* Vladimir Slivyak, antinuclear campaigner, arrested and threatened in Moscow
* Russia Denies Sub in Mediterranean
* Russian Deserter Tries To Sell Stolen Warhead To Gang
* U.S. says missile deployment would need ABM changes
* U.S. intelligence report outlines missile threat
* Arms Talks End With No Progress
* U.S. Defense Chief To Visit Moscow Next Week
* Talbott In Tough Russia Arms Control Talks
* Clinton, Yeltsin Consult on Arms
* Yeltsin Says Corruption Charges Are Politically Inspired
* U.S. to Seek Modest Shift In Arms Pact
* FOCUS-Talbott ``satisfied'' after Moscow arms talks
* A Test Ban That Disarms Us
* Slovakia to draw up nuclear plant closure plan
* Progress on Land Mines
* Land-Mine Ban Has Trouble Getting Off the Ground

--------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: Vladimir Slivyak, antinuclear campaigner for Socio-Ecological Union and ECODEFENSE!

Sept 8, 1999

Folx, it's urgent news and I ask you to pay as much attention to this as possible and distribute this news as wide as possible. I will soon send out press-release in English (in case if I will still enjoy freedom during next couple of days). I hope tomorrow russian media will start to talk about this as well. What happened is:

On september 6 I was arrested near my Moscow' home by Moscow criminal police (MUR). Several people, without saying anything, forced me to get into their car and said they are from MUR and making an investigation about the terrorist' act (explosion on August 31 at Manezhnaya palace in Moscow). One of them showed me drugs (marihuana) and told that if I'll not cooperate he will get this drugs into my bag, then I'll be arrested and jailed for 3 years. I said I want to go to police office with them and make a protocol (document describing why I'm arrested - it's requested in russian laws that police must make a protocol immediately after every arrest). They didn't answer.

What they demanded from me: according to their information, one man that I know a little bit must show up soon near my home and I should cooperate with MUR through pointing out at him. I said again that if I'm arrested then they should bring me to police and make protocol first. They didn't answer to that as well. I told I'm not going to cooperate until they stop to violate law and start to act as law request from them.

I should say that they even didn't show me their documents (IDs) except for one. I wasn't able to see his name on this document, because he showed it too fast. But this guy called himself leutenant Kosterov from the department 6 of MUR.

They kept me in their car for 1,5 hours. They told me that they investigate several terrorist acts and they are 100% sure that Russian environmental groups somehow connected with terrorism. Kosterov said that he knows exactly who exploded bomb on August 31.

Several times people who "informally arrested" me were blackmailing me in different ways, they were threating me with phisycal violence because I was telling I don't know answers to their questions. I was always responding non-violently only.

Finally, after spending 90-100 minutes in this car I was released, they didn't tell me anything - just told "go home" and released. They didn't give me back my ID and when I asked about this they just told that sooner or later I will anyway be arrested and then they left.

All of this, in my opinion and also in opinion of my closest folx in antinuclear and human rights movements, means that FSB (ex-KGB) is completely impotent in solving the problem of terrorism in Russia. It's not new that FSB sometimes use MUR to make dirty job (like operatively arresting someone), even Kosterov indirectly told that. And of course, FSB investigate everything connected with terrorism in this country. So it looks like after FSB failed to prove that environmental activists are spying for foreign countries (it wasn't proved for both Nikitin and Pasko) - they are now trying to create a myth that we are terrorists. And for unknown to me reason, they normally target antinuke activists for their actions against russian environmental movement.

Already after my arrest, we in Antinuclear campaign (of both ECODEFENSE! and Socio-Ecological Union) had one more "accident". In Voronezh, where we just organized an antinuke camp in August (near Novovoronezh nuke plant) our coordinator - Alexey Kozlov - was called by local FSB and asked for "informal" talk. FSB officer told him on the phone that if Alexey will not cooperate he might have the same problems that his colleagues just had in Moscow. I don't know yet if anything else has happened there.

All for now, I hope I and my friends here will be able to inform you about developments in this case and also hope that we'll be able to continue our antinuclear work in the future. Stay in touch,

Vladimir

nirsnet@nirs.org Subject: terrorism, FSB and enviros in Russia Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nukenet@envirolink.org X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.07 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN X-UIDL: 8146833f4a4c86572590e55d430e97db

NOTE FROM NIRS: We work closely with Vladimir Slivyak so we take this very seriously. We will let you know ASAP if there is action you can take to help.

Michael Mariotte NIRS

 -----------

Wednesday, September 8, 1999; 9:26 a.m. EDT
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990908/V000963-090899-idx.html

MOSCOW (AP) -- The Russian navy on denied reports on Wednesday that a Russian nuclear submarine operated recently in the Mediterranean for the first time in years.

Several Russian newspapers reported that a Schuka-class nuclear-powered submarine, armed with torpedoes and cruise missiles, was spotted by NATO forces last week when it passed from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean through the Straits of Gibraltar.

Capt. Igor Dygalo, the chief spokesman for the Russian Navy, dismissed the reports as ``utter lies,'' but would not comment further.

The reports claimed that NATO forces spotted the submarine briefly near Corsica and off the coast of the former Yugoslavia, but then lost it.

