***************************************************************** 04/30/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.102 ***************************************************************** 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 [NYTr] Iran: What the IAEA Report Really Said 2 [NYTr] Iran and the US - Bush's new cold war 3 [NYTr] Chinese UN envoy warns against Chapt 7 Iran resolution 4 [NYTr] The Security Council deadline myth 5 [NYTr] Iran Demands IAEA Review Nuclear Dossier 6 Iaea Report On Iran Sent To Security Council 7 [NYTr] Iran says it will 'never' give up nuclear program 8 IAEA: Iran proposes time schedule for nuclear cooperation 9 IRNA: EU delegation to visit Iran for talks on constructive engageme 10 IRNA: Duma deputies criticize US' spiteful policies against Iran 11 IRNA: Greece stresses diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear case 12 IRNA: WMD production contradicts Islamic teachings: Iran's envoy to 13 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: Iran Is 'Playing Games' With Offer 14 IRNA: No legal grounds for imposing sanctions on Iran - Russian dipl 15 Guardian Unlimited: Security Council Poised for Iran Replay 16 Guardian Unlimited: Iran: Inspections OK if Dossier Returned 17 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Official: U.N. Won't Impose Sanctions 18 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Iran Offers Nuke Concession 19 Guardian Unlimited: Scathing nuclear report as US brands Iran enemy 20 Guardian Unlimited: There can be a nuclear bargain 21 IRNA: Germany's Green MPs urge EU to step up Iran nuclear diplomacy 22 BBC: Iran nuclear plan 'irreversible' 23 IRNA: ElBaradei's report on Iran's nuclear program not realistic - M 24 WorldNetDaily: The Security Council deadline myth 25 IRNA: US seeks to deceive the world on Iran's nuclear program - Zari 26 IRNA: Iran will not halt enrichment research studies - IAEO official 27 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA's report could be better -Asefi 28 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: ElBaradei delivers report on Iran (full report he 29 AFP: Iran says digging in for confrontation over nuclear programme - 30 AFP: Iran battles to escape Security Council action 31 AFP: Iran cannot be forced to halt nuclear programme - Larijani - 32 AFP: Security Council resolution on Iran 'dangerous' - Chinese ambas 33 IRNA: No legal base for sending Iran to UNSC - Asefi 34 AFP: US senator says Iran key isssue for US ties with Russia, China 35 AFP: Iran says will 'never' give up nuclear programme 36 AFP: Iran vows 'never' to give up nuclear programme 37 AFP: US rhetoric on Iran resembles pre-Iraq war rumblings 38 IRNA: Iran letter to IAEA, a turning point in cooperation - Asefi 39 AFP: Sanctions not to hurt Iranian oil industry, gas pipeline to Pak 40 IRNA: Pak politician rules out possibility of war over Iran's nuclea 41 US: reviewjournal.com: Gibbons, Titus talk on renewable energy 42 US: Boston Globe: Bush challenges hundreds of laws 43 Guardian Unlimited: Pakistan Frees Senior Nuclear Scientist 44 BBC: Pakistan stages new missile test NUCLEAR REACTORS 45 The Australian: Costello enters nuclear energy debate 46 Spain News: Spain's oldest nuclear reactor to close after 38 years 47 AU: Nuclear power: it's time to face the realities - Editorial - 48 The Age: Costello warms to the nuclear option - 49 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Energy Commission says keep ban on new nucle 50 Rediff: Nuclear deal is in US interest - Biden 51 RIA Novosti: Kiev rally demands pension raise for Chernobyl survivor 52 Sunday Herald: Nuclear accident exercise reveals fatal flaws - 53 Sunday Herald: Morality, not money, should decide UKs nuclear policy 54 GreenLeft: A scathing indictment on the risks of nuclear power 55 US: Concord Monitor: It may be time for us to rethink nukes - 56 US: Rutland Herald: Vt. emergency communication improves 57 BUCHAREST DAILY NEWS: Construction work at Cernavoda reactor delayed 58 US: toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse plans to be at full power this week 59 Xinhua: Qinshan II commences expansion 60 Xinhua: Drawing lessons from Chernobyl disaster 61 US: BBJ: Samford hosts weekend talks by nuclear power experts - 62 US: Pittsburgh Business Times: Westinghouse unit wins nuclear refuel 63 Alarab Online: Moroccan cabinet to promote civilian nuclear plan 64 US: Rutland Herald: Vermont Yankee boosts power 65 Indian Express: Chernobyl, frame by frame 66 New Straits Times: Comment: Going nuclear? Think again 67 ITAR-TASS: First unit of Kalinin nuclear power plant halted. 68 US: The Boston Globe: Bush challenges hundreds of laws 69 AFP: Spain's oldest nuclear power station shuts down two years early 70 icWales: A timely reminder of nuclear power NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 71 [DU-WATCH] GIs Beware Radioactive Showers 72 London Times: Review: Nuclear confusion reigns - 73 US: Las Vegas SUN: Test Site is once again making noise 74 Xinhua: DPRK A-bomb victims urge Japan to legislate compensation law 75 US: Spectrum: Reliving past with 700-ton blast 76 US: Niagara Gazette: LETTER: Worries about nuclear chemical workers NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 77 US: Bradenton Herald: FOCUS concerned Lockheed's solution may be ina 78 Xinhua: Legislature approves convention on nuclear waste management 79 US: Daily Herald: Governor: Say no to storage site PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 80 CBS News: Lethal And Leaking - 81 Columbus Dispatch: Former nuclear site gets new life 82 lamonitor.com: NNMCAB chair honored ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Iran: What the IAEA Report Really Said Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 03:41:06 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Informed Comment - Apr 29, 2006 http://www.juancole.com/ Informed Comment by Juan Cole Professor of History, University of Michigan IAEA Finds no Proof of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program In its April 28 report, the International Atomic Energy Agency mentioned the UNSC mandate to Iran of last February: ' o re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency; o reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water; o ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol; o pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003; o implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations. Despite not being fully in compliance with these demands, Iran maintains that it is in fact fulfilling its obligations under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. The IAEA found no smoking gun. Here is its conclusion, which others will not quote for you at such length: ' 33. All the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency is accounted for. Apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, the Agency has found no other undeclared nuclear material in Iran. However, gaps remain in the Agency's knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran's centrifuge programme. Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency's knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran's nuclear programme, the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. 34. After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran's nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern. ' This ambiguity is being twisted by the Bush administration to make it seem as though Iran has done something illegal. The report can be read to say that there is no evidence that Iran is doing anything illegal. In fact, under the NPT, countries do have the right to do the sort of experiments Iran is doing. Most of the complaints are not about substance but about something else. Iran's president pledged to continue to cooperate with UN isnspectors. More about Iran later. For now see the next item, where an Iraqi VP says all hell would break loose in Iraq if the US attacked Iran. posted by Juan @ 4/29/2006 06:35:00 AM 5 comments * ================================================================ .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 .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Iran and the US - Bush's new cold war Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:29:16 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The International Herald Tribune - Apr 30, 2006 http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/04/30/america/web.0430iran.php Iran and the U.S. in a new cold war By David E. Sanger and Elaine Sciolino The New York Times WASHINGTON Iran and the United States have begun to reveal new strategies in their nuclear dispute that seem bound to escalate their confrontation, as both nations seek to turn to their advantage a highly critical report that portrays a nuclear program proceeding at full tilt, in growing secrecy. In many ways, what has unfolded in the past three days resembles cold-war deception and brinkmanship, with some decidedly new twists for a very different nuclear age. As in the early days of the cold war, both sides have tried to write the rules on the fly, using every tool available - from American threats of sanctions to Iranian threats to cut off oil. Iran, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been successful in gradually blinding the agency's inspectors, increasingly denying them access to crucial sites and steadfastly refusing to answer questions about suspected links between Iran's civilian nuclear program and its military. While Iran denies any clandestine effort to build a nuclear weapon, it is clearly drawing on the diplomatic playbook of a country that has done just that - North Korea. Iran has gone so far as to boast about, and perhaps exaggerate, its nuclear prowess to try to convince the West that its program is now unstoppable. Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the chairman of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, and other Iranian officials on Friday described their nuclear program as "irreversible." They argue that the United States should simply accept this - much as it now accepts that Pakistan and India will never give up nuclear technology. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's fiery president, said Saturday that giving up enrichment "is our red line, and we will never cross it," according to state television. In Washington, senior Bush administration officials have taken a position at the opposite extreme. In the words of Robert Joseph, the State Department's top proliferation official, the administration is determined to ensure that "not one centrifuge spins" in Iran. In interviews in the past two days, the officials have described a plan to turn the United Nations Security Council's "requests" that Iran cease enriching uranium into an enforceable requirement. What has chilled the Chinese, the Russians and some others in Europe, however, is that the administration is insisting on citing Iran under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which authorizes the use of penalties, and if that is inadequate, of military force. This is still not a contest between nuclear powers - Iran is not believed to have a bomb yet, and intelligence estimates say that day is still 5 to 10 years away, assuming there is no clandestine effort that no one has detected. Instead, it is an effort by the United States and some other nations to refashion the nuclear rules. They want to declare that even if Iran is legally entitled under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, Mr. Ahmadinejad cannot be trusted to do so. By deceiving the nuclear agency about its activities, President Bush and British, French and German officials say, Iran has given up whatever treaty rights it once enjoyed. Mr. Bush has also acknowledged that America's credibility has been deeply harmed by the intelligence failures over Iraq. On Friday, he tried to allay concerns that he was proceeding down the same path he used to give a legal basis for the invasion he ordered 37 months ago. "There's a difference between the two countries," he told reporters, even as his European allies worry about similarities in the American strategy. For the first time, the administration has publicly declared, as it did in the case of Iraq, that if the Security Council fails to act, Mr. Bush will organize "like-minded nations" to begin to impose punishment. "We have not conceded the point and we will not concede the point that Iran will become a nuclear weapons power," said R. Nicholas Burns, who directs the diplomatic talks for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He insisted that Iran was mistaken if it thought that the Bush administration would ever allow its nuclear activity to go ahead- which is essentially what has happened in North Korea for the past three years, while negotiations have dragged on to the brink of collapse. "The difference in the two situations is that in Iran you have a state situated in the most volatile area of the world, where they are the leading central banker of terrorist actions," Mr. Burns said. "What they can't count on is a compliant and divided international community." The strategies have only hardened the other side's position. Washington's episodic saber-rattling - from the president's vague comments that "all options" are on the table if diplomacy fails, and the increasingly public discussion of whether he or the Israelis will ultimately opt for a military strike - has so far failed. The Iranians have responded with threats of their own, knowing that even the specter of confrontation rattles the oil markets and sends prices to new levels, enriching Iran and heightening the pain for Mr. Bush and American consumers. The Iranians may have also overplayed their hand. While they insist that their current activities are within their treaty obligations, they ignore the I.A.E.A.'s finding that Tehran hid some of its activities for two decades. And Friday's report accuses Iran of continuing to hide vital information. But this dispute is about more than transparency. It is also about national pride and Iran's insistence on self-sufficiency and independence. That may help explain why Iran has celebrated enrichment with dancers in traditional dress, who paraded on national television while holding a small box said to contain the fruits of their atomic labors. The inspectors' report confirmed that Iran had succeeded in enriching uranium at a low level, but it would take significantly more processing, equipment, and problem-solving to produce fuel for a bomb. Fabricating a warhead would take even more time, and risk detection. "The real fight here is not over whether they have a weapons program, it is over whether they can create a nuclear weapons option," said Gary Samore, who led nonproliferation efforts in the Clinton administration and continues to study the Iranian program, speaking earlier this year. "And that is the smoke-and-mirrors game, convincing everyone that they have that capability." That is what most concerns senior officials inside the Bush administration. Officials who deal with nuclear strategy note that it is now widely assumed that North Korea has several to 10 nuclear weapons - even though the North Koreans have never conducted a nuclear test. "We think the Iranians looked at the Koreans and learned a lesson," said a senior official, who would not speak for attribution on a matter of nuclear strategy. It would be a very different approach than the one taken by the Russians in the late 1940's, or the Chinese in the early 1960's, or the Indians and Pakistanis in the late 1990's, all of whom set off nuclear explosions to prove their powers. Given the limited access allowed I.A.E.A. inspectors, officials here and in Vienna say, there would be no way to verify, or disprove, Iran's claims. Mr. Bush has therefore taken the position that Iran must give up everything. He said Friday, "The Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon." The Russians and Chinese view that as unrealistic; a senior Russian official said it was time for a "ditente" with Iran, drawing another term from the cold war. In Vienna, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the atomic agency, has made it clear in conversations with diplomats that he believes pragmatism will eventually dictate that Iran be allowed some limited form of enrichment, monitored constantly by his agency. But there is the fear - here, and in Vienna - that the I.A.E.A. is seeing only part of the program, and that the evasive answers to its questions hide a clandestine effort, somewhere under the desert. As Tehran restricts international inspections, it will be harder to know whether its program more closely resembles the very real one in Pakistan, whose scientists sold technology to Iran, or the nuclear mirage in Iraq. [David E. Sanger reported from Washington for this article, and Elaine Sciolino from Vienna.] ) 2006 The International Herald Tribune * ================================================================ .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 .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 [NYTr] Chinese UN envoy warns against Chapt 7 Iran resolution Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit People's Daily Online - Apr 30, 2006 http://english.people.com.cn/200604/30/eng20060430_262354.html Chinese UN envoy warns against introducing Iran resolution under Chapter 7 The Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, Wang Guangya, repeated Saturday his warning against introducing a resolution on the Iranian nuclear issue under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, saying that could be "dangerous." Speaking to reporters after a speech at a symposium in the University of Chicago, Ambassador Wang recalled that the United States, Russia, China and the EU trio -- Britian, Germany and France -- agreed at a January ministerial meeting in London to report Iran's nuclear issue to the Security Council. But the meeting also decided that the council's mandate is to reinforce the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Wang, whose country holds the council presidency for April. "If you adopt a resolution not to reinforce the IAEA's authority but to replace its authority, that is dangerous," he warned. Wang reiterated that introducing a Chapter 7 resolution would complicate the situation. "The Iranians have already said that if this issue is being discussed under Chapter 7, they will withdraw from the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) ... Once they withdraw, they won't take any international legal obligations, so we don't want them to withdraw," he said. Wang insisted that the IAEA should be allowed to continue playing a leading role in seeking a solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. As shown by the IAEA's latest report, Wang said, "this is, in a sense, a technical issue and I don't think the Security Council as a political organization would be capable of doing this job." In its report presented to the council on Friday, the IAEA concluded that Iran had not met the Security Council's demands, including freezing all enrichment activities. Britain, France and the United States have said they would push the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution invoking Chapter 7, under which coercive measures, such as economic sanctions, could be used to force Iran to comply with the council demands. Source: Xinhua * ================================================================ .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 .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] The Security Council deadline myth Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit WorldNet Daily via Info Clearing House - Apr 28, 2006 http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12879.htm The Security Council deadline myth By Gordon Prather 04/28/06 "WND"--Under a Safeguards Agreement concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency – as required by the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to "verify" that no "source or special nuclear materials" are being used in furtherance of a nuclear weapons program. During the past three years, every report Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei has made to the IAEA Board concluded that – as best he can determine – no proscribed materials have been so used. The NPT and the IAEA Statute and the Iranian Safeguards Agreement all guarantee Iran's "inalienable" right to conduct research into – and to enjoy all the benefits of the peaceful use of – nuclear energy. The IAEA Statute ensures – insofar as the IAEA is able – that "source or special nuclear materials" are not used in furtherance of a military purpose as a secondary mission. ElBaradei's reports over the past three years are that – while he cannot be absolutely certain that there are no proscribed materials in Iran that he doesn't know about – there are no "indications" that there are. Nevertheless, Bush-Cheney-Bolton-Rice strong-armed the IAEA Board into reporting the entire Iranian dossier to the Security Council "for possible action." According to Bonkers Bolton, our representative on the Security Council: This is a real test for the Security Council. There's just no doubt that for close to 20 years, the Iranians have been pursuing nuclear weapons through a clandestine program that we've uncovered. No doubt? That Bolton has uncovered? After three years of intrusive on-the-ground inspections, there is nothing but doubt, and ElBaradei hasn't uncovered anything. That doesn't faze Bonkers. If the U.N. Security Council can't deal with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, can't deal with the greatest threat we have with a country like Iran — that's one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism — if the Security Council can't deal with that, you have a real question of what it can deal with. Well, Article 39 of the U.N. Charter does say: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 41 provides for measures "not including the use of armed forces." Article 42 provides for measures including the use of armed forces. But, Article 40 says: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Well, after three weeks of acrimonious debate, the UNSC issued a non-binding Presidential Statement, essentially "calling" upon the parties to settle their differences amongst themselves. The Council did note "with serious concern" that "the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran." Of course, that's a reflection on the IAEA, not on Iran. Nevertheless, Bush-Cheney-Bolton-Rice and their neo-crazy media sycophants would have you believe that the UNSC gave Iran a "deadline" to suspend all uranium enrichment activities within 30 days – or else. Wrong! In words very carefully chosen, the UNSC merely "called" upon Iran to take the steps "required" by the IAEA Board so that the Board's "outstanding questions can best be resolved and confidence built in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's program." In effect, the UNSC remanded the "Iranian nuclear issue" to the IAEA Board for resolution. That, of course, was what China and Russia had insisted on all along. And still insist on. The UNSC did not address the question of whether the IAEA Board had any right under the IAEA Statute or the U.N. Charter to make such requirements. Nor did the UNSC address the question of whether the Iranian "nuclear issue" constituted "a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or act of aggression." Worse (for Bush-Cheney-Rice-Bolton), the Presidential Statement began: The Security Council reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and recalls the right of States Party, in conformity with articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination. In other words, Iran does have the rights under the NPT it asserts and no one – not even the neo-crazies – can discriminate against them. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. He also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com * ================================================================ .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 .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 [NYTr] Iran Demands IAEA Review Nuclear Dossier Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Iran Demands IAEA to Review Nuclear Dossier Teheran, Apr 30 (Prensa Latina) Iran has reiterated that it will implement the Additional Protocol (to the Non-Proliferation Treaty) voluntarily if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reviews Iran"s nuclear dossier. In a local television interview on Saturday night, deputy head of Iran"s Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) for International Affairs, Mohammad Saeedi, said that Teheran will never stop research and development at laboratory level and regards it a sovereign right. "Calls for Iran"s suspension of uranium enrichment should be rational but there has been no proof of diversion in the country"s nuclear program", stressed Saeedi. The deputy said that the use of nuclear energy is a demand of the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic of Iran made no decision to suspend or halt enrichment. Saeedi´s remarks came after a report presented on Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei to the UN Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors on Iran"s nuclear program. The first part of the report dealt with the progress and the second section with ElBaradei"s evaluation and measures after the Security Council statement and the last meeting of the Board of Governors. The IAEA chief reiterated that Iran has provided response to seven questions on plutonium and just one question has been left unanswered. According to the report, contamination of centrifuge parts in Iran had foreign origin and the IAEA should continue with its research in this regard. The second part of the report said all nuclear materials have been under the IAEA supervision and there has been no violation in this field. ln/ajs/mt * ================================================================ .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 .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 6 Iaea Report On Iran Sent To Security Council Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 22:00:11 -0400 IAEA REPORT ON IRAN SENT TO SECURITY COUNCIL New York, Apr 30 2006 10:00PM The Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has sent his report on Iran's implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement to the United Nations Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors. The Vienna-based Agency said circulation of the document is restricted "and unless the IAEA Board of Governors and Security Council decide otherwise, the Agency cannot authorize its release to the public." The report was simultaneously sent to the Agency´s member States and to the Security Council in New York on Friday afternoon. The document responds to a request made by the Security Council on 29 March, when it asked IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to report in 30 days "on the process of Iranian compliance with the steps required by the IAEA Board, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration." Iran has been called on to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency. The IAEA Board has also asked Tehran to reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water. Other requirements put forward by the Board in a resolution adopted in February call for Iran to ratify and implement the Additional Protocol and, pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with its provisions. In December 2003, Iran signed the Additional Protocol, which grants the IAEA expanded rights of access to information and sites, as well as additional authority to use the most advanced technologies during the verification process. In 2003, it was discovered that Iran had carried out secret nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the NPT. Iran voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment activities, which can produce material for nuclear energy or for weapons, in 2004 while negotiating with European Union na so-called EU-3) on its programme, but resumed the process last August. 2006-04-30 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 7 [NYTr] Iran says it will 'never' give up nuclear program Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:38:41 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AFP - Apr 29, 2006 http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/060429101752.09ak4mon.html Iran says will 'never' give up nuclear programme TEHRAN (AFP) - Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to never give up Iran's disputed nuclear drive as Western powers pushed for tough Security Council action against the Islamic republic. In a further show of defiance, a top Iranian nuclear official declared the country's scientists were working on extremely advanced centrifuge designs to enrich uranium -- work that is at the centre of fears the clerical regime may acquire the bomb. "The Islamic republic will not negotiate with anyone on its absolute right to use peaceful nuclear technology. This is our red line, and we will never give it up," the president said in a statement. "Iran's decision to master nuclear technology and the production of nuclear fuel is irreversible," Ahmadinejad said. On Friday the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Iran had not complied with a UN Security Council demand to freeze enrichment -- which can be used to make fuel for civilian nuclear reactors, but can also serve as the explosive core of atom bombs. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei also said there had been little progress since a previous assessment and that "gaps remain in the agency's knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran's centrifuge programme." Iran insists its programme is peaceful. But the report clears the way for a new phase of diplomacy, with the United States and Europe poised to seek a Security Council resolution legally obliging Iran to meet IAEA and Council demands. If Iran still refuses, such a resolution could pave the way to economic sanctions and even military action, although Tehran's major trading partners Russia and China -- which have a veto on the Council -- oppose any such move. Foreign ministers of the five permanent Council members and Germany plan to gather in New York on May 9 to discuss the crisis, while political directors of the so-called "P-5 plus one" are due to meet in Paris Tuesday ahead of the talks. US President George W. Bush has branded Iran's nuclear ambitions as "dangerous" but insisted that Washington wanted to resolve the dispute "diplomatically and peacefully". But Ahmadinejad called on Western powers to "respect Iran's rights" and allow the IAEA -- and not the UN Security Council -- to deal with the case. He also said that "as a nuclear country, the Islamic republic is ready to discuss, alongside other nuclear powers and with all countries, how to assure world peace." The vice president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation Mohammad Saidi said Iran was working on extremely advanced centrifuge designs for enrichment. "But when it comes to which type we will use, we are still examining this. It isn't the P-2 (centrifuge) -- there are other devices that are more advanced and that are a part of our work," he told state television. Centrifuges work in cascades of hundreds, or thousands, spinning at high speed to refine out the uranium U-235 isotope. The technology is seen as a "breakout capacity" which, once mastered, makes manufacturing nuclear weapons possible. Iran announced earlier this month that it had successfully enriched uranium to reactor-grade levels using less advanced P-1 centrifuges. But the more advanced P-2 centrifuge can enrich at a much faster rate and is considered far more effective than the P-1 in the production of weapons-grade material. Saidi also reiterated Iran's pledge to cooperate more on condition that its case is dealt with by the IAEA and not the Security Council. "We would accept to remove the worries of certain countries through negotiations," he said, adding that Iran would even be prepared to allow tougher UN inspections that were stopped after the case went to New York. * ================================================================ .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 .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 8 IAEA: Iran proposes time schedule for nuclear cooperation April 28, IRNA -- Chief of the Vienna based UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei said in his report on Friday that Iran had presented a proposal for setting a timetable for its nuclear cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. According to informed sources at IAEA here, Tehran has made its latest proposal conditional with the term that Iran's nuclear dossier would remain `totally' at the IAEA, be surveyed within its safeguard, and not referred to the UN Security Council. The report says Tehran had failed to comply with Friday's UN eadline to end enrichment activities. ElBaradei has also noted that Iran has limited the span of its cooperation with the IAEA. He said the Agency had been unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. Iran has announced that it would in that case present its cooperation time schedule maximum within three weeks to the IAEA. The news in this regard has not been confirmed by official sources. UN nuclear watchdog Chief Muhamed ElBaradei presented his report on Iran's nuclear program moments ago on Friday to IAEA Board of Governors. In accordance with the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the report has to be distributed initially among the thirty five members of the IAEA Board of governors. The United Nations Security Council asked the IAEA Director General on March 29th, 2006, to present a comprehensive report on extent of Tehran's abiding by its February demands within thirty days to the IAEA Board of Governors, and simultaneously to the UNSC in New York. ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: EU delegation to visit Iran for talks on constructive engagement Brussels, April 29, IRNA EU-Iran-Visit A three-member delegation from the European Commission, the European Union's executive, will be visiting Tehran next week to discuss another phase of the constructive engagement with the Islamic Republic. The delegation will be led by Patrick Laurent, head of the unit for Iran, Iraq, Persian Gulf states and Yemen at the European Commission. During its stay in Iran from May 2-4, the EU delegation will meet Iranian government officials as well as representatives of the civil society and discuss ways to expand cooperation in the fields of health, drugs and the environment. The delegation will also assess ongoing projects in Iran supported by the EU. According to EU sources, the European Commission is currently funding projects worth 4 million euros in Iran in the fields of judiciary reform, prison improvement and child and women care. ***************************************************************** 10 IRNA: Duma deputies criticize US' spiteful policies against Iran April 29, IRNA -- Two deputies of the Russian Duma on Saturday criticized the US' spiteful policies against Iran, its nuclear program in particular. Talking to IRNA, Nikolai Kharitonov said the progress achieved in the nuclear field by Iranian scientists is the reason behind the West's opposition to Iran's nuclear activities. He added that Iran's latest nuclear achievement came as a surprise to neighboring states and that Russia believed Iran was not interested in producing nuclear weapons. The Duma representative stressed that his country had a realistic stance on Iran's nuclear activities and that Iran's nuclear case should be settled within the confines of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Blasting US warmongering policies, he said events in recent years prove Washington has been behind all the disorder and conflicts in the world. He also accused US officials of exacerbating violence in the world and of encouraging the continued occupation of Iraq. Ccreating a new crisis in the Middle East or launching another war would create difficulties for the American people, he added. Kharitonov said that history has proven that war does not bring any good to people. Another Duma representative and the Russian head of the Iran-Russia Parliamentary Friendship Group, Yuri Saveliev, also pointed to Iran's progress in scientific and other peaceful nuclear research and lauded Iranian scientists for this progress which, he said, would redound to the benefit of the Iranian economy. He said Iran's nuclear achievements do not run counter to international law, rules and regulations but are in line with scientific and technological advancements of the modern world. He urged international organizations overseeing these activities to hold talks with Iran to achieve cooperation instead of confrontation. Iran left open its doors of cooperation with the international community and has announced time and again that it does not seek access to atomic weapons, Saveliev stressed. Analysts, political observers and reporters in Russia's Duma, talking to IRNA, expressed concern over the bloody events taking place in Iraq every day, and said that "people were being victimized by US crimes and lies." They said US crimes have weakened the credibility and standing of Washington's statesmen in today's peace-seeking world and that the US is a global outcast politically and morally. ***************************************************************** 11 IRNA: Greece stresses diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear case Athens, April 29, IRNA Iran-Greece-Nuclear issue Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyianni on Friday said Iran's nuclear case should be settled through diplomatic channels. Bakoyianni was quoted by Athens News Agency (ANA) after speaking to reporters in Sofia, Bulgaria, where he attended a conference of foreign ministers of NATO states. The international community needs unanimity on the Iran nuclear issue, the Greek minister said. He said all ministers attending the conference were of the view that Iran should not take any step toward acquiring nuclear weapons and should refrain from making remarks or taking action that would lead to its isolation from the international community, he added. He believed diplomacy was still the best option to settle Iran's case. ***************************************************************** 12 IRNA: WMD production contradicts Islamic teachings: Iran's envoy to Denmark - Berlin, April 29, IRNA Germany-Iran-Denmark The production of weapons of mass destruction contradicts Islamic teachings and the guidelines of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and hence Iran will never pursue such arms, Iranian Ambassador to Denmark Ahmad Daniali told the Danish daily Information on Saturday. "Islam opposes the killing of people and Iran's Supreme Leader has banned the development of such (military) equipment," Daniali said. The Iranian official reaffirmed Iran's right to have peaceful nuclear energy since Tehran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Referring to hundreds of inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Daniali pointed out that the UN watchdog has not found any evidence that nuclear material was diverted for any other purposes. Daniali added that Iran's nuclear dossier in the IAEA has become "politicized" following US attempts to detract international attention from the chaos and anarchy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Asked about a probable US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Daniali said, "If they attack us, we will defend ourselves. We forced to defend ourselves in 1980 when Iraq attacked. So if there is need to do it again, we will do so." Iran's top diplomat in Denmark accused America of seeking to deprive Iran from using civilian nuclear energy. Daniali reiterated that diplomatic channels for a negotiated nuclear settlement were still open. On nuclear enrichment, the ambassador said Iran would do everything humanly possible to convince the international community that its uranium enrichment is only for peaceful aims. Daniali invited other countries to participate in Iran's uranium enrichment activities. ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: Iran Is 'Playing Games' With Offer From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday April 30, 2006 6:01 PM AP Photo DCMC101 By LIBBY QUAID Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Iran's offer to let a watchdog agency inspect the country's nuclear facilities is a stalling tactic to avoid U.N. penalties that would further isolate Tehran, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday. ``I think they're playing games. But obviously, if they're not playing games, they should come clean. They should stop the enrichment, suspend the enrichment,'' Rice told ABC's ``This Week.'' Iran's deputy oil minister played down the chance of U.N. action, saying punishing Tehran would send oil prices even higher. Tehran on Saturday offered to allow inspections if the U.N. Security Council would turn the dispute over to its nuclear monitor, the International Atomic Energy Agency. An agency report confirmed Iran had successfully produced enriched uranium and defied the Security Council's Friday deadline to stop the process. Iran maintains it will not make nuclear weapons and does not need or want them. But the United States, Britain and France suspect the intent of the uranium enrichment program is to make nuclear warheads. ``The international community is completely of one mind, that no one wants, needs or really can tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran in the midst of the world's most volatile region. That is the consistent view,'' Rice told CNN's ``Late Edition.'' While the U.S. and its European allies are pushing for possible penalties, veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China have opposed the idea. Rice said the U.S. would seek a U.N. resolution requiring that Iran comply with demands it stop enriching uranium. She mentioned a resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which can be enforced through penalties or military action. Iran's deputy oil minister played down the idea of penalties. ``Any action like that will increase oil prices very high. And I believe that the U.N. or its bodies will not put any sanctions on oil or the oil industry,'' M.H. Nejad Hosseinian told reporters in Pakistan. Rice, however, declared, ``No one is talking about going to oil and gas sanctions.'' She cited potential steps such as freezing assets. ``Oh, I absolutely believe that we have a lot of diplomatic arrows in our quiver at the Security Council and also like-minded states that would be able and willing to look at additional measures if the security council does not move quickly enough,'' Rice told CBS' ``Face the Nation.'' In contrast, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said in an interview broadcast Sunday in London that Iran seems to ``have pretty much decided they can accept whatever sanctions are coming their way.'' Rice said Iran does not want to risk global isolation. ``But when the Iranians say things like, we don't care if there are sanctions, then I ask myself, `Then why are they working so hard to stay out of the Security Council?''' she said. ``Why are they suddenly saying, `Oh, by the way, yes, we will allow snap inspections?' Why are they suddenly saying, `Well, let's get this back into the IAEA?' It really doesn't sound like a regime that is simply unaware of what might happen.'' While pledging to let diplomacy run its course, Rice did not need see the need for direct talks now between Washington and Tehran, as favored by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, GOP Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, and other lawmakers. ``We have channels that we have used. We have people who know our views who talk with the Iranians. I don't think that the absence of communication is the problem here,'' Rice said. Rice, who has told Congress that Iran is without a doubt ``the single biggest threat from a state that we face,'' renewed her criticism of the hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has drawn widespread criticism for anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli statements. ``I have never seen the man or talked to him. I just know that nobody speaks in polite company in that way, and that he represents the Iranian regime very badly,'' Rice said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 14 IRNA: No legal grounds for imposing sanctions on Iran - Russian diplomat - Moscow, April 29, IRNA Russia-Iran-Nuclear A former Russian Duma speaker said here Saturday that there was no legal basis for the imposition of sanctions on Iran by the UN Security Council. Talking to IRNA, Ruslan Khazbulatov said Iran's nuclear activities were being conducted within the framework of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). On the report of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei to the UN Security Council, he was of the view that the Security Council has "only the authority to ask Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and continue negotiations." The Islamic Republic of Iran is an active member of both the IAEA and the UN, he said, and stressed that Tehran had repeatedly declared it had no intention of producing nuclear weapons. Since Iran has not violated its obligations under the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT), there is no ground for the imposition of sanctions on the country, the Russian diplomat stressed, and added that coercive measures will only damage the interests of countries, including the West and even the US. Terming the positions taken by Russia and China regarding Iran's peaceful nuclear activities "logical," Khazbulatov said US accusations against Iran were part of its war-mongering policies in the region. Urging Washington not to repeat past mistakes such as its attack on Iraq, he said even western leaders believe an attack on Iran would be suicidal. Exacerbating the Iran-US conflict will make tens of regional states involved in a possible war, he said, and stressed that any war will inflict the largest damage on Washington's interests in the region. ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Security Council Poised for Iran Replay From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday April 29, 2006 6:01 PM AP Photo VAH101 By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. Security Council headed for a replay of its divisive debate over Iran's nuclear ambitions, with the United States, Britain and France at odds again with China and Russia. But this time the stakes are higher. A new report Friday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, confirmed what diplomats and the world already knew: Iran has refused to stop enriching uranium as the council demanded a month ago. The council's three veto-wielding Western nations immediately announced plans to introduce a new Security Council resolution next week that would make Iran's compliance with their demands mandatory. To intensify pressure, they want the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which means it can be enforced through sanctions or military action. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov - a steadfast opponent of sanctions - told his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki by telephone Saturday that Iran must halt enrichment and cooperate with the IAEA. According to a Foreign Ministry statement, Lavrov demanded that Iran suspend research and development on enrichment and ``provide full-format cooperation'' with the IAEA to ``clear up the IAEA's remaining questions.'' Russia and China, the other two countries with veto power, oppose sanctions and military action and want the Iran nuclear issue resolved diplomatically, with the IAEA taking the lead, not the Security Council. Iran's enrichment program has come under intense scrutiny because enriched uranium can be used to fuel civilian power plants, which Tehran says it wants, or to produce nuclear weapons, which is what Western nations suspect the Islamic country wants. It took weeks of painstaking negotiations to craft the March 29 council statement giving Iran 30 days to stop enriching uranium, and the result was much weaker than the West wanted. With the possibility of sanctions or military action on the horizon, the upcoming negotiations are certain to be even more divisive. At least for the moment, the five permanent members all agree on one key point: The best way to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran is through diplomacy. But the initial reactions to the report by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, which also accused Iran of blocking U.N. attempts to find out whether it wants nuclear arms, showed how far apart the key players are. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, remained defiant, saying no Security Council resolution could make Iran give up its nuclear program. ``The Iranian nation won't give a damn about such useless resolutions,'' Ahmadinejad told thousands of people Friday in northwestern Iran before the IAEA report was issued. ``Those who resort to language of coercion should know that nuclear energy is a national demand and by the grace of God, today Iran is a nuclear country,'' state-run television quoted him as saying. Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javan Zarif was more conciliatory Saturday, saying ``there are a multitude of possibilities for reaching a solution'' if all parties agree that while Iran should not develop atomic weapons, it has the right to nuclear power. ``I believe if you start from these two assumptions and not draw arbitrary red lines then we will be able to reach a mutually acceptable negotiated solution,'' Zarif told the British Broadcasting Corp. He accused Western nations of lacking political will to resolve the problem and creating ``an unnecessary crisis'' by bringing in the Security Council. ``We have said from the very beginning that bringing the Security Council into the picture does not help because Iran does not respond well to pressure,'' he said. Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammad Saeedi, said uranium enrichment would continue and announced the country was installing two more 164-centrifuge cascades at its enrichment plant in Natanz. Iran successfully enriched uranium for the first time earlier this month, using 164 centrifuges. But Saeedi told state-run television said Tehran would be willing to allow the return of intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities if the matter was returned to the IAEA. Iran banned such inspections in February after it was referred to the Security Council. The White House was dismissive of Iran's offer. ``Today's statement does not change our position that the Iranian government must give up its nuclear ambitions, nor does it affect our decision to move forward to the United Nations Security Council,'' spokesman Blaine Rethmeier said. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Friday that ``the IAEA report shows that Iran has accelerated its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons although, of course, the report doesn't make any conclusions in that regard.'' He told reporters the United States hopes to move ``as a matter of urgency'' and introduce a Chapter 7 resolution next week. It would give Iran ``a very short'' period to comply and halt enrichment. Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry called it ``a calibrated approach which is reversible if Iran was prepared to comply fully with the wishes of the international community.'' ``A diplomatic solution is what we're all working for, and our patience must be pretty consistent there in order that we achieve that,'' he stressed. China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya echoed the need for a diplomatic solution ``because this region is already complicated ... and we should not do anything that would cause the situation (to be) more complicated.'' He said the implication of a Chapter 7 resolution is clear: It will lead to a series of resolutions, complicating the situation and creating uncertainty. ``I think whatever we do we should promote diplomacy,'' Wang said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian Unlimited: Iran: Inspections OK if Dossier Returned From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday April 30, 2006 4:46 AM AP Photo VAH101 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said on Saturday it would allow United Nations inspectors to resume snap inspections of its nuclear facilities, but only if the dispute again went before the U.N. nuclear monitor. The White House rejected the offer, which apparently came as Iran sought to avoid a full-blown U.N. Security Council debate over sanctions. ``Today's statement does not change our position that the Iranian government must give up its nuclear ambitions, nor does it affect our decision to move forward to the United Nations Security Council,'' White House spokesman Blaine Rethmeier said. Russia, which has steadfastly opposed possible sanctions against Iran, joined the international chorus in telling Iran it must stop nuclear enrichment. Iran's offer to open itself to nuclear inspections was issued a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear monitor, confirmed the Iranians successfully produced enriched uranium and had defied the Friday Security Council deadline to freeze the process. Iran gave no ground on the enrichment program but offered to reopen it to IAEA inspectors were the Security Council to drop the matter. ``If the issue is returned to the International Atomic Energy Agency, we will be ready to allow intrusive inspections,'' Mohammed Saeedi, Iran's deputy nuclear chief, told state-run television. Enriched uranium, depending on the degree of processing, can be used either to fuel civilian power plants or to make nuclear weapons. While Iran insists it has no plans to make weapons and does not need or want them, the United States, Britain and France suspect the program is aimed at producing nuclear warheads. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who did not alter Russia's opposition to sanctions, told his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, that Tehran must stop enriching uranium and work with the IAEA, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry. But Saeedi said Iran was pushing forward with further technological developments. ``Our efforts are to use the most sophisticated machines, like in Germany, Netherlands, Japan and Brazil,'' Saeedi said. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, meanwhile, expressed confidence that the West will prevent Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction and compared Iran's hard-line president with Adolf Hitler for calling for Israel's destruction. ``The West - above all under the leadership of the United States - will ensure that Iran under no circumstances comes to possess unconventional weapons,'' Olmert was quoted as saying in an interview published Saturday in Germany's Bild newspaper. ``The president of the United States is a very brave man who understands that very well.'' Olmert wouldn't say whether he thought a military conflict with Iran could become inevitable. However, he said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated calls for the destruction of Israel underlined the need to limit Iran's military strength. ``Ahmadinejad talks today like Hitler before he seized power'' in Germany in the 1930s, Olmert said. ``We are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind. ... God forbid that this man ever gets his hands on nuclear weapons.'' Iran barred intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities in February after it was referred to the U.N. Security Council for not fully cooperating with U.N. monitors. Tehran subsequently announced that it had successfully enriched uranium for the first time - a significant step toward large-scale production of nuclear fuel. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Official: U.N. Won't Impose Sanctions From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday April 30, 2006 12:46 PM AP Photo VAH101 By SADAQAT JAN Associated Press Writer ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The Iranian deputy oil minister said Sunday he did not believe the United Nations would impose sanctions against Iran because such a move would increase oil prices. ``Any action like that will increase oil prices very high. And I believe that the U.N. or its bodies will not put any sanctions on oil or the oil industry,'' M. H. Nejad Hosseinian told reporters after talks in Islamabad with Pakistani officials over a proposed pipeline to transport Iranian gas to Pakistan and India. The U.S. and its European allies have pushed the possibility of sanctions after a report from the U.N. nuclear monitor confirmed the Iranians had successfully produced enriched uranium and defied the Security Council's Friday deadline to stop the process. Russia and China - two veto-wielding Security Council members - have opposed the possibility of such punitive actions. Iran has not budged on the enrichment program. But it offered Saturday to allow U.N. inspectors to resume snap inspections of its nuclear facilities if the Security Council left the dispute to the U.N. nuclear monitor, the International Atomic Energy Agency. The White House rejected the offer, saying Iran must give up its nuclear ambitions and the debate must move to the Security Council. Enriched uranium, depending on the degree of processing, can be used either to fuel civilian power plants or to make nuclear weapons. While Iran insists it has no plans to make weapons and does not need or want them, the United States, Britain and France suspect the program is aimed at producing nuclear warheads. In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iran wanted to resolve the dispute through diplomacy but warned it would not ``surrender under threats and pressures.'' But Asefi reiterated Iran's offer off allowing intrusive inspections if the Security Council dropped the matter. He did not comment on Washington's rejection of the proposal. ---- Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Iran Offers Nuke Concession From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday April 29, 2006 9:31 PM By STEVEN R. HURST Associated Press Writer CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The U.N. deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment came and went, and nobody blinked. Throughout the spiraling conflict - slathered in tough talk on all sides - Iran had said it would not bow to international pressure, apparently banking on the deep split in the Security Council over the ``or else'' portion of the United Nations' demand. Russia and China did not budge from their opposition to U.N. sanctions as punishment, leaving the United States, Britain and France hamstrung and facing a possible Security Council veto by the Kremlin and Beijing. Iran, however, appeared to have understood it may have pushed the international community as hard as it could for the time being. On Saturday, the Islamic republic issued a concessionary proposal that might offer a way out of the dangerous stalemate, which President Bush has said caused the United States to leave the military option on the table. ``If the issue is returned to the International Atomic Energy Agency, we will be ready to allow intrusive inspections,'' Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammed Saeedi, told state-run television. His words appeared to anticipate an international loss of patience voiced Saturday by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov - a steadfast opponent of sanctions. Lavrov told his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki by telephone that Iran must halt uranium enrichment and cooperate with the IAEA. According to a Foreign Ministry statement, Lavrov demanded that Iran suspend research and development on enrichment and ``provide full-format cooperation'' with the IAEA to ``clear up the IAEA's remaining questions.'' In February, Iran barred intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA, the U.N. watchdog for compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, after it was referred to the Security Council over its nuclear activities. Several Western countries - the United States, Britain and France, in particular - suspect the program is aimed at producing nuclear warheads. By offering a return of so-called snap inspections, Iran appeared to be giving ground in an attempt to convince the IAEA - and the world community - that it was telling the truth when it said it was enriching uranium only as fuel for reactors to generate electricity. ``What is up for negotiation is to remove concerns of probably few countries in negotiations,'' Saeedi told Iranian television in a direct reference to Western allegations. The White House was dismissive of the Iranian offer. ``Today's statement does not change our position that the Iranian government must give up its nuclear ambitions, nor does it affect our decision to move forward to the United Nations Security Council,'' spokesman Blaine Rethmeier said Saturday. Ahmad Bakhshayesh, an Iranian political commentator and university professor, suggested the government might be trying to stall progress toward a Security Council showdown. ``If the case is returned to the agency it would take more time for the world to get united against Iran because the governors have to review the case from technical and legal aspects as well as political ones,'' he said. Throughout the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program, experts such as Saeedi and those on the diplomatic front lines have carried messages less threatening than those issued by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - a variation on the ``good cop, bad cop'' routine. Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif joined Saeedi on Saturday in what appeared to be a concerted effort to find a way to ease the crisis, echoing the language issued in Tehran. ``There are a multitude of possibilities for reaching a solution, if we start from the basic assumption that Iran has the right (to nuclear power) ... and Iran should not develop nuclear weapons,'' Zarif told the British Broadcasting Corp. ``I believe if you start from these two assumptions and not draw arbitrary red lines then we will be able to reach a mutually acceptable negotiated solution.'' Those words presented a much different tone than an Ahmadinejad statement Friday: ``The Iranian nation won't give a damn about such useless (U.N. sanctions) resolutions.'' In conjunction with the Friday deadline to halt enrichment, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed in a report that Iran had successfully produced enriched uranium and had defied the Security Council. But Bush, perhaps foreseeing Iranian eagerness to keep its case from reaching a full-scale sanctions debate, responded with extreme care Friday. He said the world was concerned about Iran's ``desire to have not only a nuclear weapon but the capacity to make a nuclear weapon'' - one degree less accusatory than past statements. Bush added he was not discouraged, saying: ``I think the diplomatic options are just beginning.'' Saeedi, however, did not back away from Iran's drive to enrich uranium and said his country was pushing forward with technological developments, including the installation of two more 164-centrifuge cascades at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, in central Iran. He said Iranian scientists also were studying more advanced P-2 centrifuges, designed to speed up enrichment, than those on which Ahmadinejad announced research earlier this month. ``What we are conducting research on is not only P-2 but even more advanced machines,'' Saeedi said, adding that Iran had not moved beyond using the P-1 centrifuges. Suspicions about Iran's intentions have grown since it was discovered in 2002 that the Tehran regime had for two decades secretly operated large-scale nuclear activities that could be used in weapons making. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Scathing nuclear report as US brands Iran enemy No 1 Ian Traynor in Zagreb and Ewen MacAskill in Washington Saturday April 29, 2006 The Guardian The US administration branded Iran public enemy number one, calling it one of the world's most active sponsors of terrorism, as the UN nuclear inspectors revealed that Tehran has successfully enriched uranium and is racing ahead with its nuclear programme. The report from Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the UN security council shifted the nuclear dispute on to a new plane, with the US and Britain leading a campaign for enforcement and punitive action against Iran. Tehran said it did not "give a damn" about the verdict from Dr ElBaradei and what it might lead to. The US state department's annual report on terrorism worldwide described Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism. It said the Revolutionary Guards and the ministry of intelligence and security were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts in Iraq and elsewhere and supported militant groups in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. Iran threatened to end cooperation with the nuclear inspectors if the security council decided to react to the Iranian challenge. It also played for time by promising a timetable for negotiations with the IAEA within three weeks. The ElBaradei report has set the scene for a rapid worsening of the crisis. Iran had built a rig of 164 centrifuges and used them to enrich uranium to 3.6%, and was assembling a further 328 centrifuges at its underground uranium enrichment complex at Natanz, the eight-page report said. The IAEA also raised questions about Iran's experiments in separating plutonium and about military involvement in what Tehran insists is a purely civil nuclear programme. The IAEA was "unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran", the report said. "Gaps remain in the agency's knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran's centrifuge programme ... [as well as] other gaps in the agency's knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran's nuclear programme." A senior official familiar with the IAEA investigation said Iran's cooperation with the inspectors was now "lukewarm". A diplomat following the dispute said: "The Iranians are going full steam ahead. They said they would, and they are doing it." President George Bush, speaking in the Rose Garden, said he was not discouraged by the failure of diplomatic pressure on Iran. "I think the diplomatic options are just beginning," he said. He said "the world is united and concerned" about Iran's nuclear programme. The US, Britain and France will try to step up diplomatic pressure on Iran by seeking a new "chapter seven" security council resolution that would open the way for sanctions and, in theory, military action. But Russia and China, who could block the resolution, are opposed. John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, said the US would specifically seek a "chapter seven" resolution. Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said: "It is very serious that the Iranian regime has failed fully to cooperate with the IAEA and the United Nations security council." He said Britain would ask the security council to "increase the pressure on Iran". Before the ElBaradei report yesterday, however, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Iran "does not give a damn" for security council demands and boasted the country was already an irreversible nuclear power. With the international community divided on how to proceed, there appear to be no easy options. The Russians, who have a veto in the security council, look likely to oppose a mandatory resolution aimed at Iran, since it can ultimately be used to justify military intervention. Diplomats in Vienna said Moscow or another opponent of western policy on Iran may demand an emergency meeting of the IAEA board for the end of next week. This would be resisted by the US, Britain and France, who want to focus the diplomacy at the security council rather than at the IAEA. Officials from the US, Britain, France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the security council, and Germany will meet in Paris on Tuesday to try to reach agreement on a resolution. If progress is made, foreign ministers from the six countries are scheduled to meet the following Tuesday. A meeting of UN ambassadors from the security council countries is also planned for next week. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: There can be a nuclear bargain The IAEA and Iran Saturday April 29, 2006 Mohamed ElBaradei had no choice but to find Iran in breach of its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yesterday's report faulted the Islamic Republic for refusing to stop enriching uranium - as required by unanimous vote of the United Nations security council - and stalling IAEA enquiries. That means the Egyptian diplomat was unable to state with certainty whether Iran is as advanced as some claim or fear it may be in areas such as centrifuges and warhead design. The cautious, low-key language was appropriate to a technical agency of the UN. Now it is up to the security council to decide what to do next. The plot is about to thicken. President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad got off to a bad start by declaring pre-emptively that Iranians would "not give a damn" about international pressure to halt nuclear activities, which it hotly insists (to widespread and justified disbelief) are entirely peaceful. Nor has it been helpful to hear threats about retaliation against US targets if President George Bush mounts an attack. It is true that the White House refuses to rule out military options, and a combination of warnings and leaks from the administration, including to the renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, has fuelled fears that it could happen. Cooler analysis suggests this is unlikely and that Mr Bush has learned enough lessons from Iraq to avoiding launching another war. It is important, as a divided security council moves to discussing sanctions, to recall what this issue is about and what it is not. It is not about regime change or a clash of civilisations. It is about Iran's desire to develop nuclear energy as it is entitled to under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). But it is also about anxieties, grounded in years of lies and concealment, that it is seeking to acquire weapons. Iranians have some good arguments on their side. The failure of the five "official" nuclear powers to meet their disarmament obligations is one. The "breakout" of non-NPT signatories India and Pakistan is another. Then there is the tolerance of Israel's nuclear might and the double standard that represents. That does not mean Mr Ahmedinejad's bombastic and irresponsible threats to annihilate the Jewish state can be written out of the picture; on the contrary, they make his behaviour all the more alarming. At this delicate juncture the world community must avoid the disarray that preceded, and ultimately facilitated, war in Iraq. China and Russia oppose talk of sanctions, partly because Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer at a time of rising prices. The US is already talking about "coalitions of the willing" - a sure way to weaken the UN. Some argue that the best course would be to acquiesce in an Iranian bomb. That may yet happen. But there is much more to be done. What is needed is a return to the idea that a bargain can be struck with Iran, or at least with the pragmatists sidelined by the president. It can have security guarantees if it accepts UN demands. The US needs Iranian help over the mess next door in Iraq. Denouncing Tehran as dictatorial and revolutionary won't bring that. But Iran must restore confidence in its intentions. A start would be a pause in uranium enrichment - even for a brief period. Then it must allow the IAEA to mount snap inspections under the so-called "additional protocol". It must on no account leave the NPT - that would mean slamming the door shut. Jack Straw said recently, with undiplomatic bluntness, that the idea of military action against Iran was "nuts". That is true. But it does not mean that there isn't a serious problem to be addressed. If Iran wants to be part of the solution rather than just the problem in this gathering crisis, it had better stop blustering and grasp that basic point. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 21 IRNA: Germany's Green MPs urge EU to step up Iran nuclear diplomacy efforts - Berlin, April 29, IRNA Germany-Iran-Greens German lawmakers of the opposition Green Party called on the European Union to step up diplomatic efforts for a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear dispute. "The European Union and Germany have to continue their efforts with all their strength for a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear conflict," a press statement released by the Green parliamentary faction said in Berlin on Saturday. The Green legislators further stressed the need "to work towards a negotiated solution and to use diplomatic options." The German pacifist party also urged direct talks between the US and Iran in a bid to solve the current nuclear standoff. "Direct negotiations between the US and Iran make sense and have to be emphatically demanded by the EU and the federal (German) government. A softening of Iran is only realistic if it involves a US security guarantee," the statement added. The Green MPs also stressed "Iran's undeniable right to peaceful use of nuclear energy." ***************************************************************** 22 BBC: Iran nuclear plan 'irreversible' Last Updated: Saturday, 29 April 2006 [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] Ahmadinejad has said Iran is unconcerned by UN rulings Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has again vowed never to give up Iran's nuclear programme. Mr Ahmadinejad said the pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology was Iran's "absolute right... our red line". He was speaking after the UN's atomic watchdog said Iran had failed to meet a Security Council deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. A senior Iranian official meanwhile has said Iran will allow snap checks to resume if the council drops the case. Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, said UN experts could conduct snap inspections of its nuclear facilities if the issue was returned to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However the BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says this is unlikely to happen , so the offer seems rather academic. Iran halted such inspections in February after the IAEA decided to report Iran to the Security Council. Defiant Mr Ahmadinejad was speaking after a 30-day deadline set by the Security Council for Iran to freeze its nuclear work expired without compliance. IRAN CRISIS: NEXT STEPS 2 May: Negotiator from US, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany meet in Paris 3 May: Possible Security Council meeting to discuss IAEA report 9 May: Foreign ministers from US, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany meet at UN Nuclear report: Excerpts Confrontation ahead In quotes: World reaction "The Islamic republic will not negotiate with anyone on its absolute right to use peaceful nuclear technology. This is our red line, and we will never give it up," he said. "Iran's decision to master nuclear technology and the production of nuclear fuel is irreversible." At the same time, Dr Saeedi said Iran's uranium enrichment would continue, adding that Tehran was researching advanced designs of centrifuges, the machines used in the enrichment process. Our correspondent says the announcement is an indication that Iran plans to press ahead with its stated intention of producing nuclear fuel on an industrial scale. The US and EU have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Iran has strongly denied. Call for action IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council on Friday that Iran had not halted its programme and had not given information on key issues. NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Mined uranium ore i purified and reconstituted into solid form known as yellowcake Yellowcake is chemically processed and converted into a gas by heating it to above 64C (147F) Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is enriched Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons "After more than three years of agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran's nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern," he said. In the wake of the report, Western powers said they will push for a legally binding UN resolution to force Iran to comply with calls for it to cease uranium enrichment. US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said it was clear that Iran had accelerated its nuclear programme and that he hoped the Security Council would act swiftly. "We do think there's a sense of urgency here and we hope that we can get council action just as soon as possible. "We're invoking the mandatory provisions of Chapter VII [of the UN Charter]," Mr Bolton said. Chapter VII resolutions permit enforcement by sanctions or even military action, although this step is so far highly unlikely because of opposition from Russia and China. The BBC News website's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the stage is set for months of diplomatic confrontation. The next immediate step will be a meeting of nuclear negotiators from the US, Britain, France, Germany China and Russia on 2 May. A week later US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will hold talks with foreign ministers of the other four permanent Security Council members and Germany. ***************************************************************** 23 IRNA: ElBaradei's report on Iran's nuclear program not realistic - MP - Tehran, April 29, IRNA Iran-MP-Nuclear issue A Majlis deputy here Saturday said that the report submitted by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei on Iran's nuclear activities "is not realistic." Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission First Deputy Mohammad-Nabi Roudaki made the comment while speaking to IRNA. "We expected the IAEA and its chief to give a report based on the realities of Iran's nuclear activities. Parts of the report were prepared and organized under US pressure," he said. The MP from Shiraz city highlighted the reality of Iran having completed the nuclear fuel cycle as announced by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and said Iran had succeeded in enriching uranium up to 3.5 percent under close scrutiny of IAEA inspectors. It may be recalled that on April 11, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) chief Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh, in a report on Iran's nuclear program, said that it had successfully enriched uranium up to 3.5 percent in its Natanz facility "thanks to the efforts of its young, talented scientists, and which now paves the way for the country to carry industrial-scale uranium enrichment." Pointing to a meeting of the five veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council -- France, Britain, China, Russia and the United States -- planned to be held in Paris on Monday, he said: "We recommend to the states to make decisions based on the reality of Iran being a nuclear state." He also cautioned China, Russia and France from being deceived by American and British anti-propaganda, saying Iran's nuclear program is based on Article 3 of the IAEA Articles of Association and Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "Iran carried out its research and development (R) with 164 centrifuges under IAEA surveillance and presented a report of its achievement to ElBaradei on April 27." Roudaki went on to say that the government and Majlis will "not give importance to any decision of the UN Security Council that will ignore the legal rights of the Iranian nation and prevent it from engaging in peaceful activities." Asked to comment on the possibility that sanctions could be imposed on Iran, he said: "In case sanctions characterized by bullying and discrimination are imposed, Iran will put suspension of its cooperation with the IAEA on its agenda." He said suspension could mean limiting cooperation with the agency and considering steps to take against the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council as a first step. But he clarified that suspension of cooperation may not necessarily amount to "Iran pulling out of the NPT." The MP said Iran will try to hold a meeting with foreign ministers of member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to discuss avenues for economic and political confrontation of the five atomic powers and another meeting with OIC heads if slapped with sanctions. "If Iran is subjected to pressure and a discriminatory approach by the US, we will definitely face the challenge with all our potentials and facilities. "If sanctioned, we will also reconsider our economic cooperation with Britain as well as the agreement for the sale of 100 billion dollars of gas to China, initial talks of which have already been completed." "We are ready to continue talks. The Islamic Republic of Iran will continue to seek peace and friendship but will not tolerate bullying and discrimination," the deputy said. "We will give a strong response to any military aggression on Iran's nuclear facilities," he added. Roudaki once again urged the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council to use diplomacy to resolve the nuclear issue so as to avoid any damage in the future. News sent: 13:56 Saturday April 29, 2006 Print ***************************************************************** 24 WorldNetDaily: The Security Council deadline myth Founded 1997 Sunday, April 30, 2006 Today's Edition [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] Posted: April 29, 2006 © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com Under a Safeguards Agreement concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency – as required by the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to "verify" that no "source or special nuclear materials" are being used in furtherance of a nuclear weapons program. During the past three years, every report Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei has made to the IAEA Board concluded that – as best he can determine – no proscribed materials have been so used. The NPT and the IAEA Statute and the Iranian Safeguards Agreement all guarantee Iran's "inalienable" right to conduct research into – and to enjoy all the benefits of the peaceful use of – nuclear energy. The IAEA Statute ensures – insofar as the IAEA is able – that "source or special nuclear materials" are not used in furtherance of a military purpose as a secondary mission. ElBaradei's reports over the past three years are that – while he cannot be absolutely certain that there are no proscribed materials in Iran that he doesn't know about – there are no "indications" that there are. Nevertheless, Bush-Cheney-Bolton-Rice strong-armed the IAEA Board into reporting the entire Iranian dossier to the Security Council "for possible action." According to Bonkers Bolton, our representative on the Security Council: This is a real test for the Security Council. There's just no doubt that for close to 20 years, the Iranians have been pursuing nuclear weapons through a clandestine program that we've uncovered. No doubt? That Bolton has uncovered? After three years of intrusive on-the-ground inspections, there is nothing but doubt, and ElBaradei hasn't uncovered anything. That doesn't faze Bonkers. If the U.N. Security Council can't deal with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, can't deal with the greatest threat we have with a country like Iran — that's one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism — if the Security Council can't deal with that, you have a real question of what it can deal with. Well, Article 39 of the U.N. Charter does say: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 41 provides for measures "not including the use of armed forces." Article 42 provides for measures including the use of armed forces. But, Article 40 says: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Well, after three weeks of acrimonious debate, the UNSC issued a non-binding Presidential Statement, essentially "calling" upon the parties to settle their differences amongst themselves. The Council did note "with serious concern" that "the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran." Of course, that's a reflection on the IAEA, not on Iran. Nevertheless, Bush-Cheney-Bolton-Rice and their neo-crazy media sycophants would have you believe that the UNSC gave Iran a "deadline" to suspend all uranium enrichment activities within 30 days – or else. Wrong! In words very carefully chosen, the UNSC merely "called" upon Iran to take the steps "required" by the IAEA Board so that the Board's "outstanding questions can best be resolved and confidence built in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's program." In effect, the UNSC remanded the "Iranian nuclear issue" to the IAEA Board for resolution. That, of course, was what China and Russia had insisted on all along. And still insist on. The UNSC did not address the question of whether the IAEA Board had any right under the IAEA Statute or the U.N. Charter to make such requirements. Nor did the UNSC address the question of whether the Iranian "nuclear issue" constituted "a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or act of aggression." Worse (for Bush-Cheney-Rice-Bolton), the Presidential Statement began: The Security Council reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and recalls the right of States Party, in conformity with articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination. In other words, Iran does have the rights under the NPT it asserts and no one – not even the neo-crazies – can discriminate against them. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. He also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Copyright 1997-2006 All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc. ***************************************************************** 25 IRNA: US seeks to deceive the world on Iran's nuclear program - Zarif - New York, April 29, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Zarif The US is trying to deceive the world on Iran's nuclear program by making it appear that the program has objectives beyond civilian ones, said Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Mohammad-Javad Zarif here Saturday. His remarks came during an interview with the US' Public Broadcasting Service's (PBS) TV network on the latest development in Iran's nuclear case with the release on Friday of the much-anticipated IAEA report. He said Washington's repetition of accusations on different occasions is intended to portray Iran as having objectives other than peaceful ones in its nuclear porogram, Zarif said. He once again stressed that Tehran's nuclear activities were entirely for peaceful purposes. "Iran has presented various proposals including technical, legal, political and supervisory mechanisms in order to prove its nuclear program is for civilian purposes," Zarif said. He said that Tehran was ready to make the necessary commitments to ensure that its uranium enrichment activities would not go beyond the level needed to produce nuclear fuel. As for international concerns, particularly those of UN Security Council permanent members, over latest remarks of Iranian authorities, the ambassador said these remarks should not be taken as threats as Iran "has never imposed any threat on any country." "Our history proves that in the past 250 years we have not attacked any country but have been attacked by others," Zarif said. "Chemical weapons have been used against us and we just defended ourselves. We did not even used chemical weapons in retaliation," he pointed out. On the other hand, the envoy sai, the Zionist regime of Israel "has a track record of invading its neighbors, is known to possess a nuclear arsenal and continues to resist membership in the international treaty." "Can the US or Israel, following Iran, say under oath that they have not attacked or threatened any country and would not do so in the future?," he asked. As for the previously announced Tehran-Washington talks, Zarif said Iran had "positively responded to the US call for bilateral talks on ways to help the Iraqi people achieve stability in their war-torn country," adding that the call had the support also of senior Iraqi officials. Zarif, alluding to the cancellation of the talks, said it was not clear "why US had changed its approach after Tehran said it was ready to enter into talks with Washington on Iraq." "This will prove that they (US authorities) were not serious in their desire to hold talks as can be gleaned in their making the conditions difficult for negotiation," Zarif said. He stressed that security and stability in Iraq would be to the benefit not only the countries of the region but the US as well. ***************************************************************** 26 IRNA: Iran will not halt enrichment research studies - IAEO official - Tehran, April 30, IRNA Iran-Nuclear Program-Saeedi Iran will never stop research and development (R) at laboratory level and regards it a sovereign right, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) for International Affairs, Mohammad Saeedi, said on Saturday night in an interview with national television. Saeedi was commenting a report presented on Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei to the UN Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors on Iran's nuclear program. "The first part of the report dealt with the progress and the second section with ElBaradei's evaluation and measures after the Security Council statement and the last meeting of the Board of Governors. "The report also pointed to progress and Iran's six-Article letter to the IAEA and ElBaradei," Saeedi said. He added, "In his report, ElBaradei reiterated that Iran has provided response to seven questions on plutonium and just one question has been left unanswered. "The report said contamination of centrifuge parts in Iran had foreign origin and the IAEA should continue with its research in this regard." "The second part of the report said all nuclear materials have been under the IAEA supervision and there has been no violation in this field. "It added some 80 percent of questions on Iran's nuclear program have been answered after the IAEA inspectors visited Iran and Iranian cooperation with the agency." The IAEO official said, "Reviewing Iran's nuclear case at the Board of Governors and the Security Council set limitations for the IAEA operations, the issue which was mentioned in ElBaradei's report." ElBaradei said that if Iran's case is returned to the IAEA from the Security Council and the Board of Governors, the agency will enjoy free hand to complete probing the case, he stated. "ElBaradei's report has been organized technically and legally. The Security Council's call for Iran's suspension of enrichment is non-binding. "This is while the report said that there was no diversion in Iran's nuclear program." Saeedi further added, "IAEA reports on no diversion in Iran's nuclear program discredit the idea that Iranian uranium enrichment at laboratory scale is endangering international peace. "In September 2005, the Board of Governors for the first time paid no attention to ElBaradei's report and claimed Iran has not been committed (to its undertakings). It was politically-motivated. "Calls for Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment should be rational but there has been no proof of diversion in the country's nuclear program." He said, "Utilization of nuclear energy is a demand of the Iranian nation. The Islamic Republic of Iran made no decision to suspend or halt enrichment. "Iran will implement the Additional Protocol (to the Non-Proliferation Treaty) voluntarily if the IAEA reviews Iran's nuclear dossier." The official said that Iran provided "good opportunity" for other countries with offering partnership with their private or public sectors on national nuclear program. "Such a cooperation will be the strongest guarantee and verification." Pointing to the Security Council's statement on construction of a heavy water reactor in Iranian city of Arak, Saeedi added, "The reactor is now under construction to produce radio medicines. "Now this question is that why the Security Council stresses Iran's revision of building such facilities?" The IAEO official said, "The IAEA is completely informed on Iran's nuclear activities." Asked about the impacts of an upcoming meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and a meeting which will be held in New York or Washington on May 9, he said, "Participants at the two meetings should know that Iran's peaceful nuclear program is irreversible and a national demand." The five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- France, Britain, China, Russia and the United States -- are scheduled to hold a meeting in Paris on Monday too. ***************************************************************** 27 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA's report could be better -Asefi 2006/04/30 12:02:45 È.Ù Tehran, April 30 - Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi told reporters Sunday that 'the recent report by IAEA's Secretary General, Mohammad ElBaradei on Iran's nuclear program could be better but also was not what Americans were pursuing.' "The report states that no signs have been found which may point to Iran's diversion from peaceful nuclear activities," Asefi added. Pointing to the report's call for more time be given to IAEA to make a definite judgement over Iran's nuclear activities, Asefi said that 'in fact the call is sort of complaint against the Security Council and other super powers which sidelined the IAEA and hindered it from carrying out its legal duties.' Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 28 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: ElBaradei delivers report on Iran (full report here) 2006/04/29 09:01:28 Þ.Ù Tehran, April 29 - On April 28, 2006, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei sent his report on the implementation of safeguards in Iran to the IAEA Board and the United Nation's Security Council. Following is the full text of the report. 1. On 4 February 2006, the Board of Governors adopted a resolution (GOV/2006/14) in paragraph 1 of which it, inter alia, underlined that outstanding questions concerning the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran1 (Iran) could best be resolved and confidence built in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme by Iran responding positively to the Board's calls for confidence building measures. In this context, the Board deemed it necessary for Ira n to: re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency; reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water; ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol; pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003; implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relati ng to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations. 2. In paragraph 2 of that resolution, the Board requested the Director General to report to the United Nations Security Council that the steps set out in paragraph 1 of the resolution were required of Iran by the Board and to report to the Security Counc il all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to this issue. In paragraph 8 of GOV/2006/14, the Board also requested the Director General to report on the implementation of that resolution, and previous resolutions, to the next regular sessio n of the Board, for its consideration, and immediately thereafter to convey, together with any resolution from the March Board, that report to the Security Council. 3. Following receipt by the Security Council of the Director General's report (GOV/2006/15), the President of the Security Council made a statement on behalf of the Council (reproduced in GOV/INF/2006/7) in which the Council, inter alia, called upon Iran to take the steps required by the Board of Governors, notably in the first operative paragraph of its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions, and underlined, in this regard, the particular importance of reestablishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency. The Security Co uncil requested in 30 days a report from the Director General on the process of Iranian compliance with the steps required by the Board of Governors, to the Board and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration. 4. This report is being submitted to the Board and in parallel to the Security Council. It provides an update on the developments that have taken place since March 2006 in the implementation of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, on the Agency's verification of Iran's implementation of the confidence building measures requested by the Board of Governors, and on the Agency's overall assessment in connection with the implementation of Iran's Safeguards Agreement. A. Developments since March 2006 5. On 13 April 2006, at the invitation of Iran, the Director General and an Agency team met in Tehran with the President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran and other Iranian of ficials to discuss issues relevant to the verification of the correctness and completeness of Iran's declarations. The Director General urged Iran to accelerate substantially its cooperation with the Agency on the outstanding verification issues, and und erlined the importance of Iran's implementation of the confidence building measures requested by the Board of Governors. 6. On 27 April 2006, the Director General received from Iran a letter of the same date in which it stated, inter alia, the following: "1 - Islamic Republic of Iran has fully cooperated with the Agency during the past three years in accordance with the NPT Comprehensive Safeguards, the Additional Protocol and even beyond the Additional Protocol which was voluntarily implemented as if it was ratified. "2 - Islamic Republic of Iran has granted the full and unrestricted access to nuclear facilities during the past three years in the course of around 2000 man-day inspections. "3 - All nuclear facilities and activities have been under the Agency's Safeguards. "4 - Nuclear materials have been declared to the Agency and have been accounted for. "5 - Islamic Republic of Iran is fully committed to its obligations under the NPT and the comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/153). "6 - Islamic Republic of Iran is fully prepared to continue granting the Agency's inspection in accordance with the Comprehensive Safeguards provided that the Iran's nuclear dossier will remain, in full, in the framework of the IAEA and under its safegua rds, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to resolve the remaining outstanding issues reflected in [the Director General's] report GOV/2006/15 of 27 February 2006, in accordance with the international laws and norms. In this regard, Iran will provide a time table within next three weeks." A.1. Enrichment Programme 7. As noted in the Director General's report of 27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15), the Agency has repeatedly requested Iran to provide additional information on certain issues related to its enrichment programme. Iran declined to discuss these matters at th e 12?14 February 2006 meeting in Tehran referred to in paragraph 6 of GOV/2006/15 on the grounds that, in its view, they were not within the scope of the Safeguards Agreement. Iran reasserted this position in a meeting which took place with Agency inspec tors in Tehran on 8 April 2006. The Agency reiterated that it was essential to resolve these questions so that the Agency can verify the correctness and completeness of Iran's declarations, particularly in light of the two decades of concealed activities . The current status of these outstanding issues is as follows. A.1.1. Contamination 8. Although the results of the Agency's analyses to date tend, on balance, to support Iran's statement regarding the foreign origin of most of the high enriched uranium (HEU) contamination which was found at locations where Iran has declared that centrif uge components had been manufactured, used and/or stored, the Agency is continuing to investigate the source(s) of low enriched uranium particles, and some HEU particles, found at those locations.2 9. Since it will be difficult to establish a definitive conclusion with respect to the origin of all of the contamination, it is essential for the Agency to make progress in ascertaining the scope and chronology of Iran's centrifuge enrichment programme. The implementation of the Additional Protocol and Iran's full cooperation in this regard are essential for the Agency be able to provide the required assurance concerning the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. A.1.2. Acquisition of P-1 centrifuge technology 10. As noted in previous reports, the Agency was shown by Iran in January 2005 a copy of a handwritten one-page document reflecting an offer said to have been made to Iran in 1987 by a foreign intermediary.3 In order to be able to ascertain its nature an d origin, a copy of the document is needed by the Agency. However, Iran continues to decline the Agency's request for a copy of the document. 11. As previously reported, according to Iran, there were no contacts by Iran with the network between 1987 and mid-1993, when discussions leading to the later offer in the mid-1990s are said to have been initiated.4 Statements made by Iran and key membe rs of the network about the events leading to the mid-1990s offer are still at variance with each other. Iran has yet to provide further clarification in this regard. Iran has also said that it is unable to provide any documentation or other information about the meetings that led to its acquisition of 500 sets of P-1 centrifuge components in the mid-1990s. The Agency is still awaiting clarification of the dates and contents of the shipments containing those components. A.1.3. Acquisition of P-2 centrifuge technology 12. As reflected in the Director General's previous report, Iran still maintains that, after having received the drawings for P-2 components in 1995, it carried out no work on P-2 centrifuges until 2002, and that at no time during the intervening period did it ever discuss with the intermediaries the P-2 centrifuge design or the possible supply of P-2 centrifuge components.5 Iran also continues to maintain that there were no deliveries of any centrifuge components after 1995. 13. In connection with the research and development (R) work on a modified P-2 design, said by Iran to have been carried out by a contracting company between early 2002 and July 2003, Iran has confirmed that the contractor had made enquiries about, and purchased, magnets suitable for the P-2 centrifuge design. In February 2006, Iran provided some additional clarification about the types of P-2 magnets that it had received, but maintained that only a limited number of magnets had been delivered. The Ag ency is still investigating this matter. 14. In mid-April 2006, there were several reports in the press about statements by high level Iranian officials concerning R and testing of P-2 centrifuges by Iran. The Agency has asked Iran to clarify these statements. A.2. Uranium Metal 15. The references to uranium re-conversion and casting capabilities in the one-page document mentioned in paragraph 10 above have taken on greater significance in light of the existence of the 15-page document shown to the Agency by Iran describing the procedures for the reduction of UF6 to uranium metal in small quantities, and for the casting of enriched and depleted uranium metal into hemispheres.6 16. As previously reported, although there is no indication about the actual use of the latter document or when it was received, its existence in Iran is a matter of concern. The Agency is aware that the intermediaries had this document, as well as other similar documents, which it has seen in other Member States. Therefore, it is essential that the Agency be able to understand the full scope of the offer made by the network in 1987 and to confirm what was obtained by Iran in connection with that offer, and when. To do so, it is necessary for the Agency to have a copy of the 15-page document, so that it can follow up further on these issues. However, Iran has continued to decline the Agency's request for a copy. A.3. Plutonium Experiments 17. As indicated earlier, the Agency has been following up with Iran information provided by Iran concerning experiments involving the separation of small (milligram) quantities of plutonium.7 After having received Iran's further clarifications on 15 Feb ruary 2006, and the results of additional sample analyses which confirmed the Agency's earlier findings, the Agency provided Iran on 30 March 2006 with an updated summary of its overall analysis of this issue. On 10 April 2006, the Agency met with Irania n officials to seek further explanations concerning the inconsistencies identified in that analysis. Following that meeting, in a letter dated 17 April 2006, Iran reaffirmed its previous explanations of the inconsistencies. In the light of the Agency's f indings, the Agency cannot exclude the possibility ? notwithstanding the explanations provided by Iran ? that the plutonium analysed by the Agency was derived from source(s) other than the ones declared by Iran. A.4. Heavy Water Research Reactor 18. On 22 April 2006, the Agency visited the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) at Arak to carry out design information verification and confirmed that the civil engineering work was still ongoing. A.5. Other Implementation Issues 19. There are no new developments to report with respect to Iran's uranium mining activities.8 20. There are also no new developments to report with respect to Iran's experiments involving polonium.9 21. On 9-11 April 2006, the Agency discussed with Iran the routine safeguards measures to be implemented at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Esfahan and the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) at Natanz. When fully implemented, the measures propos ed by the Agency should allow it to meet all of the safeguards objectives for these facilities. Although agreement was reached on most of the measures, Iran still has reservations about the remote transmission of encrypted safeguards data to Agency Headq uarters in Vienna. 22. On 11 April 2006, the Agency visited the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) at Natanz, and observed that civil construction was ongoing. A.6. Voluntary Implementation of the Additional Protocol 23. Since 5 February 2006, Iran has not been implementing the provisions of its Additional Protocol. A.7. Transparency Visits and Discussions 24. Since 2004, the Agency has repeatedly requested additional information and clarifications related to efforts made by the Physics Research Centre (PHRC), which had been established at Lavisan-Shian, to acquire dual use materials and equipment that cou ld also be used in uranium enrichment and conversion activities.10 The Agency also requested interviews with the individuals involved in the acquisition of those items, including two former Heads of the PHRC. 25. As previously reported, the Agency met in February 2006 with one of the former Heads of the PHRC, who had been a university professor at a technical university while he was Head of the PHRC.11 The Agency took environmental samples from some of the eq uipment said to have been procured for use by the university, the results of which are currently being assessed and discussed with Iran. Although Iran agreed to provide further clarifications in relation to efforts to procure balancing machines, mass spe ctrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, the Agency has yet to receive such clarifications. Further access to the procured equipment is necessary for environmental sampling. Iran has continued to decline requests by the Agency to interview th e other former Head of the PHRC. 26. In January 2006, Iran provided some clarification of its efforts in 2000 to procure some other dual use material (high strength aluminium, special steels, titanium and special oils). Iran agreed to provide additional information on these efforts, som e of which the Agency has since received from Iran. Iran also presented information on its acquisition of corrosion resistant steel, valves and filters for UCF. In January 2006, environmental samples were taken from these latter items, the results of whi ch are still pending. 27. As previously reported, the Deputy Director General for the Department of Safeguards met with Iranian authorities in February 2006 to discuss alleged studies related to the so-called Green Salt Project, to high explosives testing and to the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, all of which could have a military nuclear dimension and which appear to have administrative interconnections.12 28. As indicated in GOV/2006/15, Iran stated that the allegations with regard to the Green Salt Project "are based on false and fabricated documents so they were baseless," and that neither such a project nor such studies exist or had existed. Iran state d that all national efforts had been devoted to the UCF project, and that it would not make sense to develop indigenous capabilities to produce UF4 when such technology had already been acquired from abroad. However, according to information provided ear lier by Iran, the company alleged to have been associated with the Green Salt Project had been involved in procurement for UCF and in the design and construction of the Gchine uranium ore processing plant. 29. The Agency is assessing the information provided by Iran during these discussions concerning the Green Salt Project, as well as other information available to it. However, Iran has yet to address the other topics of high explosives testing and the de sign of a missile re-entry vehicle. A.8. Suspension 30. In a letter dated 3 January 2006, Iran informed the Agency that it had decided to resume, as from 9 January 2006, "those R on the peaceful nuclear energy programme which ha[d] been suspended as part of its expanded voluntary and non-legally binding suspension".13 31. In February 2006, Iran started enrichment tests at PFEP by feeding UF6 gas into a single P-1 machine, and later into 10-machine and 20-machine cascades. During March 2006, a 164-machine cascade was completed, and tests of the cascade using UF6 were b egun. On 13 April 2006, Iran declared to the Agency that an enrichment level of 3.6% had been achieved. On 18 April 2006, the Agency took samples at PFEP, the results of which tend to confirm as of that date the enrichment level declared by Iran. On that day, UF6 gas was again being fed into the 164-machine cascade, and two additional 164-machine cascades were under construction. The enrichment process at PFEP, including the feed and withdrawal stations, is covered by Agency safeguards containment and s urveillance measures. 32. The current uranium conversion campaign at UCF, which was initiated in November 2005, is still ongoing and is expected to be finished in April 2006. Since September 2005, approximately 110 tonnes of UF6 has been produced at UCF, all of which remains under Agency containment and surveillance. B. Current overall assessment14 33. All the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency is accounted for. Apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, the Agency has found no other undeclared nuclear material in Iran. However, gaps remain in the Agency's knowle dge with respect to the scope and content of Iran's centrifuge programme. Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency's knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran's nuclear programme, the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to p rovide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. 34. After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran's nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern. Any progress in that regard requires full transparency and active cooperat ion by Iran ? transparency that goes beyond the measures prescribed in the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol ? if the Agency is to be able to understand fully the twenty years of undeclared nuclear activities by Iran. Iran continues to facilit ate the implementation of the Safeguards Agreement and had, until February 2006, acted on a voluntary basis as if the Additional Protocol were in force. Until February 2006, Iran had also agreed to some transparency measures requested by the Agency, incl uding access to certain military sites. Additional transparency measures, including access to documentation, dual use equipment and relevant individuals, are, however, still needed for the Agency to be able to verify the scope and nature of Iran's enrich ment programme, the purpose and use of the dual use equipment and materials purchased by the PHRC, and the alleged studies which could have a military nuclear dimension. 35. Regrettably, these transparency measures are not yet forthcoming. With Iran's decision to cease implementing the provisions of the Additional Protocol, and to confine Agency verification to the implementation of the Safeguards Agreement, the Agency's ability to make progress in clarifying these issues, and to confirm the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities, will be further limited, and Agency access to activities not involving nuclear material (such as research into laser isotope s eparation and the production of sensitive components of the nuclear fuel cycle) will be restricted.15 36. While the results of Agency safeguards activities may influence the nature and scope of the confidence building measures that the Board requests Iran to take, it is important to note that safeguards obligations and confidence building measures are di fferent, distinct and not interchangeable. The implementation of confidence building measures is no substitute for the full implementation at all times of safeguards obligations. In this context, it is also important to note that the Agency's safeguards judgements and conclusions in the case of Iran, as in all other cases, are based on verifiable information available to the Agency, and are therefore, of necessity, limited to past and present nuclear activities. The Agency cannot make a judgement about, or reach a conclusion on, future compliance or intentions. 37. The Agency will pursue its investigation of all remaining outstanding issues relevant to Iran's nuclear activities, and the Director General will continue to report as appropriate. References: 1 INFCIRC/214. 2 GOV/2006/15, paras 7-10. 3 Most recently in GOV/2006/15, para. 11. The document related to the possible supply of: a disassembled centrifuge; drawings, specifications and calculations for a "complete plant"; and materials for 2000 centrifuge machines. The document also made refe rence, inter alia, to uranium re-conversion and casting capabilities. Iran has repeatedly stated that that document was the only remaining documentary evidence relevant to the scope and content of the 1987 offer, attributing this to the secret nature of the programme and the management style of the AEOI at that time. Iran has stated that no other written evidence exists, such as meeting minutes, administrative documents, reports, personal notebooks or the like, to substantiate its statements concerning that offer. 4 GOV/2006/15, para. 15. 5 GOV/2006/15, para. 18. 6 GOV/2006/15, paras 20-22. According to Iran, the document was provided on the initiative of the intermediaries, and not at the request of the AEOI. The document is currently under Agency seal. 7 GOV/2006/15, paras 23?26. 