--------
April 25, 2000 Daybook
http://www.washtimes.com/national/daybook-200042521403.htm
SENATE COMMITTEES
10 a.m. - Senate Appropriations Committee defense subcommittee holds a hearing on fiscal 2001 defense appropriations, Army overview. Location: 192 Dirksen Senate Office Building. Contact: 202/224-3471.
TODAY'S HEADLINERS
World Bank discussion - 8 a.m. - The Washington International Trade Association holds a discussion, "What's All the Fuss? The Results of the World Bank Annual Meeting and Protests." Location: Ronald Reagan Building, Horizon Ballroom, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Contact: 202/312-1600.
Anti-corporate campaigning workshop - 6:45 p.m. - The Institute for Policy Studies holds a corporate research workshop on organizing an effective anti-corporate campaign and a seminar on grass-roots organizing. Location: Institute for Policy Studies, Suite 1020, 733 15th St. NW. Contact: 202/234-9382.
-------- activists
PREVENTING AN ARMS RACE IN OUTER SPACE
April 25, 2000, in New York
From: Abolition 2000 <a2000@silcom.com>
The United States Government explicitly states that it wants to "control" space to protect its economic interests and establish superiority over the world. These efforts could produce a nuclear arms race in outer space and/or a nuclear catastrophe. The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space is challenging these plans. We invite you to attend a panel discussion on:
PREVENTING AN ARMS RACE IN OUTER SPACE
April 25, 2000 1:15- 2:45 PM
United Nations Conference Room 4 45th and 1st Avenue (enter through visitors' entrance) (You will need a pass to attend this event. Please contact 212-223-7520 to obtain a pass before April 15th)
Speakers:
Karl Grossman, Convenor Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Rashmi Mayur, Director International Institute for a Sustainable Future
Facilitator:
Alice Slater, Executive Director Global Resource Action Center for the Environment
Sponsors: Abolition 2000 NY Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) Promoting Enduring Peace War and Peace Foundation
----
Abolition 2000 Demonstration at Daj Hamarjskold Plaza
a brief report by Carah Ong: Abolition2000@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:10:38 EDT
More than 200 people gathered on 25 April 2000 at Daj Hamarjskold Plaza at the United Nations in New York to protest the resolve of nuclear weapons states to maintain their nuclear arsenals. On 24 April, the sixth Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opened and will last until 19 May. Despite the end of the Cold War more than ten years ago and despite existing obligations to eliminate nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons states have refused to enter into negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty that would lead to the phased and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons.
Protestors gathered on 25 April in a ceremony began at 9am to honor hibakusha, downwinders and affected communities who have directly suffered from the legacy of nuclear weapons testing and production, as well as from nuclear power. The event was sponsored by Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons and Earthday 2000 and was organized by Alice Slater of the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. Featured in the demonstration were several indigenous representatives from the First Nations and the Pacific as well as hibakusha. Also featured was a crane whose feathers were comprised of names of downwinders, hibakusha and other affected peoples.
Speakers noted direct link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power. On the busy street corner of 47th and 1st Street, the ceremony stage and a 25 foot inflatable nuclear reactor were powered by solar panels. Janet Bloomfield, British Coordinator of the Atomic Mirror and Member of the Abolition 2000 Coordinating Committee remarked: "Nuclear energy may power the bomb, but renewable energy powers peace."
Abolition 2000 is determined to set a nuclear disarmament agenda at the NPT and raise discussion and awareness on nuclear issues that are often ignored or considered passe by politicians and the media. If you would like more information on Abolition 2000 or if you would like to more than 1850 organizations and municipalities in 93 countries to create a more secure, sustainable and just world for all generations, please contact.
----
Write a Letter to the Editor!
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:37:09 -0400
From: Neil Watkins <watkinsn@cepr.net>
1) Some guidelines for writing a letter to the editor, from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
2) Sample Letter to the editor
--
1) How to Write a Letter to the Editor, by FAIR (www.fair.org)
Letters that are intended for publication should be drafted carefully. Here are some tips to keep in mind:
* Make one point (or at most two) in your letter or fax. State the point clearly, ideally in the first sentence.
* Make your letter timely. If you are not addressing a specific article, editorial or letter that recently appeared in the paper you are writing to, then try to tie the issue you want to write about to a recent event.
* Familiarize yourself with the coverage and editorial position of the paper to which you are writing. Refute or support specific statements, address relevant facts that are ignored, but do avoid blanket attacks on the media in general or the newspaper in particular.
* Check the letter specifications of the newspaper to which you are writing. Length and format requirements vary from paper to paper. (Generally, roughly two short paragraphs are ideal.) You also must include your name, signature, address and phone number.
* Look at the letters that appear in your paper. Is a certain type of letter usually printed?
* Support your facts. If the topic you address is controversial, consider sending documentation along with your letter. But don't overload the editors with too much info.
* Keep your letter brief. Type it whenever possible.
* Find others to write letters when possible. This will show that other individuals in the community are concerned about the issue. If your letter doesn't get published, perhaps someone else's on the same topic will.
* Monitor the paper for your letter. If your letter has not appeared within a week or two, follow up with a call to the editorial department of the newspaper.
--
2) Sample Letter to the editor about A16.
If you use this template, be sure to only use ONE or TWO of the bullet points about the issues. Pick the issue or angle you most care about. And be sure to personalize the letter. Good Luck!
SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
To the editor:
Thank you for reporting on the protests in Washington against the IMF and World Bank [cite story]. I [participated in/supported] these protests-- along with tens of thousands of students, union members, environmentalists, and others from across the country -- and I'd like to draw your attention to some key facts missing from your coverage as to why so many of us went to Washington to protest the IMF and World Bank:
[PICK ONE OR TWO OF THESE...]
* The IMF and the World Bank refuse to cancel debts owed to them by the world's poorest countries. Many countries are forced to spend more money repaying debts to these groups than they spend on desperately needed health care or education.
* The IMF's intervention in Russia has been one devastating failure after another. Within four years of its program entering into effect in 1992, the country's national income had dropped by about one-half and the number of Russians in poverty rose from 2 million to 60 million. A collapse of this magnitude is historically unprecedented in the absence of war or major natural disaster.
* All of the IMF's lending and more than 60% of the World Bank's lending is conditioned on policies such as mandates to "privatize" industries, reduce worker protections, reduce access to credit, and pursue export-led growth strategies which deplete natural resources and despoil the environment.
* The IMF and World Bank are undemocratic and they are unaccountable to the people who are most affected by their policies. At the IMF, for example, in the last 2,000 decisions made by the executive board, there have been only 12 votes.
* World Bank financed dam projects have displaced more than 10 million people, and the World Bank has never been forced to pay for the destruction it has caused to millions of people's lives and the environment.
* In Latin America, twenty years of these institutions' supervision have produced income growth, per person, that is less than a tenth of its previous rate. In Africa, income per person has actually fallen 20% over the last two decades.
* Forty percent of the World Bank Group's lending is for extraction industries--oil, gas and mining--that are accompanied by environmental destruction, corruption, forced relocation of the poor and indigenous and the enrichment of multinational corporations.
We united in Washington to say enough is enough. The protests may be over, but we will keep the pressure on these institutions.
Signed, XXXXX
----
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:56:47 EDT
From: magnu96196@aol.com
Subject: Congratulations to the Save Ward Valley campaign
To all Ward Valley supporters:
The final issue of the Save Ward Valley News will be mailed sometime next week. Those of you on this e-mail list will have the privilige of receiving it early. I will send just a page or two at a time so as not to overload you. Here is page 1.
Molly
SAVE WARD VALLEY NEWS Straight from the tortoise's mouth
FINAL ISSUE SAVE WARD VALLEY-FORT MOJAVE INDIAN TRIBE-BAN WASTE COALITION-GREENACTION APR 2000
VICTORY IS AT HAND!!
Ward Valley No Longer Considered for Waste
Our united struggle, after 12 long years, to keep a radioactive waste facility out of Ward Valley has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams! However, even though Governor Gray Davis said that Ward Valley is a "dead issue", his statement was not an official declaration. Neither he nor the State of California has made the demise of the Ward Valley project "official".
The latest "nail in the coffin" of the proposed Ward Valley Radioactive Waste dump was the dismissal of the lawsuit brought by US Ecology against the Department of Interior in the Court of Federal Claims. (see pg. 2) This was a decision long awaited by all and according to Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, "Before this, Ward Valley was 95-percent dead, and now it's 98-percent dead."
The details of the dump's demise may take years to be worked out, and of course we can't let down our guard even a minute, because dump proponents US Ecology, the Cal-Rad Forum and others will continue their attempts to revive the project. Remember that they have boasted that "Ward Valley is the best location in the world for disposal of radioactive waste." At the same time, these folks are advocates of dumping anywhere, anytime and as a result, are not necessarily attached to Ward Valley.
"Son of Ward Valley" Proposed
The Advisory Group established by Governor Davis to review alternatives to Ward Valley continues as imbalanced as before, dominated by waste generators (especially by members of the Cal-Rad Forum) (see pgs. 4 & 5). The Scientific Panel that is to report to the Advisory Group, even more imbalanced in terms of nuclear interests, has proposed four alternative approaches. These options are all unsatisfactory since they either call for continued dumping of long-lived nuclear waste in out-of state landfills, or promote a landfill or isolation facility in California. Two of the four options involve starting a whole new Ward Valley process, albeit at a different location, for a new dump in California. Unless successfully opposed, we are faced with another ten-year struggle over "Son of Ward Valley." We need to prevent that from happening.
A fifth option, prohibiting the use of shallow land burial within California and proposing interim storage at nuclear power plants is being promoted by Scientific Panelist Dr. Robert Gould and panel consultants Ward Young and Phil Klasky of the BAN Waste Coalition. (see pg. 3)
We Still Need To Put the Pressure On
Here is what you can do--
1) Attend the final two meetings of the Advisory Group on April 26 and May 10. (For further information and to put your name on the list to speak, call Amy Jones of the PMR Group, Inc. at 310/473-7704 or visit their website at www.llrw.org.) 2) Contact Governor Davis - State Capitol Building, Sacramento, CA 95814 PH: 916/445-2841 FAX: 916/445-4633. Ask him to: a) Officially remove Ward Valley from any consideration as any kind of nuclear facility either now or in the future. b) Outlaw any burial of any kind of radioactive waste in California. c) Make it the policy of California to store long-lived nuclear waste at nuclear power plants on an interim basis and regularly review improvements in technology to isolate waste from the biosphere.
". . .Ward Valley as a site is a dead issue. . ." ---Governor Gray Davis (see pg. 6)
Save Ward Valley Office to Close
In light of recent events the Save Ward Valley office will be closing April 30,2000. Should any attempt be made to revive the proposed Ward Valley nuclear waste dump, the Colorado River Native Nations Alliance (CRNNA) and Ward Valley Coalition are prepared to take immediate action. Keep in touch with the following organizations for all of the latest news.
BAN Waste Coaliton POB 894, Bolinas, CA 94924 PH: 415/752-8678 FAX: 415/221-4267 Website: banwaste.envirolink.org
Greenaction 1095 Market St., Suite 608, San Francisco, CA 94103 PH: 415/252-0822 FAX: 415/252-0823 Website: greenaction.org
We would like to give a great big "Thank You!" to everyone who contributed their money, their time and their support. It is because of the work of all of you that we have won this battle!
-------- alternative energy
Solar power in the spotlight
April 25, 2000
By SUSAN JANKOWSKI
http://www.djc.com/news/enviro/11007006.html
Journal environmental editor
Even though the cleanest energy source is over 4 billion years-old, it has become a viable source of power in the Northwest only recently.