``NATO surface ships and submarines along with patrol aircraft joined in the hunt for the submarine, but they couldn't track it,'' the daily Novye Izvestia said. ``At the same time, our sailors learned a lot about the tactics of (NATO's) anti-submarine operations.''

Soviet submarines and warships regularly cruised the Mediterranean during the Cold War, but the missions ended after the 1991 Soviet collapse, when the military lost much of its funding.

Novye Izvestia said the navy is considering stepping up submarine patrols around the globe. However, military experts doubt if the navy can afford any large-scale deployments.

Scores of submarines have been decommissioned and no more than three are thought to be on patrol at any one time.

--------

MOSCOW, Sep 4, 1999 -- (Agence France Presse)
http://www.russiatoday.com/news.php3?id=89953

A Russian deserter stole a missile warhead loaded with 20 kilograms (44 pounds) of powerful explosives and tried to sell it to a criminal gang for several million dollars, a newspaper report said Friday.

The newspaper Kommersant said Viktor Ogurchikov and an accomplice managed to climb over a barbed wire fence, a high-tension cable and past several sentry posts in the air force's main arsenal, located in the Moscow area.

The report said most guards were asleep on duty.

The two carried off the ground-to-air missile warhead weighing 30 kilograms, including 20 kilograms of explosives, and tried to sell it for several million dollars to a criminal gang, Kommersant reported. ((c) 1999 Agence France Presse)

---

07:05 a.m. Sep 10, 1999 Eastern, By Jonathan Wright
http://www.dogpile.com - search Infoseek

AUCKLAND, Sept 10 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said on Friday that deploying a proposed national missile defence for the United States would require amendments to the ABM treaty with Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov retorted that ``disrupting'' the treaty, which limits anti-ballistic missiles, would disrupt strategic stability between the nuclear powers.

Albright and Ivanov were speaking at a joint news conference in Auckland before a meeting which they said would focus on arms control talks and international corruption.

They are in New Zealand to prepare for the annual summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, of which Russia and the United States are both members.

Albright noted that President Bill Clinton was committed to research on a national defence against missiles fired by ``rogue nations.'' He will decide whether to deploy such a system next year, depending of how the United States sees the threat and on whether the scientists can produce a system that works.

He envisages a small-scale system to defend against missiles that North Korea might launch or mistaken launches by one of the recognised nuclear powers.

``We do think that this (deployment) will require amendments to the AMB treaty,'' Albright said.

Her spokesman, James Rubin, also told a briefing in Washington that it was now clear changes would be necessary and that the United States was ``now becoming more specific on the kind of programme and what changes would be necessary.''

In previous talks with Russia, the United States has said only that deployment might require amendments to the treaty, which allows the United States to deploy a limited number of anti-ballistic missiles in a single area in North Dakota.

Rubin said the first deployment of a system would be in Alaska. ``We have made no decisions regarding the location of a second site, but our long-term goal includes a second site along with additional interceptors and radars,'' he added.

Russia has opposed changing the treaty, on the grounds that it is a central part of the arms control regime Moscow and Washington have negotiated over the years.

Ivanov said: ``Regarding the ABM treaty, it represents a core of strategic stability. Should this core be disrupted, then strategic stability could also be disrupted. We will comprehensively develop and explore the matter.''

But the Russian minister also said that Moscow fully intended to persuade the Russian Duma to ratify the START II treaty and to start negotiations on a START III treaty, which would include further cuts in nuclear arsenals.

Russian officials have said that U.S. talk of amending the ABM treaty could complicate the other agreements.

On the scandal over Russian money-laundering in the United States, Albright said she welcomed Russia's decision to send a group of law enforcement specialists to Washington next week.

The Russian specialists, from the procurator's office, the interior ministry and tax police, will consult with U.S. investigators, who are looking into allegations that millions of dollars from Russia passed through the Bank of New York.

``We support cooperation between these special services, who must draw the necessary and appropriate conclusions and make their decisions... Such an interaction should be conducive to our expanding cooperation in this area,'' Ivanov said.

Albright and Ivanov both said the financial scandal had not affected relations between Russia and the United States.

Their meeting over dinner will prepare for a meeting on Sunday between Clinton and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is leading the Russian delegation to APEC.

-----------

07:28 p.m Sep 09, 1999 Eastern By Tabassum Zakaria
http://www.dogpile.com - search Infoseek

LANGLEY, Va., Sept 9 (Reuters) - While U.S. policymakers are concentrating on preventing North Korea from testing a long-range ballistic missile, a new intelligence report on Thursday said the threat from Russia is still the most ``robust and lethal.''

Intelligence analysts believe North Korea could test the Taepodong-2 ``at any time'' unless the test is delayed for political reasons, according to a report by the CIA and other intelligence agencies on missile threats to the United States.

But even if North Korea decided against a missile test, it would stall but not eliminate that country's missile programme, a senior U.S. intelligence official said.

``If they (North Korea) don't fly it ... I think it would really stall their programme. Does it eliminate it? No,'' the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said.

The United States, Japan and South Korea are trying to persuade North Korea to abandon its long-range missile programme in exchange for closer political and economic ties.

President Bill Clinton, attending an Asia-Pacific summit in New Zealand, is expected to discuss the issue with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi on Sunday.

