*****************************************************************
07/16/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.167
*****************************************************************
   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] Israel's Ultimate Goal a Pre-emptive Strike on Iran?
2 IRNA: Iran's N-case not complicated - Larijani 
3 IRNA: Iran expects Russia, China to defend its rights - Asefi
4 Guardian Unlimited: Korea Resolution Will Help U.N. Face Iran
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Calls Western Incentives Acceptable
6 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Iran the Lurking Mideast Issue
7 IRNA: Ties with Iran not affected by Indian vote in IAEA - Indian of
8 IRNA: Western view of Iran 'myopic,' says UK journalist
9 IRNA: Iran threatens to quit NPT if pressured
10 IRNA: Door for Iran nuclear talks must remain open: German Greens -
11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Doors open to talks - Larijani 
12 AFP: US presses G8 to blame militants for Mideast crisis
13 IRNA: Iran to enter world equations due to its advanced technology -
14 AFP: Iran expects Russian, Chinese support in nuclear crisis 
15 IRNA: Official considers Iran's nuclear issue as a top challenge 
16 AFP: Iran's leadership rejects freeze of sensitive nuclear work -
17 IRNA: Time ripe for Iran, Europe to enter into nuclear talks - Asefi
18 IRNA: Asefi recommends G8 to adopt reasonable option
19 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.: N.Korea Must Return to Nuke Talks
20 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Rejects U.N.'s Limited Sanctions
21 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Imposes Limited Sanctions on N. Korea
22 AFP: China, Japan, US call for resuming NKorea talks 
23 AFP: US hails UN resolution on N. Korea, warns Pyongyang
24 AFP: UN demands end to N.Korea missile program, Pyongyang says no -
25 AFP: North rejects "brigandish" UN call to halt its missile launches
26 New York Times: As Tensions Rise, U.S. and Moscow Falter on Trade - 
27 BBC: US and Russia differ on Mid-East
28 AFP: G8 SUMMIT Putin says US, Russia agree on nuclear partnership
29 Guardian Unlimited: Remarks by Bush, Putin at News Conference
30 RIA Novosti: Update: Bush, Putin discuss nuclear disputes ahead of G
31 RIA Novosti: No global hydrocarbon crisis - Putin
32 WorldNetDaily: To nuke or not to nuke
33 Independent: CND membership booms after nuclear U-turn 
34 UPI: Moscow: Pakistani sought nuke technology
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
35 SABCnews.com: Koeberg generating energy at full capacity
36 London Times: British Energy sale powers ahead - 
37 London Times: Get to grips with energy now - 
38 London Times: Focus: Atomic chicken - 
39 London Times: Amid the uncertainty, a powerful case for nuclear - 
40 US: Free Press: More atomic bomb balm from the New York Times 
41 BBC: G8 supports 'open' energy markets
42 GLW: New book against nuclear power
43 US: MaineToday.com: Could Maine Yankee become a regional nuclear was
44 Independent: Ł2.4bn nuclear sale starts 
45 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC returns to area for another relicensin
46 US: Daily Press: NRC gives green light to revised cooling plan for t
47 ITAR-TASS: Russia to fully replace N-plants by new ones by year 2030
48 US: Newsday.com: Nine Mile Point to lose about 150 jobs - 
49 US: Public Citizen: G8 Leaders Should Reject Dangerous and Costly 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
50 US: Newsday.com: NY to get nuclear detector devices - 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
51 Las Vegas SUN: Layoffs planned at Nevada's proposed nuclear waste du
52 US: Deseret News: Justices to hear nuclear waste case
53 Guardian Unlimited: Cumbria keen for Sellafield to house new atomic 
54 US: Fredericksburg.com: A nettle-some problem on Potomac
55 RIA Novosti: First uranium enrichment center to open in Siberia - Ki
56 reviewjournal.com: Layoff notices set for Yucca staff
57 US: Canyon News: Radioactive Waste May be Buried in Brentwood
58 US: North Adams Transcript: Jeffords wants fuel rods tracked
59 US: Gilroy Dispatch: More Work Needed To Trace Plume
60 News & Star: Sellafield operator joins world association
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
61 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Time for bidders to put cards on the table for l
62 SF New Mexican: LANL: Nuclear center’s construction draws concern   
63 Tri-City Herald: Is Hanford campsite land of trash or treasure?
64 Inside Bay Area: New operator of Livermore lab will have freer hand
65 lamonitor.com: Small business gathers to meet with LANL at EXPO 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Israel's Ultimate Goal a Pre-emptive Strike on Iran?
 
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:53:26 -0400 (EDT)

X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Dave Muller (southnews)

Iran was thrust to the forefront of widening conflict in the Middle East 
last night when Israel and America blamed it for supplying the Lebanese 
militant group Hezbollah with sophisticated weapons to fight a proxy war 
against the Jewish state.

The Israeli offensive against Iran  until now, purely polemical  
morphed into military action the moment the IDF crossed the border into 
Lebanon and took on Hezbollah.

"War with Iran will probably not begin with a frontal assault by the 
U.S. and/or Israel on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons facilities, or even 
a skirmish along the Iraq-Iran border. Look to Lebanon and Syria for the 
first battlegrounds of this developing regional war. The Israelis know 
perfectly well that Iran's nuclear ambitions, if they ever materialize, 
are not an immediate threat: their real concern is their volatile 
northern border, where their deadly enemies  Hezbollah  are an 
effective obstacle to Israeli influence. The Israelis are also looking 
to exploit growing opportunities to make trouble in Syria, where the 
restive Kurds are their reliable allies, and the brittleness of the 
Ba'athist dictatorship is an invitation to regime change."


The Telegraph (UK) - Jul 16, 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/16/wleb216.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/16/ixuknews.html

Iran blamed as Lebanon battle broadens

By Harry De Quetteville in Tiberias

Iran was thrust to the forefront of widening conflict in the Middle East 
last night when Israel and America blamed it for supplying the Lebanese 
militant group Hezbollah with sophisticated weapons to fight a proxy war 
against the Jewish state.

Israeli intelligence claimed that 100 Iranian Revolutionary Guards were 
in Lebanon helping Hezbollah, and that their weapons would enable 
Hezbollah to strike with devastating force at Israel's armed forces and 
civilian population as far south as the capital, Tel Aviv.
  	
The joint accusation came as two waves of Hezbollah rockets fell on the 
city of Tiberias on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, normally packed at 
this time of year with holidaymakers, and making good the group's threat 
to strike deep into northern Israel.

Meanwhile Israel widened its military campaign in Lebanon, which has so 
far killed more than 80 people, mostly civilians.

For the first time, warplanes hit targets in northern Lebanon, including 
a border crossing point to Syria, but the worst casualties remained in 
the south where at least 20 villagers who were trying to escape the 
fighting were reported killed when their convoy was apparently hit by an 
Israeli rocket attack.

The victims, including 15 children, were fleeing the village of 
Marwaheen only a mile or so from the border after being ordered by 
Israeli forces to do so or see their houses flattened.

Israeli aircraft also struck Hezbollah's main office in Beirut and hit 
petrol stations, bridges and roads across the country.
A petrol station in Lebanon hit by the Israelis

The escalating war, and the effects of Hezbollah's enhanced new arsenal, 
were also clear at sea, as an Israeli warship with 80 sailors on board 
was towed back to the country's northern port of Haifa after being 
struck by a long-distance missile.

The rocket started a huge blaze and knocked out the ship's steering 
system, with one crewman confirmed dead and three others missing.

Israel said that Iranian soldiers had helped Hezbollah with the attack. 
Meanwhile United States intelligence agencies in Washington have 
disclosed that Iran may have supplied some of its most feared and 
up-to-date weapons to Hezbollah.

The munitions in question are Iran's 240mm Fajr3 missile, which has a 
range of 25 miles, and the 333mm Fajr5, with a range of about 45 miles, 
carrying a warhead of up to 90kg.

Israeli military sources said the warship was hit by a Chinese-designed, 
Iranian-built C80 radar-guided missile.

"We can confirm that it was hit by an Iranian-made missile launched by 
Hezbollah," said Brig Gen Ido Nehushtan.

The range of such missiles means that the crippled ship will not be safe 
even when it docks for repairs in the city of Haifa, 20 miles south of 
the Lebanese border.

But, newly armed and newly determined, Hezbollah's leader, Hassan 
Nasrallah, promised that Haifa would not mark the limits of the Lebanese 
group's attacks, and extended-range versions of the weapons in its 
control could reach Tel Aviv, more than three times as far.

The reality of the threat became clear when Tiberias, a holiday and 
retirement town 22 miles from the Lebanese border, yesterday became the 
target deepest into Israel that Hezbollah has ever struck. Five rockets 
landed in the city, two in residential areas, in the first attack it has 
faced since the 1973 Yom Kippur war. There were no injuries to add to 
the four Israelis who have already been killed by Hezbollah rockets in 
recent days. In one apartment block a missile ripped through the top 
three floors, punching a hole in a wall before splintering furniture and 
shattering windows.

"The people in those apartments were away, so we were very, very lucky 
no one was killed," said Ron Cobi, 34, whose parents were in the flat 
one floor further down. "My parents are in their 70s and very shocked 
and scared. Right now they're in the building's bunker."

Hezbollah's ability to hit Israeli targets such as the warship has 
fundamentally altered the balance of power on the battlefield. While 
Israel, which is widely thought to possess nuclear weapons, retains one 
of the best-trained, best-equipped armies in the world, its principal 
adversaries in the past six years have been poorly equipped Palestinian 
-militants.

In Gaza and the West Bank, the worst that Israeli armour has to face are 
Kalashnikov-wielding enemies, who sometimes wear suicide belts in a 
usually fruitless attempt to increase their killing power.

That imbalance has enabled Israeli forces to remain on the ground in 
Gaza for the past three weeks, sustaining only one casualty. In the 
first days of the war on the northern front, the military death toll has 
passed 10.

In Gaza, Palestinian casualties since the conflict began reached almost 
80 yesterday, after two more people were killed in Israeli air strikes. 
At least one was reported to be a bystander as Israel hit what it 
described as a "rocket -factory".

President George W Bush himself singled out Damascus rather than Teheran 
for most criticism yesterday as a backer of Hezbollah. Asked about 
reports that Syria and Iran had been "operationally involved" with 
Hezbollah's attacks, Mr Bush's national security adviser, Stephen 
Hadley, said: "At the end of the day people have choices to make and 
Syria is making bad choices They have a choice to make and so far they 
made a wrong choice."

[Additonal reporting: Toby Harnden, Washington, and Alec Russell, Moscow.]

                                ***

Israel News Agency - Jun 24, 2006
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranisraelnuclearariel3890624.html

Israel Needs A Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran

By Jonathan Ariel
Israel News Agency

Jerusalem, June 24--One of the best ways to ensure the world 
doesnt get wobbly over Iran, is to make it understand that although 
Israel prefers to regard the rogue Islamic regime as an international 
problem, we will, if necessary, do whatever it takes to ensure our 
survival, including a preemptive nuclear strike.

In 1936, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland the allies appeased him, 
even though they could have been in Berlin in two weeks. In 1938 they 
once again let him off the hook, even though the allies could have been 
in Berlin within two months. Shortly after the appeasement of Munich, 
Russia signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler, setting the stage for 
what it hoped would be his defeat of the West, which would pave the way 
for Russian domination of Eurasia, from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

Now we have Iran, a country led by Ahmadinejad, an equally deranged and 
evil maniac. He is driven by an ideology combining elements of Nazism 
and Mahdism, with a tad of Maoism as well, a lethal cocktail of three of 
the most evil ideologies of human political history.

By most current intelligence estimates, by 2008, exactly 70 years after 
Chamberlain announced on his return from Munich he had achieved peace 
in our time, the Iranian Islamo-Nazi regime will have succeeded in 
developing an atomic bomb. Although it seems that the international 
community has belatedly begun to awaken to the danger, it is still far 
from certain that this will actually lead to concrete and concerted 
steps to ensure this doesnt happen.

Moreover, even if the West does get its act together, three is no 
guarantee that Russia will not revert to course, enacting a repeat 
performance of the Molotov-Ribbentrob pact. Putin seriously mulling 
double crossing the West.

This week new and highly disturbing evidence came to light that this is 
exactly what Russia is doing. According to a western intelligence report 
published earlier this week, satellite images showed large volumes of 
heavy Russian weaponry heading towards Iran. The weapons belonged to 
Russian military units evacuating Georgia, as part of the 
Russian-Georgian agreement signed in March, which calls for all Russian 
troops to be withdrawn from Georgian soil.

The Russians were evacuating their two big Soviet-era military bases in 
Georgia on the shores of the Black Sea  the 12th base in Batumi and the 
62nd at Akhalkalaki to the north, 19 miles from the Turkish border. The 
mages revealed the retreating Russian units moving along not one but two 
routes. The first showed small groups of Russian officers and soldiers 
heading out of Georgia carrying only their personal kits, the second was 
jammed with convoys of trucks loaded with weapons and logistical 
systems, radar and ammo.

Freight trains were also pressed into service. This route wound out of 
Georgia and headed into Armenia where the vehicles halted at the Russian 
base near Gyumri. A Russian military spokesman explained this relocation 
by stating that the property of the 62nd (Akhalkalaki), Georgia, would 
be reassigned to replenish Russias 102nd base in Gyumri, Armenia. He 
added: The transfer of this property to any other party is not envisioned.

However Armenia was not the the propertys last stop. The close watch 
on the Russian supplies convoys continued and, lo and behold, a third 
route surfaced, this one heading out of the 102nd base in Armenia and 
into Iran.

Western military sources have traced the route these weapons took. From 
Gyumri, the trucks and trains rolled on to the Armenian capital of 
Yerevan. There, they were offloaded onto Armenian and Iranian trucks and 
trains, which turned south to the Iranian border. The freight crossed 
the border and halted at the Iranian town of Sadarak. Its next stop was 
the Iranian-Azeri town of Naxcivan and then on to Tabriz. Subsequent 
shipments by truck and rail followed the same route, They included APCs, 
heavy artillery, Grad rockets, BM-21mm missiles and anti-aircraft systems.

So far this year, Iran has purchased over $7 billion for arms from 
Russia, including anti-air, nuclear-capable Tor-M1 cruise missiles, 
considered by experts the most advanced of its kind in the world. Iran 
has purchased these missiles to secure the Bushehr atomic reactor and 
other nuclear sites. These sources say that Teheran is using the 
Georgian weapons deal as bait, to get Moscow to part with weapons and 
technologies it has so far refrained from passing over to the 
ayatollahs, specifically technology transfers enabling Iran to begin 
domestic production of the sophisticated Russian X-5518 nuclear cruise 
missiles, known also as Kh-55 or AS-15s.

Tehran already has a dozen of these missiles, which have a 3,000km range 
and are capable of carrying a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. They were 
purchased on the black market of Ukraine in 2005. Teheran has reportedly 
promised to significantly increase its purchase of conventional weapons 
from Russia, if it agrees to the missile technology transfer.

Despite the uncertainty as to whether Russia (and possibly China as 
well) would cooperate with the West regarding Iran, the conventional 
wisdom has remained unchanged, namely that Iran is an international 
problem, being dealt with accordingly by the international community, 
and that Israel should therefore take a back seat.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The world needs to understand 
very clearly that Israel cannot and will not allow a Holocaust denying 
regime that openly calls for its destruction to wield a nuclear bomb. 
Israel needs to make it very clear that the consequence of it having to 
face a nuclear Iran by itself will be a preemptive strike against Iran.

The more the international community gets the message that the 
consequences of appeasement will be worse than those of action, the 
better the chances of action. The growing evidence of Russian perfidy 
makes it even more important that there be no room for misunderstandings 
in this regard. The best way to get that message across is to make it 
very clear that if Israel is faced between an Iran nuclear bomb, or 
having to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to prevent that 
eventuality, it will opt for the latter.

The world must be told loud and clear by Israel that the only way to 
avoid the first nuclear strike by a nation since Nagasaki is to take 
whatever actions are required to ensure Iran doesnt get the bomb, and 
to prevent an Iranian conventional weapons build up to the point where a 
preemptive nuclear strike becomes the only option for dealing with the 
rogue ayatollah regime.

Jonathan Ariel, was an advisor to the South African government and is a 
former editor-in-chief of the Israel on-line Maariv International. He 
has filled numerous positions with well known Israel and international 
media organizations such as Maariv, Makor Rishon, Jerusalem Post, 
Ha'aretz, The International Herald Tribune, Israel Radio, SABC and the 
Independent Foreign Service. These include Managing-Editor of Makor 
Rishon and Editor-in-Chief of Maariv International. He has been 
interviewed and quoted by leading media organizations such as the LA 
Times, The Economist, The Guardian, The New York Sun, Times of India, 
The Australian, Sunday Times and the BBC. His articles have been 
translated into over a dozen major languages, including German, Danish, 
Dutch, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, French, Arabic, Japanese, 
Korean and Chinese. He has degrees in Political Science and Journalism. 
He speaks English and Hebrew at mother tongue level, French, Dutch 
(Afrikaans) fluently.

                               ***

New York Sun, July 13, 2006
http://www.nysun.com/article/35990

War on Iran Has Begun

BY DAVID TWERSKY

TEL AVIV, Israel  The war with Iran has begun.

Just last Friday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad warned that Israel's 
return to Gaza could lead to an "explosion" in the Islamic world that 
would target Israel and its supporters in the West. "They should not let 
things reach a point where an explosion occurs in the Islamic world," he 
said.

"If an explosion occurs, then it won't be limited to geographical 
boundaries. It will also burn all those who created [Israel] over the 
past 60 years," he said, implicitly referring to America and other 
Western nations who support Israel.

Years from now, the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit will be regarded 
like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Against the backdrop of 
Kassam rocket fire on Israelis living within range of the Gaza Strip, it 
was the fate of Corporal Shalit that triggered the Israeli return to 
Gaza, which in turn brought the Hezbollah forces into the game.

Israel is fighting two Iranian proxies on two fronts. It may, or may 
not, open a third front against a third Iranian proxy, Syria. It is from 
the Syrian capital that Khaled Meshaal, the exiled leader of Hamas, has 
been laying down Palestinian Arab negotiating conditions. Why listen to 
Mr. Meshaal? Because the Hamas troops are loyal to him, rather than to 
their erstwhile leader, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, let alone the 
increasingly (as if that were possible) hapless Palestinian Arab leader, 
Mahmoud Abbas.

As one senior Palestinian Arab close to Mr. Abbas told me Mr. Meshaal 
believes that any resolution of this crisis, and of the wider crisis 
brought on by the surprising Hamas election win last January and the 
ensuing isolation of the Palestinian Authority from its European and 
American funding sources, must await the outcome of the discussions 
between Iran and the West over its nuclear enrichment program.

Perhaps a grand bargain is in the works, in which Tehran will forgo its 
nuclear weapons ambitions in exchange for Washington's recognition of 
its emergence as the new regional power. Every day, Iran grows more 
powerful; any deal should reflect Iran's growing importance. For 
example: forcing Israel to bargain for prisoner swaps, cutting the 
Israeli military advantage down to size, and scuttling both the 
possibility of unilateral disengagement in the West Bank (the preferred 
Israeli option) and renewed negotiations with weakened Palestinian Arab 
moderates (the option preferred by the Europeans).

Even more loyal to Tehran is the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan 
Nasrallah, whose forces yesterday kidnapped two more Israeli soldiers, 
opening up the second front. Sheik Nasrallah is warning Israelis that 
they must not think Lebanon is unprotected as it was in 1981 and 1982 
when Israeli forces came pouring across the border to silence 
Palestinian Arab guns. Sheik Nasrallah's men are the recipients of tens 
of thousands of rockets  longer range and presumably more deadly than 
their roughly engineered younger Kassam cousins  that put central 
Israel in their range.

Each one of these players  Hamas inside Gaza and in Damascus, Hezbollah 
in Lebanon, and the Assad dictatorship in Syria  are chess pieces on 
the Iranian board. The pawn moves, drawing in the Israeli bishop; the 
Lebanese rook challenges; the Syrian queen is in reserve.

Just listen: A few weeks ago, the Swedish government announced that it 
would label Golan Heights wine as a product from "Israeli Occupied Syria."

The Swedes were oblivious to the little dance played out around a 
request by the United Nations that Syria demarcate its view of the 1967 
border. Turtle Bay was aiming to push Syria to claim the Sheeba farms, a 
small tract held by Israel and claimed by Hezbollah for Lebanon. The 
United Nations recognizes Sheeba Farms as belonging to Syria; should 
Israel and Syria ever negotiate a peace treaty, it is clear the Security 
Council would expect Sheeba Farms to be returned to Syrian control.

The United Nations wanted Syria to assert its claim, in order to deny 
Hezbollah its basic raison d'etre  "liberating" all Lebanese soil from 
"the Israeli occupation forces."

Passed in 2004, Security Council resolution 1559 requires the 
dismantling of all Lebanese militias and their replacement by a Lebanese 
state army. Thus far, this has been as successful as the requirement by 
the Quartet (America, the European Union, Russia, and the United 
Nations) that all independent Palestinian Arab terrorist groups and 
militias be disarmed.

Guess what? The Syrians refused. Just turned the United Nations down 
flat. Apparently Sweden is more passionate about asserting Syrian 
territorial rights than Syria itself.

The reason is simple: Iran does not want to deny Hezbollah the 
justification for maintaining its armed presence in southern Lebanon, 
along northern Israel, and Syria does Iran's bidding.

Ephraim Sneh, a former general and Labor Party leader who is the Israeli 
longest drawing attention to the approaching conflict with Iran, is 
saying that the current moment reminds him of the Spanish Civil War. The 
broader global forces are aligned; local actors are committed. It is a 
bloody test, a macabre dress rehearsal, for what lies over the horizon.

                               ***

FrontPageMagazine.com - July 14, 2006
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23362

Moment of Truth	

The war with Iran has begun.

By David Horowitz

Americans need to take a hard look at what is going on in the Middle 
East, because it provides the clearest picture possible of the war we 
are in. On one side are al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran and 
their allies: Russia, France, Greece, and the UN majority. On the other 
is the only democracy in the land of Muslim and Arab terror. The origins 
of this front in the war on terror are crystal clear: the desire of the 
Muslim terrorists -- the elected majority among Palestinian Arabs and 
the occupying Shi'ite army in Lebanon, backed by Syria and Iran -- to 
destroy Israel and push the Jews into the sea.

The war reveals the impossibility of a Palestinian state and the 
necessity of a civilized occupying force in a region that is populated 
by a people who have been terminally brainwashed into an ideology of 
hate, which makes their self-government a crime waiting to happen.

There were 10,000 Jews living in Gaza until recently. They were so 
creative that while representing less than one percent of the population 
they accounted for 10% of the entire gross national product of the 
country. Productive and law-abiding as they were, their existence in 
Gaza required a Israeli army presence to protect them. So uncontrollable 
is the genocidal hatred of Palestinians for Jews (more than a million 
Palestinians on the other hand live peacefully in Israel enjoying more 
rights than any Arabs or Muslims living in their own countries). The 
Israeli army in Gaza was also necessary to prevent genocidal 
Palestinians Jew-haters from lobbing rockets into Israeli schoolyards.

Eventually, the Israeli leadership made a decision to capitulate to Arab 
Jew hatred and uproot the Jews living in Gaza, and to withdraw the 
forces that protected Israel from being attacked by Arab criminals. In 
the months that followed, the Arabs did nothing to improve their new 
homeland, which they now controlled completely. Instead, they elected 
genocidal terrorists to govern them. They destroyed the horticulture 
industry the Jews had created and that provided 10% of their GNP. They 
lobbed 800 or so rockets into Israel. During all this mayhem no word of 
condemnation for the Gaza aggressors came from the UN, France, Russia 
and rest of the Jew-hating, terrorist-appeasing and terrorist-supporting 
international community.

Consequently, the Hamas army command, based in Syria, authorized a 
further aggression -- a tunnel into Israel and the kidnapping of an 
Israeli soldier. For good measure, Palestinians in the West Bank 
executed an 18-year old Jewish hitch-hiker for the crime of being a Jew. 
Still no condemnation of the Palestinians from the Jew-haters in France, 
Russia and at the UN. This support encouraged Iranian-sponsored 
Hizbollah to initiate another aggression, this time from the north.

The goal of the United States and Israel and all freedom-loving and 
civilized people in this war must be the destruction of the Hamas and 
Hizbollah leadership, their military infrastructure and capabilities. If 
there was a UN worthy of the name, it would expel Syria and Iran from 
its body, and send a Security Council armed force to the West Bank and 
Gaza to institute an occupation whose duration should not be less than a 
generation. During this occupation, the hate schools of the West Bank 
and Gaza should be revamped so that the children of Palestinian Arabs 
are taught basic rules of civilized behavior -- tolerance instead of 
ethnic and religious hatred, condemnation of suicide bombers instead of 
reverence for them as martyrs, and such common decencies as regarding 
monsters like Samil Kuntar, a Palestinian terrorist who took a father 
and child hostage and smashed the child's head against a rock and who is 
regarded as a hero and official model for Palestinian children as the 
monsters they are.

The world will not be a safe place or a decent one until the present 
regimes in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Iran are gone. This is a war 
all Americans must support.

                              ***

AntiWar.com - Jul 14, 2006
http://www.antiwar.com/justin

Israel Crosses the Line

by Justin Raimondo

The Israeli offensive against Iran  until now, purely polemical  
morphed into military action the moment the IDF crossed the border into 
Lebanon and took on Hezbollah. As our regular readers know, this turn of 
events was predicted in this space two months ago:

"War with Iran will probably not begin with a frontal assault by the 
U.S. and/or Israel on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons facilities, or even 
a skirmish along the Iraq-Iran border. Look to Lebanon and Syria for the 
first battlegrounds of this developing regional war. The Israelis know 
perfectly well that Iran's nuclear ambitions, if they ever materialize, 
are not an immediate threat: their real concern is their volatile 
northern border, where their deadly enemies  Hezbollah  are an 
effective obstacle to Israeli influence. The Israelis are also looking 
to exploit growing opportunities to make trouble in Syria, where the 
restive Kurds are their reliable allies, and the brittleness of the 
Ba'athist dictatorship is an invitation to regime change."

The suggestion, by Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in 
their now famous "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," that the 
Iraq war was fought for Israel's sake, and against our own interests in 
the region, was received in many quarters with outright horror, and not 
only from the Amen Corner. Noam Chomsky and Stephen Zunes both objected 
to this thesis of an Israel-centric foreign policy: Israel, they insist, 
is the "junior partner" of the American hegemon, and is only acting at 
the behest and under the de facto control of its masters in Washington.

The war's aftermath, however, tells a different story. Examined in light 
of Israel's postwar actions  the unilateral "withdrawal" from Gaza, the 
absorption of more territory and the building of more settlements on the 
West Bank, the war against Hamas, and now the re-invasion of Lebanon  
the chief (and only) beneficiary of the new regional balance of power is 
clear enough. The American invasion and occupation of the Mesopotamian 
heartland has empowered the Israelis as never before  and now they are 
on the offensive, carving out a greatly expanded sphere of influence 
extending into Kurdistan as well as Lebanon, bringing closer to 
fulfillment the old Zionist vision of an empire stretching "from the 
Nile to the Euphrates."

The U.S., on the other hand, has considerably reduced leverage in the 
region. Our troops in Iraq are exposed, vulnerable to the Iranians  and 
stalemated by the Iraqi insurgency, which shows troubling signs of 
extending into Shi'ite areas. As the Israelis advance, with American 
support, Sunni and Shi'ite factions in Iraq  including those in the 
governing Shi'ite coalition  are radicalized, and turn their fire on 
the Americans.

Yet the U.S. is still shilling for the Israelis, blaming Syria and Iran 
for acts that occurred well outside the purview of the mullahs and the 
increasingly isolated regime of Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, in the UN, 
we are bringing the issue of Iran's nuclear power program to the 
Security Council, pressing for a confrontation that can only end in 
$200-per-barrel oil.