The market for solar power equipment is growing by 30 percent each year in the U.S., says CEO Jim Duncan of Sparling, a Seattle electrical engineering, lighting design and technology consulting company.
"The market is increasing around the world. It's starting to take off," said Duncan.
According to Duncan, solar energy generated 17 percent of the world's power last year but there is room for growth: The Northwest Energy Coalition says enough sunlight strikes the U.S. in one day to power the entire country for over a year.
Duncan is a proponent of solar power "because it's the right thing to do" and because, he said, the world's fossil fuel resources are dwindling. "We're not creating any pollution, there's no smog, no waste. We aren't messing up salmon habitat, like we do with hydropower. ...this is what you are gaining with solar power."
Now the city of Seattle is testing solar power. A team made up of engineers from Sparling, researchers from Washington State University and Seattle City Light, and Seattle Center employee volunteers installed three solar panel's on the roof Seattle Center's Rainier Room last week. The 2 kilowatt photovoltaic system generates enough electricity to fully power the building's interior lights. The 10-by-12 foot panels are made of silicone crystals and cost $18,000 to purchase and install.
Photovoltaic cells are essentially batteries which directly convert solar energy into electrical energy. Light stimulates the flow of electrons across the layers of material and generates current through wires placed between them. Duncan said today's solar manufacturers are developing roof and wall materials that come with photovoltaic cells already installed in them.
Duncan addressed the perception that the region's rainy conditions would prevent solar power from becoming viable. "Even on a day that's cloudy, there are still sun rays coming through that will generate power. When there is sun, you can save the power you generate in batteries for days when it is cloudy."
According to Duncan, the city has also expressed an interest in using solar power for the new City Hall and federal courthouse projects.
Some of the world's first "heat machines" were operated by solar energy in the 18th century. But fossil fuels produced a more concentrated fire more cheaply and won out over solar energy. However, renewed interest in solar power is gaining momentum as concerns grow over limited supplies of fossil fuels.
"We're never going to run out of the sun...we just have to harness it," said Duncan.
-------- india / pakistan
Indian diplomacy
Washington Times Embassy Row,
April 25, 2000
http://www.washtimes.com/world/embassy-200042521509.htm
Indian Ambassador Naresh Chandra has dismissed criticism that Indian diplomacy failed to stop President Clinton from visiting Pakistan on his South Asian trip last month.
Mr. Chandra told the newspaper India Today that his government never attempted to prevent Mr. Clinton from meeting Pakistani military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Indian diplomats did warn Mr. Clinton of the impact of the Pakistan visit on Indian public opinion, he said. But India never insisted that Mr. Clinton promise not to go to Pakistan as a precondition of his visit to India.
"Indian diplomacy did not fail," Mr. Chandra said. "In fact, Indian diplomacy alerted the U.S. administration of possible dangers."
Those warnings, Mr. Chandra said, allowed the White House to argue successfully that the visit would not legitimize the rule of Gen. Musharraf, who overthrew a democratically elected but corrupt government last year.
"The approach of the government of India has been very much distorted in some sections of the press," Mr. Chandra said in the interview, which is reprinted in the April edition of the Indian Embassy newsletter.
"You'll be glad to know that our invitation to the U.S. president was unconditional," he said. "It was our duty to inform the U.S. side in advance about the adverse reaction in India to a visit to Pakistan at this time."
"We always said this is a decision for the U.S. president to take and the warmth and the scale of our reception would not be affected if he decided to visit Pakistan," Mr. Chandra added.
The ambassador cited the future value of the first visit by an American president in more than 20 years, even though Mr. Clinton is in his last nine months in office.
"The main purpose of President Clinton's visit was to send a clear signal that both India and the U.S. are ready and committed to forge a new relationship in the 21st century," Mr. Chandra said.
-------- israel
Israel Asked To Open Nuke Facilities
April 25, 2000
By NICOLE WINFIELD,
Associated Press Writer
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/ap/000425/19/int-un-nuclear-treaty
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Mideast countries led by Egypt demanded Tuesday that Israel open up its suspected nuclear arsenal to international scrutiny and said its secrecy threatened regional stability.
Egypt's U.N. ambassador, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, urged a conference reviewing the landmark Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to single out Israel for its failure to commit to the treaty - the only country in the region that hasn't done so.
"The message must be crystal clear in expressing the danger to the security of the Middle East inherent in the continuation of the status quo," Gheit said.
He was backed by Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, and the ambassadors from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in demanding Israel agree to the treaty's terms and reveal its arsenal. Other countries made similar demands - but the Middle East states were the most vocal.
The nonproliferation treaty, which went into force in 1970, calls for nuclear weapons states to move toward disarmament and bars countries without nuclear arsenals from obtaining or developing them.
It requires its signatories to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify that their nuclear technologies are being used for peaceful means - not weapons.
Western intelligence reports say Israel has a significant nuclear stockpile, making it the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
"This imbalance cannot be accepted neither can it last," Gheit said. "The NPT cannot have any credibility with the states of the region as long as one state is exempt from its provisions."
Israel has maintained a policy of "nuclear opacity" - a refusal to confirm or deny the possession of nuclear weapons.
Israel's deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, told Israel army radio earlier Tuesday that the policy would remain. "We are not saying what we have or don't have, and the deterrence stems from the fact that others are kept guessing."
The United States generally backs Israel, which is isolated and often criticized at the United Nations. It has tried to steer criticism from Israel's suspected nuclear arsenal while it works on peacemaking between Arabs and Israel.
But the United States has agreed for the first time to allow the conference to create a subsidiary committee to deal with regional nuclear issues including the Middle East, said Daniel Plesch, director of the British American Security Information Council, which is monitoring progress of the conference.
"The U.S. found it indefensible to not discuss Israel when it has India and Pakistan to talk about," said Plesch, referring to the nuclear weapons tests the two South Asian countries conducted in 1998.
Only four countries - Israel, India, Pakistan and Cuba - haven't signed onto the treaty.
In other speeches at the conference Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned that the United States risked undermining 30 years of disarmament agreements if it insists on amending a landmark missile treaty.
The United States wants to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty limiting missile defense systems to allow it to develop a national system to guard against missile threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran.
----
Israel Said To Stick to Nuke Policy
APRIL 25, 04:39 EDT
By KARIN LAUB
Associated Press Writer
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=MIDEAST&STORYID=APIS742LJMG0
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel will stick to its policy of ``nuclear opacity'' - a refusal to confirm or deny the possession of nuclear weapons - despite renewed pressure by Egypt that Israel reveal its arsenal, a senior Israeli defense official said today.
Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said he was confident the United States would side with Israel in the expected showdown at the review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the United Nations in New York. The four-week gathering began Monday and continued today.
Egypt's U.N. ambassador, Ahmed abul-Ghait, has said all Arab nations, along with others in the developing world, would call for identifying Israel by name as the only country in the Middle East that did not sign the treaty.
Sneh said Egypt is ``trying to destroy'' Israel's nuclear policy and that its behavior was unacceptable. He said Israel would not budge.
``Israel has had a certain policy all these years, of nuclear opacity,'' he told Israel army radio. ``We are not saying what we have or don't have, and the deterrence stems from the fact that others are kept guessing. It is good that this will remain so in the future.''
Sneh said he expected the United States to stand by Israel. ``There is an understanding between us and the United States,'' the deputy minister said. It was not clear whether he was referring only to the expectation that the United States would block the Egyptian initiative or to Israel's nuclear policy overall.
Israeli historian Avner Cohen, author of the 1998 book ``Israel and the Bomb,'' has said the two countries worked out an understanding in 1970, believed to be still operative, in which the United States would look the other way as long as Israel kept a low profile and did not carry out nuclear tests.
Western intelligence reports say Israel has a significant nuclear stockpile, making it the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
In 1986, The Sunday Times of London published photographs taken inside Israel's nuclear reactor near the Negev Desert town of Dimona, provided by nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu. Based on the pictures, experts said at the time that Israel had the world's sixth largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who oversaw the construction of the reactor in the 1950s and 1960s, has come close to acknowledging Israel's nuclear capability. He has said Israel built the reactor in hopes that it would prevent future wars with the Arabs.
The Dimona reactor was built secretly, with French technical assistance. At first, U.S. intelligence failed to detect the reactor under construction. According to Cohen, Israel improvised two crude, deliverable nuclear weapons on the eve of the 1967 Mideast war.
On The Net: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel-Aviv University, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/military.htmMilitary
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.bullatomsci.org/research/collections/israel.html
----
Israel Asked To Open Nuke Facilities
April 25, 2000
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-UN-Nuclear-Treaty.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Mideast countries led by Egypt demanded Tuesday that Israel open up its suspected nuclear arsenal to international scrutiny and said its secrecy threatened regional stability.
Egypt's U.N. ambassador, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, urged a conference reviewing the landmark Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to single out Israel for its failure to commit to the treaty -- the only country in the region that hasn't done so.
``The message must be crystal clear in expressing the danger to the security of the Middle East inherent in the continuation of the status quo,'' Gheit said.
He was backed by Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, and the ambassadors from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in demanding Israel agree to the treaty's terms and reveal its arsenal. Other countries made similar demands -- but the Middle East states were the most vocal.
The nonproliferation treaty, which went into force in 1970, calls for nuclear weapons states to move toward disarmament and bars countries without nuclear arsenals from obtaining or developing them.
It requires its signatories to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify that their nuclear technologies are being used for peaceful means -- not weapons.
Western intelligence reports say Israel has a significant nuclear stockpile, making it the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
``This imbalance cannot be accepted neither can it last,'' Gheit said. ``The NPT cannot have any credibility with the states of the region as long as one state is exempt from its provisions.''
Israel has maintained a policy of ``nuclear opacity'' -- a refusal to confirm or deny the possession of nuclear weapons.
Israel's deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, told Israel army radio earlier Tuesday that the policy would remain. ``We are not saying what we have or don't have, and the deterrence stems from the fact that others are kept guessing.''
The United States generally backs Israel, which is isolated and often criticized at the United Nations. It has tried to steer criticism from Israel's suspected nuclear arsenal while it works on peacemaking between Arabs and Israel.
But the United States has agreed for the first time to allow the conference to create a subsidiary committee to deal with regional nuclear issues including the Middle East, said Daniel Plesch, director of the British American Security Information Council, which is monitoring progress of the conference.
``The U.S. found it indefensible to not discuss Israel when it has India and Pakistan to talk about,'' said Plesch, referring to the nuclear weapons tests the two South Asian countries conducted in 1998.
Only four countries -- Israel, India, Pakistan and Cuba -- haven't signed onto the treaty.
In other speeches at the conference Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned that the United States risked undermining 30 years of disarmament agreements if it insists on amending a landmark missile treaty.
The United States wants to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty limiting missile defense systems to allow it to develop a national system to guard against missile threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran.
--------
Egypt Demands Israel Join Non-Proliferation Treaty
April 25, 2000
By Reuters
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-arms-nu.html
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Egypt demanded on Tuesday that Israel sign without further delay the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and place its nuclear facilities under monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Addressing a conference on implementation of the treaty, aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, Egyptian U.N. envoy Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Israel was the only country in the Middle East that was not a party to the accord.
Criticizing ``Israel's intransigent refusal,'' he said ``the message of the 2000 review conference must be unequivocal in its demand that Israel accede to the treaty without further delay and that it place all its nuclear facilities under the safeguard regime of the IAEA.
``The message must be crystal clear in expressing the danger to the security of the Middle East inherent in the continuation of the status quo,'' he said.
Israel, India, Pakistan and Cuba are the only countries not currently parties to the NTB.