The intelligence report said over the next 15 years Russia, China and North Korea posed the greatest threat to the United States from intercontinental ballistic missiles, defined as having a range of more than 5,500 km (3,400 miles).

``The Russian threat will continue to be the most robust and lethal, considerably more so than that posed by China,'' or North Korea, Iran and Iraq, according to an unclassified summary released to reporters on Thursday.

Russia currently has about 1,000 strategic ballistic missiles with 4,500 warheads, while China has about 20 long-range missiles that can reach targets in the United States, the report said. China was expected to increase that force.

``By 2015, China will likely have tens of missiles targeted against the United States, having added a few tens of more survivable land- and sea-based mobile missiles with smaller nuclear warheads -- in part influenced by U.S. technology gained through espionage,'' the report said.

Charges erupted this year that China stole U.S. nuclear secrets over the past two decades, including information on a miniaturised nuclear warhead. China has denied the accusation.

China is developing two new road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles and conducted its first test of a mobile missile, the DF-31, in August, the report said. That missile will have a range of about 8,000 km (5,000 miles) and mainly target Russia and Asia, the intelligence assessment said.

China was expected to test a longer-range mobile missile within the next several years that would be targeted mainly against the United States, the report said.

Iran could in the next decade test a long-range ballistic missile capable of striking many parts of the United States using Russian technology and assistance, but analysts differed on the timing of such a test, the report said.

Iraq could also test a long-range missile in the next decade, but foreign assistance would affect its capability and timing, the report said.

The United States would ``probably'' face a missile threat from Iran and ``possibly'' from Iraq during the next 15 years, the report said.

The threat from North Korea also comes from a ``willingness to sell its missiles,'' the report said. Proliferation of medium-range missiles, driven primarily by North Korean sales, has created ``an immediate, serious, and growing threat to U.S. forces ... and has significantly altered the strategic balances in the Middle East and Asia,'' the report said.

The U.S. military and defence firms are currently working to develop a defence against the threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles, including limited protection of U.S. cities.

-----------

Thursday September 9, 1999, Associated Press 10:11 AM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/19990909/wl/russia_us_talks_1.html

MOSCOW (AP) - A U.S. delegation led by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott wrapped up two days of talks Thursday on nuclear arms reduction and possible amendments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, but no progress was reported.

Speaking to reporters at the airport, Talbott said that an alleged money laundering scandal with links to Russia won't hurt bilateral relations.

Talbott wouldn't comment on the outcome of the arms talks, while the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a terse statement saying that Moscow insists that previous arms control agreements should be strictly observed.

The statement appeared to indicate that Russia continues to strongly oppose a U.S. proposal to modify the ABM treaty in order to build a limited missile defense system. The two sides held a first round of talks on the ABM treaty last month.

Washington wants to build a national missile defense system meant to shoot down no more than a few missiles. The United States argues that the system would not upset strategic stability because it would not be effective against the kind of massive attack that Russia is capable of launching.

Talbott and Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov took a break in their talks Wednesday night while Yeltsin telephoned President Clinton to discuss arms talks and other issues, including the corruption scandals.

``They talked about money-laundering, corruption,'' during a one hour phone conversation, White House national security adviser Sandy Berger said Wednesday. Clinton asked about reports of Yeltsin's personal involvement, and Yeltsin denied the allegations, Berger told reporters.

Russia's chief prosecutor, suspended by Yeltsin in March, said in an interview this week that Yeltsin and his daughters should be questioned about whether they received kickbacks from a Swiss construction firm.

In a separate high-profile case, U.S. authorities are trying to determine whether Russian organized crime groups funneled up to $10 billion through the Bank of New York.

Talbott said that the conversation between Yeltsin and Clinton showed that both leaders intend to strengthen bilateral relations, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

---

By Charles Aldinger, September 9 3:52 PM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990909/pl/russia_cohen_3.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary William Cohen will visit Moscow next week for talks with Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev on nuclear arms cuts, missile defense and bilateral military cooperation, the Pentagon said Thursday.

The Defense Department said Cohen would meet Sergeyev Monday in their first talks since meeting in Helsinki in June to negotiate participation by Russian peacekeeping troops in Kosovo. Cohen will return to Washington Tuesday.

U.S. defense officials said Cohen and Sergeyev would discuss increasing military ties, which soured this year over NATO's bombing campaign against Serbia and concerns in Moscow over U.S. plans to build an anti-missile defense.

``There are a number of key issues on the table here, and while we don't look for any major agreements to be signed, it certainly is an opportunity to improve cooperation,'' said a senior Pentagon official, who asked not to be identified.

Presidents Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin both want to make deeper cuts in thousands of strategic nuclear weapons stockpiled by the two countries.

But a wary Russian parliament has not yet approved the START-2 strategic arms reduction treaty -- which would cut long-range nuclear arms on each side to 3,500 in 2003 -- before a START-3 treaty with deeper reductions could formally be approved.

Cohen and Sergeyev will also discuss U.S. plans to build a limited defense against ballistic missile attack on the United States. Russia says that would violate the 1972 anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty.

Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott took a proposal to Moscow this week for arms control talks. U.S. officials said Wednesday that Washington had drafted plans to permit stationing 100 missiles in Alaska to intercept potential attacks by rogue states as part of a new, limited anti-ballistic missile system.

