-------- top news
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) letter on nuclear weapons policy and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review (NPT) Conference
From: Kevin Martin - kmartin@fourthfreedom.org abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com
* DEAR COLLEAGUE AND TEXT OF LETTER
April 27, 2000
Dear Colleague:
The world's confidence in America's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation has been shaken recently, particularly because of the Senate's failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. After years of championing international attempts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, the United
States now is on the defensive at the NPT Review Conference in New York. A broad alliance of arms control advocates, U.N. officials and diplomats have charged that the United States is impeding the non-proliferation movement rather than leading it.
If you share my concern about this issue, I hope you will consider signing the attached letter to President Clinton which I drafted in coordination
with former Senator Alan Cranston and several non-government organizations.
It proposes a number of steps that the President could take during the remainder of this administration to help shore up confidence in America's commitment to the international non-proliferation regime.
If you would like to sign the letter, or wish additional information, please contact Wayne Pieringer or Brian Moran on my staff (224-2551) by May 3, 2000.
Sincerely,
Byron L. Dorgan U.S. Senator
--
The President The White House Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We laud your March 6th statement on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), particularly your reiteration that "the United States is committed to the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons." Nevertheless, we are concerned that the non-proliferation regime will be corroded unless you take dramatic steps to back up your words with actions.
The NPT review conference is now underway in New York, and it is clear that the world's confidence in America's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation has been compromised by the Senate's failure to ratify the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty and by contradictions between American rhetoric and action.
For example, the 1997 Presidential Decision Directive 60 stated that nuclear weapons remain the "cornerstone" of our security policy, and the
U.S. has prodded NATO to reaffirm that nuclear weapons "will continue tofulfill an essential role" in its strategic policy.
The apparent rush to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) system threatens the integrity of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and strategic arms reductions. Unilateral NMD deployment could stimulate a dangerous new arms race with China and Russia. Even if there is a bilateral START/NMD compromise, NMD deployments will inevitably impede deep strategic force reductions.
When NATO members sought a review of NATO nuclear policy, the United States objected. Virtually all the countries in the Southern Hemisphere are members of nuclear weapons-free zone agreements. Yet, when they attempted to make the southern hemisphere one unified nuclear weapons free zone, the United States objected. The U.S. has also thwarted attempts to institute
formal bodies to discuss the preconditions necessary to negotiate nuclear disarmament. Countries without nuclear weapons are sensitive to the global hazard of maintaining nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert.
For these and other reasons, the world's confidence in the commitment of
nuclear weapons states to disarmament has been seriously weakened. We propose some simple steps that you can take during the remainder of your
administration to help shore up confidence in the commitment of the United States to non-proliferation.
• Because the U.S. has an obligation under Article VI of the NPT to
pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons, we urge you to take the lead in promoting multilateral discussions on how the international community can best pursue that goal.
• The U.S. should accept the lowest offer that Russia has extended for mutually-verifiable cuts in nuclear arsenals under START III.
• The U.S. should take clear steps to diminish the salience of nuclear weapons by, for example, making reasoned efforts to take them off hair-trigger alert, pledging never to use them first, negotiating an agreement that assures non-nuclear weapon states that nuclear weapons will not be used against them, and committing to an international prohibition on the development of new nuclear weapons.
• The U.S. should promote the establishment an international accounting system for all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade materials, and continue to push for a verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty.
• The U.S. should encourage NATO to adopt a policy of "no first use of nuclear weapons."
Mr. President, it is unlikely that the NPT regime can endure indefinitely if a few states insist that nuclear weapons provide them with unique security benefits while denying these alleged benefits to others.
Unless the United States takes tangible steps now to stride beyond the lethargic bilateral processes commenced during the Cold War, arms control and disarmament will stagnate and the non-proliferation regime will be weakened. There could hardly be a less attractive legacy for your Presidency. However, people around the world would forever be indebted to you if you took some simple, practical steps to help fulfill one of humanity's deepest longings: a world free from the threat of nuclear destruction.
Sincerely, ---
(At the moment, only 7 Senators including Dorgan have agreed to sign Senator Dorgan's letter. This is due to the short amount of time that the letter has out and the very strong message it delivers on U.S. nuclear policy.
In order increase the possibility that the letter gains a more respectable number of signatories and to increase the possibility that it can be wrapped-up and delivered before the end of the NPT Review Conference (May 19), your help is needed.
PLEASE REDOUBLE YOUR EFFORTS TO CONTACT SENATORS MOST LIKELY TO SIGN THE LETTER.
Most likely candidates for signing Dorgan letter:
NOTE: Senators in (parentheses) have agreed to sign.
(Biden) - DE Bingaman - NM Boxer - CA Durbin - IL Feingold - WI (Harkin) - IA Johnson - SD Kennedy - MA Kerrey - NE Kerry - MA Kohl - WI Lautenberg - NJ (Leahy) - VT Levin - MI (Murray) - WA Reed - RI Reid - NV Schumer - NY (Wellstone) -MN Wyden - OR Jeffords - VT
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505 Washington, DC 20002 (ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970 website http://www.crnd.org
Kevin Martin Director, Project Abolition 219-534-3402, ext. 21 kmartin@fourthfreedom.org)
-------- activists
MEDIA RELEASE From: Abolition2000@aol.com
For Immediate Release
Contact: Carah Ong (212) 818-1861 or (212) 682-2747
On Thursday, 27 April 2000 Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons will present Ambassador Baali, Chairman of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference, with an International Petition that has been signed by 13,408,035 individuals from around the world. The ceremony will take place at the United Nations at 1:15 pm in Conference Room 4.
Abolition 2000 is a Global Network of some 2000 organizations and municipalities in 93 countries calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons and the redress of environmental degradation and human suffering caused by more than 55 years of nuclear weapons testing and production.. The Abolition 2000 International Petition calls upon all states, but particularly the nuclear weapons states, to make commitments to:
1. End the nuclear threat by dealerting all nuclear weapons, withdrawing all nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, separating warheads from delivery vehicles and disabling them, committing to unconditional no first use of nuclear weapons, and ceasing all nuclear weapons tests, including laboratory tests and "subcriticals." 2. Sign a Nuclear Weapons Convention by the year 2000, agreeing to the elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework. 3. Reallocate resources to ensure a sustainable global future and to redress the environmental devastation and human suffering caused by nuclear weapons production and testing, which have been disproportionately borne by the world's indigenous peoples.
The petition has been translated into French, German, Japanese, Romanian, Russian and Spanish for global circulation.
Although the majority of people all around the world agree that nuclear weapons pose grave danger to almost all life forms and should be eliminated from the planet, nuclear weapons states have failed to eliminate nuclear arsenals as obligated under Article VI of the NPT. Disarmament efforts are at great risk of being diminished because of the resolve of nuclear weapons states to center their policies and security on outdated ideologies and expensive military hardware. During the NPT Review and Extension Conference, being held from 24 April to 19 May 2000, State Parties to the Treaty, particularly the nuclear weapons states, will have an opportunity to take advantage of this forum to commence negotiations leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
Ambassador Baali will also be presented with an "Appeal to End the Nuclear Threat to Humanity" signed by more than 50 world leaders, including Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, The XIVth Dalai Lama, Michael Douglas, Harrison Ford, Queen Noor of Jordan, and Muhammad Ali. The Appeal calls for negotiations to achieve a verifiable international treaty for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons. Thirty-three signers of the Appeal are Nobel Laureates, including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates.
-------- alternative energy
Arizona First State to Require Solar Power Generation
By Cat Lazaroff
April 27, 2000 (ENS)
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr2000/2000L-04-27-07.html
Photos solar panel arrays:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/pics10/solaryuma.jpg http://ens.lycos.com/ens/pics10/giantarray.jpg http://ens.lycos.com/ens/pics10/solaraz.jpg http://ens.lycos.com/ens/pics10/apssite.jpg
PHOENIX, Arizona, Arizona has become the first state to require electric utilities to produce a portion of their power from solar energy. Wednesday's vote by the state's Corporation Commission may increase utility bills for state residents, but could boost solar power in one of the nation's sunniest states.
A 450 kilowatt photovoltaic array at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Grounds in southwestern Arizona (All photos courtesy National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
The three member Corporation Commission voted unanimously to approve a measure that will require utilities and other electricity providers to produce a small percentage of their electricity from solar and other renewable resources.
Under the Solar and Environmentally Friendly Portfolio Standard, electricity providers may have to derive 1.1 percent of their total product from renewable resources by 2007. At least 27 other states also mandate renewable sources for utilities, but Arizona is the first to require that solar energy make up a specific portion of that power.
The Standard requires providers to produce at least 50 percent of their renewable power from solar generating facilities. The remainder will come from other renewable sources, including methane from landfills, wind power and biomass generators.
By January 1, 2001, utilities must produce 0.2 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. By 2004, that amount will increase to 0.8 percent. The 1.1 percent requirement by 2007 will only be enacted if prices for renewables drop closer to prices for traditional power sources. The Commission will determine whether to enforce that higher percentage.
The Arizona Public Service Company is testing a high concentration solar system at its Solar Test and Research (STAR) Center in Tempe (Photo by Bill Timmerman)
Utilities say solar power currently costs five to 10 times more than conventionally generated electricity. Customers will be asked to shoulder part of the burden of the higher priced energy through per-month surcharges. The maximum per month increase would be 35 cents for residential electric bills and $13 per meter per month charge for most businesses, the Commission says. The largest businesses, including many of the state's mining industries, will pay $39 per meter per month more than their current bills.
The renewable power will also be funded by a systems benefit charge, which customers are now paying for consumer education programs.
Last year, the Commission rejected a proposal to require that one percent of all energy sold in Arizona come from solar sources. That plan had no cap on costs to consumers.
At the Backus Ranch in Arizona, this solar electric system meets various needs for power (Photo by Bob Hammond, Arizona State University)
Supporters of the plan, which include environmental groups and the solar industry, point out that national surveys have shown that a majority of consumers would be willing to give up electricity deregulation driven price cuts in order to opt for renewable power.
State utilities said the plan may cost more than the estimated $3 million that the new surcharges will raise, which could prompt them to ask the Commission for larger rate increases in the future.
The Arizona Public Service Co. (APS), the state's largest electric utility, already offers solar power. The company says its Solar Partners program, which charges customers a premium for power generated from small solar plants in Tempe and Flagstaff, has more customers than it can currently serve.
APS announced this week it plans to double the amount of solar energy it uses to generate electricity. The company will install 388 kilowatts (kW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels at proposed sites in Yuma, Prescott, and on either side of Phoenix to the east and the west. These installations will complement the 172 kW installation announced earlier this month for the Glendale Airport and the recent two kW PV installation on top of San Luis City Hall.