India and Pakistan conducted underground nuclear tests in 1998 while Israel refuses to confirm or deny the general belief that it has nuclear weapons, saying only that it will not be the first to introduce such weapons into the Middle East.
Aboul Gheit said the 1995 NPT review conference adopted a resolution on the Middle East, co-sponsored by the treaty's three depository states -- the United States, Britain and the then-Soviet Union -- calling on Israel to accede to the treaty.
Egypt has put forward many proposals on steps to be taken by Israel and the states of the region aimed at ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, he said.
``Unfortunately, Israel did not respond to any of these endeavors,'' he said.
``This imbalance cannot be accepted, neither can it last. The NPT cannot have any credibility with the states of the region as long as one state is exempt from its provisions,'' Aboul Gheit said.
The nuclear states, and particularly those who co-sponsored the 1995 resolution on the Middle East, were responsible for its implementation, he said, calling for a mechanism to follow up progress in carrying it out.
Using the ``pretext of not burdening the conference or any other pretext so as not to deal with the issue of the Middle East with the necessary seriousness'' would undoubtedly detract from the credibility of the treaty, the conference and the whole non-proliferation regime, Aboul Gheit said.
-------- nato
Retiring NATO Commander Tours Bosnia
April 25, 2000
By AIDA CERKEZ-ROBINSON,
Associated Press Writer
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/ap/000425/14/int-bosnia-nato
SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina (AP) - NATO's departing commander paid a last visit to Sarajevo on Tuesday after six turbulent years of involvement in the Balkans, and warned Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic against tightening "the noose" on Montenegro.
U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, 55, made a victory tour of sorts to the capital of Bosnia, the nation where NATO-led forces in 1995 separated three armed groups, helped reverse the population displacements and instilled greater security after the 3 1/2 years of war. Bosnians now travel freely through the country.
"With steady and sustained effort, we can overcome the tragedy of the 19th century nationalism and move this country and these people into the 21st century's Euro-Atlantic community," Clark said. "It can be done."
Clark said NATO had some success in arresting war crimes suspects for trial at the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands.
He acknowledged the most prominent suspects - former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his general, Ratko Mladic - remain at large, but said they will face justice.
"People in this country must have confidence," he said. "This will happen. Justice will be done."
Clark, who led the 78-day NATO air war in 1999 against Milosevic's repression in Kosovo, spoke of the accomplishment of forcing the Yugoslav leader to end an 18-month crackdown on ethnic Albanian militants in the province.
"We demonstrated that we have learned lessons from Bosnia and the international community put its foot down and said: 'No more of this."' the general said.
Clark said Western officials and NATO is aware of the pressure Milosevic is putting on Montenegro as this junior partner in the Yugoslav federation pushes for closer ties to the West.
"We have watched with concern as President Milosevic has tightened the noose around Montenegro," Clark said. "He has strengthened the Serb military forces there, replaced the officers there with political cronies, brought in paramilitary thugs and put them in uniform."
"I think that he should know that NATO is watching," Clark said.
Clark, who is leaving his NATO job this month, also visited Croatia and received a medal from President Stipe Mesic. Clark said he had "high hopes and expectations" for Croatia, a former Yugoslav republic which hopes to become a member of NATO's auxiliary program, Partnership for Peace.
Clark will be replaced as NATO commander by U.S. Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, and plans to retire June 30. He has not said what he will do after that.
-------- npt
UN chief issues warning on nuclear war threat
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/weekly/newsnat-25apr2000-36.htm
Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, says the threat of nuclear war is still a real possibility.
He says pressure to allow the deployment of new missile defences is jeopardising the new anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Mr Annan made the remarks at an international conference on halting the spread of nuclear weapons.
The UN is urging Washington to weigh the dangers carefully before giving in to the growing pressure to create a national anti-ballistic missible defence system.
United States President Bill Clinton is expected to take a decision about the development of a national defensive system later this year.
US military planners argue that a Star Wars-type shield will only be used to protect them against any future missile attack from rogue states, such as North Korea.
Russia is also showing concern with Moscow's Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, warning that the development of such a system could create a destructive domino effect for the existing disarmament system.
----
UNITED NATIONS PRESS RELEASES ON NPT REVIEW
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <nonukes@foesyd.org.au>
DEFICIENCIES OF NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT INSTRUMENTS UNDER WIDE-RANGING ASSAULT AS NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE ENDS SECOND DAY
20000425
As the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) continued its general debate this afternoon, EgyptÕs representative said that the NPT could not have any credibility with the States of the Middle East region as long as one State was exempt from its provisions.
The current imbalance in the Middle East, he said, could not be accepted, and neither could it last. The Conference must be unequivocal in its demand that Israel accede to the Treaty and place all its nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards regime. We have failed to achieve the universality of the NPTÓ, he said. There had also been a failure to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in South Asia, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) had become an elusive objective after the refusal of the United States Senate to ratify it.
Speaking on behalf of the nations of the Andean Community, Jose Antonio Bellina, Director for Political, Multilateral and Security Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru, said that it was the Treaty that was extended indefinitely in 1995, not the right to keep nuclear arsenals forever. The NPT itself contained the contractual obligation on all the parties to make progress towards general and complete disarmament. It could not be seen as the establishment of an international order based on the perpetual existence of a small group of States entitled to possess nuclear weapons, and a large majority that lacked that right.
The representative of Malaysia said that the process of nuclear disarmament had become more of a case of taking one small hesitant step forward, but two steps backward, as the nuclear-weapon States reasserted their commitment to the dangerous and outmoded doctrine of nuclear deterrence. There was no shortage of ideas on how to propel the disarmament process forward. However, what was seriously required was a comprehensive legally binding international instrument prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, threat or use of nuclear weapons and their destruction.
Kamal Kharrazi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, said that the Conference must ensure implementation of article IV of the Treaty in all its aspects, especially with regard to transfer of technology, equipment and nuclear materials to developing States. [Article IV of the Treaty guarantees the inalienable right of all the parties to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II.] Under the guise of non-proliferation, systematic denial of transfer of technology to developing non-nuclear-weapon States parties, and restrictive export control by nuclear suppliers, secured the exclusive possession of nuclear technology by developed countries.
Also speaking in this afternoonÕs debate were representatives of the United Arab Emirates, Colombia, Saudi Arabia and Libya, as well as the Permanent Observer of Switzerland. The Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) also took the floor.
Also this afternoon, the Conference elected Jean Lint (Belgium), Suh Dae-won (Republic of Korea) and Igor Dzundev (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) as Vice-Chairmen of its three Main Committees. Fayza Aboulnaga (Egypt) was elected Vice-Chairman of the Drafting Committee, and Ion Botnaru (Republic of Moldova) Vice-Chairman of the Credentials Committee.
The general debate will continue at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 26 April.
Conference Work Programme
The 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) continued it general debate this afternoon. The Conference is regarded as pivotal movement for the Treaty and hinges on States partiesÕ perceptions about whether the instrument meets their national and international security needs in the new global security environment. (For more background details see Press Release DC/2692 of 24 April.)
Statements in General Debate
MOHAMMAD J. SAMHAN (United Arab Emirates) said global debates had proved that the security of States could not be ensured by stockpiling and amassing nuclear weapons. Hence the entry into force of the NPT. In that regard he called upon States parties to respect the obligations enshrined in the Treaty that prohibited nuclear weapons. He also called upon those countries which had not adhered to the NPT to do so immediately. The United Arab Emirates further called for the establishment of an ad hoc committee of the Disarmament Commission.
Since the last review conference of the NPT in 1995, a number of positive gains had been made, he said. Nine countries had adhered to the NPT, for example, including his own country and Oman. While the Middle East had opted to create a nuclear-weapon-free zone, Israel still represented the only country in that region which had not adhered to the Treaty and still possessed nuclear weapons of mass destruction. That was a serious threat to peace in the Middle East. This Conference must therefore call upon the Israeli Government to give up its nuclear arsenal.
He also called for a halt to the provision of the type of scientific and technical assistance that had assisted Israel in amassing nuclear weapons. That countryÕs adherence to the NPT would put an end to many of the tensions in the Middle East. He further called upon the Conference to find positive solutions to guarantee the global nature of the NPT.
KAMAL KHARRAZI, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, said that on a positive note, the Treaty had to a large extent succeeded in curtailing horizontal nuclear proliferation, thereby enhancing international peace and security. However, much remained to be accomplished. Progress on nuclear disarmament, security assurances and cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy had been slow and dismal. More importantly, the Treaty had yet to become universal.
The nuclear-weapon States had an international obligation to end the manufacture of nuclear weapons, liquidate all their existing stockpiles, and eliminate nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. Their duty to negotiate in good faith had been underlined by the International Court of Justice. However, a growing number of indicators suggested the persistence of nuclear deterrence doctrines and refusal by nuclear-weapon States to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. It was necessary to start negotiating an additional protocol to the NPT to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.
In the meantime, there was a great potential for further diversification of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Article IV of the Treaty provided a broad-based scheme for that. The record of commitment to article IV, however, was not promising. One could not but express dismay over the systematic denial of transfer of technology to developing non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT, and the restrictive export control policies by nuclear suppliers. Disguised under the pretext of non-proliferation, those regimes had the objective of securing the dominance and exclusive possession of nuclear technology by developed countries. The Conference must take effective measures to guarantee realization of article IV in all its aspects, especially with regard to transfer of technology, equipment and nuclear materials to developing States.
Regarding security assurances, he said that some nuclear-weapon States had tried to confine them to nuclear-weapon-free zones or to place conditions on them. It was necessary to obtain more stringent and specific nuclear security assurances in the form of a legally binding international instrument. Turning to the situation in the Middle East, he said that Israel should be forced to renounce nuclear weapons, accede to the NPT and bring all its facilities and programmes under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The review process of the Treaty should be strengthened. To guarantee compliance of States parties, it was necessary to set up a standing body to coordinate and harmonize implementation. That could be addressed without amending the Treaty.
AHMED ABOUL GHEIT (Egypt) said that we have failed to achieve the universality of the NPTÓ. There were still States that possessed advanced nuclear capabilities and had either not adhered or not declared their intention to adhere to the Treaty. There had also been a failure to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in South Asia. As for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), it had become an elusive objective since the United States SenateÕs refusal to ratify it. Moreover, the Conference on Disarmament had not yet succeeded in initiating negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, or in agreeing on the bases of such an instrument. In addition, a resolution on the Middle East had called upon all the States of that region which had not yet done so to adhere to the Treaty and to place their nuclear facilities under the safeguards regime of the IAEA. Any possible progress in that regard continued to be met by IsraelÕs intransigent refusal to adhere to the NPT or come under the AgencyÕs safeguards system.
Egypt had put forward many proposals on steps to be taken by Israel and the States of the region to rid the Middle East of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. His country had forwarded those proposals in the hope of initiating a positive dialogue that would contribute to breaking the current impasse and to reaffirming the obligation on the Israeli side to take practical and concrete steps to render the region free from nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Such an understanding would strengthen the security of the region, and avoid a regional arms race with all its attendant dangers. Unfortunately, Israel had not responded to any of EgyptÕs endeavours. Neither did the former accept to engage in a calm dialogue based on logic, understanding and the right of all States of the region to live in peace and security.
He said the current imbalance in the Middle East could not be accepted and could not last. The NPT would have no credibility with the States of the region as long as one State was exempt from its provisions. The message of this Conference must be unequivocal in its demand that Israel accede to the Treaty without further delay, and that it place all its nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards regime. Egypt also believed that the outcome of the review process of the NPT, after its indefinite expansion, must call upon all parties to the Treaty, particularly the nuclear-weapon States, to seek to achieve the NPTÕs universality and ensure the strict implementation of its provisions.
