***************************************************************** 02/27/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.45 ***************************************************************** 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: U.S. Talks of Ending Iraq Inspectors' Work 2 Independent: New charge undermines Blair claims on Iraq war 3 [NYTr] Iran Rejects US Involvement in Nuclear Talks 4 [NYTr] Iran and Russia Sign Nuclear Agreement 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran and Russia Sign Nuclear Fuel Deal 6 Guardian Unlimited: Summary Box: Iran Signs Nuclear Fuel Deal 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Signs Nuclear Fuel Deal With Russia 8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, Russia Delay Signing Nuke Fuel Deal 9 BBC: Russia-Iran nuclear deal signed 10 WorldNetDaily: Playing fast and loose with Iran-nuke facts 11 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats: Iran Got Nuke Know-How in '80s 12 AFP: Iran has finished authorized uranium processing - diplomats - 13 Guardian Unlimited: Russia to Deliver Nuclear Fuel to Iran 14 Independent: Washington in U-turn over Iran's nuclear programme 15 AFP: Russian nuclear fuel supply deal to Iran hits last-minute snag 16 Korea Herald: [ANN]China can make N.K. toe the line 17 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Common approach to N.K. 18 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]U.S. 'disengagement' 19 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Delegation Heads Agree N.K. Must Return t 20 OhmyNews International: Pyongyang Waiting for the Spring 21 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Three chief negotiatiors meet on North 22 Korea Times: Allies Ready to Discuss North Korea's Concern 23 [progchat_action] Fw: CANADA REFUSES ON STAR WARS: CONGRATS 24 US: Kennebec Journal: U.S. must find safe energy sources 25 Independent: The Crawford Deal: did Blair sign up for war at Bush's 26 Bellona: Putin, Bush summit fails to reach any binding nuclear concl 27 Sunday Herald: Why Bush met a frosty reception from Putin - 28 ITAR-TASS: Sweden allocated $6 mln for nuclear security coop with Ru 29 Guardian Unlimited: Blair rejects calls to publish war advice 30 STUFF: Nuclear option rears its head NUCLEAR REACTORS 31 Guardian Unlimited: Roy Hattersley: It's time for us to give up the 32 US: AP Wire: State regulators signal approval of improvements to nuc 33 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo repair steams ahead 34 Xinhua: Delayed agreement signing affects Iran's nuclear plant 35 US: MHTR: NRC to hold hearings in Mishicot on Point Beach plants NUCLEAR SAFETY 36 [DU-WATCH] UK Gulf veterans seeking justice "pre-election 37 US: Bradenton Herald: March to bring free beryllium tests 38 US: Las Vegas RJ: ATOMIC TESTING MUSEUM: Downwinders feel left out 39 US: Herald-Tribune: Insidious beryllium 40 US: SouthBendTribune.com: Sub's demise detailed 41 US: Daily Telegram: Health claims in limbo 42 US: PittsburghLIVE.com: The threat to rail - 43 SABCnews.com: Missing nuclear material concerns SA intelligence NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 44 US: deseret news: High-level nuclear waste banned 45 The Advertiser: SA Wasting away 46 US: Green Guide: Just Ask (Perchlorate) NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 47 Albuquerque Tribune: Report: Ex-workers had access to Los Alamos 48 Richardson: Feds must save lab benefits, pensions 49 New Mexican: Report: UC overpaid to run labs 50 ABQjournal: LANL Worries Aired; DOE Chief Vows Fair Treatment 51 Albuquerque Tribune: Review: Sandia analysis on nuke hazards faulty OTHER NUCLEAR 52 Re: [du-list] Digest Number 1469 53 [du-list] du in the news - 28th Feb.05 54 [du-list] du in the news 27th Feb. 05 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Talks of Ending Iraq Inspectors' Work From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday February 26, 2005 10:31 PM By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - After blocking discussions for nearly two years, the United States has quietly started low-key talks on ending the work of U.N. inspectors who are charged with dismantling Iraq's chemical, biological and long-range missile programs. The Bush administration has come under pressure from the Iraqi government, which has been waging a public campaign to stop using Iraqi oil revenue to finance the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and wrap up its operations. ``This is a very important issue and one that we have been discussing for quite some time with the Iraqis and now with key members of the Security Council,'' Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said Friday. ``Those discussions continue.'' American officials had said repeatedly that the United States wouldn't formally discuss the future of the commission, known as UNMOVIC, until after the U.S. weapons search in Iraq was complete. In an Oct. 6 report, chief U.S. arms hunter Charles Duelfer discredited Bush's stated rationale for invading Iraq, saying his Iraq Survey Group found no weapons of mass destruction in the country. Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said Thursday that after the Iraq Survey Group's report and the recent Iraqi elections it was time for the Security Council to discuss the future of U.N. inspections. Fedotov, a member of UNMOVIC's board of commissioners, said that one issue the board discussed at a meeting this week was how these new developments ``could have an impact on the process of what we call the final clarification of disarmament in Iraq.'' ``There is a broad feeling'' that the Security Council should discuss these issues and that UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is responsible for dismantling any Iraqi nuclear programs, ``should be involved in this process,'' he said. ``The mandate to UNMOVIC and IAEA was given by the Security Council, and the Security Council can make another decision, take an action in order to modify or to bring to an end this mandate,'' Fedotov said. The council is expected to discuss UNMOVIC's next report in early March. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos, who is UNMOVIC's executive chairman, confirmed that the Americans had ``started informal consultations'' on the commission's future. ``It's not only the Americans, there are a lot of different delegations that are interested,'' he said. ``It's what was expected. Some day they have to start. But we don't know the contents. It's still kept at a low-key level.'' U.N. diplomats said they didn't expect any Security Council action in March or April, but sooner rather than - possibly in May. The United States wants to get rid of UNMOVIC but France wants to keep a roster of chemical, biological and missile inspectors who could be called on in emergencies, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Members of UNMOVIC, the outgrowth of an inspections process created after the 1991 Gulf War in which invading Iraqi forces were ousted from Kuwait, are considered the only weapons experts specifically trained in biological weapons and missile disarmament. They also investigated Iraq's chemical weapons programs, but international chemical inspections are done by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based at The Hague, Netherlands. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors left Iraq just before the March 2003 U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein, and the United States has barred them from returning. There is a question of whether they should return to Iraq to fulfill their mandate before their missions formally end, diplomats said. Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie has been arguing that Iraq does not pose a threat and does not possess any weapons of mass destruction, and therefore it is a waste of money to spend more than $10 million a year to fund UNMOVIC. ``I think that we should work toward closing these files and unburden Iraq of the legacy of Saddam's rule,'' he said earlier this month. On Friday, the Iraqi ambassador said he was encouraged that the United States had started talks with council members, and that ``it's moving forward.'' ``Whatever process is agreed upon to wind up this operation, we will go along with,'' he said in an interview. ``But the principle should be accepted that from now on Iraq should not bear this burden any longer.'' ``There are ways of making use of this expertise, maybe for international monitoring, but that should be funded from the United Nations - not from Iraq. We are not against that, and would be subject to the same regime as any other country,'' Sumaidaie said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 Independent: New charge undermines Blair claims on Iraq war By Raymond Whitaker and Severin Carrell 27 February 2005 Fresh evidence has come to light suggesting that Tony Blair committed himself to war in Iraq nearly a year before the American and British assault in March 2003. The news will heighten the pressure on the Prime Minister to reveal how Britain was drawn into the conflict, in a week when a leading QC has called into question the legal advice on which the Government went to war. Such anxiety is felt in official circles that Special Branch detectives had questioned MPs over leaks, it emerged this weekend. Downing Street has consistently refused to disclose the date on which Mr Blair promised George Bush that Britain would join the US in an invasion of Iraq. But evidence obtained by the IoS suggests that it was as early as April 2002, when the Prime Minister met President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. A ruling by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, seen by the IoS, says the Government sought advice about the legality of a possible invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2002 as the result of "statements made in a particular press release". The press release is understood to have been in the name of the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who condemned Israel for failing to comply fully with United Nations resolutions calling for it to withdraw after an armed incursion into Palestinian areas. As well as demanding that Israel "respect international law", the press release quoted Britain's then ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who said the "political and moral authority of the UN is not to be cast aside lightly". The date of the release was 9 April 2002, the day after Mr Blair completed his two-day summit with Mr Bush in Texas. The implication is that immediately after the Downing Street official spokesman had denied that the meeting was a "council of war", the Government was investigating the legality of such a war. The issue is now being raised by the Liberal Democrats, who are concerned about the sudden urgency of ministers' inquiries immediately after the summit with President Bush. "To be asserting the authority of the UN when there were discussions about possibly breaking the UN Charter is double standards at the very least," said their foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell. "It underlines the need to know precisely when this request [for legal advice] was made." Such an early commitment to war in Iraq by Mr Blair, who insisted well into the following year that British military options remained open, would reinforce speculation arising from a book published last week by Philippe Sands QC, a leading international lawyer. It repeats allegations that the Attorney General was "leaned on" to change his legal advice when the war was imminent. It also emerged this weekend that Special Branch police questioned opposition parties in December about leaked documents on the war. The move to crack down on leaks is thought to be an attempt to prevent the full text of the Attorney General's advice from emerging, as well as further documents relating to the period nearly a year earlier, when Britain and the US were discussing "regime change" in Iraq. Special Branch detectives interviewed senior staff in the office of Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, and Adam Price, the Welsh nationalist MP, in an investigation ordered by the Cabinet Office into the leaking of highly confidential Foreign Office papers on the war in Iraq. Mr Price, who has led efforts to impeach the Prime Minister for allegedly lying to Parliament over the war, said he had refused to answer the police questions, believing the approach raised significant constitutional issues about Parliament's independence. The Plaid Cymru MP said he was told by the police the leak had caused "seething anger at the highest levels". ©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 3 [NYTr] Iran Rejects US Involvement in Nuclear Talks Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:25:09 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit People's Daily Online (China) - Feb 25, 2005 http://english.people.com.cn/200502/25/eng20050225_174660.html Peoples Daily Online Iran refuses US involvement in nuclear talks Iran on Thursday rejected US involvement in the nuclear negotiations between Tehran and the European Union (EU), the official INRA news agency reported. "Tehran sees no reason for Washington's involvement in the ongoing discussions between Iran and the European trio of Britain, France and Germany," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi was quoted as saying. "US involvement in Iran-EU talks will have no positive outcome if not bearing negative one," Asefi said. He expressed hope that Europe would act independently with regards to nuclear negotiations with Iran. "The Europeans should prove that they, in their nuclear talks with Iran, can solve the problem independently," Asefi said. The spokesman also stressed that Iran would never give up its right to get peaceful nuclear technology. "Tehran, in its nuclear talks, has never pursued any concession.However, it wants its rights to be observed," he said. The US, accusing Tehran of secretly developing nuclear weapons, urged the EU to get tough with Iran and refer Iran's case to the UN Security Council if the Islamic Republic refused to give up uranium enrichment activities. Recently, some European officials have proposed that Washington participate in the negotiations between Iran and the EU. Bush says US, Europe agree on diplomacy over Iran Visiting US President George W.Bush said Thursday in Bratislava that the US and European countries have agreed to pursue diplomatic efforts to end the nuclear stand-off with Iran. "We have a common objective to convince the ayatollahs not to have a nuclear weapon...I know we're all on the same page on this issue," Bush told reporters after holding talks with Slovakia's Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda. "We are united in that goal. Hopefully we'll be able to make a diplomatic solution," said Bush, who arrived here Wednesday on his first visit to Slovakia, the last stop of his European tour aimed at healing trans-Atlantic rifts over the war against Iraq in March 2003. Bush, who visited Belgium and Germany en route to Slovakia, said Wednesday at a news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder that it is vital that the Iranians "hear the world speak with one voice that they should not have a nuclear weapon." The president, who will later meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Bratislava, is expected to raise the Iran nuclear issue with the Russian leader whose country has close commercial links with Iran. The US has long insisted that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, an allegation Iran has denied. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Wednesday that his country would not give up its nuclear program which he claims is for peaceful purposes alone. * 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 ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] Iran and Russia Sign Nuclear Agreement Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:44:41 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Nuclear Agreement Inked between Iran and Russia Tehran, Feb 27 (Prensa Latina) Iran and Russia have finally signed a nuclear agreement Sunday, through which Moscow will supply fuel to Tehran's new atomic reactor in Bushehr and Russian technicians will help finish the plant. "We have signed a confidential protocol that sets out the timetable for the delivery of fuel to the nuclear power plant at Bushehr," Iran nuclear energy chief Gholamreza Aqazadeh pointed out. Moscow has stood firm against US pressure to cut nuclear co-operation with Iran on this field. Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency Chief Alexander Rumyantsev said for his part that a number of Russian nuclear plant specialists are scheduled to arrive at the Bushehr reactor soon, according to Iran's news agency IRNA. Rumyantsev and Aqazadeh inspected the reactor, in the southern city of Bushehr. "To be honest, I should say that what I observed at the power plant was much better than our expectation," the Russian official said. "An acceptable fuel storage has been provided, which can serve as a model of an exemplary achievement. We will do our best to implement the agreement on the Bushehr Power Plant in the best possible way," Rumyantsev noted. Under the deal, Iran must return spent nuclear fuel rods from the reactor, which was designed and built by Russia. The clause is a safeguard meant to banish fears that Tehran might misuse the rods to build nuclear weapons. mh * 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 Guardian Unlimited: Iran and Russia Sign Nuclear Fuel Deal From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday February 27, 2005 11:01 AM AP Photo VAH101 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer BUSHEHR, Iran (AP) - Russia and Iran signed a deal Sunday that would deliver nuclear fuel to the Middle East country for the startup of its first reactor - a project the United States had for years pushed Moscow to drop, claiming Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh and Russian Atomic Energy Agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev signed the agreement at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. The signing, which was delayed by a day, came after the two senior officials toured the $800 million complex. ``Today, a very important development occurred, and that was the protocol on returning nuclear fuel, which we signed together. In the next few weeks many Russian technicians will arrive in Bushehr'' to finish the plant, Rumyantsev said after the signing. Both officials refused to discuss the details of shipping the nuclear fuel to Iran and the spent fuel back to Russia, but insisted that the agreement conforms to international nuclear regulations. ``Iran observes all the regulations on the prohibition of the spread of nuclear weapons,'' Rumyantsev said. Russia, which helped build the plant, has agreed to provide the fuel needed to run it - but only if Iran returns the spent fuel to prevent any possibility Tehran would extract plutonium from it to make atomic bombs. Tehran has agreed to return the spent fuel, but the sides disagreed on who should pay for its return. Both officials said Sunday they had agreed on details of the shipment, but said the timing and the costs - including who would pay for what - were confidential. The signing came a few days after a summit between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Slovakia, which touched on American concerns over Russian support for Iran's nuclear program. Washington accuses Tehran of covertly trying to build a nuclear bomb, which Iran denies. Putin has said he is sure Iran's intentions are merely to generate energy, not create weapons, and that Russian cooperation with Tehran would continue. It wasn't immediately clear whether Thursday's Bush-Putin summit had delayed the signing, which had been expected Saturday, but Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said ``the Bush-Putin talks did not have an effect on the agreement. Our talks (with the Russians) have been successful.'' Just ahead of the signing, Aghazadeh showed Rumyantsev Bushehr's nuclear fuel storage house and the reactor core, expected to be operational by late 2005 or early 2006. ``What I saw was much better and more than I had expected. Assembling operations in the past three to four months have been expedited,'' Rumyantsev said. Referring to the process to complete the plant, he added: ``I can't say the situation is excellent, but it's very good.'' Aghazadeh said the fuel storage area was built to international standards. ``This storage house is ready to receive nuclear fuel,'' he said. Iranian efforts to produce its own fuel rather than importing it have been a bigger concern in the international community than the deal with Russia. That's because the enrichment process can be carried further to produce material for nuclear weapons. France, Britain and Germany are trying to secure an Iranian commitment to scrap enrichment plans in exchange for economic aid, technical support and backing for Tehran's efforts to join mainstream international organizations. Iran has suspended enrichment-related activities during the talks with the Europeans, which both sides have said were difficult, but insists the freeze will be brief. Bush has expressed support for the European efforts. But documents being circulated among International Atomic Energy Agency board members in Vienna ahead of a board meeting Monday, and seen by The Associated Press there, indicated Washington would try to increase pressure on Tehran by the next agency board meeting in June should the European talks fail. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Summary Box: Iran Signs Nuclear Fuel Deal From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday February 27, 2005 11:16 PM OBJECTIONS OVERRIDDEN: Iran and Russia ignored U.S. objections and signed a nuclear fuel agreement key to bringing Tehran's first reactor online by mid-2006. Russia will provide nuclear fuel to Iran, then take back the spent fuel, a step meant to ensure it cannot be diverted into a weapons program. MONITOR PLANNED: Iran has agreed to let the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, monitor the Bushehr nuclear facility and the fuel deliveries. WEAPONS ACCUSATION: Washington accuses Tehran of covertly trying to build a nuclear bomb, which Iran denies. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Signs Nuclear Fuel Deal With Russia From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday February 27, 2005 8:31 PM AP Photo VAH101 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer BUSHEHR, Iran (AP) - Iran and Russia ignored U.S. objections and signed a nuclear fuel agreement Sunday that is key to bringing Tehran's first reactor online by mid-2006. The long-delayed deal, signed at the heavily guarded Bushehr nuclear facility in southern Iran, dramatized President Bush's failure to persuade the Russians to curtail support for the Iranian nuclear program during his summit with Vladimir Putin on Thursday in Slovakia. Under the deal, Russia will provide nuclear fuel to Iran, then take back the spent fuel, a step meant as a safeguard to ensure it cannot be diverted into a weapons program. Iran has also agreed to allow the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to monitor Bushehr and the fuel deliveries. Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh and Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev signed the agreement. The signing, which was delayed by a day, came after the two senior officials toured the $800 million complex. ``Today, a very important development occurred, and that was the protocol on returning nuclear fuel, which we signed together. In the next few weeks many Russian technicians will arrive in Bushehr'' to finish the plant, Rumyantsev said. Both officials refused to discuss the details of shipping the nuclear fuel to Iran and the spent fuel back to Russia, but they insisted that the agreement conforms to international nuclear regulations. ``Iran observes all the regulations on the prohibition of the spread of nuclear weapons,'' Rumyantsev said. The White House declined comment, as did the State Department. Washington accuses Tehran of covertly trying to build a nuclear bomb, which Iran denies. Thursday's summit between Bush and Putin in Bratislava, Slovakia, had touched on American concerns over Russian support for Iran's nuclear program. Putin has said he is sure Iran's intentions are merely to generate energy, not create weapons, and that Russian cooperation with Tehran would continue. Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said the Bush-Putin talks did not affect the agreement. ``Our talks (with the Russians) have been successful,'' Saeedi said. Although Russia agreed to provide the fuel needed to run the Bushehr plant, it wanted the spent fuel back to prevent any possibility Tehran would extract plutonium from it - which could be used to make an atomic bomb. Experts have estimated the plant could produce enough plutonium for 30 rudimentary atomic bombs a year. Aghazadeh, the Iranian nuclear agency chief, said in the next 10 months, more experts and technicians would complete work on installation and assembly operations. ``Three months after that, there will be a test of the power plant and within six months after that, the 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant will produce electricity,'' he said, meaning the plant would be operating next year. Russia will deliver the fuel when the Bushehr plant ``is ready for work and loading,'' Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko told the Interfax news agency Sunday. Ahead of the signing, Aghazadeh showed Rumyantsev the nuclear fuel storage house as well as the main part of the plant and the reactor. ``What I saw was much better and more than I had expected. Assembling operations in the past three to four months have been expedited,'' Rumyantsev said. ``I can't say the situation is excellent, but it's very good.'' The Bushehr plant, accessible only by a private road, overlooks the Persian Gulf, and its cream-colored dome is visible miles away. Soldiers maintain a 24-hour watch on roads leading up to the plant, manning anti-aircraft guns and supported by radar stations. Iranian efforts to enrich uranium so it can produce enough of its own fuel to generate power have been a bigger concern in the international community than buying fuel from abroad because the enrichment process can be taken further to be used for warheads. Britain, France and Germany are trying to secure an Iranian commitment to scrap enrichment plans in exchange for economic aid, technical support and backing for Tehran's efforts to join mainstream international organizations. Iran has suspended enrichment-related activities during the talks with the Europeans, which both sides have said were difficult, but insists the freeze will be brief. Bush has expressed support for the European efforts. But documents being circulated among IAEA board members in Vienna, Austria, ahead of Monday's board meeting indicated Washington would try to increase pressure on Tehran by the next agency board meeting in June should the European talks fail. Those documents were seen by The Associated Press. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, Russia Delay Signing Nuke Fuel Deal From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday February 26, 2005 9:31 PM AP Photo XHS108 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Russia and Iran delayed signing a deal Saturday that would deliver nuclear fuel to the Middle East country for the startup of its first reactor - a project the United States has pushed Moscow to drop, claiming Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Top Russian and Iranian nuclear officials said the signing of the agreement was expected to occur Sunday in Bushehr, the southern town where Iran's first nuclear power reactor was built using Russian help. The last-minute snags followed Thursday's summit between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Slovakia, which touched on American concerns over Russian support for Iran's contentious nuclear program. Putin has said he is sure Iran does not intend to build nuclear weapons and that Russian cooperation with Tehran would continue. Under the deal, Russia will provide nuclear fuel to Iran, then take back the spent fuel, a step meant as a safeguard to ensure it cannot be diverted into a weapons program. Iran has also agreed to allow the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to monitor Bushehr and the fuel deliveries. Russia helped build the $800 million reactor at Bushehr, whose construction is now complete. Operations are set to begin in late 2005 or early 2006 at the light-water reactor, which is capable of generating 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Experts say spent fuel from the Bushehr reactor could be used to produce enough plutonium to make 30 rudimentary atomic bombs a year. Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, attributed Saturday's postponement to differences over the delivery time of the first shipment of fuel and the launch of the Bushehr plant. But he said the deal will be signed. ``Remaining issues are to be resolved tonight and the agreement is to be signed in Bushehr Sunday,'' he said. Saeedi said Iran wanted the fuel shipment to arrive at least two months sooner than the Russians suggested. The head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, Alexander Rumyantsev played down concerns over the postponement, saying both sides likely will seal the deal Sunday. Rumyantsev is in Iran to participate in the signing. Washington has pressed Moscow to call off the deal, saying Iran could use the Bushehr reactor as part of a nuclear-weapons program. Iran rejects claims it wants to build nuclear weapons, saying it is pursuing a peaceful nuclear program to produce energy. The Bushehr deal comes as Europe is trying to persuade Iran to rein in its nuclear program. Britain, France and Germany are trying to secure an Iranian commitment to scrap enrichment plans in exchange for economic aid, technical support and backing for Tehran's efforts to join mainstream international organizations. Iran has suspended enrichment-related activities during talks with the Europeans but insists the freeze will be brief. Also Saturday, diplomats familiar with the IAEA's work said Iran used its links to the black market to accumulate the knowledge it needed by the late 1980s to set up technology that can be used to make nuclear weapons. An agency investigation during the past two years established that Iran ran a clandestine nuclear program for nearly 20 years, including working on uranium enrichment - which can be used to make weapons. --- Associated Press reporter George Jahn in Vienna, Austria, contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 9 BBC: Russia-Iran nuclear deal signed Last Updated: Sunday, 27 February, 2005 [Scene of joint Russian-Iranian news conference] The signing had been delayed several times Russia and Iran have signed an agreement for Moscow to supply fuel to Iran's new nuclear reactor in Bushehr. Under the deal Iran has to return spent nuclear fuel rods from the reactor, which was designed and built by Russia. The clause is a safeguard meant to banish fears that Iran might misuse the rods to build nuclear weapons, a concern of the US, Israel and others. The agreement sets out a time-frame for delivery of the fuel, but officials said the dates would be kept secret. The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says the deal is significant because Bushehr will be Iran's first reactor to go on stream - a project that has become an issue of national prestige in the face of intense US opposition. The signing, which had been expected on Saturday, was apparently delayed over disagreements about when the spent fuel should be returned. Russia had been insisting that no spent fuel should be diverted for the manufacture of weapons. Iran has repeatedly said its nuclear programme is solely for the generation of power. 'Strongest indication yet' But despite Iran's denials, diplomats said investigations showed Tehran had had full possession of enrichment know-how for two decades, after acquiring the information from Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan's black-market network. [Engineers at the Bushehr nuclear facility] Iran says its nuclear activity has solely peaceful motives The Washington Post on Sunday quoted officials as saying that the programme originated at a secret meeting in Dubai 18 years ago between Iranian officials and Mr Khan's associates. The officials said Tehran, which was then at war with Iraq, bought centrifuges and an enrichment starter kit but also used the meeting as a guide before purchasing more expensive items elsewhere. The offer "was the strongest indication to date" that Iran had a nuclear weapons programme, a diplomat was quoted as saying. 'Confidential protocol' Iran's nuclear energy chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh and his Russian counterpart, Alexander Rumyantsev, agreed the deal. "We have signed a confidential protocol that sets out the timetable for the delivery of fuel to the nuclear power plant at Bushehr," Mr Rumyantsev said, quoted by Russian news agency Itar-Tass. Russia has rejected US pressure to cut nuclear co-operation with Iran. Washington is also concerned that the nuclear project could allow for the covert transfer of weapons technology to Iran. At a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President George W Bush in Slovakia on Thursday, both sides agreed Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The signing of the nuclear fuel deal has been delayed several times, apparently over technical and financial issues. Our correspondent says Iran is currently in negotiations over its nuclear programme with Europe, and one of the incentives on the table is an offer of a nuclear reactor from the West. If Iran is already receiving nuclear fuel and technology from Russia, she says, it is in a stronger negotiating position. ***************************************************************** 10 WorldNetDaily: Playing fast and loose with Iran-nuke facts SATURDAY FEBRUARY 26 2005 © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," President Bush said as he emerged from talks with European Union leaders. Ridiculous? Let's hope so. For, according to Sirus Naseri, a senior member of Iran's delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose Board of Governors meets next week in Vienna: "To even imply that a nuclear weapon state would attack [IAEA] Safeguarded facilities of a non-nuclear weapon state pokes a hole right in the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and it deserves to be rejected severely." And of course, Naseri is right. It was bad enough back in 1981 when the Israelis – not a "party" to the NPT – attacked and destroyed Osiraq, a French-supplied Safeguarded research reactor in Iraq. The United Nations Security Council strongly condemned the military attack by Israel, which it considered to be "in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct." Furthermore, the attack was "a serious threat to the entire safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." You see, the IAEA was made the international "safeguards" inspectorate by Article III of the NPT. The key to preventing nuke proliferation is the international control of the production, processing, transformation and disposition of certain "nuclear" materials. In return for a promise not to acquire or seek to acquire nukes, the NPT recognizes the "inalienable right" of all signatories to enjoy the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy. But all NPT-proscribed "nuclear" materials – as well as the facilities in which they are stored, processed, transformed or consumed – have to be made subject to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement. In the event the IAEA discovers "nuclear" materials and/or activities that should have been "declared" but were not, it reports that failure to the IAEA Board of Governors. In the event the IAEA discovers the "diversion" of nuclear materials – a violation of the NPT, itself – the IAEA Board may refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council for possible action. More than a year ago, Iran voluntarily signed an Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement, vastly expanding the authority of IAEA inspectors to go anywhere and see anything. Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the IAEA Board of Governors at their last meeting that after a year-long exhaustive and intrusive inspection, he has found no evidence that Iran has ever attempted to acquire nukes or the makings thereof. Hence, there are no violations of the NPT to report to the Security Council. Well, the neo-crazies have gone ballistic. That's twice – first Iraq and now Iran – ElBaradei has given the lie to their charges that Islamic states had clandestine nuclear weapons programs in violation the NPT. But, Bush is determined to get the "nuclear crisis" in Iran before the Security Council, somehow, so that he can get another ambiguous resolution that he could then use to justify an attack – by the U.S. or Israel – on Iran's Safeguarded facilities. So what conceivable rationale could Bush manufacture? Well, later in the U.S.-EU news conference Bush made this claim: "The reason we're having these discussions is because [the Iranians] were caught enriching uranium after they had signed a treaty saying they wouldn't enrich uranium. These discussions are occurring because they have breached a contract with the international community. They're the party that needs to be held to account, not any of us." Bush manufactured all that. The EU-Iran agreement – which is being "monitored" by the IAEA – is not a "treaty." In any case, the Iranians were not "caught" enriching uranium. As best the IAEA can determine, the Iranians have yet to enrich any uranium. The Iranians merely agreed to suspend for six months or so any attempt to do so. They did not – initially – agree to suspend the manufacture of gas-centrifuges for enriching uranium. However, as a "confidence-building measure," they voluntarily agreed a few months ago to suspend those activities, too. But, if the Europeans don't live up to their end of the agreement – and Bush is determined to see that they won't or can't – the Iranians have announced that they intend to resume – probably in June – all the IAEA Safeguarded activities they have currently suspended. Maybe that's why the worst-kept secret in Washington is that we – in cahoots with our "ally" Israel – are planning to "take out" those Safeguarded facilities in June. So, bye-bye, NPT. Hello, mushroom-shaped clouds. 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. ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats: Iran Got Nuke Know-How in '80s From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday February 27, 2005 12:31 PM AP Photo VAH102 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - By the late 1980s, members of a black market network had handed Iran all the basic knowledge the Middle Eastern country needed to set up technology that can be used to make atomic weapons, diplomats familiar with an investigation of Iran's nuclear ambitions said Sunday. The officials, who are familiar with the work of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to The Associated Press on the eve of a board meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog that will discuss Iran and other potential world nuclear concerns. An agency probe over the past two years had earlier established that Iran ran a clandestine nuclear program for nearly two decades, including working on uranium enrichment - which can be used to make weapons. Diplomats, who requested anonymity, said Saturday that the new revelations were significant because they indicated Iran had full possession of enrichment know-how from the black market network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, earlier than previously believed. On Sunday, the diplomats said that Iran turned over to the IAEA the initial written information provided by the Khan network as part of the country's cooperation with an agency probe of its suspect nuclear activities. One of the diplomats said that the information may be used by the United States as it considers reviving attempts to have Iran's nuclear dossier forwarded to the U.N. Security Council. But he said other countries were unlikely to go along because the new information was far from the ``smoking gun'' they sought to back American assertions that Tehran was covertly seeking nuclear weapons capacity. Nuclear concerns over Iran focus on its enrichment program because that can be used to process uranium for two purposes - as fuel for power generation or as the core of warheads. Iran insists its nuclear aims are peaceful, while the United States and its key allies say Tehran is interested in making weapons. France, Britain and Germany are trying to secure an Iranian commitment to scrap enrichment plans in exchange for economic aid, technical support and backing for Tehran's efforts to join mainstream international organizations. Iran has suspended enrichment-related activities during talks with the Europeans but insists the freeze will be brief. Both sides have described the talks as difficult. Hassan Rowhani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, accused the Europeans in a French newspaper interview published Friday of being ``incapable of keeping their promises.'' President Bush has expressed support for the European efforts. And State Department nonproliferation officials grudgingly accepted a decision by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei not to publish a written report on the probe of Iran's nuclear activities for the first time in two years of board meetings because of lack of major new findings. Still, there was evidence before the IAEA board meeting Monday of an American effort to increase pressure on Tehran by the next agency board meeting in June, should the French, German and British talks fail. A confidential position paper being circulated by the Americans to the other board members and shared in part with the AP called for a new written report on Iran by the June meeting. Furthermore, it urged the June board meeting to ``take further action if needed'' against Iran - in effect a demand that Tehran be hauled before the U.N. Security Council if there is any indication it was defying the agency board on nuclear matters. A separate, restricted U.S. document outlined the need for a ``Special Committee'' to deal with nations violating the Nonproliferation Treaty - which Washington says Iran has done. Such a committee could ``make recommendations to the board'' to report suspect nations to the Security Council nations, said the document, leaked to the AP. European diplomats representing IAEA board members said the U.S. efforts were hurting the three-nation negotiations with Iran. ``Mr. Bush ... promises support of the European effort, while the board is presented with such papers - a case of very unfortunate timing,'' said one senior European diplomat. Another European diplomat criticized the U.S. position paper for suggesting Iran was not negotiating in good faith with France, Germany and Britain, saying ``that is not for the U.S. but for the Europeans to decide.'' --- On the Net: www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: Iran has finished authorized uranium processing - diplomats - Saturday February 26, 07:42 PM VIENNA (AFP) - Iran has finished processing uranium whose treatment was already under way when Tehran, under Western pressure, agreed in November to a freeze on nuclear fuel work in a bid to prove its atomic intentions were peaceful, diplomats said. The work, involving the first stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, had sparked concern that Iran was violating its pledge to suspend nuclear fuel processing that could be used to make atomic weapons. The freeze, which Tehran agreed to in a deal with the European Union, began on November 22. But Iran needed to finish processing uranium ore that had been introduced into fragile uranium conversion machines ahead of the suspension. This work ended the week of February 14, a diplomat close to the UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told AFP. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is to issue a full report on the matter when his agency's 35-nation board of governors meets in Vienna on Monday to review how to proceed on Iran. The European Union, whose deal held out the promise of incentives to Tehran, has undertaken talks on offering Iran trade, technology and security rewards in return for its freeze of all uranium enrichment activities. However, concern over possible violations remains high. The United States is warily watching the freeze -- designed to allay fears Tehran might be secretly making nuclear weapons -- and the Iran-EU negotiations. Washington has charged that Iran is using the suspension to gain time to develop nuclear bombs and would like to see Tehran brought before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. The IAEA is monitoring the enrichment suspension. "Iran stopped making UF4 (uranium tetrafluoride) a week ago," said the diplomat, who asked not to be named. UF4 is a uranium powder that is a key first step in the enrichment process that can make nuclear weapons. Iran was processing a total of 37 tons of uranium yellowcake ore into UF4, the precursor to UF6 gas. That gas is then fed into centrifuges to filter out enriched uranium which is fuel for nuclear reactors but also, in highly refined form, the explosive core of atomic bombs. The yellowcake makes what could be enough highly enriched uranium for three atomic bombs, experts said. A second diplomat close to the agency said the IAEA has "under seal all the UF4 that was produced at the facility" in Isfahan where the Iranians perform uranium conversion. The diplomat said a "clean-up operation" still has to be finished, getting contamination out of pipes for instance, in order to see exactly how much of the uranium powder was made. Making the UF4 powder is as far as Iran can go in enrichment, according to the November agreement with the EU, which was endorsed by the IAEA. Iran caused an uproar when it pushed ahead with the processing in last-minute activity before the suspension kicked in on November 22. ElBaradei said Iran had produced ahead of the start of the freeze "3.5 tonnes of UF6 gas," not enough to make enough enriched uranium for even one bomb. There are so far no reports of Iran continuing to produce UF6 gas. Iran was merely processing what remained of the 37 tons of yellowcake it had got ahead of the start of the freeze into the Isfahan plant, diplomats said. Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Russia to Deliver Nuclear Fuel to Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday February 27, 2005 6:16 PM AP Photo VAH109 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer BUSHEHR, Iran (AP) - Russia and Iran signed a deal Sunday that would deliver nuclear fuel to the Middle East country for the startup of its first reactor - a project the United States had for years pushed Moscow to drop, claiming Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh and Russian Atomic Energy Agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev signed the agreement at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. The signing, which was delayed by a day, came after the two senior officials toured the $800 million complex. ``Today, a very important development occurred, and that was the protocol on returning nuclear fuel, which we signed together. In the next few weeks many Russian technicians will arrive in Bushehr'' to finish the plant, Rumyantsev said after the signing. Both officials refused to discuss the details of shipping the nuclear fuel to Iran and the spent fuel back to Russia, but insisted that the agreement conforms to international nuclear regulations. ``Iran observes all the regulations on the prohibition of the spread of nuclear weapons,'' Rumyantsev said. The White House declined comment as did the State Department. Russia, which helped build the plant, has agreed to provide the fuel needed to run it - but only if Iran returns the spent fuel to prevent any possibility Tehran would extract plutonium from it to make atomic bombs. Tehran has agreed to return the spent fuel, but the sides disagreed on who should pay for its return. Both officials said Sunday they had agreed on details of the shipment, but said the timing and the costs - including who would pay for what - were confidential. The signing came a few days after a summit between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Slovakia, which touched on American concerns over Russian support for Iran's nuclear program. Washington accuses Tehran of covertly trying to build a nuclear bomb, which Iran denies. Putin has said he is sure Iran's intentions are merely to generate energy, not create weapons, and that Russian cooperation with Tehran would continue. It wasn't immediately clear whether Thursday's Bush-Putin summit had delayed the signing, which had been expected Saturday, but Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said ``the Bush-Putin talks did not have an effect on the agreement. Our talks (with the Russians) have been successful.'' Just ahead of the signing, Aghazadeh showed Rumyantsev Bushehr's nuclear fuel storage house and the reactor core, expected to be operational by late 2005 or early 2006. ``What I saw was much better and more than I had expected. Assembling operations in the past three to four months have been expedited,'' Rumyantsev said. Referring to the process to complete the plant, he added: ``I can't say the situation is excellent, but it's very good.'' Aghazadeh said the fuel storage area was built to international standards. ``This storage house is ready to receive nuclear fuel,'' he said. Iranian efforts to produce its own fuel rather than importing it have been a bigger concern in the international community than the deal with Russia. That's because the enrichment process can be carried further to produce material for nuclear weapons. France, Britain and Germany are trying to secure an Iranian commitment to scrap enrichment plans in exchange for economic aid, technical support and backing for Tehran's efforts to join mainstream international organizations. Iran has suspended enrichment-related activities during the talks with the Europeans, which both sides have said were difficult, but insists the freeze will be brief. Bush has expressed support for the European efforts. But documents being circulated among International Atomic Energy Agency board members in Vienna ahead of a board meeting Monday, and seen by The Associated Press there, indicated Washington would try to increase pressure on Tehran by the next agency board meeting in June should the European talks fail. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 14 Independent: Washington in U-turn over Iran's nuclear programme independent.co.uk By Rupert Cornwell in Washington 27 February 2005 The US is embarking on a major rethink of its policy towards Iran, which could see it dropping the strategy of confrontation and threat, instead offering Tehran incentives for abandoning its suspected nuclear ambitions. The striking change of policy emerged during President Bush's fence-mending trip to Europe last week, when for the first time he indicated that Washington endorsed the tripartite effort by France, Britain and Germany to reach a deal with Iran, offering technology in return for an end to its uranium enrichment programme. It comes on the eve of a key meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna tomorrow, at which the UN nuclear watchdog agency is due to take stock of Iran's nuclear activities, and decide on a new four-year term for its director, Mohammed ElBaradei. In the past, the US has tried to oust Dr ElBaradei, who irritated Washington in the run-up to the Iraq war by publicly casting doubt on the supposed WMD threat posed by Saddam Hussein. More recently, the US has accused him of being too soft on Tehran. But that campaign may now have been quietly dropped, amid the new-found spirit of unity with Europe. Mr Bush declared that the two sides of the Atlantic were now "on the same page" over Iran - the nearest Washington has come to endorsing the three-nation EU initiative over which just weeks ago it was sceptical to the point of open scorn. Further quieting European concerns, Mr Bush said talk of a military attack on Iran was "ludicrous". Top US policy-makers will now examine whether incentives, such as helping Iran join the World Trade Organisation, could be more productive. Iran has promised a limited suspension of its uranium enrichment activities while talks continue. But the negotiations seem balanced on a knife edge, with Tehran accusing Washington of trying to undermine the Franco-British-German effort. The main focus of concern is the Natanz uranium enrichment plant south of Tehran. International suspicions that Iran was seeking a nuclear weapon soared when IAEA inspectors discovered traces of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium at the facility in 2003 -- despite Iran's assertions that its programme was purely for civilian purposes. Enrichment activities at Natanz are currently at a standstill. But US officials say Iran may have other undeclared enrichment facilities. There have been reports that elite US units have been on the ground inside Iran pinpointing targets for airstrikes or commando raids, while Israel has dropped heavy hints it would stage an Iranian version of its 1981 attack on Iraq's Ozirak reactor if nothing is done. But every independent study here has concluded that the military option is not feasible. The seeming rapprochement between the US and Europe over Iran contrasts sharply with the visible strains between the US and Moscow, evident during Mr Bush's meeting with President Putin in Bratislava on Thursday. Russia, like the US and Europe, says it opposes Iran becoming a nuclear power. But it has infuriated Washington by promising to continue its long-standing support for the country's nuclear energy programme. ©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 15 AFP: Russian nuclear fuel supply deal to Iran hits last-minute snag Saturday February 26, 11:02 PM TEHRAN (AFP) - A controversial deal between Russia and Iran on supplying the Islamic republic with nuclear fuel and launching its first atomic power plant hit an unexpected last-minute snag. Russia's top atomic energy official Alexander Rumyantsev and his Iranian counterpart Gholamreza Aghazadeh had been due to sign the contract in the morning and then hold a joint conference. But the spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Yaghoub Jabarian, was forced to send reporters home, telling them "the negotiations are dragging on". "We do not know when they will conclude," he said, adding a press conference will "maybe" take place on Sunday but giving no further explanation. It was the latest and most spectacular hitch to a contract that the United States -- which accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a cover for weapons development -- has been trying to convince Russia not to sign. The deal would cap an 800 million dollar (606-million-euro) contract to build and bring on line the Bushehr reactor in southern Iran, and Russia has so far refused to back down to US demands. But Moscow had refused to go ahead with the fuel supply contract unless Iran agreed to return spent fuel, which potentially could be reprocessed and upgraded to weapons use. The signing of the fuel deal was declared to be imminent after Tehran evetually agreed to the condition. The Russian-built plant at Bushehr -- whose construction had been launched by Germany in the 1970s -- was initially due to go on line last year, but had been held up by the fuel issue. Bushehr was raised during a summit between US President Goerge W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Bratislava on Thursday, where both publicly agreed agreed that Iran should not develop nuclear weapons. According to Russian diplomats, the United States has been lobbying