In 1996, a group of pro-Israeli Americans  including Richard Perle, 
James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, 
David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser  prepared a policy statement for 
then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that proposed a strategy of 
regime change as the only solution for Israel's growing encirclement and 
isolation. The main problem, they averred in "A Clean Break: A New 
Strategy for Securing the Realm," was Syria, and the troublesome border 
with Lebanon:

"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and 
one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the 
strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, 
Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

But this could occur only if Iraq was taken out first:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey 
and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This 
effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq  an 
important Israeli strategic objective in its own right  as a means of 
foiling Syria's regional ambitions."

With Saddam out of the way, the second phase of the "Clean Break" 
scenario is unfolding before our eyes. And the propaganda war is going 
just as well as the military aspect of the campaign: the Israelis are no 
fools. They realize they can't proceed without the tacit complicity of 
the U.S. and the Europeans, who must be made to look the other way as 
the IDF commits war crimes on the ground. Under the pretext of avenging 
the "kidnapping" of one of their soldiers  and, more recently, two more 
 they have unleashed a military assault planned well in advance of the 
allegedly precipitating incidents.

This is surely one of the most threadbare excuses for a war ever 
uttered. One wonders how Israel's spokesmen can say it with a straight 
face. Soldiers in wartime are captured, not "kidnapped." If Hezbollah 
has "kidnapped" those two Israeli soldiers, then how do we describe the 
jailing of thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of women and 
children, on the basis of their alleged sympathy for Hamas  now the 
democratically elected government of Palestine? In any case, it appears, 
according to this report, that Hezbollah has some Israeli competition 
when it comes to the business of kidnapping.

The Bush administration is formally committed to the "road map," which 
entails the creation of a Palestinian state. Yet the Israelis have done 
everything possible to undermine Bush's plan, including obstructing 
elections. The American response has been appeasement: as Israeli 
gunboats make short work of Gaza beach-goers, Washington's response is 
to demand the unconditional release of captured Israeli soldiers. There 
is an undertone of disapproval, as Condoleezza Rice urges "restraint" by 
all parties and the president worries that the Lebanese government will 
be destabilized, yet none of this is allowed to deflect U.S. 
policymakers from their craven course of kowtowing to the Israelis while 
they spend our money and earn us plenty more enemies among the world's 
billion-plus Muslims.

Israel's fifth column in America has been enormously successful in 
"spinning" the latest news from the Middle East. Instead of reporting 
that Israel is invading Lebanon, the "mainstream" media avers that 
Israel has "entered" Lebanon  as casually as one would enter a room in 
one's own house. The first few paragraphs of many news stories describe 
the latest attacks on Israeli targets and accounts of the damage done, 
while, five paragraphs down, we finally get word that 55 civilians have 
been killed by the latest Israeli aerial bombardment of Lebanon.

The Mearsheimer-Walt thesis  that U.S. foreign policy has been hijacked 
(kidnapped, if you will) by what they refer to as "the Lobby"  has so 
far been confirmed by the events of the past few days. The United States 
is giving what appears to be unconditional support to phase two of the 
"Clean Break" plan, targeting Syria and Iran, albeit while cautioning 
the Israelis on Lebanon.

The Israelis, outraged by what they regard as foot-dragging in 
Washington, are forcing Uncle Sam's hand. If we won't fire the first 
shots of World War IV, then they are perfectly willing to do so  
confident that we'll follow them blindly into the maelstrom.

Whether the Bush administration will go all the way with the Israelis on 
this one, is, however, in some doubt. The alleged triumph of the 
Republican "realists" over the neoconservatives, supposedly symbolized 
by the ascension of Condi Rice, is counteracted by the Democrats' 
complete subservience to the Lobby. Already Hillary Clinton is 
denouncing the administration for "appeasing" Iran, and the sudden 
reappearance of the neocons in Democratic Party circles is indicative of 
what is going on here. Foreign policy is merely a reflection of domestic 
political pressures  which, in this case, surely do not represent 
either the views or the interests of the American people.

Mearsheimer and Walt explain how we got into this mess, but they don't 
give us any answers about how to get out. How do we avoid getting 
dragged by our Israeli "allies" into World War IV?

The short answer: stop appeasing Israel  and start looking out for 
American interests. The Amen Corner makes no such distinction, but 
clearly there is one, the most obvious being that we (unlike the 
Israelis) have no interest fomenting a wider war  especially while our 
troops are stuck in the middle of it all, lined up like sitting ducks 
and increasingly on the defensive.

The U.S. must unequivocally condemn the invasion of Lebanon and call for 
the unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese soil. 
Furthermore, the naval and aerial blockade of Lebanon must end: 
thousands of tourists and others are pouring into Syria, where they may 
not be safe for very much longer. This is an intolerable act of war 
against the whole civilized community, and for the United States 
government to not only stand by but implicitly condone it is 
unforgivable. The "war on terrorism" apparently requires enabling 
Israeli state terrorism.

The regional conflict widely predicted as one of the more horrific 
consequences of the Iraq invasion is now breaking out. The only rational 
response is to get out of the way before we are drawn in. Like a summer 
fire in the American West, if it isn't contained, the flames of the 
rapidly spreading conflict will soon be licking at our door. And we are 
bound to be choking, sooner rather than later, on the economic fallout  
another factor that could embolden the Democrats to keep up their effort 
to outflank the GOP on the war question from the right.

As both parties fall into lockstep behind the Lobby, and American power 
and prestige are once again harnessed to Israeli interests, there is 
little hope that Congress will step into the breach and stop our 
headlong plunge into World War IV. Nor do any of the likely presidential 
candidates seem willing to take on the War Party when the question of 
war and peace is put in terms of Israel's interests  or, as the Lobby 
would have it, the Jewish state's continued survival. Here is a war they 
can sell by confronting critics with a simple question: What are you, 
some kind of anti-Semite?

Years of relentless propaganda, countless smear campaigns, and a 
prodigious expenditure of money and human resources led us to this 
moment: the War Party is launching what amounts to its final offensive, 
an all-out attack on whatever bastions of human decency and common sense 
remain in this hideously war-crazed post-9/11 world. Come what may, we 
at Antiwar.com will stand at our posts, pouring hot molten editorials 
down on the enemy  and giving you the best, most accurate reporting on 
events in the Middle East anywhere on the Internet, or anywhere else, 
for that matter.


The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 
       
                                *
================================================================
.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 IRNA: Iran's N-case not complicated - Larijani 
 
, July 10, IRNA

--- 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, while on a visit to Bern on
Sunday, said that the country's nuclear case is not a
complicated one.


 Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali
Larijani, who is now in the Italian capital Rome, made the
remarks during an interview with the Swiss national news agency
SDA.

 "If the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) lays down rights for
countries, why should they be prevented from exercising these
rights?" Larijani asked.

 "The Islamic Republic of Iran supports the campaign for global
disarmament," he said.



*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: Iran expects Russia, China to defend its rights - Asefi
 
Tehran, July 16, IRNA

Iran-Asefi-Nuclear 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said here Sunday
that Iran expects Russia and China to defend its inalienable
nuclear rights.

 Asefi made the remark while addressing reporters at his weekly
press briefing when asked about stance of Moscow and Beijing on
Iran's nuclear case.

 "Support for Iran's rights, is a support for international
organizations and treaties. It is support for the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and international regulations and
strategies and not merely support for Iran.

 "The Islamic Republic of Iran relies on God, the national
support and use of its own potentials."

 Asked about remark by Russian President Vladimir Putin in a
joint press conference with his US counterpart George W Bush
Saturday on Iran's nuclear case, he added, "Putin's remark
should be regarded as comprehensive. He announced Russia does
not agree to imposition of sanctions against Iran."

 In response to a question on threats against Iran to give its
hasty response to a package of incentives offered by the world
six powers (Group 5+1) to Iran on its nuclear case, the
spokesman said, "We believe an inappropriate literature will not
be effective.

 On June 6, Iran was offered a package of incentives by the UN
Security Council's five permanent members -- Russia China, US,
UK and France -- plus Germany through EU foreign policy chief
Javier Solana in exchange for suspension of uranium enrichment
and resumption of talks to settle the dispute over its nuclear
program.

 "Various committees are working on the proposed package. Iran
will give its response by the time the committees reach a
conclusion.

 "Europe should appreciate Iran for its studying the package
with precision.

 "The committees will not end their work uncompleted as a result
of threats and pressure."

*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Korea Resolution Will Help U.N. Face Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday July 16, 2006 9:01 PM

AP Photo XUN114 

By NICK WADHAMS 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A unanimous U.N. Security Council vote to
condemn North Korea's missile launches has set an important
precedent and strengthened the powerful U.N. body as it turns to
its next challenge: confronting Iran's suspect nuclear program,
diplomats said. 

Sometime this week, the council will take up Iran's continued
refusal to respond formally to Western incentives to stop
enriching uranium. Council members will be united like they have
rarely been since 2003, when the U.S. decision to invade Iraq
opened up deep suspicions that still linger. 

Diplomats said the success on delivering a tough message on
North Korea will carry over when the Iran talks begin. 

``We need unity of the council on these nonproliferation
issues,'' France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said
after the North Korea vote on Saturday. ``So the fact that we
have - my view - we have reached unity on the North Korean issue
in the council I think will help us on Iran.'' 

Diplomats negotiated the North Korea resolution over 11
tension-filled days, avoiding a threatened veto from China,
which opposed any mention of the U.N. Charter's Chapter 7.
Chapter 7 makes such resolutions legally binding and enforceable
with military action. 

Britain came up with compromise language that dropped the
reference to Chapter 7 and allowed the 15 council members to
vote for the resolution unanimously. 

A Chinese veto would have soured the tone of negotiations over
Iran, and widened divisions among the five permanent members -
the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia. That
likely would have banished any desire to compromise by either
side. 

The resolution on North Korea was weakened during the
negotiations but still took crucial steps: It imposes limited
sanctions, and diplomats believe it will strengthen nations'
authority to interdict weapons shipments to and from North
Korea. 

Saturday's resolution was the first that the council passed on
North Korea since 1993, a fact that U.S. Ambassador John Bolton
said Iran should remember. 

``It's been 13 years since the Security Council got its act
together sufficiently to act on North Korea and it's going to do
so today in a unanimous fashion,'' he said before the vote on
Saturday. ``That's a very, very important political signal for
any would-be proliferators.'' 

Back in March, the U.N. Security Council demanded that Iran
suspend uranium enrichment. That requirement was conveyed in a
simple council statement that was not legally binding - the
result of Chinese and Russian refusal to consider issuing a
resolution, which would have been stronger. 

After Iran refused to obey, western powers presented the package
of incentives in June meant to draw Iran back to negotiations
and suspend enrichment. Yet Iran insisted it needed more time to
respond, leading frustrated world powers to agree last Wednesday
to send Iran to the Security Council for a firmer, perhaps
legally binding, demand to suspend enrichment. 

In a sign that Iran may fear a newly unified council, Tehran
said Sunday that the Western incentives to halt its nuclear
program were an ``acceptable basis'' for talks, and it is ready
for detailed negotiations. 

That could be an attempt to sow new divisions in the council.
Diplomats have said recent meetings with Iran have gone nowhere,
and Tehran may want to buy time or exploit potential rifts. 

There is also a danger of a different sort of precedent. 

The question of whether Pyongyang would obey any council demands
hovered over the North Korea talks. The North's answer came
minutes after the resolution passed. Ambassador Pak Gil Yon took
told the council that North Korea rejected the resolution and
would continue with missile tests. 

He accused the council of acting in an ``unjustifiable and
gangster-like'' way, and abruptly left the council chamber
before the meeting was over - a breach of diplomatic protocol. 

Iran, North Korea's cohort in President Bush's ``Axis of Evil,''
along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, could be emboldened by the
North's angry response. It already has warned that Security
Council sanctions against Tehran would only exacerbate tensions
in the Middle East. 

``Now is an appropriate opportunity for Iran and Europe to enter
detailed negotiations,'' Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman
Hamid Reza Asefi said. ``Sending the dossier to the U.N.
Security Council means blocking and rejecting talks.''	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Calls Western Incentives Acceptable
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday July 16, 2006 7:01 PM

AP Photo LON101 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Sunday that Western incentives to
halt its nuclear program were an ``acceptable basis'' for talks,
and it is ready for detailed negotiations. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded that Iran should
talk directly to negotiators if it wants to discuss the
six-nation proposal. 

Frustrated world powers agreed Wednesday to send Iran to the
U.N. Security Council for possible punishment, saying Tehran had
given no sign it would bargain in earnest over its nuclear
ambitions. 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in
Tehran that, ``We consider this package an appropriate basis, an
acceptable basis (for talks).'' 

``Now is an appropriate opportunity for Iran and Europe to enter
detailed negotiations,'' he said. ``Sending the dossier to the
U.N. Security Council means blocking and rejecting talks.'' 

Asefi called on the eight major world powers meeting in St.
Petersburg, Russia, to choose dialogue with Iran. 

``We can achieve acceptable results in this path,'' Asefi said. 

Rice said at the Group of Eight meeting that Iran should contact
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, the envoy who
delivered the proposal last month and has been meeting with
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. 

G-8 leaders were expected to discuss Iran's nuclear program at
the summit but none directly addressed Asefi's comments. 

``If the Iranians want to respond positively, I would hope that
they would do so through the channel that is established between
the six and the government of Iran, and that is Mr. Solana,''
Rice said. ``There is, indeed, a very good proposal on the table
that could be a basis for negotiations ... There is also a path
ahead to the Security Council on which we are now launched.'' 

Iran has said specialized committees in key state agencies are
studying the June 6 offer by the United States, Britain, China,
France, Russia and Germany, and that it will formally respond in
late August. 

The key demand of the five permanent Security Council members
plus Germany is that Iran stop enriching uranium during any
negotiations. 

After more than a month of waiting for Iran to respond, the six
nations are unlikely to accept anything other than an
unconditional ``yes'' to an enrichment halt before talks on the
package begin. 

Diplomats have said recent meetings with Iran have gone nowhere,
and that it appeared Tehran hoped to buy time or exploit
potential divisions among the six powers, and wiggle out of
having to freeze enrichment. 

The package includes economic incentives and a provision for the
United States to offer Iran some nuclear technology, lift some
sanctions and join direct negotiations. The proposal also calls
for Iran to impose a long-term moratorium on uranium enrichment
- which can produce civilian reactor fuel or fissile bomb
material. 

The United States and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking
nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied the charges, saying its
program is aimed at making electricity, not bombs. 

Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear
fuel, but has indicated it may temporarily suspend large-scale
activities to ease tensions. 

Russian lawmaker Konstantin Kosachev, the Kremlin-linked
chairman of the international affairs committee of the lower
house of parliament, greeted Tehran's announcement with guarded
optimism. 

``On the one hand we must hail any readiness by Tehran at least
to discuss the proposals of the six nations,'' he told The
Associated Press. ``Unfortunately, we have already witnessed
such signals in the past, which then were not followed up.'' 

He suspected Iran of ``dragging its feet'' to avoid unnecessary
concessions. 

``Iran is playing with fire,'' he warned. ``The international
community may one day run out of patience and unfortunately, the
point of view of those who call for maybe a tougher stance on
Iran may prevail. Iran must clearly understand that.'' 

------- 

Associated Press writer George Jahn in Vienna, Austria
contributed to this report. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Iran the Lurking Mideast Issue
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday July 16, 2006 11:31 PM

By SALLY BUZBEE 

Associated Press Writer 

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The past five days' shocking flare-up of
Mideast violence may really be, beneath it all, a fight about
Iran and its place in the region. While Israel, the United
States and some Arab countries hope the Islamic regime suffers a
blow, Tehran may count on emerging from the crisis with its
power intact and its influence raised even higher. 

So far, the battleground has been limited to Lebanon and Israel:
Lebanon being pounded by Israeli aircraft and Israeli cities by
missiles of the Iranian-supported Hezbollah guerrilla movement
in Lebanon. 

But the underlying struggle is between Israel and others who
view Iran as a threat that must be confronted, and Iran and its
allies within Lebanon, Syria and even Iraq, who are determined
to show they can cause serious trouble if Iran is squeezed too
hard. 

All that means the fighting could last a long time. 

Tensions have been brewing for years as the Palestinian-Israeli
impasse has festered and Iran and Syria have funneled money,
training and other support to Hezbollah on Lebanon's southern
border with Israel. The reason such violence erupted now remains
unclear. In part, Hezbollah's leader may have decided that he
needed to show that Hezbollah - not the militant group Hamas in
the West Bank and Gaza - still was the leader of the
anti-Israeli cause. 

For its part, Israel chose to retaliate and escalate when
Hezbollah seized two of its soldiers, perhaps thinking any sign
of weakness could make the Jewish state more vulnerable. Or
perhaps, as some Israeli generals have suggested, it saw an
opening to try to smash Hezbollah once and for all, after the
militant group had behaved so provocatively. 

Whether they instigated Hezbollah's actions or merely supported
them, Iran and Syria had reasons to be pleased. 

The Group of Eight summit of major world powers had hoped to
focus on a joint policy on Iran's nuclear program, which has
brought Tehran international criticism and the possibility of
eventual U.N. Security Council sanctions if it doesn't suspend
uranium enrichment. 

Instead, the leaders spent much of the weekend struggling to
reach a semblance of consensus on how to stop the new violence. 

Syria, for its part, may hope that Lebanese anger - directed at
Damascus for its alleged role in the 2005 killing of a former
Lebanese prime minister - has been redirected at Israel. Syria
also may hope that Western nations will come to it for help in
solving the Hezbollah-Israeli violence. 

Meanwhile, global consensus on the crisis remains far away,
despite a G-8 statement Sunday urging Israel to show ``utmost
restraint'' and blaming Hezbollah and Hamas for igniting the
crisis. 

France, for example, has pushed for a cease-fire, making the
point along with other European nations that Israel's attacks on
Lebanon rile up anti-Western and anti-Israeli sentiment. 

President Bush, however, has not called for a cease-fire. 

``Provoking Israel creates a natural division between the U.S.,
as Israel's ally, and Europe,'' noted Anthony Cordesman, one of
the top Mideast experts in the United States. ``It distracts
from Syria's crimes in Lebanon and Iran's nuclear programs.'' 

And of course, as the United States has learned so painfully,
``every Israeli action against Arabs feeds Arab anger against
the U.S.,'' Cordesman said. 

What's more surprising, perhaps, is that Arab countries allied
with the United States have lashed out at Hezbollah. 

Hezbollah's attacks on Israel were ``unexpected, inappropriate
and irresponsible acts,'' Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal
said. Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority,
the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain agreed. 

All are governments dominated by Sunni Muslims, worried about
the growing influence and confrontational stance of the heavily
Shiite Muslim Iranian regime. They also worry about the prospect
of an Iraq dominated by Shiite parties beholden to Iran. 

And unlike Iran, Syria, Hezbollah or Hamas, most of those Arab
countries have shown willingness to accept some type of deal on
the Israel-Palestinian crisis, even if they're lukewarm about
it. 

In some ways, it should make the United States happy that Arab
countries like Saudi Arabia criticize Hezbollah. But
paradoxically, as Mideast hostilities grow it becomes more
difficult for such U.S. allies to have any real influence over
groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, or countries like Syria. And
that means the U.S. ability to influence the region falls. 

Stability also becomes an issue. Countries like Egypt worry that
even if they don't support Hezbollah their people will, leading
to protests and dissent. 

Hezbollah and Iran play off that for all it's worth. Hezbollah's
leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, has cast himself as a protector
of the Islamic world, as has Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. Both are sophisticated in using the region's
satellite television stations to spread their message that
confrontation alone can give Muslims dignity. 

The question remains how far all this will go. 

Iran has warned that Israel will suffer if it broadens its
attacks to include Syria, but what Iran might do in such a
situation remains unclear. 

Both sides clearly view their very existence at risk and thus
will be loathe to back down, said Iranian exile Amir Taheri,
writing in Sunday's pan-Arab Asharq al Awsat newspaper. And that
could make the fight both long and damaging. 

``The stakes have been raised beyond anyone's expectation,''
Taheri said. 

----- 

Sally Buzbee is the AP's Chief of Middle East News. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 7 IRNA: Ties with Iran not affected by Indian vote in IAEA - Indian official - 

, July 15, IRNA
-- 

Maintaining that its vote against Iran's nuclear program at the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had not affected ties
with the (P) Gulf country, India said the two nations could
chart a new course in their relations when Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki undertakes a visit here next week.

 New Delhi also emphasized that differences over one or two
issues do not spoil relations and, in this regard, cited the
vote against India by Iran at a Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
meeting earlier, a PTI report said here quoting Indian Foreign
Secretary Shyam Saran.

 "How many times has Iran voted against India at NPT meetings
which sought NPT-type safeguards for India that was not
acceptable to us? We did not say (then) that Iran is unimportant
to us," he said.

 He said India respects Iran's right to peaceful uses of nuclear
energy but at the same time Tehran has certain obligations as an
NPT signatory.

 Cautioning against a reduction on the extent of relations
between the two countries due to certain issues, Saran said
"there can be differences on this or that issue, but that does
not mean it has jettisoned the relations."

 He noted that the Iranian foreign minister will be visiting
India on July 19, saying this will provide an opportunity for
the two countries to chart a new course in their ties.

 The foreign secretary emphasized that India and Iran had
civilizational relations.

 "New Delhi values its ties with that country and is looking to
enhance the partnership."

*****************************************************************
 8 IRNA: Western view of Iran 'myopic,' says UK journalist

London, July 14, IRNA

Iran-UK Journalist 

Award-winning journalist Jon Snow has returned from a
ground-breaking visit to Iran, saying it is the "most exotic and
intoxicating country."

 Snow, the veteran presenter of Channel Four News, said he
wanted to go to produce a series of live programme from Iran
because there was an "incredibly myopic view" in the West of
what was going there.

 "It was tremendously important to get a holistic view," he said
about his visit, which coincided with US-led attempts at the
IAEA to refer Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council in
early March.

 The British journalist said it was an "incredibly vibrant"
society and that he believed Iran "holds the key" to peace in
the Middle East region.

 "It is the greatest hope," he told a special meeting of the
British Iranian Chamber of Commerce (BICC) in London Friday.

 Just prior to his visit, Snow was named as TV Journalist of the
Year by the Royal Television Society. After his return, he was
presented with The Muslim News Award for excellence in the media.

 "If the relationship with Iran can be got to work then all
sorts of things fall into place. If it doesn't, the consequences
will be felt across the Middle East," he said before leaving.

 The presenter recommended at the BICC meeting it would be
better for the UK to resolve its relations with Iran separately
from the US.

 Britain should build on the goodwill of the people, have much
more investment and engage with Iran on every possible level to
get a better mutual understanding, he said when asked what
advice he would give to Prime Minister Tony Blair's government.

 With regard to the nuclear dispute, Snow related that it only
became an issue after the US realized the consequences of its
war in Iraq.

 "They didn't think if they destroyed Iraq, it would make Iran
infinitively stronger," he said.

 During his visit, the British journalist revealed that he was
shown 17 letters, which the US ambassador to Iraq had sent to
Iran asking "what the hell to do."
 He said he was also told that Iran could have made life
"unendurable" for UK troops stationed in southern Iraq but had
chosen not to do so.

 The Channel Four presenter said that he subsequently took this
point up with the UK's Chief of General Staff, General Sir Mike
Jackson, who confirmed it was "absolutely" the case and the
British troops were "very lucky."

 When asked what was all the complaints from the UK about the
possibility of roadside bombs being supplied through Iran,
Jackson was said to have replied that it was "very political"
and that he did "not really see the hand of Tehran" in the
involvement.

 Snow, who was assigned to Tehran in 1979, believed that the
essence of US hostilities towards Iran dated back the Islamic
Revolution and the subsequent take-over of the American Embassy
in Tehran.

 "The defeat was traumatic," he said. The fundamental reason was
that the revolution "completely destroyed an American outpost,
he said. "There was no doubt the Iranian revolution changed
America and changed it for the worse," he said.

 The journalist added that the take-over of the US embassy was
also "utterly humiliating" and was still a major difficulty for
Washington to come to terms with.

 He referred to the US thanking Iran for its help in toppling
the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and that it was hard to
comprehend that just 22 days later, President George W Bush
notoriously said Iran was part of an 'axis of evil.'

 Similarly, Snow questioned what Iran must have thought when
Bush visited Delhi and announced he would give more nuclear
technology to India, which unlike Tehran, is not a member of the
Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty and had exploded illegal
devices.

 His visit to Iran, in which he exposed some of the myths about
the country, was his first since 1981, when he covered the
imposed Iraq war, which he said he felt "deeply ashamed at the
west for fuelling it".

 The journalist also expressed the "extraordinary passion" he
saw among Iranians, when he witnessed the return of Imam
Khomeini from Azadi Square in Tehran at the time.

 2220/345/1771

*****************************************************************
 9 IRNA: Iran threatens to quit NPT if pressured

, July 14, IRNA

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned on Thursday that
Tehran could halt UN inspections and quit the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) if subjected to increased pressure over its
peaceful nuclear program.

 According to the Daily Times, the threat came just hours after
world powers referred the crisis back to the Security Council
for possible sanctions over a failure by Iran to respond to
demands that it suspend uranium enrichment and other related
activities.

 Up to now the Iranian people have acted within the framework of
the NPT and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the
president said.

 But if they reach the conclusion that Western countries do not
have goodwill and sincerity they (the Iranian people) will
revise their policy, Ahmadinejad said in comments carried by the
Iranian state television's website.

 "If some are after creating problems, they should know that any
problem created for Iran in the region will harm the interests
of everyone," he said.

 Americans want to create disputes, while everyone is trying to
keep the atmosphere calm, to continue the constructive, fair and
legal talks to resolve the (nuclear) issue, he added.

 He told the United States not to interfere in the dispute,
saying it could be resolved in talks with the European Union.

 Iran says it wants to enrich uranium only to make reactor fuel,
and rejects accusations that it wants to acquire the capacity to
make nuclear weapons.

 But on Wednesday the five permanent members of the UN Security
Council plus Germany decided they had lost patience with Tehran.

 The Iranians have given no indication at all that they are
ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals,
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said in a
statement agreed with his colleagues from the United States,
Britain, Germany, Russia and China.

 Iran had been offered trade, diplomatic and technology
incentives as well as multilateral talks involving the US if it
agreed to a suspension.

 "It has to be understood that any tough action will be to the
detriment of all parties, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
told a joint news conference with his visiting South African
counterpart Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.

 "Iran wants to keep the calm, and we advise (the major powers)
to stay calm and avoid taking any action that increases
pessimism," he added.

 Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani insisted the Islamic
republic was willing to discuss its disputed nuclear program,
but would not accept a freeze of sensitive activities as a
pre-condition to talks.

 US President George W Bush warned Iran on Thursday it did not
have an unlimited amount of time to settle the dispute over its
nuclear program.

 "The Iranians must realize that they can't wait us out," Bush
told a news conference after meeting German Chancellor Angela
Merkel.

 "We said reasonable period of time. Weeks not months," Bush
said.

 "They evidently did not believe us. Now we're going to the UN
Security Council."
 Merkel said other steps would be necessary if Iran did not
respond to an offer aimed at reining in Tehran's atomic work.

 "If Iran does not agree to this offer, then unfortunately we
need to go down other routes," said Merkel at a joint news
conference with Bush.

 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday the
great powers were not considering imposing sanctions on Iran,
but would use a United Nations resolution to force it to comply
with its nuclear watchdog.

 "This is a subject for speculation and a hypothetical question.

 We are currently not talking about any kind of economic
sanctions," Russian agencies quoted Lavrov as telling reporters
on his flight back from Paris, where the six foreign ministers
agreed to pass Iran to the Council.

 "Sanctions must not be an instrument to punish. When we
understand that the situation is not improving, then we will
think.

 "But there is an absolutely clear agreement that any talk about
economic sanctions will be proportional to achieving the aim of
securing Iran's cooperation with the IAEA," he said.		 				 		
			
*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: Door for Iran nuclear talks must remain open: German Greens -
      
Berlin, July 15, IRNA

Germany-Iran-Nuclear program 

Germany's opposition Green (Gruene) Party on Saturday reaffirmed
that the door for nuclear negotiations with Iran must remain
open.