CAMILO REYES RODRIQUEZ (Colombia) said his country was committed to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. It participated in the Treaty of Tlatelolco, and attributed special importance to the NPT. The package of decisions by the 1995 Review Conference had not yet been fully implemented, and that was a cause of concern. As Chair of the Third Preparatory Conference, his country had made significant efforts to ensure the implementation of the NPT. The regime must be not only preserved, but also strengthened and made more efficient. The international community should not shy away from new constructive proposals. It was necessary to overcome the sense of frustration that some delegations seemed to feel.
Since the 1995 Review Conference, he continued, some important developments had taken place. Following the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, States that advocated nuclear disarmament could no longer tolerate the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new countries. It was necessary to place the facilities and programmes of all countries in the Middle East under IAEA safeguards. It was gratifying that the Russian Duma had ratified the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II), but much still remained to be done in that area. The nuclear-weapon States must take decisive steps to eliminate nuclear weapons, and his delegation supported the New Agenda proposed by a group of countries to that end. It was also necessary to ensure wide accession to the CTBT, and a non-discriminatory convention on the cut-off of fissile materials should be concluded.
Colombia had no nuclear-weapon aspirations, and it intended to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only. However, the promised process of cooperation towards peaceful nuclear development had been highly unsatisfactory. In that connection, he proposed holding a special conference of the parties to promote transfers of technology and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
FAWZI SHOBOKSHI (Saudi Arabia) expressed concern that the world was farther from achieving the principles and objectives of the NPT. Despite some limited progress among the nuclear-weapon countries on unilateral and bilateral levels to reduce their nuclear arsenals, the parties to the Treaty could not halt the horizontal and vertical spread of nuclear weapons. In addition, those States parties could not establish a fair equilibrium between nuclear- and non-nuclear- weapon countries on the issue of the total elimination of nuclear armaments. The world was plagued by large arsenals of nuclear weapons, the spread of such weapons to other countries, and the double standards employed by major Powers in dealing with those countries. Such issues cast doubts on the effectiveness and credibility of the NPT in achieving its main objectives.
He said the nuclear-weapon States had to be reminded of their responsibility not to assist non-nuclear States, either directly or indirectly, in manufacturing, producing, stockpiling or acquiring nuclear weapons. The international community could not accept any leniency in dealing with the serious challenges to safety and the credibility of the NPT. On the other hand, non-nuclear States must have guarantees that they would not be subjected to nuclear attacks or the threat thereof. There was a pressing need for the international community to work harder to make non-proliferation obligatory. That would not be achieved without collective political will to strengthen the non-proliferation system; reducing the strategic and political importance of nuclear weapons in international politics; and commitment to implement existing treaties that called for disarmament and the reduction of nuclear stockpiles.
He said that at a time when the NPT was of great importance to the Arab States, Israel refused to sign the Treaty and obstructed the process under way to make the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free zone. That countryÕs position clearly contradicted its calls for peace. Its possession of nuclear weapons and threats to use them were all part of its policies to achieve hegemony in the region. That was cause for concern and a threat to the peace and security of both the region and the world. IsraelÕs refusal to join the Treaty regime would not be resolved or corrected by using double standards. That would not help non-proliferation in the Middle East. It was hoped that this Conference would draft a document that emphasized the need to achieve international consensus, urged all States to join the NPT, and emphasized the need to make the Middle East free of all weapons of mass destruction.
JOSE ANTONIO BELLINA, Director for Political, Multilateral and Security Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru, speaking on behalf of the Andean Community nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela) said that the Conference must clearly establish that there was no reason whatsoever to believe that the indefinite maintenance of nuclear weapons could be justified. What had been extended indefinitely in 1995 had been the Treaty, not the right to keep nuclear arsenals forever. The NPT itself contained the contractual obligation on all the parties to make progress towards general and complete disarmament.
It was essential for the non-proliferation regime to be truly effective and universal, he continued. In that sense, he particularly welcomed the adherence of Chile and Brazil -- countries of his region -- to the Treaty. The transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to States without nuclear weapons must be promoted. It must be remembered that international cooperation in the sphere of the peaceful use of nuclear energy continued to be questioned by certain groups. It was necessary to find innovative and original methods to permit the participation of both developed and developing countries in the decision-making. In that regard, the IAEA had an important role to play.
Calling on the whole Southern Hemisphere to become a nuclear-weapon-free zone, he stressed the importance of the existing Treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Pelindaba and Bangkok. His delegation also believed that a reassertion of the commitment of the nuclear States along with positive guarantees as well as negative ones, would permit an easier acceptance of the Treaty by States that were not yet members. The entry into force of the CTBT was particularly important. The NPT must not be seen as the establishment of an international order based on the perpetual existence of a small group of States entitled to possess nuclear weapons, and a large majority that lacked that right.
HASMY AGAM (Malaysia) associated himself with the position of the Non-Aligned Movement and said that at the 1995 Conference, his delegation had had reservations regarding the indefinite extension of the Treaty because it would provide a carte blancheÓ for the nuclear-weapon States. His delegation had also argued that the indefinite extension did not serve as an incentive towards universality. Given the dismal record of nuclear disarmament during the period under review, he saw no reason to revise the conclusions it had made at that time. Self-serving national interests of the nuclear-weapon States parties had taken control of the process, at the expense of the larger interests of the international community.
He went on to welcome a number of positive developments, including the conclusion of the CTBT, the recent ratifications of START II, and the development of nuclear-weapon-free zones. Turning to recent negative events, he said his delegation believed that the agreements made at the 1995 NPT Review Conference had not been fully honoured. The process of nuclear disarmament had become more of a case of taking one small hesitant step forward, but two steps backward. While some progress had been achieved over the last decade in the reduction of the total number of nuclear weapons deployed, the nuclear-weapon States had reasserted their total commitment to the dangerous and outmoded doctrine of nuclear deterrence.
In contemplating future steps to be taken, the States should recall the historic Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, he continued. The NPT was at a crossroads. The goodwill and patience of the non-nuclear-weapon States had been put under severe strain by the lack of demonstrable political will on the part of the nuclear-weapon States. There was a danger of serious erosion in the objective of nuclear non-proliferation and in the Treaty itself. There was no shortage of ideas on how to propel the disarmament process forward, and many of them deserved serious consideration. However, what was urgently required was to work for a comprehensive legally binding international instrument prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, threat or use of nuclear weapons and their destruction under effective international control.
ABUZED OMAR DORDA (Libya) said the NPT had not achieved its objectives. Non-nuclear-weapon States that were parties to the Treaty had committed themselves not to develop nuclear weapons, in return for the commitments of nuclear-weapon States to certain obligations Ð- gradual nuclear disarmament and the eventual destruction of their weapons of mass destruction. Since the holding of the review conference five years ago, there had been both positive and negative developments to the NPT regime. On the positive side, the use of nuclear weapons or the threat to use them in disputes was now illegal. Also, the CTBT now existed, along with the ratification by the Russian Federation of the START II Treaty. On the negative side, the United States Senate had rejected ratifying the CTBT. There was also that countryÕs decision to develop its star warsÓ option. That could provoke a new arms race. Then there was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) espousing the notion that nuclear weapons were the only means of keeping peace.
He said certain States that were not parties to the Treaty continued to develop nuclear weapons and increase their arsenals. The United States had ignored the huge Israeli nuclear arsenal, and had provided that country with assistance in developing such weapons. There was obviously a double standard in Washington. The Arab region, on the other hand, now came under the threat of nuclear weapons. That threat spread from South Asia to North Africa to the Middle East. The continued development of destructive weapons by Tel Aviv was a peril that threatened the region. If those weapons were not eliminated immediately, efforts to bring peace to the Middle East would fail.
He also stated that one European State had given Israel three submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Yet, another European State had secretly negotiated to sell nuclear reactors to the Israelis. In addition, the United States Department of Energy had lifted all restrictions on Israeli scientists visiting United States centres for nuclear research. He stressed that all countries should be treated equally and that Tel Aviv should not be exempted from the NPT.
He added that the present Conference must stress the absolute and urgent necessity for Israel to adhere to the NPT and come under the IAEA safeguards regime. The transfer of nuclear-related technology, weapons, explosive devices, equipment, material, resources and information to Israel should also be prohibited as long as that country was not a part of the Treaty. He drew attention to the fact that Libya had been forbidden access to spare parts for washing machines, because it was claimed that those parts could be used to produce chemical weapons. That was just one example of the prevailing double standard at work in the world today. There should be an international standard to set rules. It should not be left up to one country to impose its hegemony.
JENO STAEHELIN, Permanent Observer of Switzerland, said that the military significance of nuclear weapons remained unchanged, even though their political importance was perhaps diminished. Nuclear deterrence continued to be part of defence doctrine, and new arguments for maintaining nuclear arsenals had been put forward. The CTBT and START II agreement had not yet come into force, and the Conference on Disarmament had bogged down. Nuclear tests in South Asia had been a brutal reminder that regional instabilities could become a source of nuclear proliferation, and doubts remained as to whether Iraq and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were fully complying with the Treaty.
The 1995 decision to extend the Treaty must not mean an indefinite extension of the status quo, particularly as far as the prerogatives of the nuclear-weapon States were concerned. The work of the Conference should result in the adoption of two types of documents -- a review of the implementation of the Treaty and the outcome of the 1995 Conference; and a new package of reaffirmed principles and updated and supplemented objectives. The starting point for a revitalization of the review process should be reaffirmation of the link between disarmament and non-proliferation; and the link between the extension of the NPT and the adoption of the other documents of the 1995 Conference.
It was also necessary to establish new objectives, he said. A new action plan should include confidence-building measures and increased transparency efforts. The Conference should encourage further systematic reductions in nuclear weapons on the basis of article VI, with a view to their complete elimination. The United States and the Russian Federation had a special responsibility in that respect. The reduction of nuclear arsenals should include the elimination of warheads and tactical nuclear weapons. Negotiations to conclude a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for explosive purposes should be initiated without delay, and the Conference on Disarmament should intensify its efforts in the area of security assurances. Regional aspects of non-proliferation should also receive special attention.
WOLFGANG HOFFMAN, Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization, said that by putting an end to testing, in any realistic way, the CTBT impeded the development of evermore sophisticated nuclear weapons. The Treaty was expected to stop vertical and impede horizontal nuclear proliferation. With its present 155 States signatories, the CTBT was approaching the status of a universal Treaty. Membership and ratification had been the focus of the first Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT, which was held last October in Vienna. The Treaty provided that the global verification regime should be capable of meeting its verification requirements at the time of entry into force. One of the main tasks of the Preparatory Commission was to build up the worldwide network of stations that comprised the International Monitoring System. All the data from the monitoring facilities would be made available to the States signatories. There were provisions on consultation and clarification for dealing with ambiguous events. Work was going on in the International Data Centre -- the nerve centre of the verification regime.
The Commission was also preparing the groundwork for on-site inspections, provided for by the Treaty, he said. Training the national staff from States signatories had been an ongoing effort. In establishing the global verification regime, the Organization was equipping 89 countries with cost-free cutting-edge technology, supporting the operation of their stations and training their staff.
--
IN CONTINUING DEBATE AT YEAR 2000 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE; SPEAKERS SEE RENEWED THREATS TO STRATEGIC STABILITY
20000425
Principle of Irreversibility in Nuclear Arms Control Measures Can No Longer Be Taken for Granted, Warns Brazil
As the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons continued its general debate this morning, Igor S. Ivanov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said there was a dangerous tendency to undermine the existing system of strategic stability, and that was a direct invitation to a new arms race on the planet.
