***************************************************************** 12/08/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.318 ***************************************************************** 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 UN Weapons Inspection Process Will Not Deter Bush from war. 2 U$ won't get first look st Iraq documents 3 US: Will Bush's March to War Be Slowed? 4 Iraq, firsthand: - Seven insiders share opinions based on personal 5 Kim visit to defuse nuclear impasse 6 Kim takes nuclear issue to Beijing 7 KEDO Postpones Board Meeting Until Early 2003 8 UK: Government panel warns of looming energy shortages 9 Kim visit to defuse nuclear impasse - 10 Iraqi Govt. Hands Over Arms Declaration 11 Bush Skeptical on Iraqi Arms Declaration 12 Russia makes `all or nothing' defence sale offer to India 13 KEDO Postpones Board Meeting Until Early 2003 14 American Policies and Presence Under Fire in South Korea 15 UK FIRMS MAY LOSE £6BN SHIP CONTRACT* 16 War drums give Americans a dose of deja vu* 17 AU: N-warship faces cool welcome NUCLEAR REACTORS 18 US: Report: Indian Pt. Nuclear Plant Owner Finds Flaws 19 US: Report: Nuclear Plant Owner Finds Flaws NUCLEAR SAFETY NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 20 US: Ceremony heralds Shattuck cleanup 21 US: Nuclear Cleanup Proposal Planned 22 US: Ceremony heralds Shattuck cleanup Residents cheer long-sought 23 Courts Will Dig Up Proof of Corruption in Yucca Mountain Study 24 Courts Will Dig Up Proof of Corruption in Yucca Mountain Study NUCLEAR WEAPONS 25 INSPECTORS ANGERED BY US CLAIMS OVER IRAQI WEAPONS 26 UK: Jobs in the balance as BoS and Xansa row over outsourcing 27 CURSE OF THE A-BOMB: UP TO YOU, PM* 28 Carrier bid could seal future of Scots shipbuilding US DEPT. OF ENERGY 29 INEEL geoscientist to present NAPL contaminant modeling advance 30 Flats marks cleanup milestone as last glovebox removed 31 Flats marks cleanup milestone as last glovebox removed 32 INEEL geoscientist to present NAPL contaminant modeling advance OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 UN Weapons Inspection Process Will Not Deter Bush from war. Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:50:14 -0600 (CST) News Release - Friday, December 06, 2002 Green Legislator Eder Says UN Weapons Inspection Process Will Not Deter Bush from War. THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES MEDIA RELEASE Contacts: Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576, nallen@acadia.net Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, scottmclarty@yahoo.com Barbara Payne, Party Co-Chair, barbarellaprice@hotmail.com Dean Myerson, Political Coordinator, 202-296-7755, 301-651-5168 (cell) Exxon/Mobil Buys U.S. Foreign Policy for $47 Million; Gets Bush, Congress to Prepare for War in Iraq John Eder, recently elected Green Party Representative for District 31 in Maine, said today that the Bush Administration is headed for war regardless of what happens with UN weapons inspections. "The war on Iraq is set to proceed," said Eder. "While the Bush Administration insists Iraq has a hidden agenda, it is the U.S. that is making a farce of the weapons inspection process. Bush will find or twist any information he can to discredit the inspections as proof that we must go to war. This Administration is using both Americans and Iraqis as pawns in the quest for U.S. military and oil dominance." The Green Party of the United States remains adamantly opposed to the war. Despite the latest U.N. Security Council resolution on November 8 requiring further discussion if Iraq fails to meet weapons inspections criteria, the Bush administration continues troop and weapons deployment that point toward war regardless. Defense Department advisor Richard Perle has stated that nothing Saddam Hussein does will convince the U.S. that there's no danger coming from Iraq, and that the U.S. is on a clear path to war. ExxonMobil Buys U.S. Foreign Policy With four of the biggest oil companies based in the U.S. and the U.K., the effect of lobbying and political contributions by oil companies on these two nations who have taken the lead in preparing for war against Iraq cannot be discounted. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw conceded in a Commons debate on November 25 that British lawmakers may be denied a vote on military action in Iraq, giving Prime Minister Tony Blair the final say. Greens are targeting ExxonMobil, the second biggest corporation in the U.S., as a prime example of corporate governance through buying government influence. In the past five years, ExxonMobil has spent $47 million lobbying officeholders. Their investment was recouped this year when they won a $47.8 million contract to supply gasoline, diesel fuel and motor oil to U.S. and NATO forces. "For this company, there's no doubt that the war on Iraq will let them gain immensely, putting them in the lead as the largest oil company in the world. ExxonMobil is the most compelling example of a corporation getting away with outrageous activities - from practices of environmental destruction to human rights violations to pushing for war for their own economic gains," said Annie Goeke, Co-Chair of the International Committee of the Green Party of the United States. "Groups such as PressurePoint have founded the Stop ExxonMobil Alliance, a coalition of environmental, human rights, social justice, and pro-democracy groups, to pressure ExxonMobil to change its policies," she added. "All around the world, people are standing up to ExxonMobil and its increasingly severe corporate abuses," said PressurePoint Campaigns Director Chris Doran. "In the U.S. alone, there have been hundreds of protests over the past year and a half, with many more planned for the new year. And now people are making the connection between ExxonMobil, its very close ties to the Bush Administration, and the imminent invasion of Iraq." Bush, Congress Rewrite Constitution to Prepare for War The Bush policy of preemptive military action against any nation perceived to be a threat is a direct violation of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. In a joint resolution, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have handed over their power to the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq". (Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have recently stated that they will support military action without U.N. approval if necessary. "Our elected officials are egregiously failing to