***************************************************************** 09/26/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.247 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Taiwan: Activists raise new nuclear fears 2 Japan: Power firm to implement pluthermal 3 UK: British Energy wins reprieve NUCLEAR REACTORS 4 US: NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas Implements Hurricane 5 US: Davis-Besse: Shakeup tied to corrosion woes 6 Japan: TEPCO suspected of rigging data 7 US: Nuclear plant could face fines NUCLEAR SAFETY 8 US: Agreement will pertain to USEC Workers - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 9 US: *Church group wins fight against uranium mine* 10 US: EPA ombudsman could gain more power with Senate vote 11 Ex-Inspector: Halt Waste Imports 12 US: N-tax foes dispute backers' expenses 13 Sellafield: FRESH FEARS OVER APPRENTICE TRAINING 14 Sellafield: MOX FLASK WORKER FALL 15 Sellafield: COPELAND HOPES FOR RATE REPAYMENT OVER LMA 16 US: Taxpayers to Owe Billions for Nuclear Waste Storage 17 US: Sask minister unsure why it took so long for signs at abandoned 18 US: Ca: Celebrities back ban on nuke waste 19 Kenya: Coast parties faced with poll dilemma 20 US: CA: Celebrities back ban on nuke waste NUCLEAR WEAPONS 21 Al-Qaida's hatred will burn out - unless we stoke the fire 22 The Taipei Times Online: 2002-09-26 23 U.S. to Hold Talks With North Korea 24 *North Korea a tough challenge for U.S.* 25 *Op-ed: *Nuclear deterrence: the inside look 26 Nuclear conflict imminent if IHK issue not settled: PPPP 27 Pulling the rug 28 ?Indian firms helping Iraq? 29 US: 'Suitcase Nukes' Pack Little Risk 30 Daschle Accuses Bush of Playing Politics on Iraq 31 UK: The Sketch: No evidence, no rebellion: a supreme act of 32 Britain fights to restrain US over combative UN resolution 33 Iraq takes journalists on tour to expose Blair 'lies' 34 UK: Regime change is all very well, but who will replace Saddam? 35 Rice Links al-Qaida With Iraq 36 US: IVINS: National Security Strategy Document Is Repellent and 37 Iraq: Pulling the rug 38 UK: S Africa denies Iraq nuclear link 39 Defence Ministry Cancels Secret Decree That Jailed Pasko 40 The Pasko case affects the whole world 41 Editorial: President looks bad in his partisanship 42 Seoul pushing for 3-way summit 43 US: Nonviolent Direct Action Camp October 5th - 15th, 2002 44 Ukraine, Belarus deny allegations of they sold technology to Iraq 45 Germany unmoved by Britain's warning on Saddam 46 War with Iraq risks escalation into Arab-Israeli war, possible 47 UK: Perspectives on Iraq 48 Putin: U.N. must take lead on Iraq - 49 Former UN Arms Chief Fears Israeli Nuclear Response 50 US: Beyond Deterrence What are we waiting for? 51 Foreign minister: India will exercise restraint with nuclear 52 US: Op: Powell's Peacekeeping Role - 53 Op - Missing Nukes Are Not Really A Bombshell - 54 AU: Nuclear weapons expert warns of Hamza evidence . 55 US: Scientists plan subcritical nuclear test in Nevada 56 US: Bush's policy on preemptive strike is unwise, risky 57 UK Letters: Iraq rhetoric and reality 58 US: Iraq: An Open Letter to the Members of Congress US DEPT. OF ENERGY 59 5 sites studied to replace Rocky Flats 60 Nevada site on list to replace Colorado nuclear bomb plant 61 Practice emergency turns real at Y-12 62 Secretary of Energy Announces Seven Lawrence Award Winners OTHER NUCLEAR 63 Russia fears US oil companies will take over world's ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Taiwan: Activists raise new nuclear fears The Taipei Times Online: 2002-09-26 SAFETY CONCERNS: Taipower's close relationship with the scandal-plagued Tokyo Electric Power Company has anti-nuclear groups worried about plants here at home By Chiu Yu-Tzu STAFF REPORTER Allegations that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) falsified reports about problems discovered at its nuclear plants exposes dangers inherent in Taiwan's Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, Taiwanese anti-nuclear activists said yesterday. Activists are worried about the close links between Taiwan Power Company (Taipower), which owns the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, and TEPCO. "Due to past exchanges and technology transfers between the two power companies, we cannot help but question Taipower's corporate culture, which is influenced by TEPCO," said Lai Wei-chieh (¿à°¶³Ç) of the Green Citizen Action Alliance. When the 8th No Nuclear Asia Forum («D®Ö¨È¬w½×¾Â) was held two years ago in Japan, Lai and other participants visited a nuclear power plant in Kashiwazaki, which houses the world's only operational advanced boiling water reactors. Several incidents caused by the flawed design of the reactors have been reported at the plant, according to Japanese activists. The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan will be the second facility to contain such reactors. The plant is scheduled to open on July 1, 2006. Lai said that activists learned during their visit to Kashiwazaki that its operator, TEPCO, had close relations with Taipower due to work being done on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Activists said that TEPCO trained some of Taipower's staff in operating procedures at the Kashiwazaki plant. A spokesman for Taipower told the Taipei Times yesterday, however, that no Taipower staff had been sent to TEPCO for formal training. "It's gone too far. Activists should not have linked Taipower with the TEPCO scandal," said Huang Hui-yu (¶À´f¤©), the head of Taipower's public affairs department. She added that the company maintains relations with major power utilities in other countries such as Japan, South Korea and the US. Through international networks, such as the World Association of Nuclear Operators, Taipower can gain experience and learn lessons from other members, including TEPCO, Huang said. TEPCO is suspected of violating Japan's Electric Utility Law by failing to replace crucial parts, known as core shrouds, for the cooling systems of five reactors at its two plants in Fukushima Prefecture in the 1990s, despite having known about cracks in them. According to the Kyodo news agency, TEPCO started checking on Tuesday for cracks in the core shroud of a reactor at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. The inspection was the first to be undertaken by TEPCO since last month, when Japan's biggest power utility became embroiled in allegations that it concealed damage at its reactors in Fukushima and Niigata prefectures. On Aug. 30, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi slammed TEPCO for allegedly falsifying reports on problems discovered at its nuclear plants. As Taiwanese anti-nuclear activists prepare for the 10th No Nuclear Asia Forum in Taipei this Saturday, comparisons between TEPCO and Taipower seem destined to dominate the event. According to the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union, 13 out of 52 reactors in Japan have been shut down due to the TEPCO scandal. Protection union activists said the Japanese companies Hitachi and Toshiba, which have been implicated in the TEPCO scandal, have been subcontracted to build the advanced boiling water reactors to be installed at the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Taipower officials said that TEPCO's problems stemmed from inappropriate operating procedures rather than flawed construction work. This story has been viewed 305 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/09/26/story/0000169482] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 Japan: Power firm to implement pluthermal Daily Yomiuri On-Line Yomiuri Shimbun Hideo Minamiyama, president of Hokkaido Electric Power Co., said Wednesday the company will implement a "pluthermal" project as scheduled at Tomari Nuclear Power Plant in Tomarimura. "Given Japan's energy supply situation, we have to do it. I am considering starting the project possibly in 2010," Minamiyama said at a press conference. Pluthermal refers to a method to use plutonium extracted from used nuclear fuel mixed with uranium as fuel in ordinary nuclear reactors. The government initially planned to start pluthermal projects in 16 to 18 nuclear power plants by 2010. But implementation of the projects in the No. 3 reactor of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Station and other nuclear power plants were postponed for unknown periods after TEPCO's falsifying of inspection data was unveiled. Therefore, other electric power companies' consequent reactions had attracted attention. Concerning the series of cover-ups at boiling water reactors belonging to TEPCO and other electric power firms, Minamiyama denied that similar scandals could occur. "I can't compare those plants (with the Tomari plant) because they are not the same type. I believe such a problem can't occur in the Tomari plant, which uses pressurized water reactors," he said. Minamiyama emphasized that the company will thoroughly inspect the plant during its voluntary inspection next month. Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 3 UK: British Energy wins reprieve BBC NEWS | Business | Thursday, 26 September, 2002, 12:16 GMT 13:16 UK [Hunterston power station in Scotland] The move safeguards some 5,000 jobs - for now The UK Government has extended and increased British Energy's financial support package, giving the struggling nuclear power firm some extra breathing space. There can be no certainty about the final shape of any restructuring or whether it will preserve value for investors British Energy The company said on Thursday that it had agreed an extension of its emergency loan facility, originally due to expire on Friday, until 29 November. Under the deal, the loan, originally set at £410m, will rise to £650m - "to provide working capital for the business and collateral," the firm said. The move means that 5,000 jobs spread across British Energy's eight nuclear power plants are safe for now. Emergency situation The government arranged emergency funding for British Energy earlier this month after the company warned that it was facing insolvency. The loan was intended to keep British Energy going long enough for it to draw up a restructuring plan. [British Energy share price] "The Board... is working closely in conjunction with its advisors to develop proposals on the future structure of the company," British Energy said in a statement. "However, if further discussions are not successful... the company may have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings. "At this stage there can be no certainty about the final shape of any restructuring or whether it will preserve value for investors." Nuclear power The firm, which was under state ownership until 1996, is the UK's biggest nuclear power provider. This has made it more difficult for the government to allow British Energy to go into administration. Putting the company into administration may also prove more expensive than propping it up until a restructuring plan is thrashed out. British Energy, which supplies about one-fifth of the UK's power, has been hit hard by a steep drop in electricity prices since the wholesale power market was freed up last year. Shares bounce Other power providers have been able to offset the weaker wholesale market by maintaining high retail prices, but this strategy is not available to British Energy, which does not have a retail arm. British Energy shares, which have lost about 90% of their value since the beginning of the year, were up slightly at 23.5p in mid-morning trade in London. Investors had anticipated a deal, sending British Energy's stock up by one-third on Wednesday in response to speculation that British Nuclear Fuels was poised to take a stake in the firm. --- © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 4 NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas Implements Hurricane Response Procedure for Waterford and River Bend NRC: News Release Region IV - 2002 - 40 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov No. IV-02-040 September 25, 2002 CONTACT: Breck Henderson Phone: 817-860-8128 Cellular: 817-917-1227 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov [opa4@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Region IV office in Arlington, Texas has implemented its hurricane response procedure for monitoring of Tropical Storm Isidore as it nears the Waterford and River Bend commercial nuclear power plants near New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The office will activate its Incident Response Center at about 4:00 p.m. (CDT) today. NRC inspectors from the Region IV office are currently at each of the two sites reviewing preparations for the impending severe weather. NRC regional administrator Ellis Merschoff said the agency will continue to closely monitor events at the two plants until the storm passes and no longer threatens plant operations. He said the NRC is maintaining close contact and coordination with the State of Louisiana. As of 10:00 a.m. (CDT) today, Isidore was located about 270 miles south of New Orleans. Projected landfall is near New Orleans in the early morning hours tomorrow. Privacy Statement | Site Disclaimer Last revised Thursday, September 26, 2002 ***************************************************************** 5 Davis-Besse: Shakeup tied to corrosion woes portclintonnewsherald.com - Ottawa County's Daily Newspaper Wednesday, September 25, 2002 Company won't say how many workers affected By JENNIFER FUNK Staff writer CARROLL TOWNSHIP -- Personnel changes that shook up Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station last week were focused around those who worked with the boric acid corrosion issue, said a spokesman Tuesday. Implementation of the boric acid corrosion control program has been highly criticized by federal regulators as one of the reasons why a football-sized hole in the plant's reactor head was not found earlier. The plant, owned and operated by the Akron-based company FirstEnergy, has been shut down since February because of the finding, and officials have set a target restart date of Dec. 7. Officials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, though, have said they will take as long as needed to determine if the plant is safe enough for restart. The most recent spate of actions against employees at the plant dealt mainly with those who worked in controlling boric acid on the reactor head, said FirstEnergy spokesman Richard Wilkins. "The program itself has been revamped, the one we were using over the years was fairly typical of the industry, although in our case the guidance for implementing it was not as clear as it should have been," Wilkins said. "There are different people managing that program now." The action against employees ranged from no action, negative evaluations, demotions, transfers and firing. The company has two other nuclear plants around Ohio -- Perry in Northeast Ohio and Beaver Valley on the border between Ohio and Pennsylvania. Company officials, however, are mum about the amount of people affected by the personnel shifts. The most recent actions, completed last week, followed months of personnel shifts and restructuring that has brought about 15 new faces to the 22 top level management positions in the company. "I don't want to say we're not going to make any more changes," Wilkins said cautiously, adding that most of the major changes have already taken place. "We may decide there's more structural changes in the organization that need to be made." Copyright © 2002 News-Herald. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 Japan: TEPCO suspected of rigging data Daily Yomiuri On-Line Yomiuri Shimbun In what is considered far more grave than the recent series of cover-ups at Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) nuclear power plants, the company is now suspected of falsifying key data concerning the safety of a radioactivity containment system at one of its reactors, The Yomiuri Shimbun learned Wednesday. According to documents obtained by The Yomiuri Shimbun and revelations by the people involved, TEPCO fabricated readings of airtightness of the containment building--data of key importance to nuclear safety--at one of its six reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 plant in Fukushima Prefecture in 1992. The containment building is referred to by experts as a "final-stage fort" to prevent radioactivity from being discharged from a reactor in the event of a nuclear accident. A high level of airtightness is a prerequisite for keeping the containment capability of the reactor intact and is one of the priority items in the government safety checkups for nuclear reactors. Revelations emerged in recent weeks of a spate of cover-ups at TEPCO nuclear power plants in connection with cracks in reactor shrouds and in pipes carrying primary cooling water in reactors. Inspections of such reactor components are listed as "voluntary checkups" under the nuclear safety regulations. In light of the importance of the airtightness of containment buildings, checkups of the buildings and reports of the findings to the government are included in statutory items in regular inspections under the Electric Utility Law. As it is the most important system to prevent radioactivity from being discharged into the environment, its checkups are in the "Rank A" category, the highest-ranking inspection under the law, according to the experts. They said the latest revelations are expected to exacerbate public distrust of TEPCO, while bringing into question the professional ethics of the nuclear power technicians involved. The containment building is a huge steel container about 32 meters high. It houses the nuclear reactor in a separate pressurizer container, and both are housed in a 44-meter-high reactor building. The falsification of the airtightness data occurred following a regular inspection of the reactor in June 1992, sources said on condition of anonymity. To ensure the airtightness of a containment building exceeds government safety standards, checkups are conducted by pouring nitrogen gas into the buildings to enhance their internal pressure to about three times the atmospheric pressure. Technicians then track changes in the pressure readings for six hours to determine the gas leakage rate, the experts said. A degree of leakage is unavoidable, since containment buildings are linked to a large number of pipes, from which they said very small amounts of gas may escape. Under the government regulations, the the maximum permissible level of leakage is set at 0.45 percent of the building's entire cubic volume per day. During the statutory regular checkups of the No. 1 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 plant, however, airtightness readings found in tests carried out by a TEPCO subsidiary were fluctuating from 0.3 to 2.5 percent a day, according to the sources. Anxious about the implications of the unstable readings, TEPCO officials at the plant and nuclear power plant manufacturers decided to falsify the readings to make them appear much the same as previous tests, they said. Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 7 Nuclear plant could face fines Creek cleanup nets 2,000 fish Asbury Park Press   September 26, 2002 The Jersey Shore's News Source   Published in the Asbury Park Press 9/26/02 By RICK HEPP STAFF WRITER Workers yesterday completed the cleanup of more than 2,000 fish killed when the temperature in the Oyster Creek spiked to 106 degrees after the nearby nuclear power plant turned off a pump used to cool water discharged from the reactor. The fish, some of which measured 4 feet in length, littered the Oyster Creek and its banks in Waretown following the Monday morning incident, witnesses said. But by yesterday afternoon, the assortment of dead spotfish, oyster toadfish, bluefish, drum fish and striped bass had been collected into large plastic bags and were to be transported to a landfill. The pump was taken offline about 2:30 a.m. Monday while maintenance crews upgraded the plant's electric transformers in anticipation of an upcoming reactor shutdown, when spent uranium fuel rods are scheduled to be replaced, said Dana Fallano, a spokeswoman for Exelon Nuclear, which operates the plant. Fallano said the transformers needed to be upgraded before the reactor was shut down to decrease the possibility that the plant could lose power while the uranium rods were being replaced. About 90 minutes after the water pump was turned off, maintenance workers saw more than 100 dead fish floating in a discharge canal that flows into Oyster Creek and notified supervisors. By the time the pump was returned to service around 8:30 p.m., more than 2,000 had died in the worst fish kill at the plant since December 1989, when the reactor was shut down for 10 hours and as many as 3,000 fish died from thermal shock. State environmental officials, who have opened a review of the incident and could fine the nuclear plant if it finds that any policies were violated, said the water temperature rose from 87 to 106 degrees while the thermal dilution pump was switched off. A state Department of Environmental Protection policy prohibits the plant from shutting down the thermal dilution pump from June through September to prevent the already-warm water from becoming too hot to sustain marine life. The plant also is prohibited from causing the water in Oyster Creek to exceed 97 degrees. ***************************************************************** 8 Agreement will pertain to USEC Workers - By Jeff Barron [http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com] Portsmouth Daily Times DOE offers to help sick workers with compensation claims Wednesday, Sept 25, 2002 By Jeff Barron PDT Staff Writer The U.S. Department of Energy has reached agreements with 11 states on how to help contractor employees obtain help in applying for state worker's compensation benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). The agreement will pertain to some workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Piketon. The DOE owns the plant, which it has leased to the United States Enrichment Corporation since 1993.. "All steps are in place to help workers obtain assistance," said DOE spokeswoman Dolline Hatchett. The states which the DOE reached agreements with are Ohio, Alaska, California, Colorado,Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. The DOE said more agreements are pending. Under the program, workers or survivors may apply to the DOE for a determination of whether an illness or death was because of exposure to toxic substance at a DOE plant. The Claim will then be reviewed by an independent physician's panel. If the panel finds a worker's illness was caused by exposure, it will assist the worker in filing a claim with the state.. The panel will also direct the worker's contractor not to contest the claim. "That's an added assurance we're trying to make to the workers." Hatchett said. The DOE said it has received 19,000 cases so far. "We're already processing the claims," Hatchett said. "Well proceed in the order they are received and will receive full attention." Each case is being assigned to an Office of Workers Advocacy nurse caseworker who will be the patient's contact. But McDermott resident Vina Colley was not impressed with DOE"S action. She represents the National Nuclear Workers for Justice and said contacted respiratory disease while working at the gaseous diffusion plant. " I though the U.S. Department of Energy was going to help sick workers,"she said. Colley said she received a letter from the Ohio Labor and Industry's Worker Compensation Administration saying it plans to deny her medical claim after approving her benefits since the 1980's ***************************************************************** 9 *Church group wins fight against uranium mine* The Globe and Mail /globeandmail.com By LUMA MUHTADIE AND ALLAN ROBINSON Wednesday, September 25, 2002 ? Page A5 A small interfaith group including Mennonites and aboriginals has won its battle to quash the operating licence of a Saskatchewan uranium mine, leaving the future of the facility and its 178 employees in doubt. A federal court judge yesterday ruled in favour of the Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Cooperative and compelled Cogema Resources Inc. to conduct a new environmental-impact study of its McClean Lake uranium processing plant 700 kilometres northeast of Saskatoon. The mine has been in operation for more than three years. "It's quite fair to say that we're puzzled by the decision," said Robert Pollock, vice-president of environment, health and safety for Cogema, which operates the mine. Mr. Pollock said the facility underwent nearly 10 years of environmental assessments and licensing reviews beginning in 1991 and exhibited excellent performances since it started to process uranium ore in 1999. The court decision was a result of a judicial review of the project requested by the Saskatoon-based group. The group called for a new assessment, citing a recent study that showed contaminants from uranium mining move faster in groundwater than was believed at the time the original assessments were done. The group says that legislation introduced after the assessments of the mine began should apply to the facility. "Our argument was that the Atomic Energy Control Board, now known as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, should have triggered the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which requires an environmental assessment prior to such a license being issued," said the inter-church group's lawyer, Stefania Fortugno. The act took effect in 1995. The court ruled that the Atomic Energy Control Board did not have authority to issue the operating licence. The judge accepted the inter-church group's argument that the nuclear safety commission should have ordered a new environmental assessment under the new act. When uranium ore is dug, other contaminants, such as arsenic, are brought up. Toxic chemicals are also added to the radioactive ore as part of the extraction process, leaving 80 to 90 per cent of the radioactivity behind in the tailing pit. Cogema is appealing the decision and requesting the decision to close down the mine be stayed throughout the appeal process. © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 EPA ombudsman could gain more power with Senate vote Denver Post.com By Mike Soraghan [msoraghan@denverpost.com] Denver Post Washington Bureau Thursday, September 26, 2002 - WASHINGTON - The watchdog agency that forced the federal government to remove radioactive waste from a south Denver neighborhood would get newfound independence under legislation coming up for a vote today. The Environmental Protection Agency's national ombudsman would become a presidential appointee with a five-year term under an agreement between senators that is to be voted on by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The ombudsman's office would have the power to hire and fire staff and set its budget. Those are powers that congressional auditors have said the office should have. But the Bush administration opposes the plan. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman has written to committee Chairman James Jeffords, I-Vt., saying that she has already made the ombudsman's office independent by transferring it to the EPA's inspector general. For months, the ombudsman's office has been at the center of a bureaucratic tug-of-war between Whitman and former ombudsman Robert Martin, who quit in protest earlier this year after the transfer. Whitman said she transferred Martin to the office of inspector general to give him the independence that congressional auditors suggested. Noting that the move did not give him power over budget or staff, Martin said it was a ruse to dismantle his office. He said it was done in retaliation for repeatedly embarrassing the agency over its Superfund cleanup decisions. He also alleged that Whitman was seeking to protect Citigroup, the owner of the Shattuck Superfund site in south Denver. Whitman has a family financial interest in the company, first reported by The Denver Post in 2001. In 1999, Martin forced the agency to admit that it made a mistake when it decided to leave radioactive waste at the Shattuck site in the middle of a residential neighborhood. After that, EPA managers began a move to curtail the ombudsman's powers. U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, a Loveland Republican, and other senators with similar tales in their states introduced legislation to give the ombudsman more independence. But the legislation has been stalled in committee. Today, it will emerge with a new sponsor, Jeffords. Other than that, Allard chief of staff Sean Conway said, little else in the bill changed. All contents Copyright 2002 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 11 Ex-Inspector: Halt Waste Imports Las Vegas SUN: September 25, 2002 By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV ASSOCIATED PRESS MOSCOW- A former top nuclear safety official urged Russia on Wednesday to suspend imports of spent nuclear fuel from abroad, saying the country must handle its own nuclear waste first. Viktor Kuznetsov, Russia's top nuclear safety inspector in the early 1990s, also said that authorities must concentrate on improving safeguards at the country's nuclear facilities to prevent the theft of radioactive materials. "Russia needs a moratorium on imports of spent nuclear fuel from abroad," Kuznetsov, who works with an environmental protection group, told a new conference. A controversial bill allowing the government to import spent nuclear fuel from abroad for reprocessing and storage was approved by the parliament last year despite opinion polls showing most Russians opposed the idea. President Vladimir Putin signed the bill into law in July 2001, and the nuclear ministry has already imported spent nuclear fuel from Soviet-built nuclear power plants in Bulgaria and Ukraine. Most environmental groups have remained strongly critical of the nuclear waste imports, saying the practice would turn Russia into the world's nuclear dumping ground. Nuclear ministry officials argue that Russia could earn $20 billion over the next decade, importing some 22,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. They say that the earnings would be used to help build more waste storage facilities and clean up nuclear pollution left after the Soviet era. Kuznetsov claimed that the construction of new processing and storage facilities would take many years during which the existing storage space would be filled and unable to incorporate Russia's own waste. He also argued that the government must quickly tighten security at the nation's nuclear facilities and install world-class protection systems to stop radioactive thefts which have become customary over the last decade. Only one of Russia's 116 research nuclear reactors - the Kurchatov nuclear research institute in Moscow - has a modern safety system installed with the U.S. money, Kuznetsov said. Security at the other 115 reactors, 80 percent of which use highly enriched uranium, is below world standards, he said. -- All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 12 N-tax foes dispute backers' expenses [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, September 25, 2002 By Donna Kemp Spangler and Jerry D. Spangler Deseret News staff writers Opponents of a ballot initiative that would impose hefty taxes on radioactive waste brought to Utah have filed a complaint with the Lieutenant Governor's Office accusing initiative backers of hiding campaign expenses. Utahns Against Unfair Taxes asked Lt. Gov. Olene Walker on Tuesday to review the financial disclosure reports filed by the backers of the Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act on the Sept. 16 deadline. Hugh Matheson, chairman of Utahns Against Unfair Taxes, said initiative backers broke the law when they failed to report expenses associated with drafting the initiative, fighting a lawsuit on gathering signatures and taking an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, which resulted in the initiative being placed on the November ballot. Critics also question why the anti-waste foes didn't report a poll used to gauge people's attitudes about radioactive waste or unreported services, including staffing, office space and other unreported in-kind contributions. "Utahns Against Unfair Taxes was scrupulous and thorough in reporting all expenditures and contributions and did not look for loopholes to hide behind," said Matheson. "If initiative proponents had reported all expenditures and in-kind contributions, they would not appear to be the underdog they are trying to purport, but a group of politically motivated special interests," he added. Initiative campaign manager Frank Pignanelli called the allegations "an absolute falsehood," and said petition backers were careful to report all of their expenses and contributions. A lot of the bills have yet to be paid. "We are still trying to cobble together the money to pay for this, individuals to help pay the bills," he said. Almost $1.4 million has been spent in the rancorous battle over banning "hotter" radioactive waste and raising the taxes on the low-level radioactive waste now being disposed of at Envirocare of Utah's landfill in Tooele County. The money would go to help schools and the homeless. Utahns for Radioactive Waste Control reported it has raised $434,428 and spent almost that much in trying to win voter support. Initiative opponents reportedly raised a little more than $1 million and spent a little less than that — all of the money coming from Envirocare or from S.K. Hart, the property management firm also owned by Envirocare owner Khosrow Semnani. Critics allege the proponents failed to report the following: + An extensive poll that was conducted to test support for taxing radioactive waste, the people's opinions of Envirocare's owner and their opinions of lobbyist Doug Foxley, a supporter of the initiative. + Unreported expenses of drafting a 53-page long initiative. Critics say the current version is 13,000 words, "longer than the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence combined." + Unreported legal services of the law firm that paid for attorneys to represent initiative backers in a petition before the Utah Supreme Court. "The law is clear," said Matheson. "If somebody's compensated for their time while acting in futherence of the petition than it must be reported." Matheson cites the example of Lisa Watts Baskin, an attorney for the law firm Plant, Wallace, Christensen &Kanell, who drafted the initiative. Even if she volunteered to do the work she is being paid a salary then the law firm is making a contribution. "These are fine people and we respect them," Matheson said. Baskin said she is not a "volunteer" in the battle, but that Utahns for Radioactive Waste Control is "just like any other client." The reason the expense does not show up on the disclosure report, she said, is that she received her first payment only last week, after the PIC filing deadline. "I have not been paid (the balance) but I will," she said. The complaint also accuses initiative backers of not reporting the value of time spent by other supporters like Foxley, Pignanelli, Roger Tew, Utah Education Association and others. "We are all volunteers," Pignanelli said. "We put in a lot of time, we receive no pay, nor do we ask for any. Are we supposed to report that?" Pignanelli said he will respond if the Lieutenant Governor's Office rules that the time must be reported. "Let's see what she has to say on the matter," he said. Pignanelli has not seen the complaint, but added that initiative backers will be filing a formal response. E-mail: donna@desnews.com [donna@desnews.com] , spang@desnews.com [spang@desnews.com] © 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 13 Sellafield: FRESH FEARS OVER APPRENTICE TRAINING AN apprentice training scheme for the many contracting firms on the Sellafield site may have to halt its training course, after a poor take up by firms on site. There has been an industry approved training course for electricians at what is now the GEN II centre, at Sellafield, for the past seven years. But officials are now considering ending the scheme for next year after only four places were booked by contracting firms. Martin Armstrong, a training officer with JTL, one of the training providers, has warned that as a result of the drop in uptake "We could lose GEN II (which is classed as a Centre of Excellence) as an industry registered training centre.'' At a time of skills shortages, the number of electrical apprentices for Sellafield looks set to hit a new low of zero. Grant Cattanach, regional official for the Amicus union said: "JTL was reduced to five last year and now it looks set to fall to zero.'' Mr Cattanach has written to Paul Croft, head of Liabilities Management Authority Preparation at Sellafield, asking for his help in stopping what he calls "this potential threat to future training of local youth". n BNFL figures show a more healthy trend in terms of training; in year 2001 their intake was 37 craft and 12 process apprentices and last year (2002) it was 45 craft and 15 process apprenticeships. n In the early 1990s Sellafield regularly took on over 100 apprentices a year. SRC="http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk ***************************************************************** 14 Sellafield: MOX FLASK WORKER FALL [The Whitehaven News] [Vauxhall Combo] THE return of the rogue Mox nuclear fuel from Japan last week was the setting for an accident to a Sellafield worker on the very day of its arrival. On the evening that the controversial fuel flask was brought back after its 35,000 mile journey, a health physics monitor suffered injuries in a fall from the top of the flask. Sellafield convenor Peter Kane confirmed that the woman worker is now off work after she suffered rib injuries. BNFL spokesman Jamie Reed said: "The evening the Mox flask was being monitored and checked over, a health physics monitor stumbled on the access platform and collided with the train's flat roll frame. All the regulatory authorities have been notified and an investigation carried out.' [news@whitehaven-news.co.uk ***************************************************************** 15 Sellafield: COPELAND HOPES FOR RATE REPAYMENT OVER LMA [The Whitehaven News] By Dave Siddall COPELAND council plans to demand the repayment of millions of pounds of business rates money to the area as part of the move to set up a Liabilities Management Authority (LMA) to look after the country's nuclear waste. The council is responding to a government White Paper on "Managing the Nuclear Legacy" which will govern the future of Sellafield. At present, all the business rates payments for the Sellafield site go to the Treasury and Copeland sees no direct benefit. But now the council is to demand that: "In recognition of the social and economic legacy, Copeland Borough Council should receive an amount of money at least equivalent to the business rates paid by Sellafield. This funding will be used to assist with diversifying the local economy.'' Copeland Leader Coun George Usher (Lab) added: "We support the general thrust of the proposals in the White Paper. It makes clear that the nuclear legacy is a national responsibility as are the issues arising from it, including social and economic issues. It is an opportunity to get the relationship between the industry, government and our local communities on a clear footing.'' But the new proposed LMA is not seen as being "risk free" by another local politician. County councillor Tim Knowles (Lab) told a Cumbria County Council meeting last week that the proposed changes outlined in the White Paper "will bring privatisation of BNFL nearer, with all the potential difficulties that may produce. We will need to work hard to ensure the retention of the quality jobs, both at Sellafield and in the supply chain.'' He also said: "We should recognise that implementing the proposed new arrangements, with a Liabilities Management Authority owning the Sellafield site and BNFL, the current owner, being transformed into a contractor, will not be straightforward or risk free. "In recent years I have seen approximations of the proposed model operating with varying degrees of success in the USA. There is no doubt that the most positive examples of this approach are those where local community representatives play a strong role in ensuring maximum benefit and minimum risk to the people in the area, actively holding the sponsoring government department and its contractors to account.'' On Monday at a Copeland Council development group meeting, Coun Janet Johnston (Lab) added: "The money in recognition of the socio-economic effects is not a bribe, but just recognition of the huge service we do for the rest of the country.'' [http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk ***************************************************************** 16 Taxpayers to Owe Billions for Nuclear Waste Storage The New York Times September 26, 2002* *By MATTHEW L. WALD* WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 ? A federal appeals court has ruled that billions of dollars in damages that the Energy Department is likely to owe to nuclear reactor owners for its failure to store nuclear waste will have to come from taxpayers, not electricity consumers. The Energy Department signed contracts with reactor owners in the early 1980's promising to accept their wastes for burial beginning in January 1998, in exchange for payments from them based on electricity production. To date, reactor owners have paid more than $10.5 billion. But now the department says it cannot take waste until 2010, and the operators of the reactors are suing because they have been forced to store the waste on site. Many experts say the storage cannot start for many years, because of uncertainties about Yucca Mountain, the site near Las Vegas that the government has chosen as its waste repository. Estimates of the damages run from $2 billion to $60 billion, and the decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, twice used the word "nebulous" to describe them. At the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which is made up of state officials, Brian J. O'Connell, the director of the Nuclear Waste Program office, said the number would run "in the billions." Asked if it would reach tens of billions, Mr. O'Connell, said, "It gets fuzzy." He said that one utility, Northern States Power of Minnesota, put its costs at $1 billion because it might be forced to shut three reactors prematurely, for want of storage space for the radioactive waste. The only settlement so far is much smaller. The department and the owners of the three-reactor Peach Bottom plant, in the Pennsylvania town of the same name, agreed on $80 million, to pay extra costs for storing the wastes on site, in giant steel and concrete casks. But 13 other reactor owners sued to block the deal, because the money would have come from the Nuclear Waste Fund, money from power customers that they said was supposed to be used only to open a permanent repository. In a decision dated Sept. 24, the appeals court ruled that money in the fund can only be used for permanent disposal. The court said that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the law that allowed the contracts, called for a quid pro quo "in which each utility roughly pays the costs of disposing of its waste and no more." The plan, the court said was for a system in which the burden of the government's breach of contract would "fall on the government, not other utilities." A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Jay E. Silberg, said that if the Energy Department could use the money collected from utilities to pay damages to the utilities, the department would be "robbing Peter to pay Peter." "The lesson learned from the court's ruling is that we need to move forward with the Yucca Mountain Project," said Joseph H. Davis, a spokesman for the Department of Energy. At the Regulatory Utility Commissioners group, Mr. O'Connell said the decision was a victory because "ratepayers had some assurance that the nuclear waste fund would continue to be used for its intended purpose." But he acknowledged that if the burden shifted to taxpayers, it would be paid by most of the same people. "There's about an 80 percent convergence," he said. VIGILANCE AND MEMORY: NEW JERSEY; Container Ship Is Held Offshore After Search Discovers Radiation (September 12, 2002) *$* Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 17 Sask minister unsure why it took so long for signs at abandoned uranium mines Friday, Sep. 27, 2002 September 25, 2002 Sask minister unsure why it took so long for signs at abandoned uranium mines REGINA (CP) -- Saskatchewan's environment minister said Wednesday he didn't know why it took more than 10 years to post signs warning of radioactive tailings at an abandoned uranium mill.  A study done in the late 1980s warned a person would reach their allowable dose of radiation in just 48 hours of exposure to unconfined tailings at the abandoned Lorado mill site, eight kilometres south of Uranium City.  However, Saskatchewan Environment only posted signs warning of the danger at the site last year.  Saskatchewan Environment Minister Buckley Belanger said he "couldn't speculate" on why it took so long to post warning signs at the sites.  "In communication with the local people we have identified to them that there are some problems in these areas, so don't go having people hang around there," Buckley Belanger said. "These aren't safe sites."  Earlier this week, the province released a new report on abandoned mines in northern Saskatchewan that said many of the sites pose severe public safety hazards and possible long-term environmental concerns.  Carl Kwiatkowski, Saskatchewan Party environment critic, blasted the government for not acting sooner.  "I think it's incomprehensible that the government would have known for the last 10 years that a danger of that nature exists and they wouldn't have had some action plan to address it," he said.  "Obviously we've got a situation here where if those who know and understand the problem are hesitant, what is one to expect of the tourist, the fisherman that go up into those areas?"  The report also says unconfined tailings deposits from the abandoned Gunnar uranium mine, amounting to 4.4 million tonnes, have made their way into Lake Athabasca since the operation was shut down in 1964.  It says the site "contains numerous public safety hazards and environmental concerns and is very accessible by tourists and fishermen."  The head of a group representing the interests of businesses and people in northern Saskatchewan also called on the provincial government to do more.  "People from northern Saskatchewan have said there's been so much higher cases of cancer all over northern Saskatchewan," said Bobby Woods, chairman of New North.  "But yet it falls on deaf ears and I don't think that's right. I think government needs to take some action and serious action."  The provincial government has been negotiating a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government since 1998 to clean up several abandoned uranium mines, but there is no word on when a deal might be reached.  Belanger estimated it will cost $25 million to clean up just two of 75 abandoned mines being assessed in the three-year study of the deserted sites.  "We're doing our part and pushing as hard as we can. But certainly we need a partner in Ottawa to come onboard and say that they'll do their part as well," said Belanger, who represents the region where many of the abandoned mines are situated.  Repeated phone calls to the federal government went unanswered. Copyright [http://www.canoe.ca/copyright.html] © 2002, CANOE, a division of Netgraphe Inc ***************************************************************** 18 Ca: Celebrities back ban on nuke waste Online.com September 26, 2002 Los Angeles, CA Article Last Updated: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 10:33:19 PM By Dana Bartholomew Staff Writer Music diva Barbra Streisand and a host of Hollywood stars have written letters strongly urging Gov. Gray Davis to sign a bill that would ban radioactive waste from San Fernando Valley and other urban dumps and recycling centers. At least 16 celebrities endorsed letters encouraging the governor to sign Senate Bill 1970, a measure outlawing further dumping of nuclear waste at Sunshine Canyon, Calabasas, Bradley and other landfills. A spokesman for the governor said Davis has not yet taken a position on the bill and will either sign or veto it by the midnight Monday deadline. "The possibility of exposing humans to radioactive waste through recycled materials is too great a risk to take with the public's health,' actor-director Rob Reiner of "All in the Family' fame said in a letter to the governor posted late Wednesday. In a separate letter faxed to Davis on Monday, Streisand said: "Common sense tells us that radioactive waste must always be isolated from human surroundings and contact. I'm writing you to indicate my strong support for this bill.' Actors Robert Redford and Martin Sheen were also among 14 celebrities to send a letter to Davis on Friday urging approval of the measure. The bill, known as the Radiation Safety Act of 2002, follows disclosure that low-level nuclear waste was dumped into nearby landfills or recycled into scrap that the celebrities said could be converted to spoons, zippers and children's strollers. The waste included radioactive soil and debris from Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Laboratory in the hills west of Chatsworth at levels estimated by the U.S. Department of Energy to be the radioactive equivalent of two chest X-rays. Lawmakers and anti-nuclear activists accuse the state Department of Health Services of deregulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste by allowing the dumping of such contaminated materials in municipal landfills. The deregulation was struck down by a Superior Court judge in April. Rocketdyne officials maintain that current laws are adequate to safeguard the health of California residents. "We're opposed to this bill,' said Dan Beck, spokesman for Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power, a division of the Boeing Co., in Canoga Park. "It would have a tremendous impact to all the users of radioactive materials in California, including hospitals, universities and laboratories, as well as those engaged in radioactive cleanup. "We believe current laws do a good job in protecting public health and in keeping manageable levels of radioactivity out of landfills,' he said. SB 1970, written by state Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Rosemead, would require the disposal of radioactive waste in facilities licensed and designed for radioactive refuse, thereby prohibiting their disposal into California municipal and hazardous waste dumps. The bill would also bar the recycling of radioactive metals into any consumer products. The letter signed by the 14 celebrities -- including actors Ed Begley Jr. ("St. Elsewhere') and Mike Farrell ("Providence') and comedian Howie Mandel -- urges Davis to sign SB 1970, stating "a veto of this bill would be unacceptable.' Also signing the letter are husband-wife actors Susan Clark and Alex Karras of the '70s sitcom "Webster,' Academy Award-winning producer Marshall Herskovitz ("Traffic') and director-screenwriter David Zucker. Musicians Jackson Browne, David Crosby, Graham Nash, Bonnie Raitt and Don Henley also attached their names to the list. "Municipal landfills are designed for household garbage, not radioactive waste,' said the letter. "Municipal landfills are for rotting cabbages, not plutonium from reactors. "Spoons and children's braces shouldn't be made of radioactively contaminated reactor parts. Kids should be exposed to learning in their classrooms, not radiation.' Anti-nuclear activists said campaign contributions by Boeing and nuclear plant operators Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric could influence the governor's decision, an allegation the Governor's Office and Boeing officials adamantly denied. "You would think it was a no-brainer for the governor to sign this bill,' said Dan Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, which sued the state over the disposal of radioactive waste into urban landfills. "Radioactive waste is carcinogenic and should only be disposed in places designed and licensed for radioactive waste.' Copyright © 2002 Los Angeles Daily News ***************************************************************** 19 Kenya: Coast parties faced with poll dilemma Daily Nation on the Web Friday, September 27, 2002 By JONATHAN MANYINDO Four political parties are undecided whether or not to merge with others. They are in agreement they should go to the elections united but are unable to settle on any of the wider political groupings. The Coast-based parties include the Federal Party of Kenya ( FPK), the Shirikisho Party, Chama cha Majimbo na Mwangaza (CMM) and the Kenya African Development and Democratic Union (Kaddu). Shirikisho national treasurer Mwakio Ndau said in a statement yesterday his party was not affiliated to NAK as thought, and had resolved to talk to FPK, CMM and Kaddu parties with the aim of forging a common front. But FPK secretary-general Michael Nkaduda dismissed the statement, saying his party had no plans to forge alliances with either Shirikisho, CMM or Kaddu. Individual discussions between party leaders were not binding to the parties, he said. Mr Ndau said his party was interested in joining NAK but feared losing its identity. He said his party had met NAK officials who had refused to embrace it. Mr Nkaduda accused officials of the three parties of selfishness claiming they were haunted by the fear of losing to better known politicians. SPK, Mr Mwakio said, was not ready to lose its identity during the General Election in favour of NAK, adding that they were ready to co-operate with all member parties of the umbrella using their own symbols. He said lack of commitment by NAK to facilitate a coastal forum to bring all political parties together under Shirikisho as a way of killing tribalism in the region contributed heavily to the disintegration of the talks. However, Mr Nkaduda accused some officials of the three parties of selfishness and claimed they feared losing out to other national leaders. In a show of support, Mr Nkaduda congratulated NAK for its recent nominations, saying it had shown direction, soberness and realism to what Kenyans wanted. "The Federal Party of Kenya will always co-operate with NAK and all other parties offering positive direction to Kenyans," said Mr Nkaduda. null :Friday, September 27, 2002] Copyright ©2002, Nation Media Group Ltd. All rights ***************************************************************** 20 CA: Celebrities back ban on nuke waste L.A. Daily News September 26, 2002 By Dana Bartholomew Staff Writer Mu sic diva Barbra Streisand and a host of Hollywood stars have written letters strongly urging Gov. Gray Davis to sign a bill that would ban radioactive waste from San Fernando Valley and other urban dumps and recycling centers. At least 16 celebrities endorsed letters encouraging the governor to sign Senate Bill 1970, a measure outlawing further dumping of nuclear waste at Sunshine Canyon, Calabasas, Bradley and other landfills. A spokesman for the governor said Davis has not yet taken a position on the bill and will either sign or veto it by the midnight Monday deadline. "The possibility of exposing humans to radioactive waste through recycled materials is too great a risk to take with the public's health,' actor-director Rob Reiner of "All in the Family' fame said in a letter to the governor posted late Wednesday. In a separate letter faxed to Davis on Monday, Streisand said: "Common sense tells us that radioactive waste must always be isolated from human surroundings and contact. I'm writing you to indicate my strong support for this bill.' Actors Robert Redford and Martin Sheen were also among 14 celebrities to send a letter to Davis on Friday urging approval of the measure. The bill, known as the Radiation Safety Act of 2002, follows disclosure that low-level nuclear waste was dumped into nearby landfills or recycled into scrap that the celebrities said could be converted to spoons, zippers and children's strollers. The waste included radioactive soil and debris from Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Laboratory in the hills west of Chatsworth at levels estimated by the U.S. Department of Energy to be the radioactive equivalent of two chest X-rays. Lawmakers and anti-nuclear activists accuse the state Department of Health Services of deregulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste by allowing the dumping of such contaminated materials in municipal landfills. The deregulation was struck down by a Superior Court judge in April. Rocketdyne officials maintain that current laws are adequate to safeguard the health of California residents. "We're opposed to this bill,' said Dan Beck, spokesman for Rocketdyne Propulsion &Power, a division of the Boeing Co., in Canoga Park. "It would have a tremendous impact to all the users of radioactive materials in California, including hospitals, universities and laboratories, as well as those engaged in radioactive cleanup. "We believe current laws do a good job in protecting public health and in keeping manageable levels of radioactivity out of landfills,' he said. SB 1970, written by state Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Rosemead, would require the disposal of radioactive waste in facilities licensed and designed for radioactive refuse, thereby prohibiting their disposal into California municipal and hazardous waste dumps. The bill would also bar the recycling of radioactive metals into any consumer products. The letter signed by the 14 celebrities -- including actors Ed Begley Jr. ("St. Elsewhere') and Mike Farrell ("Providence') and comedian Howie Mandel -- urges Davis to sign SB 1970, stating "a veto of this bill would be unacceptable.' Also signing the letter are husband-wife actors Susan Clark and Alex Karras of the '70s sitcom "Webster,' Academy Award-winning producer Marshall Herskovitz ("Traffic') and director-screenwriter David Zucker. Musicians Jackson Browne, David Crosby, Graham Nash, Bonnie Raitt and Don Henley also attached their names to the list. "Municipal landfills are designed for household garbage, not radioactive waste,' said the letter. "Municipal landfills are for rotting cabbages, not plutonium from reactors. "Spoons and children's braces shouldn't be made of radioactively contaminated reactor parts. Kids should be exposed to learning in their classrooms, not radiation.' Anti-nuclear activists said campaign contributions by Boeing and nuclear plant operators Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas &Electric could influence the governor's decision, an allegation the Governor's Office and Boeing officials adamantly denied. "You would think it was a no-brainer for the governor to sign this bill,' said Dan Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, which sued the state over the disposal of radioactive waste into urban landfills. "Radioactive waste is carcinogenic and should only be disposed in places designed and licensed for radioactive waste.' Copyright © 2002 Los Angeles Daily News ***************************************************************** 21 Al-Qaida's hatred will burn out - unless we stoke the fire Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Our only hope in these dangerous times is to play a waiting game Martin Woollacott Thursday September 26, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Nearly 6m shipping containers arrive in the US every year from scores of ports overseas, and any one of them could contain a potentially devastating bomb, chemical or biological toxins, or even terrorists themselves to place and discharge the weapons. The Italians arrested an Egyptian who had set himself up in a container on its way to Canada as if it were a caravan - with food, water, a toilet, and also maps of North American airports and other worrying documents. Whether he was a migrant, fantasist, or bomber is not yet established. Robert Bonner, the US customs commissioner, interviewed a few days ago in the International Herald Tribune, tried to be sanguine about the chances of intercepting deadly cargos. The US is improving the screening of containers by signing agreements which allow it to station teams of inspectors at ports abroad, but even when this is fully in place they will not check every container, but will depend, says Bonner, on "timely information" that will allow them to narrow the search to between five and 10% of the container flow. The heart flutters at these odds. However much the numbers and capacities of what are sometimes called "unconditional" terrorists may have been exaggerated, and however effective intelligence agencies may become, the odds do not appear to be good, if by "good" you mean that nothing bad will ever happen. Even very good odds are not good enough in this situation, in which the standards are curiously akin to those which the American public thinks ought to apply to missile defence, which is that it should be perfect. One has to realistically fear that, unless there are other factors, somewhere in the US or perhaps in Europe, where container flows are of the same order, a "bad" container will someday reach its target. The motto of the early advocates of air power, that the bomber will always get through, now has a new meaning. Add to this that containers are only one of many fronts in the campaign against terror, and the chances of catastrophe increase in proportion. If dangerous drugs and desperate migrants can get through all the barriers we have devised, then worse things can pass over as well. One of the changes wrought by the twin towers attacks was that they unified the world as a battlefield, or, better put, as a field of both peace and war. Soldiers went off to distant fights, but the actual experience of war at home moved away from Europe and America after 1945. There was fear of a massive nuclear conflict which would end everything, but the condition of chronic war, dealing blow after blow over years of strife, was known only in the very dilute and geographically restricted form represented by Europe's small separatist insurgencies. Although there was earlier terrorism that reached into or originated within the rich world, there was a difference, felt in the bones, between safe and dangerous places. This distinction now narrows, obviously. One of the professions best equipped to understand the shift is that of war correspondent. For decades such men and women sent news of terrible things happening in unlucky countries to readers in lucky ones. If they sometimes felt vulnerable themselves, there was always the sense that, back home, family and friends and society were intact and fortunate. Tiziano Terzani, one of the most distinguished European reporters of his generation, describes in his recent book, Letters Against The War, how the fading of that distinction came to him in Kabul as he watched a one-legged young woman limping after an older man. "She might be his daughter," Terzani