 In a press statement, the deputy head of the Green faction, 
Juergen Trittin, and the foreign policy spokeswoman of the 
Greens, Kerstin Mueller, called on Germany and the European Union 
to make clear during the ongoing G8 summit in St Petersburg, 
Russia, that the "door for talks with Iran should be kept open."

 The communique added that referral of Iran's case to the UN
Security Council "contained chances and risks and required a
prudent handling by all parties."

 The Green Party warned that "needless aggravation" of the
situation at the present time could "endanger the cohesion of
the international community and chances for a compromise."

 Iran has repeatedly said that it would respond to the 5+1
Group's offer sometime after mid-August as Tehran has still
ambiguities and questions on the proposal.

*****************************************************************
 11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Doors open to talks - Larijani 

  2006/07/13   
  
Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani
said Wednesday that Iran is ready to take steps needed to
continue with negotiations and constructive interaction with the
EU. 

"If any country feels ambiguous about our nuclear programme we
are ready to help them clarify everything" he told Euronews TV
in an interview broadcast Wednesday night. 

Larijani held talks with EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana
in Brussels Tuesday on Iran's nuclear issue. 

He said, "The direction of the negotiations have to be the
removal of the obstacles so that we can agree on the (EU)
proposals. We accept the principle of problem-solving through
negotiations." 

Larijani said there are some countries in the EU which were
taking amore logical approach towards Iran's nuclear programme. 

Iran can provide energy security for Europe which could lead to
greater cooperation between the two sides, said Larijani. 

"We can work together more constructively," he stressed replying
to a question on America, he called Washington to change its
policies and use diplomacy rather than language of force. 

Radical policies can lead to rise in oil price and increase
tensions in the region, he added. 

SAM   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: US presses G8 to blame militants for Mideast crisis

 by Kevin McElderry Sun Jul 16, 7:03 AM ET 		 	 

SAINT PETERSBURG (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> blamed 
militants backed by Iran" /> and Syria" /> for the Middle East 
bloodletting, as key world leaders held crisis talks on Israel" 
/> 's devastating military assaults in Lebanon and Gaza. 

 The United States is pressing fellow G8 countries meeting for
their annual summit here to issue a tough joint statement
singling out the Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah as well as
Iran and Syria. 

Bush discussed the raging violence in face-to-face talks with
British Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> and French President
Jacques Chirac" /> before leaders of the world's major economies
went into closed-door talks on the crisis. 

"As a sovereign nation, Israel has every right to defend itself
against terrorist activity," Bush said after meeting his close
ally Blair in Russia's second city. 

He added: "Our message to Israel is defend yourself, but be
mindful of the consequences. And so we've urged restraint." 

"One of the interesting things about this recent flare-up is
that it helps clarify the root cause of instability in the
Middle East," he said, specifying Hezbollah's links to Iran and
Syria. 

Russia tore up its original summit agenda so leaders could focus
on Israel's relentless bombardments following the capture by
militant groups of three of its soldiers and rocket attacks on
the Jewish state. 

The Lebanon offensive has left more than 100 people dead on both
sides -- Israeli warplanes bombed more targets Sunday while
Hezbollah fired rockets on Haifa, killing nine -- while scores
have also died in Gaza where tanks rolled in again overnight. 

"A unified western voice, as well (as) with other important
partners, is an important signal and can put, we think, pressure
on actors in the Middle East," Dan Bartlett, a senior Bush
advisor, told reporters. 

"It can be the first of a series of productive steps." 

Blair pointed his finger more directly at Damascus and Tehran.
"The fact is there are people in that region -- notably Iran and
Syria -- who do not want this process of democratisation and
peace and negotiation to succeed," he said. 

But consensus for a statement could be hard to achieve, with G8
countries clearly split -- while the United States has focused
on militants, Russia and European Union" /> states have
condemned Israel's assaults as "disproportionate." 

"We have the impression that, besides rescuing the servicemen
who have been abducted, Israel is pursuing other wider
objectives, and we hope that peaceful means will be found for
resolving them," Putin said late Saturday. 

The G8 leaders -- as well as Blair, Bush, Chirac and Putin, they
include Canada's Stephen Harper, Romano Prodi of Italy, Japan's
Junichiro Koizumi and Germany's Angela Merkel -- are also due to
discuss Iran's nuclear programme, energy security and North
Korea" /> 's missiles during their summit, which runs to Monday. 

Bush was due later Sunday to have talks with Chinese President
Hu Jintao" /> to try to map the way forward on North Korea after
UN condemnation of Pyongyang's recent missile barrage. 

The presidents were expected to renew their call for Pyongyang
to return to six-country talks on ending its nuclear weapons
programme. 

The UN Security Council unanimously agreed a resolution Saturday
condemning the missile tests but slapped only targeted UN
sanctions, a move rejected by Pyongyang which vowed to carry out
further launches. 

Bush reiterated Saturday that Washington's goal of "a nuclear
weapons-free Korean Peninsula" was shared by China, Japan,
Russia and South Korea" /> . 

On Monday, the G8 leaders will meet with counterparts from the
five major emerging market economies -- Brazil, China, India,
Mexico and South Africa -- to try to rescue the floundering Doha
round of trade liberalization talks. 

Russian and US negotiators failed despite intensive talks here
to overcome lingering obstacles to a bilateral accord enabling
Moscow to join the World Trade Organization" /> , which sets
global trade rules. 

On the margins of the summit, Russian police halted an anti-G8
protest by some 50 activists in central Saint Petersburg and
detained 37 of them, mostly foreigners, organisers said. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 13 IRNA: Iran to enter world equations due to its advanced technology -
                              
Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi prov, July 15, IRNA

Iran-Technology-Islam 

Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel here Saturday said that as
an Islamic country Iran should enter the world equations, given
its advanced technology.


 He made the remark at the inaugural ceremony of the eighth
gathering of Basij officials and faculties of universities as
well as higher education and research centers in Mashhad.

 "Given our human and Islamic courage, we cannot let the world
of Islam be oppressed by the ruthless invasions of the West," he
added.

 Turning to the crimes of the usurper Zionist regime in Gaza and
Lebanon, he said that today technology has turned into an
effective weapon in the hands of the Zionist vampires to shed
the blood of ordinary people.

 "Uprising in all fields, including science, requires vigilance,
while Islam should be sought in life, politics, war, economy and
policy-making.

 "Scientific uprising can be materialized in Iran, given our
faith and ideology which encourage us to promote science," he
added.

 The Majlis speaker pointed to the interest of the Iranian
nation and government in the Revolution and said that the rich
national resources, brilliant scientific and cultural history,
gifted people, achievements witnessed in experimental sciences
and medicine as well as growing communication and exchange of
knowledge are among the factors promising the materialization of
a software uprising.

 2326/1412
*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: Iran expects Russian, Chinese support in nuclear crisis 

Sunday July 16, 10:44 AM 
  
  [Russian and Iranian technicians work inside the reactor
building of the Bushehr nuclear power plant]   
  
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has said that it was still counting on
support from Russia and China over its disputed nuclear
programme, and warned the referral of the issue back to the UN
Security Council would derail any possible negotiations.

"If the case goes to the United Nations Security Council,
regardless of the kind of resolution adopted, the negotiations
will be derailed," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi
told reporters Sunday.

"The Security Council path is not constructive," he added.

"We expect Russia and China to defend our legitimate stances.
Defending the rights of the Islamic republic means backing up
international treaties and the Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Asefi said Iran was also awaiting the outcome of a G8 summit in
Russia, where the mounting nuclear crisis is set to be discussed.

"We hope the G8 chooses the reasonable path. In this case, the
Islamic republic is ready for any cooperation and negotiation,"
he said.

Last week Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United
States decided to send Iran's case back to the Security Council
after Tehran failed to respond to demands it freeze sensitive
uranium enrichment work.

Iran says it wants to enrich uranium only to make reactor fuel
and that this is a right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but
the process can be extended to make weapons.

Western powers believe Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb
under the cover of a peaceful atomic energy programme.

The so-called 5+1 powers had offered Iran trade, technology,
diplomatic and other incentives as well as multilateral talks --
also involving the United States -- if the country agrees to
freeze enrichment.

Diplomats say the Council could vote as early as next week on a
draft resolution that would make a freeze legally binding.

"The package is a good basis for talks, but of course we are not
in the position to affirmatively or negatively respond to the
package," Asefi said of the offer.

The proposal, however, is conditional on Iran first suspending
enrichment and cooperating with the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).

Iran has repeatedly rejected any "preconditions" to talks.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meanwhile said he thought
"Iran's leaders will respond to the offers that remain on the
table and on this basis we will be able to start concrete
negotiations soon".

"Iran was given constructive offers. We still haven't received
an answer from the Iranian side about their readiness for
negotiations," Lavrov told reporters on the sidelines of the G8
summit in Saint Petersburg.

He said the Security Council would start work "very soon" on a
resolution that would require Iran to freeze enrichment work.

"In this situation, we expect the UN Security Council to start
work very soon on the resolution," he added. 

    Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
AFP 

*****************************************************************
 15 IRNA: Official considers Iran's nuclear issue as a top challenge 

Mashhad, Razavi Khorasan prov, July 15, IRNA

Iran-Nuclear-Challenge 

Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Deputy Secretary
Gholam-Reza Rahmani Fazli here Saturday referred to Iran's
nuclear issue as a top challenge facing Iran and the West.


 He made the remark at the eighth gathering of Basij officials
and faculties of universities as well as higher education and
research centers in Mashhad.

 Referring to the Middle East peace plan and terrorism as other
crucial challenges facing Iran and the West, he said that to
solve the nuclear issue, people should be united, adding that
integrity on domestic scene, efficiency of the ruling system and
public satisfaction are also among the requirements to meet this
end.

 The official said that some US theoreticians believe that the
second cold war has started, adding that Iran will have a
crucial role in such a war.

 He referred to Iran's cooperation with the world communities
and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and said,
addressing the West, "If you were keen on holding talks with
Iran on its nuclear issue, why did you send the dossier to the
United Nations Security Council?

 "If Iran intended to suspend its nuclear activities, there was
no need to negotiate the issue with other countries."

 The SNSC official said that Iran is unable to accept any
preconditions, but that it is prepared to hold talks on its
nuclear issue.

 The eighth gathering of Basij officials and faculties of
universities as well as higher education and research centers in
Mashhad aims to promote scientific activities.

 The conference also aims to encourage various university
scientific and research groups as well as higher education
centers to expand their communication with executive organs.

*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: Iran's leadership rejects freeze of sensitive nuclear work -
     
Sunday July 16, 02:51 AM 
 
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's leadership has rejected demands to freeze
sensitive nuclear work contained in an international proposal
aimed at resolving the crisis over Tehran's nuclear drive. 

"In the West's proposal, two preconditions are raised:
suspending nuclear activities and responding to questions"
raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said
Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli, the deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme
National Security Council. 

"The leadership has reached the conclusion that it will not
accept the precondition set by the Europeans," he was quoted by
semi-official Mehr news agency, which is close to the Islamic
republic's top national security body. 

Although a number of senior officials have over the past month
spoken out against a freeze, the comments from Rahmani-Fazli --
the deputy of Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani -- are
the first indication that the regime has reached a clear
decision. 

Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium to make reactor fuel,
but the process can be extended to make weapons. Western powers
believe Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb under the cover
of a peaceful atomic energy programme. 

Nevertheless, the official said Iran was "continuing to examine
the offer" -- which was drawn up by Britain, China, France,
Germany, Russia and the United States and handed to Tehran on
June 6. 

The package offers trade, technology, diplomatic and other
incentives as well as multilateral talks -- also involving the
United States -- if Iran agrees to freeze enrichment. 

In the absence of an Iranian reply, the so-called 5+1 group of
nations on Wednesday decided to send the matter back to the UN
Security Council -- which has the power to make a suspension
legally binding and impose sanctions if Iran continues
enriching. 

Diplomats say the Council could vote as early as next week on a
draft resolution that would make a freeze mandatory -- although
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday emphasised the need
for more diplomacy. 

"We're not going to take part in any crusades, any holy
unions... but our common aim is to make the world a safer
place," Putin said after meeting US counterpart George W. Bush
ahead of the G8 summit in Saint Petersburg. 

"We are going to come up with common approaches to this common
problem," Putin said at a press conference. 

Iran resumed enrichment in January, and has already ignored a
non-binding Security Council demand for the work to stop pending
the result of an IAEA probe. 

The Vienna-based agency says that after more than three years of
inspections it is still not in a position to say whether Iran is
seeking nuclear energy or weapons. 

The regime's hardline leaders have repeatedly said they are
willing to ease concerns over their atomic activities, but are
unwilling to accept any "preconditions". 

Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 17 IRNA: Time ripe for Iran, Europe to enter into nuclear talks - Asefi -

, July 16, IRNA
-- 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi here Sunday said
that time has been ripe for Iran and Europe to enter into
detailed talks on a package of incentives offered to Tehran by
the Group 5+1.

 Asefi made the remark while addressing domestic and foreign
reporters at his weekly press conference on a package of
incentives offered to Iran by the UN Security Council's five
permanent members -- Russia China, US, UK and France -- plus
Germany on June 6 through EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana
in exchange for suspension of uranium enrichment and resumption
of talks to settle the dispute over its nuclear program.

 Referring to two rounds of talks recently held between
Secretary of Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani and
Solana, he said, "The two sides stressed that negotiations were
a right path in principle and that both sides could reach a
result through this way.

 "The Islamic Republic of Iran also stressed that threatening
actions will not be effective.

 "During the talks, Iran announced that it regards the proposed
package as an appropriate and acceptable base for continuation
of work (on Iran's nuclear standoff).

 "But the package should be modified. The two sides should
achieve their goals through negotiations."

 The spokesman added, "Currently, we are not in a position to
speak about acceptance or rejection of the package. Serious
talks can be constructive in this respect."

 He said the proposed package had different aspects, adding,
"The two sides should build confidence. It is now a matter of
question whether the two sides believe in a long-term and
strategic work." Asefi referred to the talks between Larijani
and Solana, saying "Larijani has stressed that referral of
Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council will be
tantamount to blocking and rejection of talks."

 He said, "Negotiations will get out of its natural course
through referral of the case to the Security Council."

 The spokesman said, "The proposed package is open now.
Larijani, in his meeting with Solana, raised Iran's views on the
ambiguities of the package.

 "It is natural, the ball is now in Europe's court. Iran has
expressed its stance and viewpoints with respect to different
issues."

 Asked about setting preconditions in nuclear talks, he said,
"We think setting preconditions will limit talks.

 "The Islamic Republic of Iran has favored talks with no
preconditions from the beginning."

 He said the European sides has called on Iran not to disclose
content of the package, adding, "We respect their request.

 "Currently, the package is open and experts can study it." He
stated that the European side informed the press of the package,
stressing, "This confirms Iran's claims about (existence of
ambiguities)."

 Asefi said, "We confirm what press said about content of the
package."
*****************************************************************
 18 IRNA: Asefi recommends G8 to adopt reasonable option

Tehran, July 17, IRNA

Iran-G8-Asefi 

Iran on Sunday recommended the Group of Eight industrialized
nations to move in a reasonable path with respect to its nuclear
case.

 Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi made the comment at
his weekly press briefing while referring to the G8 summit,
opened in Russia's St Petersburg Sunday.

 "We will wait for the summit and its outcomes. The G8 has two
options to choose from.

 "One is a wise path and reasonable recommendations and the
other is an unreasonable one," he said.

 He expressed hope the G8 would adopt the reasonable option and
put it on its agenda.

 "In that case, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready for any
kind of negotiations," the spokesman stressed.




*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.: N.Korea Must Return to Nuke Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday July 16, 2006 11:31 AM

By TERENCE HUNT 

AP White House Correspondent 

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) - Bouyed by a U.N. Security Council
resolution sanctioning North Korea, the Bush administration said
Sunday that the reclusive communist nation will have no choice
but to ultimately return to nuclear disarmament talks. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that additional
pressure could be brought against North Korea by world powers. 

The White House shrugged off North Korea's rejection of the
Security Council's decision. 

``It's probably not surprising that they have immediately
rejected it,'' said Dan Bartlett, President Bush's senior
counselor. ``But sometimes the first response is not the only
response or the final response. But what it says is that the
world is speaking with one voice.'' 

The Security Council demanded Saturday that North Korea suspend
its ballistic missile program. The resolution bans all U.N.
member states from selling material or technology for missiles
or weapons of mass destruction to North Korea, and from
receiving missiles, banned weapons or technology from Pyongyang. 

North Korea warned that the resolution was a prelude to a
renewed Korean war. 

The North also said it would ``bolster its war deterrent for
self-defense,'' a typical phrase often used to refer to the
country's nuclear weapons program. 

``Our republic vehemently denounces and roundly refutes the
'resolution,' a product of the U.S. hostile policy towards the
DPRK, and will not be bound to it in the least,'' the ministry
said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News
Agency. DPRK is the abbreviation for the North's official name. 

Rice, here with Bush for a summit of world leaders, warned that
North Korea could face additional action. 

``If they do not want to face some of the additional pressures
that can be brought to bear on them, then I think that they will
eventually realize that they've got to come back to the
six-party talks,'' she said. ``That's really the only game in
town.'' 

The six-party talks involve China, North and South Korea, Japan,
Russia and the United States. The talks have been stalled since
last September. North Korea has not agreed to return. 

Rice praised the Security Council resolution and expressed
particular pleasure that China voted for it. China is believed
to have more influence on North Korea than any other country and
has been reluctant to impose sanctions on North Korea. 

She said the six party talks are ``really paying off. Because we
really now have a coalition.'' 

``I think ultimately North Korea will have no choice but to
return to the talks and pursue denuclearization of the Korean
peninsula,'' Rice told reporters. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 20 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Rejects U.N.'s Limited Sanctions
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday July 16, 2006 10:31 AM

AP Photo XUN113 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Sunday rejected a U.N.
Security Council resolution sanctioning the communist nation for
recent missile tests and warned the measure was a prelude to a
renewed Korean War. 

The North also said it would ``bolster its war deterrent for
self-defense,'' a typical phrase often used to refer to the
country's nuclear weapons program. 

``Our republic vehemently denounces and roundly refutes the
'resolution,' a product of the U.S. hostile policy towards the
DPRK, and will not be bound to it in the least,'' the ministry
said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News
Agency. 

DPRK is the abbreviation for the North's official name. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 21 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Imposes Limited Sanctions on N. Korea
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday July 15, 2006 11:31 PM

AP Photo XUN112 

By EDITH M. LEDERER 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. Security Council voted
unanimously Saturday to impose limited sanctions on North Korea
for its recent missile tests, and demanded that the reclusive
communist nation suspend its ballistic missile program. North
Korea immediately rejected the resolution and vowed to continue
missile launches. 

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said North Korea set ``a world
record'' for a rejection - 45 minutes - and warned that
Pyongyang's failure to comply could lead to further council
action. He did not say what that might be. 

The resolution bans all U.N. member states from selling material
or technology for missiles or weapons of mass destruction to
North Korea, and from receiving missiles, banned weapons or
technology from Pyongyang. 

It condemns North Korea's multiple missile launches on July 5
and demands that North Korea ``suspend all activities related to
its ballistic missile program'' and re-establish a moratorium on
missile launches. It strongly urges North Korea to return to
six-party talks on its nuclear program, which have been stalled
since last September. 

North Korea's U.N. Ambassador Pak Gil Yon, who was in the
Security Council chamber for the vote in a rare appearance,
accused the council of trying to isolate his country, known
officially as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or
DPRK. 

``The delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
resolutely condemns the attempt of some countries to misuse the
Security Council for the despicable political aim to isolate and
put pressure on the DPRK, and totally rejects the resolution,''
he said. 

The Korean People's Army ``will go on with missile launch
exercises as part of its efforts to bolster deterrent for
self-defense in the future, too,'' he said. 

Pak warned that North Korea will ``take stronger physical
actions of other forms should any other country ... take issue
with the exercises and put pressure.'' 

He immediately left the council chamber at the end of his speech
in a move considered a breach of diplomatic protocol. 

The resolution culminated 10 days of difficult negotiations and
came after a last-minute compromise between Japan, the United
States and Britain, who wanted a tough statement, and Russia and
China, who favored weaker language. 

The council was divided on one issue during the final
negotiations: if the resolution should be adopted under Chapter
7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows for military force to make
sure the resolution is obeyed. 

China had threatened to veto any resolution that mentioned
Chapter 7 and that mention was dropped in the final compromise
proposed by Britain with support from France and China. 

The resolution adopted Saturday by a 15-0 vote states that the
Security Council was ``acting under its special responsibility
for the maintenance of international peace and security.'' 

The United States, Britain, France and Japan insist that even
without Chapter 7, the resolution is mandatory and all countries
are required to comply - including North Korea. 

Japan, which views itself as a potential target of North Korean
missiles, sponsored the initial resolution, which in the end was
put to a vote as a presidential text, with the support of all
council members. 

``The council has acted swiftly and robustly in response to the
reckless and condemnable act of the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea,'' Japan's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Chintaro
Ito told the council. 

Before Pak spoke, Bolton said the Security Council ``sends an
unequivocal, unambiguous and unanimous message to Pyongyang:
suspend your ballistic missile program, stop your procurement of
materials related to weapons of mass destruction, and implement
your September, 2005 commitment to verifiably dismantle your
nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.'' 

In the September statement signed by the six parties, North
Korea made a commitment to abandon ``all nuclear weapons and
existing nuclear programs'' and return at an early date to the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 

Pak made no mention of North Korea returning to the six-party
talks but indicated that Pyongyang remained committed to the
September agreement. 

``The DPRK remains unchanged in its will to denuclearize the
Korean Peninsula in a negotiated peaceful manner,'' he said.
``The latest missile launch exercises are quite irrelevant to
the six-party talks.'' 

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said his country, the
North's closest ally, adopted ``a responsible attitude'' in
opposing a Chapter 7 resolution, which would ``further
complicate and aggravate the situation. 

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the resolution
sends ``an appropriate signal'' to North Korea ``on the need to
display restraint and to abide by its obligations regarding
missiles.'' 

--- 

Associated Press Writer Nick Wadhams contributed to this
report.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 22 AFP: China, Japan, US call for resuming NKorea talks 

 by Olivier Knox Sun Jul 16, 1:52 PM ET 		 	 

SAINT PETERSBURG (AFP) - China, Japan and the United States 
called North Korea" /> North Koreaback to stalled six-nation 
talks, with Washington saying Pyongyang had "no choice" in the 
wake of a UN condemnation. 

 A day after the UN Security Council unanimously denounced the 
Stalinist regime over a recent missile barrage, Chinese President 
Hu Jintao" /> Hu Jintaosaid he and US President George W. Bush" 
/> President George W. Bushagreed they wanted to resume 
negotiations. 

"Both sides agreed to continue their efforts to move forward the
six-party talks, so that at the end of the day, the entire
Korean Peninsula could be de-nuclearized in a peaceful way
through dialogue and in negotiations," Hu said through an
interpreter after they met here. 

Bush noted passage of the UN resolution, which Washington
watered down in order to avoid a Chinese veto and to win
Beijing's active support, and told his Chinese counterpart: "I
want to thank you for your leadership on that." 

While North Korea flatly rejected the resolution, which imposed
targeted sanctions, Washington and Beijing say that Pyongyang
must return to talks that also group Seoul, Moscow, and Tokyo. 

"It's a remarkable resolution, and with an affirmative Chinese
vote," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza
Ricetold reporters at the Group of Eight summit here. "We
really, now, have a coalition." 

"That's why, I think ultimately, North Korea will have no choice
but to return to the talks and pursue de-nuclearization of the
Korean peninsula," she said. "That's really the only game in
town." 

Rice said she was "not surprised" by North Korea's reaction but
stressed that Pyongyang must come back to the talks "if they
don't want to be even more isolated than they are, if they do
not want to face some of the additional pressures that can be
brought to bear on them." 

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said the resolution
had sent a "strong message" to North Korea and that German
Chancellor Angela Merkel had agreed to support his efforts to
get the G8 to support the measure. 

"It is important for North Korea to follow the resolution,
return to the six-party talks and become a responsible member of
the international community," Koizumi told his G8 partners. 

A Japanese government official said the G8 would also send a
"clear message" condemning the missile tests. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov predicted that the G8
leaders "will be able to support this resolution and (in) this
way add to their voice, their authority to the call on North
Korea." 

The compromise UN resolution, which capped 11 days of tough
bargaining by major powers, demanded the immediate suspension of
Pyongyang's ballistic missile program and imposed sanctions
preventing it from buying and selling missile technology. 

The deal was struck after Western co-sponsors dropped a
reference to Chapter Seven of the UN Charter -- which can
authorize tough economic sanctions or even military action in
case of non-compliance -- to prevent a threatened Chinese veto. 

Brushing aside Chapter Seven doubts, senior Bush counselor Dan
Bartlett said the resolution still set the stage for tougher
steps if Pyongyang continued to snub talks on its nuclear and
missile programs. 

The measure provides that "enhanced diplomatic repercussions are
the path to respond to the further intransigence and refusal of
the North Korean government to come back to the table and
negotiate their disputes in a peaceful manner," said Bartlett. 

Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a
statement: "We hope all relevant parties could take this as a
turning point, make common efforts and create conditions for the
early resumption of the six-party talks." 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 23 AFP: US hails UN resolution on N. Korea, warns Pyongyang

 Sat Jul 15, 5:50 PM ET 		 	 

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The United States warned of "further 
action" should North Korea" /> fail to comply immediately with a 
UN resolution demanding suspension of its ballistic missile 
program. 

 Speaking after the unanimous adoption of the resolution by the
UN Security Council, US Ambassador John Bolton said Washington
would also be closely monitoring other UN member states to
ensure their adherence. 

The resolution, Bolton said, sent an "unequivocal, unambiguous
and unanimous message" to Pyongyang to suspend its missile
program, cease procuring materials related to weapons of mass
destruction and abandon its existing nuclear programs. 

"We look forward to North Korea's full, unconditional and
immediate compliance," Bolton said. "We need to be prepared,
though, that North Korea might choose a different path." 

In order to prevent a Chinese veto, the co-sponsors of the
resolution, including the United States, were forced to drop a
reference to Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which opens the
door to the use of military force. 

In the event of Pyongyang's non-compliance, Bolton said it was
important that the United States and others would have the
opportunity "at any point to return to the Council for further
action." 

He also stressed that the resolution was not only binding on
North Korea, but also required member states to prevent the
transfer of resources to Pyongyang's missile program or the
procurement of missile-related items from North Korea. 

"The United States expects that ... all UN Member States will
immediately act in accordance with the requirements of this
resolution," Bolton said. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 24 AFP: UN demands end to N.Korea missile program, Pyongyang says no -
                           
 by Giles Hewitt Sat Jul 15, 6:51 PM ET 		 	 

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council unanimously 
adopted a resolution condemning North Korea" /> North Korea's 
missile tests that was promptly rejected by Pyongyang as it vowed 
to carry out further launches. 

The resolution, which North Korea's UN ambassador Pak Gil Yon
described as "gangster-like," demanded the immediate suspension
of Pyongyang's ballistic missile program and imposed sanctions
preventing it from buying and selling missile technology. 

"We totally reject the resolution," Pak said immediately after
the vote by the 15-member Security Council, adding that the
North Korean army would continue missile launch exercises in the
future as part of its efforts to bolster its military deterrent. 

He also warned that North Korea would have no option but to
"take stronger physical actions" should any other country "dare
take issue" with the exercises. 

Pak's remarks drew a wry response from the US Ambassador John
Bolton. 

"This has been a historic day," Bolton said. "Not only have we
unanimously adopted resolution 1695, but North Korea has set a
world record in rejecting it 45 minutes after his adoption." 

In order to prevent a Chinese veto, the co-sponsors of the
resolution, including the United States, were forced to drop a
reference to Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which could have
opened the door to the use of military force in the event of
North Korea's non-compliance. 