8 GOV/2005/67, paras 26?31. 9 GOV/2005/67, para. 34; GOV/2004/83, para. 84. 10 According to Iran, the PHRC was established at Lavisan-Shian in 1989, inter alia, to "support and provide scientific advice and services to the Ministry of Defence" (GOV/2004/60, para. 43). 11 Iran informed the Agency that the PHRC had attempted to acquire the electric drive equipment, the power supply equipment and the laser equipment, and had successfully purchased vacuum equipment for R in various departments of the university. The pro fessor explained that his expertise and connections, as well as resources available at his office in the PHRC, had been used for the procurement of equipment for the technical university. 12 GOV/2006/15, paras 38 and 39. 13 GOV/INF/2006/1. 14 A detailed overall assessment of Iran's nuclear programme and the Agency's efforts to verify Iran's declarations with respect to that programme was most recently provided to the Board of Governors by the Director General in February 2006. 15 In this context, it is important to recall that, in September 2005, the Director General informed the Board of Governors that certain aspects of Iran's declarations would be followed up as a routine safeguards implementation matter (particularly in co nnection with conversion activities, laser enrichment, fuel fabrication and the heavy water research reactor programme) (GOV/2005/67, para. 43). Implicit in this statement was the understanding that the Agency would be able to follow up on these matters through the implementation of the Safeguards Agreement and the Additional Protocol. With the suspension of Iran's voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol, the Agency's ability to do so will be restricted. Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 29 AFP: Iran says digging in for confrontation over nuclear programme - Sun Apr 30, 5:58 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas said it was digging in for a confrontation with the West over its disputed nuclear programme, vowing that neither UN Security Council resolutions nor US military action could force a climbdown. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Rice, meanwhile, accused the Islamic regime in Tehran of "playing games" and called on it to come clean and halt uranium enrichment. "We will not accept any forced resolution," Iran's top national security official Ali Larijani told students at Tehran's Sharif University Sunday, the most prestigious scientific faculty in the Islamic republic. Drawing loud applause, he asserted the country's bid to master sensitive nuclear technology -- for peaceful purposes and not weapons as the United States alleges -- was "a strategic objective". "We will use any means to achieve that objective," he said. "Our programme is to continue research and development in enrichment and to have the nuclear fuel cycle." "We are ready for all scenarios. The government has set up a committee and has thought about all scenarios. If the situation becomes a military one, we have thought about that too," Larijani said. On Friday the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) confirmed Iran had not complied with a Security Council demand to freeze uranium enrichment -- which makes civilian reactor fuel but can also be extended to make the explosive core of an atom bomb. The United States and European powers are now poised to seek a Security Council resolution legally obliging Iran to halt the work. Unlike the IAEA, the Security Council has enforcement powers and its beefed-up involvement in the crisis could pave the way for sanctions or even military action. "If they want to pressure us, our reaction will be to revise our relations with the IAEA," Larijani said, repeating Iran's threat to put an end to crucial UN inspections. "If you want to harm Iran, you should know that we can also harm you. We are serious about that," he added, several days after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei bluntly warned Washington of global retaliation in the event of an attack. Larijani nevertheless said he felt the Americans were "intelligent enough not to carry out such a mad thing". "It will have no effect on our nuclear programme. They say they will bomb us, but where do they want to bomb? We already have the know-how." Larijani, a hardliner and secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, also signalled that work on uranium enrichment was progressing -- with uranium now being enriched to four percent purity. Enrichment to levels of around five percent produces fuel for civilian reactors, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a weapon. Larijani and other officials were also lobbying hard for the Security Council to think twice before embarking on a more robust approach. "If the IAEA and the Security Council commit for the case to remain at the IAEA, we are ready for maximum cooperation," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. Foreign ministers of the five permanent Council members and Germany plan to gather in New York on May 9 to discuss the crisis. Representatives of these countries are also due to meet in Paris Tuesday ahead of the talks. China and Russia, which have huge economic interests at stake, are for the time being opposed to the path sought by the Western powers. But Rice, speaking on ABC television, dismissed Iranian offers to allow spot inspections of its nuclear facilities and to reopen discussions on a Russian proposal to conduct sensitive fuel cycle work for Tehran. "I think they're playing games," she said. "Obviously if they're not they should come clean, stop the enrichment, suspend the enrichment and answer the list of demands in the IAEA board of governors resolution and statement of the Security Council." Iran's foreign ministry on Sunday also killed off plans for direct talks with the United States on the situation in Iraq" /> Iraq, calling Washington "arrogant" and saying negotiations were not in Iran's interests. "The Americans have always had an arrogant position towards Iran, and are trying to reach their objectives through poisonous propaganda," Asefi said. "In such a context, negotiating with the United States is not in the interests of the country." The United States had declared its willingness to meet with Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq. Iran initially accepted, but last week hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said there was "no need" for talks. Any direct meeting would have marked a break in a near three-decade pause in open bilateral contacts between US and Iranian officials following the country's 1979 Islamic revolution. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 30 AFP: Iran battles to escape Security Council action Sun Apr 30, 6:06 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranis battling to head off international action following its refusal to halt its disputed nuclear drive, promising "maximum cooperation" if it manages to avoid the UN Security Council. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi nevertheless warned that any step towards sanctions would meet with tough retaliation from the Islamic republic, which is supected of using an atomic energy drive as a cover for weapons development. "We have said that we are ready to solve the questions through dialogue. If the IAEA and the Security Council commit for the case to remain at the IAEA, we are ready for maximum cooperation," Asefi told reporters Sunday. "But if they take radical measures, we will take measures as a consequence. If their decisions are reasonable, ours will be too. If their decisions are radical, ours will be too," he warned. On Friday the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) confirmed Iran had not complied with a Security Council demand to freeze enrichment -- which makes civilian reactor fuel but can also be extended to make the explosive core of an atom bomb. The United States and European powers are now poised to seek a Security Council resolution legally obliging Iran to halt the work. Unlike the IAEA, the Security Council has enforcement powers and its involvement in the crisis could pave the way for sanctions or even military action. "The Islamic republic of Iran has no intention to stop or to suspend uranium enrichment," the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Mohammad Saidi, also told official media. Foreign ministers of the five permanent Council members and Germany plan to gather in New York on May 9 to discuss the crisis. Representatives of these countries are also due to meet in Paris Tuesday ahead of the talks. "The participants of the Paris and New York meetings must understand that Iran's nuclear programme corresponds to the wishes of the Iranian people and is irreversible," Saidi said. China and Russia, which have huge economic interests at stake, are for the time being opposed to the path sought by the Western powers. Speaking in Chicago on Saturday, the Chinese ambassador to the UN Wang Guangya said it could be "dangerous" to introduce a resolution forcing Iran to halt uranium enrichment. "If you introduce a resolution not to reinforce the IAEA but to replace it, that is dangerous," Wang told reporters. "The Iranians are already saying that if this issue is being discussed under Chapter 7, they will drop the NPT like the North Koreans". Apparently killing off plans for consultations on the situation in Iraq" /> Iraq, Asefi ruled out direct talks with the United States, calling Washington "arrogant" and saying negotiations were not in Iran's interests. "The Americans have always had an arrogant position towards Iran, and are trying to reach their objectives through poisonous propaganda," he said. "In such a context, negotiating with the United States is not in the interests of the country." The United States had declared its willingness to meet with Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq. Iran initially accepted, but last week hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said there was "no need" for talks. Any direct meeting would have marked a break in a near three-decade pause in open bilateral contacts between US and Iranian officials following the country's 1979 Islamic revolution. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 31 AFP: Iran cannot be forced to halt nuclear programme - Larijani - Sun Apr 30, 9:29 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Irancannot be forced to halt its disputed nuclear programme and will defy any UN Security Council resolution demanding a freeze of uranium enrichment, the country's top national security official has said. "We will not accept any forced resolution," Ali Larijani told a group of students at Tehran's Sharif University, the Islamic republic's most prestigious scientific faculty. "They should not think they can make us happy with sweets. Iran is allergic to the terms of the suspension. Our programme is to continue research and development in enrichment and to have the nuclear fuel cycle," he said Sunday. "If they want to pressure us, our reaction will be to revise our relations with the IAEA," he said, referring to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency. "The ball is in their court." Larijani said the country's bid to master nuclear technology -- for peaceful purposes and not weapons as the United States alleges -- was "a strategic objective". "We will use any means to achieve that objective," he said, drawing loud applause from students. "If you want to harm Iran, you should know that we can also harm you. We are serious about that," he added, referring to the fact that Washington has not ruled out taking military action against the Islamic republic. "We are ready for all scenarios. The government has set up a committee and has thought about all scenarios. If the situation becomes a military one, we have thought about that too," he said. "What the supreme leader said was serious. If they harm us we will harm them," he said, several days after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened the United States with global "harm" if a war broke out. "If they attack us, they have to pay the price. It will have no effect on our nuclear programme. They say they will bomb us, but where do they want to bomb? We already have the know-how," Larijani said. "I think that they are intelligent enough not to carry out such a mad thing." Larijani, a hardliner and the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, also signalled that work on uranium enrichment was progressing, with uranium now being enriched to four percent purity. Enrichment to levels of around five percent produces fuel for civilian reactors, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of weapons -- hence Western demands for the work to be suspended while an IAEA probe is still in progress. Atlhough Larijani repeated that enrichment work was not up for negotiations, he said the country was ready for "confidence building". "We are ready to negotiate on several matters. Iran is a member of the IAEA and the NPT. Iran accepts the surveillance of its programme. The rights of Iran on research and development should be realised," Larijani said. "The case should stay at the IAEA, because to send it to the Security Council would mean an end to negotiations. Iran will not accept negotiations under threat," he added. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 32 AFP: Security Council resolution on Iran 'dangerous' - Chinese ambassador - Sun Apr 30, 2:13 AM ET CHICAGO, United States (AFP) - It could be "dangerous" to introduce a UN Security Council resolution to force Iran" /> to halt uranium enrichment activities, the Chinese ambassador to the UN said. Ambassador Wang Guangya, who presides over the 15-member Security Council this month, would not comment on whether China would veto a Chapter 7 resolution, which Western diplomats have said they will introduce next week. However, he reiterated the need to find a diplomatic solution to the situation and said the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> was the organization most capable of ensuring that Iran complies with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "If you introduce a resolution not to reinforce the IAEA but to replace it, that is dangerous," Wang told reporters following a talk at the University of Chicago. "The Iranians are already saying that if this issue is being discussed under Chapter 7, they will drop the NPT like the North Koreans," he said. Wang said the Security Council could be used to put pressure on Iran to fully cooperate with IAEA inspectors, but said that China, while "concerned," does not characterize the situation as a threat to international security. "This is a technical issue and I don't think the Security Council as a political organization would be capable of doing this job," he said. Responding to comments by US President George W. Bush" /> that the international community must present a "common voice" to put pressure on Tehran, Wang said the international community was "united" in its concern but not in the solution. On Friday the IAEA confirmed that Iran had not complied with a Security Council demand to freeze enrichment -- which can be used to make fuel for civilian nuclear reactors, but can also serve as the explosive core of atom bombs. The report clears the way for a new phase of diplomacy, with the United States and Europe poised to seek a Security Council resolution legally obliging Iran to meet IAEA and Council demands. If Iran still refuses, such a resolution could pave the way to economic sanctions and even military action, although Tehran's major trading partners, Russia and China -- which have a veto on the Council -- oppose any such move. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 33 IRNA: No legal base for sending Iran to UNSC - Asefi Tehran, April 30, IRNA Iran-Security Council-Asefi Friday report of the International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, on Iran's nuclear program proved lack of legal basis to send Iran to UN Security Council, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said on Sunday. He told the domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press briefing that the report did not help materialize what the United States sought. "ElBaradei's report said that Iran had no diversion in its nuclear program," Asefi said. Referring to a point of the report in which the IAEA called for an extra time to review Iran's nuclear case, he added, "It shows concerns of the agency over performance of the Security Council and certain states which intended to bypass the IAEA." He said that suspension of uranium enrichment is not on Iran's agenda, adding, "The Islamic Republic of Iran will not return from the way it has passed so far. "Therefore, we will not pay attention to the call for suspending research and development (R) studies." The spokesman cautioned participants of an upcoming meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to "prevent language of threat and pressure". The five members of the UN Security Council -- France, Britain, China, Russia and the United States -- are scheduled to hold a meeting in Paris, France, on Monday. "Discussing Iran's nuclear case at the IAEA and not the Security Council is the only solution to the issue under current circumstances." Asked about time of talks between Iran and the United States on Iraq, he added, "Currently, time is not appropriate for holding negotiations with US. "Talks with Washington is not on agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran." ***************************************************************** 34 AFP: US senator says Iran key isssue for US ties with Russia, China - Sat Apr 29, 5:39 PM ET BRUSSELS (AFP) - Influential US senator John McCain warned this weekend that decisions by China and Russia over Iran" /> Iranwould be a "key test" for their relations with the United States. Meanwhile, the European Union" /> European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, called on Saturday for a "diplomatic solution in the ( United Nations" /> United Nations) Security Council", adding that "to ask about coalition outside the Security Council while we are trying to get together inside the Security Council" would be "a contradiction". Speaking Friday evening at a forum on transatlantic relations in Brussels, McCain refused to rule out military action to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. "There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran," he said. But he also argued that hard-hitting sanctions would "help forestall the need for greater coercion". Currently, Russia and China -- both veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council -- are opposed to sanctions against Tehran. "The Security Council should impose multilateral sanctions", McCain said, "including a prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists." "In taking these steps at the UN, China and Russia should know that their decisions on the Iranian issue will be a key test of our relations," the senator, a potential Republican candidate in 2008's US presidential election, added. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricewarned on 19 April that the United States would be perfectly capable of taking military action unilaterally, or together with an international coalition, if the dispute with Iran could not be resolved within the UN. Iran is suspected, mainly by the United States, of wanting to obtain nuclear weapons. The Iranian government denies this, and refused to comply with a Security Council injunction to suspend its uranium enrichment programmes by Friday. The Western powers, who insist that they want to resolve this dispute diplomatically, are expected to present a resolution to the Security Council next week, legally requiring Tehran to respect its obligations, but without threatening any immediate sanctions. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 35 AFP: Iran says will 'never' give up nuclear programme Sat Apr 29, 6:23 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to never give up Iran" /> 's disputed nuclear drive as Western powers pushed for tough Security Council action against the Islamic republic. In a further show of defiance, a top Iranian nuclear official declared the country's scientists were working on extremely advanced centrifuge designs to enrich uranium -- work that is at the centre of fears the clerical regime may acquire the bomb. "The Islamic republic will not negotiate with anyone on its absolute right to use peaceful nuclear technology. This is our red line, and we will never give it up," the president said in a statement. "Iran's decision to master nuclear technology and the production of nuclear fuel is irreversible," Ahmadinejad said. On Friday the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> confirmed Iran had not complied with a UN Security Council demand to freeze enrichment -- which can be used to make fuel for civilian nuclear reactors, but can also serve as the explosive core of atom bombs. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei also said there had been little progress since a previous assessment and that "gaps remain in the agency's knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran's centrifuge programme." Iran insists its programme is peaceful. But the report clears the way for a new phase of diplomacy, with the United States and Europe poised to seek a Security Council resolution legally obliging Iran to meet IAEA and Council demands. If Iran still refuses, such a resolution could pave the way to economic sanctions and even military action, although Tehran's major trading partners Russia and China -- which have a veto on the Council -- oppose any such move. Foreign ministers of the five permanent Council members and Germany plan to gather in New York on May 9 to discuss the crisis, while political directors of the so-called "P-5 plus one" are due to meet in Paris Tuesday ahead of the talks. US President George W. Bush" /> has branded Iran's nuclear ambitions as "dangerous" but insisted that Washington wanted to resolve the dispute "diplomatically and peacefully". But Ahmadinejad called on Western powers to "respect Iran's rights" and allow the IAEA -- and not the UN Security Council -- to deal with the case. He also said that "as a nuclear country, the Islamic republic is ready to discuss, alongside other nuclear powers and with all countries, how to assure world peace." The vice president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation Mohammad Saidi said Iran was working on extremely advanced centrifuge designs for enrichment. "But when it comes to which type we will use, we are still examining this. It isn't the P-2 (centrifuge) -- there are other devices that are more advanced and that are a part of our work," he told state television. Centrifuges work in cascades of hundreds, or thousands, spinning at high speed to refine out the uranium U-235 isotope. The technology is seen as a "breakout capacity" which, once mastered, makes manufacturing nuclear weapons possible. Iran announced earlier this month that it had successfully enriched uranium to reactor-grade levels using less advanced P-1 centrifuges. But the more advanced P-2 centrifuge can enrich at a much faster rate and is considered far more effective than the P-1 in the production of weapons-grade material. Saidi also reiterated Iran's pledge to cooperate more on condition that its case is dealt with by the IAEA and not the Security Council. "We would accept to remove the worries of certain countries through negotiations," he said, adding that Iran would even be prepared to allow tougher UN inspections that were stopped after the case went to New York. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 36 AFP: Iran vows 'never' to give up nuclear programme Sat Apr 29, 2:49 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed never to give up his country's disputed nuclear drive as Western powers pushed for tough Security Council action against the Islamic republic. In a further show of defiance, a top Iranian nuclear official declared the country's scientists were working on highly advanced centrifuge designs to enrich uranium -- work that is at the centre of fears Tehran may acquire the bomb. "The Islamic republic will not negotiate with anyone on its absolute right to use peaceful nuclear technology. This is our red line, and we will never give it up," the president said in a statement. On Friday the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyconfirmed Iran had not complied with a UN Security Council demand to freeze enrichment -- which can be used to make fuel for civilian nuclear reactors, but can also serve as the explosive core of atom bombs. Iran insists its programme is peaceful. The report clears the way for a new phase of diplomacy, with the United States and Europe poised to seek a Security Council resolution legally obliging Iran to meet IAEA and Council demands. If Iran still refuses, such a resolution could pave the way to economic sanctions and even military action, although Tehran's major trading partners, Russia and China -- which have a veto on the Council -- oppose any such move. Russia warned Iran Saturday that Moscow expected "concrete steps" from Tehran to reestablish confidence over the nuclear issue, in a telephone conversation between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki. "The Russian side again stressed the importance of Iran's taking concrete steps to restore the international community's confidence regarding its nuclear activities", a statement from the Russian foreign ministry said. Meanwhile the European Commission" /> European Commission's foreign policy chief appealed for a "diplomatic solution" to the dispute. "We are still searching for a diplomatic solution. The Security Council is now called on to act," Solanan said in an interview due to be published Sunday in the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag. Foreign ministers of the five permanent Council members and Germany plan to gather in New York on May 9 to discuss the crisis. Representatives of these countries are also due to meet in Paris Tuesday ahead of the talks. As early as next week the western powers are expected to present to the UN body a resolution that would legally require Tehran to cease uranium enrichment work. US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushhas branded Iran's nuclear ambitions "dangerous" but insisted that Washington wanted to resolve the dispute "diplomatically and peacefully". But Ahmadinejad called on Western powers to allow the IAEA -- and not the UN Security Council -- to deal with the case. "As a nuclear country, the Islamic republic is ready to discuss, alongside other nuclear powers and with all countries, how to assure world peace," he said. There is no talk of immediately imposing sanctions on Iran, but Washington, Paris and London are in agreement on passing a legally binding resolution, invoking Chapter 7 of the United Nations" /> United Nationscharter This chapter can open the door to economic sanctions and, as a last resort, to military action. Israeli prime minister designate Ehud Olmert said it was "everyone's duty to prevent Iran from getting access to non-conventional weapons." His comments were made in an interview published in a German newspaper in which he compared Ahmedinejad to Hitler for his aggressive rhetoric towards Israel" /> Israel. The vice president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Mohammad Saidi, on Saturday said Iran was working on highly advanced centrifuge designs for enrichment. "When it comes to which type we will use, we are still examining this. It isn't the P-2 (centrifuge) -- there are other devices that are more advanced and that are a part of our work," he told state television. Iran announced earlier this month that it had successfully enriched uranium to reactor-grade levels using less advanced P-1 centrifuges. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 37 AFP: US rhetoric on Iran resembles pre-Iraq war rumblings Sat Apr 29, 11:56 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Alarm bells over an emerging nuclear threat in the Gulf, UN credibility at stake, a fervent call to a coalition of the willing: the United States has been there before. As Washington presses its drive to thwart Iran" /> Iran's suspected efforts to build a nuclear bomb, it is turning increasingly to the same diplomatic rhetoric used in the runup to the Iraq" /> Iraqwar. Nobody here is talking seriously about a full-scale invasion of Iran like the 2003 move to oust Saddam Hussein" /> Saddam Husseinfor allegedly developing weapons of mass destruction that were never found. When asked about the possibility, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricehas a stock answer: "Iran is not Iraq. I know that's what's on people's minds. The circumstances are different." Nevertheless, US officials appear in much the same position as they were in 2002: stalwart defenders of the nuclear order scouting world support for their cause, uncompromising souls in a compromising multilateralist universe. With the latest nuclear crisis coming to a head after Iran blew off a UN Security Council injunction to halt uranium enrichment, the United States is again showing signs of frustration with the world body. Nearly four years after President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushwarned the United Nations" /> United Nationsit risked becoming "irrelevant" unless it dealt with Saddam, his administration is billing the showdown with Iran as a new test of UN mettle. "Iran is openly challenging the United Nations," deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said Friday. "That challenge should have consequences in order to sustain and to reinforce the credibility of the UN as an institution." Faced with stubborn resistance from veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China to punitive measures against Iran, Washington is working on an alternative to UN action as it did for Iraq. Back then it was a "coalition of the willing" rising up against Saddam; now it's a group of "like-minded nations" determined to keep Iran's nuclear ambitions in check. The United States is encouraging countries to consider their own sanctions against Tehran, such as a cutoff of trade, an embargo on sales of sensitive materiel, or asset freezes and travel restrictions on Iranian leaders. "It's not beyond the realm of the possible that at some point in the future a group of countries could get together if the Security Council is not able to act," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. "That's important because those that might prevent the Security Council from acting effectively need to understand that the international community has to find a way and will find a way to express our displeasure with the Iranians." Underpinning US diplomacy is the always-present threat of force, if not to topple the clerical regime in Tehran then to strike at its nuclear facilities and slow down any weapons programs. While publicly committed to a diplomatic track, the United States has consistently refused to take the military option off the table and has sharpened its tone in recent weeks. In a speech in Chicago on April 19, Rice raised echoes of the Bush administration's readiness to go-it-alone if necessary that put it at odds with many US allies at the outset of the war in Iraq. "The right to self-defense does not necessarily require a UN Security Council resolution," she said. "We are prepared to use measures at our disposal -- political, economic or others -- to persuade Iran." Washington has sought to broaden its bill of indictment against Iran to also include its alleged support for terrorism, Palestinian militants and violent Iraqi groups as well as its repressive policies at home. But if the United States was running into headwinds in its drive for a tough response on the nuclear front, it has drummed up even less support for regime change in Tehran to rid the Middle East of a troublemaker. A case point highlighted last week was Pakistan, which strongly backed the US intervention in Afghanistan" /> Afghanistanafter the September 11, 2001 terror attacks but then begged off participation in the Iraq military venture. Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Khan, who was in town for strategic talks with Burns, stated bluntly when Iran came up that Islamabad was not in the business of replacing governments. "As a neighbor and a country which has very long-standing good relations with Iran, we wish them well," Khan told reporters. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 38 IRNA: Iran letter to IAEA, a turning point in cooperation - Asefi Tehran, April 30, IRNA Iran-Asefi-Nuclear Iran on Sunday said its latest letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was a turning point in its cooperation with the agency. Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani, in a letter sent to the IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei on Saturday, said if Iran's nuclear dossier remains within the IAEA and under its Safeguards Agreement, Tehran is ready to help resolve the remaining issues within the framework of the latest comprehensive report provided by ElBaradei dated March 2006. Talking to domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press conference, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said, "We are ready to have the highest level of cooperation with the IAEA, if the Board of Governors and the agency undertake that the Iranian case would be taken up by the agency." Asefi stressed Iran's letter to the IAEA will increase the capacity of the agency for more activities. He added, "From the day the decision is made that Iran's case would be reviewed at the IAEA, we will present the agenda of our cooperation with the IAEA within three weeks. The spokesman said, "Iran's possible pullout of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is not the question at the moment. "Our measures will be in proportion to the performance of the opposite side. If the opposite side acts rationally, Iran will act accordingly. "If the IAEA sends Iran's case to the Security Council and the council makes decisions on Iran, Tehran will define and regulate its cooperation with the agency according to the decisions." 2327/1414 ***************************************************************** 39 AFP: Sanctions not to hurt Iranian oil industry, gas pipeline to Pakistan - Sun Apr 30, 7:06 AM ET ISLAMABAD (AFP) - A proposed gas pipeline from Iran" /> Iranto Pakistan and India will not be affected if the United Nations" /> United Nationsimposes sanctions on Tehran over its controversial nuclear programme, an Iranian minister has said. "I don't think anybody could put sanctions on the oil industry and gas industry," Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad-Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian told a press conference in Islamabad after three days of talks on the project. "Due to the sensitivity of the oil market any action like that will increase oil prices very high and I believe that the UN and any other body will not put any sanctions on oil or the oil industry," Nejad-Hosseinian said Sunday, when asked about the future of the project if sanctions were imposed. The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy AgencyFriday confirmed that Iran had not complied with a UN Security Council demand to freeze uranium enrichment, which can be used to make the explosive core of nuclear bombs. The United States and European powers are now poised to seek a Security Council resolution legally obliging it to meet IAEA and Council demands. If Iran still refuses, such a resolution could pave the way for economic sanctions or even military action, although Tehran's major trading partners, Russia and China -- which have a veto on the Council -- oppose any such move. Iran insists its nuclear programme is a peaceful effort to generate electricity and therefore entirely legal. The 2,600-kilometre (1,600-mile) pipeline from Iran's southern Pars field is estimated to cost more than seven billion dollars. Talks between India, Iran and Pakistan on the project ended in March in Tehran without any agreement The United States objects to the project and is pushing for another pipeline to South Asian countries from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan" /> Afghanistan. Washington accuses Tehran of supporting terrorism and attempting to make a nuclear bomb. Pakistan, despite being a key US ally in its global "war on terror", has said it would go ahead with the Iranian pipeline project as it needs energy to fuel its economic growth. "Pakistan is viewing this project keeping in view its energy requirements," petroleum secretary Ahmad Waqar told reporters. Pakistani and Iranian officials discussed gas pricing and agreed to enhance off-take volumes of gas from 2.1 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) to 2.8 bcfd in case India does not join the project, Waqar said. The officials would meet again on May 25 in Islamabad and the petroleum ministers of the two countries would sign a joint declaration on the project in Tehran in June, he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 40 IRNA: Pak politician rules out possibility of war over Iran's nuclear program - Islamabad, April 30, IRNA Pakistan-Iran A Pakistani politician on Saturday ruled out the possibility of the US military attack against Iran over its nuclear activities. The ruling Pakistan Muslim League Vice-President Kabir Ali Wasti told "IRNA" here that he saw no need for any military confrontation between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran, adding the issue needed to be resolved diplomatically. The situation in Afghanistan and Iraq do not allow Americans to open a new front, which may trigger large-scale human catastrophe, he added. He stressed that violence always brings violence, therefore, the world community should make more interest and gear up its peaceful efforts to resolve the Iran-US stand-off. Wasti urged foreign ministers of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) member countries to hold a meeting to come up with a consensus stance on the issue. ***************************************************************** 41 reviewjournal.com: Gibbons, Titus talk on renewable energy Apr. 30, 2006 Gubernatorial hopefuls get chance to air their views at Reno hearing By MARTIN GRIFFITH
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS RENO -- Rep. Jim Gibbons and state Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus stuck to the issues Saturday during a congressional field hearing on renewable energy. But outside the hearing room, Gibbons, the Republican gubernatorial front-runner, and Titus, a Democratic candidate for governor, were accused of playing politics on the topic. Gibbons, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, heard testimony from government and industry officials on efforts to increase use of geothermal, solar, wind and biomass power. "While increasing environmentally sound domestic production (of oil) is an important component, the development of nontraditional renewable resources is where the future lies," Gibbons said. Shortly before the hearing began, Pam duPre, executive director of the Washoe County Democratic Party, accused Gibbons of "jumping aboard the alternative energy bandwagon" only months before the election. "Democrats have been out ... front on this issue for a long time," duPre said. "Gibbons hasn't demonstrated he's a good leader, especially on this issue. Why hasn't he addressed it before?" Among other efforts, Gibbons said, he has authored legislation to promote development of geothermal energy and pushed to add renewable energy requirements to last year's comprehensive overhaul of the nation's energy policy. "I've been out front on this issue," he said. "It's unfortunate that they want to play political games when we need solutions to a real problem." Gibbons and Titus were cordial toward each other at the hearing at a Reno library. "I appreciate your being here today and taking out time in your busy schedule for this," Gibbons told Titus, one of nine officials granted prior permission to testify. Without mentioning Gibbons by name, Titus criticized the energy bill signed into law by President Bush. Among other questionable provisions, she said, the law provides billions of dollars in tax breaks to oil and gas companies, and fails to impose tougher fuel efficiency standards on automakers. "What I want to emphasize today is how we can use parts of (the bill) to begin blazing a trail toward a new energy future -- and how Nevada can play a major role in that quest," Titus said. After the hearing, Gibbons said he has voted both for and against increased fuel efficiency standards. "I have nothing against increasing CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards," Gibbons said, adding Michigan's congressional delegation is the real obstacle to them. The tax breaks, Gibbons said, were partly designed to provide an incentive for companies to drill difficult, deep wells off the Gulf of Mexico. The development of alternative energy sources is only one component of the nation's plan to deal with future energy needs, the congressman said. Gibbons said he supports opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and certain offshore areas to drilling. "I think it can be done in an environmentally friendly way," he said. Titus said she sought to take part in the hearing to tout successful state legislation to promote alternative energy. Among other bills, she sponsored legislation creating tax incentives for development of renewable energy and prohibiting local governments from restricting residential solar-powered systems. "I'm not going to criticize my host," Titus said of Gibbons. "But I think the record shows he has not been a supporter of renewable energy. ... A lot of people are getting religion all the sudden" on the issue. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement ***************************************************************** 42 Boston Globe: Bush challenges hundreds of laws President cites powers of his office By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006 WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional. Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power. But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override. Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military. Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts. Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House. ''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant." For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act. Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed. Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution." But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history. Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work. Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register. In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed. ''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power. Military link Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military. The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military. On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels. After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief. Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ''black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned. Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches. Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005. On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military. In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration's lawyers. Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ''security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements. The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ''shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself. Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any information to Congress without permission from the administration. Oversight questioned Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees. In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts. After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress. Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports. It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports. On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating ''whistle-blower" job protections for federal employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about possible government wrongdoing. When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The provision was included because lawmakers feared that Bush appointees were intimidating nuclear specialists so they would not testify about safety issues related to a planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada -- a facility the administration supported, but both Republicans and Democrats from Nevada opposed. When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections. Bush's statement did more than send a threatening message to federal energy specialists inclined to raise concerns with Congress; it also raised the possibility that Bush would not feel bound to obey similar whistle-blower laws that were on the books before he became president. His domestic spying program, for example, violated a surveillance law enacted 23 years before he took office. David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore. ''Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional," Golove said. Defying Supreme Court Bush has also challenged statutes in which Congress gave certain executive branch officials the power to act independently of the president. The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the power of Congress to make such arrangements. For example, the court has upheld laws creating special prosecutors free of Justice Department oversight and insulating the board of the Federal Trade Commission from political interference. Nonetheless, Bush has said in his signing statements that the Constitution lets him control any executive official, no matter what a statute passed by Congress might say. In November 2002, for example, Congress, seeking to generate independent statistics about student performance, passed a law setting up an educational research institute to conduct studies and publish reports ''without the approval" of the Secretary of Education. Bush, however, decreed that the institute's director would be ''subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education." Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action programs, as long as they do not include quotas. Most recently, in 2003, the court upheld a race-conscious university admissions program over the strong objections of Bush, who argued that such programs should be struck down as unconstitutional. Yet despite the court's rulings, Bush has taken exception at least nine times to provisions that seek to ensure that minorities are represented among recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants. Each time, he singled out the provisions, declaring that he would construe them ''in a manner consistent with" the Constitution's guarantee of ''equal protection" to all -- which some legal scholars say amounts to an argument that the affirmative-action provisions represent reverse discrimination against whites. Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court's precedents, he threatens to ''overturn the existing structures of constitutional law." A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ''disappear." Common practice in '80s Though Bush has gone further than any previous president, his actions are not unprecedented. Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it. But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president. When interpreting an ambiguous law, courts often look at the statute's legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what Congress intended it to mean. Meese realized that recording what the president thought the law meant in a signing statement might increase a president's influence over future court rulings. Under Meese's direction in 1986, a young Justice Department lawyer named Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a strategy memo about signing statements. It came to light in late 2005, after Bush named Alito to the Supreme Court. In the memo, Alito predicted that Congress would resent the president's attempt to grab some of its power by seizing ''the last word on questions of interpretation." He suggested that Reagan's legal team should ''concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress." Reagan's successors continued this practice. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor. Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict between the president and Congress. Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president -- including the current one -- has objected to provisions requiring him to get permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional committees such a role. Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions. But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto. ''What we haven't seen until this administration is the sheer number of objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White House," said Kelley, who has studied presidential signing statements through history. ''That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out of the norm from any previous administration." Exaggerated fears? Some administration defenders say that concerns about Bush's signing statements are overblown. Bush's signing statements, they say, should be seen as little more than political chest-thumping by administration lawyers who are dedicated to protecting presidential prerogatives. Defenders say the fact that Bush is reserving the right to disobey the laws does not necessarily mean he has gone on to disobey them. Indeed, in some cases, the administration has ended up following laws that Bush said he could bypass. For example, citing his power to ''withhold information" in September 2002, Bush declared that he could ignore a law requiring the State Department to list the number of overseas deaths of US citizens in foreign countries. Nevertheless, the department has still put the list on its website. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it. ''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations." But Cooper, the Portland State University professor who has studied Bush's first-term signing statements, said the documents are being read closely by one key group of people: the bureaucrats who are charged with implementing new laws. Lower-level officials will follow the president's instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper said. ''Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn't look like the legislation," he said. And in many cases, critics contend, there is no way to know whether the administration is violating laws -- or merely preserving the right to do so. Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national security, where it is almost impossible to verify what the government is doing. And since the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, many people have expressed alarm about his sweeping claims of the authority to violate laws. In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who were the bill's principal sponsors in the Senate -- John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina -- all publicly rebuked the president. ''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," McCain and Warner said in a joint statement. ''The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation." Added Graham: ''I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified." And in March, when the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could ignore the oversight provisions of the Patriot Act, several Democrats lodged complaints. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused Bush of trying to ''cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow." And Representatives Jane Harman of California and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan -- the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, respectively -- sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales demanding that Bush rescind his claim and abide by the law. ''Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight," they wrote. ''The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight. . . . Once the president signs a bill, he and all of us are bound by it." Lack of court review Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on Bush's claims, legal specialists said. The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush's assertions, especially in the secret realm of national security matters. ''There can't be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ''And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked." Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush's fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party. ''The president is daring Congress to act against his positions, and they're not taking action because they don't want to appear to be too critical of the president, given that their own fortunes are tied to his because they are all Republicans," said Jack Beermann, a Boston University law professor. ''Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where the president and Congress are controlled by the same party." Said Golove, the New York University law professor: ''Bush has essentially said that 'We're the executive branch and we're going to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.' " Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time. ''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."[ /] © Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 43 Guardian Unlimited: Pakistan Frees Senior Nuclear Scientist From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday April 30, 2006 10:46 PM By SADAQAT JAN Associated Press Writer ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - A senior Pakistani scientist suspected of helping peddle nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea has been released after two years in detention, the army said Sunday. Mohammed Farooq, who worked at Pakistan's top nuclear weapons facility, Khan Research Laboratories, was detained in December 2003 along with 10 others when it was revealed that the head of the facility, A.Q. Khan, had spread sensitive technology on the international black market. Farooq, who was director general at the laboratories, was suspected of allegedly leaking technology on Khan's orders. He was freed last week and told to stay at home for ``security reasons,'' top army spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan said. Sultan reiterated his government's position that no one from abroad - including U.S. officials and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog - would be allowed to question Farooq about the black market network Khan allegedly led. ``Pakistan is cooperating with the IAEA and other international agencies and will not allow access to him (Farooq),'' he said. Sultan would not say whether Farooq was found guilty of any wrongdoing or discuss any details about the investigation into his activities. There was no immediate comment from Farooq or his family. Sultan also would not comment on why Farooq was held longer than the other nuclear officials, who all were released by October 2004. But an anti-proliferation analyst said Farooq may have been detained longer because of being among the lead players in Khan's network. ``Somebody may have been more central than others, and he may have been among them,'' said A.H. Nayyar, an analyst at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute, a private think tank in Islamabad. Khan confessed in February 2004 that he sold nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya. But President Gen. Pervez Musharraf pardoned Khan for having given Pakistan, a conservative Islamic nation, its nuclear prowess and putting it in the same league as archrival India. The two countries carried out nuclear tests in 1998. Khan, regarded as a national hero by many Pakistanis, has since been confined to his home in Islamabad under tight security. The IAEA has said Iran received detailed designs for the core of a nuclear warhead from Khan's network and that it supplied Libya with information for its now-dismantled nuclear weapons program that included an engineer's drawing of an atomic bomb. Last year, Musharraf said North Korea may have received about a dozen centrifuges - machines used to enrich uranium - from Khan. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 44 BBC: Pakistan stages new missile test Last Updated: Saturday, 29 April 2006 [Hatf missile test-fired in March 2006] It is the second time the missile has been successfully tested Pakistan has successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable missile with a range of 2,000km (1,250 miles), the Pakistani military has said. It was the second test-firing of the surface-to-surface Hatf VI (Shaheen II) missile, which was first tested in March 2005, officials said. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz watched the launch, at an undisclosed location. The Hatf VI is Pakistan's longest-range ballistic missile system, with the potential to reach 2,500km. "The missile test was conducted to validate additional technical parameters beyond those that were verified in the last test fire in March 2005," a military statement said. Pakistan informed its regional neighbours of the test in advance, and said it would not hurt improving relations with India, the Associated Press news agency said. Mr Aziz congratulated scientists on "achieving yet another milestone on the road to success", AP reported. Tension between Pakistan and India - also a nuclear power - has decreased in recent months amid a series of bilateral overtures. The two powers stepped back from the brink of war after India blamed Pakistan for involvement in an armed attack on the federal parliament in Delhi in 2001. ***************************************************************** 45 The Australian: Costello enters nuclear energy debate + NEWS.com.au The Australian This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP April 29, 2006 TREASURER Peter Costello says Australia must do more to fight global warming, saying nuclear power may be the best way to go. Mr Costello, once a nuclear power sceptic, has declared nuclear power the "clean energy of the future" and says Australians should get used to the idea of a domestic nuclear power station, newspapers reported today. "If it's commercial to build nuclear energy in Australia, it ought to occur," Mr Costello said. "Australia can't mine uranium and sell it to other people and then pretend that it would never use it in its own country." Mr Costello's decision to discuss the issue is a further attempt to distinguish himself from Mr Howard by continuing to address areas outside his portfolio, according to the newspapers. Mr Costello would not comment on his 11th budget, to be handed down this week, apart from saying he remained committed to reducing the burden on families. He would also not commit to delivering next year's budget. Privacy Terms © The Australian ***************************************************************** 46 Spain News: Spain's oldest nuclear reactor to close after 38 years By: ThinkSpain The José Cabrera nuclear power station in Almonacid de Zorita (Guadalajara), Spain's oldest and smallest nuclear plant, will be shut down indefinitely tonight at 11.30pm after 38 years service. A spokesman from the Unión Fenosa company that owns the installation informed that the plant's night shift staff will be responsible for the shutdown that will take place half an hour before the expiry of its current and last operational licence. The plant is the first of Spain's nuclear installations to be de-commissioned. It will take several years to render the site completely safe. Tonight's procedures involves two stages: the first to disconnect the electrical turbine, and the second to start the reactor cooling process, a process that will take several days. Sunday, April 30, 2006 Latest Castilla-La Mancha News ThinkSpain.com Spanish news and content to your © 2003-2006 Think Web Content, S.L. - All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 47 AU: Nuclear power: it's time to face the realities - Editorial - Opinion The Age. www.theage.com.au April 30, 2006 IF, BY chance, the Prime Minister had said last week of global warming "I think the evidence is that there is a gradual warming taking place and I think that means we have to begin addressing it", there would be far more astonishment in the fact John Howard said it than in the truth he would have acknowledged. The fact that this statement was made not by Howard but the ever-patient prime-minister-in-waiting, Peter Costello, is more heartening than anything else; not because Mr Costello is being a little contrary to his leader's views, but because he admits to having changed his mind on a serious environmental issue that the Prime Minister has chosen to undervalue in the face of disturbing facts on the sustainable future of Australia and the world. Mr Costello's views on the use of nuclear power in Australia, which he expresses in an interview published in The Sunday Age today, are as refreshing as they are rational. The Treasurer makes it clear he wants Australia to play its part in helping to reduce global emissions, and that this would in turn bring developing countries into line. "Certainly my views on nuclear power have changed," he says. "I have become more supportive of nuclear power than I used to be 10 years ago … I'm now starting to turn around to the view that it is a cleaner source of energy than many of the ones we currently use." Ironically Mr Costello's remarks come at the same time as the world marks the 20th anniversary of the world's worst nuclear accident, at Chernobyl, in Ukraine, when explosions destroyed a reactor core, causing widespread radioactive contamination that continues to affect hundreds of thousands of people. To many, Chernobyl remains the embodiment of nuclear power as a dirty form of energy, to be avoided at all costs, especially those to human life. Twenty years on it is necessary to ask the question: was Chernobyl the exception rather than the rule? Mr Costello has obviously considered this and has come clean (as it were) about nuclear power and its potential as an energy source. His voice joins a chorus supporting nuclear resurgence in the face of growing demands for energy and reduction of carbon emissions. Mr Costello's fiscal conscience, though, shows through his newly discovered environmental concerns when he says nuclear power should be used in Australia only if it were commercially viable. "Australia can't mine uranium and sell it to other people and then pretend that it would never use it in its own country," he says. There is also the matter of using remote parts of Australia as nuclear waste dumps — a suggestion raised again last week by the head of the World Nuclear Association, John Ritch, who said Australia would be performing "a service to the world". Just as it is not a simple matter of clean or dirty, there is no clear-cut answer to the question of nuclear power. But this does not mean the issue is not worth raising. Peter Costello, in at least indicating his view, is also highlighting the importance of what may well be the only way successfully to reduce global warming and provide a more rational way towards powering this continent and, indeed, the earth. There is an urgent need to have a dispassionate look at nuclear power, its safeguards and issues, and to find if it is the right solution. Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 48 The Age: Costello warms to the nuclear option - National - theage.com.au www.theage.com.au By Jason Koutsoukis, Canberra April 30, 2006 TREASURER Peter Costello has declared nuclear power the "clean energy" of the future, saying Australia must do more to fight global warming. Moving to further differentiate himself from Prime Minister John Howard, Mr Costello vowed to continue dealing with issues outside his economic portfolio. Working on a record 11th straight budget, Mr Costello also refused to commit himself to delivering next year's budget. "If you look at my speeches over the last couple of years there have been speeches on foreign affairs, on culture, on immigration, on Australian history, on values, and I've got to say to you I probably get much more response from those speeches than I do from an economic speech," Mr Costello told The Sunday Age. He said his speech slamming "mushy, misguided multiculturalism" in February had generated "tens of thousands" of responses — more than 90 per cent positive. "The response to the speech that I gave on values and culture earlier this year is probably the biggest response I have ever had in my life." Directing his attention to the environment and global warming, Mr Costello said he was now "more aware of these issues". "I think the evidence is that there is a gradual warming taking place, and I think that means we have to begin addressing it," Mr Costello said. Mr Costello is no longer as sceptical about nuclear power as he was after the Chernobyl disaster 20 years ago. "Far from nuclear power being the dirty energy source, it may in fact turn out to be the clean energy source when compared to fossil fuels," he said. He also warned Australians to get used to the idea of a domestic nuclear power station. "If it's commercial to build nuclear energy in Australia, it ought to occur," Mr Costello said. "Australia can't mine uranium and sell it to other people and then pretend that it would never use it in its own country." Earlier this month, Mr Howard also said Australia should look at using nuclear power if it became economically viable. Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has said that Labor is opposed to a nuclear power industry in Australia, but Labor's resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson, has said the party should be open to the idea. Mr Costello said that while Australia was meeting its greenhouse gas emissions targets established under the Kyoto Protocol, it had a responsibility to bring the developing world along with it. "Australia is such a small, tiny contributor towards global warming that if Australia meets its emissions target that will have no effect whatsoever on global warming if other large economies continue to develop as they are," he said. "We're talking now of countries that are 50 times Australia and growing all the time in emissions." Nearly three years since Mr Costello pledged to speak out on social issues, and after Mr Howard had told him he would remain leader of the Liberal Party for as long as the party wanted, Mr Costello said he had been encour- aged by the public response. Mr Costello declined to talk about the size of tax cuts expected in next week's budget, but said he remained committed to reducing the burden on families. "What I have done is say that if we can balance our budget and meet our expenditures we should aim to reduce the tax burden, which is what we did in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006," he said. He said putting together this year's budget, with competing spending priorities from defence, security against terrorism and the background of the oil shock, remained difficult. Discussing the Government's economic achievements over 10 years, he said: "What other countries … could you compare us to that have made this kind of progress?" Asked if he was leaving major structural reform of the tax system for his 12th budget, Mr Costello said: "These are just word games that you're trying now." 2006-04-30 Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd ***************************************************************** 49 SignOnSanDiego.com: Energy Commission says keep ban on new nuclear plants By Samantha Young ASSOCIATED PRESS 6:10 p.m. April 28, 2006 SACRAMENTO  In its first comprehensive look at nuclear power in nearly 30 years, the California Energy Commission recommended Friday that the state continue its moratorium on construction of nuclear plants. The commission issued a report that was triggered by the renewed enthusiasm about nuclear power in Washington and overseas, commissioner John Geesman said. California has barred construction of nuclear plants since 1976. The 198-page report puts California at odds with the Bush administration, which has advocated nuclear power development in the face of rising gas prices and as a way to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Commission does not plan to let utilities build more plants because there is no adequate place to store the nuclear waste, said Geesman, who presided over the committee that oversaw drafting of the report. The disposal of waste is an extraordinarily important threshold question for the increased reliance of nuclear power, he said. Californian gets about 13 percent of its electricity from three nuclear power plants, two in California and one in Arizona. The two plants in California, Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San Diego County, now store the potentially hazardous waste on site. Nuclear industry representatives say California's ban could cost the state. If they are going to rule out nuclear energy, what are they going to rule in for a reliable electricity supply that keeps the air clean? said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear industry group based in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Department of Energy is overseeing licensing of a national repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But that project has been set back by funding shortages, legal challenges and mismanagement. There seem to be technical problems, management problems, economic problems and legal problems, and the combination of those suggested to us that it was unlikely to be a viable storage site, Geesman said. The Energy Department continues to push ahead with the project. Earlier this month, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman submitted legislation to Congress to speed development of the waste dump. He also asked for the authority to expand the storage capacity to take waste from more than 131 sites in 39 states. It has to be built under federal law, Kerekes said. It's not going at the pace we in the industry would like to see, but it's moving forward. Nevertheless, California regulators have little confidence in Yucca Mountain. Authors of the report advised the state's utilities to recover a share of the more than $1 billion they have paid in fees to the nuclear waste fund, which was created to help pay for a national repository. Such a move may take an act of Congress, and dozens of utilities have sued the Department of Energy for the expenses they have incurred since the government missed its target of opening the repository by 1989. In addition to the costs, state regulators are concerned that the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Homeland Security have failed to address safety issues surrounding the waste that sits at nuclear plants. In the heightened security environment since September 11, 2001, increased attention has been paid to the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to potential acts of terrorism, according to the Energy Commission report. Nuclear power plants are difficult targets due to their substantial containment vessels, but spent fuel pools and interim fuel storage facilities may be more vulnerable. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is studying how its facilities  the Diablo Canyon plant and the closed Humboldt Bay nuclear plant  would be affected by a worst-case scenario natural disaster. Southern California Edison, which co-owns the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, has no plans for a similar study, according to the report. An Edison spokesman said the company was reviewing the report and declined to comment. 2006 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. • A Copley Newspaper Site ***************************************************************** 50 Rediff: Nuclear deal is in US interest - Biden Suman Mozumder in New York | April 29, 2006 13:20 IST Senator Joseph R Biden (D-Delaware), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Friday suggested that helping India to meet its growing energy needs will be in the interest of the United States. Without mentioning even once the India-United States agreement on the civilian nuclear cooperation that needs Congressional approval before ratification, the former chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that India's energy needs presents an opportunity for the United States. Indo-US Nuclear Tango "In 1960s the US helped bring the Green Revolution in India. American agricultural developments helped India feed its people. That was good for India and that was also good for American business. Now India faces a burgeoning need for energy, and so too, I believe, presents an opportunity for the US." Biden made the remarks while delivering the keynote address this evening at a conference titled "Cities in a World of Migration: India and China in Global Perspective,' organised by the New School University in New York. Many among the 100-odd people in the audience included Indian and Chinese academics as well as independent scholars. "What if this government actually engages and attempts to seek energy independence and alternative sources of energy other than fossil fuels? What if we actually took the ingenuity of the business community and the scientific community with the help of government as a partner to make a firm commitment to energy independence by the year 2020. What if all of that technology became as much of an export commodity as oil is from the sands of Saudi Arabia today," Biden asked. "I think there are many economially viable ways to move beyond fossil fuels. In the meantime, what if we develop more clean cole technology to be able to help India and China to meet their overwhelming energy needs because they have overwhelming amounts of fossil fuels in the form of cole," Biden said. "Why shouldn't we treat all these as cause for optimism and not listen to those, the same voices' that one used to hear during the Cold War period, he asked. During the April 5 appearance of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to push for the nuclear deal, Biden, in his introductory remarks, said that he was "…probably going to support" the India-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. Although he did not say that in as many words on Friday, Biden clearly seemed to indicate his support for the agreement. At the outset of his keynote, Biden admitted that although he has been invited to speak about migration in India and China, he has not specific expertise on the subject and would like to talk a bit about United States' relationship with the two countries before touching on the main theme. "It is hard for me spending so much time in the Senate Foreign relations Committee not discuss the strategic relationship with the two countries that I believe will shape the future of our children and grandchildren more than any other country in the world. So, let me start with that," Biden said. The Senator said that when one talks about India and China, one usually talks about their incredible economic competition and sometimes about possible military competition. But Biden felt what one forgets often that much as these two countries are rising powers, they also have rising problems. Biden said that meeting the economic and political demands of the Chinese people is going to require a massive investment in housing, public health, energy, education and public administration. "Each of these investments in my view will represent a significant opportunity for the US. For we are the world leaders in each of those areas," he said. "The point I am trying to make here is we should not look at the growth of India and China with dread. We should look at it as a genuine opportunity for world stability and economic gain and access for the United States of America," Biden said."We should not fear the competition, for the global economy is based upon competition and we should recognize the economic and political challenges of China and India are also a real opportunity for the United States." 7333: The Latest News on Your Mobile! Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 RIA Novosti: Kiev rally demands pension raise for Chernobyl survivors 29/ 04/ 2006 KIEV, April 29 (RIA Nobosti) - More than five thousand Chernobyl survivors took to the streets in the Ukrainian capital to demand pension raise just three days after the world marked an anniversary of the worst civilian nuclear disaster to date. The participants, many of whom had taken part in cleanup operations following the April 26, 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, gathered Saturday outside the government headquarters in downtown Kiev to protest a resolution cutting their compensation payments 15-fold. "Government welfare programs for Chernobyl survivors are being implemented very poorly," said Yury Andreyev, leader of the Chernobyl Union of Ukraine, an advocacy group. In March, Ukraine's parliament passed a bill raising pensions for those worst affected by the Chernobyl accident, but the President refused to sign it into law. The Ukrainian government pledged to increase budget allocations for Chernobyl programs to $600 million this year. The amount is 1.5 times as much as in 2005, yet covers only 14% of the actual needs. As many as 2,246,000 people in Ukraine have developed serious health problems as a result of the Chernobyl fallout, and 105,000 of them have become disabled. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 52 Sunday Herald: Nuclear accident exercise reveals fatal flaws - By Rob Edwards Environment Editor MISTAKES made during a major nuclear accident exercise held in Edinburgh last year would have left real casualties trapped in vehicles and spread deadly radioactive contamination, an official report has revealed. Serious communication failures between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Scottish emergency services led to blunders that in a real nuclear incident could have had fatal consequences. Previous exercises over the past 10 years have thrown up similar problems. But nothing seems to have been learnt from them, campaigners said. Exercise Senator 2005 imagined a catastrophic chain of events involving Trident nuclear warheads on the move. The exercise was based around an aircraft engine falling out of the sky on to a weapons convoy, which then crashes into an oil tanker on the A720 city bypass. According to experts, such a horrific scenario would probably result in an explosion and fire which would spew a cloud of highly toxic plutonium over a large part of Scotland. As the Sunday Herald has previously reported, it is even possible for accidents to detonate nuclear bombs. Many thousands of people would be put at risk, said Dr Frank Barnaby, a nuclear physicist who used to work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire. If they get a speck of plutonium in their lungs, the probability is fatal lung cancer. And he warned that such an accident would also have devastating economic consequences: You would have to evacuate and decontaminate a huge area. It would be enormously expensive. Exercise Senator 2005 involved hundreds of officials from 10 public agencies simulating their responses to the imagined accident over three days in September. It was observed by diplomats from Russia and a host of European countries. Dreghorn Barracks in Edinburgh acted as the city bypass, while co- ordination centres were set up at the police headquarters in Fettes Avenue, St Andrews House and at the MoD in London. After the event, all the agencies involved conducted a formal post-mortem to identify the lessons learned. The resulting report, posted on the MoDs website, paints an alarming picture of confusion, crossed wires and inadequate communications. The most damning account comes from Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service. The initial call-out omitted the code to show it was an exercise, while the content of the seven call-outs received was not useful. Operators also had to handle comments such as, I dont remember where I am, when we questioned them. The fire service failed in its aim of mass decontamination because of faulty information from the MoD. If this had been a real incident, casualties would have been allowed to go to hospital or rest centres contaminated, the service observed. The rescue of casualties that were meant to be trapped in vehicles was not achieved as the briefing of the MoD fire service on casualties was not carried out properly. Water used to wash the hands and faces of radioactively contaminated victims was simply poured on to the roadway. If this had been a real incident, the fire service pointed out, contaminated water would have been allowed to contaminate additional areas with no attempt made to contain it. Lothian and Borders Police agreed that there was confusion over the advice given by the MoD to fire and ambulance regarding decontamination. There was also initial confusion over exactly where the accident had taken place. The police reported several communication problems with the MoD, partly because they used different radios. The MoD also failed to keep the Scottish Executive informed, the police said. After an accident, the health of the public and the emergency services is critically dependent on what happens in the first 36 hours. But because one of the exercise co-ordination centres was set up in advance, it did not provide a realistic quality check, the police said. Other agencies, such as the Scottish Ambulance Service and the City of Edinburgh Council, also reported communication breakdowns. Even the MoD acknowledged that its relationship with the civil emergency services was embryonic. Di McDonald, director of the Nuclear Information Service, a peace research group, argued it would have been better to run a bigger exercise including the bomb convoy crews. In a real nuclear road accident, the consequences will be disastrous, she said. If similar mistakes are made, more lives could be lost. According to Frank Barnaby, who now works with the Oxford Research Group, a disarmament think-tank, emergency exercises have repeatedly revealed the same problems. But they dont seem to learn from them, so what the hell is the point? he asked. The MoD accepted there have been areas where communications could be better, but it promised that training and procedures had been amended to remedy the problems. The purpose of exercises is to identify good practice and opportunities for improvement, a spokesman said. Exercise Senator 2005 demonstrated that our overall procedures worked well. The Scottish Executives post-mortem of the exercise disclosed that one of its aims had been the protection of the reputation of the Scottish Executive. This drew scorn from Scottish Green Party environment speaker, Mark Ruskell MSP. I can only hope that their attempts at managing the media were better than the embryonic attempts at planning for a nuclear convoy explosion which would be unmanageable and catastrophic for ordinary Scots, he said. The Executive, however, argued that after an accident it would be essential for the public to trust the advice being offered by government. Clearly the priority when dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear accident is the protection of the public, said an Executive spokesman. The Scottish public deserve reassurance and guidance and we make no apologies for aiming to ensure that the Executives reputation in this regard is clearly established in the public mind. 30 April 2006 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 53 Sunday Herald: Morality, not money, should decide UKs nuclear policy - Guest vocals: Patrick Harvie DURING the current session at Westminster, a decision will be made about the future of our nuclear arsenal. As the Trident fleet comes toward the end of its life, its advocates are looking around for a replacement. Those of us who have campaigned for nuclear disarmament have pointed to the strong support our cause retains in Scotland; to the UKs commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; to the hypocrisy of countries which threaten their enemies for developing nuclear technology while assisting their friends to do the same; and to the abandoned commitments which idealistic young politicians once made, before entering government and becoming converts to the value of deterrence. But the argument most regularly deployed has been on cost. With every constraint on government spending, the call goes out from platforms and podiums no money for nurses? Scrap Trident! Council tax rising? Scrap Trident! Pensioners in poverty? Scrap Trident! This kind of rhetoric may sound pretty good from the megaphone, but it doesnt bear up to a moments scrutiny. It is true that Trident currently costs the UK several hundred million pounds a year to maintain, and I could happily write a list of better things to spend it on. But how far down that list would the money go? At less than 0.1% of public spending, scrapping Trident wouldnt go very far in revenue terms and its dishonest to say otherwise. No, there is far stronger ground on which to argue the case against nuclear weapons, designed as they are for another age in which vast power blocs faced each other across continents. Even those who were able to accept the morality of deterrence then cannot do so now, when the greatest threats against civilisation come not from opposing superpowers but from our own ecological folly. Even if terrorism is the menace it is claimed to be, a nuclear missile is no defence against it. On Thursday, the Scottish parliament will debate the future of Trident. Our motion against replacement has already gained the support of more than a quarter of MSPs in advance of the debate. This includes Green, SNP, Independent, Liberal Democrat, Labour and SSP members. There will be those who argue that that we should leave it to Westminster, the least democratic parlia ment in Europe, to decide the matter. But Tony Blair has refused to say whether he will allow MPs to vote at the end of their debate. MSPs will at least be required to do this, and I hope that everyone in Scotland who recognises the obscenity of nuclear weapons will tell their MSPs before Thursday that the vote should be unequivocal. 30 April 2006 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 54 GreenLeft: A scathing indictment on the risks of nuclear power http://www.greenleft.org.au Green Left Weekly Chernobyl Heart Directed by Maryann De Leo HBO/Cinemax Documentary Films REVIEW BY ANNOLIES TRUMAN If you’re short of reasons to oppose nuclear power, Chernobyl Heart will give you a list a mile long based on its sobering portrayal of the human suffering caused by the world’s worst nuclear accident. A testing error caused the infamous explosion at the Ukrainian nuclear power station on April 26, 1986. During the ensuing fire, 190 tonnes of toxic materials were expelled into the atmosphere. Seventy per cent of the radioactive material was blown into neighbouring Belarus, contaminating 99% of the country. The film, which won an Oscar in 2004, exposes the continuing effects of radiation on the children of Belarus. I could not withhold my tears while watching this film. It was so easy to identify with children trapped in dysfunctional bodies, parents’ pain and helplessness, and adolescents with no future but cancer. Film-maker Maryann De Leo depicts the work of the Chernobyl Children’s Project International (CCPI), which developed out of the Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The film opens with an October 2002 delegation of CCPI representatives in radiation suits entering the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant while the Geiger counter rises alarmingly. When the group reaches sight of the deserted plant, Adi Roche, executive director of CCPI and commentator for much of the film, points to the hastily constructed, now-crumbling sarcophagus built over the failed reactor. She expresses alarm that the concrete shell designed to contain the remaining radiation is in real danger of collapsing and informs us that to date only 3% of the radiation has been released. According to her, that 3% has already affected 9 million lives. With a new shelter not due to be completed until 2009, “the next Chernobyl may be Chernobyl itself”, we are told. The film then takes us to a variety of institutions in Belarus where we are exposed to a litany of horrifying physical ailments caused by the radiation. The first is a hospital ward where a group of young people have just been operated on for thyroid cancer. According to their surgeon, thyroid cancer in children has increased 10,000% in the Gomel region of Belarus since the disaster. A paediatrician working in the area for 16 years claims the hereditary defects are getting worse, and affecting more children. A nurse reiterates this claim, fighting off tears and revealing the personal cost of daily confronting such human devastation. At one point we visit a maternity ward where mothers are giving birth. One cries with relief as her baby is placed on her chest, seemingly normal and healthy. The doctor tells us that only 15-20% of babies born in the hospital are healthy. And as the film so chillingly reveals, even children born apparently healthy can carry damaged DNA. Cancers and heart problems can show themselves later. Heart disease in Belarus has quadrupled since the accident, caused by the accumulation of radioactive caesium in the cardiac muscle. There is a high incidence of multiple defects of the heart; a condition coined “Chernobyl heart”, from which the film gets its title. While a scathing indictment on the risks of nuclear power, the film avoids overt political judgements. It does contain a number of unspoken assumptions, however. One is that problems can be fixed by compassionate people giving money and time to charity. It ignores the activist background of the main protagonist, Adi Roche, who, as an anti-nuclear campaigner, developed peace education programs and has made a documentary herself about the effects of Chernobyl on Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine. Another is that medical know-how from the West (in this case Ireland and the US) can intervene and rescue children from their desperately bleak fates. The reality is that these medical missions reach only a small proportion of the affected children. The film refrains from mentioning that the deterioration of Belarus’ health system was caused by the restoration of capitalism in the former USSR. Also missing from the film was any mention of the exemplary work done by Cuban health workers, who have cared for about 19,000 Chernobyl survivors. Cuba began the program in 1990 and kept it going through the difficult “special period” (the island’s economic difficulties in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse). The program is part of its international solidarity efforts, which involve sending tens of thousands of Cuban doctors to work in poor Third World countries. Made three years ago, the film was screened again in Perth for the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. More than 100 people attended, swamping the chosen venue. Judging from the size of the crowd and their response to the film, the current nuclear push by the Australian uranium-mining lobby is not going to go unchallenged. From Green Left Weekly, May 3, 2006. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW ***************************************************************** 55 Concord Monitor: It may be time for us to rethink nukes - Hillary Nelson Online - Concord, NH 03301 Copyright 1997-2006 Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot P.O. Box 1177 Concord NH 03302 603-224-5301 April 29. 2006 8:00AM The 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown this past week had me playing "How Would You Rather Die?" with a new and intriguing set of parameters. You know the game. We've all played it at one philosophical moment or another. I personally like to play just after an airplane takes off, at that lurching moment when the pilot tips the wings to set the appropriate course and it feels like we're about to fall back out of the sky. "Okay," I think, "Dying in an airplane crash isn't so bad. Thirty seconds of sheer terror and then, wham, it's all over. Much better than, say, being tortured to death." Yes, I decide, plane crash beats torture, hands down. By then, the plane has straightened out, the view is lovely and I, a little calmer, can settle down to a good book. This past week, in honor of Chernobyl, I found myself playing the "How Would You Rather Die"game with these choices: thyroid cancer caused by a nuclear power plant meltdown? Or drowning in a category 5 hurricane? My choices had been inspired by William Sweet's April 26 New York Times op-ed piece, "The Nuclear Option." Sweet is the author of Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and The Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy. He was one of several pundits who seemed to have decided that the anniversary of the Chernobyl tragedy might make a good "Rehabilitate Nuclear Power's Image Day." Oddly, global warming may just make this unlikely rehabilitation possible. Yes, nuclear power plants cost billions of dollars to build. And yes, there is that pesky problem of used radioactive fuel and the possibility of meltdowns and terrorist attacks. But there are new technologies available that make nuclear power safer and cleaner than ever before. Most important, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gasses. To promote the "new nuclear energy," the industry is bankrolling the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, headed up by ex-Bush administration Environmental Protection Agency chief Christie Todd Whitman and one of the founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore. That a former Republican EPA chief (albeit one who, when she got a good look at President Bush's environmental policies, had enough integrity to quit) should turn up as the head of a pro-nuke group isn't so surprising. Moore's involvement, though, if all you know of his bio is that he was a co-founder of Greenpeace, seems perplexing. But sometime in the mid-'80s Moore had a falling out with the organization and an epiphany, he says, about "sustainable development." He founded Greenspirit Strategies, a business that, according to its website, "works with leading organizations in forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, plastics and mining, developing sustainability messaging in the areas of natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change." Someone who wanted to cut the good doctor a little slack might call him a "green marketer." Someone who wanted to be unkind (and there are many of these, from writers at Salon.com to his old Greenpeace colleagues) would call him a corporate shill trading on his long-dead association with the environmental movement. A shame Patrick Moore's gig these days involves talking-head appearances on various media outlets, lecturing at conferences and penning columns, all pitching nuclear power as the solution to global warming. His April 16 op-ed in the WashingtonPost, "Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case," was as much ballyhooed by conservative bloggers as it was reviled by their liberal brethren. It's unfortunate, I think, that the Post didn't apparently do so much as a Google search on their guest writer. I don't know how else to explain the appearance on its editorial pages of a piece written by a man who is paid by the nuclear power industry to green up its image. The Post's ombudsman is doubtless getting an earful. In the end, though, Moore's proselytizing and the outrage it has elicited may do more harm than good for the nuclear industry. Which is - and I can't believe I'm saying this -a shame. The truth is we're in a global warming pickle. In New Hampshire we're faced with the parallel problems of the highest asthma rate in the country and massive mercury pollution - much of it attributable to coal-fired power plants. We've got to do something about greenhouse gases - fast. Every possibility for solving the problem needs to be put on the table and discussed. Many highly regarded environmentalists who are not shills for the energy industry want very much at least to reconsider nuclear power. For example, Sir David King, the British government's chief scientific adviser, a Cassandra on global warming, believes that nuclear power, for all its flaws, may need to be part of the mix of technologies that save the planet. The Carter curse? But even if we decide to build new nuclear plants, according to energy experts, the earliest one could go on line is probably 2015. In the meantime we can begin with a massive energy conservation effort. Our politicians sell the American people short. They fear we'll throw them out of office if any of them whisper a word about conservation, of making sacrifices. But we've seen Katrina and Rita. We've watched people swept away by other-worldly storms right here in the Granite State. If our president would lead for once, ask us to do our patriotic duty and conserve, if he'd offer practical advice, and an example of how to do it, the American people would be proud to pitch in. But he won't, I'm afraid. Chalk it up to the curse of Jimmy Carter's cardigan. (Monitor columnist Hillary Nelson lives in Canterbury.) ------ End of article By HILLARY Concord Monitor Online, P.O. Box 1177, Concord NH 03302 Phone: 603-224-5301 | E-mail: cmwebmaster@concordmonitor.com ***************************************************************** 56 Rutland Herald: Vt. emergency communication improves Rutland Vermont News & Information April 30, 2006 By KELLY SULLIVAN Staff Writer Emergency responders in Vermont will soon be able to communicate with other emergency personnel more easily because of a federal mandate from the Department of Homeland Security. The mandate requires that all states put in place a "Homeland Security Tactical Interoperations Plan," said Newport Police Chief Paul Duquette, chairman of the Vermont Communications board, or VCom. The plan requires that all first responders, such as fire departments and police, be able to communicate with one another by using their radio dispatch equipment. "By May 1, 2006, the state of Vermont has to have a radio interoperability plan in place," said Duquette. The group recently hired a company to survey the communications equipment used by emergency first-responders in the state and to estimate the cost of linking all the different systems together. "(The survey) concluded that to build the radio system that would be the solve-all, catch-all system for Vermont would be about $200 million and $110 million additional for (communications) tower sites," said Duquette. VCom board members realized that was far too expensive for Vermont, so the current "interoperability plan" is to build a "life-line system," said Duquette. "This is kind of a poor man's solution," he joked. "There are some federal frequencies that are available that we would make sure that everybody gets loaded into their radios," he explained. Emergency responders could then access those national channels when they traveled to parts of the state outside their home radio range. "Right now there's a lot of dead spots and stuff throughout the state where agencies can't respond to their dispatch services," Duquette said. "This would be a lifeline system where, we're hoping, all the time they would have contact with their dispatch service." Duquette outlined a situation in which a Barre or Montpelier agency is asked to respond to an emergency in Brattleboro. "They might be dispatched to Brattleboro and told when they get to the Brattleboro area, switch to VTAC 2," he said. By using that frequency, the agency could communicate with Brattleboro first-responders as well as its own dispatch service. The state must implement the federally mandated program in order to continue to receive Homeland Security funding, said Duquette. He said that historically the funding has been used for first-responder equipment, including breathing gear and thermal-imaging cameras for fire departments and radios and bullet-proof vests for police. Recently tightened Homeland Security funding guidelines now limit the spending to four categories: intelligence sharing; chemical and nuclear emergencies (including hazardous material equipment); hospital surges and radio interoperability gear. The state will commission a follow-up study that will include a cost estimate for the life-line system, said Duquette, but he estimated that the project will take three to five years to implement and he guessed "optimistically" that it might bring in about $50 million. VCom filed a competitive grant application for funding through Homeland Security. Duquette said the group is hoping Vermont's project will get priority because it is a border state. "Sen. Leahy and Sen. Jeffords said they would try to do something to assist," he said. The project will require using 36 communications towers, said Terry LaValley of the Vermont State Department of Public Safety. "We always try to utilize existing radio towers," LaValley explained. He said the VCom group expects the communications link-ups would go on existing towers, most of which are already owned by the state. "The remainder would be a combination of municipal sites and private sector sites," he said. "We're not anticipating changing the height of them." The group will also look into providing new equipment to agencies that have older radio-dispatch devices incapable of picking up new frequencies. A field-test of the plan, which would involve a mock emergency, must happen before Sept. 30 of this year, said Duquette. Future plans also include expanding the program to include mobile data and data sharing, if funding becomes available. ***************************************************************** 57 BUCHAREST DAILY NEWS: Construction work at Cernavoda reactor delayed No 472 Date: Monday, May 1, 2006 Construction work on the second reactor of the Cernavoda nuclear plant could be delayed by at least a year as malfunctions have been found on stored equipment delivered in the 80's and 90's, announced Minister of Economy and Commerce Codrut Seres. Testing the second reactor had been scheduled for December this year while commercial use was expected to begin in March of 2007. Problems were found with two pieces of equipment produced by Fecne-IMGB. Authorities have contacted the designer of the installations, American company Babcock &Wilcox, in order to find solutions for repair and installing. "If, God forbid, the equipment must be thrown away, it will be a disaster. We will have to order new ones and they are not produced in Romania anymore. Even if Babcock would be able to produce them in one year instead of two, all is lost," Seres said. Another problem refers to Nuclearmontaj, one of the contractors whose bank accounts have been sequestered by the National Authority for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) due to overdue debts. The company is due to finish construction work in about two months and the organizing of a new bidding for another contractor would take too long, Seres said. The minister suggested that a meeting be scheduled for next week between the representatives of ANAF, Nuclearmontaj, the Ministry of the Economy and Nuclearelectrica, the operator of the Cernavoda nuclear plant. One of the solutions would be for ANAF to sequester other Nuclearmontaj assets instead of the accounts. The problems that have arisen at Cernavoda are to be discussed in a government meeting in two weeks' time. The government recently allowed the Ministry of Public Finance to contract loans worth a total of 217 million euros for the completion of works at the second reactor and the purchase of heavy water. The Ministry of Economy and Commerce made a proposal at the beginning of April for the simultaneous construction of reactors three and four, which require an additional 2.2 billion euros. (Ciprian Domnisoru) Copyright © 2004-2006 Bucharest Daily News ***************************************************************** 58 toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse plans to be at full power this weekend Article published Saturday, April 29, 2006 By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER OAK HARBOR, Ohio - Davis-Besse's planned 30-day outage ended up being just shy of two months, but the Ottawa County nuclear plant is expected to be back at full power this weekend. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Web site showed the plant's reactor was at about 34 percent power between 4 and 8 a.m. yesterday. FirstEnergy Corp. yesterday said Davis-Besse remained idle longer than expected to finish rebuilding two of the plant's four reactor coolant pumps and to complete modifications for boosting the plant's power output by 11 megawatts, from 935 megawatts to 946 megawatts. The latter will generate enough electricity for the plant to power about 11,000 additional homes. Reactor coolant pumps circulate coolant through the reactor during normal operations. Andrew Siemaszko, a former engineer who has been indicted on criminal charges for withholding information from the government, claimed while trying to seek federal whistleblower protection in 2003 that he was fired on Sept. 18, 2002 for insisting that all four pumps be immediately refurbished. He claimed FirstEnergy had known since at least 1996 that both sets of pumps were prone to leaking highly corrosive boric acid. The utility denies his claim. The pumps are supposed to be refurbished at least every 20 years. Records show none had been refurbished since 1986. FirstEnergy refurbished one pair before it resumed operation of Davis-Besse in 2004, following the plant's record two-year outage that stemmed from the near-rupture of its old reactor head in 2002. The NRC allowed it to put off maintenance on the other two pumps until this outage. Each pair of pumps costs about $5 million to refurbish. The current outage, which began March 6, involved 1,500 contractors and utility employees. About 43 percent of the reactor core was fueled. Each of America's 103 nuclear plants typically has at least a third of their reactor cores refueled every 18-24 months. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 59 Xinhua: Qinshan II commences expansion www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-04-30 08:00:08 [Qinshan Phase II Nuclear Power Project in East China successfully passed the national acceptance test and commenced its expansion project on Friday.] Photo taken on April 28, 2006 shows the expansion construction site of Qinshan Phase II Nuclear Power Station located in Haiyan County east China's Zhejiang Province.(Xinhua photo) BEIJING, April 30 (Xinhuanet) -- Qinshan Phase II Nuclear Power Project in East China successfully passed the national acceptance test and commenced its expansion project on Friday. The expansion project will for the first time, in China, realize the 70-plus percent localization of equipment, announced the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC). Kang Rixin, general-manager of CNNC, said Qinshan Phase II, with 55 percent home-made equipment, is a successful example of self-development in China's nuclear sector. Based on this, he added, the expansion project, adapting to new standards and regulations, will achieve more than 1,100 technological improvements and further raise the percentage of domestically made equipment so as to raise its reliability and safety. The Second Research and Design Institute of CNNC is responsible for the design of nuclear island (NI) and balance of plant (BOP) project and other relevant work; the design of nuclear reactor and nuclear reactor refrigerant goes to the Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC), and the design of conventional island (CT) is taken by the East China Electric Power Design Institute, according to sources of the commission. Shoreview-based PaR Nuclear of U.S., a subsidiary of Westinghouse Electric Co., will, together with its Chinese fabrication partner, Shanghai Crane and Conveyor Works, provide the equipment for two new units at the extension project over the next three years. Approved by the National Development and Reform Commission last October, the expansion project consists of two 650,000 kw pressurized water reactor generating units, scheduled to put into commercial operation in March 2011 and January 2012 respectively. Qinshan Phase II is China's first self-designed and self-made commercial nuclear power station. Its Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2 started commercial operation in April 2002 and May 2004. With a maxium nuclear power generating capacity of 2.6 million kw after the expansion, the station will play an important role in electric power generation in East China, the general manager said. Enditem (Agencies) Photo taken on April 28, 2006 shows a general view of Qinshan Phase II Nuclear Power Station located in Haiyan County east China's Zhejiang Province. China's first self-designed and self-made Qinshan Phase II Nuclear Power Project successfully passed the national acceptance and commenced its expansion project on the day. Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2 of Qinshan Phase II Nuclear Power Project have been coming into commercial operation in April, 2002 and May, 2004 respectively. (Xinhua photo) Editor: Han Lin Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 Xinhua: Drawing lessons from Chernobyl disaster www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-04-30 16:02:05 BEIJING, April 30 -- Nuclear safety is the lifeline of nuclear industry. Sun Qin, director of National Defense Science and Engineering Commission and director of National Atomic Energy Agency made the remark in his article published in People's Daily to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. Sun Qin stressed that to develop nuclear energy needs one to be fully aware of the importance of safety and implement the policy of always 'putting safety and quality first' and create an atmosphere of paying attention to nuclear safety culture and pay greater attention to design, manufacturing, building and operating process management, further strengthen safety supervision and truly make a good preparation for any emergency. It's been more than half a century since mankind peacefully used nuclear power for the first time in June 1954 when the former Soviet Union started to use nuclear power on its national grid. At present, there are 442 nuclear power generation units in operation in the world, with a generation capacity of 368 million kilowatts, accounting for 16% of world's total power generation for 18 consecutive years. The steady development of nuclear power has proved that it is a new energy which is economical, clean and safe. However, one shouldn't forget historical lessons. On April 25th -26th, 1986 the World's worst nuclear power accident occurred at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union (now Ukraine). The Chernobyl nuclear power plant located 80 miles north of Kiev had 4 reactors and whilst testing reactor number 4 numerous safety procedures were disregarded. At 1:23 am the chain reaction in the reactor became out of control creating explosions and a fireball which blew off the reactor's heavy steel and concrete lid. The Chernobyl accident killed more than 30 people immediately, and as a result of the high radiation levels in the surrounding 20-mile radius, 135,000 people had to be evacuated. As recently as 2000, the Ukrainian government was spending 5 percent of its gross domestic product to mitigate consequences of the disaster. While causing severe negative effects in political, economic and social aspects in the former Soviet Union as well as the world, the miserable lessons drawn from the disaster have promoted people's awareness in the safety of nuclear power development. Over the past 20 years, cooperation and exchanges in nuclear safety have been conducted among countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency has issued new safety standards in nuclear power plant strengthening accident prevention in design and using safety evaluation technology to prevent the problem. Every country that has nuclear power has completed its nuclear safety regulations and standards. Equipments and systems in nuclear power plants have been improved and operation processes are completed. People pay more attention to workers' training and nuclear safety culture so that the safety level in nuclear power plant is improved substantially. The safety in nuclear power has made more and more people accept it and many more think it will be an important substitute for energy in the new century. Chernobyl accident has made many countries realize the necessity of preparing for emergency in nuclear accidents and various countries have consolidated relevant work. In China, to prevent nuclear power accidents, the State Council has issued a Supervision and Management Provision on the Safety of Civil Use Nuclear Facilities and Provisions on Nuclear Material Control in 1986 and 1987 respectively. In 1993, the State Council issued another regulation on emergent nuclear accidents. In order to strengthen leadership in this area, the State Council decided to establish the State Commission on Emergent Nuclear Accident to be in charge of preparation and relief work for emergent national nuclear accident. Sun Qin says the emergency system responding to nuclear accidents at national, local and power plant level has operated effectively for the past 20 years. In contrast to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor which is graphite-moderated reactor or boiling water reactor, the Chinese one is pressure water or heavy water reactor which is relatively safer in design theory, the structure and safety measures, said Sun. Since China designed and developed its first nuclear power plant in 1991, there are now a total of 9 nuclear power generation units which are in operation with a capacity of 7 million kilowatts. Another nuclear power plant in Tianwan is going to be in operation soon. This will add the total capacity to 9 million kilowatts. Meanwhile, China has accumulated rich experiences in nuclear power technology research and development, power plant design, equipment manufacturing, engineering management, production management and nuclear safety supervision and management. China is now able to design and build 300 thousand and 600 thousand kilowatts or above generation units. It has been cooperating with other countries and can export mature nuclear power technologies. China has made great achievements in its safety records: there was no class B or above operation accidents taking place; the radiation that workers receive was less than the national standards. The power plant's environment radiation supervision data is also very low. Such performance has made the public and government confident in promoting nuclear energy and lay a solid foundation for decision-makers to make correct policies in nuclear plant construction. (Source: People's Daily Online) Editor: Wang Yan Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 BBJ: Samford hosts weekend talks by nuclear power experts - Birmingham Business Journal - 4:43 PM CDT Friday U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, and a host of nuclear power experts will take the floor Saturday during the Alabama Environmental Education Consortium's second annual conference at the Samford UniversitySciencenter. Hosted by Samford University's Vulcan Materials Center for Environmental Stewardship and Education, the event, which began Friday, is free and open to the public. » Get the latest business news on the go! Brought to you by Cingular This year's topic is, "Sustainability and Nuclear Power: Opportunities and Challenges." Davis will address participants following a continental breakfast that begins at 8 a.m. At 9:45 a.m., Elizabeth Girardi Schoen of Pfizer Inc.and Robin Tollett of The Procter & Gamble Co.will discuss the Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI), a group of companies working in tandem to share tools and information for environmental, health and safety improvements. In the afternoon, Jacqueline Lang Weaver, a professor of law at the University of Houston, will address the "traditional energy economy." Following that, H. Peter Planchon, director of nuclear industry programs at Idaho National Laboratory, will provide an overview of the future of nuclear energy. For more information, call (205)726-4246 or go to www.samford.edu/groups/vmc/ALEEC_agenda.html. © 2006 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. ***************************************************************** 62 Pittsburgh Business Times: Westinghouse unit wins nuclear refuel contract - Westinghouse Electric Co.subsidiary PaR Nuclear Inc.won a contract to provide refueling equipment for planned nuclear power plants in China. Financial terms were not disclosed in a news release from Monroeville, Pa.