writes. "I too have a daughter, and only now, for the first time in my life, does it occur to me that she too might step on a mine." Terzani's book is a plea for peace from a man who has seen a lot of wars, and understands how one succeeds another, but who wants to ask, with Gandhi: " Why does the same old story have to be repeated? Why not try and start a new one ?" He does not advocate a complete pacifism, recalling at one point how Buddha, in one of his previous lives, committed a murder to save innocent passengers on a boat threatened by a bandit. He underlines, too, the way war has become a mission for some young Muslims. But he urges a concentration on peace as the only way in which the odds on war can be reduced. His book had its origin in an exchange with Oriana Fallaci at her most intemporate in Corriere della Sera. Terzani tells her: "There's no salvation in your burning anger." Surely he is right to say that anger is the measure of our future, whether it is our own fury at being attacked or that of those who launched the attacks, since anger drives people beyond limits they had previously recognised. And limits still obtain. Even the al-Qaida planners, according to recent reports, had qualms about sending hijacked aeroplanes into nuclear power stations, fearing that things "might get out of hand". Is it impossible that some limits, at least, still matter to those who might be considering turning one of those shipping containers into a weapon? We had better hope they do and we ought to explore whether they do, since without such a concept on the "other" side, the chances of coming out unscathed seem remote. If defensive measures by their nature are an imperfect guard, then the standard reaction is to turn to the offence. The offensive may be a mission to search out and destroy terrorists, at the core of which, a recent Washington Post article by a former Special Forces officer chillingly explained, is the "sensor to shooter loop". Get the information, get the kill. Or it may be to reach out and change the nature of regimes, which the US and Britain are contemplating in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere. The wisdom of such measures is what Terzani questions, because without being able to say how in practice the situation could be made better, he is clear that these are ways of making it worse. Those who cannot accompany him to his literally Himalayan vantage point - his final letter is from his remote place of refuge and contemplation in the mountains - must nevertheless share his unease. Missing in most of the thinking about this enormous problem is an awareness that conflicts involving terrorism have, historically, subsided after a process involving both fighting and talking. A painful evolution from early eagerness to fight through to weariness with violence and a recognition that the ends are no longer attainable in the way originally envisaged has been normal. The difference now is that the weapons available are potentially too dreadful to allow these long lessons in the transition from war to peace, and that is the change that Terzani marks so well. · Letters Against The War by Tiziano Terzani, India Research Press m.woollacott@guardian.co.uk [m.woollacott@guardian.co.uk] Special reports Afghanistan Attack on America September 11 one year on Britain after September 11 United States Iraq Interactive guides Click-through guides to the crisis Graphic Inside Guantanamo Bay detention centre [http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,5812,634008,00.html] Audio reports Hear our reporters from around the world Talk about it Join the debate on our talkboards [http://talk.guardian.co.uk/] ***************************************************************** 22 The Taipei Times Online: 2002-09-26 ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE Trying to make sense of China's Iraq policy The principle of sovereignty, relations with the US and domestic security concerns are the main factors behind Beijing's positions on the Iraq issue By Jing-dong Yuan China has reacted positively to Iraq's latest offer to permit the return of UN weapons inspections without preconditions. Together with France and Russia, China is among the UN member states inclined toward a political settlement of the issue rather than a military solution, as has been pushed by the George W. Bush administration. Chinese officials emphasize that the Iraqi issue must be resolved within the political framework of the UN system, that Baghdad should comply with all UN resolutions on weapons inspections and that Iraq's sovereignty must be respected. However, Beijing's moment of truth will come when and if the US demands a vote in the UN Security Council authorizing the use of force against Iraq should the latter fail to satisfy the demands of the Bush administration -- disarmament and dismantling of all of its weapons of mass destruction, not just inspections. How China is going to vote in the UN Security Council will again be under the international microscope. It is highly likely that it will abstain, again. China's apparently ambivalence toward the Iraqi issue is not new. In late 1990, in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Beijing condemned Iraq and called for its withdrawal from Kuwait but abstained from voting on UN Security Council Resolution 678 authorizing the use of force against the country. While supporting the UN's general goals of dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Beijing has also been critical of the sanctions and US-UK aerial strikes against Baghdad. Within a broader context, Beijing's Iraq policy must be seen as being driven by three considerations. First is the principle of sovereignty and non-intervention, which Beijing holds dear. Second is the critical US-China relationship in the post-Sept. 11 context. Third is Beijing's growing concerns over the implications for its security of an expanding campaign against terrorism -- in particular the Bush administration's call for pre-emptive action. Beijing's emphasis on respecting Iraq's sovereignty even as it admonishes Baghdad to comply with UN resolutions reflects a deeply held principle. Beijing's reservations about providing UN authorization allowing US military actions against Iraq is consistent with its opposition to military interventions in other countries' domestic affairs. Indeed, China has been derided as the vicar of state sovereignty at a time when the traditional notion of sovereignty is being challenged and eroded as a result of the growing international concern over human-rights abuses and inevitable demands for rights beyond borders. China worries about the potential for the US to use the pretext of humanitarian intervention to challenge its sovereignty over minority regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang. The US-led NATO intervention in Kosovo sent a chilling warning to policy-makers in Beijing that the UN could be bypassed and that sovereignty could be ignored and violated. The Bush administration's rhetoric about treating terrorist groups and the states that harbor them alike only heightens China's anxiety. A military action by the US to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- something clearly beyond the existing UN mandates on inspections -- will only heighten China's concerns. US-China relations since Sept. 11 are another consideration weighing on Beijing's Iraq policy and, for that matter, anti-terrorism in general. The past year has seen renewed efforts in both Washington and Beijing to rebuild a tattered bilateral relationship in the wake of EP-3 incident and the largest US arms sales to Taiwan in years. Indeed, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks provide the opportunity for a fresh start for Sino-US relations. Chinese leaders hope that increased cooperation in the area of anti-terrorism can help rebuild a stable bilateral relationship. Despite major differences between the US and China over human rights, humanitarian intervention and regional security issues, the two countries have also pursued common interests in combating narcotics trafficking, international organized crime and terrorism. China has strong reasons to get on the bandwagon of an international coalition against terrorism due to concerns about its own vulnerability to terrorism in its vast northwestern territories of Xinjiang. Since the late 1980s, Muslim separatists in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region have posed an increasing threat to China's territorial integrity. Xinjiang makes up one-sixth of China's total land area. This vast but thinly populated -- 16.6 million -- region holds potentially large oil deposits -- though these are unconfirmed -- and China's nuclear weapons testing site. In recent years, Muslim separatist movements have increasingly resorted to violence, including explosions, assassinations and street fighting. The central government has responded to the unrest with unrelenting resolve. Islamic fundamentalist elements in Central Asia, Afghanistan and the Middle East have reportedly trained some of the individuals responsible for these attacks. More worrisome, such attacks have begun to spread to major cities like Beijing, Wuhan and Guangzhou. From Beijing's perspective, Sino-US cooperation on anti-terrorism has arrested a rapidly deteriorating bilateral relationship, toned down the rhetoric within the Bush administration -- at least for the time being -- of calling China as a strategic competitor and a threat to US interests, and necessitated greater and more regular consultation between the two countries. Closer cooperation in terms of intelligence sharing, coordination of law enforcement efforts and extradition of suspected criminals could be particularly helpful if separatist elements in Xinjiang are emboldened by what happened on Sept. 11. Any experience and lessons drawn from US anti-terrorism operations could potentially provide tremendous benefits to Chinese law enforcement efforts. However, US military campaigns against terrorism and its shifting military doctrine of pre-emption deeply worry China. Beijing is concerned about the likely expansion of a US military presence closer to China's doorstep. One legacy of the 1990 to 1991 Gulf War is an enlarged permanent US military presence in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. Military operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan could bring US armed forces to South and Central Asia, with which China shares over 5,000km of borders. The US military presence in and its growing ties with Pakistan create particular problems for China. On the one hand, as some Chinese analysts point out, the need to effectively eradicate the sources of terrorism has forced the US to return to a more balanced South Asia policy, which Beijing has long advocated. In addition, US involvement would release pressure on China as the sole prominent supporter of Pakistan at a time of intensified Indo-Pakistani confrontation on the verge of a military crisis. A strong US presence could also address China's concerns about its own vulnerability to terrorism in its vast northwestern territories of Tibet and Xinjiang. Over the years, the Chinese government has approached Islamabad regarding the training and infiltration of Islamic separatists in Pakistan but has only partially succeeded. Finally, the US military presence in Pakistan to some extent deters an all-out war between India and Pakistan. On the other hand, the US presence in Pakistan is seen as eroding Chinese influence in that country. Beijing is not in a position, nor does it consider it wise, to compete with the US for Islamabad's allegiance. But it does worry about the weakening of Sino-Pakistani ties. For this reason Beijing has been more active in recent months in cultivating the all-weather bilateral relationship. Major loans have been signed between China and Pakistan recently to provide the urgently needed financial assistance to the latter. Chinese fighter aircraft and spare parts have been transferred to Pakistan. There is also increased traffic in high-level official visits, including General Pervez Musharraf's three trips to China in less than a year and People's Liberation Army Deputy Chief of Staff Xiong Guangkai's (ºµ¥ú·¢) visit to Pakistan. Over the long run, however, the real impact of the US military presence must be assessed against the general state of Sino-US relations. Should bilateral ties worsen -- not an impossible scenario given the controversies over the leaked US Nuclear Posture Review and Minister of Defense Tang Yao-ming's (´öÂ`©ú) high-profile visit to the US -- concerns in Beijing will likely intensify over the apparent if not real encirclement of China by the US through its military alliances in East Asia and now its military presence in Central Asia and Pakistan. Jing-dong Yuan is a senior research associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies where he also teaches Chinese politics and Northeast Asian security and arms-control issues. This story has been viewed 611 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/09/26/story/0000169539] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 U.S. to Hold Talks With North Korea Newsday By Ken Fireman WASHINGTON BUREAU September 26, 2002 Washington - The Bush administration will soon send an envoy to North Korea to begin security talks with that country's secretive Stalinist regime, the White House said yesterday. The talks will take place in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang before the end of the year, according to administration officials. James Kelly, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, is expected to represent the United States. The decision to resume the long-stalled dialogue comes on the heels of several recent developments indicating North Korean leaders may be interested in breaking out of their long, self-imposed isolation. Those developments include Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's successful visit to Pyongyang, during which North Korea apologized for its kidnapping of Japanese citizens during the 1970s and '80s, and a North Korean agreement to complete a long-delayed rail link with South Korea. Even as it announced the new talks, though, the administration gave no indication it had softened its view of the North Korean regime, which President George W. Bush branded as part of an "axis of evil" earlier this year. "Nothing has changed in the president's thinking about President Kim Jong Il and the North Korean leader's starvation of his own people, the militarization efforts that he is leading, the massive number of conventional weapons that he has on the border with South Korea as well as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. A senior administration official said Bush decided to send an envoy because "there seems to be some momentum" toward better relations. The official added that real progress would depend upon the North Koreans' willingness to end their pursuit of nuclear weapons and halt sales of nuclear and missile technology to other countries. Bush's decision grew out of meetings between U.S. and North Korean diplomats in New York on Monday and Tuesday. He telephoned South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, whose waning presidency has been devoted to a search for rapprochement with the North, to inform him of the move yesterday morning. Kelly had been scheduled to go to North Korea in July to resume security discussions that were broken off when Bush took office in January 2001. The trip was canceled when a gun battle between North and South Korean naval vessels chilled relations anew. Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc. ***************************************************************** 24 *North Korea a tough challenge for U.S.* deseretnews.com Opinion Thursday, September 26, 2002 *By John Hughes Deseret News editor and chief operating officer Logo The Bush administration now faces a serious quandary over North Korea. Long one of the most reclusive countries in the world, with one of the few hard-line communist regimes remaining, it is suddenly making overtures and offers of dialogue to the United States. It is one of the three nations that make up President Bush's "axis of evil." With another one of the three ? Iraq ? Bush is already engaged in a serious diplomatic confrontation that could soon become military. In Iran, the third nation in the axis, the situation is complex. Its Islamic fundamentalist government still supports terrorism abroad but is beset at home by cries for reform and a restless new generation of Iranians. So the question for the Bush administration is: Does it dismiss the North Korean initiative as manipulative posturing that does not represent a real change of heart, or does it engage with the North Koreans in the hope that their threat to peace and stability can be tempered? There is no question that North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il is edgy about Bush's militancy in neutralizing nations that represent a potential threat to American security. Says one U.S. Asian expert who maintains contact with the North Koreans: "I wouldn't say it's the driving force in their new attitude, but Bush has certainly gotten their attention." The decision the Bush administration must make in shaping its response to the North Koreans has a number of complex dimensions. Bush must gauge the sincerity of Pyongyang's new mood. Is this just a ploy to mute American hostility and get U.S. aid for a North Korean economy on the ropes? Or is it a real turning away from the communist ideology that has brought ruin to the country's infrastructure and misery to its people? The latter seems unlikely. A well-placed U.S. source says that when Kim visited China recently, the Chinese communist leaders tried to convince him that he could open up his country without losing control. Kim reportedly replied that the Chinese experiment along these lines was interesting but not for him. Other sources say he has researched Eastern European systems as he seeks to reinvigorate his economy but remains reluctant to institute political reforms first. The same internal debate that has gone on in the Bush administration over policy toward Iraq will likely take place as top officials debate the response to the initiative from North Korea. Hard-liners, probably at the Pentagon, will express understandable skepticism about North Korea's real motives and intentions. Others, probably at the State Department, will argue the moment must be seized to exploit an apparent window of openness. The United States will not be working in a vacuum as it considers revising its policy toward North Vietnam. Japan and South Korea are two other key players. The new Pyongyang overture to the United States was funneled through Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, himself engaged recently in summitry in North Korea to unfreeze long-frigid relations between Japan and North Korea. Kim made an astonishing apologetic admission that his country had kidnapped 11 Japanese nationals in the late 1970s. This has captured screaming headlines in Japan. But the storm is not over, and Koizumi must tread delicately on Japanese-North Korean rapprochement until there is full accounting and return of the remains of those who died, with explanations about why two of the kidnapped died on the same day. In South Korea, too, the timing and methods of reconciliation between North and South is of immense political import. Last week, the barricades at the demilitarized zone were opened in symbolic celebration of an agreement to reconnect the railway line between the two countries. There has also been agreement on family reunions, soccer and tae kwon do matches, and economic development but not much on military matters that, of course, bear significantly on the presence of 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea. It is unlikely the United States could resist pressures to engage in at least preliminary probing discussions with the North Koreans. The main U.S. interest would be in curbing North Korea's nuclear wea- pon and long-range missile programs that potentially threaten the United States, along with its large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons agents. But before progress on this, let alone North Korea's massive conventional armaments, there would need to be a program of confidence-building measures appropriate for the removal of long years of American suspicion and skepticism. It will not be a swift or easy process. /John Hughes is editor and chief operating officer of the Deseret News. He is a former editor of the Christian Science Monitor, which syndicates this column. E-mail: hughes@desnews.com / © 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 25 *Op-ed: *Nuclear deterrence: the inside look Daily Times /M V Ramana The impracticality of nuclear deterrence is an apt illustration of a proverb in Tamil that says that the picture or description of a pumpkin in a book cannot be used to make a curry/ In the fifty odd years of living with nuclear weapons some of the most incisive criticism of deterrence has come from defence personnel (usually retired ones, because of the restrictions on their speaking out while in uniform). Perhaps the most prominent example of this phenomenon is General Lee Butler, who served as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Strategic Command, a position in which he had planning and operational responsibilities for all US strategic nuclear forces. Given this background, Butler naturally focuses on the problems with the process of operationalising US nuclear policy, which is supposedly meant to deter adversaries. In The Gift of Time, Jonathan Schell?s collection of conversations with people who have thought deeply about matters concerning nuclear weapons, Butler observes, ?The goal ? the wish, really ? might be to prevent nuclear war, but the operational plan had to be to wage war. After all, actual nuclear ?deterrence? ? which is to say a mental state of restraint brought about by terror of annihilation ? was nothing that we could bring about by ourselves. In the last analysis, it was up to the enemy whether he would be deterred or not. What both sides had to do in the meantime was plan for nuclear war. Wish and plan collided at every point ? psychologically, intellectually, but, above all, operationally.? The dilemma for a military planner arises from the fact that nuclear weapons are so destructive that even one could not be allowed to slip through the defences, and yet the classic military propensity for worst-case analyses had to take into account the possibility that not one but several ? and in the case of the US and Russia, thousands of ? nuclear weapons would be exploded on one?s territory and on one?s military infrastructure. The worst circumstance the US military planners could conceive of is the famous ?bolt from the blue? attack, when a full-scale nuclear attack is carried out in peacetime with no strategic warning. Under such circumstances it was conceivable that a significant fraction of the US nuclear arsenal would be vulnerable to destruction. If military planners took this to be reasonably likely, then they would have to recommend nuclear forces large enough to ensure what they thought of as sufficient destruction for the purposes of deterring the adversary. Even within the theology of nuclear deterrence, what suffices as adequate destruction to deter an attack is never clear. All one can say is that in the eyes of US military planners, this number has usually been greater than a thousand. Based on extensive interviews, analysts at the Natural Defense Research Council (www.nrdc.org) believe that current Strategic Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP) has about 1000-1200 targets in Russia alone; some of them are to be targeted with more than one nuclear weapon. Ensuring that the country would have over a thousand nuclear weapons ready to be fired off even after a massive nuclear attack is doubtlessly a difficult task. This has led to two pressures. One was laying out requirements for more and more nuclear weapons, the basis for the arms build-up. The second was the construction of a decision-making process that ?powerfully biased the president...to launch before the arrival of the first enemy warhead.? In other words, even if a country were to claim that it was going to follow a no-first-use policy and would ride out a first-strike before launching a retaliatory attack, the operational requirements of what has been conceived of as adequate deterrence push the country to in fact launch its nuclear weapons before it has actually suffered any destruction from the opponent?s nuclear weapons. This posture brought with it great dangers, especially in times of crises. Based on experience with military crises, Butler concludes that ?as you entered the crisis, thoughts of deterrence vanished, and you were simply trying to deal with the classic imponderables of crises.? As an illustration, he offers the Cuban missile crisis where there was no real talk of deterrence in the thirteen days the crisis lasted. Butler is by no means the only example of this phenomenon. Another retired military officer who has spoken out and written extensively against nuclear deterrence, is Robert Green, a retired British Naval Commander. For Green, the central problem with nuclear deterrence is that it lacks credibility and is impractical. As an example, he cites the Falklands/Malvinas war where the nuclear-armed submarine ?Polaris had clearly not deterred Galtieri [the Argentinian General] from invading.? In his assessment, if the UK had threatened a nuclear attack, Galtieri would have very publicly called the bluff. He also feels that ?it is likely that the Polaris Commanding Officer would have either refused the order or faked a malfunction, and returned to face the court martial.? It is too early for South Asia to have its share of retired nuclear weaponeers and targeteers to turn against deterrence. But we do have several retired military personnel from both India and Pakistan who have spoken out publicly against the ongoing nuclear weapons programmes. Barely a few months after the May 1998 nuclear tests, a group of sixty-three retired military personnel put out a joint statement against nuclear tests and weapons, emphasising the fact that they were not ?theoreticians or arm chair idealists? and clearly understood the ?destructive parameters of conventional and nuclear weapons?. The impracticality of nuclear deterrence is an apt illustration of a proverb in Tamil that says that the picture or description of a pumpkin in a book cannot be used to make a curry. What starts out as an exquisite ? at least in the eyes of its votaries ? theoretical construct, turns out to be completely messy and irrelevant to actual day-to-day military practice. Rather it turns even the normal dangers that flow from military crises and war into extraordinarily destructive ones. It is still not too late for India and Pakistan to avoid these dangers. /M V Ramana is a physicist and research staff member at Princeton University?s Program on Science and Global Security. Some of his writings can be found at http://www.geocities.com/m_v_ramana/nuclear.html/ Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by ***************************************************************** 26 Nuclear conflict imminent if IHK issue not settled: PPPP / Updated on 2002-09-26 11:25:57/ *ISLAMABAD, September 26 (PNS): Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party-Parliamentarians (PPPP), Makhdoom Amin Fahim Wednesday warned of a nuclear conflagration in South Asia if Kashmiris were not granted their right to self-determination by India. * Talking to Amir of Azad Jammu Kashmir Jammat Islami, Sardar Ijaz Afzal here, Makhdoom said India by detaining the senior Kashmiri leadership was committing gross human rights violation in occupied Kashmir. There should be a complete unanimity of views between Kashmiris and Pakistanis on the dispute, because both of them were indispensable for each other, PPPP Chairperson remarked. He pointed out that there was only one way to resolve this lingering dispute, which was to give the people of Kashmir their fundamental right of freedom. Makhdoom assured Ijaz Afzal that his party would highlight the Kashmir cause during electioneering and manifesto. On the occasion, Ijaz Afzal apprised Makhdoom Fahim about the latest situation in occupied Kashmir arising out of India's sham polls. End. ***************************************************************** 27 Pulling the rug The Frontier Post */ / Updated on 9/24/2002 6:27:38 PM/ * The Iraqi decision to accept the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors after an absence of four years was unquestionably a masterful stroke. * It certainly should derail the US administration?s scheme to wage war in the Middle East and distract international and American attention from other more serious issues that some expected to influence a crucial mid-term American election that could mar the Bush presidency. President George W Bush should now feel rewarded that his yielding to mounting international and domestic pressure to seek United Nations approval for any undertaking, military or not, against Iraq?s Saddam Hussein was the wiser course. The hawks in his administration, primarily Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, must now be reeling with anger. After all, the Iraqi leader has pulled the rug from under their feet. On the other hand, Bush?s forceful presentation at the United Nations won him deserved praise in many circles, at home and abroad, for emphasising the essentials in the unsettled conflict with Iraq, namely the flouting of UN resolutions - an issue that has been left surprisingly dormant for several years but now acquired centre stage. Iraq had no choice in this matter but to succumb to the will of many members, especially Arab governments who urged the Baghdad regime to readmit the UN inspectors. It will have to open its borders once again to international inspectors to save itself from the wrath of a superpower that seemed to have lost its original course, from a war against terrorism that has won international support after Sept. 11 to a spat with the Baghdad regime, which is allegedly trying to acquire nuclear capability. Baghdad must henceforth take into consideration the welfare of the hapless Iraqi people who have suffered for far too long and unnecessarily from an UN-imposed sanction regime. It must also remember that the Arab world?s number one issue remains the conflict with Israel over usurped Arab lands and the Jewish state?s subjugation of an impoverished and miserable populace engaged in an uneven struggle with this brutal foe, armed to the teeth, that no one seems willing to restrain, least of all the Bush administration. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, whose speech preceded Bush?s at the UN General Assembly forum last week, was obviously not swayed by the American arguments and listed the Arab-Israeli conflict as the number one threat that confronts the international community and not the unsubstantiated charge that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. The Bush administration needs to readjust its focus and once again try to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli issue, as it attempted in its opening salvo last June. Its war on international terrorism, which this week received a shot in the arm with the arrest of the alleged 20th hijacker in Pakistan, warrants additional investment, in funds and manpower, on the level undertaken in Bosnia before any tangible results can be achieved there. The showing there has been unimpressive. When Bush spoke at the United Nations last week, he lambasted the Iraqi regime for defying the resolutions of the world organisation for 10 years, but he conveniently overlooked the fact that Israel has been more blatant. It has been snubbing the international community for 35 years by refusing to implement UN Security Council resolutions that called for its withdrawal from the Arab lands it occupied in the 1967 war. And it has been able to escape any serious repercussions because of American protection. For example, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, encouraged by his cheering team within the Bush administration, continues to ignore all the recent courageous attempts by the Palestinians to put their house in order. His defiance is clear in his refusal to stop his colonial expansion. Ten new settlements were detected last week by Israeli peace groups, and not one word of reprimand from the Bush administration. This is an opportune time for the Bush administration to take stock of its faltering foreign policy. The Iraqi conundrum should not remain unresolved. Now that the inspectors will be allowed in, their target should be clear and straightforward and completed expeditiously. Once this is done, the sanctions should be lifted and Iraq allowed to rejoin the international community. The future of the Iraqi leader is an issue best left for the Iraqi people and not anyone else. Similarly, the Bush administration needs to follow through on it declared ideas for an Arab-Israeli settlement, including holding of new elections and the establishment of a Palestinian state. More urgently, the Palestinian population needs immediate and substantial financial assistance to revive the bankrupt economy, which has suffered from two years of stagnation, strife and occupation. The commendable Iraqi decision to invite back the UN inspectors is a golden opportunity that should not be dismissed casually as some early US reactions have. The sooner these grievances are tackled the earlier the breeding ground for terrorism is eliminated in the region, and the safer we will all feel. © Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post ***************************************************************** 28 ?Indian firms helping Iraq? /Daily Times Report/ LONDON: Britain has alleged that Iraq is able and willing to deploy some of its deadliest weapons within an hour and that it possesses missile infrastructure produced with the illicit help of Indian companies, reports an Indian daily. The British claims of Indian involvement are contained in a 55-page dossier controversially and uniquely published by Tony Blair on Tuesday on the basis of what he called ?unprecedented and secret? intelligence information, according to Times of India. The dossier, received by largely sceptical political, press and public opinion here, tries to make a case for a Gulf War II-type operation to disarm Saddam and ?regime change?. Repeating US and UK claims that Baghdad continues to improve its missile capability, the dossier names when it comes to alleged Indian support for Iraqi missile production. The document, which only obliquely blames ?Africa? for supplying uranium to Saddam?s secret nuclear weapons programme, pinpoints India as part of the supply chain for banned propellant chemicals destined for ballistic missiles. One of these, ammonium perchlorate, the dossier says, was ?illicitly? provided by an Indian company, NEC Engineers Private Limited, which had ?extensive links in Iraq?, particularly to its al-Mamoun missile production plant and Fallujah 2 chlorine plant. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 29 'Suitcase Nukes' Pack Little Risk Los Angeles Times - latimes.com September 26, 2002 COMMENTARY * Resources devoted to intercepting such devices could be better used elsewhere. By NIKOLAI SOKOV, Nikolai Sokov, a former Russian diplomat, is a senior research associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Web site: cns .miis.edu. In 1997, then-Russian Gen. Alexander I. Lebed stunned the world when he alleged that almost 100 miniature, portable nuclear devices from the former Soviet Union could not be accounted for. Russian officials denied such weapons existed, but the suspicions persisted. Weapons of mass destruction are the most feared tool of terrorists. Among them, portable nuclear devices, commonly referred to as "suitcase nukes," are particularly dangerous because of their small size and full-scale nuclear-explosion effects. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, another look at the threat posed by suitcase nukes is particularly urgent. The Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies undertook such a study. It used its database (available to the public through the Nuclear Threat Initiative at www.nti.org), carried out additional information searches and conducted interviews. The results represent perhaps the first encouraging news in this area in the last year. Official denials notwithstanding, there is good reason to believe that the Soviet Union possessed so-called small atomic demolition munitions, just as the U.S. did during the Cold War. These devices reportedly weighed 60 to 180 pounds and had yields of 100 to 1,000 tons of TNT. In our view, the discrepancies the Russians reported about devices transferred from other former Soviet republics more likely reflected poor accounting rather than the loss of weapons. A special commission on suitcase nukes reported in 1996 that it found all such weapons that had been in Russia before 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, but not those that had been in other former Soviet republics. Most withdrawals of such weapons to Russia were, in fact, completed in 1989 and 1990, many months before the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the troops charged with control of nuclear weapons were still reliable. The priority attached to safe withdrawal was demonstrated by a shooting incident in Azerbaijan in 1990, when a demonstration organized by the local opposition tried to prevent the takeoff of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. The crowd dispersed after warning shots, but an officer involved said that troops had been authorized to use deadly force if necessary to prevent the seizure of nuclear weapons. The withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Belarus and Kazakhstan in 1992 proceeded smoothly. The governments of these states did not challenge the control of nuclear weapons by the Russian Defense Ministry. It was the nuclear weapons in Ukraine that generated considerable concerns. But because of these concerns, accounting and on-site verification were conducted independently by the Russians and the Ukrainians in 1992, with close monitoring by the United States. So far, there has been no credible information about the loss of even a single nuclear weapon. Within Russia itself, the safety of portable nuclear devices is subject to the same risks as that of all other nuclear weapons. These risks are addressed by the U.S. through the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program. Finally, even if a small number of portable nuclear devices were lost (improbable, but vital to assess nevertheless), they probably are not operational today. These devices apparently had a short shelf life and had to be serviced frequently. Consequently, since the early 1990s they would have missed 20 or more scheduled servicings and can hardly be efficient weapons in terrorists' hands. Our findings suggest that resources for interception of "suitcase nukes" could be more productively used against other, more likely threats, such as "dirty" bombs, in which conventional explosives are used to disperse highly radioactive materials. Of course, it would be only prudent to keep a close eye on further developments with regard to portable nuclear devices. We intend to continue to do just that. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 30 Daschle Accuses Bush of Playing Politics on Iraq Los Angeles Times - latimes.com September 26, 2002 * Debate: Senate majority leader, in rare outburst, demands an apology over what he sees as an attack on Democrats' concern for U.S. security. By JANET HOOK and JAMES GERSTENZANG, TIMES STAFF WRITERS WASHINGTON -- In a blow to White House efforts to unite Congress behind a potential war with Iraq, the Senate's top Democrat on Wednesday accused President Bush of politicizing the debate and demanded he apologize for questioning the commitment of Democrats to the nation's defense. "That is outrageous," Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said in an angry speech on the Senate floor. He lambasted Bush for saying recently that Democratic-controlled Senate was "not interested in the security of the American people." The bitter outburst?which touched off a vitriolic exchange between party leaders?is likely to slow efforts to win congressional approval of a resolution giving Bush broad authority to use force against Iraq. That, in turn, could complicate Bush's effort to build support in the international community for a tough new stance toward Iraq. Congressional leaders had earlier said they hoped to reach agreement with the White House on the wording of the Iraq resolution by the end of this week and bring the measure to a vote next week. Now, there are doubts about whether such quick agreement is possible. "We have a ways to go," said House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.). "I don't know if we'll pull that off or not." Daschle's speech brought to the surface the deep anxieties many Democrats have expressed privately that Bush has been pushing for a preelection debate on Iraq to bolster GOP candidates and to eclipse a Democratic agenda that focuses on domestic issues. But White House officials and other Republicans said Daschle had taken Bush's comments out of context, and urged Democrats to cool their rhetoric. "Now is a time for everybody concerned to take a deep breath and stop finger-pointing," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Still, the tensions over the Iraq issue contributed to an already poisonous political atmosphere that has made it difficult for Congress to resolve differences on an array of issues, including legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security. Members of both parties who support Bush's Iraq policy said they hoped Wednesday's collapse of bipartisanship will be only temporary. "Hopefully, we will see this as a blowing of the whistle, which leads to a lowering of voices on all sides," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), who supports the option of preemptive action against Iraq. Democratic concerns about Bush's motives in the Iraq debate have become more acute in recent days as Republicans began airing campaign ads in such conservative states as South Dakota and Arkansas suggesting that Democratic Senate candidates were weak on defense. In several states, GOP ads have also spotlighted contributions Democratic candidates have received from the Council for a Livable World, a group that advocates arms control and a smaller Pentagon budget. Bush, meanwhile, is in the midst of an aggressive schedule of political appearances and has been speaking with increasing forcefulness about Iraq while campaigning for GOP candidates. *Targeting Democrats* In a clear reference to Daschle and other Senate Democrats, Bush said in Trenton, N.J., on Monday, "The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." Until Wednesday, Daschle had studiously avoided accusing Bush of using the prospect of war for political purposes. But he dropped that reserve Wednesday after reading a story in the Washington Post that noted Bush's New Jersey remark. The story also said that at a fund-raiser in Kansas on Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney had suggested that a vote for a Republican House candidate would help the war effort. Those reports were particularly galling to Daschle because he?like Gephardt?has taken considerable heat from rank-and-file Democrats who believe their leaders have done too little to slow Bush's rush to confront Iraq. A source close to Daschle said that on Wednesday, the majority leader felt that "his efforts to work with the president are not being reciprocated in a meaningful way." Indeed, the usually mild-mannered Daschle rose angrily on the Senate floor to defend his party's record on national security. He invoked the many Democratic lawmakers who are military veterans, such as Sen. Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, who lost an arm in World War II combat. "The president ought to apologize to Sen. Inouye and every veteran who has fought in every war who is a Democrat in the Senate," said Daschle. "Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now." Inouye also spoke, saying to Bush: "It is American to question the president.... I stand before you a proud member of the Democratically controlled Senate." Daschle's remarks infuriated Republicans, who joined the White House in saying he quoted Bush out of context. They noted that he made his comment about Democrats as he was discussing legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security, not a possible war with Iraq. The homeland security bill has bogged down in the Senate over Bush's insistence on a provision?opposed by Democrats and their labor union allies?to give him more flexibility in managing employees of the new department. In that context, Fleischer defended Bush's comment. "There is no doubt about it: If (the homeland security bill) does not pass into law because special-interest provisions will have prevailed, the Senate will not have acted in the best interest of the American people," he said. Congressional Republicans joined in the defense, saying Cheney's remarks in Kansas had been misinterpreted by Democrats because of a headline in the Topeka newspaper. Bush, in a speech Wednesday night, broached the impasse over the proposed Department of Homeland Security and again raised the national security issue that so angered Daschle. Speaking to a fund-raising dinner in Washington for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Bush complained that "some senators, not all senators, but some senators" are thwarting his plan over the labor rights dispute. He added: "The Senate must hear this, because the American people understand it: They should not respond to special interests in Washington, D.C. They ought to respond to this interest?protecting the American people from future attack." Earlier in the day, Bush offered a low-key response when asked whether he was "politicizing the war." "My job is to protect the American people," he told reporters. "And I will continue to do that, regardless of the season." Bush also equated Hussein and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, saying, "They're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. "They work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world," Bush said. *Aiming at Critics* His remarks seemed directed at answering criticism, included in a speech Monday by Al Gore, the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee, that the focus on Iraq has undermined the fight against terrorism. Republicans in the Senate were more vitriolic in their response to Daschle's speech. "I thought he was way over the top," said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "It's almost as if they think President George W. Bush is the problem, instead of Saddam Hussein." Daschle's remarks on the Iraq issue were welcomed by fellow Democrats, who flocked to the Senate floor during his speech and offered support in speeches of their own. His comments were especially gratifying to those who thought their party leaders had been too willing to embrace Bush's policy. "I was very alone in urging caution," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "There's been a rush on both sides to go [into Iraq] and wage war." Some said they hoped that Daschle's comments would open more political space for Democrats to raise more questions about the wisdom of military action. "Hopefully, this will lead to a period when we talk about the merits of Iraq policy," said Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), a leading critic of Bush's policy. "As time has gone on, significant questioning about the wisdom of military involvement is occurring." But an aide to another anti-war Democrat in the Senate predicted that the political controversy would not change the outcome of the debate on the war resolution, but only reduce the margin by which it passes. "Instead of there being 85 votes for the resolution, there may be just 70," said the aide. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times By visiting this site, you are ***************************************************************** 31 UK: The Sketch: No evidence, no rebellion: a supreme act of parliamentary management Independent.co.uk © 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd By Simon Carr When Jack Straw spoke about the twin towers attack in the Commons last year, a peculiar emphasis in his voice when he spoke about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons made it clear that the Government wanted to invade Iraq: they have been planning this eye-catching initiative for a long time. They assumed evidence would spill out of 11 September and provide the justification for whacking Saddam. But after a year, there's no Iraq connection with the towers, and we've no indication that Saddam is much guiltier of sponsoring international terror than Colonel Gaddafi. There's nothing new in the Prime Minister's dossier, and delaying its publication to the morning of the debate raised suspicions that the material is in some way tainted (the Government's reputation in such matters is as fragrant as dead, or least very sick, fish). So we had high hopes of a rebellion. Maybe Robin Cook would resign from the Cabinet to lead it, or maybe Clare Short? Yet more likely, would vertical take-off pigs perform aerial acrobatics over the Treasury benches? No, parliamentary management and the Prime Minister's thespian skills carried the day. Tam Dalyell tried a procedure to get a substantive vote at the end of the debate. He failed. In what way success would have been better wasn't made clear. Tony Blair's statement was received in respectful silence with one or two dense "Amens" from his back benchers. Barry Gardiner's long, lubricated tongue came snaking over the benchback dripping a question so vile that his promotion must be imminent. The loser of the day, leaving aside Saddam Hussein, was poor old Iain Thing. You know who I mean ? nice sort of fellow. Possibly over-promoted. After failing to ask any questions about the war, he intervened on the Liberal Democrats' Menzies Campbell. Mr Cambell is a gent. That's a technical term whose meaning is largely lost to us now. He's dignified, experienced, but quite able to dump his opponent on his backside. This he casually did, and Mr Thing should consider whether it's worth getting up again. That pale rider, Douglas Hogg made the most rebellious speech of the day ? elegant and unanswerable: "I do not think the threat of war is sufficiently grave or sufficiently imminent to provide a moral basis for war." "We should be unambiguous about what will happen to Saddam," Mr Blair said before ambigualising onwards. He will not admit regime change is his purpose. And no doubt, neither will they, as and when they retaliate. ***************************************************************** 32 Britain fights to restrain US over combative UN resolution Independent.co.uk 26 September 2002 14:07 BDST By David Usborne in New York Andrew Grice and Ben Russell The common front between Britain and the United States against Iraq was under strain last night as crucial differences emerged over a new UN resolution aimed at resolving the crisis. Britain has mounted a behind-the-scenes effort to dissuade the White House from seeking a resolution on Iraq that would be so belligerent as to make its passage through the UN Security Council virtually impossible. President George Bush was expected to sign a draft text for the Security Council's consideration last night or today. But there is anxiety in London that it may overstep what other members, notably France and Russia, would find palatable. Those fears were heightened today when Russian President Vladimir Putin called for a quick solution to the Iraqi crisis using political and diplomatic means, and suggested no new UN resolutions were necessary. "We favour a rapid resolution of the situation by political and diplomatic means, on the basis of existing UN Security Council regulations and in line with the principles of international law," Mr Putin said. "The decision to resume the activities of U.N. inspectors in Iraq opens up the possibility for this decision to be put into action rapidly and allows the concerns of the international community to be allayed." Tony Blair is determined to secure the unanimous backing of the five permanent members of the Council. He believes that abstentions when demands were last made on Iraq made it easier for Saddam Hussein to flout the UN's will. Britain is prepared to co-sponsor with the US a tough resolution saying that President Saddam must give UN inspectors full and unfettered access to any sites in Iraq they wish to visit. But divisions have emerged with the Bush administration about how specific the threat of military action should be. One draft warns that any "failure" to comply will result in "international action" under Chapter VII of the UN charter, which provides for military intervention to enforce decisions. However, Britain believes that Russia holds the key to winning unanimous support and is unlikely to back such an open threat of war. London may propose a less explicit motion in the hope of bringing Moscow onside. Diplomats at UN headquarters in New York warned that an overly aggressive draft resolution could quickly doom all hope of seeing a return of the arms inspectors to Iraq. Such an outcome would have unprecedented diplomatic consequences and leave the US free to pursue war, giving Mr Blair an agonising dilemma over whether to join military action. "The most crucial task is to get something that all five countries can agree on," one British source said last night. Britain hopes that agreement with the US can be reached by the weekend. A possible compromise is a text that makes it clear to Iraq that war will be the consequence of not co-operating over inspections but which does not seem to give America a pretext at the first sign of trouble. "In no way can it contain triggers that would allow one member state to rush off to war," one Western diplomat warned. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, insisted last night that Britain and America already had "ample power" to justify military strikes. He told the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee: "We do not regard it as absolutely essential that there should be a new Security Council resolution ? we regard it as desirable." Mr Straw is to visit key states in the Gulf, including Iran,after next week's Labour Party conference in an attempt to build support for military action. ***************************************************************** 33 Iraq takes journalists on tour to expose Blair 'lies' Independent.co.uk 25 September 2002 14:28 BDST By Kim Sengupta in Baghdad At the al-Qa'qa complex, 30 miles south of Baghdad, one of Iraq's main centres for producing nerve agents ? according to Tony Blair's "dossier" ? the director-general, Sinan Rasim Said, declared yesterday he would welcome United Nations inspectors to expose the "lies". Saddam Hussein's regime responded to the British report about its alleged acquisition of a nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal with accusations of "baseless fabrications and zionist conspiracy", and demanded that the document should be handed over to the UN monitors for examination. Within two hours and 10 minutes of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction ? The Assessment of the British Government appearing on the internet, the Baghdad authorities were taking a group of British journalists to see the sites of alleged manufacture and storage named in the document. One was the al-Qa'qa chemical complex, the site of the execution of British journalist Farzad Bazoft on spying charges in March 1990, and the other the Amariyeh Sera vaccine plant at Abu Ghraib, a suburb of the capital. We, the journalists, chose both locations and neither had been visited before by the media. Al-Qa'qa, according to the British dossier, was severely damaged in the Gulf War but has "been repaired and (is) also operational. Of particular concern are elements of the phosgene production plant. They were dismantled under Unscom supervision, but have since been rebuilt. While phosgene does have industrial use, it can also be used by itself as a chemical agent or as a precursor for nerve agent," according to the dossier. Unscom had established that the Amariyah Sera site "was used to store biological agents, seed stocks and conduct biological warfare associated genetic research prior to the Gulf War. It has now expanded its storage capacity". At al-Qa'qa, a 26 square kilometer military establishment, Mr Said insisted that no part of the plant had ever been dismantled by Unscom. He said that the work was solely to produce centralit, a stabliser for gunpowder used in a variety of legal, conventional weaponry from artillery to small arms. Phosgene, he claimed, was generated as a result of making centralit, and could not be extracted from the manufacturing equipment, let alone be used for making nerve agents. "Unscom knew all along what we are doing, it was done with their authorisation, and they carried out regular inspections", he said sitting in the boardroom, beside a portrait of President Hussein. Producing an Unscom letter from "Harald Marhold, Chief Inspector CG-15", dated 13 August 1998 authorising maintenance work, he continued "they did not dismantle anything here. Mr Blair's report is totally wrong." "We knew the Unscom people well, one was an English guy called Steve, all the British have to do is ask them. The UN keeps records, it would have been easy to find out." Al-Qa'qa was also bombed by the United States and British warplanes, during Operation Desert Storm, in 1998. "They destroyed boiler rooms and a storage area, They did not bother to bomb the part of the plant where there's phosgene, because they knew we can't make use of it," Mr Said said. Orange smoke belched from chimneys at the plant. Vapours escaped through the pipes containing the phosgene, Mr Said pointed out, sloshing through pools of murky water on the floor. The phosgene was being stored in cooling tanks. "Unscom put stickers on pieces of equipment to ensure that they cannot be used for dual use, and as you can see, we have kept them," he said. "We have given detailed reports every year since the inspectors left in 1998. They are available for the inspectors. We want them to come and expose these lies as soon as possible." However, like the majority of Iraqis we have spoken to, Mr Said did not believe war could be avoided. "I think the Americans will bomb this place again, and use this false report as one of the excuses," he said. Amir al Sa'adi, a senior Iraqi weapons expert, accused Mr Blair of singling out the plant because it could produce propellant powder for weapons from pistols to artillery guns for Iraqi air defenses. At Amariyah Sera, the director, Karim Obeid, disputed that Unscom had found it was used for biological warfare associated genetic research or store biological agents. "They were coming here ever since the Gulf War until they left, and they have never accused us of any of those things in that time," he said. "All our work was done with their supervision." The complex, he said, was used for "for testing typhoid fever". These are all standard practices, the inspectors are welcome to see them," said Mr Obeid, who added he was morally opposed to biological warfare "both as a scientist and a human being". The storage capacity had indeed been increased, as the report claimed, he said, showing us what he said were the two additional structures. One was a large mostly empty room. The first room, said Mr Obeid was used to store solutions for blood tests, imported from the Melat pharmaceutical company in France. The second room was stacked with empty bottles of various brands of vaccine. ***************************************************************** 34 UK: Regime change is all very well, but who will replace Saddam? Peter Carrington: Independent.co.uk 26 September 2002 04:03 BDST There is no doubt that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons. It may well be that it is a country on the road to possessing nuclear weapons ? and the means of delivering them. If it is not at present, then I am quite sure that Saddam Hussein will go on trying to do so. There is no question that the Iraqi regime is thoroughly unpleasant, has been aggressive on two occasions against its neighbours, is brutally oppressive to its own people and, as long as it has these weapons of mass destruction, can in no sense be relied upon not to use them. We are all equally agreed that Saddam Hussein is a thoroughly unpleasant character, unscrupulous and cruel and, at the same time, a cunning and devious politician. I have met him on two occasions and, to say the least of it, I did not come away with a very favourable impression. It is equally true that Iraq is in breach of a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions, not least the obligation to accept United Nations weapons inspectors and disarmament, although it must be said ? it is not in mitigation ? that it is not alone in ignoring UN resolutions. That I would say is common ground. The question is this: what should we do about it? I am sure that it was right for the United States to go to the United Nations Security Council. I am equally sure that the Prime Minister played a part in achieving that result, and I applaud him for it. Unilateral action taken by the United States would have caused the greatest possible division ? not just in the Arab world but also in Europe and elsewhere. The consequences would have been far-reaching. The fact that Iraq has now said that the UN weapons inspectors can now return is not in itself enough. We have seen the impediments, prevarications, and obstacles that the Iraqis have put previously in the way of the weapons inspectors. It is fair to assume that Saddam Hussein will use exactly the same delaying tactics again. Indeed, there are already indications of qualifications about what the weapons inspectors can or cannot see. I believe, therefore, that the United States is right in insisting upon a new UN resolution that will not just place an obligation on the Iraqis to facilitate the work of the inspectors but will also place an obligation on them to disarm and impose a time limit and provisions for taking action if they do not comply. We have seen too much delay and obstruction. I hope and I believe that such a resolution will gain the support of members of the Security Council. It may well be that as a result there will be a change of regime in Iraq, which, of course, is much to be hoped for. But if that does not happen, I am not clear what the United States' position is. It speaks of the imperative of a change of regime. But how will it bring that about, and on what basis? If the weapons inspectors have done their job properly and the weapons of mass destruction currently in the hands of the Iraqis have disappeared, Saddam Hussein does not cease to be a threat to the