represent our interests and needs, while they cater to major corporate campaign donors," said Barbara Payne, a Green Party Co-Chair. "Experts of all political affiliations have questioned the 'proof' being presented of an imminent threat from Iraq. There is no substantial movement in Congress to avoid war and demand the U.S. complies with U.N. resolutions - the majority of U.S. citizens have no one to speak for them," concluded Payne. MORE INFORMATION The Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org National office: 1314 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 202-296-7755, 866-41GREEN John Eder westendgreens@yahoo.com Stop ExxonMobil Alliance http://www.stopexxonmobil.org -- Page link http://www.greenpartyus.org/press/pr_12_06_02.html ***************************************************************** 2 U$ won't get first look st Iraq documents Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 02:27:57 -0600 (CST) http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/4688488.htm Contra Costa Times > Saturday, Dec 07, 2002 Bush won't submit evidence until he sees documents U.N. inspectors grow increasingly frustrated that the administration is quick to accuse Iraq but slow to hand over intelligence By Karen DeYoung WASHINGTON POST - The Bush administration has told U.N. inspectors that it will not provide them with intelligence information on suspected weapons sites in Iraq, as agreed in the U.N. resolution and pledged by President Bush, until after it examines the weapons declaration Baghdad is expected to submit today. The comments by Mohamed Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reflected growing tension between the inspectors, along with some other members of the council, and the United States as inspections have begun and visible U.S. preparations for war continue. Both Baradei and chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix have expressed consternation over the rising volume of White House insistence it has firm evidence that Iraq is lying when it says it has no weapons of mass destruction, while at the same time refusing to share that evidence with the inspectors it has sent to verify Iraq's assertions. "What I've been told by the United States and others," Baradei said Friday, "is that they will provide us with information once the declaration is out. ... That they will come to us ... (but) what they have decided is to wait for the declaration and then make comments." Britain, which has echoed and at times exceeded U.S. allegations, has refused as well to make intelligence-related evidence available. "I trust they will give us whatever they have," Baradei said. "I have impressed on them that they need to make (it) available." The administration has made clear that its priority in revealing intelligence information on Iraq is to catch Baghdad in falsehoods, ideally by matching Iraq's denials on weapons of mass destruction with specific proof of deceit. Under the inspections resolution unanimously passed by the United Nations Security Council last month, Iraqi lies might then be declared a "material breach" of council demands and provide justification for the use of U.S. military force to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But Washington's examination of the declaration, which is to detail all of Iraq's past and current chemical, biological and nuclear programs and sites of all possible "dual use" installations, will now be delayed. Although the Iraqis have said they will deliver it to inspectors today, the council decided Friday that the inspectors alone will have the first shot at reviewing it. They will translate parts written in Arabic, and vet the document for information whose release would violate international nonproliferation accords before any council member is allowed to see it. "The document will not be available ... until this procedure is carried out and mechanical and logistical arrangements are made," said Alfonso Valdivieso, Colombia's U.N. ambassador and Security Council president, after a meeting in New York reached unanimous agreement, including the United States, on how to handle the declaration. "No member of the council is going to get it on Monday," said Blix, the chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. After the commission takes "a first look" at the anticipated 10,000-page document, Blix said, he will advise the council "early next week ... our advice on the further mechanical handling." Several diplomats said they were told the declaration weighs some 130 pounds. The material, which may include computer discs, will cover the 1991-98 history of U.N. weapons and equipment destruction, and "new elements" relating to dual-use sites and activities. The first word from Blix is likely to come Tuesday, when the council has lunch with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Diplomatic sources said serious discussion of the declaration and how it will be distributed will probably not take place until later in the week. Asked after Friday's closed-door council meeting whether he thought there would be anything "new and significant" in the Iraqi declaration, Blix said that in addition to denying possession of weapons of mass destruction, "I understand they're also saying that there may be some news in the dual-use sector ... and also information about production or activities which are claimed to be for peaceful purposes in ... nuclear, biological and chemical. That will be new, all of it." But council diplomats said that Blix had voiced concern in the meeting that it might contain sensitive weapons-related information or the identities of foreign commercial suppliers to its alleged weapons programs. He suggested that the U.N. inspection commission and the IAEA identify possibly risky passages so that the council could avoid violating its own nonproliferation accords by allowing such information to leak. While there was support for Blix's proposal, there was no agreement over whether the most sensitive information would ever be shared with council members. Led by Mexico, several among the council's 10 rotating seats argued that all should ultimately have the same access. But U.S. officials, who expect to be provided with access to the most sensitive facts about Iraq's weapons developments, said they are concerned that other council members, including Syria, which itself has been accused of supporting international terrorism, would gain fresh insights into the development of weapons of mass destruction. ============== http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=17464 UN to keep Iraq's declaration on WMD secret Dharam Shourie (Press Trust of India) Saturday, December 07, 2002 United Nations, December 7: As Iraq set out to handover its 10,000 page declaration on the status of its Weapons of Mass Destruction, Chief UN Inspector has said the experts will keep all sensitive material on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons a secret. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix denied reports that Washington was pressuring the world body's inspectors to spirit Iraqi scientists out of the country in a bid to get information. The 15-member Council authorised the inspectors to edit the declaration during closed-door consultations and briefing by Blix on Friday after it decided that all its members, including the five veto-wielding permanent members, should have access to the same material. A suggestion that the permanent five have access to the entire report did not find favour with the members, diplomats said. "All the governments are aware that they should not have access to anything that everyone else does not have access to," Blix said as he came out of the meeting. It is unclear when exactly the Council members would get the edited version of the report but Blix is due to meet with the members again early next week, possibly on Tuesday, during which some indication might be available. Any parts related to the proliferation of prohibited weapons or "any other sensitive thing, we'll say cannot be circulated to anybody," he told reporters. Blix also denied reports that Washington was pressuring them to spirit Iraqi weapons scientists out of the country in a bid to get information on banned weapons programme in exchange for asylum. "We are not an abduction agency and we are not serving as a defection agency," he said. Blix said he had not received any direct criticism from the US including during his 16-year term as head of the ViennaQbased International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "You need to have information and the information comes from various sources such as intelligence agencies, satellite and media." "We want to have recommendations from member governments, what they want us to do and we listen to all of them. We are in nobody's pocket," he told reporters. Blix said he understood that the declaration ran into 10,000 pages, some in English and some in Arabic. The material in Arabic would need to be translated before the inspectors can decide whether any part is sensitive. The inspectors would check the material supplied by Iraq with their database running into more than a million pages and the US, diplomats said, would separately tally the information against its own intelligence information. The Council agreed to the procedure after discussing the "risks of releasing parts of this declaration that might help to achieve proliferation of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons ," Blix said. Sources said no was sure of what the declaration would contain but Iraq, while accounting for the material, might have mentioned the procedure for making such weapons. Meanwhile, Iraq's UN Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri reiterated Baghdad's claim that it did not have any weapons of mass destruction. "We said again and again that we have no more destruction weapons at all, everything has been destroyed and we have no intention to do that again. If the Americans have this evidence, they have to tell the inspectors in Iraq to go find this evidence," he told reporters on Friday. ====================== *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the original source. *** ***************************************************************** 3 Will Bush's March to War Be Slowed? The New York Times *December 8, 2002* *By PATRICK E. TYLER* WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 ? The arrival of Iraq's encyclopedic declaration of weapons data this weekend impels the Bush administration toward the last "off ramp" along the road to war. Even as America mobilizes for a campaign to disarm and decapitate the Baghdad government, President Bush is facing final determination of whether the Iraqi arms declaration is an honest rendering ? a step toward disarmament ? or a capricious lie that establishes the basis for disarmament by force, a step Mr. Bush says he will take as a last resort. Therefore the last off ramp ? the expression is a favorite of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell ? is the one that leads to a relentless United Nations inspection program, backed by a credible threat of force, that persuades President Saddam Hussein to surrender everything that could be construed as illicit weapons or the banned tools for making them. It may be wishful thinking that Mr. Hussein can ever change or abandon his ambition to lead the Arab world. But the question that clings to the capital like the first snow of winter is whether anything will be enough for Mr. Bush. "Everyone in this town who claims to know the president's mind says he is determined to finish off the Saddam weapons of mass destruction problem and the regime," said Fritz W. Ermarth, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council under the first President Bush and is now a resident at the Nixon Center. Still, he added: "We are at a colossally important milestone. How this plays out is extremely important for the international order, for the credibility of the United States as a power, and as a consensus leading power, or not." Diplomats and statesmen were seized by the momentousness of the deliberations over Iraq. Many echoed Mr. Ermarth, saying decisions made in coming weeks will heavily influence the rules for security, war and intervention at a time of unrivaled American power. Yet most Americans seem to focus more immediately on whether there will be another military dash across the desert like the one the president's father ordered in the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Polling data shows that an impressive majority of Americans are game. They would like Mr. Bush to work within the United Nations system in confronting Iraq, but also realize that he may not be able to abide constraints on his goals for changing the Iraqi government. Mr. Ermarth, who used to make his living handicapping the likelihood of nuclear war and other great events for the Central Intelligence Agency, sees the possibility