against Moscow's involvement in Iran's nuclear programme "on a daily basis" -- and right up until the Bratislava meeting. But they also point out the huge contract has "virtually saved Russia's atomic energy industry", and emphasise that there is no way Bushehr could constitute a part of a weapons programme. Bushehr is also under the supervision of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The delay to the signing also threw into doubt the remainder of Rumyantsev's itinerary. He was due to visit Bushehr on Sunday and hold further talks with his Iranian counterpart on future contracts. Russia has examined the option of building a second reactor at Bushehr along with new nuclear plants at other locations. The United States argues Iran has no need for nuclear energy because of its massive oil and gas supplies. Tehran counters that it needs to free up its fossil fuels for export and meet increased energy demands from a burgeoning population. It also denies allegations that it is seeking a bomb, or even the option to build one. If the fuel deal does go ahead and enriched uranium is delivvered by later in 2055, Bushehr is due to enter into service in October 2006. The process of starting up the reactor is expected to take seven months. But Iran also intends to produce its own nuclear fuel for future plants -- hoped to produce 7,000 megawatts of electricity by 2020 -- a drive at the centre of the current stand-off with the international community. As a gesture of good faith, Iran agreed last year to suspend enriching uranium used for nuclear fuel, and is currently engaged in negotiations with Britain, France and Germany on a package of trade, security and technology incentives. But Iran has also insisted that its suspension of fuel cycle work is only a temporary measure. ***************************************************************** 16 Korea Herald: [ANN]China can make N.K. toe the line By Zhang Zuqian 2005.02.28 The Straits Times (Singapore) Asia News Network Since the Korean nuclear issue arose in 2002, many observers have claimed that the pressure exerted by China on North Korea is too mild to produce tangible results. This time, however, these observers may not make similar claims. After North Korea announced on Feb. 10 that it had manufactured nuclear weapons and would suspend its participation in further six-party talks for an indefinite period, China acted immediately and vigorously. In an unusual move, Chinese media expressed open discontent with Pyongyang. Beijing sent a senior Chinese official to Pyongyang with a personal message from President Hu Jintao. Following that meeting with the Chinese envoy, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il backed down, saying Pyongyang was still committed to the six-party talks to resolve the nuclear issue. The Chinese envoy reportedly told Kim that it was in both China's and North Korea's vital interests to resolve that issue - and other problems North Korea is concerned about - reasonably, through negotiation. The envoy also stressed that against the backdrop of the current international situation, de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula serves both the Korean people's interests as well as China's security interests. Obviously, the message was conveyed diplomatically. Expressed more bluntly, the message would have been: North Korea's nuclear activities compromise China's vital interests, including China's security. The message should therefore be taken as a thinly veiled warning to Pyongyang. At the same time, the Chinese ambassador to South Korea said publicly that some economic measures should be used to exert pressure, which could be seen as a positive response to a claim made by the South Korean ambassador to Beijing. Several days before, the South Korean ambassador had claimed that if China were to block three of the limited number of roads that link it with North Korea at once with the excuse of maintenance, the situation would surely change for the better. It is widely reported that China supplies 80 to 90 percent of North Korea's energy needs as well as a considerable amount of food. When China resorts to taking economic measures, it will be effective. The world witnessed that two years ago when China turned off its oil supply to North Korea for three days and Pyongyang had to accept terms for negotiation. Two rounds of six-party negotiation on the North Korean nuclear issue have been held so far but no significant progress has been made. Although the issue is extremely important to China's security, Beijing has refrained from exerting heavy pressure on North Korea - so far. The reason is that, apart from the possibility that a desperate North Korea might launch a suicidal but devastating war in the peninsula, China has other fears. Politically, some people in Beijing are unwilling to lose an ally in North Korea, although it has caused China a lot of trouble. Militarily, China fears that if North Korea collapses and a new Korea comes into being, reunified on South Korean terms, the United States would deploy its troops close to Chinese borders. China also fears that if the situation in North Korea gets out of control, thousands of refugees would flee to China, putting an economic and social burden on the country. If one thinks twice however, these fears are largely groundless. Thanks to the economic reforms and open-door policy adopted since the late 1970s, Chinese political and ideological institutions have undergone significant changes. Today, China is fundamentally different from North Korea. To China, the relationship with the West is much more important than its ties with North Korea. Why should China still think of North Korea as an ally? Just as China survived the impact of the break-up of the former Soviet bloc 15 years ago, a more prosperous China now can manage the negative impact from a collapse of North Korea. There is hardly any possibility that the United States will deploy its troops close to Chinese borders after North Korea collapses and is incorporated into a reunified Korea. Because, with its superiority in long-distance projection of force, the United States can strike Chinese military targets easily by air and sea far away from the Chinese coast. Why should the United States deploy its troops close to Chinese borders in advance at the risk that they would be trapped within China's striking range during a war? With bitter memories of the Korean War, few American strategists will have the stomach for fighting the Chinese armed forces again on the ground in the Korean peninsula. As refugees are frequently fleeing from North Korea to China now, it is certain that many more refugees will pour into China when Pyongyang loses control of its people. The influx of a large number of Korean refugees will cause economic and social problems to China, but only temporarily. Even after more than 20 years of economic growth, living conditions in China are still much poorer than in South Korea. When stability resumes and they are allowed to return to a peaceful and prosperous Korean peninsula, most Korean refugees will do so. The situation will be similar to those Vietnamese refugees who fled to China in the late 1970s. Nearly all of them left for the United States and Europe after a short period. Needless to say, China has to pay some cost for accepting and helping Korean refugees but compared with de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula, such a cost is very low and worthwhile. Moreover, China can appeal to the international community for humanitarian aid and reduce the burden. Given the latest development, that China has become more pro-active on the North Korean nuclear issue, if other countries concerned move to cooperate with China, we can expect the next round of six-party talks to be more productive. The writer is the director of European studies at Shanghai Institute for International Studies. - Ed. ***************************************************************** 17 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Common approach to N.K. 2005.02.28 Seoul, Washington and Tokyo neither promised carrots nor threatened sticks on Saturday when they ended their meeting on a common response to what Pyongyang demanded as conditions for returning to the six-way nuclear talks. Instead, they reaffirmed that any issue of concern to North Korea can be negotiated in the existing framework of discussions, which also inovlve China and Russia. That was their official response to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's demands for the right conditions and security assurances from the United States. But there was more to it than they officially acknowledged. After all, it was not made public what Kim demanded specifically when he met with a senior Chinese envoy in Pyongyang this month. Naturally, of greater concern to us are concrete measures which the negotiators from the three countries said they discussed as a means to luring Pyongyang back to the six-way talks but refused to unveil. But basically, the main issue is whether or not they will change their previous proposal and to what extent if they do. In the past, North Korea demanded food, energy and economic aid as well as an end to what it perceived as U.S. threat to its security in return for giving up its nuclear ambitions. But the six-way talks stalled when Pyongyang opposed the U.S. proposal that the scrapping of nuclear facilities come before compensation. Given the deep mutual mistrust, it is safe to assume that Washington and Pyongyang will have to conduct behind-the-scenes negotiations, possibly through an intermediary such as Beijing, for a substantial period of time before the formal six-party talks are resumed. In the process, Pyongyang is advised to exercise prudence and abandon the temptation to test the limit to U.S. patience because it has more to lose than to gain if a negotiated settlement is given up. At the same time, the Washington is called on to have greater patience and flexibility for a peaceful and less costly solution. ***************************************************************** 18 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]U.S. 'disengagement' 2005.02.28 Among the many offered prescriptions on what to do about North Korea's nuclear program since Pyongyang announced this month that it has nuclear weapons, is a radical proposal calling for complete U.S. disengagement from the Korean Peninsula, more precisely a total withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea. Although chances are slim that policymakers in Washington would pay serious attention to such an unconventional idea, it is a little annoying to notice that even some knowledgeable circles in the U.S. harbor many misconceptions about the nature of the alliance between the two countries and Koreans' attitude about it. First, the proponent of U.S. disengagement from here seems to believe that anti-Americanism is rampant across the Republic of Korea and is being further intensified as Koreans determine the American military presence is the biggest obstacle to the reunification with North Korea, supposedly their strongest aspiration. This observation is wrong as it amplifies the chants of a Hanchongnyon student group as the general voice of contemporary Koreans. South Korea has rapidly become a diverse society in recent decades and its social spectrum ranges widely from warm friendliness to raw hatred as far as attitudes toward the United States and Americans are concerned. The broad middle section consists of rational people who wisely believe that the U.S. presence is necessary for their security, economy and for bargaining with the North for future reunification. Most of them also know that the necessity is mutual. Anti-Americanism does exist here, but it is an emotional thing and even looks like a seasonal phenomenon. If there is a thermometer for that kind of heat, it must have registered the highest point in the summer of 2002 after two young middle school girls in the U.S. camp city of Dongducheon were crushed to death by a U.S. military vehicle. Anti-U.S. outbursts were comparatively milder in demonstrations opposing the dispatch of troops to Iraq last year. Second, it seems the disengagement theorists feel it hardest to understand why South Koreans would take such a soft stand toward North Korea to the extent that it could undermine U.S. diplomatic and economic pressure on Pyongyang. Seoul's economic initiatives over the past several years have been primarily aimed at preventing war on the peninsula. They have restored a sense of national identity and general sympathy toward the North as economic disparity further widened. Quick exit of U.S. forces from South Korea and unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the multilateral talks to resolve the North Korean nuclear problem, as one of the disengagement proponents called for, will give freedom to Pyongyang for its trading of the nuclear material it supposedly possess, whether plutonium or highly enriched uranium, with whichever clients willing to pay. Meanwhile, the United States would still not be free to take military action, which would be allowed when a North Korean missile carrying a nuclear warhead flies across the Pacific or the Korean Demilitarized Zone. A new wave of proliferation will hit East Asia where Taiwan, Japan and South Korea will be driven to develop their own nuclear arsenal. One is not sure what effective steps the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency will be able to take against the progress of nuclear arms race in the region which will quickly spread to the Middle East. This hypothetical argument turns us to a more sober and prudent thinking as to the merits of the status quo and the need for earnest efforts to achieve negotiated settlement of the North Korean nuclear question. The disengagement proposal offers an example of how biased, incorrect perception of social complexity in a country by near-sighted foreign observers could produce wrong, dangerous policy options. ***************************************************************** 19 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Delegation Heads Agree N.K. Must Return to Talks > Updated Feb.27,2005 17:16 KST The heads of the South Korean, U.S. and Japanese delegations to six-party talks on North Korean nuclear disarmament met in Seoul on Saturday to urge Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon said after the talks that the three parties expressed serious concern over North Korea‘―s nuclear declaration and announcement that it was pulling out of talks, and that the three shared an understanding of the urgency of the issue. He said the three nations called on Pyongyang to return to the six-party talks without delay to discuss its issues of concern directly. The meeting followed a series of statements including one by North Korean leader Kim Jong-il that he would return to the talks when ‘°conditions are mature‘± - apparently meaning that the U.S. must give up what Pyongyang calls it ‘°hostile policies‘± and agree to bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang. Until the talks stalled last year, the three countries plus North Korea were joined by China and Russia. The three agreed that Pyongyang must return to the talks without further conditions, saying the six-way talks themselves are the framework for discussion of any conditions. Japanese delegation head Kenichiro Sasae said North Korea needed to come back to talks "at an early date and unconditionally." By contrast, South Korea has noticeably avoided use of the word ‘°unconditional.‘± U.S. delegation head Christopher Hill called the meeting "excellent." A South Korean government official said that while the situations of all three nations differed, none was ready to accept North Korea‘―s demands. Japan's Sasae met with Chinese officials in Beijing on Sunday, explaining the results of the three-party meeting and asking China to play an active role in persuading North Korea. Under current circumstances, it would seem difficult to restart the six-party talks soon. This is because North Korea is unlikely to withdraw its conditions, and it‘―s difficult to see the U.S. promising North Korea advanced regime security guarantees. A South Korean government official said he wondered if there was any other way of satisfying North Korea‘―s expectations to some extent besides agreeing to its demands outright. (Kwon Dae-yeol, dykwon@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 20 OhmyNews International: Pyongyang Waiting for the Spring ohmynews.com [Analysis] Gavan McCormack says Bush's 2nd term Korean policy review is one of studied ambiguity Gavan McCormack (internews) With the lunar New Year, in Northeast Asia the darkness of winter recedes, a pale sun gains strength, daylight hours lengthen and the earth stirs. However, in one of the bleakest and coldest corners of the region, North Korea, the land is still hard-frozen, spring is far off, and political frosts have not melted for more than half a century. Yet all extremes are eventually exhausted and yield, as yang to yin, and even for North Korea that time may not be far off. Relations between the United States and North Korea, having edged right up to the brink of reconciliation and normalization in the last days of Bill Clinton's presidency, went into crisis with the advent of the Bush administration and have remained in a kind of eternal, roiling crisis ever since. After North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in January 2003, there were four sessions of talks aimed at break the impasse between the two countries: a three-sided meeting (the US, North Korea, and China) in Beijing in April 2003, and three subsequent "Six-Sided" meetings (that added South Korea, Russia, and Japan) in August 2003, February 2004, and June 2004. All parties agree that the nuclear and other problems can be, and must be, resolved through discussion; while North Korean officials claim that their country has no wish to possess nuclear weapons and is ready to give them up as long as its legitimate security concerns are met. To many, it seemed that a new round of talks expected early in 2005 might actually achieve a breakthrough; some even thought the long-awaited Pyongyang Spring might be imminent. Then, came the North Korean Foreign Ministry's February 10th announcement that the country was indeed a nuclear-weapons state, that such weapons were necessary because of the American government's "ever-more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle" it, and that there was no point in resuming the talks so long as this hostility continued. Only "powerful strength," it said, "can protect justice and truth." Heading into a Korean Winter As George W. Bush began his second term, his administration reviewed its intelligence and policy on North Korea. On the face of it, the outcome seemed, at the very least, milder than the uncompromising hostility of his first year or so in office. This is perhaps hardly surprising, given that the ongoing war in Iraq has strained American military power to something like its limits and, for at least the last two years, Middle Eastern policy has simply absorbed all available Bush administration attention, in effect trumping the more muscular approach to various problems in Asia that America's neocons had long dreamed of. Nonetheless, the overall effect of the Korean policy review was not so much to resolve the dilemmas on the peninsula, but to put forward a stance of studied ambiguity, of what might be called hostility-plus -- that is, plus readiness for some kind of deal. Late in 2004, U.S. government sources released accounts of what it called a "bold approach" toward settlement, which had apparently first been placed on the table in Pyongyang in October 2002 and was still open. If the North Koreans would suspend and dismantle all their nuclear programs (military and civil) under appropriate international inspection, address proliferation concerns about missile, biological and chemical weapons, as well as conventional arms levels and the lack of human rights in the country, the U.S. would, in return, "kick off negotiations" to convert the existing cease-fire agreement still in effect from the Korean War of the early 1950s into an actual peace treaty, push for North Korean membership in international financial institutions, and provide energy assistance and humanitarian aid. [1] This "bold offer" was quickly overshadowed by other disputed matters and died stillborn in 2002. But it had itself been a study in ambiguity - a mix of generous-sounding promises all of which depended on North Korea's initial and comprehensive surrender to American demands. It was an offer made in order to rebut any future charges that the Bush administration had lacked interest in negotiating, and made on terms that it could be certain the other side would never accept. Now, as 2005 began, it was evidently back on the table, but so, it turned out, was the hostility. In her confirmation hearings to become Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice struck an apparently upbeat note by declaring that the US had "no intention" of invading North Korea. At the same time, she explicitly included it among six "outposts of tyranny" that must be dealt with and proclaimed that the US stood with "the oppressed people" of all countries. For Pyongyang, "outpost of tyranny" must have sounded no less menacing than "axis of evil." President Bush himself, in his 2005 State of the Union address, had little to say about North Korea other than that the US was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions." But he too stressed the ongoing US mission to extend "democracy" to the benighted regions of the world: regimes would have to embrace "freedom" either by changing themselves or by being changed. Against all this, at least since the Beijing talks began Pyongyang's message, often ridiculed as a stance of preposterous blackmail, had in fact remained constant: it simply sought concrete assurance of survival. Late in 2004, under pressure from its Asian allies, the Bush administration had evidently decided to shift from talking about the need for "regime change" in North Korea to "regime transformation" -- a subtle distinction indeed. As Jeong Se Hyun, former Unification Minister in South Korea, commented, "I don't understand why the United States is beginning to say that. If you go from telling someone else 'I'm going to kill you,' to 'If you become a good guy I might not kill you,' what will the other guy think..." [2] Whatever the words from Washington, the view from Pyongyang must have been grim. On October 19, the North Korea Human Rights Act was signed into law, having been adopted by a unanimous vote of both Houses. It widened the administration's playing field for multifarious potential interventions short of all-out war, both along the North's borders and via the airwaves. It also supported an "East European" model of undermining and destabilizing the regime by non-military means. Behind such actions lay the long-term lobbying of various American neoconservative intellectuals with close ties to the administration. And they now chimed in as well. The right-wing Hudson Institute's Michael Horowitz, one of the authors of the Human Rights Law, on December 23 stated his belief that North Korea would implode within the year. He also spoke of the possibility of finding generals within the North Korean military prepared to work with the U.S. and using them to bring about a coup. "Defense Committee Chairman Kim Jong Il," he added, "won't be able to enjoy the next Christmas." [3] He also mocked the South Korean government, which is absolutely opposed to such an approach, as "hypercritical and irresponsible." [4] In a similar vein, Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute, another prominent neo-conservative intellectual, wrote a November 2004 article entitled "Tear down this Tyranny." Like Horowitz, he directed his venom at both Korean governments, referring to "the pro-appeasement crowd in the South Korean government" who had turned that country into a place "increasingly governed in accordance with graduate-school 'peace studies' desiderata." [5] If the North Koreans needed another signal from the Bush administration, the appointment of Georgetown University academic Victor Cha as a Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council was undoubtedly it. He had earned plaudits from neoconservatives for a 2002 article in the Council on Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs, later developed into a book, in which he argued for pressure to be brought to bear on Pyongyang by forming a "coalition for punishment." The priority he placed on "punishing" Kim Jong Il's regime suggested a view of "transformation" for North Korea that was blood brother to those being proposed by Horowitz and Eberstadt. [6] There have been two strands to the Bush administration's North Korean nuclear concern: plutonium and uranium-based weapons programs. Under the Clinton administration's "Agreed Framework" deal with Pyongyang, North Korea's graphite reactor had been shut down and its accumulated plutonium wastes frozen under international inspection between 1994 and 2003. The breakdown in relations that occurred under Bush, however, meant that the reactor was restarted, new wastes began to accumulate, and the pre-existing 8,000 fuel rods were removed from the site and, according to the North Koreans, processed into weapon fuel. This program, however, was not controversial, in the sense that Pyongyang has repeatedly offered to sacrifice it as part of a comprehensive deal. The Bush administration, in dismissing any possibility of such a deal, has concentrated on an alleged North Korean "second track" weapons program, based on uranium. This matter is highly controversial. The basis for this "second-track" charge was the claimed confession of a Pyongyang official to Deputy Secretary of State James Kelly on a rare Bush administration official visit to Pyongyang in October 2002 that it had a secret uranium enrichment program. That confession, in turn, was supposed to have prompted the U.S. to suspend its Agreed Framework commitments (in particular the pledge of 500,000 tons annually of heavy oil). Soon after, North Korea withdrew from the Agreed Framework and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. No confirmation, however, has ever been forthcoming for the US claim. North Korea denies any such "confession," and South Korea, China and Russia have all expressed skepticism about such a nuclear program despite dogged Bush administration efforts over the last two-and-a-half years to persuade them of its existence. Not only has Washington been unable to persuade allies and negotiating partners, but it has failed to persuade its own intelligence and diplomatic community as well. The January-February 2005 issue of the establishment journal on foreign policy, Foreign Affairs, carried a powerful dissenting article by Selig Harrison, former Washington Post journalist who is now Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center and also chair of the "Task Force on U.S. Korea Policy," an influential group of ex-diplomats, officials, and academics. Harrison argued that the U.S. had deliberately distorted North Korea's statement in order to put a halt to the moves towards reconciliation between Pyongyang, Seoul, and Tokyo, that its negotiator had only said it was "entitled" to such a program or "an even more powerful one" to deter a preemptive US attack. Washington had done this, he argued, to step up pressure on Pyongyang and to stop U.S. allies from any compromise with "evil"; from, that is, appeasement. [7] The Magic Bullet of Intelligence Whether or not it was designed to do so, Kelly's October mission to Pyongyang certainly nipped in the bud promising signs of an East Asian spring. An all-Korean summit of June 2000, the fruit of a new South Korean "sunshine policy" toward the North, had been followed by a spate of economic cooperation and trust-building deals on the peninsula. In September 2002, Japan had joined the process and, for the first time, a vision of a new, regional East Asian "order" in which the United States, for the first time