He underscored that attempts were being made to build national stability at the expense of the interests of other States -- not to mention misappropriation of the right to use force in violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.
He said that there was a possibility of missing the historic chance to achieve real nuclear disarmament if the cornerstone of strategic stability in the world Ð- the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty -Ð were to be destroyed. Such a possibility had become quite real, given United States declarations of the wish to deploy a national missile defence system, which was prohibited by the ABM Treaty. Compliance with the Treaty in its present form, without any modifications, was a prerequisite for further negotiations on nuclear disarmament in accordance with article VI of the NPT. It affected the national security interests of every State and of the international community as a whole.
FranceÕs representative said the ABM Treaty was an essential element in the maintenance of strategic stability. His country was anxious to avoid any challenges to the Treaty that might bring about a breakdown of strategic equilibrium and restart the arms race.
Nothing would be more dangerous than attempting to redraft every five years the fundamental principles and objectives contained in the decisions of 1995, he said. The priority was therefore unchanged -Ð to secure the early entry into force of the CTBT, and prohibit the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons through the immediate launch of concrete fissile material cut-off treaty negotiations.
The representative of Brazil said that the international community had recently been reminded that the principle of irreversibility in nuclear arms control measures could not be taken for granted. The Conference faced daunting challenges, and its deliberations would be followed with great attention around the world.
Lloyd Axworthy, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada, stressed the importance of restricting access to the means of delivering nuclear and other weapons -- namely, missiles. There were serious concerns as to whether strengthening missile defences would reinforce or damage the NPT regime. Another option was to curtail missile proliferation in the first place, and to make that a key part of a strengthened global non-proliferation regime. For example, the Missile Technology Control Regime could be made more effective by adopting stricter export controls and widening participation. The Regime could also contribute to developing workable confidence-building measures, establishing universal norms and backing that up with an effective verification mechanism.
Also speaking this afternoon were Ministers from Belgium, Australia, Lithuania and Sweden, as well as Deputy Ministers from Ukraine and Kazakhstan and the representative of Costa Rica.
The Conference will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue its general debate.
Conference Work Programme
As the 2000 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference met this morning, it was expected to continue its general debate. The purpose of the four-week Conference is to provide appraisal of the progress achieved in the field of nuclear non-proliferation since the 1995 Review Conference, and to identify the areas where future efforts should be made. (For background information, see Press Release DC/2691 of 20 April.)
Statements
JEAN DE RUYT, Director-General for Political Affairs, Special Envoy for the Government of Belgium, described the latest developments in the field of nuclear disarmament and said that unfortunately, the hopes which had allowed the States parties to extend the NPT indefinitely seemed to be seriously threatened in light of recent negative indications. One of the worrisome signals was the unexpected slowness in the ratification process of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). It was essential to make rapid progress in that area to avoid compromising not only the universality but also the very credibility of the Treaty.
The inability of the international community to launch negotiations on the fissile material cut-off treaty was another cause for concern, he continued. We can understand the reasons why certain countries would like to link this negotiation to other matters, but if we constantly want to link everything, if we want to multilateralize everything, we are denying ourselves the concrete results, which could have an important impact on the progressive reduction of the nuclear riskÓ, he said. The declared intention of the United States to deploy a national anti-missile defence system was one of the threats hovering over the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Whatever the merits of such a system, it was essential that the programme did not compromise strategic balances and the desired progress towards the reduction of strategic nuclear arsenals.
Among the constructive achievements of the last five years, he recalled the trilateral initiative of the United States, Russia and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to put designated fissile materials under the control of the IAEA, the initiatives of the United Kingdom and France regarding reductions and increased transparency for the production of fissile materials for military purposes, and the ratification by Russia of the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II). Belgium encouraged the nuclear-weapon States to continue on that path, and hoped that the United States and Russia would negotiate START III shortly. It was important that four States remaining outside the Treaty should be present during the meetings of the non- proliferation regime, as proposed by Canada last year.
Belgium believed in a gradual evolution of nuclear disarmament, and pleaded for the creation of an information exchange mechanism to allow nuclear States to keep the international community informed about efforts and progress in that field. In 1998, his country had presented a proposal to the Disarmament Conference in that regard. Belgium had confidence in the existing structures, and recognized the usefulness of the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. One of the priorities nowadays was the resumption of its activities.
ALEXANDER DOWNER, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia, said today his country was celebrating ANZAC Day, in memory of the tens of thousands of his countrymen who lost their lives fighting for freedom and a better world. The key elements of an ANZAC Day six-point plan to promote progress in nuclear arms control and disarmament were: the immediate entry into force of START II and the early commencement and completion of the negotiations on START III; the early entry into force of the CTBT; the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty; universal adherence to the IAEA Additional Protocol, and early establishment of an integrated safeguards regime; implementation of effective export controls; and universal adherence to the NPT.
He said the primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament lay with the two largest weapon States. Australia, like many other countries, therefore looked to the United States and the Russian Federation to deliver the deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals promised by the START process. It was also disappointing that the CTBT, which was brought to the General Assembly by Australia in 1996, was not yet in force. None of the five nuclear-weapon States had yet signed the instrument. They had an obligation under international law not to thwart the TreatyÕs purpose. It was frustrating that the Conference on Disarmament was yet to commence negotiation on a fissile material cut-off treaty -- the logical next step in the nuclear arms control and disarmament agenda. The current meeting should reaffirm the need for the immediate commencement of such negotiations.
There had been many challenges to the NPT, and doubtless many more lay ahead. It was an encouraging feature of the post-cold war era that whenever new challenges emerged, the international community strongly supported the existing non-proliferation regime and the identification of possible new measures. The NPT was still the worldÕs best defence against the spread of nuclear weapons. It delivered major security benefits to all States, even to those four who were yet to join it. The danger of nuclear proliferation was still a reality, and the Treaty was no less relevant than it was 30 years ago.
CELSO LUIZ N. AMORIM (Brazil) said that today was the first time his country had participated in the Review Conference. BrazilÕs accession to the NPT had come after careful consideration of the TreatyÕs role. Like many other States, Brazil had been critical of the asymmetrical obligations deriving from the NPT; but it had been encouraged by the package of decisions adopted by the 1995 Review Conference, which had set yardsticks to measure progress.
The Constitution of Brazil stipulated that nuclear energy would be used only for peaceful purposes, he continued. The country had also taken steps to bring the Treaty of Tlatelolco fully into force in the country itself and in the region. BrazilÕs accession to the NPT had been based on the understanding that, in accordance with article VI of the Treaty, effective measures would be taken to stop the nuclear arms race and to totally eliminate nuclear weapons. However, the present international environment did not give rise to the same degree of optimism that had prevailed in the early and mid-1990s.
Recently, the international community had been reminded that the principle of irreversibility in nuclear arms control measures could not be taken for granted, he said. The possibility of redeploying nuclear weapons had not been fully discarded. Equally regrettable was the lowering of the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. Continued reliance on nuclear deterrence, and the assumption that nuclear weapons were here to stay for the indefinite future, were unacceptable.
The Conference faced daunting challenges, he continued, and its deliberations would be followed with great attention by authorities and decision makers around the world. Its outcome would have a strong bearing on the future of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The Conference must build upon numerous contributions that had been advanced over the years, particularly on interim measures and on the next steps to be taken. Such contributions had been presented by several governments, groups of experts, including the Canberra Commission and the Tokyo Forum, the non-governmental organization community and eminent figures.
The New Agenda, of which his country was a founding member, had been a catalyst for the promotion of those ideas, he said. It proposed a programme of action that did not exempt any country from its responsibilities towards others. The listed measures would be incumbent on the five nuclear-weapon States, the three States not yet parties to the NPT, and the international community as a whole. The ideas of the Agenda were not in themselves novel, and some of them had been on the table for decades. The new elements of the New Agenda included the composition of the coalition and its timing. The comprehensive, balanced and achievable nature of the programme was also important.
ALGIRDAS SAUDARGAS, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, said the work of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference appeared to have been rich in debates but not as productive as many had hoped. It was essential to keep in mind, however, that at the outset, the international community had embarked upon the Strengthened Review Process unaware of its real potential. A new instrument needed time to develop. It is up to us to shore up the review process at the end of its first cycle, if need be, by modifying and fine-tuning itÓ, he said. Obviously there were unmet expectations, but the fundamental purpose of the NPT was still credible, despite the problems of implementation and enforcement that would be addressed during the current Conference.
He called upon States whose ratification was needed for the CTBT to enter into force to ratify the instrument without delay. He further called on India, Pakistan and the Democratic PeopleÕs Republic of Korea to sign and ratify that same Treaty without delay. Lithuania also believed that the resolute support by almost all States for the early commencement of negotiations on the fissile material cut-off treaty should not be allowed to diminish. He noted that it was of extreme concern that instead of working towards disarmament we have to increasingly divert our efforts towards stemming proliferationÓ.
It was therefore incumbent upon this Review Conference, he continued, to evaluate the dangerous course of events in South Asia and come up with thoughts on how to prevent further deterioration. Despite some difficulties, the NPT, by all accounts, worked. It had achieved many successes and weathered all challenges. The challenge ahead now was to reaffirm the validity of the decisions and the resolution adopted in 1995. Perhaps consensus on all issues was not possible, but he was certain that it was possible to craft a compromise that would maintain and reinforce the Treaty.
LLOYD AXWORTHY, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada, said the Conference was an opportunity not only to review the NPT, but also to rewire its machinery in response to the new realities. At stake was nothing less than the future course of nuclear weapon attitudes and arsenals -Ð indeed, the very well-being of humanity. The concerns included the tendency of some to justify retaining nuclear arsenals as a defence, and the ambition of others to acquire nuclear capacity. Other issues had to do with the security, storage and disposal of fissile materials for dismantled warheads and the possibility of illicit transfers of nuclear material and technology. The inexcusable impasse at the Conference on Disarmament had precluded any multilateral movement on nuclear disarmament and security arrangements.
Canada was committed to promoting and protecting the TreatyÕs universality, he continued. It was necessary to continue international efforts to engage the four remaining NPT holdouts and to seek their full adherence to the Treaty. It was also necessary to ensure that all States parties kept their commitment to the Treaty obligations. Canada would also work to secure agreement on an updated Five-Year Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Action Plan containing concrete objectives and goals.
He said that the Plan was designed to complete work on the CTBT; end deadlock at the Conference on Disarmament and begin negotiations on a ban on fissile material production; continue START reductions; stress the need for Russia and the United States to maintain the integrity of the ABM Treaty; call on nuclear-weapon States to enter into disarmament negotiations; extend the application of existing nuclear-weapon-free zones and encourage new ones; and promote universal application of IAEA safeguards and further improve verification and inspection capacity. Canada was pressing for progress in all those areas.
Another issue, which needed closer attention, was restricting access to the means of delivering nuclear and other weapons -- namely, missiles. One possibility advocated by some was to strengthen missile defences. However, there were serious concerns as to whether strengthened defences would work, and whether they would reinforce or damage the NPT regime. Another option was to curtail missile proliferation in the first place, and to make that a key part of a strengthened global non-proliferation regime. For example, the Missile Technology Control Regime could be made more effective by adopting stricter export controls and widening participation. The Regime could also contribute to developing workable confidence-building measures, establishing universal norms and backing that up with an effective verification mechanism.