of delay and obfuscation by Mr. Hussein. "Saddam is playing for delay, and a lot of other international actors are playing for that, too," he said. Other nations, some close allies, want time to see what the inspections yield. Others want to see more intelligence on whether Iraq actually has the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon over the next five years. "We all know that Saddam is a terrible fellow," said Brian Urquhart, a former under secretary general of the United Nations. "But there is no real serious or credible information about his nuclear program." With inspectors now in Iraq, he suggests giving them the time to find the truth. At the United Nations, there was substantial skepticism that Mr. Bush was looking for an off ramp at all. Some officials questioned whether the administration, with its bellicose statements on "regime change," was trying to undermine the diplomatic and inspection track. "There is a very fine line between showing a seriousness of intent and conveying the impression that you are going to war no matter what happens, and that fine line should not be crossed," said a United Nations official who spent the week trying to evaluate the statements emanating from Washington. What seemed new this season was that the president, in a prominent interview with Bob Woodward, extended earlier public remarks on how fighting terrorism would be the focus of his presidency into a broader vision that seems almost quixotic. Mr. Bush described his presidency as one devoted to confronting the remaining despotic regimes in the world. He said he loathed Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, for "starving his people." He told Mr. Woodward that "they tell me we don't need to move too fast" to take action to free oppressed peoples. "I just don't buy that," he said. "Either you believe in freedom, and want to ? and worry about the human condition, or you don't." Those comments suggest that Mr. Bush is not engaged in an opportunistic whipping up of an Iraq crisis, as some of his critics allege, as a way to divert the country from a troubled economy. They also suggest that he might not be willing to take the last off ramp, even though a timely exit would allow him to pocket the credit for bringing Iraq back under United Nations supervision. The hawks in the administration are nervous, some experts say. "They are nervous that he will not pull the trigger," said Michael McFaul, a professor of political science at Stanford University who has advised both the Bush and Clinton administrations on Russian policy. "They thought they were in the driver's seat," he said, adding that "now they are panicked" because they agreed to drive Mr. Bush to the United Nations. Their fear is that Mr. Bush will balk at writing unilateral rules of the new international game. For now, administration officials seemed poised to make significant investments in an extended United Nations inspection effort. War could still break out, but Mr. Ermarth, asked to assess the odds, said, "By a hair, I would bet that things get dragged out." But there is always the winter after next. Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 4 Iraq, firsthand: - Seven insiders share opinions based on personal experience South County Journal Local News 2002-12-08 by Lori Varosh Journal Reporter Everyone, it seems, has an opinion on Iraq. But not all of them are shaped by firsthand experience. The Journal recently invited a dozen people with personal experiences in the the Middle East to join a discussion. For the seven who participated, the result was a spirited, sometimes heated but always respectful exchange of ideas. Participants ranged from a Clyde Hill businessman who was taken hostage in 1990 and used by Saddam Hussein as a human shield, to an on-scene military commander during Desert Shield, to a nurse whose work with grieving mothers in the Seattle area has made her particularly sympathetic to the plight of Iraqi families. None of the participants was comfortable with the idea of killing women and children, even as unintended ``collateral damage.'' None harbored any affection or trust for Saddam Hussein. Most were somewhat suspicious of either the American news media or their government, or both, wondering if they receive complete information and whether the United States is motivated primarily by ulterior motives such as a quest for oil. Where participants vociferously parted, however, was in what our country's goals should be and how best to achieve them. Vala Fouroohi: What you read doesn't really match what happened. ... While I was (in Iraq) ... there was quite a lot of media hype (by Western journalists). Most wanted to hear about guns and tanks. The fact that they (the Iraqis) were friendly ... nobody wanted to hear that. It's food for thought. When I'm reading about it now, I sometimes wonder what it really is all about. Gerri Haynes: The first time (I was in Iraq) was with (former U.S. Attorney General) Ramsey Clark in 1998. At that time, the mood was sort of as you describe it. People were sad and demoralized by the sanctions and the situation of being between a tyrant leader and an oppressive sanctions regime. But (they were) hopeful ... and unbelievably kind. And this May, what we encountered were people who were terrified that the life they have, which is fragile at best, will be taken from them. Fouroohi: People are just caught in the middle. Haynes: Yeah. Huge numbers of people are caught in the middle at enormous risk. ... It's well documented that we destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure during the 1991 war, and they have been unable to fully repair it. There is a tremendous amount of death owed to dirty water. Najmi Harrington: (Saddam) made a big mistake; he went to Kuwait. Since then, everything was happening because he was a cat, now he became a tiger. Fred Harrington: (Hussein) consulted with our ambassador at that time. He said, `This is our plan.' Ambassador Glaspie said, `Probably the U.S. would turn a blind eye on what you do.' But Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are our oil lifeline. ... As long as oil is coming out of the ground in all those areas, in my lifetime, I don't think I'll see anything going smoothly or going safe and sound there. ... One of the biggest proven reserves of oil is under Iraqi territory and the West is not going to just let that go easily. Rob Hedequist: Initially, the U.S. response to the invasion of Kuwait ... was