Bolton rejected suggestions that the compromise had resulted in
a weakened text, insisting that the resolution sent an
"unequivocal, unambiguous and unanimous message" to Pyongyang. 

While stressing the need for North Korea's unconditional and
immediate compliance, Bolton warned Council members that they
should be prepared for the communist nation "to choose a
different path." 

In the event of non-compliance, Bolton said it was important
that the United States and others would have the opportunity at
any point to return to the Council "for further action." 

It took 11 days of intense negotiations to reach agreement on
the resolution, with China and Russia insisting that an overly
harsh text would only serve to box North Korea into a corner and
further destabilize the region. 

"We are against any acts that will lead to further tension on
the Korean peninsula," said Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya,
adding that China hoped the resolution would help all concerned
parties "to act calmly." 

China, the main provider of aid to North Korea, had sent a
high-level diplomatic mission to Pyongyang earlier this week,
but it failed to secure any concessions that might have warded
off the Security Council vote. 

Pyongyang outraged the international community by test-launching
seven missiles on July 5, including a long-range Taepodong-2
believed to be capable of striking US soil. 

The communist state's previous long-range tested missile was the
Taepodong-1 which flew over Japan into the Pacific Ocean in
1998. 

The Security Council resolution was drafted by Japan which
welcomed its unanimous adoption. 

"Japan strongly urges North Korea to implement the measures
based upon this resolution," Foreign Minister Taro Aso said in a
statement released at the G8 meeting in Saint Petersburg. 

As well as demanding the cessation of North Korea's missile
tests, the resolution requires all member states to prevent
missile and missile related items, materials, goods and
technology being transferred to Pyongyang's missile or weapons
of mass destruction programs. 

Bolton stressed that the United States expected all other
nations to "immediately act in accordance" with those
requirements. 

The text also underlines the need for North Korea to show
restraint and refrain from any action that might "aggravate
tension" and urges its return to six-nation talks on abandoning
its nuclear weapons program in exchange for economic and
security incentives. 

Pyongyang has shunned the talks since November and demanded
direct discussions with Washington. Some analysts have suggested
that the missile tests were intended to be used as a bargaining
chip with the United States over the course of future
negotiations. 

The South Korean defense ministry's 2004 Defense White Paper
said North Korea started developing its own ballistic missiles
in the 1970s. 

The impoverished and isolated state is believed to trade
missiles and missile technology for hard currency or crude oil
from the Middle East. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 25 AFP: North rejects "brigandish" UN call to halt its missile launches

 Sun Jul 16, 7:35 AM ET 		 	 

SEOUL (AFP) - World powers have urged North Korea" /> North 
Koreato return to disarmament talks after the UN Security Council 
unanimously condemned its missile tests, but the isolated 
communist state rejected the "brigandish" resolution and vowed to 
bolster its defences. 

 "Our Republic will bolster its war deterrent for self-defence in 
every way by all means and methods now that the situation has 
reached the worst phase due to the extremely hostile act of the 
US," said the North's foreign ministry Sunday. 

It insisted the United States had forced the United Nations" />
United Nationsto adopt Saturday's resolution, which won the
support of its only major ally China. 

North Korea's neighbors urged it to take note of what they
called a firm message over the July 5 launch of seven missiles
which sparked alarm in the region and beyond. 

China said it hoped the resolution, which also imposes sanctions
on buying or selling parts of technology to help Pyongyang's
missile development, would lead to the resumption of six-party
talks aimed at persuading the nation to abandon its nuclear
ambitions. 

"We hope all relevant parties could take this as a turning
point, make common efforts and create conditions for the early
resumption of the six-party talks," said foreign ministry
spokeswoman Jiang Yu. 

"This is the common wish of the international community." 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricesaid
the unanimous rebuke would force the North, which claims to have
nuclear weapons, back to the negotiations. They have been
stalled since November by the North's refusal to attend. 

"It's a remarkable resolution, and with an affirmative Chinese
vote," she said on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit in
Saint Petersburg. 

"That's why, I think ultimately, North Korea will have no choice
but to return to the talks and pursue denuclearization of the
Korean peninsula." 

US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushand
Chinese President Hu Jintao" /> Hu Jintaowere to meet later
Sunday in Saint Petersburg to try to map the way forward on
North Korea after the UN condemnation. 

South Korea" /> South Koreacalled on its neighbour to respect
the "firm" resolution and order a moratorium on the tests. It
said it was still trying to help restart the six-party talks. 

Japan hailed "a binding, strong resolution which demands all
member states of the United Nations to take punitive measures." 

Tokyo, already angered by Pyongyang's reluctance to come clean
on its past kidnappings of Japanese nationals, had with the US
and some European powers sought an even stronger resolution. 

But amid Chinese and Russian objections, it accepted a text
which dropped a reference to the UN charter's Chapter Seven,
which can authorize tough wide-ranging sanctions or even
military action. 

At the UN, North Korea's ambassador Pak Gil Yon described the
resolution as "gangster-like." 

"We totally reject the resolution," he said immediately after
the vote by the 15-member Security Council, adding that the
North would continue missile launches to bolster its military
deterrent. 

The North's foreign ministry, in a statement carried by the
official Korean Central News Agency, called the UN move a
"brigandish" act that raised tensions on the Korean peninsula. 

It said the North "will have no option but to take stronger
physical actions should someone take issue with our army's
training of missile launches for self-defence and put pressure
on it." 

Analysts said the unanimous vote sends an unexpectedly strong
message that will pressure the North but do little to stop its
missile development. 

Iran" /> Iran, reported to have bought North Korean missiles,
and clandestine networks will not care about UN sanctions, they
said. 

"Further sanctions are definitely not going to halt this," said
Jean du Preez, who heads the nonproliferation program at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies in California. 

"If you look at history, missile programs were developed in
Argentina, Egypt, South Africa, Libya and so on at times when
those countries were isolated." 

Robert Dujarric, a North Korea watcher based in Tokyo, said the
North "can live with US and Japanese hostility and it has for a
long time. But it is difficult for the regime to live well
without Chinese and South Korean support. 

"The Security Council resolution is totally symbolic but symbols
matter in international relations," he said. "What's really
interesting is if the attitude of China to North Korea has
changed." 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 26 New York Times: As Tensions Rise, U.S. and Moscow Falter on Trade - 

By JIM RUTENBERGand ANDREW E. KRAMER Published: July 16, 2006
			 
STRELNA, Russia, Sunday, July 16 — President Bush and President 
Vladimir V. Putinannounced that they had failed to come to an 
agreement on Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization, 
and aides said the deal, which had been expected as early as this 
weekend, was not likely for months.

James Hill for The New York Times President Bush and President 
Vladimir V. Putin arrived for a news conference in Strelna on 
Saturday. 

Russia and the Post-Soviet Nations Wide-ranging coverage of 
Russia and the former Soviet republics, updated by The Times's 
Moscow bureau. 

At a news conference that offered a somewhat rocky prelude to
the annual summit meeting of the Group of 8economic powers, Mr.
Putin and Mr. Bush also differed over Iraq, the state of
Russia’s democracy and Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon. 

Though they had a few positive announcements as well — agreeing
on initiatives to combat nuclear terrorism and share civilian
nuclear material and technology — overall the appearance
highlighted growing tensions between former cold war rivals now
jockeying for global position.

In the sharpest exchange, Mr. Bush said he had told Mr. Putin
during a private dinner here Friday night about “my desire to
promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq —
where there is a free press and free religion — and I told him
that a lot of people in our country would hope Russia would do
the same thing.”

Mr. Putin, standing bolt upright in a dark blue suit, responded
dryly, “We certainly would not want to have the same kind of
democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly”
— a clear dig at the challenges still facing the
American-supported government there. Mr. Bush, in a light blue
suit and standing more casually than his counterpart, turned to
face Mr. Putin, smiled and said, almost to himself, “Just wait.”

 Both men played down any friction, saying it was indicative of
a frank relationship that remains friendly in spite of the areas
where their national interests diverge. 

Russia, the host of the Group of 8 summit meeting for the first
time, has set an agenda seeking common cause on protecting
energy supplies and developing new ones, improving national
education systems and combating infectious disease. But
exchanges of military fire between Israel and Hezbollahintruded,
and an agreement was reached even before the meeting that the
attending nations would draft some sort of joint position
intended to head off a broader regional conflict. 

All sides expected some tension between the United States, which
has expressed support for Israel’s need to defend itself, and
many of the other participating countries, whose leaders have
deemed Israel’s force excessive and have called for a
cease-fire. The leaders also are to discuss the dual nuclear
threats in Iran and North Korea.

Mr. Putin had hoped to kick off the summit meeting, to begin
Sunday at the palace erected by Peter the Great nearly 300 years
ago in this St. Petersburg suburb, with an announcement that the
United States would lift its objection to Russia’s accession
into the World Trade Organization. Mr. Putin wants membership as
a symbol of the new position of Russia, flush with oil money, in
the global economy. 

Negotiations between Russian and American trade representatives
went into the early morning on Saturday, but could not break
through impasses over financial services, food imports and, to a
lesser extent, intellectual property rights. 

“We’re tough negotiators,” Mr. Bush said, adding that the United
States wanted to ensure a deal is reached that Congress will
approve. He added that the two sides were close and that news
reports had wrongly inflated expectations.

In a briefing that followed the joint appearance by the two
presidents, the United States trade representative, Susan
Schwab, said it would probably be months before agreement could
be reached. Asked if Russia had been correct to believe that a
breakthrough was possible by this weekend, Ms. Schwab, who had
been involved in the negotiations, said, “I think both sides
would have preferred if we had an agreement.”

Her Russian counterparts blamed the United States, complaining
in interviews that the sticking points revolved largely around
what they considered the small issue of food imports, and the
American side’s objection to having Russian inspectors visit
farms in the United States.

But Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin agreed to start talks to pave the way
for a deal allowing nuclear waste generated from
American-produced plutonium from around the world to be stored
in Russia — a potential shift in American policy that would be
lucrative for Russia. The United States would gain access to
Russian uranium. They also agreed to combat the potential spread
of nuclear materials to terrorists, a sign that the onetime
nuclear rivals now see a common foe in extremists who have made
both nations their targets.

Russia analysts called those agreements significant. Graham 
Allison, a nuclear expert at Harvard who is here monitoring the 
talks, said the nuclear agreements could have a serious impact in 
limiting the possibility for rogue states to develop nuclear 
weapons. "It's the beginning of something real," he said.

Wide-ranging coverage of Russia and the former Soviet republics, 
updated by The Times's Moscow bureau.

Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush offered no breakthroughs on a common 
approach to reining in the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and 
Iran; the United States has been calling for a tougher line, 
while Russia has been advocating a more delicate approach.

Mr. Putin, whose government's cooperation with Iran has rankled 
the White House, repeatedly referred to the Iranians as "our 
partners."

When a reporter asked a two-part question about whether there 
were any breakthroughs in countering nuclear proliferation and 
how he rated the state of United States-Russian relations, Mr. 
Putin began, "We will not participate in any crusades, in any 
holy alliances," which analysts here took as a signal to Iran 
that Russia was not fully aligned with Mr. Bush, or as a dig at 
Mr. Bush's campaign to spread democracy in the Middle East, or 
both.

But Mr. Putin continued, "Our common goal is to make the world a 
more secure place, and certainly we'll be working with all our 
partners, including the United States, in order to address this 
problem."

Asked what he took Mr. Putin to have meant by "holy alliance" and 
"crusade," Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said 
during a news briefing here, "You know, I asked myself the same 
question."

Mr. Hadley said the president did not specifically broach the 
subject that most severely divides the leaders in their approach 
to Iran: the potential imposition of sanctions if it does not 
give up its nuclear ambitions. Mr. Putin had sidestepped the 
question of sanctions.

Yet, the Russian leader emphasized the need for cooperation as 
the G-8 meetings begin.

"If we elaborate common approaches to this difficult problem, we 
will see to it that our joint decisions are fulfilled," Mr. Putin 
said. "This is what we said honestly and directly to our Iranian 
partners."

Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush agreed that Hezbollah was the provocateur 
in the escalating crisis in the Middle East. "I agree with the 
premise that it is absolutely unacceptable to try and reach this 
or that goal," Mr. Putin said, "through abductions, through 
carrying out strikes against an independent state from the 
territory of another state."

Mr. Putin went on to chide Israel. "At the same time, we work 
under the assumption that the use of force should be balanced," 
he said. "Escalation of violence, in our opinion, will not yield 
positive results."

In contrast, Mr. Bush declined to criticize Israel, saying 
firmly: "In my judgment, the best way to stop the violence is to 
understand why the violence occurred in the first place. And 
that's because Hezbollah has been launching rocket attacks out of 
Lebanon into Israel." He blamed Syria for supporting Hezbollah 
and called upon its leadership to intervene.

Pressed at a late-night news conference on his stance on Israel, 
Mr. Putin said he wished the conflict could be resolved by 
peaceful means. The Russians, he said, "do get the impression 
that the aims of Israeli go beyond just recovering their 
kidnapped soldiers," according to a translator. He did not 
elaborate. Both leaders said their relationship was stronger than 
many acknowledge.

"We've got people in Russia questioning U.S. motives, people in 
America questioning Russian motives," Mr. Bush said. "But that's 
what happens when you have - when you're big nations that have 
got influence, where you've got leaders willing to make tough 
decisions."

Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin's joint appearance came after a much 
friendlier social call the evening before, when the first couples 
had a private dinner at the palace.

Both men indicated that though it was supposed to be a social 
call, the conversation veered into more serious matters, and Mr. 
Bush said they discussed their governing philosophies. "I don't 
expect Russia to look like the United States," Mr. Bush said. "As 
Vladimir pointedly reminded me last night, we have a different 
history, different traditions."

Meanwhile, in downtown St. Petersburg, protesters criticized both 
men. At one end of Nevsky Prospekt, the city's historic main 
boulevard, protesters gathered, chanting, "We need another Russia 
and Russia without Putin." Some held signs denouncing the United 
States and the NATO expansion it backs.

As the demonstrators tried to march, lines of riot police 
officers moved in. Wearing helmets and some with shields, they 
beat several young men and dragged them away to waiting buses. 
The first two men arrested were punched by plainclothes officers 
waiting in a bus.

C. J. Chivers contributed reporting for this article.

New York Times
*****************************************************************
 27 BBC: US and Russia differ on Mid-East
 
Last Updated: Saturday, 15 July 2006
 
[George W Bush (left) and Vladimir Putin in talks on 15 July]

Bush and Putin say personal ties are warm
		
The presidents of the US and Russia have differed in
emphasis in voicing concern about the Mid-East crisis at the G8 
summit in St Petersburg. 

George W Bush urged Lebanon's Hezbollah to disarm while Vladimir 
Putin called for a "balanced" use of force. 

Israel has been accused of using disproportionate force to secure 
the release of troops seized by militants. 

Mr Bush arrived in Russia's second city on Friday, and the full 
G8 summit will officially open on Sunday morning. 

Speaking at a news conference after the talks, the two leaders 
said they had reached agreement on global nuclear energy, and 
fighting nuclear and other forms of terrorism. 

'Stop attacking' 

On the violence in the Middle East, Mr Bush made clear that he 
blamed Hezbollah for the fighting. 

G8 SUMMIT: 15-17 JULY            

The world's seve richest nations - the US, Japan, Germany, 
France, Britain, Italy and Canada have met annually since 1975 
Russia joined in 1998, turning the G7 into the G8 2006 summit to 
be held in St Petersburg - the first time Russia has hosted the 
G8 Energy security, infectious diseases and education are on 
Russia's agenda Mid-East crisis, Iran, North Korea, and 
international terrorism are also likely to be discussed Summit 
diary                                                                    
Soul mates no more                              

"In my judgement, the best way to stop the violence is to
understand why the violence occurred in the first place," he
said. 

"And that's because Hezbollah has been launching rocket attacks
out of Lebanon into Israel and because Hezbollah captured two
Israeli soldiers." 

"The best way to stop the violence is for Hezbollah to lay down
its arms and to stop attacking." 

The US leader also called on Syria to "exert influence" over
Hezbollah. 

Mr Putin said Israel's concerns were legitimate but "recourse to
force must be balanced and it must be stopped as soon as
possible". 

"Escalating violence will not bring any positive result," he
said, adding that the G8 leaders would work to secure peace. 
*****************************************************************
 28 AFP: G8 SUMMIT Putin says US, Russia agree on nuclear partnership
     
Saturday July 15, 12:13 PM 

 (updating with details of US-Russia nuclear agreements,
comments on Iran, North Korea

 SAINT PETERSBURG (AFX) - Russia supports a US plan for a
'global partnership' between the two countries on nuclear
energy, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

 The two countries have also reached agreement on new steps to
combat the threat of nuclear terrorism, Putin said at a joint
news conference with US President George W. Bush following talks
between the two leaders.

 'Russia backed the US proposal for a global partnership on
nuclear energy' and the two countries also reached an agreement
on taking 'the most serious measures to counter nuclear or
radiological terrorism,' Putin said.

 In a document on the nuclear agreements released later, Bush
and Putin agreed that nuclear energy is an essential part of any
solution to meet growing energy demand, but said measures are
needed to prevent transfers of sensitive nuclear equipment,
materials and technologies to states that might use them for
weapons purposes.

 They said they are 'especially concerned by the failure of the
Iranian government to engage seriously' with an offer from the
five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany of
economic, trade and political incentives in exchange for a
suspension of uranium enrichment.

 And they added: 'We are seriously concerned by North Korea's
ballistic missile tests and urge it to return to a moratorium on
such launches.'

 They said there are working actively to secure UN Security
Council unity on these issues.

 Bush and Putin also said they will launch a global initiative
to combat nuclear terrorism, with the aim of preventing
terrorists from acquiring or using nuclear materials and
radioactive substances.

 Other countries will be invited to join the initiative, which
will also be supported by the International Atomic Energy
Agency. The initiative is intended to ensure the accounting,
control and physical protection of nuclear facilities, and
detect and stop the illegal trafficking of nuclear materials.

steve.whitehouse@afxnews.com

Copyright AFX News Limited 2005. All rights reserved.

 Copyright © 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or
*****************************************************************
 29 Guardian Unlimited: Remarks by Bush, Putin at News Conference
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday July 15, 2006 1:01 PM

By The Associated Press 

Text of President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin at
their news conference Saturday in St. Petersburg, Russia, as
transcribed by the White House. 

PUTIN (As translated): Dear ladies and gentlemen, I have just
completed my meeting with the President of the United States.
The Russian party is satisfied with the results of this meeting.
The meeting has reaffirmed that Russia and the United States
remain reliable and mutually interested partners. We have been
able to reach a whole range of agreements on key issues on the
bilateral and international agenda. 

We have adopted a joint statement, the basis of which are our
parallel initiatives on the secure development of nuclear
energy. Its main goal is to contribute to the sustainability and
reliability of the supply of this type of energy resource, and
the parallel reduction of the threat of the spread of nuclear
weapons. We believe that this will be possible in the case of
the creation of a system of international enrichment centered
into a single network, and of course, under strict control on
the part of the IAEA. 

It is equally important to pay a close attention to the
development of innovative technology in the creation of
new-generation reactors. The most productive way to go is to
carry out this work on the basis of broad international
cooperation. Such an approach will have a positive and
stabilizing effect on the progress of international political
and economic processes. 

We have also supported the United States proposal on the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership. The Russian initiative on the
creation of multilateral centers for the provision of nuclear
fuel cycle services and the idea of a global partnership in this
area complement each other very well, and we'll jointly work
toward integrating these two initiatives. In order to achieve
this we'll have to resolve problems that have to do with the
terms of trade in nuclear materials between Russia and the
United States. 

In addition to that, we have come up with a joint statement on
fighting acts of nuclear terrorism. It reaffirms the shared
desire of Russia and the United States to counter this dangerous
threat and opens new horizons for our joint efforts. Our
countries are demonstrating the commitment to taking the most
serious measures to counter the acquisition, transport, or use
of nuclear and radioactive materials by terrorists, as well as
improvised explosive devices based on such materials. It is
equally important to rule out any hostile actions against
nuclear facilities. We hope that this initiative will draw the
attention of other participants in the G8 and will deliver
concrete results. 

We have had a productive discussion of the entire range of
international issues. Those include Iran's nuclear program, the
situation in the Middle East, on the Korean Peninsula, and in
other regions of the world. 

We also discussed the settlement of persistent conflicts in
regions that are Russia's neighbors. Both sides have expressed
and reaffirmed their commitment to resolving all these problems
through peaceful political and diplomatic means. We intend to
step up our efforts in the spirit of solidarity to counter new
threats and challenges. A good example is our joint initiative
to hold in spring 2007 in Vienna a political conference on the
partnership of governments, civil society and business in
counterterrorism. 

On the whole, we hope that our joint proposals and agreements
will lay a good groundwork for a successful G8 summit. They will
set the right constructive tone for the proceedings of a
credible international forum. 

We have also discussed bilateral cooperation in the light of the
parallel instructions to the government agencies and departments
of the two countries to step up our interaction. We have
registered success in the achievement in all areas -- economy,
security, science and outer space, people-to-people contacts.
Some of the instructions have already been fulfilled; others are
still being carried out. New goals have been agreed upon that
will be addressed in the near future. Those include the peaceful
use of nuclear energy, fighting money laundering, fighting avian
influenza, and cultural cooperation. 

We have not limited ourselves to the discussion of the current
problems. Quite the contrary. We have tried to glance at the
Russian-U.S. relationship from the perspective of the future and
in the broad context of the development of the system of
international relations as a whole. 

I would like to thank our American partners for a friendly and
constructive atmosphere in which our meeting has taken place.
Thank you for your attention. 

BUSH: We did have a very good discussion today. It was started
-- actually, our discussion started last night over a really
good dinner. And I want to thank you and Mrs. Putina for being
such wonderful hosts. 

You've got to admit this is a fantastic setting. It's beautiful.
The cottages are very comfortable. I think that our fellow G8
leaders are going to really enjoy being here. 

Anyway, we had a good discussion this morning. One thing is
clear, is relations between America and Russia are good, and
they're important that they be good. We've got a lot to -- we've
got a lot to work on. We discussed North Korea and Iran. Those
are two difficult issues, made less difficult because Russia and
the United States are willing to work together to send clear
messages to both governments that their nuclear weapons
ambitions are not acceptable. 

We talked about the Middle East. I explained my position, which
I'm confident I'll be asked about here in a minute. The
President talked about his concerns. We share the same concerns.
We are concerned about the violence and we're troubled by the
loss of innocent life. President Putin, like me, wants there to
be peaceful dialogue. And so we had a good, frank discussion
about the issue. 

We talked about our bilateral relations. I think it's indicative
of the strength of our relationship that we're able to agree on
nonproliferation matters -- not only agree on it, we're taking
the lead on this issue. And I want to thank the President for
his leadership on this issue. 

We're talking about nuclear cooperation, and we're about to
begin dialogues about how we can cooperate better when it comes
to peaceful uses of nuclear power. We're talking about
counterterrorism. Nation states face the threat of terrorism,
and we want to work together to deal with this threat. 

I, of course -- we talked philosophy. One thing, what happens
when you get relaxed and are friendly with each other, you're
able to share philosophies and able to ask questions about
decision-making. And I appreciate very much our discussion last
night and this morning about why the President has made
decisions he's made, what decisions he intends to make, and the
decisions I made. We don't always agree with each other, but
nevertheless, it's important for leaders to be able to share
philosophy, whether it be the philosophy of government or the
philosophy of governing. 

And our relationship is good. And I want to thank the President
for his hospitality. I thank you for your good food, thank you
for the 60th birthday gift you gave me last night, and thanks
for the meeting this morning. 

PUTIN: Ladies and gentlemen, please ask your questions. There
will be three questions on each side. We'll start with the
Russian journalists. 

Q Thank you. Good afternoon. My question is to both leaders.
Question one is to President Bush. Russia, at the negotiations
with its international partners, has demonstrated openness and
transparency in its economy, but does not always receive an
adequate response. We can see this at the talks on the accession
of Russia to the WTO. Since 2001, the United States has been
supportive of Russia's accession to the WTO, but why are you the
key impediment for the completion of this process? I'm sure that
you discussed this issue at the negotiations. 

And my question to Mr. Putin: Given such difficulties, can we
afford to give up a proactive position with respect to the
accession to the WTO? Thank you. 

BUSH: We're tough negotiators. But -- and the reason why is
because we want the agreement that we reach to be accepted by
our United States Congress. In other words, when we negotiate an
agreement, it has to be approved -- any trade agreement has to
be approved. But I believe we're fair negotiators, and our
negotiators come to the table trying to achieve the objective
that I've sent out, that we want Russian accession into WTO.
That's what we want. And we will continue negotiating. 

Evidently, there was a false report in the press that said a
deal was reached. Well, it's almost reached. In other words, we
-- a lot of the areas, we found accommodation in a lot of the
areas. But there's more work to be done. And we discussed this
today and I assured the president that we'll continue to
negotiate. And he assured me that we'll continue to negotiate in
good faith to try to reach an agreement that has been difficult
to achieve. I understand that. 

But you've just got to understand the intention to achieve an
agreement is there. 

PUTIN: I and my guest, my friend, the president of the United
States, George W. Bush, are often asked the question, does our
present relationship help in progressing -- in addressing this
question in resolving various international issues? I know that
he believes so, that this informal personal relationship is
helping us in our work. I have to tell you that at the same
time, it does not hamper us in standing up for our national
interests in this or that area. 

The WTO accession talks are very concrete, calculable in their
nature, which can be expressed in terms of millions of dollars
or rubles. This is a complicated process that has lasted for
quite a while, for quite a few years. This difficulty is not a
surprise to us. We will continue to work further, pursuing our
interest, the interest of our developing economy. 

Q The violence in the Middle East is escalating despite calls
for restraint. What can you, President Bush and President Putin,
do to stop the violence, stop the fighting, given that there is
divisions among allies here about whether Israel is using
excessive force? 

BUSH: I think you'll find all parties here want the violence to
stop. In my judgment, the best way to stop the violence is to
understand why the violence occurred in the first place. And
that's because Hezbollah has been launching rocket attacks out
of Lebanon into Israel, and because Hezbollah captured two
Israeli soldiers. That's why we have violence. 

And the best way to stop the violence is for Hezbollah to lay
down its arms, and to stop attacking. And, therefore, I call
upon Syria to exert influence over Hezbollah. 

Now, here's my concern -- is that we were making good progress
toward a two-state solution in the Middle East. The Israeli
Prime Minister came to Washington and talked to me about his
desire for there to be a democracy living side-by-side with
another democracy, said this was part of his strategic vision
for Israel and for peace. 

And he was working toward that end. As you know, he made efforts
to reach out to President Abbas, who we support. He made efforts
to reach out to countries in the neighborhood to help achieve
this vision. And as the vision was progressing, certain elements
-- certain terrorist elements began to act to stop the advance
of democracy. The militant wing of Hamas made decisions to
attack and to capture. Hezbollah has made decisions to stop the
advance of a two-state solution. 

The solution, short-term solution is for Hezbollah to stop the
attacks. The longer-term solution is for nations around the
world and nations in the neighborhood to support those who
support the advance of democracy. 

PUTIN: I agree with the premise that it is absolutely
unacceptable to try and reach this or that goal, including
political goals, through the use of force, through abductions,
through carrying out strikes against an independent state from
the territory of another state. This is all true. And in this
context we consider Israel's concerns to be justified. 

At the same time, we work under the assumption that the use of
force should be balanced. And, in any case, bloodshed should
stop as soon as possible. This should be the point of departure
for the efforts to create an enabling environment for the
resolution of the entire se every necessary effort on both
sides, and I hope that our G8 colleagues will support us. We
will find common ground on this front in order to bring the
situation, as soon as possible, to a position where concrete
results could be achieved, not only in terms of the cessation of
combat, but also in terms of building an enabling environment
for the development of Israel within secure borders, in the
context of security, as well as in terms of the building of the
independent Palestine state. 

Q Mr. President, let me address my question to both of you.
There has been a lot of concerns about proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. And having discussed this issue, could you
share the results of your talks? And also, if you could let me,
we all can see that you enjoy good personal relationships, but
do you notice any deterioration of ties on a state level between
the two countries? Thank you. 