since the Korean war would have no defined role, had been officially declared in the most unlikely of settings -- a meeting between North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi. This dramatic and startling picture of a future Asia would soon be buried in an ever more sensational, headline-grabbing dispute about Japanese citizens who had been kidnapped - in some cases decades previously -- by the North Korean regime. Despite the rancor that ongoing dispute engendered, both sides remain officially committed to such a new order. In Harrison's view, Kelly's charges, which were headline grabbing in the United States, depended on an exaggeration of dangerously minimalist intelligence, or, as he put it, the "treating of a worst-case scenario as revealed truth." North Korea, he agreed, might possibly have a secret program to produce low-enriched uranium (LEU), the fuel used to power light-water plutonium reactors, which would indeed put it in technical violation of the Framework. It was unlikely, however, that its scientists had solved the far more technically difficult task of turning it into high-enriched uranium (HEU) for weapons purposes. He simply did not accept what Washington alleged: that the North had an advanced program that would have enriched uranium weapons ready for deployment by "mid-decade." In November 2004, Harrison's "Task Force on U.S. Korea Policy" had already issued a paper, "Ending the North Korean Crisis," critical of the administration. [8] If this paper, with its detailed policy proposals, was the first public broadside against the administration from middle-of-the-road members of the intelligence, academic, and bureaucratic communities, Harrison's Foreign Affairs article was the second, attacking the very fundaments of Bush policy-making. In response, official Washington ratcheted up its efforts both at home and abroad. A riposte by Robert Gallucci, the official who helped negotiate the 1994 Agreed Framework with Pyongyang, and Mitchell Reiss, head of policy planning at the State Department during the first George W Bush administration, appeared in the very next issue of Foreign Affairs. [9] They insisted that enrichment was enrichment, and the danger of uranium, enriched to whatever degree, being either weaponized or exported was real. At the same time, Michael Green, the National Security Council's newly-appointed Senior Director for Asia, was dispatched on a tour of Asian capitals to try to bring various allies into line. He evidently reaffirmed the Kelly line on enrichment, perhaps by offering additional intelligence, and claimed as well that North Korea had been guilty of the grave offence of proliferation through supplying uranium hexafluoride (a component for nuclear weapons manufacture) to Libya. The evidence for this latter claim is not known in full, but the preliminary response of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was that the case was at best inconclusive; at worst, as one member of the IAEA put it, it was "hard to believe." [10] Harrison continued to insist, in a New York speech on February 16, that it was "reckless to base policy on worst case scenario intelligence driven by ideology." [11] So bureaucratic war raged in Washington on the Korean issue - and this took place against a backdrop of the previous year's devastating revelations of the ways in which the administration had used wholesale political intelligence distortion and manipulation to justify its much-desired war in Iraq. Beyond Washington, at least, the thought that Harrison might be right and that the Iraq intelligence process was now only being repeated in relation to Korea occurred to many. The credibility of Washington's search for a "magic bullet" of intelligence to crush alternative policy lines in Asia had been badly eroded by the intellectual, political, and moral capital squandered in Iraq. Can There Be a North Korean "Soft Landing"? As for North Korea itself, Kim Jong Il's regime in Pyongyang appears to have passed through the worst of its long and disastrous economic crisis that stretched back into the 1990s and to be embarked on a process of gradual but far-reaching change. A generational shift seems to be proceeding within the bureaucracy where it is clear that the "Chinese model" is being studied and adapted to Korean circumstances. Markets proliferate; Pyongyang now is reported to have 350 restaurants and 150 karaoke bars; student cafeterias have begun to serve hamburgers; and 24-hour stores are appearing. As South Korean culture and fashion comes to be known and appreciated, through pirated videos and via an increasing reliance on Chinese cell telephones, the government has begun to campaign against young men growing their hair long, suggesting that, as in Japan and much of Asia, North Korea too may be experiencing a wave of Seoul youth and fashion culture. In other words, change on many fronts is underway, even under the Kim Jong Il regime, and largely unnoticed by the Bush administration. While U.S. (and Japanese) conservatives dream of overthrowing Kim, there is a possibility that North Korea's present leader may be the most likely candidate to push through reform and an opening to the world in an otherwise highly conservative, repressive, and closed society. Jeong Se Hyun, South Korea's former Unification Minister, believes that social change generally proceeds through three stages -- symbolic, significant and fundamental -- and that North Korea is now at the second of these stages. He insists that "[n]o nation has ever gone back on reform and opening up," and is critical of American officials for their lack of sensitivity to North Korean pride and their lack of awareness of the need to consider "face" as a crucial element in any negotiation. [12] Quite apart from the devastation that the sudden overthrow and collapse of the present regime would likely visit on the region -- a fearful prospect for both the South Korean and Chinese governments -- the possibility that forces more opposed to economic liberalization, more-anti-U.S., anti-China, anti-Japan, and anti-South Korea might replace Kim Jong Il in the chaos is too rarely considered by those who see him simply as another worst-case dictator to be toppled. In its 2005 New Year message to the world, North Korea referred to the "growing danger" of nuclear war, but made no reference to its own nuclear plans and issued no threats. Since then, senior North Korean officials informed Congressman Curt Weldon (R-Pa), Vice-Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, that their country was indeed a nuclear state. (This has, in fact, been a constant refrain of the North Koreans since 2003, whether true or not.) They assured him, however, that they had no interest in maintaining a nuclear status once the regime's security concerns were met, and that their government would then respect the United States and "treat it as a friend" provided that the Bush administration did not ["]slander["] it or ["]intervene in its internal affairs.["] Although Weldon, a prominent Republican conservative, described his talks as "an overwhelming success," slander and intervention are precisely the kinds of activities likely to be authorized under the Human Rights Act. After all, Eberstadt and Horowitz are calling for outright hostility and Cha for punishment. So whatever ambiguity may remain in the messages of the President and the Secretary of State are unlikely to quell North Korean doubts and suspicions. What the Kim Jong Il regime seeks now, as it has through the past decade, is an end to the siege under which it exists and removal of the American nuclear or military threat as well as further normalization of political and economic relations with neighboring counties and with the world. On his previous visit to Pyongyang in mid-2003, Weldon actually made a series of detailed proposals to this end to which his hosts had responded positively. His hopes that a breakthrough might come and a deal be done were, however, dashed with the Foreign Ministry's official nuclear announcement on February 10. The persistent, intense efforts of the Bush administration to turn the "Beijing Six" group into a "coalition of the willing," capable of exerting systematic and sustained pressure on Pyongyang, continue to falter in the face of chronic dissent and policy disunity. The sharpest differences have arisen between Washington and Seoul. South Korea, which naturally has the greatest at stake in the fate of Kim Jong Il and his regime, increasingly defines the issues as peninsular rather than global and demands a voice in the outcome at least as great as Washington's. It accepts the legitimacy of North Korea's plea for "security" and "normalization," believing that the flow of refugees from the North will best be stemmed by allowing reforms to take root there and then nurturing them. American plans to destabilize and overthrow the Pyongyang regime fill it with alarm. To the extent that South Korea's stance is broadly supported by the Chinese and Russian governments, it amounts to a near "majority" position in the Group of Six. Even Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi tends to incline towards or defer to South Korea on crucial peninsular issues -- not only in an insistence that any resort to war is out of the question but in his readiness to offer aid to Pyongyang as well as his encouragement of the idea of a future regional community that would include North Korea. In the case of Koizumi, however, there is an important qualification. In Japan, all other issues have become subordinate to resolving various vexing questions about the abduction of Japanese citizens a quarter century ago that still remain on the table. Subject to that uniquely Japanese consideration, Koizumi's Japan is inclined, like the government of South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun of South Korea, to want to find a path that will lead North Korea to a "soft landing." In a major speech in Los Angeles in November 2004, South Korea's president shocked Washington by declaring that there was "some justification" for North Korean claims to a right to develop nuclear weapons and missiles in order to protect itself against the American threat (though, of course, he did not actually name the threat). [13] One US government official described this statement as tantamount to "suicide terrorism." [14] In January 2005, South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong Young, in a major speech in Berlin, styled Korea as the "greatest victim of the Cold War." He promised that war on the peninsula henceforth was "impermissible" and instead that both halves of Korea would move forward on the principles of ["]no war, peaceful coexistence, and common prosperity,["] with South Korea offering "comprehensive and concrete aid," including food, fertilizers and agricultural machinery for the agriculture sector, from the moment North Korea began the process of giving up its nuclear program. [15] A few days later at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he added the express hope that Kim Jong Il would accept an invitation to attend the November Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Pusan. Even the conservative South Korean opposition Grand National Party's think-tank now calls for "accommodative engagement" with the North and a "Marshall Plan" of incentives to aid Pyongyang. Park Jin, one of its senior figures and a likely presidential candidate in 2007, now describes the relationship between South and North as one between a ["]husband and wife["], with South Korea "trying to help a spouse come back who left home after a huge fight." [16] Though Park Jin's party should be the prefect ally for the Washington neoconservatives, they see this kind of thinking as puerile, "peace-studies" appeasement, no matter who espouses it. Singing with the President In Japan, Koizumi, though faithful to Washington on almost all issues, shows signs of independence on North Korea. It was, after all, his visit to Pyongyang in September 2002 -- about which he informed Washington but without consultation of any sort --- that set off the present crisis. The Pyongyang Declaration, issued after his first meeting with Kim and never repudiated by either side, remains a clarion call to reconciliation and to the formation of a Northeast Asian community, something in which the US role remains undefined, an unspoken challenge to Washington. In May 2004, Koizumi made a second visit to North Korea. On his departure for Pyongyang he spoke about normalizing the abnormal relationship between Japan and North Korea so that "hostility" could be "turned to friendship, confrontation to cooperation." [17] It was an agenda poles apart from Washington's. Koizumi, it seems, is on a mission to close the books on Japan's twentieth century colonial empire and thereby secure for his country a central role in the emerging community of twenty-first century Northeast Asia. Later, asked his impression of his North Korean opposite number, Koizumi reported to the Japanese Diet: "I guess for many his image is that of a dictator, fearful and weird, but when you actually meet and talk with him he is mild-mannered and cheerful, quick to make jokes ... quick-witted." [18] In other words, he confirmed that Kim Jong Il was a man to do business with. Most foreigners who meet him have reacted similarly, including among others former South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. So keen did Kim profess himself to be when it came to talking with George W. Bush that he asked Koizumi to provide music that they could sing to together -- till, as he put it, their throats dried out and became sore. [19] By contrast, the American president says with great feeling that he "loathes" Kim Jong Il and could never possibly deal directly with him. After the second trip, Koizumi pledged to normalize the Japan-North Korea relationship in his remaining two years in office -- if possible within a single year. [20] In the months that followed, Kim Jong Il's request to sing with President Bush seems to have weighed on Koizumi's mind, so that when he met with George Bush later in the year he urged him to consider such a meeting. The President's response, we are told, was a stony silence; [21] and while an American president's wish may be tantamount to a command to a Japanese Prime Minister, the reverse can never be true. The Korean abduction of Japanese citizens during the late 1970s and early 1980s remains a enormous thorn sunk deep in any attempt to achieve the sort of normalization Koizumi seeks. The North Korean leader did apologize in 2002 for the abduction of thirteen Japanese citizens, and by 2004 had returned to Japan five survivors and their families, but it was the explanations offered for the deaths of the other eight around which controversy swirled. When Japanese DNA analysis indicated that what North Korean officials proffered in 2004 as the remains of Yokota Megumi, a young woman abductee, were actually those of two unrelated people, the shock and outrage in Japan was deep and lasting. Since then, the demand for the imposition of sanctions on the North has grown and moves have begun in the Japanese Diet to pass a Japanese version of the U.S. North Korean Human Rights Law. Early in February 2005, a statement signed by five million people demanding the imposition of sanctions was presented to the government. Most Japanese favor such a course of action because they believe that Kim Jong Il as a dictator is responsible for everything that happens in his country and so they are convinced that he has been deliberately tricking and deceiving Japan about the abductees. Koizumi, who alone has met and formed his own assessment of Kim Jong Il, remains cool to the idea. Although he shares in the popular anger at the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the abductee explanations that have so far been offered, he may well find credible what Kim told him in 2002: that "some elements of a special agency of state," long since abolished, had been responsible for the abductions, and that such things would never recur. If indeed Kim's power does not fully extend to those "special agencies of state," the remaining mysteries concerning the abductees may only gradually be cleared up as part of a future process of normalization -- as was the case of the fate of orphaned Japanese children left behind in China at the end of World War II. Only after normalization and the opening of diplomatic relations with China in the 1970s, did information on these children become available. While Koizumi persists in his demands for North Korean explanation of the Yokota remains and clarification of the circumstances surrounding the fates of other abductees, he remains committed to reconciliation and normalization. Around him, however, the mood in his party and in the country at large has been hardening. Toward a Pyongyang Thaw? North Korea's statement that it has nuclear weapons and is uninterested, at least for the time being, in the resumption of the six-sided talks represents a step back from a Pyongyang spring towards mid-winter. Washington is now said to be considering a possible referral of the matter to the United Nations Security Council for international sanctions or even trying to convene the six-sided talks without North Korea - that is, in one way or another simply stepping up the pressure. China is said to be angry that its efforts at conciliation have been dashed. South Korea frantically counsels reason and moderation on all sides and its "sunshine" policies are tested as never before. All the while, North Korea moves ever closer to being a de facto nuclear power with inevitable destabilizing consequences on the region, especially on Japan's future military posture. If North Korea seems more isolated than ever, however, the disarray among the other five partner countries is also plain, as are the deep, unresolved contradictions between Bush's Washington, already frustrated and limited in its policy options by its endless occupation and war in Iraq, and the Asian allies it would like to support its projected global order. The Japanese prime minister, the Bush administration's closest partner in Asia, has publicly pledged to normalize relations with Kim Jong Il's North Korea and has begged the President to meet one-on-one with Kim; China stated after the last round of talks in Beijing that American policy towards the North was the "main problem we are facing"; and South Korea's president believes North Korea is "not without cause" in its nuclear weapon program, encourages multifaceted cooperation across the DMZ, and has invited President Bush to join him on a visit to the new joint South-North industrial development zone just north of the old Korean war dividing line that was once so impermeable. What for Washington is a matter of how to stop a nuclear-weapons program and/or overthrow a strange and distant dictator, for other countries in the region is a much more essential problem which lies so much closer to home: how to bring North Korea first into the community of Northeast Asia and then into the larger global community. In Washington's view, North Korea is simply troublesome, lunatic, or evil, and there can be no truck with it; as its Asian neighbors see it, North Korea's demand for security, however shrill, contains within it something that, from their own histories, they recognize as essentially just. The six-sided forum, despite the present impasse, is probably still the best, perhaps even the only way forward, providing as it does a forum for regional powers to exert pressure not just on North Korea but on the United States as well. It offers just about the only hope for overseeing the inevitably protracted process of detente leading to resolution. Gavan McCormack is a professor of the Australian National University and visiting professor at International Christian University in Tokyo. He is the author of many works on modern and contemporary East Asia, including Target North Korea: Pushing North Korea to the Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe, Nation Books, 2004. Email: gavan@icu.ac.jp This Japan Focus articlewas first written for Tomdispatch.com, a weblog of the Nation Institute, which offers a steady flow of alternate sources, news and opinion from Tom Engelhardt, long time editor in publishing and author of The End of Victory Culture and a new novel, The Last Days of Publishing. It is reprinted with permission. [1] Nobuyoshi Sakajiri, "U.S. offer to North Korea still alive," Asahi shimbun, 27 November 2004. [2] Jeong Se Hyun, "NK's Pandora's Box of Reform is Open," Ohmynews, 20 December 2004. [3] Seung-Ryun Kim, " Horowitz: 'North Korea Will Explode Within One Year'," DongA Ilbo, 24 December 2004. [4] "Hokai zenya 'Kin Jong Il seiken' no todome o sasu," Sapio, 23 February 2005, pp. 95-97. [5] "Tear down this Tyranny," The Weekly Standard, 29 November 2004. [6] "Korea's place in the Axis," Foreign Affairs, 81, 3, May-June 2002, pp. 79-92. Quote here is from the book, Victor D. Cha and David C. Kang, Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies, New York, Columbia University Press, 2003, p. 153. [7] Selig Harrison, "Did North Korea Cheat?" Foreign Affairs, January-February 2005, pp. [8] The Task Force on U.S. Korea Policy, Ending the North Korean Nuclear Crisis, Co-sponsored by The Center for International Policy and the Center for East Asian Studies, University of Chicago, 2004. [9] Mitchell B. Reiss and Robert L. Gallucci, "Dead to Rights," Foreign Affairs, March-April 2005, pp. 142-145. [10] Joongang Daily, 7 February 2005. US sources pointed out the evidence could as well point to Pakistan as to North Korea. Washington Post, 3 February 2005. Also Jon Wolfstahl, "Not so fast," Nautilus Institute and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 10 February 2005. [11] Selig Harrison, Speech to Korea Society and Asia Society, New York, 16 February 2005 (text courtesy Selig Harrison). [12] cit, as in note 3 above. [13] Joongang ilbo, 14 November 2004. [14] Asahi shimbun, 20 November 2004. [15] Kim Tae Kyung, "War is impermissible on the Korean peninsula," Ohmynews, 29 January 2005. [16] Quoted in Aidan Foster-Carter, "Boycott or business?" Comparative Connections, Pacific Forum CSIS, Honolulu, 2004. http://www.csis.org/pacfor/cc/0404Qnk_sk.html. [17] NHK TV, 22 May 2004. [18] "Kin soshoki wa atama no tenkai hayai hito," Asahi shimbun, 28 May 2004. [19] "Rokusha kyogi - Beikoku mo ugoku toki da," Asahi shimbun, editorial, 22 June 2004. [20] "Nicho no kokko seijoka, shusho 'ichinen inai ni'," Asahi shimbun, 3 July 2004. [21] Hiroshi Hoshi, "Political Insight: Diplomacy with North Korea," Asahi shimbun, 9 February 2005. 2005-02-26 19:41 ©2005 OhmyNews ohmynews all rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Three chief negotiatiors meet on North February 28, 2005 KST 13:14 (GMT+9) February 28, 2005 €Ρ The head negotiators from South Korea, Japan and the United States on the North Korean nuclear issue met in Seoul Saturday, and again urged Pyeongyang to return to the six-party talks without preconditions. Kenichiro Sasae, director-general of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Asia-Oceania bureau, Christopher Hill, the U.S. ambassador to Seoul who has been named Washington's chief delegate to the talks, and South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon met at Korea's Foreign Ministry Saturday, the first meeting of the three since Pyeongyang announced Feb. 10 that it had nuclear weapons. "We agreed to urge North Korea to return to the talks without delay so that it can have wide-ranging discussions of its concerns," Mr. Song said. "We also expect China to strengthen its efforts for an early resumption of the talks." Mr. Hill and Mr. Sasae repeatedly said that Pyeongyang must return to the talks without preconditions. Beijing has hosted three rounds of talks on the North's nuclear arms programs since 2003. A fourth round scheduled for last September was boycotted by Pyeongyang. Also Saturday, the three negotiators agreed that it was up to South Korea whether or not to continue to provide fertilizer to North Korea for humanitarian reasons, sources in the Foreign Ministry said. Korean officials are said to have told U.S. officials that Seoul would not do so without a new inter-Korean agreement on the subject. by Park Shin-hong iamfine@joongang.co.kr> joongangdaily.joins.com Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 22 Korea Times: Allies Ready to Discuss North Korea's Concern Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter South Korea, the United States and Japan urged North Korea on Saturday to drop any conditions and immediately return to the multilateral talks on its nuclear weapons program to sincerely discuss issues that the North is concerned about. After a three-way strategy session in Seoul, the U.S. and its Asian allies insisted that there would be no incentives in advance to lure the North back to the six-party talks, suggesting that it put its own issues of concern on the table once the dialogue is revived. ``We urge North Korea to return to the six-party talks with no further delay,'' South Korea's Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon said after meeting with his U.S. and Japanese counterparts. ``In today's meeting, the three nations stated the dialogue forum is in place for the North to raise its own issues of concern.'' While talking with Chinese envoy Wang Jiarui last week, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il said his country is willing to return to the bargaining table if there are ``mature conditions'' for the six-party talks. Beijing later explained to other parties that what Kim meant by conditions was a comprehensive security guarantee, assured by the U.S.' pledge of ``no hostile intent,'' rather than material rewards. While President George W. Bush and other senior U.S. officials did say Washington would not ``attack'' or ``invade'' the Stalinist country, they have so far avoided using the three-word phrase that would mean it would not topple or transform Kim's regime. While reaffirming their firm stance for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue, the three negotiators expressed their hope that China, a strong ally and key aid supplier of the North, would step up efforts to persuade Pyongyang to return to the talks. But the trilateral meeting, aimed at reviewing the latest developments and devising coordinated steps to cope with them, revealed a slight crevice as Tokyo wanted a tougher approach toward the North, according to diplomatic sources. The slight gap became more discernable when Song and his counterparts, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State-designate Christopher Hill and Kenichiro Sasae, director-general of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Asia-Oceania bureau, showed different reactions to reporters' questions on the outcome of the tripartite talks. While Song raised the possibility of the North returning to the arms talks with upbeat words such as ``sunny,'' Sasae stressed that the three parties agreed that North Korea should come back to the negotiation table ``with no delay.'' Hill, for his part, provided only a cursory description of the one-day session as an ``excellent meeting,'' while giving no concrete comment on the outcome. Japan, whose relations with South Korea are often described as an ``alignment despite antagonism,'' has been angered by North Korea over the abduction issue and has recently started to take a tougher stance than the U.S. Speaking on the North Korean issue in Tokyo Friday, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage warned that Japan should think twice before launching economic sanctions on the isolated country. ``Sanctions are good to have on the books, but to some extent, they're more effective as a threat than a reality. Once you enact sanctions, you have no more ammunition,'' he said. South Korea's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-moon is reportedly planning to visit Tokyo in March to meet with his Japanese counterpart, possibly for consultations to narrow the widening gaps between the negotiation partners. Saturday's meeting in Seoul was part of a flurry of diplomacy aimed at getting the North back to the negotiating table. The six-party talks, which began in August 2003, have been in limbo since the third round ended inconclusively last June. Pyongyang has been refusing to attend a fourth round, citing the U.S.' ``hostile'' policy. jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr 02-27-2005 16:52 ***************************************************************** 23 [progchat_action] Fw: CANADA REFUSES ON STAR WARS: CONGRATS Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:38:11 -0600 (CST) ----- Original Message ----- From: Global Network To: Global Network Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:23 PM Subject: CANADA REFUSES ON STAR WARS: CONGRATS CANADIAN PEACE MOVEMENT http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050224.w2miss0223/BNStor y/National/ Canada refuses further role in missile defence By OLIVER MOORE Thursday, February 24, 2005 Updated at 1:01 PM EST Globe and Mail Update Days after informing the Washington, the federal government formally announced Thursday that Canada will refuse any further participation in the controversial missile defence shield that the United States is building. Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew made the decision public after months of equivocating by the Liberal government and days of denials that a decision had been made. "After careful consideration of the issue, we have decided that Canada will not participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system," Mr. Pettigrew said in the chamber of the House of Commons. He insisted that the decision - which has reportedly left the Bush administration nonplussed - will not "in any way" hurt ties with the United States. "We will carefully examine all options and pursue our priorities vigorously," he said. The announcement came only days after Frank McKenna, the next ambassador to the United States, set off a political storm by saying that Canada is already participating in the missile shield. He said that an amendment to NORAD, the continental joint air-defence pact, meant that Canada's de facto participation had begun. Mr. McKenna made his comments on Tuesday, about the time, Prime Minister Paul Martin has now acknowledged, that the United States received the formal refusal from Canada. "The official Canadian position was conveyed by Foreign Minister Pettigrew to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at our meetings in Brussels," he told reporters. "Since then, I have discussed it with ambassador Cellucci, Mr. Graham has discussed it with [Deputy Defence Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz in the United States and I would expect to be discussing it again, with President Bush, hopefully today or in the very near future." Mr. Martin's timeline contradicts comments from government MPs this week in the House of Commons, where opposition politicians were told that they would be informed "when a decision is made." On both Tuesday and Wednesday, Defence Minister Bill Graham insisted that nothing had changed on the missile-defence file and that a decision was forthcoming. The minority Liberals could have lost if missile defence had come to a vote in the House of Commons. A number of senior government sources have recently told reporters in The Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau that the federal government felt that the deep unpopularity of missile defence among Canadians made further participation a non-starter. Mr. Pettigrew said that Canada will continue to contribute to the security of the continent through the expanded mandate of NORAD, which will track incoming missiles, and an integrated response to maritime threats. "We will enhance the protection of North America," he said. "...We will work closely to build the success of [border agreements] and engage Mexico to trilateralize, to better align our roles, priorities and interests." Mr. Martin said in his comments, made moments later after a cabinet meeting, that the Liberal's military priorities are "the ones that we set out yesterday" in the budget, primarily borders, Arctic sovereignty, coastal defence, intelligence-gathering and increasing the size of the army. Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 (207) 319-2017 (Cell Phone) http://www.space4peace.org globalnet@mindspring.com http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog) ***************************************************************** 24 Kennebec Journal: U.S. must find safe energy sources In his State of the Union address, President Bush referred to "safe, clean" nuclear power as an option for our energy future. [Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel] Sunday, February 27, 2005 Copyright © 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. In his State of the Union address, President Bush referred to "safe, clean" nuclear power as an option for our energy future. According to the Nuclear information Resource Service, the nuclear industry wants at least 50 new reactors. "The Bush-Cheney administration will be giving them hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to do it." China also is planning to promote nuclear power, despite warnings from Wang Yi, a nuclear energy expert at the Chinese Academy of Science. We in Maine who monitored the Maine Yankee plant for more than a decade find this trend alarming. This plant was shut in 1996. While in operation, it daily emitted radioactive gases, liquids and particulates. Some of these releases were routine, some accidental. All nuclear plants do this, even when operating correctly. According to state records, there were years when Maine Yankee released into the environment more radioactive waste than it shipped to a low-level radioactive waste storage facility. Even now, shut down and in the decommissioning process, the plant continues to release radioactive liquids into the bay, and radioactivity from waste storage casks can be detected outside the storage site's fence. Apart from pollution considerations, these casks are vulnerable to terrorist actions. At the birth of the nuclear power industry, the Atomic Energy Commission calculated an "allowable increase" in the genetic mutation rate that would result from its activities. In Maine we have an officially acknowledged higher incidence of cancer in areas downwind of the power plant. Because the radioactive emissions have always been within federal guidelines, the cancer data were dismissed as coincidence, as was evidence that Rachel Carson cited when warning us about the hazards connected with using DDT. Our task must be to rally the political will to develop safe, clean, renewable energy sources. Maria Glen Holt Director Maine Citizens' Monitoring Network Bath Copyright © Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. ***************************************************************** 25 Independent: The Crawford Deal: did Blair sign up for war at Bush's Texas ranch in April 2002? www.independent.co.uk We know that arguments raged about the legality of the war right up to a crucial cabinet meeting on 17 March 2003, two days before the attack began. But now new evidence pieced together by the 'IoS' strongly backs the suspicion that the PM had already made the decision to strike a year earlier. By Raymond Whitaker 27 February 2005 It was one of the most tense cabinet meetings Downing Street had seen in living memory. "We were on the brink of war," recalled Clare Short, who was there. The consequences would be dramatic, not only for those round the table, but for millions of Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of British and American troops. The date was 17 March 2003, only two days before the war to oust Saddam Hussein was launched. "The atmosphere was very fraught by then," Ms Short, then International Development Secretary, said last week. Experts in international law were saying the impending conflict was illegal, her officials were concerned, and the military was demanding a clear statement of the legal position. The issue of the war's legality has erupted back into the public arena in the past week with the publication of a book, Lawless World, by Philippe Sands QC, an international lawyer in Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers. According to his account, the Attorney General, Lord Gold- smith, had delivered a 13-page opinion on 7 March 2003 which said that to be sure of legal authority for the war, a UN Security Council resolution specifically backing force was needed. Later, at a meeting at Downing Street, he said his views had become "clearer", and it was that clarification that was presented to Ms Short and her colleagues. How that change came about has been the subject of intense speculation, reviving the pressure on the Government to publish the full text of the Attorney General's advice. But the lingering questions over the war do not end there. Mr Sands and others also raise doubts about another great mystery surrounding the conflict: when did Tony Blair first sign up to President George Bush's crusade to oust Saddam Hussein? Last September, highly embarrassing leaked documents showed that as early as March 2002, the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, was assuring Condoleezza Rice of Mr Blair's unbudgeable support for "regime change". Days later, Sir Christopher Meyer, then British ambassador to the US, sent a dispatch to Downing Street detailing how he repeated the commitment to Paul Wolfowitz, the US Deputy Defence Secretary. The ambassador added that Mr Blair would need a "cover" for any military action. "I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN Security Council resolutions." Throughout this period, and into 2003, Mr Blair was insisting in public that war was not inevitable. In May 2002 he said Iraq would be "in a far better position" without Saddam, but added: "Does that mean that military action is imminent or about to happen? No. We've never said that." Introducing the notorious WMD dossier in the Commons on 24 September that year, he said: "Our case is simply this: not that we take military action come what may, but that the case for ensuring Iraqi disarmament, as the UN itself has stipulated, is overwhelming." In the past week, however, it has not only emerged that Special Branch officers questioned opposition parties as part of an investigation into the leaks, but The Independent on Sunday has discovered further information indicating that when Mr Blair met Mr Bush at his Texas ranch on 7 and 8 April 2002, he committed Britain to an assault on Iraq. The clue, contained in an obscure row over the Government's refusal to answer an apparently straightforward parliamentary question, shows that both at the beginning and the end of the process which culminated in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the issue of legality was very much in the air. As the Cabinet gathered on the eve of war, it was well known around Whitehall that the Foreign Office's legal advisers saw no authority for the conflict without a fresh UN resolution, and that Lord Goldsmith had apparently supported their view in his written opinion 10 days earlier. The scene should have been set for a ferocious debate, but that was not what happened, according to Ms Short. Lord Goldsmith, who is not a cabinet member, came in and sat in the place previously occupied by Robin Cook, who had just resigned. If the Attorney General was aware of the symbolism, he gave no sign of it. A two-page document was circulated and Lord Goldsmith started to read it aloud, but was told there was no need. Until that day, the absence of any public statement had allowed doubts about the legality of the war to multiply, but now Lord Goldsmith was saying there was no problem. "I said this was odd, coming so late," Ms Short recalled last week. "Everyone said, 'Oh Clare, be quiet.' No one would allow any discussion ... I was stunned and surprised, because of all the other information I had received." But Ms Short went along with her colleagues and voted for war. "The Attorney General is the legal authority for Britain, for civil servants, the military and ministers," she said. "But now it looks to me that [the revised legal opinion] was stitched together, it wasn't properly done. Not only are there questions over how we went to war, but about the reliability of the Attorney General in the British constitution. Our constitutional arrangements are breaking down." Reacting to last week's controversy, Lord Goldsmith has denied being "leaned on" by the Government to change his view, or that the two people he met at Downing Street, Baroness Morgan and Lord Falconer, were involved "in any way" with the document circulated to the Cabinet on 17 March, and issued the same day as a written parliamentary answer. Following reports that he told last year's Butler inquiry that Lady Morgan and Lord Falconer had set out his view, Lord Goldsmith asked for the record to be corrected to "I set out my view". "As I have always made clear, I set out in the [parliamentary] answer my own genuinely held, independent view that military action was lawful under the existing Security Council resolutions," he said on Friday night. "The answer did not purport to be a summary of my confidential legal advice to Government." Lord Goldsmith did not mention the insistent demands that his "confidential legal advice" should be published, to clear up the many questions about it. But the speed of his reaction to news reports, coupled with the near-unprecedented use of the Special Branch to question politicians and their aides, indicates an atmosphere close to panic in government circles that the whole issue of Iraq could be reopened just as an election campaign is about to begin. That consideration seems to apply to the refusal to answer a simple question: when did it first seek legal advice on whether an invasion of Iraq would be lawful? The Liberal Democrats, who asked the question, stressed that they did not want to know what the advice was, simply the date it was requested, but the Foreign Office has rejected a ruling by the Parliamentary Ombudsman that it has no good reason to withhold the information. Sir Michael Jay, permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, argued that the date on its own would be "misleading". It was already in the public domain that advice was first sought in the spring of 2002; "it was not his view that the public interest required the release of anything more specific beyond that", in the words of the Ombudsman, Ann Abraham. To put the date in context, the FO said, it would have to release a confidential internal minute and a press release. Ms Abraham said there was no need to disclose the minute, but stated: "I find it difficult to understand what harm might be caused by the department, in releasing the date of this minute, saying that it had been written because statements made in a particular press release ... suggested to them that it might be sensible to obtain legal advice in respect of those statements." Most FO press releases are anodyne announcements of am- bassadorial appointments and guests received by the Foreign Secretary. From March to May 2002, there are only two that stand out, both on 9 April, the day after Mr Blair left Mr Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Both concern armed incursions by Israeli forces into the Palestinian areas. In one, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, calls on Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions, saying: "Like every other country, Israel has a right to security, but the Israeli government must respect inter- national law ..." Britain's then ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, makes the same point even more forcefully, saying: "I think everybody understands that the political and moral authority of the United Nations is not to be cast aside lightly or to be trodden on lightly." The potential hostage to fortune in those words is emphasised in another press statement the same day by Ben Bradshaw, then a Foreign Office minister, who condemns Saddam for exploiting the Israeli "invasion" of Palestinian areas while ignoring the suffering of his own people. Did someone in the Foreign Office realise that in the light of these statements, it might be wise to seek legal advice if Britain proposed an invasion of Iraq? According to Philippe Sands, interdepartmental advice had already been circulated the month before, "stating that regime change of itself had no basis in international law". On the eve of Mr Blair's visit to Texas, Downing Street dismissed suggestions that he was going for a "council of war". It might be embarrassing rather than misleading to admit that, days later, the Government was seeking to establish the legal justification for war - especially since, according to Robin Cook, Mr Blair told the Cabinet on his return from Crawford that "the time to debate the legal basis for our action should be when we take that action". In the view of Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, the Government's refusal to give the date it sought legal advice "can be seen as a refusal to admit that the commitment to George Bush was made very much earlier than the Prime Minister has so far been willing to say". But on this point, as on so much else to do with the war in Iraq, the Government remains mute. ©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 26 Bellona: Putin, Bush summit fails to reach any binding nuclear conclusions Analysis In spite of broad yet hushed expectations among the US non-prolieration community, President George Bush and President Vladimir Putin’s Bratislava summit produced little in the way of breaking current liability impasses and cutting through other miles of red tape to advance America’s nuclear threat reduction goals for Russia. A stone-faced Putin looks and a jubilant Bush meet the press after Thursday's summit in Bratislava. Charles Digges, 2005-02-25 16:09 It was something of a surprise, said many State Department and US government officials who spoke to Bellona Web Thursday evening following the summit’s close, as non-proliferation was one common talking point the two presidents could have made binding progress on at this otherwise often prickly summit. Hazy nuclear agreement reached Bush, however, spoke favourably, if vaguely, of the nuclear issues he discussed with Putin, saying at the presidents’ joint press conference: "We agreed to accelerate our work to protect nuclear weapons and materials both in our two nations and around the world." In the end, a sideline deal was inked to improve security at Russian nuclear sites where material enticing to terrorists is stored. Both presidents also agreed that Iran and North Korea should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, though neither outlined clear steps toward achieving this goal. "We agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. I appreciate Vladimir's understanding on that," Bush said. "We agreed that North Korea should not have a nuclear weapon." Indeed, Putin remained steadfast in Russia’s commitment to aiding Iran’s growing civilian nuclear infrastructure, and he said he still believed the Islamic Republic was incapable of producing nuclear weapons, press reports said, even though mounting evidence contradicts the Russian President’s assertion. Putin and Bush head to Bratislava for non-proliferation and democracy summit Despite the political upheavals that have separated Russia and the United States since US President George Bush’s reelection, the most dominant public talking points at Bratislava’s Thursday summit—and the one on which Presidents Vladimir Putin and Bush seem to most heartily agree—will be nuclear non-proliferation and containing the threat of loose nuclear material in Russia.  Read on » Furthermore, the nuclear agreement drafted at the summit has clear limitations. Much of it is a reaffirmation of longstanding policy—such as the US Deparment of Energy’s Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC) programmes, and a similar programme run by the US Department of Defence. And while the agreement it proposes accelerating security upgrades at nuclear facilities, it does not mandate completing the work before both men's terms expire in 2008, as American officials had hoped. "It is welcome news that Presidents Bush and Putin are talking about how to prevent nuclear terrorism," Ken Luongo, executive director of the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, an NGO that advises Washington and Moscow on nuclear policy, said. Luongo added, though, that "it is unfortunate that there were no major breakthroughs on the impediments that are hobbling the realisation of their nuclear security goals—the disputes over access to facilities, transparency, and liability protections. Deadly terrorists are seeking WMD and they are not waiting." CIA Director Porter Goss. AP Intelligence community sounds alarm on nuclear terrorism The Presidents met against a backdrop of new and urgent warning signals on the danger of nuclear terror and in the face of increasing consensus in the US Congress that more aggressive action must be taken to expedite bilateral threat reduction programs. Last week, the Director of Central Intelligence Agency Porter Goss testified in a Capitol Hill hearing that it "may only be a matter of time" before terrorists acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, US press reports said. During questioning, Goss stated that enough material was missing from Russian facilities, "so it would be possible for those with know-how to construct a nuclear weapon." These revelations follow a November 2004 report by the National Intelligence Council, which found that undetected nuclear smuggling has occurred at Russian facilities and that missing material may not have been recovered. One workable initiative that did arise from the meeting of the leaders was the US-Russian "Senior Interagency Group," which will meet jointly to monitor progress and report on the implementation of cooperative security programs, and the Presidents' emphasis on developing a "security culture" in Russia as key new developments. But that was cold comfort for US officials back home who had pushed for stronger initiatives prior to the summit. MOX plan delayed by Bush administration budget documents The set-back-plagued US–Russian plan to destroy weapons grade plutonium in nuclear reactors has been delayed for at least another year, budget documents released last week by the White House show, leaving many experts on the US and Russian sides of the programme fearing that the job of destroying materials for thousands of nuclear bombs may never be accomplished.  Read on » Another let down for MOX may lead to problems with other US programmes The biggest disappointment was the failure of the two countries to agree on liability language for the US-Russian plutonium disposition program and other important nuclear agreements, which a US government official told Bellona was being drafted and would be present at the summit. At issue is the State Department’s refusal to renew the five year 1998 Technical Agreement on plutonium disposition, which provided for research and development exchanges between the two government. With this agreement halted, the programme cannot move to its implementation phase, as stipulated under the 2000 Plutonium Disposition agreement, signed by former US President Bill Clinton and Putin. The State Department scrapped the renewal because the 1998 agreement did not contain liability language of the so called Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Umbrella Agreement, which, if ever adopted by the Russian Duma, would place responsibility for any accidents during US driven nuclear dismantlement projects—including sabotage and terrorism—squarely at Moscow’s feet. Failure to resolve this legal issue has prevented construction of MOX facilities in the United States and Russia to dispose of 68 tonnes of US Russian weapons-grade plutonium in MOX form. The MOX initiative, driven by the US Department of Energy, has been a source of heated debate between environmental groups, including Bellona, and the Russian and American governments since its 1994 inception because of the dangers posed by the untested use weapons-grade plutonium in the hybrid fuel which has only been used on industrial levels with reactor-grade plutonium. It is also more expensive than other methods espoused by environmentalists. Current estimates put a $7 billion price tag on just getting the MOX effort off the ground. Moreover, as RANSAC argued in a recent article, the US-Russian dispute over liability language could potentially derail the extension of the CTR Umbrella Agreement governing all CTR programs. Bellona has been a staunch critic of the MOX plan, and has urged both governments to take other disposition methods into account. The legal deadlock, in as much as it slows the progress of the program, however, should not, in Bellona’s opinion, be allowed to threaten any other CTR driven programmes. The CTR programme faces renewal hearings in US Congress next year. De-emphasising MOX Many possible reasons for winding down the MOX programme and letting it suffocate under a mountain of paper work have been suggested by various US and Russian government officials in the past months, who mainly say that the inter-governmental agencies involve are simply tired of dealing with the programme’s continual cost over-runs, red-tape, shaky science, and the nagging sense that cheaper alternatives are available. Just prior to the summit, the Marketing and Consulting Russian news agency reported that the US administration was reconsidering the option of immobilization, which is by the DOE’s own estimates cheaper and safer. The Bush administration in 2003 actually removed immobilization—a process which, generally speaking, encases weapons-grade plutonium and highly radioactive glass in special self defending containers—as an option and decided to pour its energy into hastening the MOX programme. But according to Marketing and Consulting, Bush wants to reconsider his stance on immobilisation. Indeed, the White House budget request to Congress for the DOE’s nuclear remediation project budget for 2006 includes a $10m budget line item for immobilisation related projects—a line item absent in last year’s budget request. The democracy at hand Recent months have seen backsliding in Russia’ progress toward democracy, accentuated by the Kremlin’s clamp-down on the media and the Yukos affair, which the US regards as a move toward neo-Soviet re-centralisation of the Russia economy. For its part, Russia is feeling more isolated as the US develops relationships with other former republics of the Soviet Union, and has chosen—as illustrated by the recent “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine—to back more authoritarian governments in these countries. Ukraine backfired as massive election fraud, and the apparent assassination attempt on the non-Kremlin backed presidential candidate, back-fired, casting much of the buck-shot on the Kremlin. Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhaur also noted that the United States and Russia are no longer united in their conception of the war on terrorism—a seeming hallmark of friendship between the two nations that has gone to tatters since the US occupation of Iraq. As long as the Bush administration agreed to keep its opinions on brutal human rights violations in Chechnya to itself—unlike the previous administration—Russia would dampen its public response to US military action against “rogue states,” government officials from Moscow and Washington have told Bellona Web in interviews since the 9/11 attacks. “The war on terrorism is no longer a unifying factor: The American campaign to install democracy in Iraq and the Russian war to enforce its will in the North Caucasus are as far apart ideologically as the United States and Russia are geographically,” Felgenhauer wrote in his weekly column for The Moscow Times. Bush and Putin pose for photos after an apparent rap on democracy to the Russian President. AFP Televised reports of the joint press conference show an ebullient Bush, and a stone faced Putin, who rarely smiled and confined his body language to occasional terse nods, suggesting a more heated discussion about Russia’s commitment to democracy had taken place. The leaders met for nearly three hours—and over an hour alone with only interpretors—at a medieval castle overlooking Bratislava. Bush said he talked with Putin at length of his "concerns about Russia's commitment in fulfilling these universal principles" common to all democracies — such as the rule of law, protection of minorities and viable political debate. Putin was somewhat recalcitrant when pressed by reporters on Russia’s recent back-peddaling on Western-style democracy. "Russia has made its choice in favor of democracy. It has done so for the past 14 years and requires no help from the outside,” he said with thinly disguised irritation. “This is our final choice and we have no way back. There can be no return to what we used to have." Details of Minatom’s dismantlement becoming clearer As the dust settles from President Vladimir Putin’s March 9th overhaul of government ministries, it is now apparent that both Ministry of Atomic Energy and the Gosatomnadzor, or GAN, have been abolished and incorporated into the new and larger Ministry of Industry and Energy, or MIE, as part of a presidential effort to streamline and consolidate the Russian government.  Read on » What does Russia have in terms of democracy and environmental rights? Last Spring saw a vertically structured power shift that stripped Russia’s nuclear regulatory body, now part of a body known as The Federal Service for Ecology, Techology, and Atomic Energy (FSETAN in its Russian acronym). The head of FSETAN’s nuclear division is Andrei Malyshev, a recruit from the former Ministry of Atomic Energy—known after the spring shake-up as the Federal Agency for Atomic Energy (Rosatom). Rosatom’s mandate—like FSETAN’s—is still unclear, but it has stepped in to fulfil the roll played by its predecessor, even though many of these responsibilities do not legally fall within its realm. It is safe to say, therefore, that Russia has neither an independent nuclear regulatory body, nor the democratic soil from which such an organisation must spring. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 27 Sunday Herald: Why Bush met a frosty reception from Putin - Last weeks Russian summit was meant to polish off the US Presidents tour of Europe. So what went wrong? Trevor Royle reports When President Bush met President Putin in Bratislava Castle, the body language said more than any communique claiming an outright success for the talks. The leader of the worlds superpower looked edgy and tongue-tied while the former KGB operative put on his war face, an expression matched by his aggressive gripping of the podium during the post-talk press conference. When the two men first met in Slovenia four years ago, Bush said he had looked long and hard into Putins eyes and had seen a man he could trust. As became painfully obvious after last weeks summit the Slovenian summer had given way to a Slovakian winter. Had Bush gazed into Putins eyes this time round, he would have glimpsed something frosty and unwelcoming. Because the meeting was held off the record, without notes being taken, the official version is unclear but US officials later described the exchanges as being strained and candid diplomatic language for a failure to reach common cause. In public, the line was that the US President expressed his concerns over Russias commitment to universal principles of democracy, while Putin promised that any return to totalitarianism would be impossible. Bush smiled when he promised the talks had been constructive, but Putins expression said the exact opposite. No wonder the White House was keen to play down suggestions that Bushs European jaunt had been railroaded by Putins obduracy. This was supposed to be the big finale after the kiss-and-make-up fest with France and Germany. Instead, Bush left Bratislava with more worries than solutions. From the outset, the problems were written into the unofficial agenda which drove the meeting. Democracy might have been the lead item, with Bush keen to encourage Russia to renew its commitment to democracy and the rule of law but that was just the showcase. Putin does not take kindly to being lectured on the subject, but that was not his only beef. While there are problems with the democratic process in Russia the abolition of the right to elect provincial governors has raised hackles Putin feels more aggrieved by other damaging aspects of his relationship with the US. For a start, there was his inability to prevent the US coalitions invasion of Iraq. He still deeply resents the continuing occupation. Then there is Iran. Bush wants Russia to toe the line that Irans nuclear ambitions are a threat but Putin believes otherwise, and would like to encourage the Iranians to use Russian technology to build a new atomic power plant. By the same token Bush was keen to talk up Syria as a pariah, whereas Putin can see no good reason why he should not supply President Bashar Assad with Strelets anti-aircraft missiles. Bush warned that they could fall into the hands of terrorists. Putin countered that they were essential for the defence of a friendly country keen to play a role in world affairs. Chechnya was also high on the agenda, and again there was disagreement. After 9/11 Bush was minded to give the Russians a free hand in suppressing Chechen opposition as part of the wider war on terror. But now he wants to see the mailed fist being replaced by negotiation to prevent further bloodshed in the secessionist province. Although these topics were awkward they paled when the subject closest to Putins heart was introduced the countries on Russias borders which used to be part of the Soviet Union. Putin had to grit his teeth while the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia swam into the orbit of Nato and the European Union. He was offered full consultation, but it still rankles that the North Atlantic alliance is parked in Russias backyard. Now that Ukraine is seeking closer links with the West in the wake of President Yushchenkos election victory, it seems to many Russian strategists that their country is being encircled. Putin resents that fact but knows he is too dependent on the West to reject the hand of friendship. His wan smile at the end of the Bratislava summit suggests that there is still a lot of soul-searching to be done. 27 February 2005 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 28 ITAR-TASS: Sweden allocated $6 mln for nuclear security coop with Russia 27.02.2005, 02.55 STOCKHOLM, February 27 (Itar-Tass) - The Swedish government has allocated 40 million crowns (nearly $6 million) for developing nuclear security cooperation with Russia in 2005. Official sources in Stockholm reported on Saturday that the cooperation embraced four main areas: the security of nuclear reactors, the utilization of nuclear waste, protection from radiation and readiness to emergency situations. Part of the funds will be spent on strengthening nuclear security at the Russian nuclear power stations in Sosnovy Bor and the Kola Peninsula. Various options for recycling spent nuclear fuel will be tested in the vicinity of Andreyev Bay. This and other projects are implemented jointly with the European Union and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 29 Guardian Unlimited: Blair rejects calls to publish war advice Matthew Tempest and agencies Friday February 25, 2005 Tony Blair today angrily rejected repeated calls for the government's legal advice on the Iraq war to be published in full, after a member of Lord Butler's inquiry broke ranks to demand the document be aired. Michael Mates, the Tory member of the inquiry which looked into intelligence failures before the war, said it was now "incumbent" on Mr Blair to make public the legal advice from the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith. But, at his monthly press conference in Downing Street this morning, a seemingly testy Mr Blair dismissed suggestions he should reveal the documents and also rejected the argument that the government had now set a precedent by releasing Lord Falconer's legal advice on the status of the Prince of Wales's wedding. He told reporters: "Firstly, we haven't broken the precedent, and, secondly, Peter Goldsmith has made his statement and I have got absolutely nothing to add to it. "He has been over these questions literally scores of times and the position has not changed." Asked whether a March 17 parliamentary statement presented by ministers as Lord Goldsmith's legal "opinion" truly reflected the attorney general's views, Mr Blair responded: "That's what he said and that's what I say. He has dealt with this time and time and time again." When a journalist attempted to pursue the line of questioning, Mr Blair snapped: "I've answered your question, that's enough." Mr Mates told BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning: "[Confidentiality] is not an absolute rule. We discovered that there were two or three occasions in the past when law officers' advice to the government has been published. "And this may be one of those special occasions, as some people are pressing, when it would be in the public interest to see the advice which the attorney general gave to the prime minister, which was the basis upon which the prime minister decided we were going to go into Iraq." Mr Mates said that the government's arguments for confidentiality were undermined by its own actions over the prince's wedding. "If no wrong was done over this bit of advice (the Iraq advice) either ... then I believe it is incumbent upon the government to again make an exception and publish that advice." Mr Mates added: "What I do think is remarkable is that of the 23 or 24 meetings of the cabinet between September 2002 and January 2003 at which Iraq was on the agenda, the attorney general was only present at two. "That seems to me to be quite extraordinary, because they were all asking about the legality of the advice, and the government's legal adviser simply wasn't there." The former international development secretary Clare Short last night demanded a parliamentary investigation into the advice, following reports that the summary presented to parliament may not actually have been written by the attorney general himself. The Guardian, drawing on transcripts of Lord Goldsmith's private evidence to the Butler inquiry into the run-up to the war, has suggested that he warned Mr Blair less than two weeks before the March 2003 invasion that military action could be deemed illegal. However, he then met the lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, then a Home Office minister, and the PM's director of political relations, Baroness Morgan, in 10 Downing Street on March 13. Lord Goldsmith reportedly told Butler that in the March 17 statement "they shortly set out my view". Lord Goldsmith has previously denied suggestions that the statement did not accurately reflect his full advice. He told the Press Association: "As I have made clear publicly before, it was my genuine and independent view that action was lawful under existing security council resolutions. "The parliamentary statement was genuinely my own view and I was not leaned on to give that view. It is nonsense to suggest that No 10 wrote the statement." But Ms Short - who quit the cabinet after the Iraq war - last night told the BBC: "It says in the ministerial code that if any advice from the law officers is summarised when it comes to cabinet the full advice should be attached. "My view is we need the House of Lords to set up a special committee, summon the attorney, get all the papers out, look at exactly what happened." politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 30 STUFF: Nuclear option rears its head New Zealand's leading news and information website 27 February 2005 BY GARRY SHEERAN Taboo Enery source nuclear power will be on the table at a high-powered conference in Auckland this week when industry big-wigs weigh the country's options facing into an energy crisis. Australia-based organisers of the annual National Power NZ conference said nuclear power was included in the agenda after requests from New Zealand participants at previous conferences for a more international focus. "We realise nuclear power is a hot potato, but if all energy options are to be considered, then it should be too," said conference organiser James Matthews from Sydney. The inclusion of the nuclear option is likely to prove an embarrassment to politicians attending the conference. Energy Minister Trevor Mallard said the government was committed to keeping New Zealand nuclear-free. "This includes a policy of no nuclear power stations," he said. The country's 20-year-old anti-nuclear legislation was still on the books, and made no distinction between nuclear weapons and nuclear power. National Party leader Don Brash said New Zealand had a lot of potential energy sources in water, wind, and especially coal. "So we don't see any need to talk about nuclear for the foreseeable future," he said. However, some top energy industry leaders are not so opposed. Stephen Barrett, chief executive of Contact Energy, the country's largest energy generator and retailer, said he was not surprised to see nuclear power being debated in New Zealand. "As I make presentations to investment analysts and retail investors, the question of nuclear power as an option for New Zealand has been raised many times," he said. He also said interest had been renewed, with many other countries revisiting the nuclear option as economies around the world sought energy sources that emitted low amounts of greenhouse gases and ensured security of supply. Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy supply option that is carbon emission-free. In the days before the nuclear-armed warship ban in the mid-'80s, nuclear power was being actively touted for New Zealand. The former NZ Electricity Department saw it as a real option, and one plan called for a massive 1000MW station on a site near Northland's Kaipara Harbour. A 1976 Royal Commission of Inquiry concluded the chances of New Zealand needing nuclear power for electricity generation "early in the new century are real indeed". "Nuclear power should be retained as an option for the future, with the possible commissioning date of 2005-2007 in mind," reported the commission. The need for an earlier introduction was mitigated by the discovery at that time of the Maui gas field, now near the end of its life. Only a few years ago, nuclear power was proving a global dinosaur technology. After the disasters of Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island in the '80s, no new nuclear reactor had been ordered in the US for 25 years. And while China, India and Japan were building new ones, the number of new reactors being built barely matched those being retired. But an apparent reprieve has been fired by growing anxiety about global warming. The presentation on nuclear power as an energy source for New Zealand will be made at the Hilton Hotel-based conference by the World Nuclear Association, based in Britain. On its website, the association quotes respected UK environmentalist James Lovelock as a controversial advocate of nuclear power as a band-aid while alternative energy sources are found. Lovelock, who originated the Gaia hypothesis of the earth's biosphere as a self-regulating entity, says the dangers of nuclear are trivial compared with the dangers of allowing global warming to happen. Barrett said: "There are several issues that New Zealand would have to address and overcome, first and foremost the strong public sentiment against things nuclear." He also said nuclear power stations being built overseas were usually above 600MW in size, compared with the largest units in New Zealand of around 350MW. "It would be extremely difficult to integrate a station of that size into the New Zealand system," said Barrett. "But around the world energy is getting more expensive, and people everywhere are less interested in damming waterways and putting wind turbines on ridges." He did not see nuclear power as part of a short-term answer to New Zealand's looming energy gap in the wake of the closedown on the giant Maui gas field. "But we need to be informed and keep an open mind on all opportunities," he said. Genesis Power boss Murray Jackson said he believed a 500MW base-load nuclear plant could integrate on the grid by 2010. Genesis was building a 400MW high-efficiency gas turbine, and there were other similar-sized plants planned. "My concern would be that the cost of regulation and controls necessary for managing a nuclear power station would outweigh the cost of running the rest of the power industry," he said. Jackson didn't see nuclear power stations fitting into either the New Zealand of Australian economies. "They are expensive, and the overheads are high. The Aussies are right: we need to scrub coal cleaner and both countries have huge deposits of coal." Business Roundtable chief executive Roger Kerr said power prices may have to rise significantly before nuclear power became a commercial option for New Zealand. "But why put your head in the sand and pretend it is not an option not to be considered?" he said. No one could be sure just how high electricity prices would rise as the world headed into a potential energy crisis. Amid farmer anger over Transpower's plans to string 400kV lines on pylons up the central North Island to bring electricity to Auckland, Federated Farmers vice-president Charlie Pedersen last week called for a reconsideration on nuclear power. Energy consultant Tim Denne said the need for the lines would be reduced if Mighty River Power was successful in winning consents for plans to build a coal-fired power station at the Marsden B site near Whangarei. But people protesting burning coal in Whangarei would be even more opposed to building nuclear power stations whose radioactive waste was an intractable and unsolved problem. At last year's power conference, Meridian announced it was dropping its Aqua project to dam the lower Waitaki to provide more hydro-sourced electricity. Part of the reason was the difficult consent process. This year Meridian is ringing alarm bells over plans to reallocate water rights in the Upper Waitaki, which may lessen its ability to produce electricity from existing power stations. Tim Bedde, of economic and energy consultancy Civec, said: "Big new hydro stations are now off, we are losing access to existing hydro capacity, we don't like coal, we are running out of gas." "We certainly have some big issues out there." He said there were still plenty of opportunities to produce electricity from renewables like wind, and even water, but big questions remained about whether that would be enough. "That is why the nuclear option is back on the table." ***************************************************************** 31 Guardian Unlimited: Roy Hattersley: It's time for us to give up the nukes Comment The deterrent is out of date, and the money could be better spent Roy Hattersley Monday February 28, 2005 The Guardian The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament enjoys a special place in modern history. No other recent protest movement has been proved so conclusively - diametrically, demonstrably - wrong. Not so long ago, its members made regular predictions that Armageddon would soon follow the Soviet early-warning system mistaking a flock of geese for a cruise missile, or a crazy American general pressing the doomsday button just to see if it worked. Their righteousness was beyond dispute but their judgment was hopeless The deterrent deterred. It kept Europe at peace - or at least free from a major war - for half a century. What the marchers on the road to Aldermaston called "the balance of terror" held the power blocs apart. It meant that the west could not go to the assistance of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but it also ensured that west Berlin and Austria remained free from Soviet imperialism. The world has moved on. But one element in the old strategic equation remains. It was absurd for Britain to waste money on what Harold Wilson called "the so-called British, so-called independent nuclear deterrent". It still is. Fifty years ago, we should have limited our role in the alliance to providing convenient bases for our American allies. Now we should abandon the nuclear weapons business altogether. It was Clement Attlee - normally a man of indomitable common sense - who hung the nuclear millstone round the nation's neck. It was the one foolish decision of his premiership, made all the more painful for his admirers because of the reasons by which it was justified. He believed that, without an atom bomb of its own, Britain would not be a major world power. The French felt the same and were happy to admit it. Attlee at least had the grace to feel guilty. He kept his nuclear aspirations from most of the cabinet for almost nine months and hid the cost of the programme in the government estimates. No one seriously imagined that the British bomb - or the British missile warhead into which it evolved - could ever be used without US agreement. In recent years, it has not even been possible to deploy it without American assistance. "Targeting" is a mutual enterprise. What is the target now? The defence establishment declines to provide an answer. The stock answer to all questions about our nuclear future is: "Decisions about the deterrents will be taken during the lifetime of the next parliament." A codicil usually follows. Nothing is ruled out. Something ought to be. It would be absurd to spend money that is desperately needed for other government enterprises on "upgrading" and "hardening" the missile system so that it can be used, as it always must be, in conjunction with the US. The deterrent is out of date. Deterrence is dependent on potential enemies playing a sophisticated game with each other. At the height of the cold war, Moscow, Washington and London (and, no doubt, Paris) spent huge sums and employed mighty intellects in making judgments about conflicting intentions. I recall a discussion in the Ministry of Defence, almost 40 years ago, which examined the question: "If Soviet conventional forces moved into West Germany, and Nato exploded a tactical nuclear device in an uninhabited part of Russia, would the Kremlin regard that as a sign that massive retaliation would follow, or as proof that we flinched from using our strategic weapons?" It may be that similar games are being played in Delhi and Islamabad. But I doubt if either Iran or North Korea is likely to spend much time on similar exercises. It is those so-called rogue states from which we now feel in danger. In the bad old days, when we feared aggression from the Soviet Union, we possessed a nuclear weapon so that we would never have to use it - or go to war with almost equally lethal conventional weapons. That was the point that CND could never understand. In the modern world, where deterrence is impossible, the only reason to keep nuclear weapons is the genuine belief that one day they might be used. They are not going to stop a man with a suitcase full of ricin wiping out Greater London. Obliterating the country from which he came will provide little consolation. The next (Labour) government will be bright enough to accept the strategic logic of abandoning the "so-called independent" nuclear weapon. But it may regard a return to reliance on conventional forces as the global equivalent of being relegated from the Premiership into the Coca-Cola League. The idea that military might is proof of national greatness is an outdated notion that a radical and reforming government should dismiss with a combination of derision and contempt. In the meantime, there might be a case for resurrecting the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. During the next two or three years it would actually have something sensible to say. comment@guardian.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 32 AP Wire: State regulators signal approval of improvements to nuclear plant | 02/26/2005 | Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO - State regulators have cleared the way for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to charge its customers $706 million to renovate the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. PG&E wants to replace eight steam generators at the San Luis Obispo-area plant. But the plan has drawn fire from environmentalists and consumer advocates, who question spending hundreds of millions on a $5.8 billion facility just 20 years old. On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission unanimously agreed that PG&E's customers will probably be responsible for the costs of the work. The bill could run as high as $815 million if PG&E can convince commissioners that added charges are necessary. Commissioners did not vote on the proposed renovations themselves and probably won't until a full environmental review of the project is completed later this year. But PUC President Michael Peevey praised the plant for generating power without releasing climate-changing gases into the atmosphere. Diablo Canyon's critics said the commission had shown it was willing to move forward with the renovations despite having no environmental review. "Sounds like a go-ahead to me," said Jane Swanson, a spokeswoman for the Mothers for Peace. The utility has already signed a $209 million contract with Westinghouse to replace the plant's generators. Without replacements, PG&E would have to close the plant in 2013 or 2014, company spokesman Jeff Lewis said. That would force the utility to find 2,260 megawatts of substitute energy elsewhere, or roughly 20 percent of the power PG&E delivers to customers. The Diablo Canyon plant has been controversial throughout its life. It lies 2 1/2 miles from an earthquake fault, and its cooling water has been blamed for harming local sea life. More recently, some residents have started to view it as a tempting target for terrorists. ***************************************************************** 33 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo repair steams ahead | 02/26/2005 | PG&E secures a tentative go-ahead for $700 million project, which would allow the nuclear plant to keep operating after 2014; final OK is expected in 6 months David Sneed The Tribune The California Public Utilities Commission has given tentative approval for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to spend more than $700 million to replace aging steam generators at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The project will allow the plant to continue to operate after 2014. Electricity customers will see rate increases starting in 2009 to pay for the replacement project. Several environmental groups oppose the project, which received interim approval from the commission at a meeting in San Francisco on Thursday. Final approval is expected in about six months after an environmental review of the project is completed. The commission determined that the project is cost-effective because it would cost an additional $333 million to replace the power produced at Diablo Canyon with other sources. It also concluded that the estimated price of $706 million is reasonable. The utility is allowed to spend as much as $815 million on the replacements, which would be made during refueling shutdowns in 2008 and 2009. The steam generators are a major component of the nuclear plant. They transfer heat generated by the nuclear reactors to the part of the power plant that generates electricity. The plant has eight steam generators, and all will have to be replaced eventually. Some of the small tubes that transfer the heat have begun to crack and deteriorate and have been plugged to prevent the nuclear parts of the plant from contaminating the non-nuclear parts. Eventually, enough of the tubes will be plugged that the plant can no longer operate. The plant would have to shut down in 2014 if the generators are not replaced. PG&E will recover the cost of the replacements through rate increases starting in 2009 or 2010. Five environmental groups are opposing the replacement project. They argue that the commission underestimated the cost of the replacement project by 10 to 20 percent. They also believe it was illegal for the Public Utilities Commission to issue any kind of a decision before reviewing the environmental documents. Environmentalists want the more than $700 million spent on replacing Diablo Canyon's power with renewable sources. They also point out that the steam generators will allow PG&E to apply to renew the operating licenses of the plant for 20-year extensions in 2023 and 2025. Extending the operating life of the plant will mean that even more highly radioactive waste will likely be stored in an above-ground facility behind the plant. Environmentalists as well as several state elected officials have raised questions about how secure the plant and the storage facility are against earthquakes and terrorist attacks. ***************************************************************** 34 Xinhua: Delayed agreement signing affects Iran's nuclear plant www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-02-27 06:24:13 by Zhang Shengping, Chen Wendi TEHRAN, Feb. 26 (Xinhuanet) -- The delayed signing between Iran andRussia of a key nuclear fuel agreement on Saturday has cast shadowon the launch of Iran's first nuclear plant, which has already beenpostponed. Alexander Rumyantsev, head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, arrived Friday in Tehran on a credibly purported mission to sign the important agreement on nuclear fuel supply to Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant. Bushehr plant is being built now with Russia's aid on a Persian Gulf island in the southern province of Bushehr. The United States, accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons secretly, has pressured Moscow to abandon the project. In order to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons with spent fuel, Russia conditions delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran on anagreement signed between the two sides assuring all spent fuel would be returned to Russia. Iran at first refused the request, and then softened its stance. However, repeated failures in reaching an accord on details of the return delayed the agreement of delivery and then the operation of the plant. Rumyantsev's visit, from the day it was made public, raised Iran's hope that the last obstacle to the launch of the Bushehrplant would soon be removed and the plant would be on stream in the near future. It was previously said that the agreement would be signed after Rumyantsev and his Iranian counterpart Gholamreza Aghazadeh held discussions on Saturday morning. However, a spokesman of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization(IAEO) said at noon that the deal had not been signed and a news conference had been postponed. The spokesman did not specify the reason, but Mohammad Saeedi, vice president of the IAEO told the state television later that Iran had rejected Russia's proposal that the opening of the plant be delayed until June 2006. However, as early as last August, Asadollah Sabouri, also deputy head of the IAEO, announced that the Bushehr plant would become operational in October 2006. Saeedi, in an interview with the official IRNA news agency, said that the signing would be carried out on Sunday at the site of the plant. "The deal will be signed Sunday when top Russian nuclear official Alexander Rumyantsev inspects the Bushehr power plant," hesaid. "The issues are to be resolved Saturday night and the deal is to be signed Sunday in Bushehr," Saeedi said, urging Russia to show some flexibility during negotiations. Saeedi stressed that talks between Iranian and Russian officials were making headway and the two sides agreed to proceed with the second phase of Bushehr power plant. "Both sides underlined that the timing of the first phase of the power plant should be shortened and that the Iranian and Russian experts have to work overtime so that the power plant would become operational ahead of schedule," Saeedi said. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 MHTR: NRC to hold hearings in Mishicot on Point Beach plants Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter Posted Feb. 26, 2005 From staff reports TWO RIVERS — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct two public meetings on Thursday, in Mishicot, to receive public input on the environmental review related to an application to extend the operating licenses for the Point Beach 1 and 2 nuclear power plants. The meetings will be held in the Fox Hills Convention Center, 250 W. Church St., Mishicot. The first session will begin at 1:30 p.m. and continue until 4:30 p.m. The second session, identical to the first session, will be at 7 p.m. and continue until 10 p.m. The NRC will also host an open house, beginning one hour before the start of each meeting, to provide members of the public with an opportunity to talk informally with agency staff. However, formal comments must be expressed during the transcribed meetings. Both sessions will begin with an overview and a summary of the preliminary results of the environmental review. After the NRC presentation, members of the public will be given the opportunity to present their comments. The operating license for Point Beach 1 is due to expire on Oct. 5, 2010, while the license for Point Beach 2 is scheduled to terminate on March 8, 2013. Nuclear Management Co. submitted its license renewal application on Feb. 26, 2004. As part of its application, the company submitted an environmental report. A copy of the application is available via the NRC’s web site at: www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/poi nt-beach.html. In addition, the Point Beach license renewal documents are available for review at the Lester Public Library, 1001 Adams St., Two Rivers. Those wishing to speak at the meetings are encouraged to pre-register by contacting Stacey Imboden at 1-800-368-5642, ext. 2462, or by e-mail at PointBeachEIS@nrc.gov no later than Tuesday. Interested parties may also register to speak before the start of the meeting. Written comments will also be considered by the NRC. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Mail Stop T-6 D 59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to PointBeachEIS@nrc.gov. ***************************************************************** 36 [DU-WATCH] UK Gulf veterans seeking justice "pre-election Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:08:21 -0600 (CST) GULF VETERANS SEEKING JUSTICE PRE-ELECTION SPEAKING TOUR OF UK Gulf Veteran and outspoken activist against the government cover-up over Gulf War syndrome and Depleted Uranium are undertaking a national "pre-election" speaking tour. The aim of the tour is to present the true picture of causalities from gulf war one, the many service personnel who have died or who are now very ill due to the weapons and injections they were exposed to while serving. He will also illustrate how this government denial of "casualties" has carried on into Gulf war 2, with many soldiers in the US, now returning with similar symptoms to their Gulf 1 predecessors, some already dieing once on home soil. Tony is a knowledgeable speaker, divulging new data on civilian casualty figures in Iraq, showing the true affect of WIE (weapons of indiscriminate effect) such as Depleted uranium, upon civilian and veteran off-spring alike. This is a chance before the elections for the country to know fully what Blair has done for veterans - absolutely nothing - and the legacy of radiological poisoning which it has left upon Iraq, its neighbouring countries, and the many troops that it still naively sends into contaminated areas. Tony Flints biog is below and his contact address Many thanks Davey Garland Pandora Depleted Uranium Research Project (thunderelf@yahoo.co.uk) Dear Friends I was a regular reservist who was called up for the gulf war in 1991, being part of the Royal Army medical corp, my job being to council battle shock casualties. I served in the gulf from january to mid march 1991. From late december until late January, i had a total of 13 vaccinations, some of which were not licenced to be used in the UK, this simiilarly applied to anti-nerve agent tablets which we had to take. On returning from the gulf, my wife cold see taht i was ill but it was not until april 1994, when i had a compleat medical and mental breakdown, and have not been able to work since. My time is now spent when i am well enough helping other veterans and giving talks in public to make them aware of what is going on in the 1st/2nd gulf wars, plus the effects upon the local populations in Iraq and Kuwait due to depleted uranium etc. Regards Tony Flint (A veteran seeking justice) For those who would like me to talk, then i can be emailed at: tonymedic@msn.com --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! [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/ ***************************************************************** 37 Bradenton Herald: March to bring free beryllium tests | 02/26/2005 | DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer The next round of free beryllium tests for residents and family members of former workers is set to begin in March, state officials announced Tuesday. A $50,000 federal grant will cover blood tests for 200 people to determine if their past exposure to beryllium dust has led to an allergic reaction that could turn into a serious lung disease. Former workers, their family and household members as well as residents living near the now defunct Loral American Beryllium Co. in Tallevast may have been exposed to the toxic dust. A $60,000 grant from Manatee County provided tests for 241 individuals in December and January. Blood draws for county tests were provided by Manatee County Health Department. This time around, Sarasota County Health Department will be drawing the blood for shipment to the lab. State officials did not announce which Sarasota clinic would do the blood draws. Earlier this week Tallevast leaders asked that the testing be moved back to Manatee County. Laura Ward, president of Family Oriented Community United and Strong (FOCUS), which represents Tallevast residents, said moving the testing to Sarasota was unfair to the historic community. Traveling to Sarasota was inconvenient for residents, Ward said. Lack of trust in Sarasota officials was also a factor, she added. Randy Merchant, environmental administrator for the state health department, told Ward that Sarasota volunteered to do the testing. Merchant was in town Wednesday to update FOCUS leaders on the state's yearlong assessment of health risks stemming from chemical spills traced back to American Beryllium. Merchant said Manatee County health officials needed some relief because resources were stretched thin by the recent rounds of tests. Dr. Gladys Branic agreed with the move to Sarasota. Federal funding allows the tests to be offered to people outside of Manatee County, Branic said. "Manatee County Health Department has gone above the call of duty," Branic said. "We were happy to help out in this important effort, but Sarasota should be allowed to provide the assistance that they offered." Former workers employed during the years that American Beryllium had contracts with the Department of Energy - 1968, and from 1980 to 1989 - are eligible for DOE's free screening program. DOE will be contacting former workers in the next few weeks, state officials said. Terry Owen, the last union president at American Beryllium, hopes that the Sarasota-based screening program can provide tests for former workers not covered under the DOE program. Hodges could not confirm Friday who would be covering tests for those workers ineligible for the DOE program. Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com. Testing eligibility Anyone who was a household member of former American Beryllium worker from 1961 to 1996 or who lived within a half a mile of the facility is eligible for the testing program. All participants must be at least 12 years old. Tests are free. To schedule an appointment for the test call Mary Ellen Thornton at Sarasota County Health Department at 861-6092. ***************************************************************** 38 Las Vegas RJ: ATOMIC TESTING MUSEUM: Downwinders feel left out Saturday, February 26, 2005 Some feel history of nuclear test program downplays risks of 'unexpected fallout' By RICHARD LAKE REVIEW-JOURNAL Spectators at the Atomic Testing Museum watch a video about the history of nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site on Friday. Photo by Gary Thompson. Civilians who unwittingly became test subjects in the United States' nuclear weapons program are complaining that they're being ignored by the new Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas. "America bombed its own citizens and lied about it," said Preston Truman, director of the Downwinders. The group's several hundred members lived in towns near the Nevada Test Site in the years that above-ground nuclear tests were conducted there, the 1950s and early 1960s. After years of development, a museum noting the history of the test site and nuclear weapons opened Sunday at Desert Research Institute on East Flamingo Road. It is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution. "Throughout the history of the museum, we have not been included at all," Truman said. That is not so, said Bill Johnson, the museum's director. "Without even seeing this, they're afraid it's a celebration of the bomb," he said. "It's not a celebration of the bomb. It's an incredibly important part of our history." He pointed to exhibits in the museum that specifically address fallout and the problems it caused. One, a small video screen that plays a short movie, notes that testing in the Pacific Ocean caused "unexpected fallout" and ended up contaminating an entire boat full of Japanese fishermen. Static displays point out that fallout dispersed farther than expected during some tests, including into St. George, Utah. The museum's centerpiece, the Ground Zero Theater, plays a video on a large screen that simulates an atomic blast. Viewers are shown pictures of people watching the blasts with little protection, other than special goggles. "I'll bet you these people died of cancer," one viewer commented during a presentation Friday. The video includes comments from test site workers and critics, including Dina Titus, a professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, the state Senate's minority leader, and a member of the museum's board of directors. She has been a critic of nuclear testing. "I don't doubt that the test site contributed to the end of the Cold War and kept us out of some kind of hot war with the Soviet Union. I will concede that," Titus says in the video. "But I will certainly not say that it's worth the price of contaminating or radiating people who worked at the test site or lived downwind of the test site or worked at other nuclear facilities." The Downwinders, who lived in Nevada, Utah, Arizona or other nearby states when the nuclear tests were conducted, fought for years to be compensated for the ill effects they said the testing had on their health. Some have suffered from cancer and even died from it. They won that fight, and some are eligible for as much as $50,000 each from the federal government. But, said Truman, they're still not getting the respect they deserve. A large part of the museum should be dedicated to the Downwinders, not just a mention in a few exhibits, he said. "Let's have both sides of it," he said. "The good and the bad." Johnson, the museum director, conceded the Downwinders may have a point that more space should be dedicated to them. "It's not enough for them," he said. "This is a huge issue for them. ... Maybe we will do that someday." Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 39 Herald-Tribune: Insidious beryllium Sunday, February 27, 2005 Threat to OSHA inspectors should be monitored in Manatee For years, federal inspectors visited a now-defunct weapons plant in Manatee County and hundreds like it around the nation. Their goal was to protect the health of the people who worked there. Now some of those same inspectors are worried that their health is at risk, too. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently began testing an estimated 1,000 inspectors who visited facilities like the American Beryllium Co. plant in Tallevast, a neighborhood off U.S. 301 near the Manatee-Sarasota county line. In recent months, the Chicago Tribune has published a series of stories calling attention to concerns raised by OSHA inspectors about their exposure to beryllium, a toxic metal used for decades by defense and aerospace contractors. The newspaper reported last month that at least three OSHA employees have tested positive for blood abnormalities indicative of beryllium-related illnesses. The results of additional tests -- about 250 so far -- have not been released. The OSHA cases should be monitored closely in Manatee because, according to the Tribune, "workers with seemingly incidental exposure have been affected, including secretaries in beryllium processing plants." The report heightens concerns that even workers, family members and neighbors who didn't handle beryllium directly could be at risk. Federal officials recently agreed to pay for medical screenings for former employees of the Tallevast plant and others like it. But it's becoming increasingly clear that the government's responsibilities, morally and financially, are far from complete. Last modified: February 26. 2005 12:00AM heraldtribune.com Sarasota Herald-Tribune. All rights reserved. Initializing : 78ms ***************************************************************** 40 SouthBendTribune.com: Sub's demise detailed February 27, 2005 BOOKS: NONFICTION By NORMAN N. BROWN For AP Weekly Features Cry From the Deep: The Submarine That Riveted the World and Put the New Russia to the Ultimate Test Ramsey Flynn HarperCollins $25.95 In "Cry From the Deep," 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. 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 to the 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. ***************************************************************** 41 Daily Telegram: Health claims in limbo -- Workers at two plants are trying to get compensation for health problems. By Dennis Pelham -- Daily Telegram Staff Writer ADRIAN -- Former workers at two Adrian manufacturing plants where nuclear weapons components were made in the 1950s are striking out so far in compensation claims for health problems. None of 142 claims involving 100 former employees of Bridgeport Brass and Gerity-Michigan Corp. have been approved and more than half have been denied. A federal program launched nearly four years ago offers a $150,000 lump sum payment in addition to medical benefits to workers or survivors of workers who became ill from exposure to radiation, beryllium or silica. The program included the former Bridgeport Brass plant that now houses Delphi Interiors and the former Gerity-Michigan Corp. plant, also East Beecher Street, that is now home to Dura Corp. From 1954 to 1961, uranium fuel elements used in nuclear weapons production were shaped in a large extrusion press at the Bridgeport Brass plant. Beryllium tubes and rods for nuclear weapons were manufactured at the Gerity-Michigan plant from 1949 through the 1950s. Claims involving 88 former Bridgeport Brass workers and 12 Gerity-Michigan workers have been filed so far with 48 cases being denied, according to the United States Department of Labor, which administers the compensation program. Only three claims involving Cold War-era defense work at Michigan plants have been approved and paid so far, according to Department of Labor reports. The results do not mean all claims involving the two plants in Adrian will be ruled out, according Department of Labor officials. The most common reason claims are denied is that medical conditions being reported are not covered by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, according to the Department of Labor. Conditions that are covered include radiation-induced cancers, chronic beryllium disease and chronic silicosis. Another common reason for denials is the employment did not coincide with the period when work was being done for the Department of Energy. Congress, however, recently amended the law governing the program to include benefits for employment during a period of residual contamination. Claims are being reviewed in light of that change. Documents available on the Department of Labor's Web site also indicate some applicants who worked at the two Adrian plants simply failed to document health conditions that could be covered. No local assistance has been available from the Department of Labor for people filing compensation claims. Changes in administration of the compensation program were begun in January after Congress amended the law last fall. The Department of Labor is moving swiftly to pay claims and benefits under the revised program, said U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. "These workers were harmed in service to our country, and compensation to them and their families is long overdue," Chao said. "We are working very hard to ensure that this program is up and running as quickly as possible and these workers receive the compensation they are due." More information on the program is available at the Department of Labor Web site at www.dol.gov. ***************************************************************** 42 PittsburghLIVE.com: The threat to rail - Sunday, February 27, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Almost a year ago, terrorists associated with al-Qaida placed 10 bombs on four separate commuter trains in Madrid, killing 191 people and wounding 1,500 others. David Stone, a chief in the Transportation Security Administration, told the U.S. Senate last week that the greatest risk to the United States is that a plane could be attacked or used to carry out an attack. The 9/11 commission, after many hours of hearing evidence, concluded that the risk of attack on surface transportation is as great or greater than that of any aircraft hijacking. As gamblers say, you pay your money and you make your choice. In the excitement of bureaucrats and politicians writing budgets, buying equipment, planning exercises and spending money, many of us truly wonder if we are as safe as we were more than three years ago. Yes, more than three years have passed since the attacks and we were supposed to take security seriously. It is time to start worrying because passengers on the railways are not under the same scrutiny as passengers on airlines. Every airport has its complement of bomb-sniffing dogs, TSA searchers and X-ray machine operators, troops with automatic weapons and police. And there are the passengers -- full of civic responsibility, patient, shoe- and belt-less, pockets empty -- waiting for the white gloves to grope. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., has been commuting by rail from Wilmington to Washington since he was elected in 1972. He claims the FBI has discovered evidence that al-Qaida has directly targeted our rail systems for conventional and chemical attacks. In the coming weeks Biden will attempt to force through security legislation for his preferred form of travel. There will be security upgrades, better lighting, more emergency access and exits, electronic surveillance and millions of dollars spent on tunnel security. And, there will be untold expenditure on training, dealing with unattended packages and educating passengers and staff alike on recognizing suspicious conduct. This, on top of recent moves to cut funding to Amtrak and the decision to curtail certain lines because of the lack of profitability. Let's not forget there are railway tracks running under Capitol Hill to Union Station in Washington. Anything that happened to a train carrying hazardous material or dangerous chemicals as it passed immediately would affect the Congress and the Supreme Court. What is amazing is that the District of Columbia City Council banned hazardous cargo shipments from that line after 9/11. They at once ran afoul of Interstate Commerce regulations and the Feds had the tunnel reopened to them. Every day trains carry 10 times as many passengers as the commercial airlines. Yet rail receives only about 1 percent of the security grant monies awarded to the aviation industry. Suddenly awakened to this threat, our senators are looking to spend $1.3 billion on rail security. Don't worry, it won't happen. But there will be more programs for the surveillance of facilities and closer monitoring of passengers. Sometimes, on the way to New York from Washington by train, passengers will be asked for proof of their identity. It was explained to one elderly lady by a conductor that he had not been told what to do if she either refused or could not provide a driver's license or passport. At the last election, Americans clearly demonstrated that they felt safer under a Republican president than John Kerry, the Democrat alternative. Many concerns are seen as Democrat ploys to change the Bush agenda and to embarrass Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who equates their chatter with sky-is-falling talk. Secretary Rumsfeld doubtless recalls that in September 1972, immediately following the Munich massacre of Olympic athletes by Palestinian gunmen, then-President Richard Nixon ordered the creation of the Cabinet-level committee to combat terrorism. Reading the minutes of that committee is reminiscent of reading a 2005 report on terrorist tactics. There was talk of threats to aircraft, trains and container traffic. There were alarms as to the storage and possible theft of nuclear and chemical materials. The committee discovered, 30 years ago, that the CIA was inadequate. It also discovered, in 1976, that our intelligence gathering groups were not sharing information. The group's influence, however, dissipated. There were changes in the presidency, bureaucratic turf battles were won and lost. Committee members retired; some died. No one listened then. Will they listen now? Dateline D.C. is written by a Washington-based British journalist and political observer. PittsburghLIVE. ***************************************************************** 43 SABCnews.com: Missing nuclear material concerns SA intelligence South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © February 27, 2005, 13:45 The National Intelligence Agency is concerned about missing weapons of mass destruction in Africa, the Sunday Times reported today. New NIA director-general Billy Masetha was said to be concerned about missing weapons-grade uranium from a nuclear enrichment programme run by the late Zaire dictator Mobutu Sese Seko. Masetha was also worried about a missing Stinger anti-aircraft missile given to Angolan rebels in the 1980s. Before taking up his position at the NIA, Masetha was co-chairman of the "Third Party Verification Mechanism for the DRC-Rwanda Peace Agreement", which advises President Thabo Mbeki on peace and democracy efforts in the Central African region. Mobutu, who ruled Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), developed a nuclear programme during the Cold War with the assistance of a "Western power", Masetha told the Sunday Times. Following the civil war in the DRC, it is unclear what has happened to the nuclear weapons. Masetha said the weapons could have ended up in the hands of terrorists or criminals. Two fuel rods went missing from a civilian reactor during the 1980s. One of them was recovered from the Sicilian mafia but the other is still missing. The Congo is a key source of uranium and according to the report supplied most of the uranium used to make the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. - Sapa ***************************************************************** 44 deseret news: High-level nuclear waste banned [deseretnews.com] Saturday, February 26, 2005 A bill banning higher-level nuclear waste from Utah was signed Friday by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. "It's good for the state of Utah," the governor said. "It's good from a