great concern surrounding the oil reserves. ... The response evolved over time, with the instability of Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction he's continued to develop and foster, chemical, biological, possibly nuclear. ... U.S. policy has evolved in the last 20 or 30 years. We have tried to align ourselves with whoever the power broker was. N. Harrington: The people of Iraq are suffering terrible, terrible. ... There are many in jail there because of religion beliefs. ... We were supporting (their oppressors). What as a teacher I wanted to say was the history is going to remember us. Do we want to be remembered as a peaceful country that shared their prosperity in the other part of the world? Ed Wahl: We are constantly pulled into the economics and the politics, and we lose sight of the people. ... (But) we have the terrorists. We have 9/11. ... We have that aspect of homeland destruction that we did not have (then). Najmi Harrington: When my husband was hostage, I asked why we have to shed the blood of our youngsters. Every drop of American blood is precious. I have three boys, the same age as soldiers. My question was that day, why we had to shed the blood of our children for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Wahl: We're not going to, hypothetically. We're going to pull out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We pull back, become isolationist. What does that do as far as the Middle East is concerned? What does that do as far as the threat of terrorism? Should we let our guard down? Should we pull back completely? Najmi Harrington: No, of course not. ... The world became one country, I believe. But what is the next (country we will invade)? Will we have to go to Iran? ... It's scary. It's yours and it's my son. But are we the ruler of the world? Are we going to act like the gendarmes of the world? Fred Harrington: If we don't do it, nobody else is there to do it. Najmi Harrington: There are many countries of the world. We are not the only country. My husband always said we can give our blood for this country, because this was our shelter. We came to this country to live when we never had anywhere to go. We love this country. Government should be strong, but don't scare the people. Don't take our children to war. Pray to God that war between the United States and Iraq will never happen, because more children will be killed, more innocent civilians. And who is the winner? We don't want to be the winner over the blood of civilians. Jan Utley: I think we should never have left 10 years ago. ... When we left, I didn't feel we accomplished anything. Well, we accomplished a little, but (Saddam) was still there. There was still unrest in the Middle East. ... None of us feel that we really settled anything. Wahl: What you're saying is, we should have finished the job. Utley: You don't want anyone to die, but still it's OK to me that people have to do this. ... That's the military. Hedequist: You're talking about a man (Saddam) who has no hesitancy to use chemical weapons on his own people. Did we sell him those weapons? I'm not debating that. ... It's always been a delicate balance of power over there. When the shah was in Iran, we supported the shah. When the shah got bumped out by Ayatollah Khomeini, well, we've got to support somebody. We have to have the ability to have a power seat in the Middle East because, I don't care what anybody says, you probably like driving your car. You probably like the ability to have power in this country and all the other things that oil brings us. And I don't know very many Americans that are willing to totally give that up for the sake of ... not projecting power in the Middle East. It has to do with the economy of oil. Can we afford ... for it to go up to $300 a barrel? No, we can't. The answer's pretty clear. Haynes: But how many people are we going to kill? Hedequist: I don't think that we are killing anybody. I think it's Saddam Hussein that's killing his own people. ... Saddam Hussein is the one who has refused to abide by the UN sanctions. ... Unfortunately, because of his refusal ... there has to be some type of action that occurs against him. Unfortunately, he has continued to put his people into harm's way. Haynes: We have demonized a whole country for this one man who didn't play ball with us. ... My friends who are Iraqi patriots say, `Lift the sanctions. ... Heavily sanction military stuff, and allow the people to have a little power. A starving, dying nation will not rise up against its leader. Its leader has been now glorified by a people that is starving and sick, because he's all they've got. We say, God, he's building palaces. ... The huge buildings we build even in the U.S. symbolize for us our national pride, and that's what those buildings symbolize for the Iraqi people. Now, I am not an apologist for Saddam Hussein. Don't hear that in any way, shape or form. I just think we have a national disgrace on our hands, for what we have done because of our lack of commitment to a whole population. And history will not deal kindly with us. Hedequist: Obviously, sanctions have not produced the way we had hoped they were going to produce. But at the same time, I have not really seen a dedicated effort on the UN's part. ... Sure, the U.S. is a power broker in the UN, there's no doubt about it, but these are UN sanctions. The UN is not coming out collectively and shouting down these sanctions. ... There's got to be some point in time the leader of the country will have to say, if your people are dying, ... the logical choice would be to say, `OK, done. I'm done.' Haynes: You didn't take out your pistol and kill your son-in-law; we're not talking about a logical man. Hedequist: Absolutely. But that's why we're in the current situation that we're in, because of his refusal to abide by sanctions. ... I seriously do not support the death of innocent children and women and civilians in any type of conflict. Wahl: But it appears the longer the current situation goes on, the more children are going to die, the more people will become impoverished. ... We had the opportunity 10 years ago to snuff out this illogical head of state. We're facing a crisis right now. And you said it: You wish we would have done the job before. I say it as a parent whose son is in the military. Forget the past. Let's go in and do it. I think that the government should be changed, because if we don't change it, we're going to see (increasing starvation