The Clinton administration has decided that a gradual approach to ballistic missile defense is more likely to convince Moscow of Washington's assurances that such a defense is aimed at countering attacks by rogue states and not neutralizing Russia's massive nuclear arsenal.

Cohen's visit comes amid continuing political and military turmoil in Moscow.

The Russian military is battling guerrillas in Dagestan.

And concerning probes into corruption, Yeltsin denied in a telephone conversation with Clinton this week that he had personally profited from payments allegedly made by a Swiss firm in connection with Russian government contracts.

-----------

By Martin Nesirky, September 8 9:24 AM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990908/pl/russia_usa_6.html

MOSCOW (Reuters) - An upbeat U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott held arms control talks in Moscow Wednesday, but Russians made clear the going would be tough if Washington pressed for a change to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

``I'm going to be concentrating particularly on strategic matters, laying the ground with my colleagues at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for talks that are coming up,'' Talbott told reporters after arriving at Moscow's main international airport.

Diplomats said the talks were mainly about the prospects for a START-3 nuclear arms reduction pact and Washington's desire to change the 1972 ABM treaty to allow it to deploy a limited shield against potential rogue missiles.

Russia regards the ABM treaty as a cornerstone of international disarmament, and Russian officials have raised the stakes this week by saying Moscow had the technology to develop a missile to breach any U.S. defenses.

``No anti-missile defense will be able to stop our new missiles,'' Roman Popkovich, chairman of the parliamentary defense committee, told a news conference. ``Just let the Americans waste their money.''

Diplomatic sources said Talbott was meeting Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov and they would meet again Thursday morning before Talbott returned to the United States.

Defense Secretary William Cohen is scheduled to visit Moscow Monday for talks with Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is expected to meet President Clinton at an Asian-Pacific summit in New Zealand next week. Mamedov is due in Washington this month.

Russian President Boris Yeltsin is scheduled to speak to Clinton later Wednesday, the Kremlin said.

The Cold War-era ABM treaty banned defense systems designed to shoot down enemy missiles, under the logic that such shields would only tempt the United States and the Soviet Union to build more missiles in the hope one might pierce the enemy's umbrella.

The White House wants to review the treaty to allow it to develop a shield to protect its troops and Asian allies from possible attack by rogue states. Congressional Republicans have said they want to ditch the treaty altogether.

Russia strongly opposes making major changes to it, but has been hinting it has something up its sleeve if the pact ends.

Echoing Popkovich's remarks, the designer of Russia's new-generation Topol-M ballistic missile, Yuri Solomonov, told the military weekly newspaper Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozrevatel the missile could be adapted to breach defenses.

Talbott said he planned ``to continue the good discussions we have been having with our counterparts.''

But an unnamed senior Russian military official sounded decidedly less enthusiastic in comments to Interfax news agency.

``The Americans are trying to drag us into negotiating on ABM to secure Russian agreement for the United States to deploy its own limited national anti-ballistic missile defense,'' the official said. ``The Russian side will not go along with this.''

After a previous round of preliminary talks in mid-August, a top Russian military official lashed out at the United States.

Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, head of the Defense Ministry's international relations department, said that meeting had been unproductive and Washington's insistence on altering the ABM treaty could undermine the whole disarmament process.

The sides were also expected to discuss START-3, a new treaty aimed at adding to cuts in nuclear arsenals agreed under the 1993 START-2 treaty, which has yet to be ratified by Moscow.

The military official told Interfax Russia was ready to discuss START-3 because it would cut the U.S. arsenal and make it easier for cash-strapped Moscow to maintain rough parity.

---

By Anna Dolgov Associated Press Writer Wednesday, September 8, 1999; 11:14 p.m. EDT
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990908/V000638-090899-idx.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Russia-US-Arms-Talks.html

MOSCOW (AP) -- President Clinton and Boris Yeltsin stepped into tough Russian-U.S. arms reduction talks Wednesday, as their negotiators struggled to find common ground on the U.S. plan to change the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The U.S. delegation, led by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, and Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov called a break in the talks in Moscow on Wednesday night during Clinton's telephone conversation with Yeltsin.

Russian news agencies, citing ``informed sources,'' reported that the talks had appeared to hit major snags, prompting an adjournment until Clinton and Yeltsin discussed the matters by telephone.

Previous arms reduction talks last month failed because of the two sides' disagreement over the ABM treaty, Russian officials said. The United States wants to amend the treaty so it can build a limited missile defense system, but Russia bitterly opposes the plan.

During the telephone conversation Wednesday, Yeltsin and Clinton had a ``thorough exchange of opinions on the problems of security and disarmament, including the START and ABM treaties,'' a Kremlin spokeswoman said. She refused to provide any other details.

A U.S. Embassy official had no comment on the talks, but said the negotiations would resume on Thursday.

Progress on the ratification of the START II nuclear arms reduction treaty and work on its successor, START III, has been tripped up by the controversy over the ABM treaty.

START II, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1996, would halve the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to between 3,000 warheads and 3,500 warheads each. START III would reduce nuclear arsenals to as few as 2,000 warheads each.

Yeltsin agreed in June to discuss ABM modifications, but Russian officials continue to insist that an anti-missile defense system in the United States would tilt the current strategic balance and launch a new arms race.