APS is evaluating the performance of the latest in Dish Stirling Solar power systems at its STAR Center in Tempe (Photo by Bill Timmerman)
"Because solar energy does not rely on non-renewable resources drawn out of the earth, nor does it have any emissions from the conversion into electricity, solar electricity holds promise for the earth's energy future," says Ed Fox, APS' vice president of environmental resources. "APS is proud to be leading the way toward furthering the development of this earth smart technology."
The solar projects are funded by APS, its Solar Partner customers and, when funds are available, the U.S. Department of Energy. The new solar facilities will be installed over the next year.
"With more than 350 days of sunshine per year, everyone recognizes that Arizona is the perfect place to develop and install solar electric generation," says Fox. "Currently, solar generation costs five times more than traditional non-renewable generation sources but, with the help of our customers, the increased demand will bring the price down."
-------- britain
British nuke weapons sites rife with waste - report
UK: April 27, 2000
Story by John O'Callaghan
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6477
LONDON - Britain's nuclear weapons plants may be contaminated by far more radioactive and toxic waste than previously thought, New Scientist said on Wednesday.
The magazine, quoting from what it called a confidential report by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), said the Ministry of Defence may also have seriously underestimated the amount of waste being stored at two sites west of London and one in Wales.
"Areas contaminated with asbestos, plutonium, depleted uranium, beryllium and tritium have been identified. Until comprehensive surveys have been completed, the potential extent of the problem will be unclear," it quoted the report as saying.
"There may be accumulations of wastes, both radioactive and toxic, in buildings on the sites that are not included in any identified inventory."
State-owned BNFL - in a consortium with Lockheed Martin of the United States and management consultants Serco Ltd - took over the running of Britain's three Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) sites at the start of April.
COMPANIES DISMISS MAGAZINE REPORT
Officials at BNFL and AWE dismissed the magazine's claims about the "confidential report" on the sites at Aldermaston, Burghfield and Cardiff.
"It is utter nonsense," Graeme Hammond, head of corporate affairs at AWE, told Reuters. "It's actually a waste inventory that was prepared during the AWE management lead-in," he said of the "confidential report".
"But it doesn't really change the price of bread as far as we're concerned because the quotes (in the magazine) appear to have been taken selectively and used out of context."
Hammond said a survey into land contamination had been under way for two years and, until it was complete, the exact amount of contamination would not be known.
"AWE was satisfied that there was no major underestimation of waste or contamination and is satisfied that its plans to deal with decommissioning waste and contamination will be effective," he said.
The company had used more drums than it estimated to hold waste buried on site because of the odd sizes of some of the contaminated material, he said.
"We will get better at that as we go through the programme and, as new equipment arrives, we'll be able to reduce the size of the individual waste particles in order that we can use our drums more effectively," he said.
"But having said that, it doesn't pose us any problem because we've got plenty of storage space."
BNFL, which this month announced sweeping changes to its board and senior management in the wake of a damning safety report, is under pressure to correct problems at its Sellafield nuclear reprocessing facility.
Japan and Germany have put business with BNFL on hold after revelations that Sellafield staff falsified data on shipments of mixed oxide fuel, a combination of plutonium and uranium.
Switzerland and Sweden have also banned trade with BNFL, while Ireland and Denmark have called for Sellafield's closure.
-------- china
China to speed approval of nuclear test ban treaty
CHINA: April 27, 2000
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6479
BEIJING - China said on Tuesday it would "speed the process" towards ratifying the nuclear test ban treaty, raising the possibility the United States may soon be the only declared nuclear power not to have ratified the document.
Russia's parliament ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty last week, joining Britain and France as the three nuclear powers to have done so.
China and the United States have signed the treaty, which binds signatory states to quit nuclear explosions of any kind, but neither has ratified it.
The United States Senate stunned Washington's allies last year when it rejected approval of the treaty.
Both Washington and Beijing have agreed to abide by the ban even without ratification.
"We welcome the approval of the CTBT by the Russian Duma," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi told a regular news conference.
"I believe the National People's Congress will speed the process of approving the treaty," Sun said, referring to China's parliament.
He declined to give a specific timetable for ratification. To date, 41 countries have signed the treaty and 28 have ratified it. A total of 44 nations with varying degrees of nuclear capability must sign as well as ratify the CTBT, initiated in 1996, for it to take effect.
All have signed except for India, Pakistan and North Korea. The treaty bans all explosions, whether in the atmosphere, space or underground, regardless of size.
----
Taiwan, China Sign Contract For Storing Nuclear Waste
Mar 12, 2000 --
Agence France Presse
http://www.insidechina.com:80/news.php3?id=142022
TAIPEI, Taiwan and rival China have quietly forged a memorandum of understanding for shipping more than 200,000 barrels of low-radiation nuclear waste to the mainland, it was reported Sunday.
Taiwan's state-run Taiwan Power Co. signed the memo in Hong Kong two months ago with a Chinese nuclear company "affiliated with an official nuclear agency," the United Daily News said.
Under the contract China will dispose of 210,000 drums of nuclear waste stored on the offshore Orchid Island and three nuclear power plants, the daily quoted New Party presidential candidate Lee Ao as saying.
Lee alleged he had obtained the memo from Taipower but would not identify the source.
But Tsai Mao-tsun, a Taipower vice president in charge of nuclear energy, denied the report of the memo although he did acknowledge that Taipower had contacts with the mainland over storing the island's nuclear waste.
Taipower signed an agreement with North Korea in 1997 to dispose of 60,000 drums of low-radiation nuclear waste, with a provision to increase the volume to 200,000 barrels.
But the power company was forced to virtually scrap the accord after the Taiwanese government was reluctant to give Taipower the required go-ahead amid pressure from China, the United States and South Korea.
The accord also met strong protests from South Korea and environmentalist organizations, including Greenpeace, which maintained that poverty-stricken North Korea lacked the ability to handle nuclear waste.
Reports said the famine-stricken country would receive a one-off payment of 1,300 US dollars from Taipower for each barrel of nuclear waste to be stored at an abandoned coal mine 90 kilometers (55 miles) north of Seoul.
Taipower is also negotiating with Russia and the Marshall Islands for disposal of the waste. ((c) 2000 Agence France Presse)
------- colombia
Bogota's link to far-right militias
This month's UN report on a Colombian-paramilitary link could jeopardize US aid.
Martin Hodgson,
The Christian Science Monitor
04/26/2000
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/04/26/fp4s1-csm.shtml
When they saw military helicopters dropping uniformed men on a hillside above town, inhabitants of the mountain village of Buenos Aires thought that the Army had come to protect them from a marauding band of far-right paramilitaries who were terrorizing this rugged Andean region.
But no troops intervened when some 200 militiamen stormed the community two days later. Brandishing assault rifles and machetes, the paramilitaries announced that they were hunting rebels.
"Where were the soldiers? Why didn't they stop those people?" asks villager Marlene Correa.
A new report from the United Nations that the Colombian security forces maintain an intimate relationship with these far-right death squads, could jeopardize the $1.6 billion aid package for Colombia still under debate in the US Senate. Analysts warn that the package - primarily military in scope - might help an Army which supports the violent squads.
According to the UN report, released on April 14, members of the military participated in massacres, organized paramilitary groups, and spread death threats. "The security forces also failed to take action, and this undoubtedly enabled the paramilitary groups to achieve their exterminating objectives," it added.
President Andres Pastrana and his forces are presently entangled in a devastating civil war with Marxist guerrillas - who have been waging war on the government since the mid-'60s. The main leftist groups are the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in and the smaller National Liberation Army (ELN), mainly in the north. Both are fierce rivals of the ultra-right paramilitaries since all three are battling for territory, political power, and kickbacks from drug traffickers. Yesterday, Mr. Pastrana agreed to pull troops from a northern region and turn the zone over to the ELN for peace talks. But paramilitary commanders announced they might attack the zone.
Colombia's ambassador to the UN, Camilo Reyes Rodriguez, denies any collusion with the far-right militia. Addressing the General Assembly he said, "The Colombian government cannot accept that the authorities have a generalized responsibility for the actions of these criminal groups."
US law forbids aid to military units involved in human rights abuses. Unfortunately, concrete proof of links with the paramilitaries is hard to obtain.
According to one Western diplomat, witnesses are often too scared to testify, and even state investigators fear to delve into cases of possible collusion. "It's like abortion in a Catholic country. Everyone knows it's going on - but nobody sees it happen," he says.
Loosely allied as the "United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia," or AUC, the paramilitaries now field between 5,000 and 7,000 fighters. They are a hybrid force combining the private armies of powerful landlords and drug dealers with now-outlawed rural intelligence networks once set up by the government to combat leftist guerrillas. These militias rarely launch direct attacks against rebel groups, instead targeting civilians accused of supporting the guerrillas.
Although Pastrana has repeatedly pledged to crack down on soldiers who collaborate with paramilitaries, evidence suggests some units have done little to break old habits. According to the State Department, some servicemen provide them with weapons and intelligence. Others merely look the other way.
One region hit by last year's paramilitary onslaught was the Andean range north of Cali. The AUC's "Calima Front" murdered a peasant farmer and his daughter in July and publicly warned locals to leave the region or die. Since August the group has killed more than 90 people, and forced around 2,000 to flee their homes. The Calima Front then arrived in Buenos Aires in late September.
"It was the worst.... They said 'Speak, or we'll kill the men like dogs - where are the guerrillas?' " remembers Marlene Correa. Before dawn, the paramilitaries shot and killed her son, Luis.
What she cannot understand is how the paramilitaries managed to arrive and escape unchallenged.
Local police and army officials deny reports from villagers that military helicopters flew over the village in the days before the raid, dropping off armed men in the mountains above town.
When the paramilitaries finally withdrew from Buenos Aires they marched down the same road used just two hours later by an Army unit sent to intercept them. But those soldiers claim they never saw the militiamen.
"How do you explain that? Two hundred armed men don't just disappear," asked one Colombian human rights official, who asked not to be named.
After the incursion, over 700 villagers fled to the nearby town of Buga - many to makeshift lodgings like the sports arena. They still fear for their safety, especially since a lawyer who had taken up their case was killed in January.
In addition, Lt. Col. Rafael Jani of the "Palace" Battalion in Buga admits that an ex-guerrilla turned paramilitary spy has regularly visited him with information on rebel movements.
"It's true, but he doesn't work with us.... Many informers aren't model citizens, but if someone comes here and tells me where the guerrillas are hiding, I have to use his information," he says.
Military commanders say that the overstretched Army is powerless to stop the paramilitaries, and that many locals are uncooperative, thanks to accusations from human rights groups.
"Information always gets to us too late, because people are scared to speak to us. Look at the damage these slanders create," says Brig. Gen. Jaime Ernesto Canal.
But according to local priest Carlos Alberto Quiceno, "Everyone knows where [the right-wing fighters] are. But when the paramilitaries arrive, the police withdraw to their barracks."
And while Mrs. Correa must sleep in a crowded sports hall, farmers report the Calima Front has set up a permanent base in the abandoned village of Buenos Aires.
"The paras are living in our houses," she says. "They have dances and cock-fights up there. What more information do the army want ?"