health standpoint, a transportation standpoint, (and) it's good from an image standpoint, for travel and tourism." SB24, sponsored by Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, surfaced after the new owners of Envirocare of Utah withdrew the company's application to accept hotter B and C waste at its Tooele facility. Lawmakers had hesitated to approve banning hotter waste from the state while the application was still pending, fearing Envirocare would file suit. Once the company made its move, the Legislature acted quickly. Bramble and other senators who backed the ban attended the bill signing, including Sen. Patrice Arent, D-Murray, who had sponsored a separate bill banning the waste. © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 45 The Advertiser: SA Wasting away [27feb05] EIGHT months after the rejection of a national low-level radioactive waste dump near Woomera, South Australia still has no alternative site, leaving the material stored in the Adelaide metropolitan area and other locations about the state. Places such as the University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, on North Tce, will be required to keep the material until at least the end of the year. A proposal to store the low-level radioactive waste at Olympic Dam has stalled and may yet be rejected. The State Government's agreement, announced last July, to use a Western Mining Corporation consultant to review the management of low-level waste was never carried out. WMC officials have confirmed they have heard nothing since July, when the Government announced the Olympic Dam option. All states are now responsible for the storage of their own waste after the Rann Government's legal challenge to the proposed national repository. Environment Minister John Hill has confirmed the WMC arrangement had collapsed shortly after it was announced. In July he told Parliament: "After discussion with the South Australian Government, WMC has agreed . . . to extend the consultancy to consider the management of the state's low-level waste." But the agreement was scuttled when Mr Hill was advised by the Environment Protection Authority that "there are rules about how governments do those things". Mr Hill said Cabinet then decided to put the study out to tender. "As a result URS Australia (an environmental management company) will do a study on disposal of low-level waste as well as a study of where we find an interim store for our medium-level waste," he said. "There are now two options, one to do it at Olympic Dam and the other is Radium Hill." Radium Hill is an abandoned mine near the Barrier Highway, 167km northeast of Peterborough. A 2002 audit of radioactive material in SA advised against it. "The site is not engineered to a standard consistent with current internationally accepted practice," the EPA report said. Mr Hill said about two cubic metres of medium-level waste was stored at various industrial sites, hospitals and universities (as shown in map, right). A further 20 cubic metres of low-level waste was stored at similar locations in Adelaide. The URS report was not expected until the end of the year. The original WMC internal review the Government had hoped to join was carried out by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and finished in November. ANSTO spokesman Steve MacIntosh said the review did not cover storage of state waste. "The issue was the subject of some informal discussion but we weren't asked to provide formal advice," he said. WMC spokesman Richard Yeeles said the company was happy to set the study in motion but in December the Government backed out. "We haven't heard from anyone since." he said. © Advertiser Newspapers Pty Limited ***************************************************************** 46 Green Guide: Just Ask (Perchlorate) Green Guide 106 | January/February 2005 Just Ask by Joanna Howard Q: I recently read that most milk in northern California contains perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel. Do you know anything about this? Mia Laurence, Fairfax, California Perchlorate, the primary ingredient in rocket fuel, can pose risks of thyroid disorders, particularly for infants and developing fetuses. Perchlorate has been found in drinking water in 22 states and in samples of milk from northern and southern California. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), half of 32 samples of northern California milk tested by the state's agriculture department contained perchlorate levels deemed unsafe in drinking water. Dairy cows have absorbed perchlorate from alfalfa grown with contaminated water from the Colorado River. Concern first arose in 1998 when the Quechan tribe of Yuma, Arizona, found perchlorate in lettuce crops irrigated with water from the river, which feeds as much as 1.4 million acres of farmland and provides drinking water for Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas and other western cities. The source for the Colorado's contamination is believed to be a now-closed Kerr-Mcgee defense plant near Las Vegas. But perchlorate also has been found in drinking water in areas across the country, from Kansas to New York City. In Tewksbury, Massachusetts, residents have been told not to drink the water due to contamination by trace amounts. In a recent study, the Pentagon found the chemical on 14 soon-to-be-closed military bases nationwide. Perchlorate in milk and produce is just beginning to be tested for by the FDA. "Getting milk tested may be more difficult because it is a complex biological fluid and the testing lab must have experience," notes Annie Jarabek, a special assistant at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment. In the meantime, a recent study funded by the EWG turned up what researchers called "significant levels" of perchlorate in the urine of dairy cattle in Texas and Kansas. What You Can Do *To find out if there's perchlorate in your water, check your water utility report, go to www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htmor see www.thegreenguide.com/doc.mhtml?i=101&s=threesteps. *The EPA advises that pregnant women, parents of young children and people with thyroid or immune-system problems ask their doctors about safe consumption of liquids, including water (and, presumably, milk). For more information, check these resources: www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/index.php FDA questions and answers on perchlorate: vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/clo4qa.html Water filter product report RELATED Reducing Dioxin in Milk by Molly Rauch, M.P.H. Selecting the Safest Meat The Green Guide Institute. ***************************************************************** 47 Albuquerque Tribune: Report: Ex-workers had access to Los Alamos By By Peter Barnes / The Associated Press February 26, 2005 Employees who quit jobs at Los Alamos National Laboratory regularly failed to turn in security badges and complete other measures to ensure they no longer had access to classified information or nuclear material, according to a report. The Department of Energy Inspector General began investigating last year after concerns that disks and other lab property containing secret information might have been going home with departing employees. The investigation found that the lab did not follow correct termination procedures for more than 40 percent of 305 former employees sampled over a two-year period. The report released Friday stated that lab policies at the time didn't ensure that former employees "had their security clearances and access authorizations to classified matter and/or special nuclear material terminated in a timely matter." Neglected steps in dismissals and retirements included security briefings and accounting for lab property. While the investigation was going on, the lab was already reviewing its personnel policies, lab spokesman James Rickman said Friday. "Essentially, the laboratory was aware of weaknesses in its outprocessing procedures in early 2003," he said. In December, the lab changed the way people leave their jobs, which Rickman said has resulted in nearly complete compliance with security policies. The new policies, such as making termination procedures the responsibility of a manager rather than the employee, have not been around long enough to evaluate, the report said. Before the changes, employees leaving the lab were responsible for turning in badges and making sure they no longer had clearance. Ten percent of the 1,668 employees who left between Jan. 1, 2002, and Feb. 25, 2004, didn't turn in their badges, according to the report. Of those, 44 had badges that allowed access to secret information and nuclear material, and some of the badges allowed access to other DOE sites, the report said. Both Rickman and the report noted that no nuclear material, lab equipment or sensitive information has gone unaccounted for because of retired employees. ***************************************************************** 48 Richardson: Feds must save lab benefits, pensions The Associated Press February 26, 2005 Gov. Bill Richardson voiced concern Friday about changes made by federal officials to a draft request for proposals regarding contract competition for Los Alamos National Laboratory. Richardson, a former congressman and energy secretary, said sustaining the benefits and pensions of workers at one of the nation's premier nuclear-weapons laboratories is a critical issue for lab employees and the rest of New Mexico. "The men and women of Los Alamos national lab have made a great contribution to our nation's security at home and abroad. This competition should in no way harm them," Richardson said in a statement. The contract to manage Los Alamos is up for bid for the first time in the lab's 60-year-plus history. Los Alamos has been managed by the University of California since the lab's inception as a top-secret World War II project to develop the atomic bomb. However, the Energy Department decided to put the contract up for bid after a series of management failures and security problems. The impact of a potential switch in lab managers on employee benefits has been a source of concern within the lab and among state leaders and the congressional delegation. The National Nuclear Security Administration's Source Evaluation Board announced changes to the request for proposals -- some dealing with pension and retirement issues -- last week. The evaluation board ensured the winner of the contract would have to provide a total compensation package for all employees that is "substantially equivalent" to the benefits and pensions provided by the current contract with the University of California. Workers would be able to transfer their accrued service credit and leave balances with the new lab manager, according to the board. Richardson said the pension plan offered by UC is a key part of the university's ability to attract and retain top scientists and other employees. "This competition is about ensuring what is best for the nation and the laboratory, not just about ensuring competition for competition's sake," he said. The board will accept comments from potential bidders through March 4. The government plans to select a contractor this summer to begin work Oct. 1. Copyright 2004 Santa Fe New Mexican ***************************************************************** 49 New Mexican: Report: UC overpaid to run labs February 26, 2005 By the end of September, the federal government will have paid $30 million more than necessary over five years for the University of California to operate three national laboratories, according to a recent audit report from the Department of Energy's inspector general. "These funds could have been used to expand the scientific programs of the laboratories or to address other pressing ... needs," the report states. Recouping the money might not be easy. For one thing, the federal government signed a contract that allowed UC to get reimbursed for academic-related expenses, such as student recruitment, faculty home loans and university capital projects. "Reimbursement of such expenses is prohibited under federal cost principles," according to the audit. If the contract had been written to exclude such items, DOE could have saved about $8 million over the five-year contract period, according to the audit. But as it was written, UC is getting more than its fair share of federal reimbursements for office expenses, the audit said. The University of California operates Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley laboratories. The Office of the Vice President for Laboratory Management receives federal money to oversee the management contracts. Calculation errors -- which went unnoticed by the Energy Department's financial analyst -- will cost the government another $21 million in unnecessary expenses, according to the audit. The government also reimbursed UC for $880,000 worth of unallowable expenses, such as student recruitment. The Inspector General wants the Energy Department to seek to recover some of the money. The Energy Department's contracting officers are reviewing questioned costs and will determine what amount, if any, UC must repay. "We're examining the report and all the options available to us," Bryan Wilkes, spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, said. "We have people trying to determine what the situation is." UC isn't expecting a big bill, however. Ron Nelson, who heads contract administration for UC, said the university will return a few thousand dollars. Its own review showed the university had charged some office expenses to the wrong accounts, he said. In other cases, the university's routine accounting practices caused some confusion, and the university will modify its accounting methods, he said. Nelson noted some lab-related activities do take place on campuses. Teasing out who benefited from the university's facilities, equipment and programs can be difficult, he said. These are central expenses the institution is absorbing. Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, a citizens group, said the Energy Department has been a poor steward of taxpayer money. "Two ex-lab employees have just been sentenced to prison for stealing $300,000 from taxpayers. Now a preliminary audit by the DOE Inspector General has determined UC has been paid $30 million in unallowable costs, making the felons' illegal gains look like chump change," Nuclear Watch of New Mexico director Jay Coghlan said. He hopes the Energy Department will take swift action to determine what the university must pay back. "Further," Coghlan said, "any confirmed fiscal irregularities should strongly and negatively impact UC's chances for future management of LANL. There's already been too much funny money up on the Hill." In the report, auditors reviewed a total of five contracts -- two of which UC does not manage -- and found the Energy Department agreed to provide fees, payments or reimbursements for office expenses that were not adequately documented, not properly calculated or simply not allowed. Copyright 2004 Santa Fe New Mexican ***************************************************************** 50 ABQjournal: LANL Worries Aired; DOE Chief Vows Fair Treatment the Albuquerque Journal newspaper. Saturday, February 26, 2005 Albuquerque Journal--> By Adam Rankin Journal Staff Writer LOS ALAMOS— In his first visit to Los Alamos National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman reaffirmed his commitment to protecting lab worker benefits through the pending competition to run the nuclear weapons facility. "The people here are going to be treated fairly," he said. "We are very much aware... of the concerns of the employees here, the rightful concerns." Bodman, who visited LANL on Friday and Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque on Thursday, spoke to Los Alamos employees with U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., during an all-hands meeting and answered their questions. Bodman replaced Spencer Abraham as energy secretary on Jan. 31, following Abraham's resignation in December. Following the meeting, Bodman told reporters that he came to Los Alamos "in awe of the history of the place" and is now in awe of all that is done there. He said he is committed to advancing the laboratory's core scientific mission, which he said he "views as a sacred trust." During a question-and-answer period, one 30-year LANL veteran told Bodman that many of his colleagues in their 50s and 60s are planning to leave LANL "at the peak of their careers." "It is going to hurt us as a country, as a laboratory, and it all has to do with bad management," he said. LANL director Pete Nanos has been the target of some employee and scientist criticism for the way he addressed concerns last summer over safety and security failures by shutting the laboratory down for months at a high cost to taxpayers. Reviews of the total shutdown cost are ongoing, and Domenici said employees and the public will get a full accounting of what happened and why. "This has to end up with lessons learned," Domenici said. "It wasn't a trivial matter or a series of trivial situations." Asked if Bodman had confidence in Nanos' leadership, Bodman said he only just met Nanos but was impressed by his earnestness, commitment and willingness to criticize himself. At the close of the all-hands meeting, Domenici told LANL workers that it is time for them to move beyond feelings of discontent. "I am trying to tell you that we have got to get over this stuff and get on with the new contract," he said. "Nobody intends to hurt any of you, and, for God's sake, you know we don't intend to hurt what you're doing." Domenici praised President Bush's selection of Bodman as the new energy secretary. Bodman served as deputy secretary of the treasury beginning in 2003 and deputy secretary of commerce from 2001 to 2003. Domenici said Bodman, an engineer who once taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the most experienced energy secretary since he's been in Congress and will make LANL and America's future brighter. Bodman told reporters that it is natural for there to be some unease during a contract competition for the largest nuclear weapons research laboratory, "but that everything is going to be fine, I am convinced of that." Steve@abqjournal.com ***************************************************************** 51 Albuquerque Tribune: Review: Sandia analysis on nuke hazards faulty By The Associated Press February 26, 2005 The risk of an accident and the danger to the public from nuclear reactor operations at Sandia National Laboratories is higher than the lab's safety standards and procedures account for, a federal report concludes. The National Nuclear Security Administration's report, dated Dec. 10, was released Friday by the Washington, D.C.-based Project on Government Oversight, known as POGO. The evaluation "noted no unsafe operations during the course of the review," but found deficiencies in safety procedures and documents. "The problem is that if there is indeed an accident, they have a serious problem" because the lab underestimated possible radiation doses or how far and fast a hazardous plume could travel, Pete Stockton, a senior investigator for POGO, said by telephone. "So the issue is one of safety analysis. In case of an accident, what is the impact, and you have to protect public health and safety," Stockton said. John German, head of media relations for Sandia, said the lab has been aware of the concerns for months and that "corrective actions are being completed now." "The draft report that POGO has publicized is further evidence that the oversight process is working as it should," he said. "The NNSA independent review was part of the routine oversight the NNSA provides for the lab's reactor facilities, and the lab welcomes and values its input and recommendations." The report, which was done at Sandia's request, found no immediate threat to lab workers or the public, German said. The report took particular note of Technical Area V on the Kirtland Air Force Base property, where the Sandia Pulsed Reactor Facility is located. The reactor is supposed to be surrounded by a 3,000-meter (approximately 2-mile) exclusion zone which is supposed to be amendable to rapid evacuation in the event of an accident. Located within 1,600 meters (about one mile) of the reactor are a golf course and the Kirtland Equestrian Center. "It is not credible that these members of the public could be evacuated outside of the 3000-m exclusion boundary prior to the arrival of any plumes of hazardous material from an accident within Technical Area V," the report stated. Under "Major findings and recommendations," the report stated, "The current approach from controlling the exclusion area for TA-V is unacceptable." It also faulted Sandia for "incomplete consideration" of the impact of accidents on workers in the area and its analysis of types of accidents and how to handle them. The team also found shortcomings in the analysis for Sandia's annular core research reactor, saying the radiation dose from an accident there could be significant. It also said that in some cases both natural and man-made hazards weren't properly identified and assessed, and that the lab failed to justify why it didn't evaluate certain hazards, which included aircraft crash accidents at the facilities and the possibilities of fire and failure of reactor safety systems. The team said the Sandia site office appears capable of correcting most of the issues. However, among other things the report recommended updating the office's review and approval procedures and developing screening standards to evaluate the adequacy of safety documents. The report also criticized a corrective action plan Sandia developed to address issues raised in a letter in September from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The team said the plan lacked timetables and details. ***************************************************************** 52 Re: [du-list] Digest Number 1469 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:31:18 -0800 Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 3:30 PM Subject: Lecture on DU and Iraqi children A MUST to know what the Coalition Forces have done in Iraq based in lies Last night I went to a presentation by an Iraqi pediatrician at the Iraqi community center on Delridge Way. She presented statistics for only ONE hospital in Basra which is where she practices. She showed some charts with incidences of cancer among infants and children in that hospital before the first invasion by Bush The Father and since, including now after the invasion by Bush the Son. The best of the stats i.e., the ones with the LOWEST increases show an upswing of over 300%. She showed statistics and pictures of infants born deformed or with cancer in charts and some in pictures. She said the chart figures did not include the many times more incidences of miscarriages or those children whose parents did not bring them to the hospital because they thought the kids were done for and there was no medicine anyway so why bother? In answer to a question, she also clarified that her hospital is an ordinary one that does not specialize in cancer or in children's disease so her figures are not skewed because of a specialty; that there are a few other hospitals in Basra that also offer pediatric care. She did say that hers is not a scientific study and that detailed scientific study needs to be done in order to establish direct causal relationship with DU and at this time, there is no agency willing to conduct such research. In her mind however, there is no doubt that the cause of the increase in birth defects and children's cancer is DU. It was a most sobering evening. She is making another presentation TONIGHT (Wed. 23rd) at Wykoff Hall in Seattle University. I urge those who can make it, to attend and I especially urge those who do not believe DU is as big a threat as "the liberals" make it out to be, to attend and ask questions. Then be prepared to make life hell for the cowards who represent us in Congress (except McDermott) by asking them WHY they are not raising the issue in Congress. DU is a threat to Humanity that is FAR, FAR, FAR greater than any issue that has ever faced us. Even landmines becomes a children's playground as compared to DU which has half-life of 4.5 MILLION years. This means that in 4.5 million years DU is still present but with only half its strength. After impact DU particles become vaporized and then are capable of being wind-borne for hundreds of miles. Folks, this is not about Iraq or Afghanistan although it is being used there in the hundreds of tons scale; this is about the entire Earth. To be sure Island USA is relatively safe from DU but do we not own some responsibility for what goes on overseas in our name? Jeff Siddiqui, Associate Broker Western Associates Real Estate Seattle, WA 98103 pager: (206) 994-7398 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 53 [du-list] du in the news - 28th Feb.05 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:00:17 -0800

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [du-list] du in the news - 28th Feb.05
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:57:42 +1300
From: David Broatch <davidbroatch@xtra.co.nz>
To: <du-list@yahoogroups.com> 


Reno Gazette-Journal, Sun, 27 Feb 2005 0:59 AM PST
Scientists zero in on tungsten as Fallon cancer cause http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2005/02/27/93272.php?sps=rgj.com&sch=Umbrella&sp1=rgj&sp2=umbrella&sp3=umbrella&sp5=RGJ.com&sp6=news&sp7=umbrella
WORTH A CLICK! Mark Witten, toxicologist and professor of pediatrics at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Ariz., watches in March 2004 as Paul Sheppard, a dendrochronologist and tree ring expert, also from the University of Arizona, sets up an air monitor in the yard of a home in Fallon.

Corvallis Gazette Times, Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:09 PM PST
Letters to the editor http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/02/27/news/opinion/edit03.txt
Argue? The recent pre-election verbal attacks against presidential candidates produced such vitriol and contradiction that I did some reading before Nov. 2 to try to separate truth from fiction. What I found led me to conduct several group discussions leading up to the election.

Arabic Media Internet Network, Sun, 27 Feb 2005 3:06 AM PST
A Step towards â?oGreater Middle Eastâ? http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2005/feb/feb27.html
Rafik Hariri, the previous Lebanese President, was assassinated by a tremendous explosion, whose power was estimated to equal 350 kgm of TNT. Hariri was returning from a meeting in the Lebanese Parliament when the explosion lead to his death and the death of other 14 people among them seven of Haririâ?Ts bodyguards.
  ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send.  
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
***************************************************************** 54 [du-list] du in the news 27th Feb. 05 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:31:17 -0800 New Haven Register, Sat, 26 Feb 2005 0:15 AM PST Protesters bash Bush, war, military http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14040416&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=6 WEST HAVEN β?" A determined patchwork of veterans and concerned citizens lashed out Friday at the war in Iraq, as well as proposed changes in veteransβ?T medical benefits and the use of depleted uranium by the U.S. military. Online Journal, Fri, 25 Feb 2005 9:24 PM PST Lies, disinformation, the media http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/022605Anonymous/022605anonymous.html What exactly is the Truth? Adobe Acrobat Reader required. Click here to download a free copy. February 26, 2005 When I was a kid, a big (and punishable by being grounded-which for a young person developing socially is a big deal) offense was lying. ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/05 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease? Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts! http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************