people of Iraq but he ceases to be a threat to his neighbours. It is on the basis of his possession of these weapons that we are now concerned. On what basis should he be removed? If he were to be removed, who would take his place? Would it be a government appointed by the United States? It is almost impossible to see how a fair, democratic election could take place in Iraq at present. The country is split religiously and racially. There are no obvious opposition leaders. Those questions need to be asked and answered. One might go further. If Saddam Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction, he is no more dangerous to the rest of the world than are other dictators and despots who oppress their citizens. Robert Mugabe immediately comes to mind. He is no threat to our security, but he is inflicting on his fellow citizens cruelties, discrimination and hardship. So far as I know, no one has yet suggested a compulsory change of his regime by force or otherwise. Would not such an action on the part of the United States set a precedent that would be very difficult to accept in other cases? It seems to me that these are very important issues, and I hope that the Government will think very carefully before accepting proposals for a change of regime of that kind. But on the issue of the inspectors and a new Security Council resolution, I am wholly on the side of the United States. /Lord Carrington was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1979-82), Secretary of State for Defence (1974) and Secretary General of Nato (1984-88). The above text is based on remarks he made in the House of Lords during Wednesday's debate on Iraq's intention to develop and use weapons of mass destruction/ ***************************************************************** 35 Rice Links al-Qaida With Iraq Las Vegas SUN: Today: September 26, 2002 at 8:00:24 PDT By JOHN J. LUMPKIN ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- President Bush's national security adviser said al-Qaida operatives have found refuge in Baghdad, and accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime of helping Osama bin Laden's followers develop chemical weapons. Condoleezza Rice's statements, aired Wednesday on PBS' "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" program, are the strongest yet alleging contacts between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government. Previously, evidence of the two working together was tenuous, or came from unreliable sources. She made her accusations as the Bush administration continued to make its case to a skeptical world that Saddam should be removed from power, by force if necessary. They followed accusations from Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle that Bush was playing politics with the debate over war in Iraq. "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here," Rice said. She said much of the information was coming from al-Qaida operatives captured since the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings. This included several senior leaders whom the U.S. alleges organized terrorist attacks. "We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-Qaida going back for actually quite a long time," Rice said. "We know too that several of the (al-Qaida) detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaida in chemical weapons development." Bush, speaking with reporters in the Oval Office earlier Wednesday, said he was determined to battle terrorism on two fronts - Saddam's Iraq and bin Laden's al-Qaida network because "they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." The widely held view has been that while Saddam and bin Laden both oppose the United States, their motivations are too different for them to work together. Saddam seeks secular power; bin Laden's drive comes from religious motivations and his opposition to the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world. "No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on Sept. 11, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clearer, and we're learning more," Rice said. She suggested that details of the contacts would be released later. Previously, U.S. intelligence officials have said some al-Qaida members have been detected in Iraq, but that they appeared to simply be crossing the country while fleeing Afghanistan for their native countries on the Arabian peninsula or in North Africa. U.S. intelligence also has received information that some al-Qaida leaders are hiding in Iran, and the U.S. government is looking into reports that al-Qaida operatives are conducting training just over the Iranian border from Afghanistan. "And there are some al-Qaida personnel who found refuge in Baghdad," Rice said. Earlier in the day, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made reference to links between Iraq and al-Qaida during a NATO meeting in Warsaw, Poland, but didn't offer details. Administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Rice's disclosure was significant because it marked the first time that the White House claimed that al-Qaida operated in areas of Iraq controlled by Saddam. It was an effort to counter suggestions that al-Qaida operatives were solely in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, which he doesn't control. The disclosure is part of an effort to strengthen the case against Saddam, the officials said. Previously, it's been known that Ansar al-Islam, an Islamic extremist group in northern Iraq, sent about a dozen of its members to bin Laden's camps. The group is largely composed of ethnic Kurds and had experimented with biological weapons, U.S. officials have said. But any links to Saddam's government were tenuous. Bin Laden has sought chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for a decade, U.S. intelligence officials have said. His followers are believed to have experimented with rudimentary chemical and biological weapons, but they lacked the sophistication to use them in a way that would kill large numbers of people. Saddam's military used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s and on rebelling Iraqi Kurds. He also has researched biological and nuclear weapons - previously, the key complaint of the Bush administration against Saddam. Saddam's government denies having any of these weapons. After Sept. 11, officials in the Czech Republic said Mohamed Atta, believed to have led the suicide hijacking attacks, had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, which some viewed as a link between Iraq and the attacks. But U.S. officials have since said they doubt the meeting took place. The Iraqi government has been linked to other groups labeled terrorist by the United States, primarily those that oppose Iran and Israel. -- All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 36 IVINS: National Security Strategy Document Is Repellent and Impractical The Salt Lake Tribune -- Thursday, September 26, 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, AUSTIN, Texas -- No. This is not acceptable. This is not the country we want to be. This is not the world we want to make. The United States of America is still run by its citizens. The government works for us. Rank imperialism and warmongering are not American traditions or values. We do not need to dominate the world. We want and need to work with other nations. We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood. I rarely use the word "we" because it's so arrogant for one citizen to presume to speak for all of us -- and besides, Americans famously can't agree on the time of day. But on this one, I know we want to find a way so that killing is the last resort, not the first. We would rather put our time, energy, money and even blood into making peace than making war. "The National Security Strategy of the United States -- 2002" is repellent, unnecessary and, above all, impractical. Americans are famous for pragmatism, and we need a good dose of common sense right now. This will not work. All the experts tell us anti-Americanism thrives on the perception that we are arrogant, that we care nothing for what the rest of the world thinks. Even our innocent mistakes are often blamed on obnoxious triumphalism. The announced plan of this administration for world domination reinforces every paranoid, anti-American prejudice on this earth. This plan is guaranteed to produce more terrorists. Even if this country were to become some insane, 21st century version of Sparta -- armed to teeth, guards on every foot of our borders -- we would still not be safe. Have the Israelis been able to stop terrorism with their tactics? Not only would we not be safe, we would not have a nickel left for schools or health care or roads or parks or zoos or gardens or universities or mass transit or senior centers or the arts or anything resembling civilization. This is nuts. This creepy, un-American document has a pedigree going back to Bush I, when -- surprise! -- Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz were at the Department of Defense and both such geniuses that they not only didn't see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming, they didn't believe it after they saw it. In those days, this plan for permanent imperial adventurism was called "Defense Strategy for the 1990s" and was supposed to be a definitive response to the Soviet threat. Then the Soviet threat disappeared, and the same plan re-emerged as a response to the post-Soviet world. It was roundly criticized at the time, its manifest weaknesses attacked by both right and left. Now it is back yet again as the answer to post-Sept. 11. Sort of like the selling of the Bush tax cut -- needed in surplus, needed in deficit, needed for rain and shine -- the plan exists apart from rationale. ' As Frances Fitzgerald points out in the Sept. 26 New York Review of Books, its most curious feature is the combination of triumphalism and almost unmitigated pessimism. Until last Friday, when the thing was re-released in its new incarnation, it contained no positive goals for American foreign policy, not one. Now the plan is tricked out with rhetoric like earrings on a pig about extending freedom, democracy and prosperity to the world. But as The New York Times said, "It sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced." In what is indeed a dangerous and uncertain world, we need the cooperation of other nations as never before. Under this doctrine, we claim the right to first-strike use of nuclear weapons and "unannounced pre-emptive strikes." That means surprise attacks. Happy Pearl Harbor Day. We have just proclaimed ourselves Bully of the World. There is a better way. Foreign policy experts polled at the end of the 20th century agreed the great triumph of the past 100 years in foreign policy was the Marshall Plan. We can use our strength to promote our interests through diplomacy, economic diplomacy, multilateral institutions (which we dominate anyway) and free trade conditioned to benefit all. None of this will make Al Qaeda love us, but will make it a lot more likely that whoever finds them will hand them over. This reckless, hateful and ineffective approach to the rest of the world has glaring weaknesses. It announces that we intend to go in and take out everybody else's nukes (27 countries have them) whenever we feel like it. Meanwhile, we're doing virtually nothing to stop their spread. Last month, Ted Turner's Nuclear Threat Initiative had to pony up $5 million to get poorly secured, weapons-grade uranium out of Belgrade. Privatizing disarmament, why didn't we think of that before? The final absurdity is that the plan is supposed to Stop Change. Does no one in the administration read history? © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 37 Iraq: Pulling the rug ©The Frontier Publications (Pvt) Updated on 9/24/2002 6:27:38 PM The Iraqi decision to accept the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors after an absence of four years was unquestionably a masterful stroke. It certainly should derail the US administration’s scheme to wage war in the Middle East and distract international and American attention from other more serious issues that some expected to influence a crucial mid-term American election that could mar the Bush presidency. President George W Bush should now feel rewarded that his yielding to mounting international and domestic pressure to seek United Nations approval for any undertaking, military or not, against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was the wiser course. The hawks in his administration, primarily Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, must now be reeling with anger. After all, the Iraqi leader has pulled the rug from under their feet. On the other hand, Bush’s forceful presentation at the United Nations won him deserved praise in many circles, at home and abroad, for emphasising the essentials in the unsettled conflict with Iraq, namely the flouting of UN resolutions - an issue that has been left surprisingly dormant for several years but now acquired centre stage. Iraq had no choice in this matter but to succumb to the will of many members, especially Arab governments who urged the Baghdad regime to readmit the UN inspectors. It will have to open its borders once again to international inspectors to save itself from the wrath of a superpower that seemed to have lost its original course, from a war against terrorism that has won international support after Sept. 11 to a spat with the Baghdad regime, which is allegedly trying to acquire nuclear capability. Baghdad must henceforth take into consideration the welfare of the hapless Iraqi people who have suffered for far too long and unnecessarily from an UN-imposed sanction regime. It must also remember that the Arab world’s number one issue remains the conflict with Israel over usurped Arab lands and the Jewish state’s subjugation of an impoverished and miserable populace engaged in an uneven struggle with this brutal foe, armed to the teeth, that no one seems willing to restrain, least of all the Bush administration. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, whose speech preceded Bush’s at the UN General Assembly forum last week, was obviously not swayed by the American arguments and listed the Arab-Israeli conflict as the number one threat that confronts the international community and not the unsubstantiated charge that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. The Bush administration needs to readjust its focus and once again try to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli issue, as it attempted in its opening salvo last June. Its war on international terrorism, which this week received a shot in the arm with the arrest of the alleged 20th hijacker in Pakistan, warrants additional investment, in funds and manpower, on the level undertaken in Bosnia before any tangible results can be achieved there. The showing there has been unimpressive. When Bush spoke at the United Nations last week, he lambasted the Iraqi regime for defying the resolutions of the world organisation for 10 years, but he conveniently overlooked the fact that Israel has been more blatant. It has been snubbing the international community for 35 years by refusing to implement UN Security Council resolutions that called for its withdrawal from the Arab lands it occupied in the 1967 war. And it has been able to escape any serious repercussions because of American protection. For example, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, encouraged by his cheering team within the Bush administration, continues to ignore all the recent courageous attempts by the Palestinians to put their house in order. His defiance is clear in his refusal to stop his colonial expansion. Ten new settlements were detected last week by Israeli peace groups, and not one word of reprimand from the Bush administration. This is an opportune time for the Bush administration to take stock of its faltering foreign policy. The Iraqi conundrum should not remain unresolved. Now that the inspectors will be allowed in, their target should be clear and straightforward and completed expeditiously. Once this is done, the sanctions should be lifted and Iraq allowed to rejoin the international community. The future of the Iraqi leader is an issue best left for the Iraqi people and not anyone else. Similarly, the Bush administration needs to follow through on it declared ideas for an Arab-Israeli settlement, including holding of new elections and the establishment of a Palestinian state. More urgently, the Palestinian population needs immediate and substantial financial assistance to revive the bankrupt economy, which has suffered from two years of stagnation, strife and occupation. The commendable Iraqi decision to invite back the UN inspectors is a golden opportunity that should not be dismissed casually as some early US reactions have. The sooner these grievances are tackled the earlier the breeding ground for terrorism is eliminated in the region, and the safer we will all feel. © Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post ***************************************************************** 38 UK: S Africa denies Iraq nuclear link BBC NEWS | Africa | Thursday, 26 September, 2002, 12:00 GMT 13:00 UK [Tony Blair and Saddam Hussein] Britain says Iraq wanted African uranium By Alistair Leithead BBC, Cape Town The South African government says categorically it has not been approached to sell uranium to Iraq. South Africa's deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad says his government will ask the British Government to clarify "vague statements" made in Prime Minister Tony Blair's Iraq dossier published this week. Mr Pahad said his government had not been approached, but would be investigating suggestions that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa. Africa's uranium production in 2001 Niger - 3,096 tonnes Namibia - 2,239 tonnes South Africa - 898 tonnes Source: Uranium Information Centre The dossier on Iraq's nuclear capability and intentions said that Iraq had tried to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa. South Africa is the only country on the continent which has the capacity to enrich uranium. Gabon, Niger and Namibia have all exported unprocessed uranium oxide. South Africa produces the mineral, but has a domestic nuclear energy and research programme. Finger pointed at South Africa The dossier published by the British Government this week said Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire significant quantities of uranium from Africa, but did not provide any further evidence. Aziz Pahad said the finger had been pointed at South Africa as the only country on the continent with the capacity to enrich uranium. He said categorically the government had not supplied uranium to Iraq, nor had it been approached, and he would actively be seeking clarification from Britain on the vague statements made in the dossier. Mr Pahad cited the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which he said showed the dossier had no substance with regard to nuclear material acquisitions in Africa. He said that, because of the strict regime in South Africa, it would be very difficult for private companies within the country to be involved in uranium trading. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 39 Defence Ministry Cancels Secret Decree That Jailed Pasko The Pasko Case Gregory Pasko, an investigative journalist who worked for the Pacific Fleet's newspaper, was arrested on 20 November 1997 by the FSB and charged with high treason for his writing about the nuclear safety issues in the Russian Pacific Fleet. Jump to MOSCOW, VLADIVOSTOK - The Russian Ministry of Defence has abolished a secret decree that served as the basis for the conviction of military journalist Grigory Pasko as well as the 5-year-long prosecution of environmentalist Aleksander Nikitin, Pasko's lawyer, Ivan Pavlov, said Tuesday. Grigory Pasko and Ivan Pavlov during trial in Vladivostok in 2001. Victor Tereshkin Charles Digges, 2002-09-26 00:03 Conclusive evidence that the classified Defence Ministry Decree No. 055 had ceased to exist came to light during proceedings in which the Supreme Court's Appeals Board was examining a private complaint filed by Pasko against Judge Aleksander Koronets who had previously refused to consider an earlier complaint lodged by Pasko against items contained in Decree No. 055. On Tuesday, the Appeals Board, led by Judge Aleksander Fedin overturned the prior Judge's refusal to grant Pasko's complaint and closed the case on the basis that secret decree No. 055 — which gave the government wide latitude in defining state secrecy — had been abolished by Defence Minister Igor Ivanov and no longer existed. According to Pavlov, these documents cancelling the decree were in evidence in court Wednesday. Though the cancellation of the secret decree will not lead to Pasko's freedom, it is an important legal victory in preventing further prosecutorial fiascos like the Pasko and Nikitin cases, said Pavlov in an interview. And even though a new — and equally secret — decree has sprung up to take its place, Pavlov said he had been told in court Tuesday by Defence Ministry representatives that many of the arguments made against the old decree by Pasko's legal team had been "taken into consideration" in the draft of the new classified decree on state secrets. A Defence Ministry official, who requested anonymity, confirmed this. "We cannot say that there will be no more Paskos or Nikitins, but there will be significantly fewer of them," Pavlov said. "[The Defence Ministry] has decided to correct some of its own mistakes." But Pavlov quickly added that the situation compounds the "absurdity" of Pasko's case. During hearings, Pavlov reported, Judge Fedin closed the complaint case because, the judge said, he saw no purpose for debate since the decree no longer exists. "So now they say there is no issue to debate — a person is doing time in jail, but they say there is no issue to debate," Pavlov fumed. "It's a totally absurd situation, it means you can issue a decree, an illegal decree, convict someone on the basis of it, throw him in jail, then right after the conviction cancel the decree." Nonetheless, Pavlov said, the fact that the Pasko case influenced the contents of the new classified decree on state secrets, "may not be a victory for Pasko, but it is a victory for society — a hopefully freer society." Pasko, a 40-year-old former reporter for the military Boyevaya Vakhta, or Battle Watch, newspaper of the Russian Pacific Fleet, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on December 25th, for allegedly intending to pass classified information on navy manoeuvres to Japanese media. He also reported extensively on the Pacific Fleet's negligent handling of its nuclear waste, including exposing evidence of dumping nuclear waste at sea. The conviction was based on two now abolished secret Defence Ministry decrees — Decree No. 055, and Decree No. 10 which barred military personnel from fraternizing with foreigners. Decree No. 10 was abolished by the Supreme Court in May. The international response to Pasko's case has been different. Amnesty International proclaimed Pasko Russia's third Prisoner of Conscience since Andrei Sakharov and Bellona's Alexander Nikitin, and he has also been nominated for the European Union's prestigious Sakharov Award for freedom of thought. All of this would seem to pave the way to Pasko's immediate freedom, but the mechanics of Russian justice, Pavlov explained, are not that simple. "This case has long since jumped the judicial rails," he said. "It has turned out that the [Supreme] Court will only look at this case from a political point of view — whatever complaints have been filed, or will be filed, they only care about saving face." The "face" to be saved here, said Pavlov, is that of the judges and security services, who instead of insisting on the mandatory 20-year imprisonment Pasko was facing, reduced his sentence to four years, leaving 28 months for him to serve after the 20 months he had spent in detention were deducted. "The security services viewed this as a compromise," said Pavlov. "But how can you compromise with an innocent man?" There have also been hints that Pasko's imprisonment is a trade off for the acquittal of Nikitin in 2000, which was a bitter loss for the security services. After Pasko's conviction, there were also Kremlin overtures to amnesty. However, Pasko turned them all down on the basis that amnesty is the refuge of the guilty — which he is not. Any chance for freedom The best chances for Pasko's freedom therefore lie in a so-called Supervisory Appeal, or nadzornaya zhaloba in Russian, that his defence team will file before the end of this month. This appeal would allow Pasko's defence team to file a complaint with Supreme Court Chairman Vladimir Lebedev, or one of his deputies, asking the chairman to look into the legality and foundations of yesterday's decision. If Lebedev accepts the appeal, it would be passed to the Presidium of the Supreme Court where 15 judges would hear the appeal in court. The verdict would be decided by a vote, and a simple majority would set him free. Pavlov said Tuesday that it is not clear when an answer could be expected from Lebedev on the appeal. There is also a chance that Pasko, who is currently in quarantine at the prison camp to which he has been sent, may be set free early for good behaviour. But both his wife, Galina Morozova, and his Vladivostok-based attorney, Anatoly Pyshkin, said in interviews there last week that they feared Pasko may become the target of harassment of guards anxious to dash his chances. "He's an educated man, not a common criminal, so I doubt he will get into any trouble," said Morozova in an interview in Vladivostok. "But we've heard of any number of threats, by guards, to plant contraband on him, or start fights with him — all of which would put early release in danger." Defence Ministry learns from Pasko case According to Pavlov, the Defence Ministry representatives he spoke with told him a team of 130 experts was assigned to write the new decree and that it had been done with the Pasko case in mind. "Those representatives [of the Defence Ministry] who were in the courtroom said they were grateful for the fact that we explained to them a lot of things that they didn't understand before," he said. Many on the team that drafted the new decree, these ministry representatives — as well as the ministry source — said, had cut their professional teeth during the original Pasko interrogations, dating back to 1997. "Those experts got first hand experience [in the case] when we rubbed it in their faces that they couldn't even make correct use of their own decree, that their whole stance was illegal and contradicts the Constitution," said Pavlov. What's in the new decree? Among those items that are no longer considered state secrets in the new decree is information about military casualties and illnesses among servicemen, Pavlov said he was told by Defence Ministry representatives, although they would give no more examples. The Defence Ministry source confirmed these items are absent from the new decree, but also refused to provide more details. What likely remains in the new decree, said Pavlov, are items that classify information about the shipment of submarine spent nuclear fuel in Russia, and the scale of Russia's chemical weapons stockpiles. Nikitin, who two weeks ago also went to the Supreme Court to argue against decree No. 055 — to be told even then that the decree had apparently been cancelled — also suggested that the new secrecy document likely contains other restrictions on information about atomic power and even education. It is also likely to contain hundreds more — No. 055 contained more than 600 — instances in which information can be considered classified. The Defence Ministry official did say that the new secret document listed "more than a few dozen instances" under which certain information is considered a state secret, but would not be more specific. "Unfortunately we can't see [the new decree] yet, but I think sooner or later we'll get to it, too," Pavlov said. "It would be hoped that it contains mostly technical things, relative to weaponry, the character of weaponry in a military sense." But Pavlov vowed that "we'll get to it and we'll check if the statements made by the Defence Ministry representatives [on Tuesday] were true." What the public knows about state secrets? At the heart of the struggle that has dragged Nikitin through judicial humiliation for five years until his full acquittal in 2000 and that now has its claws in Pasko, is the extreme variance between the Defence Ministry's classified decree on state secrets, and the Federal Law on State Secrets that the public is allow to see. Said Pavlov, if the decree No. 055 contains some 650 instances where a state secret could be declared, the Federal Law on State Secrets contains only some three dozen items. But, said Pavlov, these instances are vague. "It's not a question of quantity but of quality," he said. "A cursory reading of the published Law on State Secrets leaves one lost. An average person really has no idea what is classified and what is not." This then leaves the security services with wide latitude in prosecuting treason cases. Threats to the abolition of No. 055 It is precisely this latitude that the government grants itself that leads Pavel Felgenhauer, an analyst who writes on Russia's security and defence bureaucracies, to take a sceptical view on the cancellation of No. 055. "This is not a law-based country," Felgenhauer told Bellona Web. "There's an old saying with the security services: ‘Find me a man and I'll find an article to prosecute him with.'" Felgenhauer said that just because the Defence Ministry decides to re-write its secret statutes on classified information, it doesn't mean, for instance, the situation will become easier regarding other security agencies like the Federal Security Service (FSB). Felgenhauer added that the FSB has its "own version" of Decree. No. 055 to follow and could make arrests on its basis, even while the Defence Ministry has thrown out a number of those things deemed treasonous offences. But Pavlov said that the importance of the Defence Ministry's decision is that it will create a chain reaction and all of these security structures will have to follow suit. "We disagree that these laws should be classified and we will see the process through to the end." Pavlov added, however, that, "state secrets in Russia are there and must be there and they must be protected — but they mustn't be amorphous, like rubber, so that they suck up a whole layer of information that must be open to the public." Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 40 The Pasko case affects the whole world The Pasko Case Gregory Pasko, an investigative journalist who worked for the Pacific Fleet's newspaper, was arrested on 20 November 1997 by the FSB and charged with high treason for his writing about the nuclear safety issues in the Russian Pacific Fleet. Jump to Pasko hearing in the European Parliament: — The Pasko case affects the whole world STRASBOURG - — It is of huge importance that the European Union engages itself in the case of Grigory Pasko. That was the message from today's hearing in the EU Parliament. Bellona Europa, 2002-09-25 21:12 The hearing was arranged by the European Parliament's Green Group, in order to explain why the imprisoned Russian journalist Grigory Pasko, is its candidate for the EPs yearly Sakharov prize for the Freedom of Thought. The list of participants included Aleksandr Nikitin, head of Bellona's St Petersburg Branch; Russian MP and former Human Rights Ombudsman, Sergei Kovalev; Aleksei Simonov of the Moscow-based Glasnost Foundation; French MP Noel Mamere; Matti Wuori, MEP and parliamentary reporter for human rights; and Jon Gauslaa; legal advisor of Bellona Oslo. Plans to visit Pasko — Grigory Pasko is a candidate in the true spirit of the Sakharov prize, said the co-chairman of the Green/EFA group in the European Parliament, Daniel Cohn-Bendit at the start of the hearing. — He has run into difficulties because of what he has been thinking and what he has expressed. Cohn-Bendit added that the EPs Committee of Foreign Affairs will address the Russian authorities in order to be able to visit Pasko, who is currently serving a four years bogus espionage-conviction in a labour camp in the Russian Far East. A repressive trap Aleksandr Niktitin, who himself spent five years in order to fight off unfounded espionage-charges before he was acquitted in September 2000, said that it is of huge importance that the EP engages itself in the Pasko-case. — Pasko is not only an isolated and imprisoned individual, his situation is symptomatic for the recent development in Russia, Nikitin said. Like myself, Pasko was prosecuted on the basis of secret laws. And there are several others. — The Russian system of secret laws is a repressive trap that any thinking individual might be caught in. Russia going backwards Sergei Kovaliev focused on the fact that Pasko has kept his dignity throughout the five year long process against him. — He is an innocent man who has refused to accept any offer of being pardoned and this makes him a hero, Kovaliev said, adding that the conviction of Pasko shows that the development in Russia is going backwards. — Under the present leadership, many former Soviet structures are being restored. Therefore the Pasko-case is not only a Russian case. It is a case that affects Europe and the whole world. Aleksei Simonov stressed that the Pasko-conviction shows that the Russian Courts are still the obedient servants of the system. — The notion of independent Courts is unfortunately a fiction in Russia, he said. Attention needed The three non-Russians in the panel, Mamère, Wuorri and Gauslaa drew parallels between the cases of Aleksandr Nikitin and Grigory Pasko, and underlined the importance of awarding Pasko the Sakharov prize. — The fact that Nikitin was acquitted two years ago, while Pasko now has been convicted, is a disturbing development, Gauslaa said. Wuori made Andrei Sakharov´s words his, when he underlined that foreign attention and pressure towards Russia are needed in order to support its civic society. — Giving the prize to Pasko; would indeed serve this purpose. ** The Sakharov prize for the Freedom of Thought was first awarded by the European Parliament in 1988. It is awarded to individuals or organisations for making significant contributions to the promotion of human rights and basic freedom, and for firmly opposing persecution and injustice. The list of previous winners includes Nelson Mandela, Aleksander Dubcek and Burmese Nobel Peace Prize-winner, Aung San Suu Kyi. This year's winner will be selected on October 17th, while the award ceremony will be held in Strasbourg at the parliamentary session in December 2002. Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 41 Editorial: President looks bad in his partisanship Las Vegas SUN: Today: September 26, 2002 at 9:12:54 PDT In recent days President Bush has stepped up his partisan criticism of Senate Democrats on issues involving Iraq and the war on terrorism. Earlier this week at a Republican fund-raiser, Bush said the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people." On Wednesday Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Bush should apologize for trying to politicize the rhetoric over these important issues. Daschle is right: It's outrageous for the president to suggest that Democrats don't care about national security. For that matter, in an election year most Democrats have been reluctant to criticize the war on terrorism and Bush's policy on Iraq because they fear Republicans will label them as being soft on defense -- a fear that is turning out to be prescient. The irony is that it has been prominent Republicans, both in and out of government, who have raised pointed questions about a military invasion of Iraq and how it also might negatively affect the war on terrorism. Why isn't the president singling them out for not caring about U.S. security? The war on terrorism isn't going as well as it was early on, and there isn't universal support -- home and abroad -- for a military invasion of Iraq. But instead of discussing the merits of an issue, Bush has resorted to partisanship in an attempt to muddy the debate. It's unbecoming of a president and he should stop the needless rhetoric now. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 42 Seoul pushing for 3-way summit Korea Herald!!_National http://www.koreaherald.com The Seoul government is pushing for a three-way summit with the United States and Japan when leaders of the Asia-Pacific region gather in Mexico next month for their annual meeting, an official at the presidential office of Cheong Wa Dae said yesterday. The official said President Kim Dae-jung and U.S. President George W. Bush promised to discuss issues involving North Korea at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting during their telephone conversation Wednesday. "Working-level meetings among the three countries will broach the issue of holding bilateral talks and three-way talks," he said. The trilateral summit is expected to address weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the North, reconnection of inter-Korean railways and roads, and the outcome of the North Korea-Japan summit held in Pyongyang last week. Bush also told Kim that he would send an envoy to North Korea "at an early date," for the first high-level talks between the two countries since he took office in January 2001. A Foreign Ministry official said James Kelly, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, will travel to Pyongyang within a couple of weeks. "The United States will address a wide range of issues, including the North's nuclear and missile programs and conventional arms," the official said. Jack Pritchard, the U.S. point man on negotiations with the North, held meetings with North Korean representatives to the United Nations in New York on Monday and Tuesday to flesh out the envisaged visit by the American envoy. Kelly's visit would come on the heels of dramatic reconciliatory gestures from Pyongyang toward the South, Japan, and other foreign countries. The isolationist country has recently laid out a series of economic reforms, which include elements that resemble those of a market economy, and designated Sinuiju, a city in the country's far northwest, as a special economic zone. Experts have said improvement in Washington-Pyongyang relations will be essential to the success of the North's economic initiatives because North Korea may fail to attract foreign investment if the Unites States keeps its economic sanctions imposed on the North. U.S. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Kim and Bush agreed that real progress with the North depends on full resolution of the security issues on the Korean Peninsula, including the North's possession and pursuit of WMDs and ballistic missiles. "Nothing has changed in the president's thinking about North Korean President Kim Jong-il and the North Korean leader's starvation of his own people, the militarization efforts that he's leading, the massive number of conventional weapons that he has on the border with South Korea, as well as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," Fleischer said. Seoul officials expressed hopes that Washington and Pyongyang will make progress this time. The United States had planned to send Kelly to North Korea in early June but the plan was called off in the wake of a bloody naval clash between the two Koreas in June. After the North offered an apology to the South over the incident, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell had an informal talk with North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun on the sidelines of a conference of countries from the Asia-Pacific region in Brunei in July. (shj@koreaherald.co.kr) By Seo Hyun-jin Staff reporter 2002.09.27 (C) Copyright 2000 Digital Korea Herald. All rights ***************************************************************** 43 Nonviolent Direct Action Camp October 5th - 15th, 2002 Action for Nuclear Abolition 2002 Shundahai Network [http://www.shundahai.org] > Action For Nuclear Abolition 2002 [http://www.shundahai.org/ANAmain.htm] Las Vegas, NV to Peace Camp We invite you to join us in international nonviolent resistance to U.S. Nuclear policies. Together we will build community and take direct action for nuclear abolition. With our Western Shoshone hosts and friends from around the world, we will wise up, rise up, honor and resist. Need a Ride or have Room for Riders? Check the Ride Board [http://messages.brysonweb.com:8080/%7Eshundahai/] Ceremonies & Protocol What to Bring Whats Happening ? Directions Schedule Trainings Participating Organizations Wish List How You Can Help Who We Are? ***************************************************************** 44 Ukraine, Belarus deny allegations of they sold technology to Iraq Bostonherald.com E-NEWS Associated Press Tuesday, September 24, 2002 KIEV, Ukraine - The governments of Ukraine and Belarus both denied Tuesday they sold high-tech items to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions. Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma said his government had sent an open letter to the head of the U.N. Security Council ``a few days ago,'' requesting creation of a special commission to investigate Ukraine's possible role in arms supplies to Iraq. In a statement released by his press service, Kuchma said that ``Ukraine is prepared to make available all information, and it is open to inspections by competent authorized international organizations, including U.S. experts.'' The U.S. State Department, meanwhile, announced that it had concluded that Kuchma approved the sale of a radar system to Iraq. An analysis of a recording made in July 2000 by a presidential bodyguard ``has led us to re-examine our policy toward Ukraine, particularly toward President Kuchma,'' spokeswoman Lynn Cassel said. As a result, $54 million in U.S. aid to the Kiev government will be withheld, but other U.S. aid to guard against the spread of nuclear weapons technology and other programs will continue, Cassel said. The New York Times reported Tuesday that U.S. investigators believe Kuchma personally gave the green light in July 2000 to a plan to sell Iraq the Kolchuha radar, which can detect approaching aircraft without tipping off their pilots. Ukraine's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Serhiy Borodenkov, said Tuesday that the report made it ``evident that someone is interested in aggravating relations between Ukraine and the United States,'' the Interfax news agency reported. He, too, denied the allegations of radar sales. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko denied allegations that his nation had provided dual-use technology or goods to Iraq, which would allow Baghdad to produce nuclear weapons. ``We have very good relations with Iraq, but we cooperate with Iraq only in those areas that are not prohibited by the United Nations,'' Lukashenko told the British Broadcasting Corporation in an interview. A tape of the interview was made available to The Associated Press on Tuesday. However, the U.S. officials have said that Iraqi military officers were being trained in operating an S300 anti-aircraft missile system in Belarus. They called on the Belarusian government to provide a more transparent system of arms sales. Belarusian Defense Minister Leonid Maltsev said Tuesday that the allegations are ``insinuations and speculation that have no official proof.'' Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 45 Germany unmoved by Britain's warning on Saddam Chicago Sun-Times - News September 26, 2002 BY TONY CZUCZKA BERLIN--Germany refused Wednesday to endorse a British warning about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and said it remains opposed to war, joining France and China in reacting skeptically to a report the United States called ''frightening.'' Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned on Wednesday against building ''a big propaganda campaign around this paper,'' but he appeared to soften Moscow's opposition to a new UN resolution on the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. Like the Russians, the German government said experts were studying the dossier presented by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a document that details allegations that Iraq has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and is trying to develop nuclear arms. But German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, fresh from a victorious re-election campaign that angered Washington with its loud opposition to a war on Iraq, was unimpressed. ''What we read there does not differ from what the German government already knew,'' government spokesman Uwe-Karsten Heye said Wednesday. Still, talks between Schroeder and Blair on Tuesday evening were a ''helpful'' start in the German leader's efforts to rebuild trust in Washington, Heye said. U.S. and British efforts against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein have led to the worst U.S.-German rift in decades. U.S. and German officials blamed each other Wednesday for the diplomatic chill, even as the Berlin government signaled growing eagerness to patch up the differences. AP Copyright 2002, Digital Chicago Inc. ***************************************************************** 46 War with Iraq risks escalation into Arab-Israeli war, possible nuclear conflict, former chief arms inspector says Yahoo! News Thu, Sep 26, 2002 AP World Politics AM ET By ELAINE KURTENBACH, Associated Press Writer HONG KONG - A U.S.-led military campaign against Iraq could escalate into a broader Middle East war that would risk tempting Israel into using nuclear weapons, a former chief U.N. arms inspector said Thursday. Israel refrained from retaliation after Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Israeli cities during the 1991 Gulf War. Richard Butler, an Australian who headed the United Nations special commission to disarm Iraq from 1997 to 1999, said he believed Washington was unlikely to be able to dissuade Israel from responding if it is attacked again. "My deepest fear is that if that conflict occurred and if the war escalated, that Israel would use its nuclear weapons," said Butler, an Australian who headed the United Nations special commission (UNSCOM) to disarm Iraq from 1997 to 1999. "If that happens, this world will have been changed beyond recognition," Butler told a gathering of business executives in Hong Kong. "And I would fear, too, that if that happened, the state of Israel would cease to exist. It would have lost the moral authority that supported its creation." On Tuesday, an Israeli newspaper reported that messages had been sent to Baghdad through "diplomatic channels" that Israel did not intend to join any American offensive against Iraq but would not sit idly by if attacked itself. The Israeli government has not commented on the report. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein shattered a U.N. Security Council consensus for action against Baghdad last week when he agreed unconditionally to the return of U.N. weapons inspectors after nearly four years. Butler has urged the United States and Russia to make another joint effort to get Iraq to agree to serious weapons inspections. Inspectors have not been allowed to return to Iraq since 1998. U.S. President George W. Bush dismissed Saddam's offer as a stalling ploy, and recommended a new resolution aimed at authorizing force against Iraq should Baghdad ignore existing resolutions on inspections. Butler also expressed skepticism. "Why not throw open your doors and allow the world to prove you have no weapons of mass destruction?" he said. Butler termed the lack of a U.N. consensus on Iraq "a crisis in the management of global security." If the U.N. Security Council does not act, "the U.S. will take the action required," he said. "It will happen and it will happen soon." Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 47 UK: Perspectives on Iraq BBC News | The peace activist [Brian Haw] "I missed my daughter's birthday, but there is an Iraqi girl who died from cancer which we gave her" Brian Haw For nearly 500 days and nights, Brian Haw, 53, from Worcestershire in the UK, has held a one-man protest outside the Houses of Parliament, about the bombings and sanctions against Iraq. "Every day I’m here, 200 children aged under five are dying in Iraq; dying from cancers which we gave them with our depleted uranium. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 12 years. It’s an object lesson from the West saying ‘Don’t mess with our oil ever again’ because of the oil price hike in the 70s. If they go to war, Tony Blair and George Bush will be finishing off the murder of a nation of innocents – the Good Samaritans killing the infants. The Iraqi people say they don’t understand why we’re going to war against them again, when they have no water, no food and no medicine. That country is like a fortress under siege, and the sanctions are stopping the rebuilding of the country. Saddam has to be removed for American oil interests. That’s the truth. I’m tired of the bogeyman stuff. That’s all scaremongering, Hollywood stories. We’re the ones with the weapons and we’re the ones using them. This dossier of evidence against Saddam was produced three hours before it’s meant to be debated. If I went to a court of law with that business, they would say it was nonsense. You have to present the evidence in time. This is contempt for law. I’ve got a wife and seven children who are more precious to me than life itself. I came here for them and they come and visit when they can. I woke up at 2am one night to find my daughter Maria by my side. I missed her 18th birthday and I’m sad about that. But there is an Iraqi girl called Azra who died aged 17 from cancer which we gave her. I’ve had the good, the bad and the ugly walking past me. One night, I went to the toilet and came back to find a poem about love written by a young girl. Another time, six guys challenged me, spat on my bed and kicked it over. I was meant to be intimidated by them, but I’m not anyone’s punch bag. I see the media guys walking by me, with cameras on their shoulders, while the kids are dying. And I’ve been across the road from Parliament for 482 days and nights, but do any MPs feel the need to come and see me? Only five have bothered, and Tony Benn is the only one who has sat on that bench with me. He’s a good guy. I’m in marvellous health. I can’t afford to be sick. God must be looking after me because I’m looking after the kids and I've survived here for 482 days." Photographs by Phil Coomes ***************************************************************** 48 Putin: U.N. must take lead on Iraq - Sep. 26, 2002 CNN.com - Putin has the power to veto Security Council resolutions MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin is calling for the earliest possible settlement of the Iraq crisis "through political and diplomatic methods based on U.N. Security Council resolutions." In a statement to foreign ambassadors at the Kremlin -- including Iraq's new ambassador to Russia -- Putin said the crisis should be resolved "in strict compliance with rules and regulations of international law," according to Russia's Interfax news agency. The statement reiterates Moscow's position on the United States' threats to take military action against Iraq for violating U.N. resolutions calling for weapons inspections. Putin's statement came as the U.N. Security Council considered an initiative by the United States calling for new resolutions on Iraq carrying tough penalties for non-compliance. Russia -- a permanent member of the Security Council along with China, France, the UK and the U.S. -- could veto any new resolution. On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov dismissed the "propaganda furore" surrounding the dossier on Iraq published by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. "I believe that only specialists and experts can judge whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We have therefore sought the fastest possible return to Iraq of inspectors," he said. (Full story) The dossier, published on Tuesday, said Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack at 45 minutes' notice and produce nuclear weapons in one or two years with components from abroad. (Full story) Last week, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said he believed international inspectors could "easily establish" whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, drawing a clear line between the Pentagon and the Russians on the value of U.N. inspectors returning to Iraq. The Russian military chief said his government wanted Iraq to accept an "unconditional receipt of inspectors." When asked if he believed the Baghdad regime would actually accept unconditional inspections he said: "It is not a question of trust or mistrust, it is a question of facts." Ivanov's indications of Russian support for the inspection process put him at odds with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who he met last Thursday. Rumsfeld has repeatedly said he does not believe inspections can be intrusive enough to track down the places where Iraq may be hiding its weapons. Ivanov would not answer questions about Russian support for either a congressional resolution on Iraq new U.N. resolutions. [ border=] © 2002 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. ***************************************************************** 49 Former UN Arms Chief Fears Israeli Nuclear Response News Thu, Sep 26, 2002 26,10:40 AM ET By Mark Heinrich JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A former U.N. arms chief expressed fears Thursday Israel might be pushed into using its nuclear arsenal in a war with Iraq, but Israel vowed it would take only "proper actions" if it were hit by nonconventional weapons or suffered casualties. U.S. demands for tough, new U.N. Security Council action against Iraq suffered a serious blow when Russian President Vladimir Putin called for a solution to the crisis using existing U.N. resolutions. The United States and Britain are pushing for a new U.N. resolution that would include uncompromising language spelling out that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would face serious consequences if he failed to allow weapons inspectors to proceed with their work unhindered. The Bush administration, laying ground for a possible new conflict with Baghdad, has asked Israel in private talks to exercise the same restraint as during the 1991 Gulf War when it did not retaliate against attacks by 39 Iraqi Scud missiles. Former chief U.N. arms inspector Richard Butler, addressing a business conference in Hong Kong, said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had indicated Israel would not be restrained if attacked by Iraq. "My deepest fear in that context, if that occurs and the war escalates, is that Israel will use its nuclear weapons," Butler said. "If that happens, the world would have been changed beyond recognition, and I would fear that if that happens the state of Israel would cease to exist." Butler's tenure at the U.N. Special Commission was marked by repeated disputes with Iraqi authorities over access to suspected arms sites. His inspectors left in 1998, just before a U.S.-British bombing campaign aimed at punishing Iraq for its perceived stonewalling on inspections. 'PROPER ACTIONS' Some Israeli officials have warned that Israel would not stay on the sidelines if hit again by Iraq. They have suggested Israel's failure to respond in 1991 undercut its deterrent capability with its Middle East adversaries. "If Iraq attacks Israel, but does not hit population centers or cause casualties, our interest will be to not make it hard on the Americans," Sharon was quoted as saying in Thursday's Jerusalem Post in reference to the interests of Israel's guardian ally. "If, on the other hand, harm is done to Israel, if we suffer casualties or if nonconventional weapons of mass destruction are used against us, then definitely Israel will take the proper actions to defend its citizens." RUSSIAN REJECTION Resumption of U.N. inspections for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for the first time since 1998 would "answer the concerns of the international community," Putin told the new Iraqi ambassador after receiving his credentials at the Kremlin. "We favor a rapid resolution of the situation around (Iraq) on the basis of existing U.N. Security Council resolutions, and in accordance with the principles and norms of international law," Putin said. Russia, which has a veto in the Security Council, hopes to recoup billions of dollars in Soviet-era debt and take part in lucrative Iraqi oil projects once decade-old U.N. sanctions on Baghdad are lifted. Moscow has long called for the return of inspectors as an initial step. A second permanent member of the Security Council, China urged the speedy return of U.N. inspectors to Baghdad and said it was studying Britain's lengthy dossier charging Iraq with developing weapons of mass destruction. "We are studying the relevant report and we believe that the imperative to solve this question is to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said. The British dossier, which said Tuesday that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological warhead within 45 minutes, was publicized to show why it backs possible military action against the Middle Eastern nation. Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said he was concerned by the harshness of the U.S rhetoric, and Egyptian President Hosni Muburak said he had told Iraq to work to head off a U.S. attack by dealing seriously with weapons inspectors and not making provocative statements. A senior army official in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, weighed in by saying the United States had no business in Iraq. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter also spoke out against unilateral action, saying it would be a tragic mistake both for the United States and peace in the Middle East if Washington attacked without U.N. support. In the latest attack by Western jets enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq, Baghdad said Thursday U.S. warplanes had raided Basra civilian airport, 300 miles southeast of the capital, and damaged its radar system. Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 50 Beyond Deterrence What are we waiting for? Stanley Kurtz on Deterrence on National Review Online September 25, 2002 9:25 a.m. What would happen if we woke up one day to find that a nuclear bomb had destroyed the heart of Washington, D.C.? Over 100,000 would be dead. The White House, Congress, the offices of the Cabinet, museums, and precious and irreplaceable historic monuments, would all be gone, and our capital rendered uninhabitable for years. Our legislators would have died in numbers sufficient to precipitate a constitutional crisis. If the president were killed, the vice president might still be alive in his secure location, along with bureaucrats sufficient to keep the wheels of government turning (barely) in a crisis-ridden and grieving nation. But what action would the vice president, now president, take in retaliation? Would he launch a nuclear strike at Baghdad? On what evidence? How would we know if the bomb had come from Saddam Hussein? Would the new president send the FBI to the radioactive wasteland of Washington to find Saddam's fingerprints, or evidence of whoever else might have devised the bomb? (How many FBI agents would remain, by the way?) How long would the investigation take? What would the world be saying in the meantime about the advisability of wiping out the city and people of Baghdad on the hunch that Saddam might have had something to do with the destruction of Washington, D.C.? I ask these questions because there are those who oppose this war with the argument that we can deter Saddam Hussein. There are those who claim that Saddam would not dare supply al Qaeda with a nuclear device, for fear that we would find "his fingerprints" and subsequently wipe Baghdad off the face of the earth. I do not believe that we can rely on traditional principles of deterrence in the matter of a nuclear bomb supplied to al Qaeda by Saddam Hussein. I would like to see opponents of the war explain in more detail how we would determine Saddam's guilt after a nuclear terrorist attack, and how and when we would retaliate. Was Saddam behind the terrorism already launched against us? We still don't know. Could Saddam's anthrax have been the anthrax in the envelopes sent to Congress? We don't know. Could Saddam's agents have met with Mohammad Atta? We're not sure. Might Saddam have had a hand in the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center? Some say yes, but we still don't know. Would we know more after a nuclear explosion in the heart of our capital? By the way, the attempt to topple the World Trade Center in 1993 was intended to kill 200,000 people, roughly the combined death toll of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had the truck bomb been just a bit stronger and positioned just a few feet over, one tower (of 50,000 people) would have toppled into the second tower (of 50,000 people), and both towers would have fallen onto the surrounding offices (containing another 100,000 people), before anyone could have escaped. So we have already been subject to an attack intended to be equivalent to nuclear in scale. In 1993, the same year as the first attack on the World Trade Center, Saddam's intelligence agents attempted to assassinate the first president Bush. Let's stop and think about that for a moment. That attempt to assassinate the former president has become a bit of a cliché, frequently recited as part of a list of Saddam's depredations, but not really considered. It is often said by those who believe that the principle of deterrence will suffice to contain Saddam that he is rational enough not to do anything that could bring down the might of the United States upon his head. But why then did he attempt to assassinate former President Bush? Revenge, of course. But why would Saddam have risked bringing on his own destruction, as a successful assassination attempt against even a former president well might have? In this case, after all, we could, and did, trace the source of the plot. And in response to even an unsuccessful assassination attempt on a former president, President Clinton did in fact launch a cruise-missile strike against Iraq's intelligence headquarters. What might we have done had the attempt on the former president's life succeeded? So the importance of Saddam's attempt to assassinate the first president Bush (just after his presidency had ended) is not simply that it shows his wickedness, but that it suggests that deterrence will not, and has not, worked in Saddam Hussein's case. Saddam has already risked his life and his power on an act that had no real benefit but revenge and "glory." Arguably, the traditional logic of deterrence has already failed with Saddam. David Brooks has pointed out [http://24.104.35.12/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/683hjyee.asp] that