-based Westinghouse. » Get the latest business news on the go! Brought to you by Cingular The power plants under construction are in Qinshan in the Zhejiang province in China. PaR Nuclear, along with its in-country partner, Shanghai Crane and Conveyor Works, will provide equipment over the next three years, with first deliveries scheduled for summer and fall of 2007. Equipment includes refueling machines. PaR Nuclear, based in St. Paul, Minn., is the equipment manufacturer of fuel-handling equipment for 57 nuclear power plants in seven countries, including 35 in the United States. In February, Toshiba agreed to buy Westinghouse, the U.S. power plant arm of British Nuclear Fuels, for $5.4 billion. bizjournals| BizSpace.com| Jobs| bizwomen.com © 2006 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. ***************************************************************** 63 Alarab Online: Moroccan cabinet to promote civilian nuclear plan The Moroccan cabinet is planning to work on a nuclear programme for civilian use, Arab daily al-Hayat reported on Friday. According to the newspaper, the government's Electricity Office has proposed the programme as part of its planned investments in the energy sector. The UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reportedly opposes the project. Morocco imports 90 percent of its energy needs. AKI Alarab Online. © 2005 All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 64 Rutland Herald: Vermont Yankee boosts power Rutland Vermont News & Information April 29, 2006 Southern Vermont Bureau VERNON — Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant boosted its power by 2-1/2 percent Friday, bringing the total power output for the plant to 117.5 percent, plant officials announced. The Vernon-based nuclear plant will remain at that level for at least the next 10 days as engineers study steam line acoustic data and consult with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, according to Rob Williams, a spokesman for Entergy Vermont Nuclear, the plant's owner. This was a planned stop on the plant's path to boost its power by 20 percent, he said. © 2006 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 65 Indian Express: Chernobyl, frame by frame Sunday, April 30, 2006 Indian Express Financial Express An exhibition takes stock of the loss of life and property in the world’s worst nuclear disaster 20 years ago Posted online: Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 0000 hours IST There are some things in life that come attached with a note of suspicion. And whatever be the arguments in its favour, a lingering touch of distrust remains. Something that may justifiably fall in this category is nuclear power. Words that continue to rock the world, cause international disputes, wars, even its bogey can cause regimes to disappear … And for those coming in touch directly, to often suffer immensely as well. And the first name that springs to mind in this context is Chernobyl. As the world marks two decades of the horrific accident that occurred on April 26, 1986, in Ukraine, renowned photographer Robert Knoth exhibited some evocative images from the area. “I wanted to record the history on nukes in Russia and be very critical about proposed plans by current governments all over the world on nukes,” he says. He mounted an exhibition of his photographs, Certificate nr. 000358, which was on display at Delhi’s World Wildlife Fund Gallery recently. “I see the exhibition both as a photographic examination of the incident and a step to sensitise people about the dangers of nuclear power,” Knoth adds. Chernobyl and its surrounding areas remain scarred by the incident. The Ukrainian government states that even today 3.5 million people absorb Chernobyl's radioactive elements, mainly via the food chain. A new generation of nuclear plants is coming up, including in India. Whether his pictures serve as a warning remains to be seen. © 2006: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All ***************************************************************** 66 New Straits Times: Comment: Going nuclear? Think again Malaysia News Online Columns 29 Apr 2006 TWO decades ago last week, the world witnessed its worst nuclear disaster at the Ukraine nuclear reactor site, Chernobyl, then part of the Soviet Union. Twenty years on, the environment is still contaminated, especially in the so-called "exclusion zone", 30km around the plant. This includes plants, animals, trees, groundwater sources and also hundreds of abandoned vehicles, ranging from Soviet-made Lada cars to helicopters that were used to fight the blazing reactors. Today, they are the unofficial monument to the tragedy that serves as a reminder of what took place, alongside the official one in the shape of the fallen heroes who laid down their lives trying to save the situation. Foremost were the firefighters, miners, soldiers and the so-called "liquidators" — the emergency workers drafted for the purpose. It is difficult to arrive at the number of deaths caused by the early explosion of April 26, 1986 when Reactor Four collapsed after a failed safety test. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that in the long-term, thousands will prematurely lose their lives due to cancer-related exposure to gamma-ray radiation. Mutations have already been observed in plants and animals. Leaves are said to have changed shape and some animals were born with physical deformities. Many inhabitants are still reeling from the fatal impact of the radiation. One source claims that some three million people suffer from the after effects while hundreds of thousands were forced to evacuate. In the town of Pripyat, 3km from Reactor Four, about 50,000 left within 36 hours of the incident. Large territories of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were polluted by clouds of radioactive particles, including plutonium, iodine, strontium and caesium. Plumes of radioactive debris drifted as far as western Soviet Union, eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Britain as well as the eastern part of the United States. It has been established that more than 100 radioactive elements were released into the atmosphere. While most were shortlived, that is losing their radioactivity in a few days, others such as strontium and caesium can last longer with a half-life of 29 years and 30 years respectively. What’s worrying is that tragedies of this nature are usually never transparent. Rather, it is plagued by "distrust", giving the impression there are attempts to "whitewash" the impact of the event. In the case of Chernobyl, the authorities were accused of covering up the accident by denying it on state television and radio. People were only evacuated several days after the explosion. By that time, tonnes of the remaining radioactive gases and nuclear fuel particles in the reactor had been released, while thousands of "liquidators" were exposed needlessly as they joined plant employees in the clean-up work. Many were without adequate protective gear. There is a dispute over the number of Chernobyl-related thyroid cancer cases. A United Nations study cited only 4,000 cases. An estimate issued by the Greenpeace environmental activists earlier this month claims there were at least 10 times this number. A European report entitled "The Other Chernobyl Report" estimated there were 30,000 to 60,000 premature deaths due to the nuclear incident. A study by eight UN organisations, including the United Nations Development Programme and the International Atomic Energy Agency, concluded that past estimates of a death toll in the tens of thousands were grossly exaggerated. Instead, the September 2005 study put the number of past and future deaths attributable to Chernobyl at just 4,000. But then again, other organisations say as many as 93,000 people may die of cancer and other illnesses associated with Chernobyl. Last week, a Greenpeace campaign group released another study by 50 scientists claiming 200,000 lives would be lost, nearly half from cancer. Moreover, issues such as mass evacuation and displacement, involving anything between five million and nine million people, complicate the assessment. What seems clear, however, is that the impact of the accident at Chernobyl is far more devastating than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945. It is said to be 400 times more potent. And the number of A-bomb victims of Hiroshima have surpassed 200,000. This does not include the intangible impact of Chernobyl, what the IAEA report dubbed as a "paralysing fatalism — negative self-assessment of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative and dependency on assistance from the state". Some of these have caused the rates of divorce, alcoholism and unemployment to escalate. It has been highlighted that the biggest challenge facing communities in the years to come would be the psychological damage. Today, as the world contemplates new energy policies provoked by the unprecedented high oil price and campaigns for nuclear power stations, the Chernobyl fiasco must figure into the equation. The writer is the vice-chancellor of Universiti Sains Malaysia. He can be contacted at vc@usm.my. Copyright © 2006 NST Online. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 67 ITAR-TASS: First unit of Kalinin nuclear power plant halted. 30.04.2006, 20.23 UDOMLYA (Tver region), April 30 (Itar-Tass) -- The first unit of the Kalinin nuclear power plant was halted by the automatic safety system at 9:28 a.m. Moscow on Sunday, a source at the Rosenergoatom press service told Itar-Tass. “Reasons are being found out,” the source said. “The power plant is safe, and radiation is normal in the area.” Meanwhile, the second unit of the Kalinin nuclear power plant is running at 1,033 megawatt, and the third unit has been under repairs since March 25. The first unit of the Kalinin NPP reached the rated capacity of 1,000 megawatt in June 1985. The power plant is located in the north of the Tver region, 330 kilometers away from Moscow. It operates VVER 1000 water-cooled water-moderated reactors and supplies electricity to eight regions through the network of the Unified Energy System of Russia (UES). © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 68 The Boston Globe: Bush challenges hundreds of laws Apr 30, 2006 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws?mode=PF President cites powers of his office By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to "execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional. Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power. But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override. Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military. Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts. Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House. "There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. "This is really big, very expansive, and very significant." For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act. Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed. Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has "been used for several administrations" and that "the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution." But the words "in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history. Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work. Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files "signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register. In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed. "He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power. Military link Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military. The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military. On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels. After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief. Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the "black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned. Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not "lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches. Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005. On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military. In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration's lawyers. Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing "security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements. The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector "shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself. Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any information to Congress without permission from the administration. Oversight questioned Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees. In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts. After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress. Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports. It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports. On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating "whistle-blower" job protections for federal employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about possible government wrongdoing. When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The provision was included because lawmakers feared that Bush appointees were intimidating nuclear specialists so they would not testify about safety issues related to a planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada -- a facility the administration supported, but both Republicans and Democrats from Nevada opposed. When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections. Bush's statement did more than send a threatening message to federal energy specialists inclined to raise concerns with Congress; it also raised the possibility that Bush would not feel bound to obey similar whistle-blower laws that were on the books before he became president. His domestic spying program, for example, violated a surveillance law enacted 23 years before he took office. David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over "the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore. "Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional," Golove said. Defying Supreme Court Bush has also challenged statutes in which Congress gave certain executive branch officials the power to act independently of the president. The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the power of Congress to make such arrangements. For example, the court has upheld laws creating special prosecutors free of Justice Department oversight and insulating the board of the Federal Trade Commission from political interference. Nonetheless, Bush has said in his signing statements that the Constitution lets him control any executive official, no matter what a statute passed by Congress might say. In November 2002, for example, Congress, seeking to generate independent statistics about student performance, passed a law setting up an educational research institute to conduct studies and publish reports "without the approval" of the Secretary of Education. Bush, however, decreed that the institute's director would be "subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education." Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action programs, as long as they do not include quotas. Most recently, in 2003, the court upheld a race-conscious university admissions program over the strong objections of Bush, who argued that such programs should be struck down as unconstitutional. Yet despite the court's rulings, Bush has taken exception at least nine times to provisions that seek to ensure that minorities are represented among recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants. Each time, he singled out the provisions, declaring that he would construe them "in a manner consistent with" the Constitution's guarantee of "equal protection" to all -- which some legal scholars say amounts to an argument that the affirmative-action provisions represent reverse discrimination against whites. Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court's precedents, he threatens to "overturn the existing structures of constitutional law." A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply "disappear." Common practice in '80s Though Bush has gone further than any previous president, his actions are not unprecedented. Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it. But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president. When interpreting an ambiguous law, courts often look at the statute's legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what Congress intended it to mean. Meese realized that recording what the president thought the law meant in a signing statement might increase a president's influence over future court rulings. Under Meese's direction in 1986, a young Justice Department lawyer named Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a strategy memo about signing statements. It came to light in late 2005, after Bush named Alito to the Supreme Court. In the memo, Alito predicted that Congress would resent the president's attempt to grab some of its power by seizing "the last word on questions of interpretation." He suggested that Reagan's legal team should "concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress." Reagan's successors continued this practice. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor. Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict between the president and Congress. Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president -- including -- the current one has objected to provisions requiring him to get -- permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional committees such a role. Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions. But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto. "What we haven't seen until this administration is the sheer number of objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White House," said Kelley, who has studied presidential signing statements through history. "That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out of the norm from any previous administration." Exaggerated fears? Some administration defenders say that concerns about Bush's signing statements are overblown. Bush's signing statements, they say, should be seen as little more than political chest-thumping by administration lawyers who are dedicated to protecting presidential prerogatives. Defenders say the fact that Bush is reserving the right to disobey the laws does not necessarily mean he has gone on to disobey them. Indeed, in some cases, the administration has ended up following laws that Bush said he could bypass. For example, citing his power to "withhold information" in September 2002, Bush declared that he could ignore a law requiring the State Department to list the number of overseas deaths of US citizens in foreign countries. Nevertheless, the department has still put the list on its website. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it. "Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. "They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations." But Cooper, the Portland State University professor who has studied Bush's first-term signing statements, said the documents are being read closely by one key group of people: the bureaucrats who are charged with implementing new laws. Lower-level officials will follow the president's instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper said. "Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn't look like the legislation," he said. And in many cases, critics contend, there is no way to know whether the administration is violating laws -- or merely preserving the right to do so. Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national security, where it is almost impossible to verify what the government is doing. And since the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, many people have expressed alarm about his sweeping claims of the authority to violate laws. In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who were the bill's principal sponsors in the Senate -- John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina -- all publicly rebuked the president. "We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," McCain and Warner said in a joint statement. "The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation." Added Graham: "I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any... law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified." And in March, when the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could ignore the oversight provisions of the Patriot Act, several Democrats lodged complaints. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused Bush of trying to "cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow." And Representatives Jane Harman of California and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan -- the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, respectively -- sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales demanding that Bush rescind his claim and abide by the law. "Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight," they wrote. "The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight.... Once the president signs a bill, he and all of us are bound by it." Lack of court review Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on Bush's claims, legal specialists said. The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush's assertions, especially in the secret realm of national security matters. "There can't be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. "And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked." Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush's fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party. "The president is daring Congress to act against his positions, and they're not taking action because they don't want to appear to be too critical of the president, given that their own fortunes are tied to his because they are all Republicans," said Jack Beermann, a Boston University law professor. "Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where the president and Congress are controlled by the same party." Said Golove, the New York University law professor: "Bush has essentially said that 'We're the executive branch and we're going to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.' " Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch "to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time. "This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. "There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power." ***************************************************************** 69 AFP: Spain's oldest nuclear power station shuts down two years early Sun Apr 30, 3:24 PM ET MADRID (AFP) - Spain's oldest nuclear power plant was due to close for good after 38 years, becoming the first station in Spain to shut down as a result of political activity. Environmentalists welcomed the closure as a victory, though the country's ruling Socialist Party has recently adopted a more favourable stance towards nuclear power in the context of soaring oil prices. The Jose Cabrera nuclear power station at Almocinad de Zorita, near Guadalajara in central Spain, was due to cease production at 11:30 pm local time (2130 GMT). The government decided to close the plant after campaigns by environmental groups, who said it was unsafe. Union Fenosa, the plant's owner, insists that it could have completed its cycle of 40 years' production without any problems and closed down in 2008, as originally planned. Greenpeace used the occasion to remind Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of his campaign promise progressively to close the whole of Spain's nuclear power sector. "There is currently far too much ambiguity in the government over this issue," the organisation's campaign director in Spain, Mario Rodriguez, told the Europa Press agency. The Spanish left was vehemently opposed both to nuclear power and to NATO" /> in the early 1980s, but gradually rallied to the pragmatic attitude adopted by Felipe Gonzalez's socialist government as the decade went on. Before Sunday night, Spain had seven nuclear power stations totalling nine reactors and generating just under a quarter of the country's electricity. The country's industry ministry has been promoting debate between the state, ecological campaigners and businesses by organising monthly working groups to discuss the future of Spain's nuclear sector. Union Fenosa plans to replace the Jose Cabrera plant with a gas-fired, combined-cycle power station at the same site, equipped with two 400-megawatt generators -- making it five times more powerful than its predecessor. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 70 icWales: A timely reminder of nuclear power Apr 29 2006 This week saw the 20th anniversary of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. Jill Evans, below MEP visited where it happened at the weekend and speaks of how harrowing a place it remains - and how it reminds us again of the dangers of nuclear power Jill Evans MEP writes for the Western Mail AT 1.23 IN THE morning of on Wednesday, the church bells rang out in Kiev to mark the exact moment 20 years ago when Unit 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power station exploded. Last Saturday I stood on the very spot looking at the remains of the reactor. It was hastily covered with a (now leaking) concrete 'sarcophagus' after the explosions and fire which burned for 10 days. An ministry guide held aloft his loudly clicking geiger counter to remind us just how high the levels of radioactivity still were (400 micro roentgens). Twenty minutes is the maximum time we were allowed because of the danger of contamination. It's not surprising when you consider that the amount of radioactivity released was about the equivalent of two hundred Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs combined. I visited Chernobyl to see at first hand the damage caused to the people and environment of the Ukraine by that disaster 20 years ago. Over 130,000 people were evacuated from the areas around the power station and most can never return to their homes. Visiting the exclusion zone, the 35-mile, highly guarded, dangerously contaminated area, was a surreal experience. On a warm, sunny spring day everything seemed normal as we drove through the forest in this rural area. But gradually shapes began to appear through the trees - the remains of houses abandoned in a hurry by their inhabitants. Trees grew through the roofs of cottages and fences lay flattened on the grass. In the old town of Chernobyl itself, a few miles from the reactor, pieces of furniture and the odd toy could be seen through the undergrowth. Pripyat was a town purpose built for the workers in the Chernobyl plant and their families. A modern, typically Soviet structure, it had high rise blocks of flats, a park and a central square surrounded by shops. Pripyat was one of the first places evacuated, albeit several days after the accident when the scale of the disaster became public knowledge despite Russia's attempts to cover it up. Today it's a sinister, crumbling reminder of the failure of the nuclear power experiment. An eerie silence hangs over this ghost town as it does over the whole area. We heard the story of the days following the explosion from a farmer in his seventies. He had left his house early in the morning five days after the explosion and saw his sister on the street. They were stopped by police and told to go back home, pack everything they needed and get ready to be picked up by bus the following morning to be evacuated from their village. Thousands of buses ferried families (and radioactivity) between the worst contaminated areas and the capital city, Kiev, 62 miles away. In fact, the first that many residents in Kiev knew of the problem was when all of their city buses suddenly disappeared. Within six days everyone had left the villages. This particular farmer and his family had returned to live in their village, together with about 40 others. They had been given a house in another area but the land was poor and they didn't like it so they came back. They understand the dangers but are willing to take the risk. Although several families are living there illegally, it seems to be tolerated by the authorities who do provide some practical support. Successive governments had promised to build new villages for the evacuees but nothing had happened yet. Was this farmer bitter or angry? 'Those scientists did this,' was all he said. Driving around the vast area of the country which is now the exclusion zone really brings home the sinister danger of nuclear power. We had to have prior permission to visit the exclusion zone but to get to the centre we still had to pass through two checkpoints. In the zone itself we drove over mile after mile of land which is unfit to be lived on or worked for the foreseeable future. We scarcely saw another person or vehicle. Huge pylons which had once carried the power from Chernobyl still stood stretched though the forest. And most poignant of all, the field where the rusting remains of the helicopters, fire engines, vans and other machinery used in the early days of the crisis were dumped. I vividly remember watching with horror those desperate scenes on television of men flying over the burning reactor core to drop sand and concrete in an attempt to prevent more damage. Exposure to those levels of radiation were inevitably fatal. Some 237 emergency workers developed acute radiation sickness and 47 have died. Looking at the highly contaminated remains of the vehicles used by the workers reminded me of those days twenty years ago when the whole world held its breath as it watched the disaster unfold. At the end of the visit the bus was swept for radioactivity and each of us had to be tested individually to ensure we were below the permitted levels. We welcomed the reassurance. Just a few days earlier two reports had been published disputing the figures given by the International Atomic Energy Authority and World Health Organisation of 4,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl. The actual figures could be from 30,000 to as high as 90,000 people. Factors which had not been fully taken into account in the first report included contamination from fallout outside the three countries most directly affected: Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. But there are several gaps in our knowledge of the short and long term effects of this catastrophe and government response to it, including the response in Wales. That is why we have been calling for an independent inquiry at European level into all the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. But there is one thing we do know for certain. Nuclear power is not safe, does not help combat climate change and is not sustainable. The nuclear experiment of the 20th century failed. Nuclear power has no place in an energy strategy for 21st century Wales. Copyright and Trade Mark Notice © owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2006 icWalesTM is a trade mark of Trinity Mirror Plc. ***************************************************************** 71 [DU-WATCH] GIs Beware Radioactive Showers Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 03:17:19 -0500 (CDT) http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12861.htm GIs, Beware Radioactive Showers! By Irving Wesley Hall Bushs impending, insane nuclear attack on Iran has provoked an unprecedented rebellion within the top leadership of the United States military. At the same time, depleted uranium (DU) is steadily taking down our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its time for the soldiers to follow the lead of their commanders in order to end the war. Was Army Sgt. Michael Lee Tosto the first American victim of the Plain Text Attachment [ Download File | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ] Bush administrations March 2003 Shock and Awe attack on Iraq? The 24-year-old North Carolina tank operator died mysteriously in Baghdad on June 17, 2003. The Iraqi capital was saturated with radioactive dust from the initial explosions of 1,500 American bombs and missiles, many of them made from solid depleted uranium. After the saturation bombing, the city was the scene of street battles with M-1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, A-10 Warthog attack jets and Apache helicopters firing DU munitions. The army told Sgt. Tostos family that he died from pulmonary edema and pericardial effusion, or cardiac failure, after showing flu-like symptoms. Young Michael Tosto believed George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice. He believed he had been deployed to Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from nuking the United States. Michael died before we all learned that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are nuking the world. Michael Tosto died, young and innocent, when they nuked him. After Michaels funeral, a fellow soldier contacted Michaels wife Stephanie and told her that his buddy started coughing up blood and his lips turned blue and was dead within 48 hours after the first symptoms. According to Tom Flocco, upon whose story this account is based, . . . the Tostos say their GI was in excellent health in his prime of life. And Stephanie Tosto told United Press International, When my husband died, the casualty officer asked me, Is it possible that Michael had heart problems? Michael did not have heart problems. One other time they asked me if he had asthma. He was never sick. Inhaling depleted uranium causes pulmonary edema. Symptoms include bleeding lungs, bronchial pneumonia and vomited blood. Pericardial effusion is a common cause of death among leukemia patients. Michaels mother, Janet Tosto, reported that military officials told her that her son Michaels military autopsy exhibited elevated levels of white blood cells. Exposure to depleted uranium can cause lymphocytic leukemia. Tom Flocco consulted Dr. Garth Nicolson of the Institute for Molecular Medicine in Huntington Beach, California who said, Just one microscopic particle let alone thousands trapped in a soldiers pulmonary system for one year can result in 272 times the annual whole body radiation dose permitted U.S. radiation workers. Gulf War Illness: the Sequel It is happening again to a new generation of veterans. Some of todays soldiers were in day care centers in 1991 when Dick Cheney first authorized the wholesale use of radioactive munitions. It is happening again despite the fact that a large number of Gulf War I veterans are on medical disability 15 years after the end of the first war against Saddam Hussein. We are witnessing the same symptoms of radioactive poisoning today as 15 years ago. We are hearing the same denial of reality from Donald Rumsfelds Department of Defense (DoD). The government spokesman in Michaels death claimed, We dont think depleted uranium has anything to do with it. After the publication of Depleted Uranium For Dummies last month, a reader emailed me with a demand. You claim that half million soldiers are sick because of the tons of depleted uranium used in 1991. Id like to hear the governments side of the story. Well, the Department of Defenses estimate, as you might expect, is lower. Much lower. According to the Pentagon, depleted uranium hasnt caused even one GIs illness or a single veterans death. If you still believe that the Bush Administration doesnt lie to its citizens or Rumsfelds Department of Defense doesnt lie to the troops, please click to another Web site. I dont want to be the first to break the news to you. Soon you might begin to doubt Condoleezza Rices warning about Saddam Husseins imminent nuclear attack on America or Dick Cheneys claim that Hussein was responsible for taking down the Twin Towers. You might question why on 9/11 acting Commander-in-Chief Dick Cheney couldnt find one available U.S. fighter jet to send aloft during the hour that, allegedly, nineteen Saudis and Egyptians with box cutters were crisscrossing the East Coast in hijacked commercial airliners! These are the stories Sgt. Tosto took to his grave. But no one ever told him that the depleted uranium munitions packed into his tank could kill him. Thats right. As far as the Department of Defense is concerned, depleted uranium is 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium, is not a serious external radiation hazard, and thus is not considered dangerous. According to the militarys pamphlet, Depleted Uranium Information for Clinicians revised Sept. 17, 2004, a year and a half after Michael Tostos death, Findings have shown no kidney damage, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or other uranium-related adverse health outcomes. The Pentagon commissioned several studies in the 90s as hundreds of thousands of Gulf War vets were becoming mysteriously sick. One published in 2000, concluded that DU could pose a chemical hazard but that Gulf War veterans did not experience intakes high enough to affect their health. According to Pentagon spokesman Austin Camacho, the only soldiers meriting the militarys concern are those wounded by depleted uranium shrapnel or who were inside tanks during an explosion, and studies of about 70 such cases from the first Gulf War showed no long-term health problems. This stupefying vets call it criminal DoD denial helps explain the militarys reaction to Michael Tostos death. They would not allow Stephanie Tosto to see her husbands body until after the autopsy in Germany and after he was packed in a casket for burial. Dan Tosto, the dead soldiers father, wondered why Michael was wearing white gloves, appropriate for