BUSH: What was the first part of the question? 

Q Have you discussed proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and missile delivery, and what are the results of
your talks? 

BUSH: We sure have. We talked about our concerns about Iran
developing a nuclear weapon, or Iran having the capacity to make
a nuclear weapon, and we talked about North Korea. And the
results of our talks are that we agree that we've got to work
together to send a common message to both that there is a better
way forward for these leaders. 

And so we're working with Russia and our partners to develop
Security Council resolutions that will send a clear message. One
thing is for certain, that if the Iranians see that the United
States and Russia are working together on this issue, they'll
understand the seriousness of our intent. 

And so we spent time talking about the issue, sure did. We
understand that a grave threat that faces countries like America
and Russia would be -- is the ability of a terrorist
organization to end up with a weapon of mass destruction. Both
nations have had to deal with terrorism; both nations know what
it's like to see people blown up. Russia suffered through one of
the most horrible terrorist incidents in modern mankind, which
is Beslan, where terrorists are willing to kill young children
to achieve political objectives. And the president and I
understand that when you make that kind of attitude with a
weapon of mass destruction you could be talking about greater
catastrophe. And so we spent a lot of time talking about it. 

I think relations between the United States and Russia are very
good. There's a lot of skeptics on both sides of the equation as
to whether or not the relationship is good. We've got people in
Russia questioning U.S. motives, people in America questioning
Russian motives. But that's what happens when you have -- when
you're big nations that have got influence, where you've got
leaders willing to make tough decisions. And I would
characterize, from my perspective, that our relationship is
strong and necessary. That's the point I want to make to you --
that a strong relationship will make the world a better place,
in my judgment, because we'll be better able to confront the
current problems that face us all. 

PUTIN: I have already mentioned that we will not participate in
any crusades, in any holy alliances. This is true. I reaffirm
our position in this matter. But our common goal is to make the
world a more secure place, and certainly we'll be working with
all our partners, including the United States, in order to
address this problem. It is for this reason that we are joining
our efforts with other G8 countries. 

And I have to say that this is not some kind of plot against a
particular country, where a certain problem emerges, be it
missile or nuclear proliferation. We are seeking not only for
the possibility of controlling this or that process; we are
seeking opportunities for ensuring their legal access to nuclear
technology. It is to this end that we have adopted our joint
initiative on the creation of international centers for uranium
enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. These are not
unilateral actions aimed at trying to block somebody's access to
something. This is a search for solutions that could ensure
development in the world, at the same time would make the
development secure in terms of nuclear nonproliferation and
missile nonproliferation. 

We're satisfied with the level of exchanges at the working
level, which we have achieved in terms of bilateral cooperation.
At the summit's end, in the context of the U.N. Security
Council, we will continue our work tonight and tomorrow in the
course of our discussion with our partners who are arriving in
St. Petersburg. 

Q Mr. President, we know that you talked about Iran and North
Korea. Let me ask you if you moved forward at all on these
issues? Did you ask Russia to take specific steps, for example
with Iran to agree to U.N. sanctions? Did you discuss what you
could move on in North Korea to move it forward? 

And, President Putin, is Russia now willing, if necessary, to
vote for sanctions in the United Nations to stop Iran's nuclear
preparations? 

BUSH: We strategized on both issues. But this isn't the first
time that we've talked together to -- on how to solve problems.
You might remember that Russia proposed a very interesting way
forward for Iran. It was the Putin government that said to the
Iranians, if you want a civilian nuclear power program, we will
support you in that; however, we will provide the fuel and we'll
collect the spent fuel. I thought it was a very innovative
approach to solving the problem. I strongly supported the
initiatives. 

So, Bill, to answer your question, this isn't the first time
that we have strategized on how to solve this problem. And, yes,
we talked about the U.N. Security Council resolution. And, no,
I'm not going to tell you the particulars about the
conversation. I will tell you, however, that there is common
agreement that we need to get something done at the U.N. And I'm
confident we will be able to do that. And there's agreement that
we need to get something done on North Korea at the United
Nations. 

Here's the thing, though, just so that everybody understands:
Diplomacy is not two countries just saying, this is the way it
is. Diplomacy is two countries agreeing to work together with
other countries, in this case, to come up with common language
that we can live with that sends the same message, and that is,
no nuclear weapons programs. 

Our goal and objective is to have a nuclear-free -- nuclear
weapons-free Korean Peninsula. Russia shares that objective.
China shares the objective, Japan shares the objective, and
South Korea shares the objective. So we've got common ground to
move forward, and now we're working on language. And it was a
very constructive meeting. 

PUTIN: You know, I have spoken on this account many times. I can
repeat, it is not in Russia's national interest to see a
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear
weapons, especially in such an explosive region as the Middle
East. 

This is something that we tell our Iranian partners directly. We
have always told them about it. There is nothing novel or new
about our position in this respect. But we work on the
assumption that we have to find efficient ways of ensuring
security around the world. We need to take efficient diplomatic
steps that would not disrupt the gentle fabric of the
negotiations in the search for mutually acceptable decisions.
And we're satisfied with the status of the U.S.-Russia
relationship in this area. 

Q I apologize, but I would like to follow up on the question of
my U.S. colleague. Could you speak at greater detail? You have
discussed the Iranian nuclear issue in terms of what has
happened before and what may happen in the future. There is now
the situation with the Iranian nuclear issue. How do you see it
as of now? And most importantly, what are we to expect in the
future? 

BUSH: - progress, because Russia and the United States agree
that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. In other words, the
Iranians need to understand that we're speaking with one voice
that they shouldn't have a weapon, and that's progress. 

You see, my judgment is they're testing the resolve of the
parties to determine whether or not we really are resolved to
work together to prevent them from having a weapon. And the
clearer they hear a message, the better off - or the closer
we'll be to them recognizing there's a better way forward. See,
we've made our choice, and that's progress. We've agreed to work
together to achieve a common goal. That's considerable progress. 

And now the choice is theirs to make. I have said the United
States will change our posture on this issue if the Iranian
government does what they've already said they would do, which
is to verifiably suspend their enrichment program. At which
point, if they do so, we will come to the negotiating table. We
will sit side-by-side. 

Right now, we're negotiating together to send a common message.
We will come to the table. It's their choice to make, however.
There is a better way forward for the Iranian people than to be
isolated because of their government's actions. And so I would
say that we've made good progress on the issue. 

PUTIN: I can see that members of the Russian and U.S. press have
colluded and are tormenting us with the same kind of questions.
(Laughter.) 

BUSH: An old colluder, but a colluder. 

Q (Inaudible). 

BUSH: That's right. (Laughter.) 

PUTIN: I would like to add to what has been said by George, that
Russia has agreed to participate in the six-way format for the
discussion of the Iranian issue. We assume that in the course of
the elaboration of the position of the six countries, the
opinion of Russia will be taken into account, and we can see
that our partners are acting along these lines, precisely. 

What does this imply for us? This implies that if we elaborate
common approaches to this difficult problem, we will see to it
that our joint decisions are fulfilled. This is what we said
honestly and directly to our Iranian partners. I said it at the
meeting with the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran in
China quite recently. 

True, it is extremely important to adhere to an approach within
which the countries that are involved in the negotiations would
be able to elaborate a shared approach to the resolution of the
problem, but the approach has to be balanced and has to take
into account the interests of the Iranian people in their desire
to develop state-of-the-art, high-tech industries, including
nuclear ones. This has to be done under the obligatory
requirement that non-proliferation is ensured and the overall
security situation around the world is improved. 

Q President Bush, you said that you planned to raise, in a
respectful way, your concerns about Russian democracy with
President Putin. How did that conversation go? And I know you've
already talked a lot about the U.S.-Russian relationship, but
I'm wondering if both of you could elaborate on that, and how
the differences of opinion over the democracy are affecting the
relationship. 

BUSH: I thought the discussion was a good discussion. It's not
the first time that Vladimir and I discussed our governing
philosophies. I have shared with him my desires for our country,
and he shared with me his desires for his. And I talked about my
desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world
like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I
told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that
Russia would do the same thing. 

I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian-style
democracy. I don't expect Russia to look like the United States.
As Vladimir pointedly reminded me last night, we have a
different history, different traditions. And I will let him
describe to you his way forward, but he shared with me some very
interesting thoughts that I think would surprise some of our
citizens. 

Now that I've lured you into the deal here, you know - like, for
example, how do you promote land reform. So we discussed land
reform. You know, one of the interesting decisions a government
has to make, particularly this government would have to make, is
how do you encourage private ownership of land further than that
which has already happened. 

Anyway, he shared some thoughts with me. Sorry to put - lay the
trap out there for you - but it was a good discussion. He's a
strong man. Look, he's willing to listen, but he also explains
to me, he doesn't want anybody telling him how to run his
government. He was elected. And so it was a cordial
relationship. But he can speak for himself. 

PUTIN: We certainly would not want to have the same kind of
democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly.
But it is true that we have discussed this issue at length, on
the initiative of the president of the United States, and on my
own initiative, as well. It is true that we assume that nobody
knows better than us how we can strengthen our own nation. But
we know for sure that we cannot strengthen our nation without
developing democratic institutions, and this is the path that we
will certainly take. But certainly, we will do this by
ourselves. 

At the same time, as far as the forum and context in which we
discussed this last night and earlier today, we believe that
this is not only acceptable to us to have such discussions with
our partners, but I personally believe that this is quite
useful, as well, because when we do this in a non-biased manner,
in a friendly manner, in an objective manner, when we recognize
that the existence of problems in this part of the world, when
we recognize that problems with democracy are universal in their
nature - these are not specifically Russian problems, the
problems of building democracy are universal - and when we
honestly and openly discuss this, as was the case last night, as
was the case earlier today, this will always be useful. 

Thank you for your attention. Have a nice day. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 30 RIA Novosti: Update: Bush, Putin discuss nuclear disputes ahead of G8 summit
 
15/ 07/ 2006                                  

STRELNA, July 15 (RIA Novosti) - Iran and North Korea's
controversial nuclear programs were among the key issues
addressed at talks between the presidents of Russia and the
United States near St. Petersburg ahead of the Group of Eight
summit Saturday. 

President Vladimir Putin said at a joint news conference after
the meeting that both countries advocated a peaceful solution to
the long-running disputes over Iran and North Korea. 

"Both sides confirmed their resolve to find solutions to those
complex issues by peaceful, diplomatic means," Putin said. 

The Islamic Republic has been accused by many countries of
seeking to produce nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian
energy program, but has denied the accusation, insisting that it
only wants nuclear technology for power production. 

North Korea, on the contrary, declared itself a nuclear power in
February, but the world community has no conclusive evidence to
confirm that the North has built nuclear weapons. The six-nation
talks with the communist state have been deadlocked since
September. 

The country provoked international alarm last Tuesday by
carrying out a series of ballistic missile tests in the Pacific.
The tests broke the country's moratorium on missile tests. 

George W. Bush said at the news conference that he and President
Putin had agreed that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, and
added the U.S. would soften its position if Iran proved it had
rejected its nuclear program. 

Iran has been under pressure to halt uranium enrichment, a
necessary step for building nuclear weapons, but has so far
failed to respond to a package of incentives to fold its nuclear
program proposed by a group of international mediators, forcing
the Iran-6 countries to refer the Islamic Republic's "nuclear
file" to the UN. 

The U.S. has been the most outspoken opponent of Iran's alleged
nuclear ambitions, consistently demanding sanctions, and
refusing to rule out the use of force. 

Bush said both the U.S. and Russia believed the Iran problem
should be resolved via the UN Security Council, which has
authority to impose economic sanctions and other less stringent
punitive measures. 

Bush said Moscow's proposal to set up a uranium enrichment
center in Russia to supply Iranian nuclear power plants with
fuel and deliver spent fuel back to Russia was a good option for
the Islamic Republic if it sought to develop its civilian
nuclear energy sector. 

The presidents adopted a statement on safe development of
nuclear energy and agreed to set up international uranium
enrichment centers in a bid to give all countries access to
nuclear power while deterring the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. 

Putin also said at the news conference that Russia was pleased
with the joint efforts on Iran. 

"Today, we are satisfied with the way cooperation between Russia
and the United States on this issue is proceeding," he said. 

On North Korea, Putin and Bush adopted a joint statement urging
the North to resume nuclear talks and voicing concerns over the
Communist state's missile tests. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 31 RIA Novosti: No global hydrocarbon crisis - Putin
 
16/ 07/ 2006                                  

STRELNA, July 16 (RIA Novosti) - There is no global crisis in
fossil fuels, and their rising cost is due to the absence of
infrastructure at deposits, President Putin said Sunday. 

"There are sufficient hydrocarbon reserves in the world, and the
only issue is that their cost is rising," Putin told the Junior
8 Youth Forum, comprising students from G8 member countries, on
the sidelines of the G8 summit near St. Petersburg. 

Putin also said modern methods of extracting hydrocarbons needed
to be improved. 

In response to the J8's UK representative, who said the group
had come to the conclusion that nuclear energy was an
environmentally friendly and reliable source of energy, Putin
said: "It is pleasant to hear that your discussion has come to
this conclusion." 

Putin said modern technologies had allowed this energy source to
be safe. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 32 WorldNetDaily: To nuke or not to nuke

 [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] 
 
Posted: July 15, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com 

President Bush will soon ask Congress to "not veto" a
U.S.-Russia "civil" nuclear deal – "not veto" because Russia is
a "have-nuke" signatory to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons. Hence, the U.S.-Russia deal – unlike the
U.S.-India deal – will not require modification of the Atomic
Energy Act or repeal of other laws. 

Nevertheless, the U.S.-Russia NPT-friendly deal – unlike the
U.S.-India NPT-busting deal – could face significant opposition
in Congress. 

Why? 


For the same reason many members of Congress had a cow when
North Korea unsuccessfully test-fired a missile the Koreans
claim is intended for launching satellites – but is capable of
reaching Hawaii, according to the Cheney Cabal. Those same
lawmakers didn't even seem to notice when India, a few days
later, also unsuccessfully test-fired two missiles, one of which
the Indians claimed was intended for launching satellites – but
is capable of reaching Beijing, according to the Cheney Cabal. 

that Bush concluded the civil deal – which the worldwide nuclear
power industry wanted – in return for some kind of promise by
Putin to "pressure" the Iranians into giving up "any aspirations
for nuclear weapons." 

Now, if that's all Bush got in return for virtually insuring the
success of Russia's plutonium-uranium mixed-oxide [MOX] fuel
cycle, he's been had. Because, as everyone knows, the Iranians
have sworn on a stack of Quran's that Islamic law prohibits
their having "any aspirations for nuclear weapons" to give up. 

But back to MOX. 

The avowed purpose of the U.S.-IAEA-Russia Trilateral Initiative
– launched by Russian Minatom Minister Mikhailov, IAEA
Director-General Blix and Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary in
1996 – was "to fulfill the commitments" made by Presidents
Clinton and Yeltsin concerning IAEA verification of the
disposition of weapon-origin fissile materials and to
"complement their commitments regarding the transparency and
irreversibility of nuclear arms reductions." 

Under the Trilateral Initiative, we and the Russians were each –
under IAEA supervision – to dispose of 34 metric tons of
plutonium, obtained from the dismantlement of thousands of
nukes. 

In a separate agreement, Clinton agreed to help Russia
financially and technically dispose of their 34 metric tons of
plutonium as plutonium-uranium mixed-oxide nuclear power plant
fuel. 

Now, in the operation of a plain-vanilla nuclear power plant,
the reactor is loaded with uranium with the U-235 "enriched" to
about 5 percent and the U-238 reduced to about 95 percent. After
a fuel-element has been in the reactor about five years, it is
replaced. About a third of the U-235 is unburned, but in
addition there has been "bred" from the U-238 an almost equal
amount of "burnable" plutonium. Hence, as fuel, the "spent" fuel
element is worth about two-thirds its original value. 

In Russia and in Europe – but not in America – that spent fuel
is reprocessed, the uranium and plutonium chemically recovered
and new fuel produced, with enough burnable plutonium added to
the uranium to get it back up to 5 percent U-235 equivalent. 

A large fraction of the operating nuclear power plants in the
world are American built or fueled and are, hence, prohibited by
U.S. law from participating in the Russian MOX fuel cycle. 

Five years ago, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici
called for the secretary of energy to develop a "National Spent
Nuclear Fuel Strategy." 

Domenici said that Congress urgently needed that strategy to
determine "whether the spent fuel should be treated as waste,
subject to permanent burial" (at Yucca Mountain) or whether it
"should be considered to be an energy resource that is needed to
meet future energy requirements." 

Five years later, it appears that strategy has been developed
and it involves our treating "spent" fuel as an asset, not a
liability. 

Hence, it appears the principal provision of the U.S.-Russia
"civil" nuclear deal will be to allow owners and operators of
all U.S. built or fueled nuclear power plants to participate in
the Russian MOX fuel cycle program. 

Now, it may be that Bush has realized that a solution to the
current Iranian uranium-enrichment "crisis" would be for the
Russian nuclear power plants at Bushehr to be fueled from the
get-go with MOX fuel. 

With Iran cooking with MOX, the need or even desirability of
their having a uranium-enrichment capability would be obviated. 

However, this U.S.-Iran confrontation has never been about
Iranian nuke ambitions. 

What have the Iranians been seeking ever since Bush launched his
war of aggression against Iraq? 

A promise not to be nuked. 

Unfortunately, as long as the mullahs are in power, Bush is not
going to take the nuke option off the table.
 
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. 

All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.                  
*****************************************************************
 33 Independent: CND membership booms after nuclear U-turn 

By Ian Herbert 

Published: 17 July 2006 

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has signalled its
resurgence by agreeing a 50 per cent increase in its staffing
levels and campaigning budget as it fights the Government's
plans to replace Trident and allow a new generation of nuclear
power stations. 

CND's membership fell from a peak of 110,000 in 1983, when the
Cold War made nuclear weapons a burning issue, to 32,000 last
year. But since Tony Blair's announcement in May that nuclear
power was "back on the agenda with a vengeance", the
organisation has had a 300 per cent rise in new members. 

At its two-day national council meeting in north London at the
weekend, CND, which employs fewer than 100 people, agreed to
launch an imminent recruitment campaign and to take advice on
promoting awareness of Labour's proposals. "There will be a
major expansion in all our activities, and new ways of working,"
said Kate Hudson, the organisation's chair. "We are ratcheting
up our work several gears. With Trident replacement, in
particular, we have a very tight timescale." A decision is due
on Trident by the end of the year. 

The rebirth of CND, which was launched in 1958, and is best
known for its Aldermaston marches, will see the reappearance of
one of the most iconic logos of the Seventies - the cheery sun
symbol bearing the words: "Nuclear Power? No Thanks." CND has
just taken possession of a consignment of badges featuring the
logo, which in the CND heyday was translated into 47 languages
and stamped on badges sold by the million. A British ethical
trading company, Fairganic, has been granted a licence to print
T-shirts using the logo. "Everybody, either intelligently or
emotionally, remembers that," said Ms Hudson. "We want to use it
in much that we do." 

In the Seventies, Labour Party members wore the badge, and in
the autumn of 1983 CND claimed an attendance of 400,000
(detractors said 100,000) at a rally. But after the fall of the
Iron Curtain it became harder to imagine nuclear Armageddon and
membership fell. The long-standing peace camp at the Faslane
naval base in Scotland, where Trident submarines dock, now
comprises just half a dozen protesters. A blockade is planned
from October. 

But the Government proposals apppear to have turned the tide for
CND, with 200 people joining in the first week of July. "We've
not experienced an explosion like this for a long time," said Ms
Hudson. "We have been opening envelopes with Ł1,000
contributions and the local groups who have been out with our No
Trident Replacement petition are reporting an extraordinary
reception." 

CND is aware that harnessing mass support requires more
sophistication than it did in the Cold War and it will take
advice on how to reach the biggest possible audience before the
Trident decision is made. Gordon Brown's support for Trident
triggered an unpredented number of hits on the CND website. 

Group history 

* 1952 UK atomic bomb test 

* 1958 CND founded 

* 1958 Gerald Holtom designs CND peace symbol based on
international semaphore symbols for N and D. March on
Aldermaston 

* 1960 Bertrand Russell forms a more militant group 

* 1979 James Callaghan accepts US Pershing II missiles, three
years after Soviet Union deploys SS-20 missiles 

* 1981 Greenham Common peace camp starts 

* 1982 Faslane peace camp * 1983 Margaret Thatcher re- elected;
biggest CND demo 

* 1985 Membership 110,000 

* 1989 Berlin Wall falls
 
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 34 UPI: Moscow: Pakistani sought nuke technology
     
   United Press International - NewsTrack - 

7/16/2006 12:22:00 PM -0400

MOSCOW, July 16 (UPI) -- An agent of Pakistan tried to get
missiles and nuclear technology for its weapons program from
Russia using subterfuge, a Russian report said Sunday. 

The official report said Moscow banned the Pakistani, Mohammad
Aslam, from Russian territory after learning he had "tried to
gain access and seek Russian weapons, strategic materials and
dual-use products for Pakistan's missile and nuclear weapons
program," the Press Trust of India said. 

The report, issued on the eve of the G8 summit, said Russian
authorities foiled 30 attempts by foreign nationals and
companies to illegally get access to Russian missiles and
technologies for weapons of mass destruction. 

One of those attempts, the report said, was made by an Iranian
industrial company that tried to place an order for missile
components but disguised the order as "components for
gas-pumping turbine," the news agency reported.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 35 SABCnews.com: Koeberg generating energy at full capacity

South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © 2000 - 2005 SABC                                                        

July 15, 2006, 10:00
 				
No load shedding has been necessary in the Western Cape since 
June 22 because Unit One at the Koeberg nuclear power station is 
generating 900 megawatts of energy at full capacity. 

Jacob Maroga, Eskom's managing director for transmission, says no 
major risks are evident at the unit. He says maintenance of Unit 
Two at Koeberg is proceeding according to schedule.
 
Maroga says the process of starting up and recommissioning the 
various systems at Unit Two has already begun and he is confident 
that the full operational capacity will be reached by the last 
week of this month. 

He again appealed to consumers to use power sparingly. 				




*****************************************************************
 36 London Times: British Energy sale powers ahead - 

The Sunday Times                         July 16, 2006                        

Tracey Boles
                                                
THE government is in the final stages of preparing to sell a big 
tranche of British Energy, the country’s largest producer of 
nuclear power, in a move that could raise up to Ł3 billion. 

The government controls 65% of the Ł9 billion quoted company, 
which generates a fifth of Britain’s electricity. Five months ago 
Gordon Brown said he was considering selling part of the stake 
after the energy review. 

Ministers are now poised to sell up to half the government’s
stake in an institutional placing. They are yet to decide the
size of the offer, but it is likely to be worth Ł2 billion to Ł3
billion. The details will be known by this autumn. 

British Energy, under chief executive Bill Coley, is well placed
to play a pivotal role in the building and operation of the UK’s
new nuclear power stations because it has the existing reactor
sites. These are favoured as the locations for the next
generation of plants. 

Last week, the government gave the green light to nuclear new
build when its energy review concluded that nuclear power had to
be part of Britain’s energy mix. 

Companies with their eyes on potential contracts to build the
new stations, such as France’s EDF and Germany’s Eon, are
believed to want British Energy at the heart of their
consortiums. British Energy was privatised in 1996, but ran into
trouble in 2002 when electricity prices slumped. It had to be
bailed out by the government with a Ł5 billion refinancing
package. 

The group relisted in January last year and its finances have
since recovered in step with power prices. Most of the company’s
eight nuclear power stations will have reached the end of their
life by 2023 and will gradually be phased out of service. They
include Sizewell B in Suffolk, Dungeness B in Kent, and Hinkley
Point in Somerset. 

The firm also owns Eggborough coal fired power station in
Yorkshire. 

The government’s interest in British Energy is managed by the
Department of Trade and Industry and the Shareholder Executive. 

British Energy is only one of a number of energy assets that the
government is selling or considering selling. It has already put
BNG, the nuclear clean-up arm of BNFL, up for sale and has sold
Westinghouse, the reactor maker, to Toshiba. 

Separately, the government is looking at turning Nexia, the
nuclear consultancy and services arm of BNFL, into a national
nuclear laboratory that will support both new build and the
clean-up of the UK’s nuclear legacy. 

A decision will be made later this year on the 730-strong
consultancy, which starts a recruitment drive this week.   	 		

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 37 London Times: Get to grips with energy now - 

The Sunday Times                         July 16, 2006                        

Richard Lambert, head of the CBI, says business will have to 
change its ways or the lights will go out
   		 		
IT’s a moment of great risk, and of enormous opportunity. 
Decisions taken in the next couple of years about the supply of 
energy will help to determine the quality of life in Britain for 
generations to come. 

The risk arises on two fronts. Britain’s good fortune has been 
that most of its energy needs have been met from domestic 
sources, but this is about to change. Oil and gas from the North 
Sea are starting to run down, and many of our coal and nuclear 
power stations are approaching the end of their lives. 

Unless policies are changed, most of the gap left by coal and 
nuclear will be filled by gas-fired stations that will be 
increasingly reliant on imports from some of the more unstable 
parts of the world. And even that might not do the trick. That is 
why the current G8 talks on energy security and the efforts of 
the energy multinationals in assessing gas and oil supplies 
matter. If nothing is done, shortages in electricity generation 
capacity will start to appear from 2015. 

The second risk comes from the need to cut carbon emissions. 
Unless we take climate change seriously, we will fail in our 
treaty obligations to the rest of the world and in our responsi- 
bilities to future generations. But if we get the balance wrong — 
by putting too much of the burden on business — there will be 
serious consequences for jobs and investment. 

Over the next two decades, Britain’s electricity generation
capacity will be substantially rebuilt. New investment
equivalent to about one third of today’s generation capacity
will be required to keep the lights on. This is a one-off oppor-
tunity to build efficient, low-carbon energy supplies. 

And most important of all, the public mood is changing —
rapidly. Two weeks into my job at the CBI, it is clear that
questions about energy sustainability have risen to the top of
the business agenda. Like the rest of us, business people are
increasingly anxious about the price and security of their
energy supplies. Like the rest of us, they are more and more
concerned about the threats of climate change. 

A large retail group tells me that its customer surveys show a
sharp increase in concern about environmental issues. A
housebuilder spells out the benefits of energy efficiency: a new
home requires only a quarter of the energy needed for heating
the average house. A big chemicals business talks about how its
operations could be damaged by a shortage of gas next winter. 

All this explains why the Energy Review published by the
government last week could be one of the most important
documents of Tony Blair’s premiership. It aims to shape the
public debate about energy security and climate change, and so
pave the way for major political decisions. 

From a business perspective, the policy proposals are broadly on
the right lines. The review focuses on a market-based system for
energy supplies, and sets out a large number of policy
adjustments aimed at removing barriers to investment and
increasing energy efficiency. It sets out a bold strategy for
securing a fifth of our electricity from renewable sources by
2020. And it makes the case for rebuilding low-carbon nuclear
capacity, which also accounts for a fifth of our supplies. 

If fully implemented, the measures could cut carbon-dioxide
emissions by as much as a fifth between now and 2020. The
heaviest burden will fall on business, but the review makes it
clear that the whole of society is going to have to change its
ways. Individuals account for nearly half of Britain’s
carbon-dioxide emissions, and they need incentives to get their
usage down — such as tariffs that offer cheaper rates at certain
times of day and more encouragement to park the gas guzzlers and
insulate the loft. 

The biggest question of all is about political will. This
government is strong on vision, but less good on delivery. The
Conservative opposition sometimes seems driven as much by
opportunism as by principle, and the Liberal Democrats are on
the wrong side of the nuclear debate. Some kind of consensus
will be required to make long-term decisions about the country’s
energy supplies. 

But the public mood is changing. Politicians who fail to
recognise this will pay a heavy price. 