and disease), plus we're going to see the growing threat ... of terrorist activities, and it's going to come home when the MV Spokane is blown up in the middle of Elliott Bay. Hedequist: What's your plan? Haynes: I would like to see us remove the economic sanctions and send in rescue teams, not blowing up people but (doing) a Marshall Plan in Iraq. Help Iraq recover itself. Give the people back some power. ... If we go into hand-to-hand combat in Baghdad, not only Iraqis will be killed in droves but our own kids will be killed in droves. ... If we did this diplomatically with a Marshall Plan, then we would come to the world in a much more reasonable way. But we're unwilling to come to peaceful solutions; we're very willing to come to might. Hedequist: I don't know if I agree with that. ... You're talking about an uprising by people where you have one man who has entire control. Najmi Harrington: They can catch Saddam without war. We don't want anybody to be killed but that man. Hedequist: Your solution is to remove economic sanctions. How long do you think that would take? If we were to do that today, what do you think the timeline would be until the Iraqi people became strong enough to rise up against Saddam? Haynes: I'm not a political strategist, but ... We're going to spend billions of dollars on our military to go in there and bomb and kill people ... Hedequist: And then we'll spend billions to restore the country as well. Haynes: But what if we go in there now, remove the economic sanctions and did, again, a Marshall Plan of restoration of their country ... That's possible, but our creativity is so limited. Hedequist: Is it possible? Would Saddam allow a U.S. force, or a U.S.-led UN force to come into his country to do that? I don't know the answer to that, but based on history, I don't think that would probably be (possible). Haynes: We don't know that that country couldn't be led into economic recovery. We don't know that because we have never tried it. I think our diplomacy in that regard is economic and war-driven, not humanitarian-driven. ... Or I think we would've had a way to help these people. Hedequist: Perhaps you're right. Perhaps if we'd really been humanitarian-driven, then we would have intervened when (Saddam) started to kill the Kurds. ... Perhaps we would've intervened in Bosnia Herzegovina a long time ago. Genocide has occurred throughout those regions. There've been a number of different areas throughout the world where the U.S. has said, `You know what, we are not involved in this actively...' Haynes: `...because it's not economically beneficial to us.' Hedequist: That's OK. If it is economically beneficial to us, it assures our way of life in the U.S. ... We have freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the power to protest, and all the great wonderful things that we have. I think the question then becomes, once the government makes the decision to do what they're going to do, good, bad or indifferent, does that then become a rallying point of the U.S. as a nation, or do we continue to have divisiveness within the nation? Haynes: I hope we still will have dissent. ... The U.S. used uranium 238, which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years (in the Gulf War). We left over 300 tons of spent uranium 238 in the ground there, in the sand. It's a low-level radioactive substance whose potential for environmental destruction and death will not ever go away ... for many generations. ... When we talk about weapons of mass destruction, we also have to think about what we left in the earth there. Wahl: So what if we left it there? Does it bother me, if we have potential anthrax and all these biological things? I say that's unfortunate that it's degrading the environment in Iraq or wherever, but what the hell are we going to do about these clowns running around liable to poison our water system? Haynes: Ramsey Clark (talked to the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility in '97) about weapons of mass destruction ... He talked to us about sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction, because at that time there was that famous quote by Madeleine Albright. When she was asked if the lives of 500,000 children were worth the sanctions, she said, `Well, we think it's a hard question, but, yes, we think it's worth it.' 500,000 children! If 500,000 children die in this country because of anything that another country was imposing on us, would we not call that a weapon of mass destruction? Of course we would. So you have to think about what it is that we're defining as a weapon of mass destruction, and then we need to get a little more honest about how we are dealing with that as human beings on the planet. Wahl: I am not arguing that point at all, but to face what I see as reality by going off on a philosophical thing of saying, `Let's not worry about terrorism. ...' Haynes: I didn't say that. The terrorists didn't come from Iraq, remember. They came from Saudi Arabia. Hedequist: Perhaps for the sake of this discussion, we could define weapons of mass destruction as chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Haynes: Then dirty water would be a chemical weapon. Hedequist: We didn't create the dirty water. Haynes: Of course, we did. ... We purposely bombed their water supply and their septic treatment facilities. Hedequist: Strategic targets. Haynes: ... and then we prevented them from repairing them. Hedequist: Because those water supplies would be used by the military ... Haynes: ... and the civilian population. Hedequist: War is a dirty, nasty business. I'm sorry, Gerri, it is. Haynes: If some country comes here and takes out our water supply and your son dies, why don't you put yourself ... in the shoes of an Iraqi dad and tell me that your son is more important than his. That's what I don't get. ... I don't get that my six children and my eight grandchildren are more important -- and I'll tell you, they are the world to me -- than those Iraqi people. I don't get that. Hedequist: I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying that, unfortunately, when war comes and sanctions are put into place, there's got to be somebody that does not benefit. Saddam Hussein has had every opportunity to comply with U.S. sanctions and have those types of facilities rebuilt. Haynes: We said the sanctions would be removed when Saddam pulls out of Kuwait. Then we said the sanctions would be removed when he has weapons of mass destruction