Washington says a national missile defense system would be meant to shoot down a few missiles which could be launched by a rogue nation. Washington argues that the system would not upset strategic stability because it would not be effective against a massive attack of the kind Russia is capable of launching.

The chairman of Russia's parliamentary defense committee, Roman Popkovich, threatened Wednesday that if the United States builds a missile defense system, Russia may respond by ``developing an entirely new kind of offensive weapons,'' the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

However, Russia's military is badly underfunded, and Moscow doesn't have the funds for a new arms races with the United States.

---

By DAVID STOUT, September 9, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/090999russia-launder.html

WASHINGTON -- President Boris N. Yeltsin of Russia told President Clinton in a telephone conversation today that accusations linking Mr. Yeltsin and his family to a corruption inquiry were politically inspired, the White House said this evening.

Samuel R. Berger, the President's national security adviser, said that Mr. Clinton specifically asked about reports that the Swiss authorities had evidence implicating Mr. Yeltsin and his family in taking bribes. The Swiss authorities were reported to have documents showing that Mr. Yeltsin's credit card bills and those of his two daughters had been paid by a construction company that did a great deal of renovation work on the Kremlin.

"And Yeltsin denied those reports," Mr. Berger said.

But another White House official, who commented on the condition that he not be named, said this evening that the Russian President's repudiation of the accusations was less categorical.

Mr. Yeltsin did not state his total innocence in so many words, the official said; rather, he insisted that the accusations were not substantive.

An informant, Felipe Turover, said on Wednesday that he had seen credit card bills and photocopies of credit cards bearing the signatures of Mr. Yeltsin and his daughters, and that the cards had been provided by Mabetex Project Engineering, a Swiss construction company that has done $1.5 billion worth of work for the Kremlin.

The Swiss and Russian corruption inquiry, which is focusing on allegations of international money laundering and bribes to Russian politicians in exchange for lucrative construction contracts at the Kremlin itself, came up during part of a 40-minute telephone call, White House spokesmen said.

Mr. Yeltsin called Mr. Clinton to discuss a variety of topics, including disarmament negotiations and the Asian economic summit meeting in New Zealand this weekend, according to Mr. Berger.

As Mr. Berger recounted at a news briefing, Mr. Clinton broached the subject of money laundering and corruption by commenting that it would be good if Mr. Yeltsin could sign money laundering legislation recently passed by the lower house of Russia's Parliament.

Mr. Yeltsin said he was prepared to sign a money laundering bill if the Parliament passes one that is consistent with the Russian Constitution, Mr. Berger said. Mr. Yeltsin said he had doubts about a law passed this summer, and vetoed it for that reason.

Mr. Berger, responding to a question, said Mr. Clinton then got to the point, asking Mr. Yeltsin about the credit card bill reports.

Previously, Mr. Yeltsin's press aides have categorically denied that Mr. Yeltsin has anything to hide. And even people who detest Mr. Yeltsin personally and politically agree that he has plenty of enemies happy to say damning things about him.

The White House official said about 40 percent of the total conversation was devoted to government-corruption issues. The two national leaders -- neither of whom speaks the other's language -- spoke through interpreters. The official said Mr. Yeltsin called Mr. Clinton late this morning, which was early evening in Moscow.

A team of Russian law-enforcement officials is coming to the United States early next week to take part in the continuing multinational investigation, whose scope now includes allegations that money from Russia was laundered through the Bank of New York. The Russian contingent will include a high official of Russia's equivalent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, tax investigators and the Kremlin version of a national Attorney General.

The White House official who commented this evening said President Clinton did not indicate whether he felt totally reassured by Mr. Yeltsin's assertions. The American President did not disagree when his Russian counterpart said that the odor of scandal could damage relations between the two countries, the official said.

The United States has already asked Russia for assurances that no international financial assistance has been lost to corruption, although Washington stopped short of asking that International Monetary Fund loan payments to Russia be frozen. The Administration is under pressure by Republicans in Congress who have used the reports of corruption to raise questions about United States aid to Russia and to renew attacks on the I.M.F.

Last week, Swiss authorities investigating suspected money laundering by powerful Russians ordered Swiss banks to provide information on two dozen Russians thought to have accounts in Geneva. The Swiss have frozen at least 59 bank accounts in the past two months in the search for evidence.

Russians known to be under scrutiny include the head of Mr. Yeltsin's property-management team; his wife, daughter and son-in-law; and a former deputy prime minister involved in the military industry and arms exports.

And though no definite link has yet been established between the Swiss investigation and the one in the United States, American authorities are looking into possible laundering of Russian money through the Bank of New York. The bank has said it is cooperating.

As for other subjects touched upon in the conversation, Mr. Berger said they included missiles and missile defenses. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott is in Moscow now for exchanges on those subjects, and a Russian delegation is coming to Washington in mid-September.

Mr. Yeltsin and Mr. Clinton also discussed the Russian Army's battle with separatists in Dagestan, Mr. Berger said. "And President Yeltsin said that he expected and hoped that they would be able to gain control of the situation but it was a very difficult one," Mr. Berger said.