As a stronger non-proliferation regime depended on effective global arrangements and on the willingness of countries to assess the validity of their policies, Canada had been active in the efforts to review the North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationÕs (NATO) non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament options. NATOÕs nuclear forces had been reduced by over 80 per cent, but more needed to be done. Canada also intended to work towards more robust NPT review and assessment policies. It believed that the NPT review process could be enhanced with a requirement to more frequently track, discuss and document movement towards translating commitments into action. Real transparency was also needed.
IGOR S.IVANOV, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that Russia was committed to its obligations in the field of nuclear disarmament. It considered the NPT as the basic mechanism for preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons while ensuring further international cooperation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. In the concept of national security of the Russian Federation, which was recently adopted by President Putin, strengthening of the non-proliferation regimes was considered a major priority. Preservation and strengthening of the Treaty would serve the interests of the entire world.
Today that task had to be addressed in a difficult situation, in view of the emergence of new serious threats to international security and stability, he continued. There was a dangerous tendency to undermine the existing system of strategic stability, and attempts were being made to build national stability at the expense of the interests of other States -- not to mention misappropriation of the right to use force, in violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. That was, in fact, a direct invitation to a new arms race on the planet.
All five nuclear Powers should work to achieve progress towards nuclear disarmament without any artificial delays or undue hurry, he said. A few days ago, Russia had ratified the most important block of agreements in that field, and first and foremost, the START II Treaty and the 1997 package of ABM agreements. The Duma had also ratified the CTBT, which was designed to reliably block the way to qualitative improvement of nuclear arsenals. Those decisions were sending a clear signal about the role of the nuclear factor in RussiaÕs military doctrine. Russia also continued to implement other previously signed agreements on the reduction of strategic nuclear arsenals and its unilateral initiatives related to tactical nuclear weapons.
His country was prepared to go further, towards deeper cuts in nuclear arsenals, he continued. However, at present there was a possibility of missing the historic chance to achieve real nuclear disarmament if the cornerstone of strategic stability in the world Ð- the ABM Treaty Ð- were to be destroyed. Such a possibility had become quite real, given plans declared by the United States to deploy a national ABM system prohibited by that Treaty. The collapse of the ABM Treaty would undermine the entirety of disarmament agreements concluded over the last 30 years. Compliance with the ABM Treaty in its present form, without any modifications, was a prerequisite for further negotiations on nuclear disarmament in accordance with article VI of the NPT. It affected the national security interests of every State and of the international community as a whole.
Russia was prepared to engage in the broadest consultations with the United States and on a multilateral level to deal with missile threats and proliferation without breaking the ABM Treaty. The Russian initiative to establish a global missile and missile technologies non-proliferation control system served that very purpose. It was launched last month at the Moscow International Expert Meeting.
He said that it was necessary to further reduce nuclear weapons and take common action against the threat of missile proliferation. Also, the task of ensuring universality of the Treaty remained very urgent, as was the goal of establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones. He hoped that common sense would prevail as far as the Conference on Disarmament was concerned, and that the Conference would resume its constructive work. Russia supported the IAEA safeguards as an effective instrument of control.
OLEXANDR CHALYI, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said his country had made a significant reduction in strategic armaments deployed in its territory -- 77 per cent of the total number of its strategic offensive arms were already eliminated under the START I Treaty. At present, Ukraine had embarked upon the third and final phase of reducing its strategic arms, which would be completed by December 2001. It was now imperative to ensure the implementation of START II and to resume talks on START III.
He said progress in ensuring the universality of the NPT up until now could be seen more in terms of quality than quantity. The fundamental principle of non- proliferation had been undermined by developments in South Asia, and challenged by States not yet parties to the Treaty who possessed unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. It was imperative that those States accede to the NPT without delay and put their nuclear objects under IAEA safeguards. It was also discouraging to note that negotiations on the fissile material cut-off treaty had not moved forward. Immediate commencement of those negotiations was the next necessary step.
The current Conference was being convened at a critical moment in the history of non-proliferation, he said, when mostly negative external and internal tendencies dominated the viability of the NPT. The lack of speedy progress on genuine nuclear disarmament, serious threats to the existing non-proliferation regime, the continuous reliance on the benefits of nuclear weapons and the stalemates in the multilateral disarmament forums were all aspects that created an atmosphere of frustration and despair. The international community needed, however, to build on progress achieved, rather than criticize regressive developments.
He said the Ukraine was particularly concerned over the failure of the Ad Hoc Committee established at the 1998 Conference on Disarmament to hold collective consultations on security assurances. If progress was desired, then that Committee would have to be re-established to enable it to bring its work to a successful conclusion.
HUBERT LA FORTELLE (France) said success in preserving and consolidating the NPT as an irreplaceable instrument entailed a comprehensive and balanced approach in three key areas: non-proliferation, the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and disarmament. France had committed itself unequivocally in favour of nuclear disarmament. With the complete phasing-out of land-based nuclearÐweapon components, his countryÕs assets were now limited to two components. Moreover, it had carried out a reduction in the format of the airborne and sea-based components. In parallel, the total number of delivery vehicles had been cut by more than half. With the ratification of the CTBT, France had also taken radical, irreversible and unparalleled measures.
He said that with the dismantling of the French surface-to-surface missiles on the Plateau dÕAlbion, no component of his countryÕs nuclear deterrent force remained targeted. The alert status of FranceÕs nuclear forces had also been reduced twice. Moreover, by giving the security assurances called for by the Security Council, and by ratifying the relevant protocols to the treaties establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones, which were legally binding instruments for more than 100 States, France had met the legitimate security concerns of those countries. His country was also convinced of the merits of enhanced transparency as a true voluntary confidence-building measure designed to support disarmament efforts. FranceÕs actions -- such as the opening of the test site in the Pacific to international visit, bore witness to that determination to achieve transparency.
He said that today the international community was called on to acknowledge the importance of what had been achieved, in order to enhance understanding of prospects for the future. What should be our preoccupation during the next five years?Ó he asked. Nothing would be more dangerous than attempting every five years to redraft the fundamental principles and objectives contained in the 1995 decision. The priority was therefore unchanged Ð- to secure the early entry into force of the CTBT, and the prohibition of the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, thanks to the immediate launch of concrete fissile material cut- off treaty negotiations. France also attached the utmost importance to maintaining strategic stability, of which the ABM Treaty was an essential element. His country was anxious to avoid any challenges to the Treaty that might bring about breakdown of strategic equilibrium and restart the arms race.
The safeguards system implemented for the past 25 years by the IAEA was of paramount importance to the full and effective implementation of the NPT, he said. Notwithstanding difficulties presented by countries such as the Democratic PeopleÕs Republic of Korea and Iraq, the international community had succeeded in adapting and strengthening the safeguards system over the years with a view to preserving its credibility and reliability. It was now essential to achieve the universality of that strengthened system and to help the Agency to take up its challenges. He stressed the importance of providing the IAEA with the resources it needed to implement its programmes.
KAIRAT KH. ABUSSEITOV, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, said that the problems revealed during the review process could lead to inconsistencies between the interpretation of Treaty obligations and the interests of its parties, especially between nuclear-weapon States and others. It was the goal of the international community to make the Treaty an effective tool for solving problems of nuclear disarmament and for strengthening the non-proliferation regime.
The recent ratification by the Russian Federation of the START II process had paved the way to negotiations on further reductions of strategic arms, he said. At the same time, it had become clear that despite the multilateral treaties in force, the international arms control regime was very vulnerable, since even a slight change in global balance and stability could endanger the effectiveness of the international arms control regime as a whole.
In that regard, he was concerned over the situation with the ABM Treaty, the preservation of which was an indispensable condition for the process of disarmament. Recognizing the need for overall strengthening of the non- proliferation regime, Kazakhstan supported the entry into force of the CTBT at an early date. By closing the Semipalatinsk test site, his country had made a significant contribution to the nuclear-test ban. It was also necessary to combat the illegal turnover of nuclear materials and missile technologies.
Since 1997, Kazakhstan had been following the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines in its nuclear export practice, he said. Kazakhstan was also interested in joining the Missile Technology Control Regime. At present, the country was putting in place a system of export control and was upgrading a legal basis to conform to Suppliers Group and Control Regime requirements. As a full member of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, Kazakhstan was also in favour of the commencement of negotiations on the ConferenceÕs agenda, in particular the talks on ending the production of fissile materials for military purposes. His country was also taking an active part in the elaboration of the treaty on establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia.
The problem of security assurances to non-nuclear States continued to be at the centre of discussions, he said. A solution to the problem could be found in the adoption of a security assurances protocol as an integral part of the NPT. Achieving openness and unrestricted exchange of nuclear materials and technologies, as well as scientific information, should facilitate the development of programmes on peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
ANNA LINDH, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, subscribed to the position of the European Union and said that 30 years after the entry into force of the NPT, the international community faced a near-standstill in nuclear disarmament negotiations. Out of concern for that situation, Sweden, together with several other non-nuclear-weapon States, had launched an initiative in 1998 calling for progress towards the Treaty-bound objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world. Today there was still an urgent need to turn commitment to the 1996 Principles and Objectives into practical steps.
The four areas of concern included reducing nuclear-weapon arsenals; bringing into force the CTBT; halting the development of new weapons and systems; and nuclear weapons in regional conflicts. While welcoming RussiaÕs ratification of the START II Treaty, Sweden remained deeply concerned that it had still not entered into force seven years after being signed. The Russian Federation and the United States must now assume their special responsibility, bringing START II and its protocol into force, and immediately beginning negotiations on a START III Treaty.
No States had the right to hold the common security environment hostage to domestic policies, she continued. Nor was it acceptable that differences between the nuclear-weapon States on unrelated issues should interfere with the responsibility for advancing the nuclear arms control agenda. Sweden remained committed to negotiating a treaty on fissile material based on the Shannon report, which would effectively prevent further development of nuclear weapons. We cannot accept attempts by China or any other State to block progress on that crucial treatyÓ, she said.
She added that her Government was also deeply concerned about the United StatesÕ plans for a national missile defence system. There was a chance that such actions would jeopardize the international balance and have negative consequences for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The United States should refrain from any deployment that could create uncertainties. India and Pakistan must reverse their nuclear ambitions, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1172. She also urged Iraq to cooperate with United Nations monitoring, and said that Sweden hoped for a solution to the nuclear situation on the Korean Peninsula.
Her Government remained committed to cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear technology, and welcomed the IAEAÕs efforts to align its activities in that field more closely with those of the developing countries. Any activities related to nuclear applications must be based on internationally agreed safety standards, and all countries must accede to all relevant conventions and fully implement their commitments. The Conference offered an opportunity to add more
substance to the strengthened review process and to renew international commitment to the full implementation of the NPT.
BERND NIEHAUS (Costa Rica) said the danger of nuclear weapons lay in the inevitable escalation of military conflict. Once the nuclear fuse was lit, there was no way of avoiding global confrontation. The nuclear-weapon States must truly commit themselves to genuine disarmament, deactivate their nuclear offence systems and dismantle their arsenals. Restrictions had to be put in place to halt the transfer of nuclear technology to States that were not party to NPT. He called on both India and Pakistan to adhere to the Treaty and to halt their nuclear arms testing.
Appealing to all States that had not ratified or signed the CTBT to do so shortly, he said that the TreatyÕs entry into force was an indispensable and urgent step to ensure the security of all humanity. Its prompt ratification was essential to prevent a new arms race, he stressed. He also expressed disquiet at the obstacles put in the way of the work of the IAEA by Iraq and the Democratic PeopleÕs Republic of Korea. The current Review Conference was tasked with coming up with concrete measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war. It must establish a realistic nuclear disarmament agenda for the next five years.