no longer. ...Then we moved the bar and ... said the sanctions will stay in place until this evil man is replaced, until we have a regime change. So there's a little bit of funny business in our conversation about how he has not complied with the UN resolution. Wahl: I don't see that we unilaterally adjusted the bar. You're painting Saddam Hussein as very saintly, innocent. Haynes: I did not say that. Wahl: By omission, you are saying that. Unfortunately, we have some kind of guideline that assassination is not permitted. Hedequist: It's law. Haynes: It's an international law that we choose to honor when we have broken others. Fred Harrington: Even with the sanctions in place, the United Nations permitted (Saddam) to sell oil for food, medicine and humanitarian aid, but what happened to those things? Haynes: That's happening. ... For one thing, the food distribution lines have been acknowledged by the UN to be among the best of Third World countries. ... The process of oil for food does not give money to the Iraqi government; the United Nations in south and central Iraq administers that money. ... So it's not feeding the government. The government of Iraq has a black market stream that supposedly 20 percent of the Iraqi people benefit from ... that circumvents the sanctions. That leaves 80 percent of the people in the country at risk because of the sanctions. ... If their food distribution lines are disrupted, they will again begin to die of hunger. Wahl: You mentioned the Marshall Plan, which was successful. But the Marshall Plan was implemented only after the end of the war, (after) the ruling regime -- Hitler -- was eliminated. ... It ain't gonna work unless you get rid of Saddam Hussein. Fred Harrington: The Marshall Plan lifted up all those European countries out of the debris of war, but it's not going to work with Saddam Hussein. ... Even if the sanctions are removed tomorrow, what makes you so sure Saddam Hussein will not start, with the money that is coming to him, to buy more planes and more tanks and start building his army? This is a man that has a proven record with these sort of ... atrocities. Haynes: What I understand is that if we were to lift the sanctions and go in with something that looked like a Marshall Plan ... money would not flow to Saddam, and the possibility of stricter sanctions on the military would be greater, because people like the Russians and Chinese would be more willing to comply if we had a plan in place to restore the country. Fred Harrington: It's an absolutely totalitarian regime. It's a one-man-operation country. Utley: I think it was on the news last night ... if we have the war, that he has paid, I thought it said, $3 billion to get all his family some kind of security in another country. ... He has all this money. If he cares so much about his country..., why isn't he putting it back in his country? Fred Harrington: He does, but he makes palaces for himself. Haynes: He, in fact, has improved that country a ton over the last four years, just visually. There are parks that were not there. There are vehicles that were not there. Utley: Do the parks look better because it looks good when he has company coming, when he has different countries come, because those are the things he wants to show? You know ... he's not really helping the people at all. ... I mean, he's helping himself. Haynes: We don't know that, do we? That's what we're told. We don't know that for sure. My husband is a cardiologist. He went into a state-of-the-art cardiac cath lab in Baghdad. ... There are places where money is flowing into the economy. Of course, it's going to go, as it does in this country, into places where it shows. (Saddam is) not a nice man. ... The Iraqi people are terrified of this man. ... They have (also) become terrified of us, and that's hard. I think that most people in the United States would not want 22 million people to be terrified of us. Fred Harrington: Saddam Hussein apparently is talking with Libya, making arrangements with (Muammar) Ghaddafi. Of course, both of them are cut from the same cloth. ... But if he did that (fled to Libya), that would be the best thing he has done in this century, just silently disappear. ... But of course, I don't know whether they would let him go so lightly. ... Wahl: But Fred, that's the logical thing for him to do, and he ain't logical. Fred Harrington: No. ... This man will not go away until the end. I don't know what his end is going to be. But even if he is going to go away, he is talking that one of his sons will be his successor. ... Eastside Journal: If there is a war, will it be short? Hedequist: I think it depends on what side of the war you're on, whether it's short or it's long. The ground war was certainly short in Iraq, but the air campaign was a lot longer if you were Iraqi than it was if you were American. Haynes: And has not ended. Hedequist: No, it has not ended -- It's like this vicious circle, Gerri. We're probably not going to get an agreement on it -- it comes back to the fact that Saddam refuses to follow the sanctions. We both have the same underlying goal, and that is elimination of the number of people dying, whether that be through a Marshall campaign or an active invasion into Iraq. I have four kids, and I certainly don't relish the fact of seeing more children die. ... I certainly don't relish that this continues to go on and on for years, and then my children become the service members that have to go deal with the situation, when we should've dealt with it years ago. I think it's a complicated, difficult situation, where I don't think there's one particular answer that's ever going to be 100 percent correct. South County Journal 600 South Washington, Kent WA 98032 Hours: Monday-Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm Phone: 253-872-6600 Fax: 253-854-1006 All materials Copyright © 2002 Horvitz Newspapers, Inc. Any ***************************************************************** 5 Kim visit to defuse nuclear impasse theage.com.au December 9 2002 By Hamish McDonald, Beijing North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is to make a week-long visit to China later this month to seek a way out of the tense impasse over his regime's recently revealed nuclear weapons program. Reports suggest Mr Kim will visit Beijing, possibly just after the South Korean presidential elections on December 19 in which outgoing President Kim Dae-jung's policy of openness to the communist north is a major