----
Drug Czar Ignores Truth
(Here is my letter printed in the Washington Times.)
From: Paul Wolf - paulwolf@icdc.com
April 16, 2000, Apex, NC 27502
Dear Editor:
Barry McCaffrey's shameless April 14th op-ed, "Aid Colombia," ignored the potentially disasterous effects all that military aid could have on the fierce political violence raging in that country.
The Clinton administration's $1.6 billion emergency military aid proposal falls far short of the real plan Colombia needs to avoid a bloody and pointless civil war. Colombia must look for ways to end the escalating political violence, which has only been worsened by a terror campaign directed at rebellious civilian populations.
Colombia's counterinsurgency strategy includes the use of murder, disappearances, massacres, and the deliberate, massive displacement of guerrilla-supporting populations, through the use of illegal "paramilitary" units.
Encouraged and often under the command of the Colombian military, paramilitary groups assassinate and massacre "subversives" - those thought to be sympathetic to the guerrillas, in a war neither Colombia nor the United States wants to discuss in any detail. (1) Numerous Colombian military officers have become notorious war criminals by anyone's standards, yet enjoy total impunity for crimes they've committed against the same people they are supposed to be protecting. (2)
Colombia's parallel strategy of forcibly displacing rural populations also violates international humanitarian law (3) and causes tragic, irreparable damage to Colombian society. Of the more than one million internally displaced Colombians, (4) two thirds are minors. (5) Only one in eight has access to education. (5) One in three has access to health care. (6) These poor children suffer from the neglect of the Colombian state and the ignorance of Washington policymakers. Many are recruited into the ranks of the guerrilla or paramilitary militias, renewing the cycle of violence.
The Colombian peace process must move beyond publicity stunts to address these and other profound problems facing Colombia today. The Colombian government and the FARC should use the proposed cease-fire to further the Common Agenda agreed in May 1999 (7), and the United States should support the peace process.
Democracy and negotiation are key to relieving the pressure. Colombia must find a way to manage strikes, demonstrations, and even terrorist attacks, without resorting to acts of terror itself. Until Colombia abandons its paramilitary strategy, there is no hope for peace.
---
Colombian Court Halts Oil Drilling
Associated Press
March 31, 2000
For Update on U'WA - http://www.ran.org/ran/ran_campaigns/beyond_oil/oxy/
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) - A court on Friday ordered a halt to a U.S. oil company's exploration near a Colombian Indian reservation, in what appeared to be at least a temporary victory for the tribe.
Alberto Calderon, president of the state-owned Ecopetrol oil company, said the government had notified Los Angeles-based Occidental Petroleum Corp. (NYSE:OXY - news) of the order to suspend operations.
Details on the Bogota circuit court verdict favoring the 8,000 member U'wa nation were not immediately available.
Calderon, whose company has contracts with Occidental, denounced the verdict, saying it placed a small minority's interests above those of the nation. The government plans to appeal.
"This is a process in which if oil is found it could generate nearly $900 million a year," Calderon told a news conference Friday night. "It's a project of enormous importance for the country."
U'wa tribal leader Roberto Perez said the tribe still sees a long battle ahead.
"This is not a fight that's been won," he told The Associated Press, speaking from Washington, where he has been meeting this week with members of Congress and activists. "But we've taken a step forward and I feel content."
Occidental Corp. was unavailable for comment Friday night.
The tribe has waged a national and international campaign since 1995 to stop the company from drilling on or near its ancestral lands near Colombia's eastern border with Venezuela. At one point, the group threatened mass suicide to highlight their cause.
Seeking compromise, the government last September approved a nearly fourfold increase in the size of the tribal reservation, to 850 square miles stretching across four states.
An exploratory drill site - one Occidental and Colombian officials hope will lead to reserves of as many as 2.5 billion barrels of crude - was approved a few miles outside the expanded reservation.
-------- japan
Japan Nuclear Accident Claims Second Victim
April 27, 2000
By Reuters
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-japan-n.html
TOKYO (Reuters) - A plant worker exposed to massive radiation in Japan's worst nuclear accident died on Thursday, the second victim of an incident that has jolted public confidence in the nation's nuclear power industry.
Tokyo University Hospital officials said Masato Shinohara, 40 -- one of three workers exposed to heavy doses of radiation in the accident last September -- had died of multiple organ failure.
``It is true that Mr. Shinohara has died as a result of the accident,'' one hospital official said.
Shinohara, who was exposed to at least eight sieverts of radiation in the accident at a uranium processing plant in Tokaimura, northeast of Tokyo, was placed on a respirator in February after pneumonia and radiation damage to his respiratory system impaired his breathing, and on a dialysis machine this month after his kidney functions deteriorated.
Last October, he received a transfusion of blood cells from the umbilical cord of a newborn in an effort to stimulate his ability to produce blood cells, which was disastrously damaged by the radiation.
Another worker, Hisashi Ouchi, 35, died in December after being exposed in the accident to 17 sieverts of radiation -- the equivalent of about 17,000 times the average annual normal exposure in Japan.
Experts say seven sieverts is considered a lethal dose.
A third worker who also suffered heavy radiation exposure had recovered and was released from hospital in December.
The Japanese government came under heavy fire for lax supervision of the industry after the accident, which occurred when the workers put nearly eight times the proper amount of condensed uranium into a mixing tank, triggering a nuclear chain reaction.
Saying Shinohara's death had filled him with ``deep regret, Science and Technology Agency chief Hirofumi Nakasone pledged to renew government efforts to prevent such accidents, Kyodo news agency said.
On Tuesday, officials said they had decided to stick with a ''level four'' rating for the Tokaimura accident, despite earlier suggestions that they might raise it one notch to ''level five.''
Level four on the International Atomic Energy Agency's zero-to-seven International Nuclear Event Scale indicates the possibility of a fatal radiation leak at the accident site but no significant risk outside the plant, the official said.
A total of 439 workers and residents were exposed to radiation as a result of the Tokaimura accident.
America's Three Mile Island accident was a level five, while the Soviet Union's Chernobyl accident in 1986 rated a level seven -- the worst nuclear power accident on record.
Japan has a comparatively good record on nuclear accidents, but the Tokaimura case has sparked growing public concern about an industry that supplies some one-third of the nation's electricity needs.
Earlier this month, the government began a one-year review of its nuclear policy.
---
Second uranium worker dies of radiation exposure
News from around the world
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Thursday, April 27, 2000
JAPAN
http://www.seattlep-i.com/national/wrld2711.shtml
A second plant worker died today after being exposed to a massive amount of radiation last September in Japan's worst nuclear accident ever.
Tokyo University Hospital officials said that Masato Shinohara, 40, one of three workers exposed to heavy doses of radiation, had died.
Another worker died in December as a result of the accident at a uranium processing plant in Tokaimura, 90 miles northeast of Tokyo.
A third worker who suffered heavy radiation exposure recovered and was released from hospital in December. The accident occurred when workers put nearly eight times the proper amount of condensed uranium into a mixing tank, triggering a nuclear chain reaction.
A total of 439 workers and residents were exposed to radiation as a result of the accident
-----
Japanese worker in nuclear accident dies
Japan Nuke Accident Claims 2d Victim
April 27, 2000
The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Japan-Nuclear-Accident.html
http://www7.mercurycenter.com/premium/world/docs/fordig27.htm
TOKYO (AP) -- A worker exposed to radiation in Japan's worst nuclear accident died Thursday morning, becoming the second fatality in a disaster that shook the nation's faith in nuclear energy.
Masato Shinohara, 40, died of multiple organ failure, the University of Tokyo Hospital said.
Shinohara's condition had improved after the accident, but began to deteriorate rapidly in mid-April as respiratory and kidney functions began to fail, said hospital spokesman Akiyoshi Iitsuka.
Shinohara had been at the University of Tokyo Hospital since April 10 after being transferred from another medical facility run by the university. He had been on a respirator since February.
He was the second plant worker to die since the Sept. 30 accident at a uranium-processing facility in Tokaimura, 70 miles northeast of Tokyo.
Hisashi Ouchi, 35, died of multiple organ failure on Dec. 21 after having been exposed to a massive amount of radiation. He was the first person in Japan to die as a result of a nuclear plant accident.
A third worker, Yutaka Yokokawa, was also hospitalized for exposure to a lesser amount of radiation, but was discharged in December.
Hearing of Shinohara's death, Japanese officials vowed renewed efforts to restore trust in the country's nuclear energy program.
``We will redouble efforts to strengthen safety and disaster prevention measures,'' said Masaru Hashimoto, the governor of Ibaraki Prefecture, where Tokaimura is located.
Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori expressed his condolences and said the government will work hard to ensure that a similar accident does not happen again, national broadcaster NHK reported.
Shinohara's death came on the same day that a Japanese atomic power association opened a symposium in Tokyo on regaining trust in nuclear power. The conference was to move to Tokaimura on Friday.
The accident was triggered when the three workers used too much uranium to make fuel and set off an uncontrolled atomic reaction.
A total of 439 people, including nearby residents, were believed to have been exposed to radiation.
An investigation found that workers at the plant, run by JCO Co., routinely violated safety procedures, including mixing uranium in buckets to get work done quickly.
Resource poor Japan relies on nuclear power for 30 percent of its electricity. But the accident at Tokaimura and others in recent years have called into question government assurances that the country's nuclear facilities are safely run.
In March, the government revoked the license of JCO, the first plant operator to face the penalty under Japanese law regulating nuclear fuel, materials and reactors.
-------- npt
The NPT Showdown: United David vs. Divided Goliath
By Senator Douglas Roche, O.C. Chairman, Middle Powers Initiative
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:58:15 -0600
From: Delong - delong@nucleus.com
UNITED NATIONS - April 27, 2000. With the opening debate now winding down at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the stage is set for a showdown between the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and the New Agenda Coalition (NAC).
To almost everyone's surprise, NAC jumped into a leadership position immediately. NAC tabled a Working Paper on the opening day calling on the NWS to "make an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals and, in the forthcoming review period 2000-2005, to engage in an accelerated process of negotiations and to take steps leading to nuclear disarmament..."
The NWS assumed a defensive position, claiming that the American-Russian reductions in nuclear weapons show their compliance with Article VI of the NPT, and that the nuclear powers should be left alone without the need to have pressed on them a "new agenda."
One by one, the seven NAC countries, Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, hammered home that they are unimpressed with reduction figures when nuclear weapons are at the same time being reaffirmed as central to strategic concepts for the indefinite future.
The NPT Review has now moved into the committee stage, prior to drafting a final declaration for the end of the conference May 19th.
A step forward was taken by the creation of two subsidiary bodies to focus on two key elements on which the conference will turn. Ambassador Clive Pearson of New Zealand will chair the group dealing with nuclear disarmament; Ambassador Christopher Westdal of Canada will chair the one on Middle East and South Asia issues, paying special attention to the refusal of Israel, a nuclear weapons capable State, to join the NPT. During the PrepComm process, the United States had resolutely opposed the creation of these two bodies.