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 38 London Times: Focus: Atomic chicken - 

The Sunday Times - Scotland   

July 16, 2006                        

The first minister’s cowardice over nuclear power could lose him 
votes and damage Scotland’s relationship with Westminster, write 
Jason Allardyce and Kathleen Nutt
   		 		
Tony Blair chose a tour of an offshore wind farm in Kent last 
Tuesday to deliver his much-vaunted announcement on Britain’s 
energy strategy. The prime minister retains a keen eye for public 
relations detail and where better to signal his approval for a 
new generation of nuclear power stations than against the 
backdrop of a large wind turbine — the symbol of clean, safe, 
renewable energy? 

Jack McConnell’s eye for detail is less honed, but if he had 
spotted the name of the boat on which Blair was touring — Celtic 
Storm — he may well have taken it as an omen of troubled waters 
ahead. 

Blair’s pro-nuclear stance presents a singular difficulty for
the Scottish first minister. Without overstating its importance,
the nuclear issue could be a defining one at next year’s
Scottish election and one that could see the Labour party lose
its grip on power for the first time since devolution. 

Until now, McConnell has refused to declare his hand on nuclear,
claiming he will not countenance the siting of any new power
stations on Scottish soil until the question of the safe
disposal of existing nuclear waste is resolved. 

Despite the suspicion that he is instinctively anti-nuclear — an
admission that would set him on an unwanted face-off with the
prime minister — he has walked a tightrope, attempting to
simultaneously placate environmentalists, his Liberal Democrat
coalition partners, Labour colleagues, the nuclear industry and
the trade unions. 

Now a power struggle is in the offing with pressure building on
McConnell from all sides. If he continues to oppose nuclear, he
risks a dogfight with Westminster and senior members of his
party. If he caves in to Blair, he will fly in the face of
Scottish public opinion — an ICM poll for the BBC in February
found that 51% of Scots were against building new nuclear power
stations north of the border compared with 33% in favour. 

More significantly, it would hand a big election boost to the
Scottish National party and the Lib Dems, who are already in
pole position to form the next governing coalition at Holyrood. 

Britain currently has 12 nuclear power plants delivering 11.9
gigawatts of electricity and accounting for 20% of the country’s
electricity generation. But by 2010, four of the country’s
plants will be closed and the remainder are scheduled to be
decommissioned between 2011 and 2035. 

If they are not replaced, the remaining stations will provide
just 6% of Britain’s electricity by 2020. Without nuclear power,
Britain would be dependent on natural gas for 55% of its energy
needs by 2020, compared with 38% at present. 

With North Sea stocks running out, it would mean being dependent
on imported gas for 90% of the country’s energy needs — much of
it from unstable regions in eastern Europe and the Middle East. 

Blair believes nuclear power is attractive because it would help
make Britain self- reliant. 
It would also help the government to meet its long-term climate
change target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by
2050. 

Crucially it is also more economic. With the introduction of new
European Union carbon charges, which will make electricity
produced from gas and oil more expensive, nuclear power will be
a considerably cheaper option. 

The problem for those opposed to nuclear power remains safety —
an issue that has gained greater resonance following the
airborne terrorist attacks on America of September 11, 2001. 

It is believed the fourth plane used in the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, United Airlines flight 93 — which crashed into a field
in Pennsylvania after passengers wrestled with the terrorists —
may in fact have been heading towards a nuclear power station. 

Outlining the government’s energy review last week Alistair
Darling, the trade and industry secretary, said “safety and
security” would be paramount in the siting of new nuclear
plants.   	 		

Scotland is already leading the way in the renewable energy 
sector, but the disadvantage of onshore and offshore wind farms, 
compared with nuclear power, is that they cannot be relied upon 
to guarantee a stable source of energy.

Unlike nuclear they are dependent on weather conditions. Other 
forms of renewables, such as wave, tidal and offshore wind 
projects, are still in their infancy.

Possible sites across England and Wales for nuclear power plants 
are to be investigated next year with the first ones being 
operational as early as 2013.

If Scotland were to give the go-ahead for a new plant, its most 
likely location would be on the site of one of two existing 
stations at Torness, in East Lothian, or Hunterston B, in 
Ayrshire.

All eyes are now on McConnell for the first hint of whether this 
is ever likely to happen. The first minister does not have the 
power to oppose, wholesale, the building of new nuclear power 
stations - that is an issue reserved for Westminster. However, he 
does have the power to block individual installations on planning 
grounds.

Even close colleagues are said to be unsure if he has a 
principled objection to nuclear or whether he is playing a 
cynical game of political nimbyism to keep voters onside.

Speaking in the Scottish parliament on the issue last May, he was 
enigmatic.
"On the one hand we have to deal with the nuclear waste issue, 
which those who advocate more nuclear power stations in Scotland 
need to address; on the other, given that more than one-third of 
the electricity generated in Scotland comes from nuclear, those 
who say there is no case at all for nuclear power in Scotland 
have to say how we should fill that gap," he said.

One parliamentary colleague offered the most telling hint, 
claiming McConnell was "trying to face all ways at once but is 
instinctively slightly more anti-nuclear than pro".

The first minister has traditionally worn his green credentials 
on his sleeve, listing membership of Friends of the Earth, the 
anti-nuclear environmental group, on the parliamentary register 
of interests. He has also stressed he wants to see a massive 
expansion in renewable energy. But the register also confirms he 
is a member of the pro-nuclear GMB union, which represents 
workers in the industry.

McConnell has given latitude to Labour MSPs with nuclear power 
stations in their constituencies, employing large numbers of 
local voters, to make the pro-nuclear case. They have been 
reassured by his aides that reports of his obsession with wind 
and tidal plans are exaggerated.

In May, Allan Wilson, McConnell's enterprise minister, went 
further, accusing opponents of new nuclear power stations in 
Scotland of taking a "head in the sand" approach that could cost 
the country thousands of jobs. But with a close election in 
prospect next year, allies say he has no choice but to adopt a 
"wait and see" approach.

The first minister knows he can't take another coalition deal 
with the Lib Dems for granted and with the SNP, which shares the 
Lib Dems' principled objection to new nuclear stations, showing 
signs of a resurgence, he could struggle to even form a minority 
administration next May.

If the numbers don't stack up, McConnell may also have to reach 
out to the Scottish Greens, who expect to hold pre-election talks 
shortly with John Elvidge, Scotland's top civil servant, to 
prepare for the possibility of a change of administration.

McConnell's position has not been made any easier by his party 
that earlier this year voted to endorse the construction of new 
nuclear power stations as part of a balanced energy policy.

The first minister says he does not regard the party's conference 
resolution as the final word, but well-placed Labour figures say 
he faces a huge internal fight if he tries to set aside their 
view in the election manifesto.

Which all points to an inevitable fudge. The latest thinking is 
that Scottish Labour's manifesto will suggest "keeping options 
open" while pursuing an expansion in renewable energy.

Labour would also support an extension to the life of the 
existing nuclear stations at Torness and Hunterston, which 
currently provide 37% of Scotland's energy, giving the renewable 
industry the time to plug an energy gap in conjunction with 
energy efficiency initiatives.

However, McConnell believes he may have an ace up his sleeve. He 
argues that the debate on whether new stations should be built in 
Scotland is largely artificial as power companies will want to 
base themselves closer to the largest groups of consumers, south 
of the border, because it costs more to transmit power there from 
Scotland.

"Nobody at the moment is queuing up to build a new nuclear power 
station in Scotland," said a source close to the first minister.

It is a theory that holds out the prospect of a neat feat of 
escapology for McConnell, but it could still go wrong.
Earlier this month it was revealed that cracks had appeared in 
the reactor core at Hunterston, prompting speculation that it 
might not, after all, be granted an extension to its present 
operating licence, which is due to end in 2011.

The Nuclear Industry Association has warned that uncertainty over 
the executive's policy could deter energy companies from 
investing north of the border, potentially compromising millions 
of pounds of investment.

Two other problems remain: McConnell's mantra that no new nuclear 
plants will be allowed until the waste issue is resolved could be 
tested as early as this month when the Committee on Radioactive 
Waste Management, the government's independent expert group, sets 
out how best the waste should be stored. Critics say McConnell is 
also deluding himself if he thinks declaring Scotland a 
nuclear-free zone will not lead to a war with Westminster.

David Cameron, leader of the Conservative party, has signalled he 
will use the issue to exploit resentment against Scottish 
politicians voting on English-only issues.

Kenneth Clarke, the former chancellor who is heading up a policy 
review on the issue for Cameron, said Scottish MPs should be 
banned from voting on nuclear power stations for England if 
McConnell tries to block them in Scotland or risk an English 
backlash."

It's the sort of thing that provokes the public to get disturbed 
about the West Lothian Question; if you see Scottish votes being 
used to get something through in England that only affects 
England, against English wishes."

A final sting in the tail comes from a Scottish Labour MP. 
Michael Connarty, the secretary of the all-party group on nuclear 
power, warned that McConnell's strategy could lead to higher 
prices for Scottish customers.

"Nuclear is the cheapest form of electricity. It costs just under 
3p per kilowatt compared with power coming from onshore wind 
farms at 5p per kilowatt and power coming from waves at just over 
22p per kilowatt.

"The energy Scotland produces will come from private companies 
that are selling it to Scottish households, and the difference in 
relative costs between nuclear and renewable is considerable."

Under that scenario the nuclear fallout would be felt from 
Penzance to John o'Groats.

HOW THE ENERGY OPTIONS STACK UP

NUCLEAR REACTORS: These produce virtually no greenhouse gases and 
are the cheapest way of generating electricity, costing less than 
3p per kilowatt. However, waste from the power plants remains 
radioactive for many centuries and there have been a number of 
accidents, including Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

WIND FARMS: Scotland's geographical location makes it ideal for 
wind energy and the turbines don't produce dangerous emissions. 
However, they are seen by many as a blight on the landscape and 
don't work when there is no wind. The electricity they generate 
costs more than 5p per kilowatt.

HYDRO-ELECTRICITY: Generating power from water costs about 10p 
per kilowatt. Hydro-electricricity is pollution free and safe, 
but building dams and turbines can cause tremendous disruption to 
the environment. Britain currently gets about 2% of its 
electricity from hydro schemes.

WAVE POWER: The stormy seas off Scotland are an ideal source of 
energy, but the methods of harnessing wave power are still in 
their infancy. It is also an expensive way of generating 
electricity, costing about 35p per kilowatt. 

COAL: This is relatively cheap to mine and to convert into energy 
in power stations, costing about 3p per kilowatt. However, the 
process creates atmospheric pollutants, including greenhouse 
gases. Two of Scotland's coal-burning power stations at 
Cockenzie, in East Lothian and Longannet, in Fife, are due to 
close in nine years.




Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 39 London Times: Amid the uncertainty, a powerful case for nuclear - 

The Sunday Times                         July 16, 2006   

A NEW FILM in America, EV Confidential: Who Killed the Electric
Car?, claims that there was a corporate conspiracy in the 1990s
to kill off General Motors’ EV1 electric car in favour of
traditional gas guzzlers. It is a claim that GM, needless to
say, vigorously denies. 

Conspiracy theorists, it seems to me, could have a field day in
another area. Three or four years ago the nuclear industry was
nowhere, widely regarded as expensive and dangerous. And most
alternative-energy sources were regarded as gimmicky and barely
relevant. 

Now things have changed beyond recognition, thanks to
geopolitical tensions that have pushed oil prices up to $78 a
barrel (another record last week), worries about energy
security, and the acceptance in the political mainstream of
global-warming predictions previously regarded as extreme. 

The Department of Trade and Industry’s energy review said:
“Under likely scenarios for gas and carbon prices, new nuclear
power stations would yield economic benefits in terms of carbon
reduction and security of supply.” Nuclear and alternative
energy are each intended to supply 20% of electricity generation
by 2020. 

If you were a conspiracy theorist you might wonder at the
miraculous change between the last energy white paper, in 2003,
which was lukewarm on nuclear, and last week. You might wonder
about circumstances that could not have been more beneficial to
integrated energy companies; high oil and gas prices now,
followed by lots of demand for alternatives and nuclear later. 

Leaving aside conspiracy theories, which are almost always
wrong, there is a fundamental question to be asked. If things
can change so dramatically in the past three years, what will
they look like in three, five or ten years? Will the case for
nuclear, or for wind farms, be stronger or weaker than it is
now? There are three arguments in favour of nuclear power
stations, and greater use of alternative energy. Easily the
weakest, though ministers tend to present it as the strongest,
is global warming. I say this at the risk of further alienating
Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, who last week accused
economic commentators of downplaying global-warming risks and
ignoring “compelling” scientific evidence. 

As I have written before, I don’t doubt global warming is
occurring but do dispute the extent this is man-made rather than
part of the earth’s natural cooling and warming cycle. 

I am also sceptical about whether greenhouse-gas emissions mean
the world will heat up by six degrees Centigrade over the next
100 years, ten times the warming over the past century. While
I’m at it, Rees should look at the contributions of his fellow
scientists. My mind boggled when I heard Professor James
Lovelock say on radio recently that the reason he favoured
nuclear over alternative energy was that he didn’t want a wind
farm in his backyard. 

The real point about British nuclear power and global warming,
however, is that we are too small to make a difference — we
account for 2% of global greenhouse emissions. Every little
helps, but it is a little. Britain intends to cut emissions, by
shifting the balance of energy supply and by greater energy
efficiency, but other countries will keep pumping them out. The
review envisages a 50% rise in global carbon emissions by 2030.
Britain’s efforts look like gesture politics or, as Tony Blair
puts it, so we can “give a lead internationally”. We may lead,
but there is no guarantee others will follow. 

So the nuclear case rests mainly on two things — the future cost
of energy and security of supply. The cost argument is both
simple and complex. The simple point is that if oil and gas
prices and “the carbon price” (used for the EU emissions trading
scheme) stay high, nuclear becomes viable. The complex point is
the cost of nuclear-waste disposal. 

Last week’s renewed Middle East tensions, a spooky echo of the
conditions that gave us the first oil crisis three decades ago,
made it hard to envisage lower oil prices — ever. A calmer
perspective was offered by the Paris-based International Energy
Agency in its first medium-term oil market report. Supply and
demand will become more balanced over the next couple of years,
it says, with the implication that prices should fall. But from
2011 onwards, oil demand will grow faster than supply. 

That probably means expensive energy. Whether oil drops to $40 a
barrel, as I still (perhaps heroically) expect, it is hard to
envisage another era of cheap oil. The energy review’s central
scenario is oil at $40 a barrel — in today’s prices — in 2010,
$45 in 2020. But it also has a high scenario, $67 and $72
respectively, and a low one, where the price falls to, and stays
at, $20. Leaving the latter aside, nuclear looks economically
viable on the others. 

A bigger point, which barely featured three years ago, is energy
security. Over the next 25 years, North Sea oil and gas
production, equivalent to 4.5m barrels a day as recently as
1999, will wither away, possibly to just 500,000 barrels a day. 

Without replacing existing nuclear stations, the proportion of
electricity generated from gas will rise from 37% now to 55% by
2020. By then we will be importing between 80% and 90% of our
gas, much of it from less-than-reliable Russia, this weekend’s
G8 host. We will also be importing most of our oil and, with 75%
of reserves located in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting
Countries and medium-term supply-demand prospects tight, the
ball will be firmly in its court. Whether lights stay on will
depend on supplies outside our control. 

So there is a strong case for energy diversification, into both
alternatives and nuclear. The government’s targets for
increasing alternative-energy supplies probably go as far as the
sector will bear. Its targets for nuclear, which so far amount
to merely replacing existing stations, do not go far enough.  

PS: What should we make of the Bank of England's dire warnings 
last week about the vulnerability of the financial system? It 
identified six areas of risk, including high levels of corporate 
debt, UK household indebtedness, global economic imbalances, 
unusually low risk premiums, the growing importance of large 
cross-border financial institutions and the dependence of British 
banks on infrastructure such as the clearing and payments 
systems.

Among the scenarios the Bank "stress-tested" in its Financial 
Stability Report were a 30% fall in the dollar, a recession in 
Britain with house prices falling by 25% and commercial property 
by 35%, a four-percentage-point rise in commercial bond spreads 
and a two-week shutdown in the Swift payments system. It then 
spoilt the effect by saying all these things were highly 
unlikely.

Why do they do it? The Bank's warnings reminded me of Chicken 
Licken telling everybody that the sky was about to fall in (the 
report also mentions avian flu). Or, more aptly, there was a 
touch of Yes Minister about it. When politicians complain they 
were not warned about something, canny civil servants always have 
a file to hand to show they were. Appropriately, Sir John Gieve, 
Bank deputy governor responsible for the report, used to be 
permanent secretary at the Home Office.

Having said that, there are some signs of strain. Shares in 
Kensington, which lends in the "sub-prime" mortgage market, fell 
last week when it revealed a rise in arrears and bad debts. It 
insists these were in line with expectations. But trouble has 
spread from such small beginnings before and unemployment is at a 
six-year high.

The Bank's monetary policy committee will, from the autumn, have 
two new members, British Airways' chief economist Andrew Sentance 
and Professor Tim Besley of the London School of Economics. They 
are joining at an interesting time. 
                                        
Times and The Sunday Times. 

*****************************************************************
 40 Free Press: More atomic bomb balm from the New York Times 

Independent News Media - Harvey Wasserman
 
Sun Jul 16 2006
  
 The New York Times Sunday Magazine has chimed in for the "bring
back nukes" crowd with an ill-conceived, poorly written screed
that completely ignores the reality that the world's power must
ultimately come from clean, safe renewable energy and increased
efficiency. 

Entitled "Atomic Balm," the lengthy Sunday magazine piece tries
to portray a nuke industry on its way back. But hidden
throughout the article are trap after trap that will doom atomic
power, and that show the Bush Administration's attempt to revive
it to be ever more futile and corrupt. 

To begin with, this very long article fails to mention that the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory has issued a draft report
showing that between 99% and 124% of the nation's electricity
can be supplied by renewable means by the year 2020. Since
nuclear power supplies only electricity, this simple fact makes
complete mincemeat of any pretext for bringing it back. If we
can get the juice cheaper, safer, cleaner and more quickly from
nature, why build sitting ducks for terrorists that have only 50
years of failure to show for a trillion dollars invested? 

The industry rap against renewables, repeated briefly in this
piece, is that they are too diffuse, expensive and futuristic to
deploy. But none of that is true. Today's wind turbines could
supply 100% of the nation's electricity from available wind just
in North Dakota, Kansas and Texas, and 300% from all the states
between the Mississippi and the Rockies. It is a sophisticated,
advanced industry worth $10 billion/year or more. It is growing
worldwide at 25-35% per year, with far more new installed
capacity than nukes. There are political and environmental
challenges to be faced with wind power. But they pale in the
face of nuclear waste, radioactive emissions and the likely
melt-downs from error and terror. 

Photovoltaic cells (PV), which convert sunlight directly to
electricity, are plummeting in price. Their deployment on homes
and buildings avoids transmission costs. While fossil/nuke
backers dismissively charge that PV needs huge desert areas to
supply our nation's needs, in fact the deployment of solar cells
on our building stock will happen, it will be hugely profitable
and it will fill an enormous chunk of our coming needs for
electric supply. 

Bio-fuels such as ethanol and diesel will also play a huge role.
In the future they will not come from annual food crops like
corn and soy, but rather from inedible perennials like
switchgrass, poplar trees, Jerusalem artichoke and hemp. 

Grounding the mix will be vastly increased efficiency, the
cheapest way to increase our available supply. The Times piece
gives short shift to the pioneering "negawatt" work of Amory
Lovins, who has shown that immense amounts of energy are being
wasted, and could be regained cheaply and cleanly with basic
efficiency measures. Like so much else in this piece, the
obvious green path to increased efficiency is presented in straw
man fashion and then dismissed. 

Conveniently overlooked is the vast failure of atomic power to
pay for itself, or to prove out an engineering regimen for the
future. The first commercial reactor went on line in
Shippingport, Pennsylvania in 1957. Now, a half-century later,
the industry is selling a totally new set of unproven designs,
essentially telling us that the trillion dollars invested in the
first set left us with a technology that can't cut it. 

The Times also makes the obligatory genuflection toward
increased security, ignoring the fact that no reactor can be
defended from the air, or from inside infiltrators who could
make a nuke the ultimate suicide bomb. In fact, nuclear power
plants are pre-deployed weapons of mass radioactive destruction
for terrorists, capable of doing us damage on an apocalyptic
scale. 

The article admits, but does not emphasize, that the entire push
for new nukes is a massive welfare program for rich Bush
backers. Without gargantuan government subsidies, there would be
no talk whatsoever of another generation of reactors. Without
federal liability limits on the obvious consequences of a major
melt-down, all the plants now in operation would shut today. 

The article also glosses over the immense problems with nuclear
waste, with regular radioactive emissions and with environmental
damage done with huge emissions of heat into the air and water.
While reactor operations themselves avoid large CO2 emissions,
they do spew out heat directly into the biosphere, avoiding the
middle man. They also create substantial greenhouse gases
throughout the course of construction and decommissioning. 

Overall the attempt to revive atomic energy is far more the
product of a corrupt, pay-to-play Bush cash machine than a real
need to get at our crisis in energy and the environment. All the
means of meeting our future energy needs are available in
technologies that are clean, green and don't double as
pre-deployed nuclear weapons for terrorists. 

This latest screed from the Times Magazine will be played out
again and again in major media that grovel for corporate
monsters with direct interests in reviving this failed, obsolete
technology. 

But nothing will change the reality that Solartopia is upon us.
In the real world, wind, solar, biofuels and increased
efficiency are decades ahead of atomic power, which will never
catch up. 

In the real world, even under optimum circumstances, new nuclear
plants cannot come on line for a decade. Even then it would be
only a few. By then, of course, Solartopia will be upon us, and
the renewable industry will be fully able to buy its own
advertising, even in the New York Times. Nor will there be
private financing for projects still totally dependent on
federal handouts and liability limits. 

But maybe by then even the New York Times and some of the other
major media will have figured out that if we are to survive
ecologically and economically, it will be with clean, safe,
efficient and abundant green power and efficiency. 

--
 Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D.
2030 is available at www.harveywasserman.com. 


['1240 Bryden Road Columbus, Ohio 43209 Ph/Fx 614.253.2571 Email
truth@freepress.org']                

The Columbus Free Press
*****************************************************************
 41 BBC: G8 supports 'open' energy markets
 
Last Updated: Sunday, 16 July 2006
 
[Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomes US President George W 
Bush to Sunday's G8 session]

Despite the smiles Russia has still not ratified the Energy 
Charter                                                  
		
Russia has taken a step towards opening its energy
sector to foreign investment at the G8 meeting in St Petersburg. 

The group agreed to "open, transparent" energy markets and to
nuclear energy as a power source for those who want it. 

Russia had faced calls from the EU and US for increased
international energy co-operation, amid fears Moscow may use
energy as a tool of foreign policy. 

However Russia, a major oil and gas producer, did not ratify the
Energy Charter, an international rulebook. 

'Responsible supplies' 

But the G8 leaders did express, in principle, their support for
the Energy Charter treaty, which calls for open access to energy
resources and transport infrastructure. 

The European Union has been pressing Russia, which supplies a
quarter of the continent's gas, to fully ratify the charter
which it has signed. 

G8 SUMMIT: 15-17 JULY            

The world's seve richest nations - the US, Japan, Germany, 
France, Britain, Italy and Canada have met annually since 1975 
Russia joined in 1998, turning the G7 into the G8 2006 summit to 
be held in St Petersburg - the first time Russia has hosted the 
G8 Energy security, infectious diseases and education are on 
Russia's agenda Mid-East crisis, Iran, North Korea, and 
international terrorism are also likely to be discussed Summit 
diary                                                                    
Soulmates no more 'Global fear' on energy plans                           

"Energy is essential to improving the quality of life and 
opportunities in developed and developing nations," the leaders' 
statement said. 

"Ensuring sufficient, reliable and environmentally responsible 
supplies of energy at prices reflecting market fundamentals is a 
challenge for our countries and for mankind as a whole," it 
added. 

The statement comes after months of rising oil prices - including 
a new spike following the Israeli action in Lebanon. 

Concerns were also raised this year when Russia's monopoly 
supplier, Gazprom, cut off gas supplies to Europe during a price 
dispute with Ukraine. 

A BBC World Service survey of 20,000 people in 19 nations in 
early July found that, on average, 45% trusted Russia as an 
energy supplier. 

Nuclear options 

It is against this background that the UK government recently 
announced the go-ahead for a new wave of UK nuclear power 
stations, as part of the mix of energy supply for the next 40 
years. 

"Those of us who have or are considering plans relating to the 
use and/or development of safe and secure nuclear energy believe 
its development will contribute to global energy security, while 
simultaneously reducing harmful air pollution and addressing the 
climate change challenge," the G8 said. 

Most G8 countries have been looking again at the development of 
nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, but Germany is 
not supportive and plans to phase out nuclear energy by the early 
2020s. 

And German officials have been keen to stress a phrase on the G8 
statement that says: "We are committed to further reduce the 
risks associated with the safe use of nuclear energy." 
*****************************************************************
 42 GLW: New book against nuclear power

Green Left Weekly

Alex Milne, Melbourne 

Helen Caldicott’s book Nuclear Power is not the Answer to Global
Warming or Anything Else was launched at Trades Hall on June 3.
Speaking with her were Hillel Freedman from Nuclear Free
Australia, former Nuclear Disarmament Party member Jacob Grech
and Friends of the Earth anti-nuclear campaigner Jim Green. 

Caldicott described the real goal of Howard government’s talk of
nuclear power stations in Australia as being to export as much
uranium as possible and import nuclear waste. “Just standing
next to a spent nuclear fuel rod is enough to cause deadly
cancers ... A millionth of a gram [of plutonium] inhaled is
enough to cause deadly cancers, and children are 10 to 20 times
more vulnerable to cancer from nuclear radiation”, she said. 

Freedman described the promotion of nuclear power to solve
global warming as a “bizarre perversion of environmentalism”.
The planned $5 billion extension of the Roxby Downs uranium mine
will result in an incredible 150 million litres of water being
consumed by the mine every day. 

Grech drew the links between the trade union and anti-uranium
movements, saying, “Nuclear power will be about as useful to the
environment as the IR ‘reforms’ are to the average worker”.
Sections 45D and E of the Trade Practices Act (introduced by the
Fraser Liberal government and not repealed by Labor) prohibit
unions from taking part in solidarity strikes and secondary
boycotts. These laws, rigorously enforced by the Howard
government, will make it much harder to stop the expansion of an
unpopular and deadly industry. 

Green reminded the gathering of the success of the campaign
against the Jabiluka uranium mine and the Kupa Piti Kunga Tjuta
campaign against a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. The
audience was told about protests planned for September 27 to
mark the 50th anniversary of the Maralinga tests and urged to
attend the Hiroshima Day rally on August 6. 

From Green Left Weekly, July 19, 2006. 

Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW   	 
*****************************************************************
 43 MaineToday.com: Could Maine Yankee become a regional nuclear waste site?

 A Bush plan proposes storage dumps across the U.S., and critics
fear it compromises the Yucca Mountain site. Should nuclear
power plants be allowed to store waste indefinitely? --> 
      
[Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram] Home " News "
                                 
  Sunday, July 16, 2006 

By BART JANSEN, Washington D.C. Correspondent

WASHINGTON — A Bush administration proposal to reprocess nuclear
waste and store it at sites across the country has sparked
concerns that the site of the dismantled Maine Yankee nuclear
power plant could become a regional magnet for radioactive
waste. The administration's proposal - called Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership - aims to reprocess waste so that less is
stored permanently at a proposed dump at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada. Legislation awaiting a Senate vote also envisions
temporary storage at sites across the country because Yucca
Mountain is years behind schedule to open. 

But critics, including House members who cut funding for the
proposal in their version of the spending bill, contend that
supporting the program would divert resources and support for
Yucca Mountain. 

The concern among Maine lawmakers, municipal officials and
advocacy groups is that Maine Yankee could become a magnet for
New England waste. The Wiscasset site already has 600 metric
tons of nuclear waste that the federal government was supposed
to cart away for federal storage in 1998. 