issue. While his Chinese allies will try not to look like they are standing over the bankrupt and isolated North, they are under growing American pressure to use their influence to shut down a uranium-enrichment project aimed at producing nuclear weapons. Copyright © 2002 The Age Company Ltd advertise | contact us ***************************************************************** 6 Kim takes nuclear issue to Beijing By Hamish McDonald, Herald Correspondent in Beijing and agencies December 9 2002 The North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, is expected to make a week-long visit to China this month to seek a way out of the tense impasse over his regime's recently revealed uranium enrichment program aimed at building nuclear bombs. Reports suggest Mr Kim will visit Beijing, possibly just after presidential elections in South Korea on December 19 in which the policy of openness to the North of the departing president, Kim Dae-jung, is a big issue of difference between liberal and conservative candidates. But while his longtime Chinese allies will try not to look as if they are standing over the bankrupt and isolated North Korean Government, they are under growing American pressure to use their influence to have the uranium project shut down immediately and this to be verified by international inspectors. In New York last Thursday, the US State Department's policy chief, Richard Haass, said he hoped Beijing would engage in "old-fashioned diplomacy" as well as making public calls for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. "I think China has a major, major stake in seeing this sorted out," he said. From the US perspective, "this is one of the ways that we are going to gauge whether China is prepared to enter into more of a strategic relationship with the United States". Mr Haass said the possibility of regional instability should help persuade China's leadership to exert greater influence on Pyongyang. China intervened at huge cost in the 1950-53 Korean War to prevent a defeat for Mr Kim's father, the late Kim Il-sung. It now supplies most of North Korea's oil and non-aid food supplies on highly concessional terms. "It's up to China to decide how it wants to use its influence and the Chinese for the most part tend to say that they don't have a whole lot of it," Mr Haass said. But "just looking at the depth of bilateral interactions between Beijing and Pyongyang, one would think they probably have as much influence as anyone else". The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, last week met the South Korean Defence Minister, Lee Jun, in Washington to discuss "military contingencies" in the Korean peninsula, but declined to give details. Mr Rumsfeld said the situation with North Korea was very serious and that Pyongyang had embarked on a "very dangerous course". The two defence chiefs also discussed the legal status of US troops in South Korea, a volatile issue stirring South Korean public opinion against Washington after a US court martial acquitted two American soldiers whose armoured vehicle ran over and killed two Korean children during exercises this year. Meanwhile in Washington, the US has imposed restrictions on food aid to North Korea for the first time since deliveries began during the mid-1990s. The announcement comes two months after Pyongyang told the US that it was developing uranium-based nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 agreement. | Hankookilbo NEW YORK - The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) has decided to postpone this week¡¯s board meeting until early next year, an official at the KEDO secretariat office said Friday. The meeting was initially scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday. The key members of KEDO, established to implement the Agreed Framework of 1994 between Washington and Pyongyang, made the decision to delay the meeting upon the request of South Korea and Japan. In the meeting, the key members - the U.S., South Korea, Japan and the European Union - are expected to review its mission with North Korea. Under the 1994 agreement, KEDO has been supplying around 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year to Pyongyang, while the North is required to scrap its nuclear weapons program in return for a U.S. pledge to build two modern reactors in North Korea. Last month, the key KEDO members decided to suspend deliveries of fuel oil to North Korea following Pyongyang's admission in October that it is enriching uranium for nuclear weapons. U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher also confirmed the postponement of the meeting on Friday. Diplomatic sources said the postponement is apparently intended as a transitional delay for South Korea, which will have its presidential election on Dec. 19. (Yonhap) 12-08-2002 17:59 Copyright? Hankooki.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 UK: Government panel warns of looming energy shortages Independent.co.uk By Clayton Hirst 08 December 2002 A panel of experts appointed by the Government to advise on energy policy has warned that Britain could face a shortage of gas and electricity unless radical new laws are introduced. The Energy Advisory Panel, chaired by Dixons chairman and former Shell boss Sir John Collins, has told ministers that the security of supply will be "threatened" unless changes are made to the way energy is traded. It has also recommended the Government develops new standards to assess whetherBritain is close to running short of gas or electricity. The Government's main reason for helping to rescue the troubled nuclear generator British Energy was because it supplies around 20 per cent of the country's electricity. Lattice Group, the gas pipeline operator recently merged with National Grid, has also warned of severe gas shortages within three years. A report, prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry, outlines four threats to gas and electricity supply. First, the report said that the "sheer complexity of the electricity and gas balancing systems" created doubts over future security of supply. Second, the panel warned that "the present system of competitive markets and infrastructure regulation cannot guarantee... supply". Third, the panel said that the energy markets do not create a sufficient incentive to invest in new gas and electricity infrastructure. Finally, the report warned of a "crisis of supply in electricity and gas" as a result of severe weather or infrastructure failure.