---

By Bradley Graham Washington Post Service, September 9, 1999
http://www.iht.com/IHT/TODAY/THU/IN/abm.2.html

WASHINGTON - Rejecting calls from Republican lawmakers to overhaul the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty all at once, President Bill Clinton has decided to ask Russia to agree initially to relatively modest changes in the 27-year-old agreement, administration officials say.

The decision follows months of debate within the administration over whether to seek wholesale changes in the treaty immediately or take a two-step approach as the United States tries to build a nationwide defense against missiles. Administration officials said the approach would improve the chances of reaching an agreement before presidential elections next year in both countries.

The first set of changes sought by the administration would permit the United States to place 100 interceptor missiles in Alaska, an arrangement that is the Pentagon's latest plan for defending the country against, at a bare minimum, a few incoming warheads from a country like North Korea, Iraq or Iran.

As the missile threat is perceived to grow and as U.S. technologies improve, officials said, the United States would seek further treaty amendments to permit more than 200 interceptors, at least two launching sites, advances in radar and the use of space-based sensors.

Congressional Republicans attacked the strategy, accusing the administration of squandering an opportunity to alter the treaty substantially now and arguing that the phased approach would only prolong tensions with Russia. The Republicans said Moscow, which has long opposed U.S. defenses against long-range missile attack, would very likely reject even the limited proposal for modifications.

''The administration is very clear on what would be acceptable, and the minimalist approach is not acceptable,'' a Senate Republican aide said.

Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the administration's top Russia expert, began talks in Moscow on Wednesday on the phased negotiation plan. Other high-level exchanges are due next week when Defense Secretary William Cohen visits Moscow and Russia's deputy foreign minister, Georgi Mamedov, comes to Washington.

European allies also were being informed of the U.S. plan this week, officials said. Concern that the Europeans might take issue with a more aggressive U.S. approach was a major factor in the decision to proceed in steps, said officials involved in the decision.

---

06:57 a.m. Sep 09, 1999 Eastern, By Martin Nesirky
http://www.dogpile.com - search Infoseek

MOSCOW, Sept 9 (Reuters) - U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott left Moscow on Thursday after arms talks with Russian officials, saying he was satisfied with the outcome.

Diplomats said the talks were mainly about the prospects for a START-3 nuclear arms reduction pact and Washington's desire to change the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to allow it to deploy a limited shield against potential rogue missiles.

A U.S. embassy source quoted Talbott as saying he and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov had been laying the groundwork for a meeting between President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Auckland, New Zealand.

It was not clear whether Talbott and Mamedov had reached a compromise ABM deal in time for the Asia-Pacific regional summit. Russia is opposed to changes in the ABM treaty, saying it could unravel the entire nuclear disarmament process.

The U.S. envoy sounded optimistic in comments to Russian reporters before heading back to the United States and the embassy source said Talbott felt bilateral ties were sound.

``I'm satisfied with the results of the consultations I have held,'' Talbott told Itar-Tass news agency. Interfax news agency said he described his day and a half of talks as positive.

``These were consultations aimed at laying the groundwork for more senior officials in Auckland, focused on arms reduction and missile defence,'' the U.S. embassy source quoted Talbott as saying. ``Talks will continue and the basic relationship between the two countries is sound and in place.''

The Russian Foreign Ministry said Talbott and Mamedov discussed a range of questions but concentrated on disarmament.

``The Russian side stressed the need for strict observance of basic agreements in this area,'' it said in a statement. This was a reference to Russian misgivings about altering the ABM treaty.

Russian diplomatic bluster has in the past been a prelude to concessions, but there is no doubting Moscow's concern about the planned U.S. Star Wars-style scheme.

Interfax quoted informed sources as saying the first round of the Talbott-Mamedov talks had proved ``quite difficult.'' There was no indication whether the mood improved, although Talbott at least left Thursday's session smiling broadly.

President Boris Yeltsin and Clinton spoke by telephone on Wednesday. The Kremlin said they discussed arms control issues but did not give details.

Russia regards the ABM treaty as a cornerstone of international disarmament and opposes major changes. Officials have raised the stakes this week by saying Moscow had the technology to develop a missile to breach any U.S. defences.

``No anti-missile defence will be able to stop our new missiles,'' Roman Popkovich, chairman of the parliamentary defence committee, told a news conference on Wednesday.

The Cold War-era ABM treaty limited defence systems designed to shoot down enemy missiles, under the logic that such shields would only tempt the United States and the Soviet Union to build more missiles in the hope one might pierce the enemy's umbrella.

The White House wants to review the treaty to allow it to develop a shield to protect its troops and Asian allies from possible attack by rogue states. Republicans in the U.S. Congress have said they want to ditch the treaty altogether.

Talbott sounded upbeat when he arrived in Moscow on Wednesday but a senior Russian military official sounded decidedly less enthusiastic in comments to Interfax.

``The Americans are trying to drag us into negotiating on ABM to secure Russian agreement for the United States to deploy its own limited national anti-ballistic missile defence,'' the official said. ``The Russian side will not go along with this.''

The sides also discussed START-3, a new treaty aimed at adding to cuts in nuclear arsenals agreed under the 1993 START-2 treaty, which has yet to be ratified by Moscow.

The military official said Russia was ready to discuss START-3 because it would cut the U.S. arsenal and make it easier for cash-strapped Moscow to maintain rough parity.