"I think it could lead to a situation where Maine might be stuck
holding the bag here," said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at
the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Lyman's advocacy group is part of a coalition effort that
includes Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Sierra
Club to urge Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to
oppose the program in a spending bill. 

Snowe and Collins, both Republicans, haven't said how they will
vote on the bill awaiting action in the Senate. But each opposed
storing nuclear waste at Maine Yankee for the 25 years that the
legislation allows. 

"Having led the charge to defeat the potential placement of a
second national nuclear repository in Maine in the 1980s, I will
unequivocally oppose any legislation that could open up the
state of Maine to either a nuclear fuel reprocessing site or an
interim storage facility," Snowe said. 

"I would vigorously oppose any effort to store outside waste in
Maine," Collins said. "I will also continue to push the federal
government to ensure that the waste that we have currently is
removed from Maine in a safe and secure manner." 

Congress has grappled for decades with how and where to store
waste from nuclear power plants that generate 20 percent of the
country's electricity. The federal government collects a tax for
waste storage and was supposed to open Yucca Mountain by 1998 -
a year after Maine Yankee's board agreed to close. 

About 55,000 metric tons of waste has accumulated nationwide,
with another 2,000 piling up each year. At Maine Yankee, nuclear
waste is sealed in 64 casks, which are concrete and steel silos
designed to last for decades. 

The federal government was supposed to create a permanent
repository for nuclear waste by 1998. But political opposition
and technical concerns have prevented the Energy Department from
even applying to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission yet to open
Yucca Mountain. 

President Bush proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership in his
State of the Union speech Jan. 31. The goal is to sift uranium
from spent fuel roads for use again to spur production of
nuclear power around the world. 

One problem, however, is that reprocessing also yields plutonium
that could be used in nuclear weapons. 

The Energy Department contends the program will render plutonium
unsuitable for weapons. Bush proposed spending $250 million this
year on research and development of such a program. 

But a skeptical House voted May 11 to cut $96 million. In an
accompanying report, the Appropriations Committee expressed
"serious reservations" about the program for lack of details
about how the program would work. "Unfortunately, it appears
that the department has decided to put . . . Yucca Mountain on
the back burner," the House report said. 

In contrast, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted June 29
to increase the project's $250 million by $36 million. 

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he was "impressed" with the
program because Yucca "is a long way off." He is chairman of
both the Energy Committee that sets policy and the
Appropriations subcommittee on energy that sets spending
priorities. 

"These provisions are the next logical step to managing our
spent nuclear fuel," Domenici said. "I hope we can finally
unclog this drain." 

Critics note that the Senate bill allows the energy secretary to
take title to closed plants such as Maine Yankee and take
responsibility for the storage of high-level nuclear waste until
it can be moved. Another provision calls on the energy secretary
to designate a consolidation site for waste within any state
with a reactor for 25 years. 

Governors could nominate an eligible site, but the federal
secretary would make the decision. 

"The state has no power to stop this," said Lyman of the Union
of Concerned Scientists. "Maine, in particular, might be seen as
a good candidate for this by proponents as a New England
regional facility." 

Maine officials vowed to oppose interim storage or reprocessing
at Maine Yankee. 

"I'm very concerned," said Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine. "It'll
adversely affect Yucca Mountain and that will mean that we'll
have nuclear waste in Maine for years, if not decades, longer." 

Wiscasset Town Manager Andrew Gilmore said the town has no
interest in increasing storage at Maine Yankee or hosting a
reprocessing center. The power plant once provided $12 million
in taxes to the town, but now pays only $1.2 million. The
community is focused on maritime economic development. 

"We would adamantly oppose it," Gilmore said. "Expanding the
storage facility in any way, shape or form we would view that as
very adverse." 

Scott Peterson, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an
industry group representing 275 power plants, said the federal
government wouldn't foist storage on a state that didn't support
it. He expected the federal government to deal with states that
sought reprocessing plants because they create economic growth
in communities and at universities. 

"I think those are coveted projects," he said. "If you look at
what the government does with other projects, I think they'll
look at federal facilities first, or at least partners that
would like to participate cooperatively in that kind of a
venture." 

Something needs to change, however, either in the creation of
waste or its disposal. 

The government faces 60 federal lawsuits, including one from
Maine Yankee, for failing to meet its obligations for permanent
waste storage by 1998. The government estimated it will spend $2
billion to $3 billion if Yucca opens in 2010, and an additional
$500 million each year after that. 

Meanwhile, since 1985, the federal government collected 0.1
cents per kilowatt hour from nuclear plants to pay for permanent
storage. But, after collecting $24 billion, the government has
spent only $7 billion - and Yucca Mountain still isn't open. 

"The nation's debt to these customers is long past due," Robert
Garvin, a Wisconsin Public Service commissioner representing the
National Association of Nuclear Regulatory Utility
Commissioners, told a House hearing March 10. 

Yucca Mountain is limited by law to accept 70,000 metric tons of
waste. Even though administration advocates say the site could
be expanded to accept 120,000 metric tons, industry advocates
contend reprocessing would slow the need for finding more
permanent storage locations. 

"Our objective is to expand the use of nuclear energy in the
United States, period," Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary of
energy, told a House hearing April 5 in support of the
reprocessing program. "And this is one thing we can do to remove
one of the perceived roadblocks." 

- Staff researcher Julia McCue contributed to this report. 

Washington Correspondent Bart Jansen can be contacted at
202-488-1119 or at: 

 Copyright © 2005, Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.   
*****************************************************************
 44 Independent: Ł2.4bn nuclear sale starts 
French firm may bid for stake in British Energy 

By Tim Webb 

Published: 16 July 2006 

The Government will launch the Ł2.4bn sale of part of its
majority stake in British Energy this week in a move that could
see foreign companies, such as French nuclear group EDF, buying
minority stakes in the rejuvenated nuclear generator. 

Government officials will hold a beauty parade of investment
banks to handle the sale, which is expected to take place in the
autumn. The National Audit Office criticised the Department of
Trade and Industry earlier this year, for not using a
competitive process to appoint advisers for the company's
restructuring four years ago. 

Credit Suisse, which advised the company then, is likely to bid
to handle the placement of the Government's stake on the stock
market. Citigroup and Rothschild, which already advise British
Energy, could also be involved. 

Ministers will issue a written statement this week, before
Parliament's summer recess starts on 25 July, outlining plans to
sell some of the Government's stake in the company. 

Whitehall sources said the sale was "imminent". In this year's
budget, the Chancellor signalled his intention to sell part of
British Energy after the publication of the energy review. 

The review, published last week, has paved the way for the
construction of a new generation of nuclear reactors. 

British Energy was rescued in 2002 by a Government-backed
restructuring. Under the terms of this deal, it has a claim to
65 per cent of the company's cashflow, which will be converted
into the same proportion of shares, now worth Ł7.2bn. Of this,
the Government is expected to sell a third. 

EDF, which sees itself as a nuclear "investor in waiting", is
thought to be interested. Under the terms of British Energy's
restructuring, no single investor can hold more than 15 per cent
of its shares without Government approval. After the partial
sale, the Government will retain most of the 30 per cent of the
company's voting rights that it has now. 

A British Energy spokesman said: "The Chancellor announced at
the Budget that he would dispose of some of its stake in British
Energy after the energy review. We view this as a positive move
as it shows confidence in British Energy's financial position." 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 45 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC returns to area for another relicensing meeting

By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff  

 Saturday, July 15 BRATTLEBORO -- The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission will be in town next week to publicly discuss Vermont
Yankee's relicensing process. 

NRC staff will meet with officials from Entergy, the company
that owns the plant, on Thursday from 3 to 5 p.m. at the Quality
Inn on Putney Road. 

After the meeting, which is open to the public, staff will take
questions. 

They'll be discussing an audit of plant safety associated with
Vermont Yankee's license renewal process. In January, Entergy
applied to extend its operating license by 20 years. 

The plant's license is set to expire on March 21, 2012. As part
of the application process, nuclear plants are expected to
review components, systems and structures to ensure they can
last through the license extension. 

NRC Spokesman Neil Sheehan said the commission goes over that
review early in the extension process to see whether the plant
looked at the proper areas. 

"We want to take a look at it to make sure it contains the right
items," he said, adding that the audit won't be released to the
public until Thursday. 

Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said plant staff
spent more than two years preparing the application. "We've put
a lot of energy and staff hours into it," he said. "Our plant is
in excellent condition for license renewal." 

New England Newspapers, Inc.
» (802) 254-2311
» 62 Black Mountain Road
» Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242 	   	 	

*****************************************************************
 46 Daily Press: NRC gives green light to revised cooling plan for third reactor

Hampton Roads, Virginia - July 16, 2006 11:41 PM

By the Associated Press

MINERAL, Va. --
Federal regulators concluded that a revised change in the cooling 
system for a possible third nuclear reactor at North Anna Power 
Station should have no significant impact on the environment. 

Dominion Virginia Power originally proposed cooling the proposed
third unit by using millions of gallons of water daily from Lake
Anna. The water goes from an intake point, through the plant, to
cooling lagoons. Eventually the water makes it back into the
main lake. 

That process is used to cool the two existing reactors at the
Louisa County plant. 

While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded there were
potential problems with that plan, it decided the overall
environmental impacts would be small. 

Dominion, however, revised its plan after lake residents and
environmental groups raised concerns about lower lake levels
affecting recreation and higher lake temperatures harming
aquatic life. 

The latest NRC review addresses Dominion's plan to cool Unit 3
with that so-called closed-cycle system. A combination of wet
and dry cooling towers would be used instead, greatly reducing
the amount of water that would have to be sucked from the lake. 

The environmental impact statement concludes that the impacts on
land use, air quality, hydrology and ecology would be small
during construction. 

As for wildlife, the report says that no important land species
would be affected, any adverse impacts would be temporary and
that there are no federally listed endangered or threatened
species on the property. 

On the operations side, the effect would be small, except during
times of drought, the report says. 

"During critical low-water years, the impacts would be
temporarily moderate" on lake levels, the NRC says in its
report, released this month. 

A public meeting to discuss the document will be held Aug. 15
from 7-10 p.m. at Louisa County Middle School. 

Built in 1971 to cool the plant's reactors, the 13,000-acre lake
has become home to thousands of people in Spotsylvania, Louisa
and Orange counties, and a destination for boaters and
fishermen. 

In September 2003, Dominion applied for an early site permit to
build up to two more reactors at North Anna. That application
has been wending its way through the regulatory process and the
NRC is expected to make a decision on it sometime next year. 

The permit would allow Dominion to resolve environmental, safety
and emergency-response issues prior to applying for permission
to actually build and operate any new reactors. If that permit
is approved, the company would then have to apply for a combined
construction and operating license. 

Dominion officials say they have not decided whether to build
any new reactors at North Anna, but that they want that option
should it be needed for future power generation.

Daily Press
*****************************************************************
 47 ITAR-TASS: Russia to fully replace N-plants by new ones by year 2030,
Sergei Kiriyenko said

15.07.2006, 20.19

 STRELNA, near St Petersburg, July 15 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will
fully replace all of its currently operational nuclear power
plants by new ones by the year 2030, Sergei Kiriyenko, the
director of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency told a news
conference here Saturday. 

"We'll not be building more than two power units a year, but
we'll build a minimum of 42 units by 2030 and will replace all
of the generating facilities [in operation now]," Kiriyenko
said. 

He indicated that the new units to be built belong to the
so-called Three Plus generation having active and passive
protection systems. 

As an instance of a plant in that family, he singled out the
Tianwan nuclear facility that Russia is building in China. 
"Experts say it is the safest of all nuclear plants built
to-date," Kiriyenko said. 

He cited the data of the World Association of Nuclear Operators,
which rates the power plants along the criteria of unscheduled
outages per each 7,000 hours of operation. 

"At this moment, Russia has the 0.1 index and France, the 1.0
index, which means the number of emergency outages here is
smaller by a factor of ten than in France," Kiriyenko said. 

Compared with Russia, there are four times more incidents of the
kind in the U.S. and six times more incidents in Britain, he
indicated. 

"If you take the countries with a developed nuclear industry,
the index is better only in Finland," Kiriyenko said. 

He recalled, however, that most of the power units in operation
in Finland were designed in the former USSR. 

"Very good results are shown in the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Hungary and Armenia, where the nuclear plants have generating
units of Soviet design," Kiriyenko said. 

"That's why the claims that the Russian nuclear industy is
unsafe are either unprofessional or indecent, and let's be frank
about that," he said. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 48 Newsday.com: Nine Mile Point to lose about 150 jobs - 

AP New York
 
July 15, 2006, 11:02 AM EDT

OSWEGO, N.Y. --          Officials at the Nine Mile Point nuclear 
station say about 150 jobs will be lost by the end of the year as 
owner Constellation Energy tries to make the two reactors more 
profitable. 

The cuts combine early retirements and layoffs and will reduce 
the work force from about 1,100 to 938, union officials said. 
Nine Mile Point had 1,330 employees when Constellation acquired 
it in 2001. 

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 97 
recently protested to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that 
the job cuts would sacrifice the plants' safe operation. 

But many concerns were resolved during contract negotiations
that ended June 23, said David Falletta, president of Local 97.
The company also scaled back plans to use outside contractors. 

"We're not happy, but we're going to have to try this," Falletta
said. 

Station spokesman Maria Hudson said Constellation is committed
to safety. 

Richard Laufer of the NRC's Division of Operator Reactor
Licensing said the commission does not set minimum staffing
levels for nuclear plants except for certain job functions, such
as control room operators and security officers. 

Staffing at U.S. nuclear plants has shrunk by an average of 20
percent over the past decade, according to industry surveys by
Goodnight Consulting of Vienna, Va. 

The industry consolidated from 45 nuclear operators in 1995 to
26 in 2005. 

Besides Nine Mile Point, Constellation owns two Calvert Cliffs
reactors in Maryland and the Ginna plant near Rochester. 


Information from: The Post-Standard, http://www.syracuse.com 

*****************************************************************
 49 Public Citizen: G8 Leaders Should Reject Dangerous and Costly 
Expansion of Nuclear Power and Reprocessing

Statement of Michele Boyd, Legislative Director of Public
Citizens Energy Program 

When the worlds major industrialized nations meet at the G8
Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, global energy security will be
high on their agenda. In their attempts to address growing
energy demand and the urgent problem of global climate change,
some G8 nations will encourage an expansion of nuclear power and
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. But this is a dangerous and
expensive approach that jeopardizes global energy security. 

Nuclear energy is not a timely or cost-effective way to reduce
our carbon emissions to address global climate change. Nuclear
reactors are extremely expensive and take many years to build.

They require massive government subsidies that will monopolize
funding that instead should be used to develop strategically
diverse energy solutions, such as efficiency measures and
renewable sources that would quickly reduce carbon emissions. 

And after more than 60 years of nuclear experience, no nation
has developed a viable, permanent solution for nuclear
waste. The Bush administration is eager to push its proposed
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership at the summit, a dangerous and
costly plan to reprocess this waste. Experience shows that
reprocessing cannot solve the nuclear waste problem  in fact,
it creates more of it. Reprocessing, the dirtiest part of the
fuel cycle, has resulted in the most radioactively contaminated
places on the planet. Vital water resources around the world
continue to be threatened by reprocessing waste. Reprocessing
would also create a global security crisis by separating
plutonium and making it more vulnerable to theft and nuclear
weapons proliferation. 

Nuclear power will threaten  not enhance  the worlds energy
security. Radioactive releases from accidents or attack would
have a devastating effect on enormous numbers of people and
environmental resources. More reactors will only increase these
safety and security threats. 

We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. Renewable
energy technologies  such as wind, solar, advanced hydropower,
and geothermal energy  can meet world electricity demands in
the coming decades and enhance global energy security. G8 member
nations must reject nuclear power and instead focus on
vigorously funding energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy
sources. 

### 

Public Citizen
*****************************************************************
 50 Newsday.com: NY to get nuclear detector devices - 

July 15, 2006

WASHINGTON - The Department of Homeland Security announced Friday 
that New York would be the beneficiary of two pilot programs 
designed to guard against a nuclear terror strike.

 The $1.1 billion Advanced Spectroscopic Portal program funds the 
purchase of equipment that can scan cargo for radiological 
material. Homeland Security officials said New York ports and a 
nuclear test site in Nevada will be the first two locales to 
receive these new machines.

Also, federal officials said New York also will be the nation's 
first city to have radiological detection devices deployed 
throughout its boundaries. The devices are designed to detect a 
dirty bomb.

 House Homeland Security chairman Peter King (R-Seaford) said the 
announcement was a win for New York, particularly coming after 
last week's increase in rail security funds.

 The new plans are "a clear recognition that New York is the No.
1 terror threat in the country," said King, who had been a vocal
critic of the department's decision in May to cut anti-terror
funds to New York by 40 percent. "It's a recognition by the
department that what they did was wrong." - J. Jioni Palmer 	 

*****************************************************************
 51 Las Vegas SUN: Layoffs planned at Nevada's proposed nuclear waste dump 

July 15, 2006 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - As many as 500 workers at the proposed nuclear
waste dump at Yucca Mountain will receive notices next week that
they might be laid off at the end of September. 

Officials said Friday that the layoffs were part of an ongoing
reorganization at the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Notices are being prepared for about a fourth of the work force
employed by managing contractor Bechtel SAIC and for its
commercial and federal laboratory subcontractors, Bechtel
spokesman Jason Bohne said. 

Many of the employees affected are scientists, engineers,
computer modelers and technical workers. Some of the workers are
expected to be retained by Bechtel as it repositions its work
plans, Bohne said. 

Others are expected to be offered jobs by the Sandia National
Laboratories, which is taking over portions of the Yucca project
from Bechtel. 

Bohne and Sandia representative Kate Rivera said they did not
know how many workers might be offered new jobs and how many
might face layoffs in the fall. 

The Energy Department announced the reorganization in January,
saying it expected the transition to be complete by October. 

Under the reorganization Sandia will assume control of science
and technical components, including projections of how long the
underground repository might prevent residue of highly
radioactive and decaying nuclear waste from escaping into the
environment. 

Sandia performed a similar role in coordinating the Waste
Isolation Pilot Project in Carlsbad, N.M., a repository that
began receiving transuranic nuclear waste for disposal in 1999. 

DOE managers said the reorganization was designed to improve the
project's credibility with scientists and regulators. 

The department wanted to open the dump in 2010, but allegations
that government scientists skirted quality control requirements
and a federal court's invalidation of the government's proposed
radiation safety standards have pushed back the opening date. 

--- 

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 52 Deseret News: Justices to hear nuclear waste case
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, July 15, 2006                                  

Associated Press
                                              
A lawsuit challenging state approval of EnergySolutions expansion 
of its radioactive- and hazardous-waste landfill has been passed 
up to the Utah Supreme Court.

       The challenge had been before the state Court of Appeals,
but it said Wednesday that it would hand the case up to the
higher court, without completing its own assessment.

       It is not known whether the Supreme Court requested the
case or he Appeals Court decided on its own to send it up.

       The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah — HEAL — filed
the lawsuit after the state Radiation Control Board approved
nearly doubling the size of the landfill.

       The facility operated by the company formerly called
Envirocare of Utah disposes of low-level radioactive and
hazardous waste from more than 30 states.

       Radiation Control Director Dane Finerfrock approved the
request last summer, and the radiation board agreed in January
that he had the authority to do so.

       HEAL believes state law does not allow the radiation
director alone to amend the company's license in such
significant ways.

       James Holtkamp, an attorney for EnergySolutions, said the
move to the Supreme Court would at least shorten the whole
process. 			  		 		   

	 	 		 	 	 		 	 	 
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 53 Guardian Unlimited: Cumbria keen for Sellafield to house new atomic plants
 
Terry Macalister

Monday July 17, 2006 The Guardian             

A petition of 10,000 signatures from the Cumbrian area has been 
presented to Tony Blair calling on the government to base a new 
generation of atomic plants on the controversial Sellafield site.

The demand comes in the wake of the government's energy review, 
which laid the groundwork for more nuclear stations to replace 
existing plants that are being phased out due to old age.

But there was also disappointing news for supporters of atomic 
power with the Finnish energy firm TVO saying its new Olkiluoto 3 
plant was now one year behind schedule and the builder - Areva of 
France - reporting a "sharp fall" in first-half operating 
results.

The UK petition was organised by trade unions representing 
Sellafield workers and Peter Kane, a spokesman for the GMB union 
at the facility, told the West Cumbrian Times and Star newspaper 
that Mr Blair had been "encouraging".

Mr Kane said Sellafield had several advantages over other
potential sites: "The local community would accept it, there's
room to build it and the nuclear expertise is here already."

Local politicians such as the MP for Workington, Tony
Cunningham, also told the paper that Sellafield, where the first
plant, Calderhall, was constructed, was an ideal site for a
new-generation power station. "There's been a nuclear power
station at Sellafield for the last 50 years and I see no reason
why there should not be one in future," he said.

But the move is likely to face opposition from environmentalists
and the Irish government, which has campaigned for Sellafield to
be closed down.

British Nuclear Group, which operates Sellafield, is currently
waiting to hear what level of fine it will receive for an
accident at the Thorp fuel reprocessing facility there. Much of
Sellafield, including Calderhall, is being decommissioned by
BNG, which is itself about to be privatised.

Areva warned that operating profits for the first six months of
the year would be lower than the same period of 2005 and
full-year operating cash flow would be "highly negative". But
the group - mainly French state-owned and a likely candidate to
build any new stations in Britain - said it would be able to
maintain its overall annual profit targets because of successes
in other parts of the business.

Much is riding on the Finnish plant because it is the first one
to be built in Europe for many years. It was expected to be
operating in 2009 under the original timetable but TVO is now
aiming for the second quarter of 2010.
 
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 54 Fredericksburg.com: A nettle-some problem on Potomac
 
Free Lance-Star!]                    
			   			   		 		
Jellyfish force one Maryland power plant to to temporarily
reduce output, jam others. 

Date published: 7/15/2006 

By FRANK DELANO 

An overabundance of jellyfish in the Chesapeake Bay is causing
problems for power plants in Maryland. 

According to reports filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, jellyfish have clogged intake pumps three times this
month at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Calvert
County, Md. 

On July 7, an influx of jellyfish in a pump that circulates
cooling water forced the plant to reduce the power output of its
Unit 1 to 41 percent of capacity. The unit returned to 100
percent production after engineers cleared and restarted the
pump, the NRC report said. 

Masses of jellyfish also jammed water pumps July 6 and as
recently as Wednesday, but the plant's two units maintained 100
percent output, the reports said. 

Jellyfish are also causing headaches at Maryland's largest power
plant, the Chalk Point Generating Station on the Patuxent River
in Prince George's County, an environmental analyst said. 

Pat Langley said jellyfish have clogged large nets protecting
cooling-water intakes. A local waterman is now dumping jellyfish
from the outermost line of the nets twice a week, he said. 

"It's not a perfect system, but it seems to be doing a good
job," Langley said. 

Chalk Point is about 30 miles upstream from the mouth of the
Patuxent River. From there, Calvert Cliffs is about 10 miles up
the bay. 

There are indications that the annual infestation of jellyfish
in Chesapeake Bay waters is worse this year than in prior years. 

Langley said he could remember no other jelly-fish seasons where
barrier nets had to be cleared as often as this year. 

An online search of NRC event reports dating back to 1999
revealed no jellyfish problems at Calvert Cliffs prior to this
month. 

Jellyfish are also abundant in the lower Potomac River, but less
so in fresher waters upstream. 

That is good news for river swimmers at Colonial Beach, about 50
miles up from the mouth of the Potomac. 

"Aside from a couple of little ones, we've had no problems with
them. They usually don't show up here until around Aug. 1," said
Colonial Beach Mayor G.W. "Pete" Bone Jr. 

Across the Potomac in Charles County, Md., environmental analyst
Liz Spitzer said jellyfish have caused no problems at the
Morgantown Power Plant on the Maryland side of the U.S. 301
Bridge. 

Marine scientist David A. Nemazie of the Center for
Environmental Science of the University of Maryland, said
jellyfish are a "balloon species" whose populations can explode
under optimum conditions of salinity and water temperature. 

Ideal conditions for jellyfish often occur in summer in the
mid-Chesapeake Bay, including saltier portions of the Patuxent,
Potomac and Rappahannock rivers, Nemazie said. 

He said jellyfish populations seem to be increasing along with
increases of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous in the
waters where jellyfish are found. 

"Large, worldwide blooms of jellyfish are regular occurrences
now. They used to be rare before," Nemazie said. 

A Web site maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
maps the probability of jellyfish in the Chesapeake Bay. Its
address is http://coastwatch.noaa.gov/seanettles. 

Jellyfish are not the only marine species recently to beset the
Calvert Cliffs power plant. 

The plant reported Tuesday to the NRC that 150 to 200 cow-nosed
rays had died on trash racks protecting water intakes of both
units. 

"The apparent cause was low oxygen levels in the Bay water," the
report said. Power output was not disrupted by the death of the
stingrays. 

Staff reporter Rusty Dennen contributed to this story. 

To reach FRANK DELANO: + 804/333-3834 + Email: fpdelano@gmail.com


Neither jelly nor fish 

A jellyfish is not really a fish. Related to sea anemones and
corals, they have no fins or muscles and are at the mercy of the
wind and the tides. They use a weak, pulsating swimming action
for locomotion. 

During the summer, there are typically three types in bay
waters, researchers say: moon jellies, a relatively harmless
variety that can reach the size of a dinner plate; nonstinging
oval comb jellies; and the nettle, which can grow to 18 inches
across with tentacles several feet long. 

Nettles come in an array of hues and sizes and are the stinging
variety responsible for the painful close encounters with
bathers. 

The sting, painful but rarely serious, is caused by tiny barbs
on the tentacles that shoot out on contact with an object--such
as a swimmer's arm--and inject a poison. 
  
Date published: 7/15/2006 

Copyright 2006, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. of
Fredericksburg, Va. 	   
*****************************************************************
 55 RIA Novosti: First uranium enrichment center to open in Siberia - Kiriyenko
 
15/ 07/ 2006                                  

STRELNA (near St. Petersburg), July 15 (RIA Novosti) - The first
international uranium enrichment center will be established in
Angarsk in southeast Siberia's Irkutsk Region, Russia's nuclear
chief said Saturday. 

Sergei Kiriyenko said Russian and U.S. experts had already
started combining Russia's proposal to create a network of
international uranium enrichment centers, and a U.S. initiative
on global partnership in the nuclear sphere. 

"One of the elements of convergence [in the initiatives] is the
idea to create international centers. We will begin with an
international center for uranium enrichment," Kiriyenko said. 

He said the center would have to be put under the control of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, and that Russian legislation
would be amended accordingly. 

"Appropriate amendments to Russian legislation are being drafted
today," he said. 

Kiriyenko described the international uranium enrichment center
in Angarsk as "the first step to be taken by Russia in this
direction." 

However, he said it did not imply Russia had given up on its
idea to set up a joint venture for enriching Iranian uranium on
its soil, and that the Angarsk center would provide the Islamic
Republic with opportunities to develop its civilian nuclear
industry. 


© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 56 reviewjournal.com: Layoff notices set for Yucca staff
 
Jul. 15, 2006

Workers to be warned about reorganization of planned nuclear 
waste repository         

By STEVE TETREAULT <br/>REVIEW-JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- As many as 500 Yucca Mountain workers will receive 
warnings next week that they might be laid off at the end of 
September as part of an ongoing reorganization of the nuclear 
waste repository program, officials said Friday. 

Notices are being prepared for about a fourth of the work force 
of managing contractor Bechtel SAIC and for its commercial and 
federal laboratory subcontractors, Bechtel spokesman Jason Bohne 
said. 

Many of the employees affected are well-trained scientists, 
engineers, computer modelers and technical workers. Some of the 
workers are expected to be retained by Bechtel as it repositions 
its work plans, Bohne said. 

Others are expected to be offered jobs by the Sandia National
Laboratories, which is taking over portions of the Yucca project
from Bechtel. 