NPT Reviews traditionally operate by consensus. Indeed, the president of the conference, Ambassador Abdallah Baali of Algeria, has signaled that he hopes to "bridge our differences" and find "common agreement" by all parties on ways to move forward. But a senior NAC spokesman told me privately that the discussions will be "eyeball-to-eyeball" right down to the final hours. NAC avers that it will not budge from its demand of an "unequivocal" commitment to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons. Since the NWS are presently committed to keeping their nuclear stocks, even at reduced levels, it is hard to see at this stage how a bridge between the two positions can be built.
At past NPT conferences, it was the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) which carried the flag for nuclear disarmament, calling for time-bound nuclear disarmament leading to a Nuclear Weapons Convention. But NAM, weakened by the nuclear testing activities of India and Pakistan (which do not belong to the NPT), has clearly been eclipsed in importance by the NAC, which did not even exist at the time of the 1995 Indefinite Extension of the NPT. NAC's seven core members are supported by 60 States spread around the world. NAC's positions are more moderate, and therefore more attractive to several key States, such as Canada and Germany, which can influence other NATO States.
A further complication for the NWS is the U.S. government's determination to develop a ballistic missile defence system, an issue that has not only split the U.S. from Russia but also virtually isolated the U.S. in the world community. Even the U.S.'s nuclear partners and strongest allies are publicly trying to dissuade the U.S. from proceeding because of the irreparable harm it will do the nuclear disarmament agenda. The U.S. is under siege at the NPT Review on two fronts: failing to implement Article VI and moving forward on a missile defence system.
Thus, the U.S. is trying at the same time to hold off the NAC attack and keep its nuclear partnerships from crumbling. But to hear or read the U.S. opening speech by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, one would get the impression that the U.S. is relaxed about its record and confident about the future.
The U.S. has dismantled 60 percent of its nuclear weapons, Ms. Albright said, and a START III process would cut U.S.-Soviet arsenals by 80 percent from Cold War peaks. "Simple math and common sense both suggest that it is folly to give up on a START process which is doing exactly what is called for in Article VI."
The Secretary added that NATO's nuclear weapons have been cut by 85 percent since 1991. "Such weapons now play a smaller role in our defense posture than at any time since the advent of the Cold War."
She highlighted the words of President Clinton in the Foreword to a glossy publication detailing how the U.S. is living up to its commitments to Article VI: "As we enter this new Millennium, we should all commit ourselves anew to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. The United States remains committed to this goal and will work tirelessly towards its ultimate achievement."
For the past few years, the U.S. has been getting support from Russia for its nuclear positions. Indeed, as Ms. Albright pointed out, the U.S. has paid $5 billion towards the costs associated with Russia's nuclear disarmament programs. But Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Igor S. Ivanov, was not in a grateful mood. He warned the U.S. that reduction programs will be jeopardized if the U.S. proceeds with a ballistic missile defence (BMD) system. The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty is a cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime, he said, and cannot be tampered with.
Whereas Ms. Albright said there was no good reason why the ABM Treaty could not be amended, Mr. Ivanov said plainly: "Compliance with the ABM Treaty in its present form without any modifications is a prerequisite for further negotiations on nuclear disarmament." He made the same point several times: "Further reductions in strategic offensive weapons can only be considered in the context of preservation of the ABM Treaty." He called attention to Russia's initiative to establish a Global Missile and Missile Technologies monitoring and defence system which could be an alternative to the destruction of the ABM system. But, as the New York Times reported the following day, the U.S. is intent on pursuing only a national missile defence system and is now wrestling with the $60 billion cost to protect all 50 states of the Union. The day after his U.N. speech, Mr. Ivanov flew to Washington for discussions with U.S. officials who want to make a deal to obtain Russian approval for BMD in exchange for driving reductions to even lower levels, perhaps to the 1,500 warheads for each side sought by Russia. A Clinton-Putin summit is set for June.
However, China is wary of a Russia-U.S. deal on BMD. Ambassador Sha Zukang of China weighed in at the NPT Review with an attack on any kind of ballistic missile defence system as "posing a severe threat to the global strategic balance and stability." He accused the U.S. of trying to seek absolute security for itself, an impossible task that is tantamount to a nuclear arms buildup. He warned that the international nuclear disarmament process would come tumbling down if the U.S. proceeds with BMD.
While more circumspect, the U.K. and France both expressed similar concerns. "Active missile defence raises complex and difficult issues," said Peter Hain, U.K. Minister of State. "We have made it clear to [the U.S. and Russia] that we continue to value the ABM and wish to see it preserved." Ambassador M. Hubert de La Fortelle of France said his country was "anxious to avoid any challenges to the [ABM] liable to bring about a breakdown of strategic equilibrium and to restart the arms race."
The NAC countries also all warned against BMD, coupling this concern with the urgency of making concrete progress on nuclear disarmament. Ireland came right to the point. Foreign Affairs Minister Brian Cowen said: "This Treaty may not survive intact for another five years without a fundamental change in approach by all.... We must overcome interminable arguments about the retention of nuclear weapons to respond to every new perceived threat to security."
Sweden's Foreign Affairs Minister Anne Lindh warned that if the international community does not start the process of eliminating nuclear weapons, "we will see our own children demonstrating against us." South Africa said that if the international community cannot free itself from nuclear weapons, "We will never be liberated from the unspeakable destruction and human suffering which these weapons can cause." Brazil, a new signatory to the NPT and member of NAC, said that NAC was a "catalyst" for the elimination of nuclear weapons. NAC's composition, timing and comprehensive and balanced program of action "explains the increasingly broad support that it has been receiving from governments, parliaments, NGOs and civil society."
The NPT Review has become a drama of NAC versus the NWS. David against Goliath. At least David is united while Goliath is sorely divided. It remains to be seen how strong David will be on the nuclear weapons battlefield of the 21st century.
----
ALBRIGHT REPUDIATES JFK
From: "Edward Perry" eperry98@worldnet.att.net
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 08:19:08 -0700
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright established the position of the United States in her speech at the 2000 NPT Review Conference on April 24th. What she did not say is more important in establishing the conclusion that the Clinton-Gore administration has repudiated President John F. Kennedy's goal and program for general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
She noted that, "the sharpest suspicions under the Treaty are directed to whether the five nuclear states are doing enough under Article VI..." and referenced a new booklet on how the United States is meeting its commitment to Article VI.
The goal in Article VI is "general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." with two nuclear milestones - end the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.
This goal was taken from President Kennedy's speech to the UN General Assembly on September 25, 1961 in which he said;
"The program to be presented to this assembly - for general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control - moves to bridge the gap between those who insist on a gradual approach and those who talk only of the final and total achievement. It would create machinery to keep the peace as it destroys the machinery of war. It would proceed through balanced and safeguarded stages designed to give no state a military advantage over another. It would place the final responsibility for verification and control where it belongs, not with the big powers alone, not with one's adversary or one's self, but in an international organization within the framework of the United 'Nations. It would assure that indispensable condition of disarmament - true inspection - and apply it in stages proportionate to the stage of disarmament. It would cover delivery systems as well as weapons. It would ultimately halt their production as well as their testing, their transfer as well as their possession. It would achieve, under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations peace Force. And it starts that process now, today, even as the talks begin."
President Kennedy added, "And we make our proposals today, while building up our defenses over Berlin, not because we are inconsistent or insincere or intimidated, but because we know the rights of free men will prevail - because while we are compelled against our will to rearm, we look confidently beyond Berlin to the kind of disarmed world we all prefer."
The American/Soviet(McCloy/Zorin) program for general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control that JFK presented to the UN General Assembly has the goal;
"a. that disarmament is general and complete and war is no longer an instrument for settling international problems, and
b. that such disarmament is accompanied by the establishment of reliable procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes and effective arrangements for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
The American/Soviet(McCloy/Zorin) program was unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 20, 1961 about the same time that negotiations for the NPT were beginning. The non-nuclear states selected general and complete disarmament as the balancing obligation.
In the Berlin crisis, President Kennedy had a vision of a world in which "war is no longer an instrument for settling international problems." Now, a decade after the end of the cold war, the Clinton-Gore administration, by acts of omission, has repudiated JFK's goal and vision.
----
U.N.: Environmental Efforts Urgent
Associated Press
April 27, 2000 Filed at 12:17 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-UN-Environment.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Despite improvements in the last 30 years, efforts to keep the globe eco-friendly remain the world's ``urgent, unfinished agenda,'' the deputy U.N. chief said.
In a speech Wednesday to environment ministers attending a U.N. conference on sustainable development -- the term for environmentally sound economic growth -- Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette called for a new ethic of conservation and stewardship to guide development in the 21st century.
``There is no denying the environmental achievements of the past three decades,'' Frechette said, listing the creation of government environment ministries and landmark treaties on climate change, biodiversity and the depletion of the ozone layer.
``However,'' she said, ``we must acknowledge the presence of an urgent, unfinished agenda: humans continue to plunder the global environment, unsustainable practices remain deeply embedded in the fabric of our daily lives, and despite some honorable exceptions, our responses to the challenges of sustainability have been too few, too little and too late.''
The environment conference of the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development is meeting at U.N. headquarters to prepare for the 10th anniversary of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, where world leaders adopted a broad agenda to protect forests, clean up water, reverse atmospheric pollution, alleviate poverty and address other problems.
The environment group Greenpeace pointed out that the conference was occurring at U.N. headquarters at the same time as a monthlong review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
``In one room, the rich few will argue that they have no money to spare for sustainable development, in the other they will struggle to maintain and further develop their multibillion dollar nuclear arsenal,'' said Remi Parmentier, head of Greenpeace's international political unit.
``If only a portion of what is spent by the nuclear weapons states to maintain and further develop their nuclear weapons was re-routed towards the protection of the environment, sustainable development could become a reality,'' he said.
----
"Helms Vows To Obstruct Arms Pacts," W Post, 04/27/00
By Helen Dewar and John Lancaster, Washington Post Staff Writers
In a defiant warning just six weeks before President Clinton leaves for a summit in Moscow, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) vowed yesterday to block approval of any arms agreement that Clinton might negotiate with Russia during his final months in office.
"This administration's time for grand treaty initiatives is at an end," Helms said in a speech on the Senate floor, adding that he wanted no part of a "final photo op" to help burnish Clinton's legacy in the international arena.
Although Helms has long harbored deep reservations about arms control agreements, his speech went beyond previous statements from Senate GOP leaders opposing deals that could limit U.S. options for a national missile defense. Helms explicitly ruled out any kind of new arms accord Clinton might negotiate.
His comments underscored the vehemence of Republican conservatives' opposition to new arms limitations, gave Clinton a shaky send-off for Moscow and offered a preview of the political furor that Clinton would find back home if he cuts any new arms deals when he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin June 4-5.
