufacturing of aging weapons components without the benefit or experience of "gray beards" with testing experience, Immele said. "You don't want to just check at the end, you want to have good processes along the way," he said. Questions about the quality and reliability of the nation's nuclear stockpile and its components built by LANL arose recently when an Energy Department whistle-blower said the lab's program for reviewing many critical nuclear facilities and processes was broken. Nuclear facility quality-assurance specialist Don Brown said LANL officials tried to prevent him from doing an audit of the lab's weapons engineering and manufacturing programs. Based on the documents he was able to review, Brown, a LANL contractor, said a quality-assurance program for LANL's weapons program was undocumented and unverified. Brown filed a formal complaint with the Department of Labor on Jan. 14 alleging he was demoted and blocked from applying for a full-time LANL position because of his critical audits. Among his allegations was the assertion that a general lack of adherence to a rigid and independent quality-assurance program also plagues LANL's weapons components manufacturing. But Immele said LANL's production of nuclear "pits" must follow a rigid process of 48 qualified steps, and "each is well documented and has at this point very formal quality-assurance built into the process." He said the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration regularly audits and participates in the manufacturing process. Also, the annual certification of the nation's stockpile is reviewed by three teams of scientists, including an advisory group to the commander of the Strategic Command Center in Nebraska, and outside groups from Lawrence Livermore and Sandia laboratories, Immele said. But aside from all the protocols and reviews, Immele said, "The integrity and confidence of our people in the weapons they design is sort of our highest crown jewel." ***************************************************************** 52 [DU-WATCH] Camilo Mejia on DU - and the rest Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:41:20 -0600 (CST) "When I turned myself in, with all my fears and doubts, it did it not only for myself. I did it for the people of Iraq, even for those who fired upon me-they were just on the other side of a battleground where war itself was the only enemy. I did it for the Iraqi children, who are victims of mines and depleted uranium. I did it for the thousands of unknown civilians killed in war. My time in prison is a small price compared to the price Iraqis and Americans have paid with their lives. Mine is a small price compared to the price Humanity has paid for war." Camilo Mejia Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 4:15 PM Subject: Camilo Mejia - Regaining My Humanity..... http://www.codepinkalert.org/National_Actions_Camilo.shtml Great news! Camilo Mejia Released from Prison We were delighted to receive a phone call yesterday, February 15, from Camilo Mejia, letting us know that he has just been released from prison. Some of you might remember Camilo, a courageous soldier who spent more than 7 years in the military, 8 months fighting in Iraq, came home for a 2-week furlough, and decided that he could not-in good conscience-return to Iraq. He applied for Conscientious Objector status, and was declared a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International. But the US military convicted him of desertion, and sent him to serve a one-year prison sentence in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. This happened the same day that Spc. Jeremy Sivits was court-martialed and sentenced to a year in prison for abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, an order Camilo had refused to obey. For more information on Camilo go to: http://freecamilo.org/ Regaining My Humanity By Camilo Mejia I was deployed to Iraq in April 2003 and returned home for a two-week leave in October. Going home gave me the opportunity to put my thoughts in order and to listen to what my conscience had to say. People would ask me about my war experiences and answering them took me back to all the horrors-the firefights, the ambushes, the time I saw a young Iraqi dragged by his shoulders through a pool of his own blood or an innocent man was decapitated by our machine gun fire. The time I saw a soldier broken down inside because he killed a child, or an old man on his knees, crying with his arms raised to the sky, perhaps asking God why we had taken the lifeless body of his son. I thought of the suffering of a people whose country was in ruins and who were further humiliated by the raids, patrols and curfews of an occupying army. And I realized that none of the reasons we were told about why we were in Iraq turned out to be true. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. We weren't helping the Iraqi people and the Iraqi people didn't want us there. We weren't preventing terrorism or making Americans safer. I couldn't find a single good reason for having been there, for having shot at people and been shot at. Coming home gave me the clarity to see the line between military duty and moral obligation. I realized that I was part of a war that I believed was immoral and criminal, a war of aggression, a war of imperial domination. I realized that acting upon my principles became incompatible with my role in the military, and I decided that I could not return to Iraq. By putting my weapon down, I chose to reassert myself as a human being. I have not deserted the military or been disloyal to the men and women of the military. I have not been disloyal to a country. I have only been loyal to my principles. When I turned myself in, with all my fears and doubts, it did it not only for myself. I did it for the people of Iraq, even for those who fired upon me-they were just on the other side of a battleground where war itself was the only enemy. I did it for the Iraqi children, who are victims of mines and depleted uranium. I did it for the thousands of unknown civilians killed in war. My time in prison is a small price compared to the price Iraqis and Americans have paid with their lives. Mine is a small price compared to the price Humanity has paid for war. Many have called me a coward, others have called me a hero. I believe I can be found somewhere in the middle. To those who have called me a hero, I say that I don't believe in heroes, but I believe that ordinary people can do extraordinary things. To those who have called me a coward I say that they are wrong, and that without knowing it, they are also right. They are wrong when they think that I left the war for fear of being killed. I admit that fear was there, but there was also the fear of killing innocent people, the fear of putting myself in a position where to survive means to kill, there was the fear of losing my soul in the process of saving my body, the fear of losing myself to my daughter, to the people who love me, to the man I used to be, the man I wanted to be. I was afraid of waking up one morning to realize my humanity had abandoned me. I say without any pride that I did my job as a soldier. I commanded an infantry squad in combat and we never failed to accomplish our mission. But