dress blues but not for Michaels green burial uniform. At the funeral, Stephanie reached under a glove and found Michaels wedding ring missing. The army later explained that the dead soldiers belongings were possibly contaminated. Wedding Ring Contaminated With What? Perhaps the mysterious metal contamination explains why the Army sent the family brand-new dog tags, rather than Michaels original set, and why they didnt immediately call his wife at the emergency phone number he was carrying. After the tank driver was buried, Stephanie received her husbands medical records. They described his arms as red and swollen, classic signs of exposure to depleted uranium dust. Dr. Rosalie Bertell, secretary general of the International Commission of Health Professionals, and president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, commented on Michael Tostos symptoms. She said that the armed services investigation was incomplete without a thorough testing for potential depleted uranium [which] includes chemical analysis of uranium in urine, feces, blood and hair; tests of damage to kidneys, including analysis for protein, glucose and nonprotein nitrogen in urine; radioactivity counting; or more invasive tests such a surgical biopsy of lung or bone marrow. As you will read in the next installment, according to the DoDs own Regulation No. 700-48, such tests are mandatory. Surprised? Wait until you read next time how the government responds to living contaminated soldiers who request tests for radiation poisoning. We cited Dr. Doug Rokke in previous installments. He was the militarys top expert on all aspects of depleted uranium, until he was fired for telling the truth. He was the chief biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons safety officer in the first Gulf War, and he reports that many American deaths were from friendly-fire DU weapons. The Tosto family will never know if this was Michaels fate. According to Gay Alcorn of The Age, Rokke was ordered to decontaminate shot-up vehicles and tanks and to investigate health effects on troops. Dressed in protective gear and masks, he and his team crawled over tanks and other vehicles, sending some back to the U.S. Those considered too radioactive to move were buried in a giant hole in the ground. The U.S. Army made me their expert, Rokke told reporter Julie Flint. I went into the project with the total intent to ensure they could use uranium munitions in war, because Im a warrior. What I saw as director of the project led me to one conclusion: Uranium munitions must be banned from the planet, for eternity, and medical care must be provided for everyone those on the firing end and those on the receiving end. According to Flint, Rokke suffers from serious health problems including brain lesions and lung and kidney damage. When government doctors finally agreed to test him in November 1994, three-and-a-half years after he fell ill, while he was director of the Pentagons Depleted Uranium Project, he was found to have 5,000 times the permissible level of radiation in his body enough to light up a small village. Rokkes crew 100 employees was devastated by exposure to the fine dust. When we went to the Gulf, we were all really healthy, Rokke said. However, after performing clean-up operations in the desert. . .30 staff members died, and most others including Rokke himself developed serious health problems. Rokke now has reactive airway disease, neurological damage, cataracts and kidney problems. I conducted a telephone interview with Doug Rokke last month, after sending him Dummies to fact-check. He described the permanent rashes on his arms. Theyre weeping as we speak, he said. I recalled Michael Tostos autopsy report. What was hidden under the white gloves? The papers Rokke wrote describing his findings are sobering. He recorded levels of contamination that were 15 times the Armys permissible levels in tanks hit by DU, and up to 4.5 times such levels in clothing exposed to DU. Rokke told Alcorn, After everything Ive seen, everything Ive done, it became very clear to me that you just cant take radioactive wastes from one nation and just throw it into another nation. Its wrong. Its simply wrong. . . One way or another, the Pentagon will pay a price. Using DU is a war crime. Its that simple. Once youve scattered all this stuff around, and then refuse to clean it up, youve committed a war crime. According to Denise Nichols, a Gulf War vet and retired Air Force major, there are many reasons why Rumsfelds Department of Defense wont admit that DU is harmful. They dont want to assume responsibility for the astronomical health-care costs of so many poisoned veterans . . . and they dont want the rest of the world to know that they have essentially poisoned two entire nations. If They Admit Its Killing Our Troops, They Cant Use It Doug Rokke gave journalist Vince Guarisco another reason. We warned the Department of Defense in 1991 after the Gulf War. Their arrogance is beyond comprehension. Once they acknowledge that there are actual health effects of depleted uranium munitions, then they cant use them any more; the house of cards falls apart. Now, can you understand the DoDs secrecy about the details of Michael Tostos death? Can you understand the strange silence last month of Maj. Richard J. McNorton, the U.S. Central Commands special officer in charge of helping bloggers obtain accurate information? He is still ignoring my requests to confirm or to allow me to disprove the following account in Dummies: An official June 2005 United States Central Command communiqui reported that soldiers of the 62nd Quartermaster Company from Fort Hood, Texas were supplying Camp Forward Dangers water from the Tigris River . . . it seems that it is not tested for radioactivity. Our men and women of the New York State National Guard have just spent six months taking radioactive showers and washing small open wounds in a depleted uranium broth. Theyve eaten more than 500 meals with food, plates, and silverware washed with hot water, in two senses of the word . . . without knowing it. Given the serious implications for my neighbors in the Rainbow Division, they expected a prompt response from McNorton. Not a word. Does it still seem strange to you that the Pentagon maintains that, from 1991 to 2005, only 7,035 Gulf War vets were wounded in the conflict? In the opinion of those now responsible for defending our country, the discrepancy between 7,000 and 518,000 vets on disability (many with Gulf War Illness ill-defined symptoms) is just a mystery. What is no mystery is that, within the last month, seven high-ranking retired military officers have publicly called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Most are immediate retirees high in the chain of command in the Middle East deeply involved in Cheney and Rumsfelds war. On Democracy Now! April 17, 2006, retired Col. Sam Gardiner, respected lecturer at several United States military war colleges, called these denunciations unprecedented in United States history. Unprecedented Officers Revolt The military revolt against the Bush Administrations catastrophic Middle East policies surfaced last November when previously hawkish Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha channeled the top brasss opposition to the war. Col. Gardiner suggested that the seven recently retired officers were being encouraged to speak out by those still in service. The brass is horrified by the military consequences of bringing Iran into a war weve already lost. Nothing like this happened even during the militarys darkest days when Nixon secretly invaded neighboring Cambodia during the Vietnam War. In another first, a group of West Point graduates, has denounced the war. The graduates pledged to refuse to serve in Iraq. Additional reports suggest that the Joint Chiefs have made clear that they oppose an attack on Iran. Another group of officers has threatened to resign if the United States continues its plans to expand the war in the Middle East to a second major oil producer. Think about that next time you pump gas. Its time for the troops to seize this brief opportunity to transform American history. Why? Lets examine the price our brave citizen-soldiers are paying for the arrogance of the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfelds DoD. In future installments well show in detail what the troops in Iraq can do legally when we review the recent documentary, Sir! No Sir! It shows the critical role of Vietnam GIs in ending that earlier war of aggression against a people who posed no threat to the United States. Last February, Juan Gonzales of the New York Daily News reported that nearly 120,000 veterans more than one of every four who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have already sought treatment at Veterans Health Administration hospitals for a wide range of illnesses, according to an internal study the VHA completed late last year. An additional 35,000 more than 29% of the total were diagnosed with ill-defined conditions, according to the study, which was prepared in October by VHA epidemiologist Dr. Han Kang but has yet to be publicly released. Those numbers are way higher than during the Persian Gulf War for ill-defined symptoms, said one Department of Veterans Affairs official who asked not to be identified. As we detailed in Dummies, depleted uranium contamination causes virtually every known illness from acute skin rashes, severe headaches, muscle and joint pain, and general fatigue, to major birth defects, liver infection, kidney failure, depression, cardiovascular disease, brain tumors, and almost every type of cancer. In fact, the figure of 35,000 sick vets coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan with ill-defined conditions may be too low. Gonzalez reported that, more than 30% of those sick veterans are afflicted with some type of mental disorder, mostly post-traumatic stress and depression . . . a far higher rate of mental problems among our troops than during the Persian Gulf War, and levels comparable to what was found among U.S. troops during the Vietnam War. Two previous military studies of combat troops in Iraq found that 17% to 25% of U.S. soldiers suffer from major depression or combat stress. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is defined as a debilitating change in the brains chemistry that includes flashbacks, sleep disorders, panic attacks, acute anxiety, emotional numbness and violent outbursts. Dozens of soldiers have committed suicide or murdered their spouses. Can PTSD, in some cases, be another phrase for Gulf War Illness? Sara Flounders reported in August 2003, shortly after Michael Tostos death, For years the government described Gulf War Syndrome as a post-traumatic stress disorder. It was labeled a psychological problem or simply dismissed as mysterious unrelated ailments. In this same way the Pentagon and the Veterans Administration treated the health problems of Vietnam vets suffering from Agent Orange poisoning. Dr. Leuren Moret reports that a medical doctor in Northern California told her that he and other doctors, trained by the Pentagon before the 2003 war, were advised to diagnose and treat soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq for mental problems only. Whats Going To Happen To All These Sick Vets? How can so many get the specialized care they need? The half million Gulf War vets who are already on medical disability have never received adequate care from the VA. Paul Rieckhoff is a former lieutenant with the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq and founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Juan Gonzalez quoted him as saying, With numbers this high, the problem is going to grow fast. Were seeing systemwide there are major problems. Most local VAs [Veterans Administration centers] just arent prepared for the influx of sick veterans. In February, the U.S. General Accountability Office reported that the Department of Veterans Affairs does not have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of new combat veterans while still providing for veterans of past wars. Whats worse is that, since 1998, veterans are eligible for free health care only for the first two years after being demobilized. After that, an ailing veteran has to prove his or her illness is service-connected. In the next installment well describe what that burden has meant to ailing Iraq vets. Medical professionals in hospitals and facilities treating returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan have been threatened with $10,000 fines and jail if they talk about the soldiers or their medical problems. Reporters have been prevented access to more than 14,000 medically evacuated soldiers flown nightly from Germany to Walter Reed Hospital near Washington, D.C. What is the DoD hiding? As you know from reading Depleted Uranium For Dummies, all of us may eventually become victims of Bushs Shock and Awe campaign against the Iraqi people, because the radioactive fallout has already permeated the worlds atmosphere. We reported the February findings of Dr. Chris Busby, scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, who was able to obtain official U.K. readings of the astounding spike in European radiation levels after the massive bombings in Iraq. Depleted uranium particles traveled 2,400 miles in nine days from Iraq to Aldermaston England. The invisible cloud quadrupled Europes atmospheric radiation. According to Dr. Busby, This research shows that rather than remaining near the target, as claimed by the military, depleted uranium weapons contaminate both locals and whole populations hundreds to thousands of miles away. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfelds time-release poison from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan took only a year to mix completely into the worlds atmosphere. Take a deep breath, and recall your initial reaction to the stunning TV images of a city of five million people engulfed in a firestorm, with mushroom-shaped clouds of radioactive debris illuminating the skyline. Take a minute to check on your kids playing outside the window in Plain Text Attachment [ Download File | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ] the fresh spring air. Dr. Katsuma Yagasaki, a Japanese physicist at Okinawas Ryukyus University, has estimated that depleted uranium munitions since Cheneys 1991 Gulf War has contaminated the global atmosphere with radiation equivalent to 400,000 Nagasaki bombs. Greenpeace has just estimated that 93,000 deaths occurred because of the 1986 meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine. U.K. environmental scientist Busby was quoted as saying, To my mind, its a human rights issue. Originally, it was an issue relating to whether or not it should be used in Iraq and if the population of Iraq is being contaminated and possibly the Gulf War veterans being contaminated, but now we are seeing that everybody is being contaminated. We are all Gulf War veterans. Soldier Says Bush Worse Than Bin Laden Veterans and soldiers have been contacting Over the Rainbow after we guaranteed anonymity. A soldier serving in Iraq, already showing the symptoms of Gulf War Illness, expressed his bitterness. I came over here thinking I was fighting to protect our freedoms. It was all bullshit. Im sick and probably dying. I want to come home. But, thats really scary because Im contagious. If I come home Ill give this shit to my wife and kids. This was a suicide mission for all of us. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the bunch of them are no better than Osama bin Laden and those sleezebags. The government took patriots and turned us into terrorists. Its just like Osama bin Laden and 9/11. They sent us over here on a suicide mission to murder innocent people. Actually our government is worse than bin Laden. At least when a car bomber volunteers, they tell the guy the truth. He knows he will die quickly and painlessly. When hes blown to bits, he knows his people will take care of his wife and kids. Nobody told me I was volunteering to be nuked by DU. The recruiter never said I was going die slowly and painfully. And when Im dead theyll dump on my family just like theyre dumping on the people over here. The soldier asked if I had heard from public relations officer, Maj. Richard J. McNorton, about the radioactive showers at Camp Forward Danger. I wonder if the major thinks he lives a charmed life. Hes sucking up depleted uranium particles from Iraq whether hes stationed downwind in CENTCOM headquarters in Qatar or across the Atlantic in Florida. Right now GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan are hunkered down as Cheneys bloody adventure collapses around them. Our men and women are primarily concerned about looking out for each other. Who is McNorton looking out for? Obviously Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wants to keep depleted uranium and the radioactive showers a secret from the officers and troops. If the Jews of Europe had known the Nazi shower rooms were poison gas chambers, it would have been much harder to get them to board the trains. DU must be the stuff of nightmares for Bush, Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Rumsfeld. Can you imagine the four of them trying to corral United States Army, Reserves and National Guard troops into transport planes bound for Iraq after they find out about depleted uranium? ------- This is the fourth in a comprehensive series on depleted uranium dedicated to the New York National Guard to appear on the website We're Not in Kansas Anymore, where you will find sources, a bibliography, and suggestions for citizen action to eliminate DU munitions. www.notinkansas.us. --------------------------------- Win tickets to the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany with Yahoo! Messenger. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] ***************************************************************** 72 London Times: Review: Nuclear confusion reigns - Sunday Times The Sunday Times April 30, 2006 Liam Fay Gridlocked motorways, rampant carnage on the roads, overcrowded pubs, mayhem among delayed passengers at Busaras - Ireland in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear apocalypse would look pretty much like Ireland as it is today. This was the startling impression conveyed by Fallout (Sunday & Monday, RTE1), a two-part what-if drama about the probable reaction of citizens on the eastern seaboard as they attempt to escape the drifting radiation released by a hypothetical accident at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in west Cumbria. The opening episode set out to offer something close to a vision of hell, but, ironically, the nightmare scenario appeared almost mundane in its familiarity. Following the fictional Sellafield incident, weather conditions conspired to push plumes of lethal radiation across the Irish sea. Frenzied hordes deserted the polluted Pale, swarming already congested highways as they headed for the uncontaminated idylls of Connaught and Munster. As drivers and their vehicles overheated, the situation was, of course, deeply unpleasant - but little worse than what you'd expect to encounter on a busy bank holiday weekend. Produced by Gerald Heffernan of Frontier Films, Fallout was an undeniably confident and sophisticated piece of work - stylistically the most convincing large-scale home-produced drama yet. The template for the programme was clearly The Day After, the 1983 American TV movie about the consequences of a fictional nuclear attack on a small Kansas town. Yet, though made for a fraction of the US film's budget, Fallout was the superior production, eschewing the twin Hollywood disaster-movie vices of overblown special effects and overwrought schmaltz. Featuring an almost entirely unknown and, in many cases, amateur cast, the RTE series persuasively conveyed the terror and confusion of ordinary citizens without the distraction of fake heroics or scene-stealing theatrics. David Caffrey, the director, deserves particular credit for his subtle handling of the interview segments, which ranged from on-the-run vox pops through tearful appeals for missing persons to Paddy O'Gormanesque chats with the dispossessed. Caffrey's virtuoso mastery of television styles was crucial to the programme's plausibility. Fallout didn't so much chronicle the nuclear disaster itself or the ensuing public panic so much as it chronicled the manner in which TV covered both. News reports from RTE and the BBC were interwoven with individual testimonies and citizen-reporter footage captured on video phones to create an impressionistic panorama of unfolding events that gave the drama-documentary a convincingly epic sweep without recourse to a cast of thousands. Unfortunately, for all their skill at creating the authentic feel of documentary, the show's makers seemed to lose sight of their duty to also deliver drama. Devoid of a strong central storyline, Fallout was a curiously unengaging experience. Top-heavy with set-ups, the opening instalment quickly grew repetitive. The overreliance on expositionary conversations between correspondents and news anchors soon began to grate. Indeed, the replication of the language and intonation of contemporary newscasters was so spot-on that these relentless scenes gradually started to seem like note-perfect parodies of modern news babble, more The Day Today than The Day After. There was further unintentional comedy in the writers' touching belief that, in the event of a Sellafield meltdown, BBC news bulletins would lead on the threat posed to Ireland rather than England. Fallout's second episode was more dramatically satisfying, but, inevitably, more fanciful. Set a year later, the programme depicted an Ireland in which property prices have collapsed, the tourist industry is decimated and unemployment is sky-rocketing. In a bankrupt and derelict Dublin, meanwhile, armed soldiers patrol the perimeters of the remaining exclusion zones, shooting stray pets or humans that wander onto the radioactive ground. Here the writers - Johnny Ferguson and Declan Jones - managed to deliver some genuinely imaginative twists, especially the story about the feral kids who were now squatting in hastily evacuated mansions on Dublin's Ailesbury Road. Unfortunately, such dramatic flourishes were all too rare. For all its best efforts, therefore, Fallout's lack of dramatic heart distanced the audience, reducing them to spectators at a civil defence nuclear drill. There are many who claim that contemporary dance is a uniquely expressive art form - though, admittedly, these people have been conspicuously silent since the advent of Celebrity Jigs'n'Reels. However, in an attempt to showcase the dramatic power of dance, RTE and the Arts Council commissioned four short dance films by young directors and choreographers, all of which were premiered on The View Presents . . . Dance on the Box (Monday, RTE1). Unfortunately, however, the venture cuts the legs from beneath the argument that dance is a form of artistic communication. With the notable exception of Why the Irish Dance That Way - a slight but cleverly executed visual gag choreographed by Ronan O'Riagain and directed by Nick Kelly - the films were nonsense-on-stilts, cardiovascular exercises in meaninglessness and pretension. Steve Woods's Buail, for instance, featured a multiracial cast leaping about Dublin's civic offices, while Dearbhla Walsh's Match comprised two blokes rolling around on the pitch at Croke Park. The films were beautifully shot, but, in terms of content, there was less to both than met the eye. In blowing a rare opportunity to connect with a TV audience, albeit on a late-night arts show, the movers and shakers of Irish dance displayed a pathetic lack of gumption. Even more pitiful, though, was the undergraduate smugness with which several of the directors and choreographers boasted about the absence of plot in their films. "I wanted to avoid imposing a narrative," declared Walsh, as though she were referring to some exotic tropical disease. Thankfully, the art of storytelling is alive and kicking in Shortscreen (Saturday, RTE2), the series of short films by novice directors that is funded by Bord Scannan na hEireann and RTE. A few acts of arty auto-eroticism aside, the current run has been impressive, featuring several vintage yarns such as Ian Power's The Wonderful World of Kelvin Kidd, and Sunburn, an appealingly twisted tale of parental possessiveness directed by Jennifer Keegan. Given the thought, time and resources clearly lavished on most of these films, however, it seems perverse of RTE 2 to broadcast them after midnight on Saturday. Unlike the dance film-makers, who are apparently happy to gyrate alone in the dark, the Shortscreen directors clearly yearn for popular attention. Their minor motion pictures deserve a much bigger stage. The Times and The Sunday Times. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 73 Las Vegas SUN: Test Site is once again making noise Photos: Test Site 1 | Test Site 2 | Test Site 3 Today: April 30, 2006 at 7:40:32 PDT June detonation draws wide attention By Launce Rake Las Vegas Sun A quick look at Test Site Area: 1,375 square miles Total atmospheric tests: 100 Total underground tests: 921 Available housing in Mercury : 1,200 beds Number of places to buy a cold beer in Mercury: One, the Steakhouse Length of all paved roads in Test Site: 400 miles Length of all unpaved roads: 300 miles Number of airstrips: Two Number of heliports: 10 First Nevada atomic bomb test: January 1951 Last Nevada atmospheric test: July 1962 Final Nevada atomic bomb test: September 1992 Almost 60 years after the nation reveled at the sight of mushroom clouds boiling high above the Nevada desert, another blast - tiny by comparison - is again thrusting the Nevada Test Site into the public spotlight. Some things at the site, 60 miles northwest of Las Vegas, haven't changed in those six decades. A visitor can still see the parallel wooden benches perched 10 miles above Frenchman's Flat, where politicians, military brass and scientists watched the above-ground flash and mushroom clouds from the first atomic bomb tests. The land is still home to miles of scrub creosote and Joshua trees. The desert mountains, dry lake beds and valleys appear impervious to human activity. Yet there have been changes at the site. Many changes. "The one thing that has evolved over time is that the Test Site has become the world's, certainly the free world's, largest outdoor laboratory," said Troy Wade, chairman of the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation. The size and isolation of the Test Site means that there is "zero risk to the public" for most activities, Wade said. "Over the past few years, particularly since 9/11, other agencies with other interests have become partners with the Test Site. One of the big users at the Test Site right now is the Department of Homeland Security." Yet despite the recent changes, work at the site is still far below the level of the glory years. Just 4,000 employees work there now, fewer than one-third as many as in the early 1970s. The last test of a nuclear device occurred 14 years ago. The test scheduled for June 2 will be of a 700-ton conventional bomb. The research could aid in development of so-called bunker-buster weapons, including small-scale nuclear devices, according to the federal official overseeing the test, Doug Bruder, director of counter-weapons of mass destruction technology for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. For Las Vegas, all this talk about the bombs in the desert is familiar. The city has always had a tight relationship with the often secret and highly secure area. The site, which includes the village of Mercury, was born out of the federal government's search for a place within the continental United States to detonate the most powerful explosives built by man. After rejecting coastal North Carolina and other possible sites, authorities settled on a sweeping, desolate region of the southern Great Basin, with few neighbors and no large cities nearby. President Harry Truman in December 1950 gave the order to create the Nevada Test Site, placing it under the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission. Within a year, the government exploded a dozen atomic bombs at the site. While the U.S. military and Energy Department - the Atomic Energy Commission's direct descendant - no longer detonate nuclear weapons, nuclear research does continue. "The Test Site always has been and will for the foreseeable future be focused on the national security mission," said Kevin Rohrer, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. A central part of that security mission, he said, is maintaining and ensuring the reliability of nuclear weapons through "subcritical nuclear experiments." "Subcritical" means that it doesn't reach the chain reaction that results in a nuclear explosion. "We do not do nuclear testing," Kathy Carlson, manager of the Test Site, said, referring to above or below ground atomic bomb blasts. But, she said, "We are doing very small experiments, called subcritical experiments, with small amounts of material to really understand how materials react." The experiments include testing how plutonium and uranium - the essential material for nuclear weapons - respond to a variety of environments and events. Much of the work associated with the safety and security of the bombs is done at the Test Site's Device Assembly Facility. Rohrer noted that the government does not assemble warheads at the facility, although it "could potentially perform that function." Assembly of nuclear weapons is done at a plant outside Amarillo, Texas. The Test Site also is home to research that doesn't involve radioactive materials. A growing amount of work involves other kinds of defense-related programs funded by the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among others. Energy Department officials say they can't discuss all of the agencies that contract for work within the Test Site. Carlson, however, did say that her agency now trains about 50,000 men and woman yearly on and off the Test Site to handle various emergencies, including chemical, biological and nuclear crises. The Test Site's isolation and tight security offers advantages for specialized training, she said. It is against that backdrop that the test detonation of 700 tons of conventional explosives June 2 has sparked protest. Nevada officials have threatened to delay the blast and an environmental group has sued over air quality concerns. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., suggested those concerns are based on the federal government's credibility with Nevada's citizens. "The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has yet to satisfy the state of Nevada's demand for more information about this test, and it must not go forward until this obligation is satisfied," she said in a statement last week. "As a Nevadan that lived through the nuclear testing era, I have a healthy skepticism for federal officials who say there is nothing to worry about when it comes to protecting public safety or the environment." Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a nonprofit group working on Test-Site and environmental issues in Nevada, said people have good reason to not trust the federal government. "We are very skeptical of the activities on the Test Site," she said. Johnson noted that a half-century ago, the federal government sold the bomb tests as an economic boon for Las Vegas and central Nevada. Today, the government is using similar arguments to push forward with plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. "At some point, we have to say, 'Wait a minute. This is nuts. We cannot keep doing this,' " Johnson said. She worries that present-day activities, including the June 2 blast, could still have environmental impacts on the region. Wade, of the Test Site historical foundation, said the Test Site's national defense mission carries with it some risk. Wade said some of his colleagues have died from diseases that may be related to their work at the site, where he has worked for most of his life. "I have not personally been affected, but I have had friends who have," Wade said. "If you go to the museum, you will hear me say on one of the little film clips that as a nation, we put people at risk - on site and off site. As a country, we had no choice. "We did everything we could to minimize the risk, but we were taking risks." For Wade, like many of those working at the Test Site today, that risk is an essential part of the national security mission. "The world is less safe and less stable than when we were engaged in the Cold War with the Soviet Union," he said. "I'd say the mission today, it's even more important. "By policy, this country does not test nuclear weapons, but what a lot of people don't recognize is that the defense of this country is still based on a nuclear deterrent. Safety and reliability - that's a big job. "Regrettably, there is no way this world is going to get rid of nuclear weapons," he said. "That means the Test Site is always going to have some sort of nuclear-weapons-related mission." Carlson, the Test Site manager, predicted that the unique conditions at the Test Site will attract more federal agencies to do testing and training. "The Test Site is one of the few places in the country where you can do high-hazard experiments," she said. "We're very bullish on the Test Site because it is very like the Middle East." Launce Rake can be reached at 259-4127 or at lrake@lasvegassun.com. Photos: Test Site 1 | Test Site 2 | Test Site 3 All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 74 Xinhua: DPRK A-bomb victims urge Japan to legislate compensation law www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-04-30 21:50:58 PYONGYANG, April 30 (Xinhua) -- A-bomb survivors in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Sunday urged the Japanese government to legislate a special law for compensation and end its discriminating policy against Korean victims. The Association of Korean Victims of A-bombs for Peace (AKVAP) made the demand in a survey report released by the official Korean Central News Agency. "The Japanese government should pass a special law for compensation after publishing related materials about Korean victims," the report was quoted as saying. The victims were kidnapped Koreans working in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the U.S. military dropped two atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender at the end of World War II. The report also required the Japanese government to pay compensation for the Korean victims and their descendants, while providing essential medical equipment to survivors. The Japanese government has refused to compensate the DPRK victims citing absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The report did not give the exact number of Korean survivors and descendants of the victims in the DPRK. Another victims organization in South Korea said up to 40,000 Koreans had died in the nuke attacks. The AKVAP accused Japan of adopting discriminating policy against Korean victims, saying they have never received apology or compensation while the Japanese victims enjoyed substantive aid from the government. The U.S. nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 left some 270,000 people dead by the end of that year, including kidnapped Koreans working in the Japanese factories in the two cities. Enditem Editor: Yao Runping Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 75 Spectrum: Reliving past with 700-ton blast St. George UT.- www.thespectrum.com - Uh-oh, if Orrin Hatch is getting nervous about a military project, we'd better all be nervous. The Republican senator from Utah sent his aides to the Nevada Test Site to check out the location where a 700-ton ammonium nitrate-fuel oil bomb will be exploded on June 2. Called Divine Strake, the test was once referred to in the congressional budget as the test of a low-level nuclear weapon. When tongues started wagging, it was scaled back, at least publicly, to a conventional weapons test, that is if your mindset allows you to believe the detonation of 700 tons of explosive material can be called conventional. Hatch tried to calm his nervous constituents, who were bombarded with nuclear fallout from tests that ranged from 1945 to as recently as the underground explosions that ended in 1992, by saying he is skeptical about taking the word of test officials who claim this explosion, which will knock the Nevada desert around to the equivalence of a magnitude 3.4 earthquake, will be safe. At stake, of course, are lives that could be forever changed by the disturbance of the nuclear fallout that settled on the crust of that desert after the last tests. Science tells us that the body absorbs radioactivity, that it lingers. More and more doses of radioactivity result in more and more incidents of cancer. The American Cancer Society and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claim no link, but isn't it coincidental that the number of cancer cases in the United States rose dramatically just after the testing began? And, according to some well-respected scientists, that number is good across the country as the jet stream carried the death and disease across all 48 contiguous states and on up into Canada. Until studies on the poisonous attack on innocent Americans were stopped by this administration, the CDC issued a preliminary report that stated approximately 15,000 people in this country died as a result of nuclear fallout poisoning. Just to put that into perspective, that's seven times the number of people who died during the attack on Pearl Harbor that launched the U.S. into World War II and five times the number of people who died in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, gets the message. He said Divine Strake confirms his fears that the test will lead to the development of new nuclear weapons. And, a representative from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is running the June 2 test, lays it on the line saying that there are "hard targets out there" that "might require nuclear weapons." Sorry, this administration has cried wolf one too many times to believe this latest propaganda. This country was formed when the people wanted to divorce themselves from King George III. It's time to divorce ourselves from King George the XLIII before he destroys innocent people and whatever's left of this country's once-good reputation. To contact city editor Ed Kociela, call 674-6237 or e-mail ekociela@thespectrum.com. Originally published April 29, 2006 Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 76 Niagara Gazette: LETTER: Worries about nuclear chemical workers Published: April 29, 2006 12:01 am *****************************************************************