Such an agenda, he continued, should promote the strengthening of the IAEA and its verification activities. The international community must also resume and fulfil its obligations Ð- it must continue negotiations aimed at achieving complete disarmament. The five nuclear-weapon States had prime responsibility in that area. Costa Rica trusted that this Conference would strengthen and reaffirm the worldÕs nuclear-weapon-free zones. The will of States that sought such nuclear-weapon-free zones must also be heeded. He stressed that the financial resources devoted to weapons should be devoted instead to ensuring socio-economic development.
----
Annan calls nuclear war 'very real' prospect
April 25, 2000
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/default-200042522943.htm
NEW YORK - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday warned that nuclear conflict remains a "very real and very terrifying possibility."
"Quite frankly, much of the established multilateral disarmament machinery has started to rust - a problem due not to the machinery itself but to the apparent lack of political will to use it," Mr. Annan said at the start of a monthlong conference to review the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"Nuclear conflict remains a very real and very terrifying possibility at the beginning of the 21st century. This is the stark reality confronting you today," he said.
The U.N. conference was called to review a 1968 treaty signed by 187 countries in which non-nuclear states agreed not to try to develop or acquire nuclear weapons on condition the nuclear nations pursue disarmament. The treaty was extended indefinitely in 1995 with the Clinton administration's strong support.
Each of the signatories to the treaty is participating in the conference to review the last five years of nonproliferation efforts. Few tried to paint a happy picture, however U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright defended the United States' nuclear disarmament record.
"Since the fall of the Berlin Wall . . . the United States alone has dismantled about 60 percent of our nuclear weapons," said Mrs. Albright.
Late last year the U.S. Senate voted against ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, even though the Clinton administration was one of its most passionate supporters.
However, Mrs. Albright countered that she is "convinced that America will sign the CTBT and thus help to ensure that the nuclear arms race becomes a relic of the 20th century, not a recurring nightmare of the 21st."
Several speakers criticized Washington's efforts to revive the National Missile Defense system and to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Washington was often contrasted with the Russian State Duma, which has in the last two weeks embraced both the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and START II.
Mrs. Albright sought to deflect criticism of America's "star wars" antimissile system.
"If the Clinton administration were bent on sabotaging the ABM Treaty and strategic arms control, we have surely gone about it in a strange way - in the open, with care, and in consultation not only with Congress, but after extensive discussions with our allies and other countries, Russia and China emphatically included," she said.
She also appeared to put rogue states on notice.
"The world has changed dramatically in the almost three decades since the ABM Treaty was signed . . . and there is no good reason it cannot be amended again to reflect new threats from third countries outside the strategic deterrence regime."
Later, at a news conference, Mrs. Albright said North Korea and Iran posed the threats.
Nuclear testing by India and Pakistan in 1998 has fueled complaints that the United States, Russia and the others have not taken steps toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Those complaints are expected to be aired during the four-week conference.
A group of seven nations -Mexico, New Zealand, Egypt, South Africa, Sweden, Brazil and Ireland - considered politically moderate called for negotiations "without delay" to achieve nuclear disarmament. Fifty-three nations endorsed the agenda.
----
Nuclear war terrifyingly possible, says Annan
Tuesday, April 25, 2000
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2000/0425/wor10.htm
UN Secretary General Mr Kofi Annan said yesterday the threat of nuclear war "remains a very real, and very terrifying possibility" at the beginning of the 21st century.
Without mentioning Washington by name, he also cautioned against plans to develop a "star wars"-type National Missile Defence (NMD), saying this could lead to a new arms race.
Mr Annan was welcoming delegates at the start of a month-long conference to review implementation of the key nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Under the treaty, which entered into force in 1970, the five original nuclear powers - the United States, Russia, Britain, China and France - are permitted to retain their nuclear weapons in exchange for a pledge to move towards nuclear disarmament.
The other 182 parties to the treaty have renounced any ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, while being assured access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
But their resentment at what they regard as the big powers' foot-dragging on disarmament will be highlighted during the conference.
Another focus is likely to be the four countries that have so far refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. They are India and Pakistan, which carried out tit-for-tat underground tests in 1998, Cuba and Israel, certain to be accused by Arab states as possessing nuclear weapons.
Mr Annan said the tests carried out by India and Pakistan were "a serious setback against the global norms against nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation".
Welcoming what he called "an unmistakable record of achievement and hard-won progress" in the disarmament field, Mr Annan said this was "no time for complacency when it comes to the threat of nuclear war".
"Nuclear conflict remains a very real, and very terrifying possibility at the beginning of the 21st century. This is the stark reality confronting you today," Mr Annan said.
Mr Annan said the most recent challenge was "the growing pressure to deploy national missile defences". - (Reuters)
----
Secretary-General Fears Arms Race
Tuesday, April 25, 2000
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.sltrib.com/04252000/nation_w/44149.htm
http://www.seattlep-i.com/national/arms25.shtml
UNITED NATIONS -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday warned that growing pressure to deploy national missile defenses "could well lead to a new arms race."
But Secretary of State Madeleine Albright countered that a way should be found to mount a limited defense against new threats.
Speaking at a conference of dozens of non-nuclear nations as well as the handful of nuclear-armed states, Annan was responding to those who argue a 1972 treaty signed by the United States and the Soviet Union to ban anti-missile defenses should be overhauled or even scuttled.
Annan referred to the treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and called for "great care" before taking steps that "may well reduce, rather than enhance, global security."
The Secretary-General made no direct reference to President Clinton's consideration of limited anti-missile defenses against what administration officials say is a threat of attack by North Korea and other so-called "rogue states."
But Albright stoutly defended amending the treaty to defend against "at most a few tens of incoming missiles."
"The treaty has been amended before and there is no good reason it cannot be amended again to reflect new threats from third countries," she said.
Clinton is expected to urge Russian President Vladimir Putin at their summit in Moscow June 4-5 to cooperate in modifying the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Many conservative Republicans in Congress would go further by scrapping the pact and proceeding with a spaced-based weapons program.
Putin has denounced tinkering with the treaty but in 1997 his presidential predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, agreed to take steps to destroy "strategic nuclear warheads" at a Helsinki, Finland, summit with Clinton.
American and Russian negotiators opened talks last week in Geneva, Switzerland, on reducing nuclear stockpiles and defending against nuclear attack.
The U.N. conference was called to review a 1970 treaty signed by 187 countries in which non-nuclear states agreed not to try to develop or acquire nuclear weapons on condition the nuclear nations pursue disarmament. The treaty was extended indefinitely in 1995 with the Clinton administration's strong support.
Nuclear testing by India and Pakistan in 1998 has fueled complaints that the United States, Russia and the others have not taken steps toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Those complaints are expected to be aired during the four-week conference.
A group of seven nations considered politically moderate called for negotiations "without delay" to achieve nuclear disarmament.
Foreign Minister Rosario Green of Mexico, presenting the group's "new agenda," proposed that nuclear states pledge not to use nuclear weapons first, as well as speed up the removal of warheads from missile launchers, end the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons and expand nuclear-free zones.
Fifty-three nations endorsed the agenda advocated by Mexico, New Zealand, Egypt, South Africa, Sweden, Brazil and Ireland.
----
US Defends Record on Reducing Nukes
By NICOLE WINFIELD,
Associated Press Writer Tuesday
April 25 12:48 PM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000425/us/un_nuclear_treaty_8.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States is defending its record in reducing its nuclear arsenal against criticism that the world's nuclear powers aren't doing enough to rid the world of the deadly weapons.
In a speech Monday to a conference reviewing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright pledged U.S. commitment to disarmament and rejected suggestions that the United States was ``turning its back on arms control.''
The treaty, which went into force in 1970 and has been signed by 187 countries, committed the nuclear nations to pursue disarmament while the non-nuclear states agreed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.
``We share the frustration many feel about the pace of progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons,'' Albright said. ``But we also know that if countries demand unrealistic and premature measures, they will harm the NPT and set back everyone's cause.''
Secretary-General Kofi Annan opened the four-week conference by warning that another cornerstone of arms control - the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - was being jeopardized by suggestions that a limited missile defense system be allowed.
The United States wants to amend the ABM treaty to build a limited missile-defense system against possible attacks from ``rogue states.'' President Clinton is expected to make a decision this summer.
Russia has vehemently opposed the plan, which it says would make its own forces ineffective and trigger a new arms race.
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told the conference today that Russia would only consider further reductions in strategic offensive weapons if the treaty is preserved without modification.
He invited the United States to join an alternative system to counter threats from rogue states - a missile nonproliferation control system that could be worked out within the norms of the ABM treaty.
But at a press conference today, a senior adviser to Clinton and Albright said talks on amending the ABM treaty shouldn't be rejected outright. Modifying the treaty would enable it to deal with new threats from North Korea and Iran that didn't exist when the treaty was negotiated, said John Holum.
Annan, however, voiced the Russian concerns on Monday by warning that a missile defense system could trigger an arms race and create incentives for missile proliferation.
``It is my hope that all states will take great care to weigh these dangers and challenges before embarking on a process which may well reduce, rather than enhance, global security,'' Annan said.
Albright defended amending the ABM treaty to protect the United States against the handful of missiles that could be launched by countries such as North Korea or Iran.
``The treaty has been amended before, and there is no good reason it cannot be amended again to reflect new threats from third countries,'' she said.
Clinton is expected to urge Russian President Vladimir Putin at a June summit in Moscow to cooperate in changing the ABM treaty. Many conservative Republicans in Congress would go further by scrapping the pact and proceeding with a spaced-based weapons program.
At the conference's opening session, a new coalition of seven countries - backed by another 50 nations - issued a united position on pressing forward with nuclear disarmament, particularly among the nuclear powers.
The coalition, which includes Mexico, South Africa, Ireland, Sweden, Egypt, New Zealand and Brazil, proposed that nuclear states pledge not to use nuclear weapons first. It also asked them to speed up removal of warheads from missile launchers, end deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons and expand nuclear-free zones.
Foreign Minister Rosario Green of Mexico acknowledged the process of nuclear weapons elimination would take time. But she said nations have a responsibility to do interim measures ``to lessen the prospect of the unleashing of nuclear weapons whether by design or accident before they are eliminated.''
----
Russian Head Talks With Clinton
By BARRY SCHWEID,
AP Diplomatic Correspondent
Tuesday April 25 6:38 PM ET
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <nonukes@foesyd.org.au>
WASHINGTON (AP) - Russia's foreign minister warned anew at a United Nations disarmament conference Tuesday that the United States was on a risky course in considering an anti-missile defense. But he took a softer approach later with President Clinton at the White House.
Standing without a hat or an umbrella in a rain-pelted driveway after an hour with Clinton in the Oval Office, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said his government was open to any suggestions to improve security, And he stressed President Vladimir Putin wants to improve already good relations with the United States when he sees Clinton in Moscow June 4-5.
In fact, Ivanov said he did not directly challenge Clinton for considering a limited defense against missiles that Russia says would cause a dangerous erosion of the arms control process.
``Our position is that security will be better protected if the treaty (that bans national defenses against missiles) is kept intact,'' Ivanov said in Russian. But, in a gesture to Clinton, who has not made a final decision on a limited defense, the foreign minister also said ``we are ready to listen to any suggestions.''
Differences over missile defenses and strong measures taken by the Russians in Chechnya are casting a cloud over summit preparations.
Ivanov tried in his exchange with reporters to paint a brighter picture.
``It is important to look for solutions on a basis of political dialogue,'' Ivanov said. ``But it does not mean we will not have our disagreements. It is quite natural and they can be on a major scale.''
Earlier, in his speech to the United Nations, Ivanov said ``the collapse of the ABM treaty of 1972 would ... undermine the entirety of disarmament agreements concluded over the last 30 years.''