---

By Charles Krauthammer, Friday, September 10, 1999; Page A37
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-09/10/008l-091099-idx.html

Some debates just never go away. The Clinton administration is back again pressing Congress for passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This is part of a final-legacy push that includes a Middle East peace for just-in-time delivery by September 2000.

The argument for the test ban is that it will prevent nuclear proliferation. If countries cannot test nukes, they will not build them because they won't know if they work. Ratifying the CTBT is supposed to close the testing option for would-be nuclear powers.

We sign. They desist. How exactly does this work?

As a Washington Post editorial explains, one of the ways to "induce would-be proliferators to get off the nuclear track" is "if the nuclear powers showed themselves ready to accept some increasing part of the discipline they are calling on non-nuclear others to accept." The power of example of the greatest nuclear country is expected to induce other countries to follow suit.

History has not been kind to this argument. The most dramatic counterexamples, of course, are rogue states such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran. They don't sign treaties and, even when they do, they set out to break them clandestinely from the first day. Moral suasion does not sway them.

More interesting is the case of friendly countries such as India and Pakistan. They are exactly the kind of countries whose nuclear ambitions the American example of restraint is supposed to mollify.

Well, then. The United States has not exploded a nuclear bomb either above or below ground since 1992. In 1993, President Clinton made it official by declaring a total moratorium on U.S. testing. Then last year, India and Pakistan went ahead and exploded a series of nuclear bombs. So much for moral suasion. Why did they do it? Because of this obvious, if inconvenient, truth: Nuclear weapons are the supreme military asset. Not that they necessarily will be used in warfare. But their very possession transforms the geopolitical status of the possessor. The possessor acquires not just aggressive power but, even more important, a deterrent capacity as well.

Ask yourself: Would we have launched the Persian Gulf War if Iraq had been bristling with nukes?

This truth is easy for Americans to forget because we have so much conventional strength that our nuclear forces appear superfluous, even vestigial. Lesser countries, however, recognize the political and diplomatic power conveyed by nuclear weapons.

They want the nuclear option. For good reason. And they will not forgo it because they are moved by the moral example of the United States. Nations follow their interests, not norms.

Okay, say the test ban advocates. If not swayed by American example, they will be swayed by the penalties for breaking an international norm.

What penalties? China exploded test after test until it had satisfied itself that its arsenal was in good shape, then quit in 1996. India and Pakistan broke both the norm on nuclear testing and nonproliferation. North Korea openly flouted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Were any of these countries sanctioned? North Korea was actually rewarded with enormous diplomatic and financial inducements -- including billions of dollars in fuel and food aid -- to act nice. India and Pakistan got slapped on the wrist for a couple of months.

That's it. Why? Because these countries are either too important (India) or too scary (North Korea). Despite our pretensions, for America too, interests trump norms.

Whether the United States signs a ban on nuclear testing will not affect the course of proliferation. But it will affect the nuclear status of the United States.

In the absence of testing, the American nuclear arsenal, the most sophisticated on the globe and thus the most in need of testing to ensure its safety and reliability, will degrade over time. As its reliability declines, it becomes unusable. For the United States, the unintended effect of a test ban is gradual disarmament.

Well, maybe not so unintended. For the more extreme advocates of the test ban, nonproliferation is the ostensible argument, but disarmament is the real objective. The Ban the Bomb and Nuclear Freeze movements have been discredited by history, but their adherents have found a back door. A nuclear test ban is that door. For them, the test ban is part of a larger movement: the war against weapons. It finds expression in such touching and useless exercises as the land mine convention, the biological weapons convention, etc. The test ban, unfortunately, is more than touching and useless. It may actually work -- to disarm not the North Koreas of the world but the United States.

-----------

 Slovakia to draw up nuclear plant closure plan

08:59 a.m. Sep 09, 1999 Eastern
http://www.dogpile.com - search Infoseek

BRATISLAVA, Sept 9 (Reuters) - The Slovak government will draw up a final plan for the closure of its Soviet designed Bohunice nuclear power plant by the end of September, the Economy Ministry said on Thursday.

The late 1970s plant, some 60 km from the Austrian border, became a matter of dispute between Slovakia and the EU after Bratislava decided to postpone the shutdown of the oldest reactor, V1, by around 10 years to 2010, and to keep the newer V2 model in operation for even longer.

On Wednesday, European Commission representative Francois Lamoureux said that he foresaw a linkage between the Slovak government's readiness to draw up a precise timetable for Bohunice's closure and the country's chances of entering the EU.

Austria in particular has made thinly veiled threats to veto Slovakia's accession to the EU unless an acceptable solution for Bohunice is found.

Slovakia was excluded from the first group of EU candidate countries in 1997, mainly because of its right-wing nationalist government of the time.

The current reformist government, which took power after an election last September, has made early EU accession one of its priorities.

Alica Durianova, the economy ministry's spokeswoman, told Reuters on Thursday that the government was looking at several scenarios for Bohunice and also the question of EU compensation for losses incurred as a result of the shutdowns.

She gave no clues as to what the new timetable may be.

``The government had already discussed the matter earlier this year...and will return to it next week, so that a schedule for the Bohunice plant solution can be completed by the end of the month,'' said Durianova.