The upcoming summit will focus on U.S. proposals to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to allow the United States to build a limited system of national missile defense, beginning with 100 interceptor missiles based in Alaska to shoot down a small number of incoming warheads. Helms and other congressional Republicans want to scrap the treaty entirely because they fear the Clinton administration will promise to keep the U.S. missile defense system small and not to deploy interceptors in space or on ships as part of a more ambitious -- and costly -- shield.
Clinton administration officials have indicated that at the summit they may offer the Russians a "grand bargain," in which the United States would agree to deep cuts that Russia is seeking in both sides' nuclear arsenals in return for Russian agreement to amend the ABM Treaty.
In his speech yesterday, Helms was especially adamant on the missile defense issue, vowing to thwart any agreement to alter the ABM Treaty.
"Not on my watch, Mr. President, not on my watch," declared Helms, who has clashed repeatedly with the administration over foreign policy and played a key role in blocking approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty last year. "Let's be clear to avoid any misunderstandings down the line," he added. "Any modified ABM Treaty negotiated by this administration will be DOA, dead on arrival, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
Helms also made it clear he would use his considerable powers as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over treaties to block other arms pacts as well until a new president is inaugurated in January.
"For the remainder of this year, the Foreign Relations Committee will continue its routine work. We will consider tax treaties, extradition treaties and other already negotiated treaties," he said. "But we will not consider any new, last-minute arms control measures that this administration negotiates in its final, closing months in office."
Moreover, he said, the committee will not consider any such treaties binding on the new administration that will be elected in November. "The Russian government should not be under any illusion whatsoever that any commitments made by this lame-duck administration will be binding on the next administration," he said.
Despite Helms's opposition, the Clinton administration said it would continue to press for new agreements and consult with senators on how to proceed.
"There's nothing new about Senator Helms's view that he doesn't want to see the Senate approve anything that could strengthen the ABM Treaty," said State Department spokesman James P. Rubin. And the department will "consult with the Senate about the best way to proceed," he added. "Senator Helms is not the entire Senate."
Helms's speech came a day after Clinton met with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov in hopes of persuading Russian leaders to agree to changes in the ABM Treaty that would enable the United States to continue observing the landmark Cold War-era agreement while building a limited defense system of radars and interceptors. Russia has so far opposed changes in the ABM pact.
GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush has accused the Clinton administration of dragging its feet on missile defense and said he would build the system over Russian objections.
In his speech, Helms accused Clinton of seeking "a signing ceremony, a final photo op . . . shaking hands with the Russian president" in order to strengthen his legacy as president -- and made it clear he wants no part of it.
"If the price of that final curtain call is a resurrection of the U.S.-Soviet ABM Treaty that would prevent the United States from protecting itself against missile attack, then that price is far too high," he said. "With all due respect, I do not intend to allow this president to establish his 'legacy' by binding the next generation of Americans to a future without a viable national missile defense."
Jon Wolfsthal, an arms control specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Helms's comments highlighted the wide chasms that now exist on the issue: "Any deal that the Clinton administration might be able to negotiate with Russia would be unacceptable to this Senate, and any deal that the Senate would like would be rejected by the Russians."
----
"Helms Blasts Clinton on ABM Treaty"
Los Angeles Times, April 27, 2000
By TYLER MARSHALL, Times Staff Writer
Politics: A deal with Russia on arms control is 'for the next president . . . to make, not this one,' he says.
WASHINGTON--Less than 24 hours after President Clinton personally launched a campaign to forge new arms control agreements with Russia, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) vowed Wednesday to block the effort.
In a speech deeply sarcastic in tone and reflecting the contempt with which many conservative Republicans view Clinton in the post-impeachment era, Helms left no doubt that he would make it a priority to kill any potential compromise the administration might work out with Moscow to amend the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. The White House wants changes to allow deployment of a limited national missile-defense system.
"Any modified ABM treaty negotiated by this administration will be DOA--dead on arrival--at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee," Helms said. "Any decision on missile defense will be for the next president of the United States to make, not this one."
Like many other congressional Republicans, Helms has accused Clinton of timidity in his approach to missile defense and has urged a far more robust defense system against missiles launched toward the U.S. He sees the ABM treaty as obsolete and efforts to preserve it largely a waste of time.
Helms implied that Clinton has his eye more on how history will judge him than on the nation's best interests. "So, Mr. Clinton is in search of a legacy. La-de-da--he already has one."
While Helms' opposition to the president's arms control effort was known, the sheer vehemence of his attack Wednesday from the Senate floor would appear to further diminish the already dim prospects of any Clinton-era agreement between the United States and Russia winning congressional approval.
"The Russian government should not be under any illusion whatsoever that any commitments made by this lame-duck administration will be binding on the next administration," Helms said.
He said that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, would give the Russians a chance to renegotiate the ABM treaty "to permit the defenses that America needs," but that Bush would be prepared to go ahead with deployment even if the Russians refused.
Russia strongly opposes the deployment of any national anti-missile system by the United States and any ABM treaty changes, but U.S. arms control specialists believe that Moscow might be willing to accept minor amendments if it can win concessions from Washington for major mutual reductions in existing nuclear arsenals.
As Helms spoke, Russian Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov was across town discussing these very issues with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Later, he delivered a speech at the National Press Club that sketched out Moscow's view of a possible path toward a U.S.-Russian agreement. Ivanov stressed Russia's eagerness to conclude a new arms reduction treaty, known as START III, which would reduce the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia to a maximum of 1,500 warheads each, 1,000 fewer than the current American proposal. He also proposed U.S.-Russian cooperation in developing short-range missile defenses and in assessing the global missile threat.
But Ivanov warned that U.S. deployment of a national missile defense shield "would inevitably undermine the whole architecture in the area of disarmament, which our countries have been building together with the world community for the last 30 years."
"There is still some time left to avoid this fatal mistake," he said.
While White House and State Department officials insisted that they will press forward with the negotiations, the Helms speech--as much in tone as in content--underscored just how little political capital Clinton has concerning foreign policy issues with Congress as he moves into his final months in office.
Although it is usual for a president's power to diminish as the end of his time in office nears, the lingering bitterness from the impeachment battle has further reduced Clinton's ability to lobby the Republican-controlled Congress, especially about security issues such as arms control. Last fall, Senate Republicans joined forces to defeat Clinton administration efforts to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in a vote that stunned America's allies and adversaries alike because it seemed motivated more by a desire to punish Clinton than to reject a flawed treaty.
In the wake of Helms' attack, some arms control specialists worried about a similar confrontation over the ABM Treaty. "There is a real need for better cooperation and leadership from the [political] middle in the Senate," said Daryl Kimball, director of the Washington-based Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers. "Otherwise, we'll see Helms and Clinton collide at the end of the year just as they did on CTBT, only with greater consequences because the entire framework of arms control could collapse.
"People need to understand the ramifications of this kind of approach."
----
"Russia, US Launch Security Talks"
April 27, 2000
By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Following a day of security negotiations with the Clinton administration, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov says there is enormous potential for U.S.-Russian cooperation, but much depends on U.S. decisions on nuclear disarmament and anti-missile defenses.
Ivanov said his meetings had been ``very constructive,'' but he objected to a limited missile defense system that Clinton is contemplating and a far-reaching national defense backed by probable GOP presidential nominee George W. Bush and other conservative Republicans.
``This is an issue of tremendous importance and the answer will show whether the world is going to move forward toward a just and democratic world order or will go back to the time of Cold War and an uncontrolled arms race,'' Ivanov said Wednesday night at a dinner for the U.S.-Russia Business Council.
The Clinton administration says America needs the system to defend against a missile threat from such countries as North Korea and Iran.
``If there are any threats and if those threats are realistic, then let us work together,'' Ivanov said.
The foreign minister's three-day visit is designed to prepare for a smooth summit meeting in Moscow June 4-5 between President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Ivanov said negotiations on new security arrangements started Wednesday at his lengthy meeting with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, which military experts attended, and continued later at the Pentagon.
Among the Russian goals are limiting the long-range nuclear warheads in U.S. and Russian arsenals to 1,500, he said.
Last week, U.S. and Russian negotiators opened talks in Geneva, Switzerland, on a treaty that would impose ceilings of 2,000 to 2,500.
Ivanov also met with Bush, who favors rewriting the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty so the United States can develop a national anti-missile system. Russia opposes such a move, fearing such a system could undercut its nuclear defenses.
At the Pentagon, Albright and Ivanov attended a closed door briefing in the National Military Command Center, the military's global command center.
The main topic was the U.S. plan for a national missile defense and U.S. views on how the ABM Treaty should be modified to permit such defenses, officials said.
``We believe that it is important and it is our task to, in maximum detail, present our arguments and our concerns to the partners, listen to their position and then elaborate on a joint decision,'' Ivanov said in Russian.
``It would be too premature to speak of the concrete outcome of those negotiations yet,'' he said. ``But I would like to tell you that we are holding a sincere, constructive dialogue on the whole variety of issues.''
* [NOTE: see http://www.clw.org/coalition/helms042600.htm for text of Helms' April 26 statement]
----
"Albright Challenges Helms on Russia"
April 27, 2000
By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Challenging the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Thursday the Clinton administration intends to pursue new arms control accords with Russia in the time it has left.
Albright, at a joint news conference with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, said the American people supported the dual quest for further cutbacks in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals and a way to mount a defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., who has great but not insurmountable power to sidetrack treaties or even kill them, vowed Wednesday to block any new Clinton administration arms control pacts.
He included any agreement with Russia that might clear the way for a limited defense against missile attack from such countries as Iran and North Korea.
``The Russian government should not be under any illusion whatsoever that any commitments made by this lame-duck administration will be binding on the next administration,'' the North Carolina Republican told the Senate.
President Clinton is likely to ask Russian President Vladimir Putin at their summit meeting in Moscow June 4-5 to agree to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to permit a U.S. project involving 100 anti-missile launchers and an improved radar system.
Senate approval would be required to change the treaty.
But such an initiative, Helms said, would be ``DOA -- dead on arrival'' at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The likely Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, and many other conservative Republicans would go far beyond the administration's tentative plans and attempt to construct a nationwide defense against missiles.
Russia takes the position both approaches violate the 1972 treaty. Ivanov proposed during a three-day visit here the two sides cooperate on theater missile defenses allowed under the accord. In 1997 Russia approved all U.S. requests for a green light for missile tests as part of such a defense system.
But Albright said Thursday the United States was faced now with a new potential threat, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and had to deal with it.
``I don't think we can have a pause for the rest of the year,'' Albright said. ``I don't agree with what Sen. Helms said yesterday.''
At the same time, she made it clear differences with Russia had not been resolved during Ivanov's visit.
``We don't agree on all issues. This is only to be expected,'' Albright said. ``We cannot both be right all the time.''
Ivanov, registering his government's position on missile defenses, insisted the 1972 treaty ``be made a cornerstone of stability.''
He said Russia had proposed an ``adequate response'' to any threat of missile attack and that his government was prepared for further discussions on the subject.