those who oppose an invasion of Iraq never bother to balance the risks of an attack against the dangers of inaction. That is right. But it's important to emphasize that the problem extends well beyond Noam Chomsky and his ilk. I find it extraordinary that even so serious and distinguished an observer as Stanley Hoffman could have written a lengthy attack [http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/17/hoffmann%20s.html] on President Bush's Iraq policy without giving a moment's serious consideration to the danger of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in the new terrorist environment. Despite September 11, I do not believe that most of the Americans who openly or privately oppose this war have given sufficient thought to the true nature of the danger we now face in a world of terrorism and proliferating weapons of mass destruction. Many opponents of the war are honestly at a loss to understand the reasons that are driving us toward invasion. Is it not extraordinary that the Israelis would like to see us attack Iraq, knowing that it will almost surely prompt an attack on Tel Aviv by Saddam's chemical and biological weapons? Why do the Israelis willingly risk this? It is because they know that once Saddam Hussein has a nuclear bomb, he will find a way to give it to terrorists for use against Israel. Clearly, Israel does not believe that the logic of deterrence will work with Saddam. Although they have nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them to Baghdad, the Israelis know that they face the very real possibility of waking up one morning to find that the heart of Tel Aviv has been wiped off the face of the earth. The Israelis take this danger so seriously that they are willing to subject themselves to chemical and biological attack to protect against it. Do we not understand that we are now, and have been for some time, every bit as much a target for Saddam Hussein as the Israelis? The Europeans and the Canadians know that they will not be hit, at least so long as they continue to make the right noises. Gerhard Schroeder was clever to play to the fears of his people. His pledge to refrain from aiding our invasion must have reassured many frightened Germans that America and Israel would remain the sole targets. And make no mistake about it. We are targeted. — Stanley Kurtz [http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/kurtz.html] is a Hoover Institution [http://www.hoover.org] at Stanford University. ***************************************************************** 51 Foreign minister: India will exercise restraint with nuclear arsenal Thu, Sep 26, 2002 AP World Politics By SEAN YOONG, Associated Press Writer KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Defending India's possession of nuclear weapons, Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha pledged Thursday that his country would exercise restraint with its nuclear arsenal and work toward world disarmament. "We believe that the overt exercise of the nuclear option by India has helped remove potentially dangerous strategic ambiguities in the region," Sinha told a forum of political scientists and academics in Kuala Lumpur. "You can't have a country like India giving up its nuclear options and going around asking somebody for a nuclear protective umbrella," he said. India carried out its first nuclear tests in 1974 in what the government described as a peaceful experiment, and conducted five more tests in 1998. Neighboring rival Pakistan responded with six nuclear tests of its own. Concerns about confrontations between the two countries have risen repeatedly, especially over the disputed territory of Kashmir. The two nations almost went to war after an attack on India's Parliament last December that India blamed on Pakistan-based militants. Hundreds of thousands of troops massed on the border between the two countries before tension eased amid intense international diplomacy. Fresh tensions emerged this week following an attack by two gunmen on a Hindu temple in western India that left 32 people dead. Pakistan denied involvement. But India's deputy prime minister, Lal K. Advani, on Wednesday blamed Pakistan for the massacre. Sinha, who is on a two-day official visit to Malaysia to boost bilateral relations, stressed that India's development of its nuclear capability had not caused it to become complacent. "On the contrary, it emphasizes India's awareness of and commitment to greater restraint," Sinha said. "We regard ourselves as a responsible nation, as responsible as anyone else. There is no danger or threat of misuse." "The very fact that you are a nuclear-armed country doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that there will be a nuclear conflagration," he said. Sinha added, however, that India believed that world peace was "best guaranteed by nuclear disarmament, and not nuclear deterrence." "India will continue to take the lead in formulating genuine multilateral initiatives (toward disarmament), and in their implementation," he said. Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 52 Op: Powell's Peacekeeping Role - The St. Petersburg Times. General news [http://www.themoscowtimes.com] #806, Tuesday, September 24, 2002 By Nicholas Berry SADDAM Hussein agreed to the return of United Nations weapons inspectors "without conditions." The Iraqi dictator has U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to thank for leading him to adopt a strategic move that has baffled Powell's own president and stymied a U.S. attack. The reason for Iraq's decision, given by its Foreign Minister Naji Sabri in his Sept. 16 letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan ("to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction"), is nonsense. We must look to Powell's actions to understand why Hussein did what he did. Powell first went to U.S. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in late August with the message that a unilateral attack on Iraq would have serious military, political, and economic repercussions. International support would be essential to legitimize a strong military strike with minimal adverse consequences. In return for their approval to go the UN route, Powell committed himself to their hard line. No more public doubts would appear from him about a "forward-leaning" policy (war) if Hussein did not comply with UN resolutions. He agreed that Hussein must comply or go. Giving up the "good cop" role and joining the "bad cops" had another function for Powell, besides getting the issue to the UN. It sent a message to Hussein that he could not count on splits in the Bush administration to prevent regime change if he failed to allow the return of inspectors. Powell then moved to increase diplomatic pressure on Hussein to reverse his no-inspection policy. Annan was persuaded to take a hard line, to state that "the leadership of Iraq continues to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council. If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities." Annan thereby indicated he would favor military action if Iraq did not change course. The secretary general even worked with Sabri on the language of the letter agreeing to inspections, language that Powell previously indicated would meet U.S. demands (as he understood them at the time). The phrase "without conditions" was crucial. At the same time, Powell actively lobbied China, Russia, France and the Arab League to press upon Hussein that a U.S. military attack would occur if he did not accept inspections, regardless of the lack of multilateral support. The implication, which everyone understood, was the notion that accepting inspections would create active diplomatic opposition by these states against a U.S. military strike. (And this is exactly what happened after the Iraqi letter was delivered.) Powell even approved a visit to Baghdad by a U.S. delegation headed by member of congress Nick Raihall, a Democrat from West Virginia. It conveyed the message that the U.S. Congress would authorize military action if Iraq did not comply with UN resolutions. The message got through. Other factors undoubtedly affected Hussein's surprising turnabout. Arranging inspections would take time. In the meantime, Bush and his hawks would be undermined, frustrated and isolated in their real objective - overthrowing Hussein. Bush could not, as he always does, claim victory regardless of outcome. Hussein, as all foreign leaders do, reads the U.S. political scene. He could make war with Iraq fade as the driving issue in U.S. politics and the upcoming congressional elections. Rising long-term unemployment, growing budgetary deficits, plunging stock values eroding millions of American pensions, zooming prescription drug costs and accelerating transportation gridlock on the country's roadways are issues that would put Bush's Republican congressional supporters in some peril. One can even speculate that Hussein recognizes that Bush, personally, would feel the heat in 2004 from these issues. Bush, at least to everyone who has read his campaign memoirs, "A Charge to Keep: My Road to the White House," is very loyal to friends and very hard on opponents. We may safely assume that Hussein acts similarly. Undercutting Bush's popular warrior leadership could make the second Bush a one-termer like his father. In addition, if Bush was using UN resolutions to back his case, Hussein could do the same in demanding that economic sanctions be lifted after the return of inspectors, in accordance with UN resolutions. For Powell, he must stay with his hard line and carry out White House orders to urge tough resolutions from Congress and the UN Security Council. At the UN, Powell called for "tough conditions, tough standards" for Iraqi disarmament. "There were shortcomings in the previous inspection regime" Powell said, "that I don't think would be acceptable in a future inspection regime." His hard line is necessary to keep Hussein committed to unfettered inspections. Backtracking by Iraq would open the way to war, something that Powell has worked hard and masterfully to prevent. Powell has done more than just prevent the United States and the Bush administration, in his judgement, from making a big mistake. He has moved the issue to the diplomatic playing field, the very arena where he - not Cheney or Rumsfeld - is the principal player. And he believes that "giving his best advice to the president," as he said Sept. 15 on MSNBC's "Meet the Press," is the supreme focus of his job as secretary of state. Needless to say, Powell wants his best advice to matter. Finally, assuming Hussein carries through on unconditional inspections (and it is an assumption worth constant testing), it will be difficult for the Security Council to authorize war. In effect, Bush has lost control of the issue, and it is ironic that in doing so, he may have been prevented from making a disastrous war that would guarantee the end of his presidency. For this, he, too, has Powell to thank. Nicholas Berry, director of ForeignPolicyForum.com in Washington, contributed this comment to The St. Petersburg Times. E-mail [letters@sptimesrussia.com?subject=Powell's Peacekeeping Role] or online form: [Copyright] copyright The St. Petersburg Times 2002 ***************************************************************** 53 Op - Missing Nukes Are Not Really A Bombshell - The St. Petersburg Times. [http://www.themoscowtimes.com] #806, Tuesday, September 24, 2002 WASHINGTON - It is easy to forget that the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal once belonged to little Ukraine. Kiev made history when it renounced its mini-superpower status in a three-way deal brokered with Russia and the United States. In the summer of 1996, top military officials from those three countries marked the departure of the last warhead by planting sunflower seeds at a Ukrainian missile base. Overnight, the sunflower - emblem of Ukraine's willingness to give up the bomb - became the leading symbol of global movements for nuclear disarmament. Now, Petro Symonenko, the Ukrainian Communist Party chief, insists the sunflower photo-op was a farce. He says a parliamentary investigation a few years ago determined that 200 warheads Ukraine had pledged to deliver to Russia for dismantling never arrived - at least according to the paperwork. "Two hundred Soviet Army nuclear warheads that were located in Ukraine are now located no-one-knows-where," Symonenko said recently. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry has denied the allegation. U.S. and Ukrainian arms control experts have also expressed surprise. "My initial reaction is one of skepticism," said Jon Wolfstahl, of the Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Project. "The process by which nuclear weapons went from Ukraine to Russia was a very tightly controlled one, where the United States acted as an honest broker of sorts. All information that the U.S. government has ... says the weapons are accounted for." Oleksandr Sushko, director of Ukraine's Center for Peace, Conversion and Foreign Policy, dismissed Symonenko's bombshell as "political speculation." The political context is certainly important to bear in mind. Thousands of street protesters have been demanding the resignation of Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, who has been compellingly implicated in corruption and in the murder (and beheading) of an opposition journalist. (Kuchma's government has admitted that it is the president's voice on a tape recording in which he seems to be ordering the journalist's death, though it says the tape itself has been doctored.) Investigators from the U.S. Justice Department are also investigating a tape in which Kuchma seems to be giving permission for Ukraine to sell four radar systems for detecting Stealth fighter jets to Saddam Hussein. Opposition figures in Ukraine say Kuchma himself has overseen the sale of other (as-yet-unspecified) military hardware to Iraq. Some U.S. observers ask if this means Hussein has 200 Ukrainian nuclear warheads. Not likely. It is far more probable that Kuchma's opposition is angling for terrified and angry international headlines - the kind designed to put the Ukrainian president in the camp of the international villain of the hour. So, dismiss Symonenko's missing warheads as a politically motivated hoax. But remember that the story of Ukraine's missing 200 nuclear bombs is so sobering precisely because, like any good hoax, it is a plausible fit with some harsh realities: The world is awash in weapons-grade nuclear materials, more such material is being created by the hour and very little of effect is being done - indeed, very little can be done, short of renouncing nuclear power and closing reactors worldwide - to secure it all. Matt Bivens, a former editor of The St. Petersburg Times, is a fellow with The Nation Institute. [ www.thenation.com [http://www.thenation.com] ] Something to say? Write to the Opinion Page Editor. E-mail [letters@sptimesrussia.com?subject=Missing Nukes Are Not Really A Bombshell] or online form: [Copyright] copyright The St. Petersburg Times 2002 ***************************************************************** 54 AU: Nuclear weapons expert warns of Hamza evidence . Lateline - 25/9/2002: Australian Broadcasting Corp "Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online"> [http://abc.net.au/] David Albright is a nuclear weapons expert. He is the president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington and he was on the International Atomic Energy Action team from 1992 to 1997. In June of '96 he became the first non-governmental inspector of the Iraqi nuclear program. Reporter: Tony Jones Joining us now is David Albright. As we've just heard, he is the president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. An expert on nuclear weapons, he was on the International Atomic Energy Action team from 1992 to 1997 and in June of '96 he became the first non-governmental inspector of the Iraqi nuclear program. He's in our Washington studio. Why did you think it was necessary to warn us about Dr Hamza and the evidence that he's been giving? DAVID ALBRIGHT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: I think, as people are asked to support war against Iraq, I think we need to look at the available information much more carefully and I think it saddens me to have to send that letter to you about Dr Hamza, who I personally liked. But unfortunately I believe that his statements are often inaccurate, they're inconsistent. For example, just a couple of weeks ago he told the London Sunday Times that Iraq was building nuclear weapons and could have them in a couple of months. He sculpts his message to get the message across to his audience and certainly I don't know his agenda - you mentioned one aspect of what is suspected to be his agenda, he wants regime change and what interferes with that is just ignored. TONY JONES: Do you believe he really was the kingpin of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, as is claimed almost every time he appears before congressional hearings? DAVID ALBRIGHT: No, he definitely wasn't. I knew his case when I was working with the nuclear inspection team. I saw a report about him when he was debriefed. I also had documents that he had written when he was working in the program that had been turned over by the Iraqis. Um, when he approached me, I could tell that, you know, he was genuine. What he told me was consistent with what I knew from these various sources, which was that he was an important nuclear official for six months in 1987 - he headed what we called the 'weaponisation program', the program to actually make the bomb itself. He never headed the program to make the highly enriched uranium, which is where most of the money was. Also after six months he told me he wanted out of that program. He also got involved in a bit of a scandal involving secret procurement in Germany, which the Germany company saw through and created quite a stir back in Baghdad. There were some that accused Hamza in the Iraqi program that he could have blown this procurement deal and if it had gone forward revealed the secret nuclear program. The head of the nuclear weapons program said that Hamza could have created another Osiraq reactor, and that's the reactor that Israel bombed in 1981 and was clearly seen as a key aspect of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. So Hamza got into some trouble that and there was worry that he would expose the program. After his six months as head of weaponisation, he went back to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and worked on various projects, one of which was to try to get the fast electronics part of the nuclear weapon. So he did work on a component of the weapon. He then retired at the end of 1990 - he actually retired at the height of the war - and in speculating why he was allowed to do that, he once told me that Saddam Hussein's son-in-law liked him, but after that he left the program. And so his information after 1990 was really second hand and gained from talking to colleagues. So I think he's distorted his title dramatically. TONY JONES: What do you think then is happening here, because the congressional hearings seem to be accepting him as the person who ran the program? The former weapons inspector Scott Ritter says this is typical of many of who are dissidents giving evidence, they feel under pressure and feel they have to give more information than they have. DAVID ALBRIGHT: There is a pressure on defectors. Hamza and I did a critique of a defector that the Iraqi National Congress was putting forward as having evidence of secret sights and we shredded that defector's information. Hamza was attacked by the INC after that. They came to him and said this study really hurt us on the hill. They lost a lot of money because of this ISIS study. He got the message that there are political motives for many of these things, there's money involved and that criticism carries a cost. And I think the other aspect of it - and I blame the media and the Hill staff - is they're uncritical. They accept nonsense from people like Dr Hamza, things that are incredibly wrong. If anybody could look easily and check the information - anyone is entitled to their opinion. If Hamza thinks Iraq is close to the bomb, that's his opinion, but he doesn't have any special information and yet he says I'm an Iraqi and they don't criticise him. TONY JONES: It raises the broader question, doesn't it, of whether we should believe the sort of evidence that intelligence services are now telling us is ironclad evidence. For example, in the Blair dossier yesterday, now once again going back to Scott Ritter, he says when he was a weapons inspector he chased down many of the sources of this kind of evidence and it ended up being wrong. DAVID ALBRIGHT: Yeah, no, it's often wrong. In fact the public needs to be informed, it needs to ask questions and it needs to be sceptical because the intelligence agencies are often grasping at straws to try to put together a picture. And I know what Scott Ritter is talking about. I've seen several cases where the intelligence information just isn't there. It's good to guide inspections, I mean if you have intelligence that says, "Go to this building, we think something is there," you go. Often you don't find anything, but still you want to be thorough and search. Sometimes you find things and sometimes the intelligence information is great and in the case of Iraq when intelligence information is merged with inspection information it's often worth its weight in gold. So I mean synergistically it can work very well. TONY JONES: Alright, let me ask you this - you've now had a chance to study the so-called Blair dossier. Do you think there's much new in it? Do you think it, at least, is based on real intelligence, on real evidence? DAVID ALBRIGHT: Well, I'll limit my comments to the nuclear. The Blair dossier talks about procurements that failed, or that they knew about but don't know if they succeeded - in one case, at least, involving uranium. And I thought that was a good presentation of what we would call a set of indicators of some secret nuclear activity. Interestingly, in the Blair dossier, they actually paint a pretty interesting picture of Iraq's ability to get nuclear weapons - namely it's going to need a lot of time. They actually say that if Iraq's going to build an indigenous capability to make highly-enriched uranium it's going to need at least five years to succeed and that's contrasted with Hamza's statement of a couple of months in Britain, and now, yesterday, in the Hill of a couple of years. So there you have intelligence agencies weighing in and saying, "Look, Iraq isn't very close." The Foreign Minister of Britain yesterday used the term 'gradual' to describe Iraq's progress towards nuclear weapons. So I think the dossier has some very interesting information and that people should weigh it. I think personally that it's too long of an estimate. My own estimate would be shorter. But I think we need to look at all this information and make decisions because the key thing right now is, is there time for the UN inspectors to do their job in Iraq? Hamza would say 'no' and I would say, 'yes' and the British Government very strongly, I thought, yesterday said 'yes'. TONY JONES: Yeah, I'm wondering about this because other experts have pointed to the procurement pattern that's shown in the Blair dossier, for example 60,000 aluminium tubes. Now one of your weapons inspectors, former weapons inspectors, David Kay, says that points to a very large centrifuge program. If they could get that going they could produce fissile material and get a bomb. DAVID ALBRIGHT: Well as an example of why - we're not just looking at Hamza, we're looking at all cases. The Administration said those aluminium tubes were specific to a specific uranium technology - gas centrifuge. We have concluded that they're not and it was encouraging to see in the British report they agree with us - that there's no intelligence information linking those aluminium tubes to any Iraqi nuclear program. And I think that's another case where information is hyped up. The nuclear card is played to get people to support going to war or to attack inspections and I think we need to challenge that information. And that's actually one of the indications that it's NOT for gas centrifuge - it's a ridiculously high number for a gas centrifuge program. TONY JONES: Clearly you don't believe that the threat of Iraq getting nuclear weapons in the near future is strong enough to justify some sort of unilateral US action against Iraq? DAVID ALBRIGHT: No, I don't. I do worry a great deal about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. This I agree with Hamza - that Saddam Hussein wants nuclear weapons and sees them as vital for his survival. Perhaps the only weapon the US fears and so I do think that it's a serious threat, but my view is that it should go through the Security Council, the nuclear threat of Iraq is not imminent. And that there is time for the inspection process to work and we should focus on making sure that inspection processes is the best process possible and has the full support of the world and the world recognises that if Iraq doesn't comply, and we have to be very strict about what compliance means, he's had plenty of chances to comply. If he doesn't comply, then there's enforcement, and that will probably involve the overthrow or the replacement of his regime. TONY JONES: David Albright, thanks for getting in touch and thanks very much for talking to us tonight. DAVID ALBRIGHT: OK, thank you. Lateline Archives About Lateline@your.abc.net.au [lateline@your.abc.net.au] © 2002 Lateline. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. ***************************************************************** 55 Scientists plan subcritical nuclear test in Nevada [http://sfgate.com] Thursday, September 26, 2002 (09-26) 07:28 PDT LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Government scientists planned to conduct a subcritical nuclear weapons experiment Thursday at the Nevada Test Site. The experiment, dubbed "Rocco," will be conducted about 960 feet below the desert surface by scientists from the Los Alamos, N.M., national laboratory, the National Nuclear Security Administration said. The test would be the nation's 19th such experiment since the program was started July 2, 1997. Subcritical experiments stop short of triggering nuclear chain reactions. They are designed to give scientists information about the aging nuclear stockpile in the absence of full-scale nuclear tests, which were put on hold indefinitely by the United States in 1992. The experiments in a below-ground complex, about 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas, allow scientists to study how materials, such as plutonium, blow apart when detonated. The last subcritical experiment by Los Alamos scientists, called "Mario," was on Aug. 29. ***************************************************************** 56 Bush's policy on preemptive strike is unwise, risky The Cincinnati Post By Allan Winkler George W. Bush has recently reasserted the right of the United States to launch a preemptive strike against a threatening regime. The target, of course, is Iraq, the nemesis of both our current president and his father. Yet such a strike, avoided for half a century in the delicately-balanced Cold War, would be a mistake now, just as it would have been a mistake then. Both the United States and the Soviet Union feared an attack by the other in the midst of the Cold War. As kilotons gave way to megatons in the lethal nuclear arms race, the superpowers feared that a strike by one nation would prompt a counter-strike by the other, leading to a catastrophic conflict that might well wipe out the entire human race. Because the end result would be mutually assured destruction (best known by the acronym MAD) both nations were more cautious, and both thought twice before considering a first strike. Deterrence was the order of the day. There was a certain madness to this arrangement. Each side continued its massive nuclear arms program to create new weapons it might never use to forestall the other side from using its ever-larger arsenal of similar weapons. Yet, for better or worse, the world remained at peace for nearly 50 years. The literature is full of commentary about the implications of this nuclear policy. In 1962, Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler published the novel "Fail-Safe,'' which sold several million copies and became the basis for a popular feature film released two years later (and a remake by George Clooney just a year or two ago). A tiny condenser burns out at Strategic Air Command headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska, sending American bombers flying toward Russia, past the fail-safe line from which they can be called back. The American president realizes that the Russians will naturally assume that this is a first strike. He has to tell the Soviet premier that a terrible accident has occurred, but there is nothing he can do either to destroy the planes or get them to return. In order to avoid a devastating war that could escalate out of control, he has to exchange one city for another in an even swap, New York City for Moscow, to keep the international balance intact. The final scene shows an American bomb falling on New York. Bush's declaration moves us closer to that kind of scenario. His assertion, in a 33-page report on "The National Security Strategy of the United States" recently submitted to Congress, is an attempt to redefine the contours of American policy. That policy was framed half a century ago in National Security Council Document 68, known as NSC-68. It painted a cataclysmic picture of a hostile enemy ready to seize control of the world any way it could. The rhetoric them was much like the rhetoric we hear today. "The issues that face us are momentous," the document said, "involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of this Republic but of civilization itself." To meet the challenge, NSC-68 advised quadrupling defense spending. Other measures amplified on that commitment. But with the end of the Cold War, we had the chance to back away from such an approach. President Bush has already taken steps to undermine the effort to deal sensibly with nuclear arms in the interests of national security. His eagerness to unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, in the interests of an untested defensive space shield, reverses decades of negotiation seeking to make the world a safer place. His most recent salvo reverses the entire thrust of deterrence. Some critics are troubled by the demand to launch a preemptive strike. They point to the fact that other nations such as India and Pakistan could assert the same right for themselves. They note too that Russia might well argue that it has the same right to intervene in Chechnya to quell that rebellion, which has been a problem for years. Terrorism is indeed a serious problem. But the recent policy initiative threatens the general peace and stability of the world in equally frightening ways. Allan M. Winkler is a history professor at Miami University. Publication Date: 09-25-2002 ***************************************************************** 57 UK Letters: Iraq rhetoric and reality Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Thursday September 26, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] As British aid agencies working either in Iraq or in the wider region, we believe military action could cause a humanitarian catastrophe (Blair makes his case, September 25). Across the country hundreds of thousands of people, especially