-----------

Ne York Times Editorial, September 10, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/lgoose.html

To the Editor:

"Land-Mine Ban Has Trouble Getting Off the Ground" (Week in Review, Sept. 5) says "land mines appear to be as popular as ever" and cites a survey by the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines that reported that anti-personnel mines were used in 13 countries in the 15 months after the treaty banning their use was signed.

In fact, this appears to represent a significant decrease in mine use globally. We have found that use is on the wane, export has nearly stopped, production has been drastically reduced, and more than 12 million mines have been destroyed from stocks.

We are winning the war against mines, and at a startling rate, given that this is the first time in history the international community is banning a weapon that is already in widespread use.

STEPHEN GOOSE Washington, Sept. 7, 1999
The writer heads the land mines campaign for Human Rights Watch.

---

By STEVEN LEE MYERS September 5, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/090599land-mines-review.html

ASHINGTON -- It has been two years since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, gave a last, emotional boost to an international treaty to ban anti-personnel land mines, then being feverishly negotiated in Oslo. Many say her efforts to draw attention to the fiendish effects of mines before her death may be one of her greatest legacies.

But what kind of legacy is it?

Despite a treaty signed by 135 countries to ban their use, production and stockpiling, anti-personnel land mines appear to be as popular as ever in fighting wars these days.

Yugoslav troops planted thousands of them during 18 months of civil war in Kosovo. So did the ethnic Albanian rebels they were fighting. Russia has acknowledged using them in recent weeks against Islamic insurgents in the southern province of Dagestan (and apologized to neighboring Georgia for accidentally dropping some of them from aircraft into Georgian territory).

Their use has been reported in the recent flareups between India and Pakistan and between Eritrea and Ethiopia, as well as in civil wars in Turkey, Colombia, Congo, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

In a survey completed last April, the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines, which won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, reported that governments or rebel groups in at least 13 countries had used mines in the 15 months after the treaty was signed, though before it officially went into force. Among those were three that signed the treaty banning them: Guinea-Bissau, Senegal and Angola, the country Diana made the focus of her own anti-mine crusade. W HAT'S more, despite the campaign's publicity, several major countries still refuse to adopt the treaty, including the United States, Russia and China, most of the nations in the Middle East and many in Asia.

"It is a little disheartening," said Marissa Vitagliano, the coordinator of the U.S. Campaign to Ban Land Mines.

She and other supporters of a ban say it is far too soon to write off the treaty as a failure. On the contrary, they point to progress that has been made, especially in reducing the worldwide production of mines and their availability in the international arms market, according to arms control monitors.

Mary Fowler, the deputy chief of the United Nations' Mine Action Service in New York, noted that the countries that have signed on to a ban have destroyed 14 million mines that had been stockpiled when the treaty was written two years ago. Even countries that have so far refused to sign the treaty -- including the United States and Russia -- have pledged to stop exporting mines and to stop making certain kinds altogether.

Perhaps the treaty's greatest impact has been on public perception. Reports of mines now evoke images of legless veterans, of maimed children, of Diana in protective gear walking near a minefield in Angola.

"Many, many mines were used in the Persian Gulf war, but no one thought about it," Ms. Fowler said. "Everybody is aware that mines were used in Kosovo. The treaty is setting a new international standard."

Still, as events have shown, a standard is one thing, the eradication of mines another.

Mines are cheap and durable and deadly. In Yugoslavia, which has not signed the treaty, Serbian troops heavily mined the routes along the mountainous borders with Albania and Macedonia that the Kosovo Liberation Army used to get in and out of the province; that forced the guerrillas into areas that exposed them to Yugoslav fire. Serbian police also used mines to booby-trap ransacked Albanian homes to keep refugees from returning home. (Many returned anyway, and died as a result.)

Another reason for discouragement is the weakness of the treaty itself.

The treaty -- the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction -- went into effect on March 1 on this year, six months after the 40th nation ratified it, but it has little force.

here is no governing organization to oversee it and no mechanism to punish those who violate it. It essentially relies on member states to monitor themselves and honestly report on what stockpiles they have and the efforts they are making to destroy them.

Supporters hope that global peer pressure will gradually force nations to comply. "You don't expect everybody to stop using mines overnight," said Caleb S. Rossiter, an analyst now conducting a study on mine strategy in Korea for the Vietnam Veterans of America. "Treaties like this take a long time to sink in."

There is universal agreement among the treaty's supporters that the biggest obstacle to that is the fact that the United States won't sign it.

Despite once advocating a ban, President Clinton bowed to pressure from Pentagon commanders opposed to the treaty's restrictions. They insist they need the most common type of land mines -- those left buried in the ground -- to protect South Korea from North Korea. They also want to keep using "smart" anti-personnel mines, sophisticated devices that self-destruct after a time, to shield larger anti-tank mines, which are not prohibited by the treaty since the weight of a human is not enough to trigger them.

The Administration has pledged to sign the treaty in the future -- but only after the Pentagon develops alternatives to mines, a process critics say has moved slowly.

"I don't think anybody questions the fact that we would be much further along if the United States was not only a participant in the treaty, but an active one," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont and one of the most ardent advocates of a ban.

Without American support, Mr. Leahy added, "a lot of countries will say, 'Why should we sign when the United States, the most powerful country on earth, says it's not strong enough to give up land mines?' "

------------