``We are focused on finding solutions to the problems we are faced with,'' Ivanov said.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary William Cohen, at a joint news conference with Colombia's minister of national defense, Luis Fernando Ramirez, said he was confident Russia would come to understand a limited U.S. anti-missile system was not threatening to them.
``We are satisfied that, as they understand the intent and the capability of the system, they will see that it does not pose a threat to their strategic systems,'' Cohen said.
Asked about Helms' statement on blocking any kind of arms agreement during the remainder of Clinton's term, Cohen said:
``This is not something that is a last-minute item on the agenda for President Clinton and any form of legacy that he might seek to achieve. He has been dedicated to reducing the level of strategic armaments and has worked diligently in that effort.''
---
"Dangerous Summit"
The New York Times,
April 27, 2000
ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON -- In six weeks, the cock-of-the-walk president of Russia and the lame-duck president of the U.S. will hold what Churchill called "a parley at the summit" in Moscow.
The central subject: Russia's need to cut the cost of maintaining thousands of missiles aimed at the U.S., and America's need for limited defense against rogue-nation missiles.
The threat to American cities is no longer from the huge Soviet missile arsenal, as it was when the Antiballistic Missile Treaty was signed three decades ago. That's when the superpowers agreed to stay vulnerable, each largely defenseless against the other's nuclear weaponry.
Today the growing threat comes from rogue states and terrorists. Defense Secretary William Cohen made the case yesterday: Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb, buy a missile from North Korea and invade his neighbors on the presumption he could act with impunity -- because he could credibly threaten to kill millions of Americans if we dared to intervene.
Recognizing this potential blackmail threat, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a proposal to develop a defense against a few missiles. This is not the space-based shield derogated as "Star Wars" to block an all-out Russian attack, but a necessary precaution against a terrorist's nuclear blackmail or any accidental launches.
Clinton has promised to decide this summer (after his meeting with Vladimir Putin) whether to move beyond development to deploy a national missile defense. His announced criteria: Will it work? Will it upset the world? Is it worth the money?
Will it work? It's not easy to shoot down a missile with another missile; one test succeeded, another flopped. But many who insist it will never work were doubtful our technology could ever put a man on the moon.
World opinion? The Russians, the Chinese, the U.N.'s Kofi Annan, joined by Britain's Tony Blair, have all come out against the U.S. achieving safety against terrorist nukes.
Worth the money? The Congressional Budget Office just put out an estimate that this plan, adding in all conceivable bells and whistles, might cost $60 billion over the next 15 years. Sounds expensive, but that annual $4 billion is less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the federal budget -- not a bad insurance premium to pay for protecting a city's population.
Putin's gambit at the summit will be to offer Clinton this package: Russia will finally go along with Start II, reducing the Russian and U.S. stockpiles of missiles, provided (1) the U.S. agrees to slash its stockpile in half again in Start III, and (2) Clinton adheres to the ABM treaty and allows U.S. cities to remain vulnerable to attack from rogue states and China.
Pretty shrewd opening, because Russia cannot afford to keep even its reduced missile force operational, and wants the U.S. to weaken itself beyond prudence in Start III. By making a big deal out of not touching the ABM treaty, Putin cleverly puts his counterpart with the stronger hand at a disadvantage: the legacy-hunting Clinton will be tempted to cave on one or the other -- ABM or Start III -- to make a deal that he can say is historic.
Putin knows that a limited missile defense poses no threat to Russia's deterrent. But what he has done is to create a valuable bargaining chip out of nothing.
Clinton is being snookered by it. His new security spokesman, Mike Hammer (to gun-toting La Femme Nikita at Justice, now add Mickey Spillane's hero at the White House), told yesterday of "our efforts to preserve the ABM treaty" by amending it.
The Clinton response to Putin's gambit is likely to be a plea for a minor modification in the ABM treaty that would lock us into a puny, not just a limited, defense. When Putin oh-so-reluctantly accedes to this, all those resentful of U.S. power will applaud his statesmanship. Clinton would then match the Russian's concocted "concession" by slashing our missile force in Start III, which is Putin's other goal.
A better deal is no deal at all. Go to Moscow; work the fence; sign environmental stuff, and kick the can of worms that is serious national missile defense down the street to the next president, who will have a fresh mandate to ensure American safety.
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505 Washington, DC 20002 (ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970 website http://www.crnd.org
----
These press releases are available (together with many others not of direct NPT relevance) on the website below. http://www.un.org/News/Press/7days.html
27 April 2000
Press Release DC/2701
AFRICAN SPEAKERS IN CONCERTED ASSAULT AGAINST FAILURE OF NUCLEAR POWERS TO HONOUR 1995 COMMITMENTS
Ghana Calls for "New, Rather Than Renewed" Disarmament Agenda
Nuclear weapons continued to be developed quantitatively and perfected qualitatively, the representative of Namibia told the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as it continued its general debate this afternoon.
One wonders whether what has taken place was real reduction or just the replacement of obsolete weapons with newer, more accurate weaponsÓ, he said. The international community was now confronted with claims that nuclear weapons were needed indefinitely for national security or deterrence. No doubt such claims encouraged other States to acquire nuclear weapons for the same reason, as every country had security interests to protect.
Reiterating that point, the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said those who possessed nuclear weapons could not deter other countries from joining the clubÓ, using the same arguments of deterrence. Also of concern was the resistance by other nuclear-weapon States to renounce the no-first-use option. Only China had unequivocally done so. There was an urgent need for the rest to commit themselves to a no-first-use posture as well. That should be coupled with de-alerting nuclear arsenals in all their forms.
The representative of Zambia said undue restrictions still persisted on exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology to developing countries for peaceful purposes. That was a violation of the commitments made at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference. Concerns over perceived proliferation should not be used to justify any form of restriction on exports to non-nuclear-weapon States. Such concerns should be addressed through appropriate multilateral forums. All non-proliferation control arrangements should be transparent, and open to participation by all States.
He also drew attention to the recent attempts by some members of the NPT regime to use the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Cooperation Programme as a tool for political purposes, in clear violation of the Agency's statutes.
Conference of Parties to NPT - 1a - Press Release DC/2701 8th Meeting (PM) 27 April 2000
The representative of Ghana asked how long the nuclear-weapon States could expect non-nuclear-weapon States to show commitment to the NPT and other disarmament treaties when they themselves evinced attitudes to the contrary. His delegation believed that the pursuit of a new, rather than renewed disarmament agenda would provide hope. Ghana therefore supported the New Agenda coalition sponsored by a number of middle-level countries.
Also speaking this afternoon were the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan, Deputy Foreign Minister of Bulgaria and representatives of Swaziland, Lebanon and Bolivia. The Deputy-Secretary of the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC) also made a statement.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Conference also approved the nominations of Vadim Reznikov (Belarus) as Vice-Chairman for Main Committee I and Pedro Villagra-Delgado (Argentina) as Vice-Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
The general debate will resume at 10 a.m. Monday, 1 May.
---
Conference of Parties to NPT - 3 - Press Release DC/2701 8th Meeting (PM) 27 April 2000
Conference Work Programme
The 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference met this afternoon 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.)
Statements
JOEL M. NHLEKO (Swaziland) said universal adherence to the NPT was essential. He urged those States that still remained outside of the Treaty to consider joining the overwhelming majority of the international community and acceding to the instrument without delay. The early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was also a high priority for the international community. Its strength lay in its ability to create a moral and political norm against the testing of nuclear arsenals. It further promoted compliance with the verification regime, as well. The resumption of negotiations on a legally binding instrument banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons was another positive development that was yet to be realized.
He said that the enhanced role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) lay at the core of a strengthened NPT regime. The adoption in May 1997 of Model Protocol Additional to Safeguards Agreements was a positive development, and ushered in a new era in the history of NPT verification. The Protocol gave the Agency the means to provide credible assurances of compliance with non-proliferation commitments, including assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and related activities. Further, the Protocol would have a positive impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the AgencyÕs safeguards regime, resulting in a strengthened NPT.
SELIM TADMOURY (Lebanon) said that the NPT was the basis of the international non-proliferation and disarmament system, and its achievements should not be underestimated. However, four States had failed to accede to it in conflict-prone regions of the world. Ratification by Russia of the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II), the conclusion of the CTBT, and the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on nuclear threats, were among positive developments since the 1995 Review Conference.
Under the Treaty, peaceful uses of nuclear energy should be promoted, especially in the developing countries. States parties to the Treaty should increasingly turn to the IAEA, or establish supplementary organs, which should contribute to the use of nuclear energy for the purposes of development, human health and energy.
Turning to the resolution on the Middle East which was part of the package of 1995 decisions, he said that Israel should comply with its provisions. It was disquieting that Israel still failed to adhere to the NPT and to place its facilities under the IAEA safeguards regime. Its compliance would also contribute to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Excluding one State in the Middle East from the provisions of the resolution would result in a tension-fraught climate. No efforts should be spared to achieve compliance with the resolution.
An objective evaluation of progress in the context of the Conference, he said, demanded new policies that would put an end to the feeling of frustration and break the stalemate in nuclear disarmament. He also supported convening an international conference to evaluate means of achieving total disarmament.
ALISHER VOHIDOV (Uzbekistan) said the process of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament was one way to ensure human survival, and was also the major argument in support of cooperation. He drew attention to the potential role of nuclear terrorism and provocation in local conflicts. His countryÕs foreign policy was based on the principle of non-nuclear development. We are convinced that Central Asia can become the fifth region in the world to be free from nuclear weaponsÓ, he said. Uzbekistan was asking the Conference for support in achieving that aim. The draft of the Central Asian treaty should receive its approval in the final document of the ongoing Review Conference, he said.
The world situation forced the international community to recognize the need to undertake serious measures to strengthen the global system of strategic stability and the whole nuclear disarmament process. New tendencies had an adverse effect on the durability of the non-proliferation regime. It was obvious that nuclear weapons would long remain one of the major elements of global policy. Establishing and strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime was therefore the only way to establish a world order that prohibited nuclear testing. Uzbekistan hoped that this 2000 NPT Review Conference would become a significant milestone in the continuation of international efforts to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons.
VASSILY TAKEV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, supported the position of the European Union and said that there was no doubt that the implementation of the NPT had created the necessary conditions for putting an end to the dangerous nuclear arms race. It was satisfying that the number of States parties to the Treaty had increased, thus indicating the growing recognition of the TreatyÕs key importance and universality. The development of the situation since the 1995 Review Conference indicated the need to establish an effective control system over the whole spectrum of activities related to nuclear weapons, their delivery systems and components and materials for their production.
An early entry into force of the CTBT should be pursued through its ratification by the 44 States required for the Treaty to come into being. Bulgaria had ratified the Treaty on 11 September 1999. His country recognized the decisive role of the CTBT in the improvement of the present nuclear non- proliferation regime and in promoting nuclear disarmament.