But others might not be retained. On Friday, Bohne and Sandia
representative Kate Rivera said they did not know how many
workers might be offered new jobs and how many might face
layoffs in the fall. 

"These are individuals with experience and qualifications on the
project," said Rivera, manager of organizational assurance and
operations for Sandia. "It's a wonderful opportunity for Sandia
to tap into that talent, and we are trying to facilitate the
transition as best as possible." 

The Energy Department announced the reorganization in January,
saying it expected the transition to be complete by October. 

Sandia has been involved in DOE activities at Yucca Mountain
since work began there in the early 1980s. Sandia's role is
expanding to assume control of science and technical components,
including projections of how long the underground repository
might prevent residue of highly radioactive and decaying nuclear
waste from escaping into the environment. 

Bechtel is refocusing on designing above-ground facilities where
nuclear waste will be transferred from trucks or rail cars and
managed for emplacement. 

DOE managers said the reorganization was designed to improve the
project's credibility with scientists and regulators. Sandia
performed a similar role in coordinating the Waste Isolation
Pilot Project in Carlsbad, N.M., a repository that began
receiving transuranic nuclear waste for disposal in 1999. 

A job fair where Yucca employees can meet with Sandia officials
and subcontractors has been scheduled for July 21 and July 22 at
the Desert Vista Community Center in Summerlin, Rivera said. 

Additionally, Sandia will establish a job recruitment Web site,
Rivera said. 

Bohne said 100 Bechtel employees and 400 subcontractor and
federal laboratory workers will receive Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (WARN) notices required by federal
law. 

Bechtel will "send notices to everyone who could be affected and
then there is a management process to identify what work scope
remains and what skills we need to do that scope, and then
evaluate the people we have and the skills we need to keep,"
Bohne said. 

The total contractor work force is about 1,900, Bohne said. That
includes 1,300 Bechtel employees, 300 subcontractor workers and
355 federal laboratory contractors. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 57 Canyon News: Radioactive Waste May be Buried in Brentwood

 Posted by Jenia Gorton on Jul 16, 2006, 22:25
     
BRENTWOOD - In recent weeks, park-goers and neighbors of 
Barrington Avenue Dog Park and the Brentwood School community 
have been talking about the possibility that radioactive waste 
lies buried tens of feet below the grass, dirt, and wood chips. 
  
The initial scare began in May, when Michael Collins published
his findings in City Beat that the Veterans Administration and
UCLA had used the lands “as a dumping ground for at least 13
different radioactive isotopes and poisons for 16 years during
the height of the Cold War, many of them in the bodies and
tissues of animal and human radiation experimentation subjects.”
  
  
Dog owners and their pets, families, and athletes of Brentwood
school all use this land, located on Barrington Ave. just south
of Sunset Blvd. 
  
Since Collins’s first article was published on May 18th, City
Beat has continued to update the story, publishing written
correspondences between Collins and Charles Dorman, Director of
Veteran’s Affairs at the VA, and community meetings have been
held to determine the safety of the park and its surrounding
areas. City officials are working with the community to figure
out what steps need to be taken to ensure public—and
canine—safety.  According to the publication, Councilman Bill
Rosendahl assured, “I share concern and am committed to
resolving, beyond any doubt, that all hazardous contamination in
West L.A. is identified, contained, and cleaned up.” 
  
However, nothing conclusive has yet come of Collins’s studies;
he firmly backs up his report as entirely truthful, but Dorman’s
letters have insisted the article includes “misinformation and
misrepresentation of the facts.” Dorman claims that “the
property has been evaluated extensively and environmental
experts have determined that the property is not a hazard to the
health of the community,” but Collins remains skeptical that the
waste generated at the VA and UCLA hospitals in the 1950s and
60s is safely deposited just below the surface.  
  
Regardless of the contradicting information about the dangers of
radiation, the park remains open and busy with families and
their pets. On the afternoon of Sunday, July 23rd, the dog park
will hold its 2nd annual “Bark-B-Q,” featuring food, live music,
and giveaways. 

*****************************************************************
 58 North Adams Transcript: Jeffords wants fuel rods tracked

TheTranscript.com  

  Saturday, July 15 WASHINGTON — Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt.,
wants to ensure that the state's nuclear power plant doesn't
lose any more radioactive fuel rods.

 Jeffords, the ranking minority member of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, introduced legislation this week that
would enhance oversight of spent fuel rods at the nation's 103
nuclear power plants.

 "This bill will be an important step towards improving security
related to one of the most hazardous materials made by humans —
spent nuclear fuel," Jeffords said in a press release.

 He added that his plan would reduce the possibility that
dangerous fuel rods, a potential weapon for terrorists, would
not end up "in the wrong hands."

 The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., U.S.
Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., introduced identical legislation in 
the House.

 The Yankee plant in Vernon lost track of two spent fuel rods
for three months in 2004. They were discovered in a container
located in the plant's spent fuel pool. The plant is owned by
Entergy Nuclear, which has corporate offices in Brattleboro.

 Jeffords' bill would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to establish strict plans for fuel storage, conduct annual
inspections at plants and increase the commission's reporting on
misplaced fuel rods.

 — Transcript Washington Bureau


New England Newspapers, Inc.
» (413) 663-3741
» 124 American Legion Drive
» North Adams, MA 01247
*****************************************************************
 59 Gilroy Dispatch: More Work Needed To Trace Plume
       
 Friday, July 14, 2006

By Tony Burchyns Staff Writer

Morgan Hill - The perchlorate plume swishing through South
County's water table has already taken years to locate and
characterize, but there's still more work to be done to uncover
all of its obscure movements at various depths and latitudes,
according to state water officials and Olin Corporation
engineers. 

In a June 29 letter of response to Olin Corp.'s March 2006
"characterization report," the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board agreed with Olin's engineering firm, that more
data is needed to trace the lateral extent of perchlorate in the
intermediate and deep aquifers to the south and to the west of
the Tennant Avenue road flare factory that is believed to be the
source of the contamination. 

Nevertheless, the water quality control board is not requiring
Olin Corp. to further update its recent perchlorate report
though water officials say several statements in the report
concerning the possibility of other sources of perchlorate are
made without any analytical data. 

In its response, the water board remains firm that Olin is the
responsible source of the perchlorate detections in ground water
impacted by the Olin site. 

Hector Hernandez, the regional water board engineer overseeing
the cleanup, said concerns will be addressed in future reports. 

The latest report preceded Olin's recent cleanup feasibility
study, which was submitted June 30. The document is more than
100 pages long, and defers until August any cleanup solution for
the area directly surrounding the former Tennant Avenue factory. 

[(408)842-9070]                               
     		
*****************************************************************
 60 News & Star: Sellafield operator joins world association

Published on 15/07/2006

By Andrea Thompson
 
BRITISH Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd has become the first 
operator of reprocessing facility to join the World Association 
of Nuclear Operators (WANO).
 
The organisation, which is dedicated to improving the rsafety and 
reliability of nuclear power plants, agreed to the company 
becoming full members after four years of cooperation
 
Barry Snelson, managing director of Management Services 
Sellafield, said: â€śWANOâ€™s process for sharing world-wide best 
practice is widely recognised for its positive contribution to 
the safety and reliability of reactor operations. 

â€śMembership of WANO is not just about taking from others, but 
also giving back. 

â€śIt is a unique forum for cooperation, set up purely to help 
members achieve the highest possible levels of operational safety 
by access to a wealth of operating experience from the worldwide 
nuclear community. 

â€śBy working with WANO we can build an unimpeachable safety
culture and an ethos of continual improvement.â€ť
 
WANO managing director, Lucas Mampaey, added: â€śThe public
doesnâ€™t make any distinction between a nuclear power plant and
a nuclear reprocessing plant and that is why we are happy to
have Sellafield on board. 

â€ś To use a metaphor, we are roped together like climbers. If
one is affected then we are all affected. On the other hand, if
we all work together then we can climb to ever higher levels of
nuclear safety.â€ť
 
AThompson@cngroup.co.uk
 
*****************************************************************
 61 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Time for bidders to put cards on the table for lab contract

Sunday, Jul 16, 2006 Posted on Fri, Jul. 14, 2006 

 By Betsy Mason 

The clock officially started for the Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory contract competition today when the Energy Department
issued its final call for bids. 

The contract is currently held by the University of California,
which has run the lab without competition since it began in
1952. The contract will expire Sept. 30, 2007. 

Bidders for the new contract have 90 days to get their proposals
in to the National Nuclear Security Administration, the DOE
branch that oversees the nuclear weapons complex. The NNSA plans
to announce the winner of the new seven-year contract by spring
2007. 

UC has not yet said whether it will pursue the new Livermore
contract, but it is widely expected to bid. 

"The University is currently reviewing, studying and looking
closely at the final request for proposals," said UC spokesman
Chris Harrington. "The board of regents will make the decision
at the appropriate time." 

The regents could vote on the matter as soon as Wednesday at
their regularly scheduled meeting, but will have to notify the
public by Monday if they plan to act. 

UC announced in March that it would partner with Bechtel
National Inc. for a joint bid for Livermore if UC regents vote
to enter the competition. In December the pair, along with two
other companies, won a new seven-year contract for management of
Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, beating out a bid
from Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas. 

Lockheed also hasn't said whether it will go after the Livermore
contract, but is considering the request for proposals. 

"It would still be premature to say what our intentions are, but
we will review it and give it full consideration," said company
spokesman Tom Greer. 

The NNSA issued a draft request for proposals in May and changes
were made based on comments from potential bidders, lab
employees and the public, according to a statement. 

Two major changes that were made extend the period for preparing
proposals from 60 to 90 days, and raise the management fee. The
maximum fee was raised from 3.5 percent to 3.75 percent of the
approximately $1.7 billion the NNSA gives the lab annually, or
$63.75 million. The minimum fee went from 2 percent to 3
percent. 

The bidders will recommend their own management fee within that
range. The contractor is guaranteed 30 percent of its fee, with
the rest paid out based on performance. 

The request is modeled after the Los Alamos request, with a few
changes to tailor it to Livermore. The NNSA will focus on the
bidders' approach to science and technology, aptitude for both
laboratory and business operations, past performance and the
proposed management team, including the director, according to
the statement. 

The DOE decided to put the contracts for Lawrence Livermore and
Los Alamos weapons labs, as well as Lawrence Berkeley lab up for
bid for the first time in 2003 following a string of security
and accounting blunders at the UC-run labs. UC won a new
five-year contract for the Berkeley lab without any partners in
April 2005. 

Betsy Mason covers science and the national laboratories. Reach
her at 925-847-2158

*****************************************************************
 62 SF New Mexican: LANL: Nuclear center’s construction draws concern       

Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:16 pm                                                                                                       

  Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., explains his position on taxes 
after the taping of "Face the Nation" at the CBS studios in 
Washington Sunday, July 25, 1999.       
        
  Phase A of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement 
project consists of the Radiation Laboratory Utility Office 
Building, an approximately 225,000 square foot structure that 
will house laboratory space, utility support, simulation 
laboratories and office space for 350. Construction is expected 
to be complete in 2009 at a proposed cost of $164 million.      

  Related Links
click here for all related LANL stories
Los Alamos National Laboratory
   
By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican             
                        
High price, plutonium raise red flags for some 

A debate over nuclear weapons and future work at Los Alamos
National Laboratory is playing out in Congress and here in New
Mexico. At issue are continued federal spending on a project
that could approach $1 billion and the radioactive waste
involved with producing plutonium pits, the triggers for nuclear
weapons. 

Some, like U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., want to complete the
new building at Los Alamos, where research would support pit
production. It also could maintain the labs position as a center
for governmentfunded nuclear chemistry. Others, including
leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives, question the need
to spend large sums on a building that later could be replaced
by a new facility elsewhere  possibly outside New Mexico. 

Meanwhile, a Santa Fe watchdog group argues the waste associated
with pits is bad for the environment, and the group doesnt want
to see more of it in Northern New Mexico. 

Domenici, who attended a ceremonial groundbreaking at the lab in 
January, is pushing for funds to finish a replacement for the 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility. 

Cost estimates for the project, located about 35 miles from 
downtown Santa Fe, range from $745 million to $975 million. 
Assuming Congress and the administration agree to pay for all of 
it, the project wouldnt be done until 2014. 

Currently, the weapons lab here has the countrys only facility 
that can produce pits and will for the foreseeable future, a 
Domenici spokesman said. The new building, however, is designed 
for research and not production of pits, lab spokesman Kevin 
Roark said. 

New Mexicos senior senator has included $112.4 million in this
years Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill for continued
work on the project. 

The committee firmly believes this facility will continue to
play a central role in the plutonium mission at Los Alamos and
is needed to support the research and mission of plutonium
activities, says a report by a subcommittee chaired by Domenici. 

Congress has discussed opening a separate facility by 2022,
called the Consolidated Plutonium Production Center, where
special nuclear material from the new building at Los Alamos
would be used. But no site has been chosen for that production
center. 

Domenicis committee is skeptical that the National Nuclear
Security Administration, which manages the nations
nuclear-weapons complex, will be able to find a place for that
facility, and pay for it, according to the report. 

A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee has recommended
halting the project at Los Alamos. 

A billion-dollar investment... at Los Alamos only makes sense if
the NNSA is prepared to site the Consolidated Nuclear Production
Center, or at a minimum the Consolidated Plutonium Production
Center, at the same location, reads a report from the House
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. 

In Santa Fe, alarm bells went off for Jay Coghlan of Nuclear
Watch New Mexico last week. 

Were slouching toward being the nations permanent plutonium
center in terms of pit production, he said. Its happening
incrementally. 

Coghlan also said in a news release that this is one more
downhill step in the descent of a once proud scientific
institution into increasingly becoming a production site for
nuclear weapons, the real weapons of mass destruction. 

Current pit production at Los Alamos, where the worlds first
atomic bomb was developed during World War IIs Manhattan
Project, could increase from 20 per year to as many as 50
certified pits per year, according to a draft 
environmental-impact statement recently released by the NNSA. 

The amount of transuranic nuclear waste generated at Los Alamos
could go to 510 cubic yards a year from 260 cubic yards a year,
according to the draft. 

Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or
alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.		 	   	 	 	 			
 		   			 		   	 		 						
 						   		 
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
 63 Tri-City Herald: Is Hanford campsite land of trash or treasure?
 
Published Sunday, July 16th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

Pieces of crockery, old soda bottles and tangles of wire litter
the ground near the site of the old Hanford Construction Camp. 

It's difficult to take a step in some places without hearing the
crunch of breaking glass underfoot. 

Look down and there's a triangle broken from a turquoise blue
plate, a white cup missing a handle, a squat blue bottle that
once may have held cold cream. Not far away are the leather sole
of a shoe and what looks like a beer bottle, amber brown with
the words "Roman del Collando" and "Habana, Cuba" in raised
letters on the bottom. 

During World War II, up to 50,000 people were recruited to
Hanford in the Washington desert to help build a secret project
that would change the world. 

When the first arrived, the world's entire production of
plutonium could form the head of a pin. But within two years the
scientists, engineers and construction crews had built a complex
of reactors and processing plants that produced the plutonium
for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. 

Their work played a critical role in ending World War II and
ushered in the Atomic Age. 

As the thousands of Manhattan Project workers came and left the
construction camp from 1943-46, the trash they created was
sorted for recyclables, then burned at a landfill near the
sprawling camp of hutments, barracks and cafeterias. 

What's left are burn pits filled with the detritus of the
workers' lives and marked by a generous scattering of items over
the ground. 

The question is: Is it trash or treasure? 

Its contents could be dug up as waste and disposed of in a
permanent landfill, with some representative items saved. Or the
burn pits could be treated as an archaeological site and the
contents studied. 

Experts disagree 

"This obviously is not a run of the mill dump," said Tom King, a
Maryland archaeologist known for the cultural resource
management textbooks he has written. "It's associated with a
very important set of people in American history." 

But the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, working
with the Department of Energy, has ruled that the burn pits are
not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. 

National archaeology groups and others are challenging that
ruling. 

Leaders of the Register of Professional Archaeologists and the
Society for Historical Archaeology are supporting an appeal of
the decision to the keeper of the National Register of Historic
Places. 

DOE and its contractor, Washington Closure Hanford, plan to dig
up four of the six burn pits as part of the environmental
cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation. Four of the pits are
contaminated with significant amounts of diesel gas or kerosene
that was used in repeated burnings of the pits. 

Supporters of listing the burn pits on the National Register of
Historic Places see them as an important time capsule of
information to be protected and studied as the pits are dug up. 

By studying the site and its items, historical archaeologists
would learn more about the daily life of workers during the
historic Manhattan Project and advance the field of historical
archaeology. 

"It is rare to discover such a large and varied assemblage of
archaeological materials with such a narrow time span for
deposition (1943-1946)," wrote Douglas Scott, president of the
Society for Historical Archaeology in a letter to the keeper.
"Artifact studies that may be performed may become a significant
contribution to 20th century archaeology in the United States." 

Washington Closure Hanford and DOE originally thought the burn
pits did not have to be identified or evaluated as historic
sites because solid waste burial grounds are exempt from
historical preservation under Hanford cleanup rules, said Tom
Marceau, a Washington Closure Hanford archaeologist. 

Among his concerns has been not disturbing Native American
artifacts in the same area that date back thousands of years
while the 1940s burn pits are dug up. Much of their contents are
to then be taken to a lined landfill in central Hanford for
disposal. 

Samples collected 

Cleanup of the burn pits began in January 2005 when Washington
Closure Hanford dug sampling trenches across parts of the site.
As items were dug up, 339 largely intact items were collected
and saved. 

A detailed inventory of those lists reads like a search of the
kitchen and bathroom cupboards of a 1940s household: an Old
Spice cologne bottle, a mange treatment bottle, an art deco
perfume bottle, a Smith Brothers cough syrup bottle, an aqua
green Coca Cola bottle, a whisky bottle, a Trappy's Tabasco
Peppers Sauce bottle, a Log Cabin syrup bottle and a yellow
teapot with gold flowers and leaves. 

That might have been the end of the matter if a field crew from
the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
wasn't doing some routine monitoring in the area. 

"They saw thousands of historic artifacts lying on the surface,"
said Teara Farrow, program manager for the tribes' Cultural
Resources Protection Program. 

Just as the prehistoric era is important to the tribes, so is
more modern history like the Manhattan Project, and the site has
both, she said. 

The Umatillas, concerned that they had not been notified
earlier, pushed for documentation of the site. 

"Because the artifacts are not pre-contact (from before arrival
of the white man), they assumed that the discovery was of no
importance to anyone, and the site was covered back up,"
according to a June 1, 2005, report prepared by the Umatillas. 

Under pressure from the Umatillas and others, including Roderick
Sprague, a professor emeritus at the University of Idaho, DOE
announced in September 2005 that it would prepare the paperwork
to see if the burn pits qualified for the National Register. 

DOE concluded it did not. 

"The collection, burning and disposal of work force waste
materials would not constitute a major or significant theme in
documenting the history of the Manhattan Project," the report
said. 

Although supporters of archaeological excavation had pointed out
the dump site was close to the segregated barracks for black
workers, the materials in the pit were collected from all areas
of the Hanford Construction Camp, the report said. 

"There is no way to associate waste within these trenches to
African Americans, men, women or any other racial, sexual or
ethnic members of the work force," it said. 

Further, the DOE report said, the waste already had been sorted
to recycle metals and other items that would have been valuable
in war time and at least three years worth of debris were mixed
together. 

Marceau also questions whether the pits hold only material that
can be linked to 1943-46. Photographs show the site was not shut
down until the 1960s, he said. It may or may not have been used
only in the mid-1940s, he said. 

DOE said the excavation would be hazardous. At least one pit
contains mostly glass, with little soil, in addition to being
chemically contaminated, the report said. 

"Archaeological excavation ... is neither feasible nor prudent,"
the report said. 

In addition, DOE concluded it would produce little of additional
interest beyond the 339 representative items collected. 

The state agreed the site did not qualify for the National
Register. But it also wanted complete artifact sampling
procedures for the pits when they were excavated for waste
disposal. 

Before the decision was appealed, DOE had agreed more items
could be collected. The agency recommended they be evocative of
the early 1940s and suitable for display - not damaged, in
operable condition or aesthetically pleasing. Items could
include cosmetic products, games, books, serving trays from the
cafeterias, hand tools, home furnishings and signs. 

DOE said the goal would be to collect items that represent the
work force and daily life in the construction camp that are not
already in the CREHST museum in Richland, which curates
Manhattan and Cold War materials under a DOE contract. 

Archaeologists oppose plan 

That plan is not acceptable to archaeologists who want the site
studied. 

There's more to be learned from the burn pits, said Julia
Longenecker, an archaeologist for the Umatillas. 

Sampling efforts disturbed only about 5 percent of the deposits
in the pits, she estimated in an appeal letter to the keeper of
the National Register of Historic Places. 

The items that have been removed already are not a
representative sample, she wrote in her letter. 

Only whole bottles and ceramics were collected. But the pits
also contained other types of artifacts, such as clothing and
bones from meat butchered for cafeteria meals. 

Although some items are slightly crazed, indicating exposure to
heat, the deposits were not destroyed, she wrote. Items
recovered included an unburned piece of newspaper dated 1943. 

"Rarely have I ever seen an historic dump with so many items in
such good conditions," she wrote. 

The value of the burn pits goes far beyond collecting items for
display, say those appealing to the keeper. 

Archaeologists supporting the appeal to the keeper say the pits
need to be evaluated by a particular type of professional, a
historical archaeologist. Rather than studying Native American
prehistory, historical archaeologists study the history of
America when people from Asia and Europe were arriving. 

DOE and its contractor "do not understand the significance of
the materials that have been encountered and that are scheduled
for destruction," Sprague wrote in a letter this spring to the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

DOE's determination that the project is not a historical site
"minimizes the importance of the workers in telling the Hanford
and Manhattan Project story," he wrote. 

Unlike at prehistoric sites, people who lived in the Hanford
Construction Camp just 60 years ago still live in the Tri-City
community. In addition, there's a rich record of photographs and
oral histories to tell the story. 

That's part of what makes the burn pits so valuable, said
archaeologists who want the pits studied. 

"Questions will emerge as historical researchers delve into the
historical record and identify what we know and don't know about
life at camp," Longenecker wrote in her letter. "The
archaeological evidence may fill data gaps, may confirm what we
know or may provide additional insights." 

This is one of the few known archaeological sites for the
Manhattan Project, she pointed out. 

She predicted that materials recovered from the site during the
cleanup project could stimulate research, class projects and
additional oral histories for years to come. 

But beyond that, the site could make an important contribution
to historical archaeology because of information already
recorded about the camp. 

"Historical documents have errors of commission and omission,"
said Robert Clouse, the Society for Historical Archaeology's
representative on the Register of Professional Archaeologists
board. 

The pits could reflect activities that people don't remember,
don't consider important or would prefer not to reveal, he said. 

They could help develop a more complete or accurate picture of
what life was like for those who worked on the Manhattan
Project. 

"The bottom line is we don't know" what the items in the pits
could reveal, King said. But "it's sort of basically unwise if
you don't know what the significance is to just throw it away." 


© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 64 Inside Bay Area: New operator of Livermore lab will have freer hand

Article Last Updated: 07/15/2006 03:44:00 AM PDT  

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER  
    
  In bid documents released Friday, federal nuclear weapons
executives are giving a major fee increase and broad leeway to
the next operator of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on
hiring, firing and other employment decisions. 

Government officials say the moves are intended to bring in as
many bidders as possible for the lab management contract and
give a freer hand to the winner to improve work while saving
money. 

Worker advocates say the changes risk alienating older, highly
skilled and experienced nuclear weapons scientists, whose
independent judgment on the viability of aging bombs and
warheads could be lost. 

Under the new contract specifications, released Friday by the
National Nuclear Security Administration, the next operator of
Livermore lab probably will be a private partnership of academia
and industry, and almost certainly not a purely public entity
such as the University of California. 

"We lose our protections under California state law for our
jobs, which means we'll all be at-will employees and can be
fired for no cause," said Jeff Colvin, a lab physicist and 
executive board member of the Society of Professionals, 
Scientists and Engineers. 

The government's weapons agency also boosted the annual fee for
running the $1.7 billion-a-year laboratory from a base minimum
of $24.7 million, or several times what the university gets now,
to a base of $36.7 million. With good performance and cost
savings, the contractor can earn bonuses bringing the total fee
up to $45.4 million a year. 

That is not enough to attract defense giant Lockheed Martin. But
the money is keeping in the game at least three potential bid
teams, including one by UC. 

They now have three months to put forward proposals to run
Livermore lab. Government officials say they expect to award the
contract in February or March of 2007.   
                  
 © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy  

*****************************************************************
 65 lamonitor.com: Small business gathers to meet with LANL at EXPO 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor

POJOAQUE - Erika Jones of Erika Jones Associates has been doing 
international work for large global projects and corporations. 
Her client list includes the Australia National Laboratory, 
Unilever and the British Antarctica Survey, a 12-team, five-year 
project drilling a million-year's of climate information out of 
an extreme environment.

She develops customized team planning and training that gets 
highly competitive organizations motivated and in tune. 

She has a training contract with Los Alamos National Laboratory
and three contracts with Sandia National Laboratories, but
thinks there is more that she can do.

Now in its 20th year, Jones' small business was one of nearly a
100 businesses participating in the "Making the Connections
Business Expo 2006" Thursday in the Ben Lujan Gymnasium at
Pojoaque High School. 
The purpose of the expo was all about making contacts for small
business owners, said Bennie Gonzales, one of the lead
organizers of the expo. Gonzales works in Acquisition Operations
at Los Alamos National Laboratory and also is a small business
owner and chairman of the Northern New Mexico Supplier Alliance
that hosted the main event.

"In a period of eight hours, they can meet and network with more
small businesses and contracting agencies that are actually
spending money than they could in two or three months," Gonzales
said. 
Throughout the day there were face-to-face matchmaking
opportunities between representatives of firms and purchasing
staff.

Training sessions included topics like alternative financing,
tax and job training incentives, quality certification, special
programs, and co-op marketing.

The laboratory contracts for research and development, facility
construction and architectural/engineering, staff augmentation
and support, mechanical and electronic fabrication, and many
individual products and services, like information technology
hardware and software, belts and bearings, janitorial services,
printing supplies and rubber stamps.

LANL was the principal sponsor, and Sandia National
Laboratories, the Air Force Research Laboratory and the State of
New Mexico also participated.

Joe Brown, vice president of Pro2Serve, one of the business
sponsors, said his company, a technical and architect and
engineering services firm, was a sponsor because of its
commitment to the community.

Nick Jessen, the company's Los Alamos operations manager, said,
"We want to understand how to do business here and interact with
other small businesses."

He said that getting to know the strengths of other small
businesses was helpful for putting together collaborative bids.

As exhibitors checked out each others' booths, a few hundred
visitors and laboratory technical staff browsed and chitchatted
during the day.

Julie Sena from the Camera Shop, Santa Fe's oldest photography
store, said, "We're trying to present ourselves to Los Alamos."

The store, owned by Peter and Olivia Ortega, has been in
business for 70 years.

The meetings really began on Wednesday with a golf outing and
networking lunch at the Towa Golf course. That evening, an
awards gala took place at The Dome of the Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo
with a keynote address by Jan Van Prooyen, principal associate
director for operations at LANL.

Nelson Ward of El Valle Consulting was given the Allen Johnston
Small Business Advocate of the Year Award for contributions to
the small business community, and Toni Nolan-Trujillo, the
superintendent of Pojoaque Schools received a grant from the
alliance for student programs.

Dennis Roybal, the lab's small business program manager, won a
top Department of Energy Award in Seattle recently for his work
as a small business advocate.

He said having a proven safety program and performance record
was one of the keys to getting contracts at LANL.

Other factors include technical qualifications, the quality and
uniqueness of the product or service, meeting the lab's
programmatic requirements and being competitive in terms of
schedule and budget.

He said there will be bidding opportunities, especially for
small businesses in construction and environmental work,
technical support and research and development.

Contracts and purchase requests are now competed at the $10,000
level, rather than at the former threshold of $100,000, which
should open up some new business opportunities.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************