children, are already in a weakened and highly vulnerable state. War is highly likely to further destroy the water, power, health and sanitation infrastructure and interrupt vital supplies of food, fuel and medicines. It could well lead to the cutting of food supplies to northern Iraq, which is not government-controlled, as well as to areas that are controlled by Baghdad. In certain scenarios the danger of large-scale civilian casualties is very great, as is the likelihood of significant movements of displaced people and refugees. Already Iraq has nearly three-quarters of a million internally displaced people. The possibility of a period of civil strife between Iraq's various ethnic and religious groups cannot be ruled out. If military action takes place, the international community then has a responsibility to help the Iraqi people with short-term and long-term security, protection, and material and financial support. Our experience in Afghanistan is not encouraging. There, despite numerous pledges, there still remains a yawning gap between rhetoric and reality. Salil Shetty CEO, ActionAid Julian Filochowski Director, Cafod Daleep Mukarji Director, Christian Aid Barbara Stocking Director, Oxfam GB Mike Aaronson Director, Save the Children What Mr Blair fails to mention is that nuclear weapons development in the US is likewise "detailed and growing", and the threat to use nuclear weapons remains the fulcrum of defence strategies in Israel, France, Pakistan, India, Russia, China and the UK. The Bush administration is not only funding the further modernisation of nuclear weapons, but is also proposing two new facilities at US nuclear weapons labs in New Mexico and California. If built, these new facilities will be dedicated to the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons, for use in war, see www.wslfweb.org [http://www.wslfweb.org] . The prime minister might also have informed parliament that the current doctrine on nuclear weapons use and development in the United States makes very plain that if Iraq were to attack Israel, the US would retaliate with nuclear weapons. All this to make our world a safer place for oil consumption. Dr Kathleen Sullivan Nuclear Weapons Education and Action Project New York edna@bestweb.net [edna@bestweb.net] I await the dossier on our own weapons with interest. John McKenzie Stevenage, Herts The dossier sounds like a Wag the Dog manuscript. It was a scandal that the atrocities were mentioned without an apology that, at that time, the west supported Saddam. Johanna Moren Norra Väsby Sunnemo Sweden I will go along with all of it if, and only if, the PM promises we will never again sell arms to despots. Gillian Gunner Sherborne, Dorset How ironic it will be if the verdict of history is that the cold war kept in check not Russia - the Evil Empire - but the US. J Richard Pater Kendal, Cumbria By demanding that Saddam should allow weapons inspections "anytime, anyplace, anywhere" is Tony defining a new Martini Doctrine? Martin McDonald Brighton, E Sussex Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 58 Iraq: An Open Letter to the Members of Congress editorial | Posted September 25, 2002 Soon, you will be asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the United States to overthrow the government of Iraq by military force. Its passage, we read on all sides, is a foregone conclusion, as if what the country now faces is not a decision but the disclosure of a fate. The nation marches as if in a trance to war. In the House, twenty of your number, led by Dennis Kucinich, have announced their opposition to the war. In the Senate, Robert Byrd has mounted a campaign against the version of the resolution already proposed by the Bush Administration. He has said that the resolution's unconstitutionality will prevent him from voting for it. "But I am finding," he adds, "that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this Administration." The Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to the /Washington Post/, oppose the war. Telephone calls and the mail to your offices run strongly against it. Polls and news stories reveal a divided and uncertain public. Yet debate in your chambers is restricted to peripheral questions, such as the timing of the vote, or the resolution's precise scope. You are a deliberative body, but you do not deliberate. You are representatives, but you do not represent. The silence of those of you in the Democratic Party is especially troubling. You are the opposition party, but you do not oppose. Raising the subject of the war, your political advisers tell you, will distract from the domestic issues that favor the party's chances in the forthcoming Congressional election. In the face of the Administration's pre-emptive war, your leaders have resorted to pre-emptive surrender. For the sake of staying in power, you are told, you must not exercise the power you have in the matter of the war. What, then, is the purpose of your re-election? If you succeed, you will already have thrown away the power you supposedly have won. You will be members of Congress, but Congress will not be Congress. Even the fortunes of the domestic causes you favor will depend far more on the decision on the war than on the outcome of the election. On April 4, 1967, as the war in Vietnam was reaching its full fury, Martin Luther King Jr. said, "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And he said, "Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak." Now the time to speak has come again. We urge you to speak--and, when the time comes, to vote--against the war on Iraq. The case against the war is simple, clear and strong. The Administration calls it a chapter in the war on terror, but Iraq has no demonstrated ties either to the September 11 attack on the United States or to the Al Qaeda network that launched it. The aim of the war is to deprive President Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, but the extent of his program for building these weapons, if it still exists, is murky. Still less clear is any intention on his part to use such weapons. To do so would be suicide, as he well knows. Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo of California has reported that in closed session Administration officials have been asked several times whether they have evidence of an imminent threat from Saddam against the United States and have answered no. She elaborated, "Not 'no, but' or 'maybe,' but 'no.'" On the other hand, if he /does/ have them, and faces his overthrow and possible death at the hands of US forces, he might well use them--or, more likely, give them to terrorist groups to use after his fall. He may be doing so even now. Some observers have likened the resolution under discussion to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964 authorizing President Johnson to use force in Vietnam. But that was passed only after a report was received of two attacks on US naval forces. (We now know that the first attack was provoked by a prior secret American attack and the second was nonexistent.) The new resolution, which alleges no attack, not even a fictional one, goes a step further. It is a Tonkin Gulf resolution without a Tonkin Gulf incident. Even if Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction and wishes to use them, a policy of deterrence would appear perfectly adequate to stop him, just as it was adequate a half-century ago to stop a much more fearsome dictator, Joseph Stalin. It is not true that military force is the only means of preventing the proliferation of these weapons, whether to Iraq or other countries. An alternative path is clearly available. In the short run it passes through the United Nations and its system of inspections, now more promising than before because Iraq, responding to US pressure, has opened itself unconditionally to inspectors. At the very least, this path should be fully explored before military action--the traditional last resort--is even considered. Such a choice in favor of multilateralism, diplomacy and treaty agreements should be part of a much broader policy of nonproliferation and disarmament of the kind that has already enjoyed great success over the past several decades. Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for example, 182 nations have agreed to do without nuclear weapons. The larger issue is whether proliferation--not just to Iraq but to many other countries as well--is best addressed by military or political means. But the decision to go to war has a significance that goes far beyond the war. The war is the product of a broader policy that has been spelled out in the clearest possible terms by the Bush Administration. Two other countries with nuclear programs--Iran and North Korea--have already been identified by the President as potential targets for military attack. The Administration's recently published "National Security Strategy of the United States" sets forth even larger ambitions. It declares a policy of military supremacy over the entire earth--an objective never before attained by any power. Military programs are meanwhile forbidden to other countries, all of whom are to be prevented from "surpassing or equaling" the United States. China is singled out for a warning that by "pursuing advanced military capabilities," it is following an "outdated path" that "threaten[s] its neighbors." The new policy reverses a long American tradition of contempt for unprovoked attacks. It gives the United States the unrestricted right to attack nations even when it has not been attacked by them and is not about to be attacked by them. It trades deterrence for pre-emption--in plain English, aggression. It accords the United States the right to overthrow any regime--like the one in Iraq--it decides should be overthrown. (The President would /like /international support and he would /like /Congressional support but asserts his right to wage war without either.) It declares that the defense of the United States and the world against nuclear proliferation is military force. It is an imperial policy--more ambitious than ancient Rome's, which, after all, extended only to the Mediterranean and European world. Nelson Mandela recently said of the Administration, "They think they're the only power in the world.... One country wants to bully the world." A vote for the war in Iraq is a vote for this policy. The most important of the questions raised by the war, however, is larger still. It is what sort of country the United States wants to be in the twenty-first century. The genius of the American form of government was the creation of a system of institutions to check and balance government power and so render it accountable to the people. Today that system is threatened by a monster of unbalanced and unaccountable power--a new Leviathan--that is taking shape among us in the executive branch of the government. This Leviathan--concealed in an ever-deepening, self-created secrecy and fed by streams of money from corporations that, as scandal after scandal has shown, have themselves broken free of elementary accountability--menaces civil liberties even as it threatens endless, unprovoked war. As disrespectful of the Constitution as it is of the UN Charter, the Administration has turned away from law in all its manifestations and placed its reliance on overwhelming force to achieve its ends. In pursuit of empire abroad, it endangers the Republic at home. The bully of the world threatens to become the bully of Americans, too. Already, the Justice Department claims the right to jail American citizens indefinitely on the sole ground that a bureaucrat in the Pentagon has labeled them something called an "enemy combatant." Even the domestic electoral system has been compromised by the debacle in Florida. Nor has the shadow cast on democracy by that election yet been lifted. Election reform has not occurred. Modest campaign reform designed to slow the flood of corporate cash into politics, even after passage in Congress, is being eviscerated by executive decisions. More important, this year's Congressional campaign, by shunning debate on the fundamental issue of war and peace, has signaled to the public that even in the most important matters facing the country neither it nor its representatives decide; only the executive does. Members of Congress! Be faithful to your oaths of office and to the traditions of your branch of government. Think of the country, not of your re-election. Assert your power. Stand up for the prerogatives of Congress. Defend the Constitution. Reject the arrogance--and the ignorance--of power. Show respect for your constituents--they require your honest judgment, not capitulation to the executive. Say no to empire. Affirm the Republic. Preserve the peace. Vote against war in Iraq. Copyright © 2002 The Nation ***************************************************************** 59 5 sites studied to replace Rocky Flats Rocky Mountain News: Local List makes it official that Colorado plant will remain closed By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News September 26, 2002 The federal government has chosen five possible sites for a nuclear bomb plant to replace Rocky Flats - and Rocky Flats is not on the list. Officials have promised for years that Rocky Flats would not reopen. Still, last week's announcement was welcomed. "Just don't have it here," said Candy McKay, a member of the family that lost part of its Church Ranch to the creation of Rocky Flats about 50 years ago. Located 18 miles from downtown Denver, Rocky Flats closed in 1989 for safety and environmental reasons. Its radioactive pollution is being cleaned up at a cost of $7 billion, and it is scheduled to become a wildlife refuge at the end of 2006. Last spring the federal government said it intended to replace Rocky Flats, but promised not to build near a major city again. Denver just barely escaped major contamination during a fire at Rocky Flats at the height of the Cold War. One site under consideration for the new factory is the federal government's Savannah River nuclear facility in South Carolina - even though Gov. Jim Hodges earlier this year threatened to lie down in front of trucks to stop plutonium from being shipped to his state from Colorado for storage. Savannah River once had five reactors producing plutonium for Rocky Flats bombs. Some experts say that experience makes it the front-runner. It is 20 miles from Augusta, Ga., a city of 42,000. "Since we're shipping our plutonium to Savannah River, they'd have the material to get started," said Hank Stovall, a Broomfield City Councilman who serves on a group of city and council government officials monitoring Rocky Flats. Hodges could not be reached for comment late Wednesday. The four other possible locations are the Nevada nuclear bomb test site, 70 miles northwest of Las Vegas; the Pantex nuclear plant, 17 miles northeast of Amarillo, Texas; and two places in New Mexico - the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where the atomic bomb was produced, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 26 miles from Carlsbad. That plant is a deep underground storage site for nuclear waste, including Rocky Flats plutonium. The new plant is expected to cost $2 billion to $4 billion and won't be finished until 2020, said Bryan Wilkes, spokesman for the National Nuclear Safety Administration. Wilkes said one factor in picking the five locations was community interest. "There was even some lobbying to have it," he said. Carlsbad's mayor has been quoted as saying the plant could bring 1,500 jobs. The government wants a new plant to manufacture plutonium in grapefruit-size "pits" that are the core of a nuclear weapon "because we haven't had any new nuclear weapons since 1989," Wilkes said. "We know that plutonium pits have a limited lifetime," Wilkes said. Without replacing the bombs, "we could wake up and find out half our stockpile is gone to waste." But opponents, such as Don Hancock of the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque, said there is no proof that plutonium pits decay, and "we have enough pits to obliterate the world 20 times over," he said. Imse@RockyMountainNews.com or (303)892-5438 FAQ 2002 © The E.W. Scripps Co. Privacy Policy and User Agreement ***************************************************************** 60 Nevada site on list to replace Colorado nuclear bomb plant Las Vegas SUN Today: September 26, 2002 at 10:35:23 PDT ASSOCIATED PRESS DENVER (AP) - As promised, Rocky Flats is not on a list of five possible sites for the federal government to build a replacement for the former nuclear bomb plant. The former bomb plant, 18 miles from downtown Denver, closed in 1989 for safety and environmental reasons. Workers are cleaning up the site in a $7 billion effort to turn it into a wildlife refuge. Cleanup completion is scheduled for 2006. Officials had long promised that Rocky Flats would not reopen. However, the list of possible replacement sites released last week was still welcomed. "Just don't have it here," said Candy McKay, whose family lost part of its Church Ranch to the creation of Rocky Flats about 50 years ago. The federal government's Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C., is considered a front-runner to replace the Rocky Flats operation. Savannah River once had five reactors producing plutonium for Rocky Flats bombs. Other sites in the running are Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico; the Nevada Test Site near Las Vegas; Pantex Plant at Amarillo, Texas; and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, N.M. The government wants a new plant to manufacture plutonium in grapefruit-size "pits" that are the core of a nuclear weapon. U.S. pit production operations shut down after Rocky Flats was closed. Los Alamos is developing an interim facility that could make as many as 50 pits a year by 2007. The Energy Department wants a permanent facility operating by 2020. "We know that plutonium pits have a limited lifetime," said Bryan Wilkes, spokesman for the National Nuclear Safety Administration. Without replacing the bombs, "we could wake up and find out half our stockpile is gone to waste." But opponents, such as Don Hancock of the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque, N.M., said there is no proof that plutonium pits decay. "We have enough pits to obliterate the world 20 times over," he said. The new plant is expected to cost $2 billion to $4 billion, Wilkes said. Carlsbad's mayor has been quoted as saying the plant could bring 1,500 jobs. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 61 Practice emergency turns real at Y-12 The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- p.m. on Thursday, September 26, 2002 by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff The day started with an emergency response exercise, then ended with a real emergency. Workers at BWXT Y-12 were evacuated Wednesday from Building 9202 and the plant went into a lock-down shelter-in-place mode after a fire ignited under a uranium hood about 11 a.m. A Y-12 spokesman said that there were no injuries and that no radioactive releases were detected. "Monitoring performed in and around the area where this (incident) occurred showed no spread of contamination," said Bill Wilburn, spokesman. "An investigation is under way to find the cause of the fire," said Wilburn, when asked whether there had been safety violations that could have led to the incident. He said that investigation could be completed as early as today. "(The worker was) working in the hood and the fire ignited," said Wilburn, who noted a material, depleted uranium, being used in the hood, will combust spontaneously. "It ignited, the fire was confined to the hood, and the people working there put out the fire immediately," said Wilburn. "There were no injuries. However 44 workers were evacuated from the building as a precaution." One worker was under the hood when the fire occurred, said Wilburn. He said that around 3:30 p.m. workers were allowed back into the building "except to specific flagged-off areas that were restricted." Building 9202 houses the Y-12 Technology Development organization. Wilburn said that for a little over an hour workers across the plant sheltered in place, "which means they stayed inside, closed windows, closed ventilation systems, and no one was allowed in or out of the plant for that period of time." Workers at Y-12, in conjunction with the National Nuclear Security Administration, Methodist Medical Center, the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency and the Joint Information Center in Lenoir City had just completed an emergency management exercise when the fire broke out. "We had to go out of the exercise and into an actual emergency," said Wilburn. "Some of the workers had stayed where they were and went directly into the operational emergency, and some of us returned to respond." The exercises are conducted approximately six times per year, said Wilburn. R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or danielsrcd@oakridger.com [danielsrcd@oakridger.com] . border="0"> [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 62 Secretary of Energy Announces Seven Lawrence Award Winners energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: September 26, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. - Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham today named the seven winners of the E.O. Lawrence Award. Each winner will receive a gold medal, a citation and $25,000. The award is given for outstanding contributions in the field of atomic energy, which today has influenced many fields of science such as environmental research, materials science and nuclear medicine that were in their infancy in 1960 when the first Lawrence Award was given. "We are all enriched by the contributions these researchers have made ranging from understanding the genetic code to measuring the expansion of the universe itself," Secretary Abraham said. The winners are: + C. Jeffrey Brinker, Sandia National Laboratories and the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque + Claire M. Fraser, The Institute for Genomic Research, Rockville, Md. + Bruce T. Goodwin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. + Keith O. Hodgson, Stanford University and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), Stanford, Calif. + Saul Perlmutter, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif. + Benjamin D. Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. + Paul J. Turinsky, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. The Lawrence Award was established in 1959 to honor the memory of the late Dr. Ernest Orlando Lawrence who invented the cyclotron (a particle accelerator) and after whom two major Energy Department laboratories in Berkeley and Livermore, Calif., are named. The award is given in seven categories for outstanding contributions in the field of atomic energy, broadly defined. The Lawrence Awards will be presented at a ceremony in Washington, D.C., on October 28. Brinker, a chemist, will receive the award in the Materials Research category for his innovations in sol-gel chemistry to create nanostructured materials that have applications to energy, manufacturing, defense and medicine. Brinker is a senior scientist at Sandia Labs, professor of chemistry and chemical and nuclear engineering at the University of New Mexico and co-director of the University's Center for Micro-Engineered Materials. Fraser, a biologist, was honored in the Life Sciences category for her contributions to genome analysis technology, its extension to the understanding of microbial diversity and its application to human pathogens. She is president and director of The Institute for Genomic Research. Goodwin, a physicist, will receive the award in the National Security category for his research focusing on the complex dynamics of the fission triggers of thermonuclear weapons. He is associate director for Defense and Nuclear Technologies at the Livermore Lab. Hodgson, a chemist and structural biologist, was honored in the Chemistry category for his contributions to the development of synchrotron X-rays to the investigation of biological structure and function. Hodgson is a professor of chemistry at Stanford University and director of SLAC's Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory. Perlmutter, an astrophysicist, will receive the award in the Physics category for his contributions to the discovery, through careful study of distant supernovae, that the expansion of the Universe is speeding up rather than slowing down. Perlmutter is an astrophysicist in the physics division of the Berkeley Lab. Santer, a physicist, was honored in the Environmental Science and Technology category for his contributions to understanding the effects of human activities on the Earth's climate. He is a physicist in the Energy and Environment directorate of the Livermore Lab. Turinsky, a nuclear engineer, will receive the award in the Nuclear Technology category for his contributions to the fuel cycle management of light water reactors that have significantly improved the safety and economics of nuclear power. Turinsky is technical director of North Carolina State University's Electric Power Research Center and head of the university's department of nuclear engineering. Additional information on the winners and their work is available from their institutions' public affairs offices or the Department of Energy's press office at 202/586-5806. Media Contact: Jeff Sherwood, 202/586-5806 Release No. PR-02-199 ***************************************************************** 63 Russia fears US oil companies will take over world's second-biggest reserves Independent.co.uk By Andrew Buncombe in Washington 26 September 2002 Oil companies from around the world are manoeuvring for the multibillion-dollar bonanza that would follow the ousting of Saddam Hussein. Russia is so concerned that it has been holding secretive talks with the Iraqi opposition to shore up its economic interests in the country which still owes Moscow $7bn dollars from Soviet times. With the second-biggest reserves in the world, Iraq's underdeveloped oilfields have become a key negotiating chip and a backdrop to talks between the US and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council ? all of which have major economic stakes in regime change in Iraq. It has also given fuel to critics of America's war plans who say the desire for regime change is at least partly driven by economics. Oil industry experts say there is growing concern that America would dominate the Iraqi oil industry after Saddam. As a result, a number of oil companies have reportedly held talks with the Iraqi opposition to ensure they are involved in any future deals. The Independent has learnt that the Russian government ? which is friendly towards Iraq ? recently dispatched a diplomat to hold talks with a senior official from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the US-backed opposition umbrella group. At that meeting in Washington on 29 August ? the first for seven years ? the diplomat expressed worries that Russia would be kept out of the oil markets by the US. James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA and a commentator on the relationship between oil and global security, told The Washington Post: "It's pretty straightforward. France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government we'll do the best we can to ensure the new government and American companies work closely with them. "If they throw in their lot with Saddam it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them." Iraq has confirmed oil reserves of 112 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia, with perhaps double that in undiscovered reserves. With sanctions in place, the current production is just 2.8 million barrels a day ? a capacity it struggles to reach because of deteriorating equipment. Under the United Nations' oil-for-food programme, it exports about one million barrels a day. Since 1998, two subsidiaries of Houston-based Halliburton, the company previously headed by the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, have done $24m (£15.3m) of business to repair Iraqi oil pipelines under the UN programme. Experts say that given sufficient further foreign investment, Iraq could be producing a total of 6 million barrels a day within five years, making it the world's third biggest producer behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. But which companies will benefit from these rich pickings? Since the end of the Gulf War, companies from more than a dozen nations ? including Britain ? have had discussions with Iraq about developing oilfields. In 1997, Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4bn deal to develop the West Qurna oilfield while last year another Russian company, Slavneft, signed a $42m (£27m) deal to drill in Tuba. The French TotalFinaElf company has negotiated the rights for the vast Majnoon oilfield, which is near the Iranian border. It is unclear whether such deals would be honoured by a post-Saddam Iraqi government. Faisal Qaragholi, an official with the INC, said that all such deals would be reviewed. "If the deal [helps] the Iraqi people then it will be carried on, if it does not, it will be renegotiated," he said. The INC's chairman, Ahmed Chalabi, believes the US should head a consortium to develop Iraq's oil. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," he said. Such comments horrify the Russian government, which as a major oil exporter has much to lose should America assume a dominant position in Iraq's oil industry. Thane Gustafson, senior director with the Cambridge Energy Associates (Cera) consultants, said the issue was almost certainly a factor in Russia's negotiations with the US about a new UN resolution over weapons inspectors. "Oil is bound to be on [President Vladimir] Putin's mind because of the importance of oil exports," he said. "It's bound to worry Putin. He would probably prefer things pretty much as they are now." Russia's concern led it to dispatch Andrew Kroshkin, a diplomat, to hold talks with the INC's Washington director, Entifadh Qanbar. Mr Qanbar said that during the two-hour meeting at the INC office, Mr Kroshkin said the Iraq policy of Russia ? which has estimated debts of $100bn (£64m) ? was "100 per made by money". "He told me that he had been told that if the Americans overthrow Iraq they will not let the Russians do business in Iraq," he said. "We have seen this in the Balkans. He wanted to say that Russia's dealings with Iraq are based on historical and economic relations, not on relations with Saddam." The importance of Iraqi oil is also to be discussed next week at a US-Russian energy summit in Houston at which more than 100 US and Russian energy companies are expected to be represented. In this environment, it is likely that most leading oil companies are actively trying to position themselves to operate in Iraq if Saddam is overthrown. The US oil giants ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco both refused to say whether they had been holding talks with Iraqi opposition. Both said, however, that they would be interested in operating in Iraq if sanctions permitted. A spokesman for Royal Dutch Shell, the British-Dutch company which held discussions with President Saddam about developing the Ratawi oilfield several years ago, said it had not approached the INC. But if sanctions were lifted, the company would be interested in dealing with Iraq, he said. James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities, said: "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future." ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************