Fostering international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy constituted one of the prime objectives of the Treaty, he continued. As a country operating nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, Bulgaria closely cooperated with the Agency and the European Union on nuclear safety and non- proliferation issues. The Additional Protocol with the IAEA would be considered by the Bulgarian Government in May. On the issue of export control measures, he said that as a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Zangger Committee, Bulgaria strictly implemented the relevant guidelines in its export control policy with regard to dual-use goods and technologies.
MARTIN ANDJABA (Namibia) said implementation of article VI of the NPT had not yielded the desired results since the TreatyÕs entry into force. Although nuclear arsenals had declined substantially from cold war peaks, they still remained at levels far in excess of any reasonable military requirement. Nuclear weapons continued to be developed quantitatively and perfected qualitatively. One wonders whether what has taken place was real reduction or just the replacement of obsolete weapons with newer, more accurate weaponsÓ, he said.
The recent failure of the United States to ratify the CTBT was yet another setback for nuclear disarmament. His delegation also felt that the nuclear- weapon States had failed to pursue with any determination the systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons they agreed on at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference. There had also been no serious efforts to encourage the four States still outside of the NPT to become part of the Treaty.
We are now confronted with claims that nuclear weapons are needed indefinitely for national security or deterrenceÓ, he said. No doubt such claims encouraged other States to acquire nuclear weapons for the same reason, as any country had security interests to protect. Concrete steps had to be taken to ensure the realization of the goals of the NPT, including: accelerating negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament; ensuring universal adherence to the Treaty; ratifying the CTBT; prioritizing the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East; banning the production of fissile materials; adherence by States parties to all obligations under the terms of the ABM Treaty; and establishing a nuclear weapons register to promote transparency.
MATHIAS DAKA (Zambia) expressed grave concern that the package of 1995 decisions had not been fulfilled by the nuclear-weapon States. That was very regrettable and represented a betrayal of confidence, to say the least. He would like the Conference to address the reluctance by the nuclear-weapon States to undertake their commitment to fully implementing the package endorsed at the 1995 Review Conference.
Continuing, he said that his delegation appreciated the difficulties encountered in the entire preparatory process of the Conference. He therefore hoped that the Conference would set an agenda for non-proliferation in the new millennium. In that regard, Zambia noted with satisfaction that at the Third Preparatory Session there had been a discussion of the proposals regarding the provisions of article VI of the Treaty and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 1995 principles and objectives regarding nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. He appealed to the Conference to establish a subsidiary body to deliberate on practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Another subsidiary body should make recommendations for proposals on the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East.
Zambia was concerned that undue restrictions still persisted on exports of materials, equipment and technology to developing countries for peaceful purposes. That was a violation of the commitments made at the 1995 Conference. It was necessary to ensure that concerns expressed over perceived proliferation should not be used to justify any form of restriction on exports to non-nuclear- weapon States. Such concerns should be addressed through appropriate multilateral forums. To be more effective, all non-proliferation control arrangements should be transparent, and open to participation by all States. In recent years, his Government had observed with deep concern the attempts by some members of the NPT regime to use the IAEA Technical Cooperation Programme as a tool for political purposes, in clear violation of the AgencyÕs statutes.
DAUDI N. MWAKAWAGO (United Republic of Tanzania) said he wanted to add his delegationÕs voice to those who had spoken against the possible deployment by the United States of a national missile defence system. Such a deployment would be a gross violation of the 1972 ABM Treaty, which was still the cornerstone of strategic arms reduction between the United States and the Russian Federation. Any violation of that Treaty could have a negative impact on the principle of strategic stability, and could roll back nuclear disarmament achievements. It could also trigger a new round in the nuclear arms race. The persistent determination of the nuclear-weapon States to safeguard their security through nuclear deterrence had also given them a ready excuse for continuing the development of new weapons and the modernization of their nuclear arsenals.
Yet, he continued, those nuclear-weapon States argued emphatically that the chances of nuclear war breaking out were slim. No one could vouch for that. Ultimately, the use or non-use of nuclear weapons was a political decision made by a national government. Good intentions alone could not be the basic precept of international security. There was little comfort to be derived from such assurances. Even if the threat of a deliberate nuclear holocaust seemed unlikely, there was a persistent danger of war breaking out, either by accident or by wrong assessment, as long as nuclear weapons continued to exist. However minimal the level of nuclear deterrence might be, the threat it posed to life and the environment made it totally unacceptable.
On a higher plane, he said, those who possessed such weapons could not deter other countries from joining the clubÓ, using the same arguments of deterrence. That was frightening. Also of great concern was the resistance by other nuclear-weapon States to renouncing the no-first-use option. Only China had unequivocally done so. The rest had persistently resisted calls to abandon that dangerous posture. There was an urgent need for them to commit themselves to a no-first-use posture as well. That should be coupled with de-alerting nuclear arsenals in all their forms, he stressed.
ALBERTO SALAMANCA (Bolivia) endorsed the statements by Peru on behalf of the Andean Community and by Mexico on behalf of the New Agenda Group. He said that the tensions created by the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan, the slowness of the arms limitation negotiations, the threat posed to the stability of the ABM Treaty, and the lack of clear political leadership on the part of the nuclear-weapon States represented present-day realities, which demanded deep reflection.
He said that his country had learned with encouragement of the ratification by the Russian Duma of the CTBT and the approval of START II. On the other hand, he had been surprised by the Russian declaration stressing the importance of maintaining the countryÕs military potential. He hoped that the positive movement towards peace might receive an added impulse from the active participation of the four countries that now stood in the way of achieving universality of the Treaty.
The success of the Sixth Review Conference would not rest exclusively on any consensus that might emerge regarding the texts to be agreed upon, but mainly on the way those agreements contributed to bolstering the weak structures of nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and nuclear control measures. Much would depend on their ability to obtain a greater political will for development -- the proper instrument for peace.
YAW OSEI (Ghana) asked how long the nuclear-weapon States could expect non-nuclear-weapon States to show commitment to the NPT and other disarmament treaties when they, themselves, evinced attitudes to the contrary. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, had stated that the established multilateral disarmament machinery had started to rust because of the lack of political will to utilize it. Such a perception hardly lifted the gloom and pessimism that overshadowed the Conference, and should be a cause for concern. His delegation believed that the pursuit of a new rather than a renewed disarmament agenda provided hope. Ghana, therefore, supported the New Agenda coalition sponsored by a number of middle-level countries.
He said developing countries had honoured their commitments to the NPT, and now had the right to have access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes without discrimination, as stated in article IV of the Treaty. In addition, the IAEAÕs technical cooperation work needed to be fully complemented by the provision of adequate budgetary resources. Flexibility on the part of the key nuclear actors would have a salutary impact on the outcome of the Conference, and also boost other aspects of the disarmament process.
He said, we have choices to make; either we have as our focus the wider goal of promoting mankindÕs survival, or we remain fixed in our narrow, parochial and short-sighted vision of national goals, and are doomed.Ó
CARLOS FEU ALVIM, Deputy-Secretary of the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC), said that in 1991 in Guadalajara, Mexico, the Governments of Brazil and Argentina had signed an agreement on the exclusively peaceful use of nuclear energy in order to dispel certain regional tensions. The Guadalajara Agreement was meant to ensure conditions for the application of full-scope international safeguards in the two countries. At the same time Brazil, Argentina and Chile had proposed modifications to the Tlatelolco Treaty in order to put that instrument into force in those three countries.
At the time, the Guadalajara Agreement was viewed as a substitute to the NPT, he continued, as the countries assumed commitments under that Treaty without subscribing to certain items in the document, which they considered discriminatory. In fact, the set of signed Guadalajara agreements could even be considered more stringent then the NPT. Consequently, both countries adhered to the NPT. There were no alterations in the application of safeguards after the Treaty came into effect for Brazil and Argentina.
Regional nuclear safeguards organizations had the advantages of physical proximity to the system, with better knowledge of the situation in the countries in question, he said. They also represented the political will of those countries, committed to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Regional safeguards also made sense from the technical and economic standpoints, when integrated with international safeguards applied by the IAEA. That meant that the integration of safeguards was of utmost importance. It was achieved through Euratom/IAEA and ABACC/IAEA cooperative actions.
Technical cooperation between Brazil and Argentina was a definitive way of establishing trust between the two countries, he said. During the almost eight years of safeguards application in Brazil and Argentina, the ABACC had carried out 944 inspections that involved 4,560 inspector days in the field. The ABACC had also forwarded 3,200 accounting reports and 30 inspection reports to the IAEA. Seven hundred and seventy inspection reports had been sent to both countries.
SLOW PROGRESS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT FRONT, SHARP RISE IN NUCLEAR PROFLIFERATION PINPOINTED IN CONTINUING NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE DEBATE
Speakers Invoke International Court 1996 Opinion On Nuclear Arms; Holy See Says World Needs ÔAuthentic Culture of PeaceÕ
Unless nuclear-weapon States made a commitment to engage in immediate negotiations for nuclear disarmament, and to conduct their nuclear disarmament policies in a way consistent with the unanimous decision of the International Court of Justice in 1996, the credibility and viability of the Treaty would be endangered, the representative of Thailand told morningÕs session of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
[In its 1996 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice stated that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international controlÓ.]
In the last five years there had been insufficient progress in nuclear disarmament and a specific increase in nuclear proliferation, Thailand's representative remarked. That was contrary to the core objective of the NPT. The conclusion of an internationally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear- weapon States parties to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a good starting point. That could be followed by other practical steps, which could be unilaterally undertaken by the nuclear-weapon States without hampering the core of their international security arrangements.
Viet Nam's representative expressed concern that nuclear-weapon States had recently been given growing importance to nuclear weaponry in the definition of their military doctrines, in spite of the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice in its 1996 Advisory Opinion.
He said that the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), its actions in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the prospective deployment of national missile defence systems that encroached upon the integrity of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty), were particularly contentious issues which could have damaging global repercussions on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
Conference of Parties to NPT - 1a - Press Release DC/2700 7th Meeting (AM) 27 April 2000
Sri Lanka's representative said that in article VI of the Treaty, what was being sought was a fundamental balance between the obligations undertaken by the vast majority of States parties to never acquire nuclear weapons, and the continued and indefinite retention of nuclear weapons by the nuclear Powers who were parties to the Treaty. What was immediately noticeable, however, was that the article did not contain a prohibition of nuclear weapons or their use.
What the Treaty did was impose to place upon nuclear weapon States a lesser obligation -Ð to divest themselves of nuclear weapons -Ð whereas other States were obliged to "never ever" acquire such weapons. Of that unique balanceÓ, the International Court of Justice had unanimously stressed the full importance of the recognition by article VI of an obligation to negotiate in good faith a nuclear disarmamentÓ. That twofold obligation to pursue and to conclude negotiations formally concerned 182 States parties to the Treaty, in other words the vast majority of the international community.