those who called me a coward, without knowing it, are also right. I was a coward not for leaving the war, but for having been a part of it in the first place. Refusing and resisting this war was my moral duty, a moral duty that called me to take a principled action. I failed to fulfill my moral duty as a human being and instead I chose to fulfill my duty as a soldier. All because I was afraid. I was terrified, I did not want to stand up to the government and the army, I was afraid of punishment and humiliation. I went to war because at the moment I was a coward, and for that I apologize to my soldiers for not being the type of leader I should have been. I also apologize to the Iraqi people. To them I say I am sorry for the curfews, for the raids, for the killings. May they find it in their hearts to forgive me. One of the reasons I did not refuse the war from the beginning was that I was afraid of losing my freedom. Today, as I sit behind bars I realize that there are many types of freedom, and that in spite of my confinement I remain free in many important ways. What good is freedom if we are afraid to follow our conscience? What good is freedom if we are not able to live with our own actions? I am confined to a prison but I feel, today more than ever, connected to all humanity. Behind these bars I sit a free man because I listened to a higher power, the voice of my conscience. While I was confined in total segregation, I came across a poem written by a man who refused and resisted the government of Nazi Germany. For doing so he was executed. His name is Albrecht Hanshofer, and he wrote this poem as he awaited execution. GUILT The burden of my guilt before the law weighs light upon my shoulders; to plot and to conspire was my duty to the people; I would have been a criminal had I not. I am guilty, though not the way you think, I should have done my duty sooner, I was wrong, I should have called evil more clearly by its name I hesitated to condemn it for far too long. I now accuse myself within my heart: I have betrayed my conscience far too long I have deceived myself and fellow man. I knew the course of evil from the start My warning was not loud nor clear enough! Today I know what I was guilty of. To those who are still quiet, to those who continue to betray their conscience, to those who are not calling evil more clearly by its name, to those of us who are still not doing enough to refuse and resist, I say "come forward." I say "free your minds." Let us, collectively, free our minds, soften our hearts, comfort the wounded, put down our weapons, and reassert ourselves as human beings by putting an end to war. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give the gift of life to a sick child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.' http://us.click.yahoo.com/3iazvD/6WnJAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 53 [DU-WATCH] US Military, President Out of Control Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:18:35 -0600 (CST) U.S. Military US Military, President Out of Control -- What Does "Mildly Radioactive" Mean, Anyway? By Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner Feb 17, 2005, 18:23 AxisofLogic.com Printer friendly page February 18, 2005 -- (Oklahoma, Red State, Land of the Free) The Russians just recently stopped a weightlifter coming across the border with about 100 pounds of "highly radioactive depleted uranium." The guy said he was using it for dumbbells in weightlifting. The American Department of Defense and other government departments all are unanimous in calling so-called depleted uranium "mildly radioactive depleted uranium." They like to use it for bombs, shells and heavy caliber bullets. Highly radioactive, mildly radioactive, moderately radioactive. What does it mean? Whom to believe? The godless former Commies or the brave Iraq-smashing Americans? Decide for yourself. Radioactivity is a standard property of the metal uranium, used by Americans for bombs, shells and bullets, and one gram will always give off 12,000 "atomic disintegrations" per second. This lasts forever, as far as we are concerned. Think of the "atomic disintegrations" as little atomic bullets. The kind that are only harmful from inside the human body. What do you think? Does 12,000 per second rank high or low with you? What if it is in your lung? ... More ... http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_15814.shtml [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.' http://us.click.yahoo.com/0iazvD/5WnJAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 54 BBC: Rays to nab nuclear smugglers Last Updated: Monday, 21 February, 2005 By Paul Rincon BBC News science reporter, in Washington DC [Plutonium pellet (SPL)] Muons could easily detect shielded plutonium US researchers plan to use energetic particles that shower Earth from space to detect smuggled nuclear material held in vehicles and cargo containers. These cosmic ray muon particles strike Earth at the rate of 10,000 per square metre every minute. By tracking the muons, the scientists can see through lead, steel and other heavy shielding that might be used to mask a radioactive source. The Los Alamos National Laboratory team discussed the plan in Washington DC. The researchers were attending the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Prototype detector When cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere, they produce muons, which are charged particles similar to electrons. Their electric charges make them very easy to detect and they can penetrate heavy metal and thick rock. Indeed, with an average energy of three billion electron volts, most muons can penetrate about 1.8m of lead. The researchers say the X-ray and gamma-ray detectors currently used at US borders are inefficient for detecting nuclear materials shielded with lead or steel. Muons are also harmless, unlike X-rays or gamma-rays. The prototype detector built by the team records each muon's path before and after it passes through a cargo and then analyses changes in the particles' energy and trajectory. This can be used to build up a three-dimensional map of dense items inside. "The change in angle tells you what the material on the path of a muon was," explained Chris Morris of Los Alamos' division of physics. "The scattering of muons is very sensitive to the density and atomic number of a material. It could therefore easily detect uranium, plutonium or the shielding material that would have to surround them to make these materials undetectable by other methods." 'Reliable' system Unlike airport baggage screeners, which require people to interpret images and data, the muon detector can be trained with known examples until it can directly decide whether a cargo contains nuclear materials, such as a bomb, or shielding. "We've shown we can put the data through a machine-learning algorithm and train the system to spot objects of interest with a rate of false positives and false negatives that is less than 3%," said David Chartrand, also of Los Alamos. "We think we can continue to improve that." The researchers have applied for funding to the US Department of Homeland Security through an industrial partner. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************