Clinton is expected to urge Putin at their summit meeting to cooperate in amending the treaty. Many conservative Republicans in Congress would go further and scrap the pact and proceed with a spaced-based weapons program.
In the meantime, Russia's parliament has ratified the START II treaty to slash U.S. and Russian arsenals of long-range nuclear weapons about 50 percent and an international ban on nuclear weapons tests that the U.S. Senate rejected.
Meanwhile, State Department spokesman James P. Rubin extended persistent criticism of Russian operations in Chechnya, saying human rights of civilians were being violated in a mistaken notion that force would end the rebellion in the republic.
Rubin cited deadly attacks on Russian troops as evidence the war was not over and could not be ended forcibly.
Ivanvv acknowledged that ``disagreements do exist'' with the United States on the regional conflict. But he said the problem was the failure of the international community to find ways to deal effectively with regional conflicts.
----
N. Korea Singled Out at Conference
APRIL 25, 23:03 EDT
By NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated Press Writer
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=ASIA&STORYID=APIS7435OR80
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - North Korea has been singled out for criticism at a conference on nuclear nonproliferation and named as the reason the United States wants to build a missile defense system.
North Korea is among the 187 countries that have committed themselves to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which allows the International Atomic Energy Agency to make sure a countries' nuclear technology is being used for peaceful purposes.
But North Korea has limited IAEA access to its facilities, prompting the head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, to tell a conference reviewing the treaty that the agency couldn't be sure North Korea hadn't diverted technology to non-peaceful uses.
A senior U.S. official, meanwhile, raised concern Tuesday that North Korea could launch an intercontinental ballistic missile within the next five years - before the United States could mount a missile defense system against it.
North Korea launched a three-stage Taepondong missile in 1998, with a range of over 940 miles, and is ``very close'' to an even more advanced missile, said John Holum, a senior U.S. adviser on arms control.
That 1998 test spurred the United States to begin considering a missile defense system to guard against attack, he said.
Russia, which ratified the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with the United States barring such systems, has rebuffed U.S. efforts to amend the treaty to allow a limited defense, arguing it would make Russian forces ineffective.
The United States says the missile defense system isn't intended to counter Russian missiles, but to eliminate the smaller threat a nation such as North Korea could pose.
Pyongyang has agreed for the time being not to conduct a flight test of the more advanced Taepondong-2 system, Holum said.
``Nevertheless, the intelligence analysis is that North Korea is very close to an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capability through that system, much closer to an ICBM capability than we are to deployment of a national missile defense,'' Holum said.
The U.S. consideration of a missile defense system has dominated the opening days of the conference, but North Korea's non-compliance with the treaty has figured prominently in several speeches as well.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer welcomed recent improvements in relations between Pyongyang and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, an apparent reference to plans by leaders of North and South Korea to hold an unprecedented summit in June.
``We hope this will be reflected in reduced tensions in the region and improved North Korean cooperation with the IAEA,'' he said.
But Downer stressed that North Korea had solid commitments with the IAEA regarding information about its nuclear facilities that needed to be turned over.
-------- puerto rico
U.S. Is Working to Clear Vieques
April 25, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/pr-vieques.html
Related Article
Solution on Vieques Takes a Step Forward (Feb. 29, 2000)
WASHINGTON, April 24 -- Federal officials said today that they were working on a plan to remove, by force if necessary, dozens of Puerto Rican protesters at a Navy bombing range on the island of Vieques.
The operation could begin as early as next week, the officials said.
The protesters stand in the way of putting into effect an agreement reached on Jan. 31 by President Clinton and Gov. Pedro J. Rosselló to permit the Navy to resume limited exercises on Vieques in exchange for a referendum to decide whether to close the range.
When the deal was announced, Mr. Rosselló pledged to "support federal efforts to assure that trespassing or other intrusions on the range cease entirely." Since the agreement, however, no action has been taken against the protesters.
The removal plan, which has not received final approval, would involve federal marshals as well as F.B.I. agents. Marines would be aboard ships off the coast to provide perimeter security, the officials said. The Puerto Rican police would support the operation by performing crowd control and other duties.
--------
Protesters Prepare in Puerto Rico
April 25, 2000
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Puerto-Rico-US-Navy.html
VIEQUES, Puerto Rico (AP) -- Reacting to reports that Marines are setting sail to arrest them, Puerto Rican protesters braced Tuesday for a possible showdown on the dusty, cratered expanse of the U.S. Navy's Vieques bombing range.
After a year of holding the Navy at bay, demonstrators camped out on the range said the threat of arrests won't stop their campaign to shut down the Navy's prime Atlantic training ground.
``I know all the risks and I am ready to be arrested,'' said 65-year-old Felicita Garcia, camped with about 30 other people outside the front gates of the training ground. ``We are resolved to go the all the way.''
Dozens of people joined the protesters at camps set up after an April 1999 accident on the range, which is littered with unexploded bombs and shells. A 500-pound bomb launched off-target killed a civilian security guard.
Gov. Pedro Rossello urged the protesters to leave Tuesday, even offering them public land outside the training ground for their camps.
``We are asking that the removal be voluntary and peaceful ... so that there will be no kind of confrontation,'' Rossello said.
But the demonstrators refused, saying they would replace any arrested protesters by cutting through fences or sending in reinforcements on horseback.
Angel Navarro, 72, planned to take his small fishing boat through any blockade.
``I was a sergeant in Korea for 11 months ... fighting for democracy -- now I'm ready to fight the Navy,'' he said.
Pentagon sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Monday that a raid on the camps by U.S. Marshals and FBI agents could occur as early as next week.
As soon as the news was leaked, islanders began moving to the camps -- where numbers vary from less than 10 on weekdays to dozens at weekends -- said one organizer, Robert Rabin. More than 60 people were on the range by Tuesday morning.
There were unconfirmed reports that two ships in Norfolk, Va., were preparing to carry Marines to set up a security perimeter around the 21-mile-long island, just east of Puerto Rico.
Local police are to provide five patrol boats, helicopters and 100 to 200 officers in case of any raid, Police Superintendent Pedro Toledo said Tuesday. He said the police would only provide transport and crowd control and would not enter the range because it is federal property.
The Navy has practiced bombing and other exercises in Vieques since 1941. Last year's accident created island-wide outrage that has drawn support from environmental and other groups in the United States.
The protesters have stood in the way of a pact between President Clinton and Rossello that would allow exercises to continue without explosives until Vieques's 9,400 residents vote in a referendum on whether to expel the Navy. Clinton has agreed to order the military out by May 2003 if the Navy loses the referendum.
Protesters celebrated a minor victory Tuesday as the Navy announced the USS George Washington battle group would train off the U.S. East Coast instead of Vieques on May 12-20.
It was unclear whether that might cause authorities to postpone the reported plans. But demonstrators said they were not lowering their guard. On Tuesday, they continued to block vehicles carrying troops or non-Vieques residents from the range.
A scuffle with one driver Tuesday drew more than 250 people to the gates in 30 minutes.
Manning his post at the protest camp outside the gate, 90-year-old Nazario Cruz wagged his white beard angrily as he and other protesters discussed the reports of a possible raid.
``This is unworthy of the American nation,'' he said.
--------
Navy Cancels Exercise Off Vieques
April 25, 2000
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Puerto-Rico-US-Training.html
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- A U.S. aircraft carrier battle group will train off the East Coast rather than Puerto Rico because protesters continue to occupy a bombing range on Vieques island, the Navy said Tuesday.
The May 12-20 exercise by the USS George Washington group is the fourth series of naval maneuvers to be diverted since April 1999, when demonstrators occupied the Vieques range to protest the death a civilian security guard by an errant bomb.
The announcement followed reports that federal authorities were drawing up plans to send Marines to Vieques to help U.S. Marshals and FBI agents remove the protesters, by force if necessary.
It was unclear if the change in venue for the training exercise would affect any plans for a raid. Navy spokesman Jeff Gordon said he knew nothing about possible raids, and Justice officials have refused any commment.
``When the range at Vieques becomes available, the Navy will be eager to use it,'' a Navy statement said.
The George Washington battle group will instead train off Virginia and North Carolina.
The Navy calls Vieques its prime Atlantic training ground, the only place where it can do live bombing, shelling, submarine maneuvers, amphibious assaults and ship-to-ship warfare drills at the same time.
``The training conducted at Vieques, particularly the combined arms portion, is critical to combat readiness,'' the Navy said. ``It affords the most realistic and effective preparation.''
The presence of the protesters impedes implementation of a Jan. 31 agreement between President Clinton and Puerto Rican Gov. Pedro Rossello to permit the Navy to resume limited training exercises on the island in exchange for a referendum on whether to eventually close the range.
Pentagon officials warn that warships may go into missions unprepared if they are not allowed to use the range.
The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS George Washington battle groups have both been diverted to the East Coast twice. Earlier this year, two cruisers and a destroyer from the Eisenhower were sent to Cape Wrath, Scotland, to practice shelling that would normally be done in Vieques.
-------- russia
Russia Urged To Cut Fuel Leaks
APRIL 25, 13:31 EDT
By ANNA DOLGOV
Associated Press Writer
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=EUROPE&STORYID=APIS742TCCG0
MOSCOW (AP) - The oil and natural gas that Russia loses in leaks and spills every year could provide enough energy to allow the country to close its nuclear power plants, Greenpeace said Tuesday.
The comments by the Russian, German and Dutch branches of the environmental group came on the eve of the 14th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster in Ukraine, which sent a radioactive cloud over much of Europe.
Russia relies heavily on its nine nuclear power plants. No major accidents have been reported at the Russian plants and the government says all Chernobyl-type reactors have been modernized and are safe.
``We are trying to prove that ... the output of nuclear power stations could be substituted,'' said Oganes Targulian, a Greenpeace-Russia oil specialist.
Russian Nuclear Power Ministry spokesman Vladislav Petrov was skeptical about the Greenpeace proposal.
``It's a bit like saying, 'Let's take the whole humankind and transport it to a new, wonderful planet,''' Petrov said by telephone. ``The idea is nice, but can it be realized?''
Between 70 million and 140 million barrels of oil are spilled in Russia every year, out of the approximately 2.1 billion barrels the country produces, according to government and environmentalist estimates cited in a Greenpeace report released Tuesday.
The country also loses between 210 billion cubic feet to 1.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in pipeline leaks every year, the report said. Russia's annual natural gas production has hovered around 19 trillion cubic feet the past few years, according to government figures.
The exact losses are hard to estimate because some companies underreport leaks and spills to avoid paying fines, while others may exaggerate them to hide fuel theft, Targulian told reporters.
Every year, another 630 billion cubic feet of associated natural gas - a byproduct of oil fields - is simply burnt up because Russian oil companies say transporting or converting it into energy is unprofitable, Targulian said.
Depending on fuel leak estimates and the efficiency of power plants, the wasted oil and gas could give Russia between 70 billion and 316 billion extra kilowatt-hours of energy every year, according to the Greenpeace report.
In comparison, Russia's nuclear power plants produce 120 billion kilowatt- hours of energy annually, according to government figures cited in the Greenpeace report.
Russia relies on aging pipelines, often hastily built during the Soviet era, and patching fuel leaks would require major upgrades. Greenpeace has not estimated the cost of renovations needed to reduce leaks, Targulian said.
----
Russia May Expand Nuclear Doctrine
APRIL 25, 19:58 EDT
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=EUROPE&STORYID=APIS74332EO0
MOSCOW (AP) - A top military official said Russia's new military doctrine, which expands the conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used, also applies to protecting allies, the Interfax news agency reported Tuesday.