Nigeria's representative said management questions had too often been at the core of the problems of the NPT review processes. During the long intervening periods between review conferences, States parties did not have Treaty-based mechanisms to turn to for their frustrations, concerns, complaints or difficulties. In the past such frustrations had been allowed to reach boiling point and then heaped on the review conferences. The result was inconclusive meetings in certain cases. In that light, NigeriaÕs proposal for establishment of an NPT management board should be seriously considered at this Conference.
Also speaking this morning were the Minister and Director for Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs of the Austrian Foreign Ministry, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Hungary, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Belarus, and the representatives of the Holy See, Tunisia, Morocco and Tonga.
The general debate will continue at 3 p.m. today.
---
Conference of Parties to NPT - 3 - Press Release
DC/2700 7th Meeting (AM) 27 April 2000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign - nonukes@foesyd.org.au Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 22:00:29 +1000
Conference Work Programme
The 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference met this morning 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.)
Statements
WERNFRIED KŠFFLER, Minister, Director for Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs, Foreign Ministry of Austria, said the task in the weeks ahead was to reaffirm commitment to the NPT. Deploring the fact that four countries were still outside the scope of the Treaty, he called on those States to adhere to the instrument and make it truly universal. The challenge of banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear devices had not yet been met. During the Austrian Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament early this year, all efforts were made to translate existing consensus into concrete negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Expressing disappointment at not having succeeded, he said common efforts would continue to achieve that aim.
It was imperative, he said, that the Principles and Objectives of the 1995 Review Conference remained intact. Not only was there a need to build on the results of that meeting, but also to devise mechanisms for translating aims into concrete actions and tangible results. Austria favoured the idea of a plan or programme of action to achieve a more systematic review of implementation. Such a plan would contain both issues that had not been realized in the past and new measures and initiatives. Substance and procedure needed to be considered in a delicate balance.
He said the elements of a programme of action should include: early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); negotiations on a fissile material cut-off agreement; reduction and destruction of strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals in a continuous and transparent manner; universal implementation of additional protocols of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on full-scope safeguards; negative security assurances for non-nuclear- weapon States that were party to the NPT; promotion of existing as well as new nuclear-weapon-free zones; and a code of conduct or guidelines for missiles capable of carrying nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. In addition, transparency and information-sharing needed careful consideration as public consciousness and global citizenry were giving increasing attention to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
JEAN-LOUIS TAURAN, observer for the Holy See, said that the Treaty had been one of the most significant efforts in disarmament, because it involved prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons, and cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Review Conference was a providential opportunity to take stock of how the objectives defined in 1968 had been met. However, the work of the Preparatory Committees had unfortunately shown how uncertain the situation really was.
The application of article VI of the Treaty regarding effective measures for disarmament, efforts in favour of negative securityÓ, the setting up of zones free from nuclear weapons and the strengthening of safety measures was progressing very slowly, he continued. Many still believed in the use of force and counted on nuclear weapons. The rule of law, confidence in others and the will for dialogue were not yet priorities. What was basically lacking was an authentic culture of peace, founded on the primacy of law and respect for human life. In that regard, one might recall that the International Court of Justice had declared the threat or use of nuclear weapons contrary to international humanitarian law.
If the nations really wanted peace, they were bound to acknowledge the facts, he said. There could be no peace in a world which continued to produce more and more sophisticated arms and prepared itself for their use, where peace was maintained only by a balance of terror. The time had come to discard the inherited mindsets of the cold war and to resolve the problems of mutual security. Only universal, progressive and controlled disarmament would guarantee a climate of confidence, collaboration and respect among all countries. In that regard, the Holy See was committed to heralding the hopes of the people of our times, particularly of believers engaged in building a world where it would be good to live side by side in the sight of God.
EDUARD KUKAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said his country was one that used nuclear energy, in line with its international commitments, solely for peaceful purposes. The exclusively peaceful use of such energy was the first and foremost principle of SlovakiaÕs Act on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, which entered into force in April 1998. The IAEA safeguards system could be greatly strengthened by the application of safeguards on the basis of universality. Fifty-two States still needed to enter the comprehensive safeguards agreements under article III of the NPT. Following the conclusion of the Additional Protocols, his delegation felt that the texts of those instruments should correspond as closely as possible to the wording of the Model Protocol approved by the IAEA Board of Governors. Slovakia also sought the early entry into force of the CTBT.
He said his country considered the NPT to be the only global mechanism for dealing with issues vital to humanity. The number of parties to the Treaty confirmed its paramount significance to the international community. The momentum created at the 1995 Review Conference had therefore to be preserved. The success of the present conference was thus another challenge for all of us to minimize the risk of nuclear conflict, and to contribute to the development of cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy for the benefit of mankindÓ.
SERGEY MARTYNOV, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belarus, said that the international community could not ignore the present challenges before the non-proliferation regime. There were serious concerns in connection with the nuclear tests in South Asia, refusal of several States to ratify the CTBT, and non-adherence to the NPT by four countries. Belarus was convinced that despite its faults, the NPT remained the cornerstone of the safety of the world. Any challenges to the non-proliferation regime presented a threat to international security.
On April 25, he said, ratification of the CTBT had been completed in both chambers of the Belarus Parliament. His country believed that it was necessary to achieve universality of the NPT and ensure full implementation of the provisions leading to total elimination of nuclear weapons and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It was a well-known fact that Belarus had been the first former Soviet republic to turn its back on nuclear weapons. Belarus was convinced that it was important to have legal underpinnings for those States which wanted to receive guarantees when they decided to renounce nuclear weapons.
Belarus was concerned over the possibility that the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) would be destroyed by plans to deploy certain national anti-missile defence systems. That would undermine the whole security system, which had been constructed over the years. Under the current non-proliferation regime, nuclear-weapon-free zones acquired special importance. Belarus believed it would be useful to establish such a zone in Central and Eastern Europe. It was also important to strengthen the de facto non-nuclear status of Eastern Europe on the basis of existing bilateral and multilateral agreements in the region. He also supported the efforts to make the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free zone.
As for IAEA safeguards, they should be made more universal, he said. As many countries as possible should sign additional protocols with the Agency. For its part, Belarus was ready to start consultations on the Additional Protocol with the IAEA. It was of paramount importance to fully implement article VI on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Belarus, Ukraine and Russia continued to bear the brunt of tragic events of Chernobyl. It was essential for the world to remember that tragedy and to analyse the reasons for the accident.
ASDA JAYANAMA (Thailand) said that in the last five years there had been insufficient progress in nuclear disarmament in general, and a specific increase in nuclear proliferation. Those developments ran contrary to the very core objective of the NPT. Unless nuclear-weapon States made a commitment to engage in negotiations for nuclear disarmament, and to conduct their nuclear disarmament policies in a way consistent with the unanimous decision of the International Court of Justice in 1996, the credibility and viability of the NPT would be endangered. The conclusion of an internationally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a good starting point. That could be followed by other practical steps, which could be unilaterally undertaken by the nuclear- weapon States without hampering the core of their international security concerns.
Those steps, he continued, included: reducing tactical nuclear weapons with a view to their elimination; examining possibilities for de-alerting or deactivating and removal of nuclear warheads from delivery vehicles; demonstrating transparency with regard to nuclear arsenals and fissile material inventories; and placing all fissile material for nuclear weapons in excess of military requirements under IAEA safeguards. Another substantive issue that might affect the outcome of the present Conference was the essential goal of universality for the NPT. Unless and until States with nuclear technology became members of the NPT regime, complete non-proliferation would not be achieved. After the nuclear testing in South Asia in 1998, that goal had become more and more elusive.
He said that Thailand and other States parties to the Bangkok Treaty felt that nuclear-weapon States should make more progress on accession to the instrument. They must show greater flexibility in the negotiations on the Protocol to reach an early agreement. So far, China had reiterated its readiness to be the first nuclear-weapon State to sign it. He hoped that the other three countries would follow suit in order to ensure the relevant and significant contribution of the Treaty in enhancing regional peace and security. Another concern was related to export control technology. Although there was a need to implement the relevant provisions of the NPT to ensure compliance with non-proliferation obligations, nuclear-related export control regimes should be applied in a transparent, realistic and non-discriminatory manner, and should in no way hamper the flow of technical cooperation.
SAID BEN MUSTAPHA (Tunisia) said that the universality of the NPT was the basis for its strength and credibility. Undeniably, progress had been made in developing the non-proliferation regime, and the Conference would allow States to review achievements and identify future actions. The conclusion of the CTBT should be welcomed, and a fissile-material cut-off treaty urgently needed to be completed. However, there was little progress as far as entry into force of the CTBT was concerned. Recent ratification of the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II) by the Russian Federation was a significant breakthrough, which would allow the United States and Russia to proceed with negotiations on a START III Treaty.
To achieve total nuclear disarmament, safety guarantees were needed for non-nuclear-weapon States, he continued, and nuclear-weapon States had particular obligations in that respect. A credible regime for non-proliferation and disarmament must be respected by all countries, including those which had not yet acceded to the Treaty. Tunisia was a signatory of a treaty creating a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Africa. It also supported establishment of a similar zone in the Middle East. It was disturbing that not all countries of the Middle East had joined the NPT or submitted to the IAEA safeguards regime.
NGUYEN THANH CHAU (Viet Nam) said the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), its actions in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the prospective deployment of national missile defence systems that encroached upon the integrity of the ABM Treaty, were particularly contentious issues which could have damaging global repercussions on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
He said his country was also concerned that nuclear-weapon States had recently been given growing importance to nuclear weaponry in the definition of their military doctrines, in spite of the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice in its 1996 Advisory Opinion. The Court stated that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international controlÓ.
At this Conference, he went on, all States parties should reaffirm their unequivocal commitment to the goal of speedy and total elimination of nuclear weapons. While moving towards the total elimination of nuclear armaments, interim steps should be taken to complement and reinforce bilateral reductions that were currently under way. Bilateral and multilateral efforts were all needed, since they could mutually reinforce nuclear disarmament. He said his country was now actively involved in ratifying the CTBT, a significant legal instrument in preventing the nuclear arms race and fostering non-proliferation. The NPT had played a vital role, but its continued success very much depended on the cooperation of Member States and their adherence to the Treaty. Much of the responsibility now lay in the hands of the existing nuclear Powers, he added.
JANOS HERMAN, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Hungary, aligned himself with the position of the European Union, noting that since the successful conclusion of the 1995 Conference, there had been growing concern about the prospects of nuclear non-proliferation. Nuclear tests by India and Pakistan had been a dramatic departure from the norms of conduct established by the non-proliferation regime. Several years after its signature, the CTBT had not yet entered into force because of the failure of some important countries to ratify it. However, he did not think it was appropriate to give an entirely bleak assessment of the current situation. A relentless focus on practical steps and consistent efforts to build consensus at the 2000 Conference would allow States parties not only to preserve, but also to reinforce the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
His delegation reaffirmed its full support for the Security Council resolution, adopted in the wake of the nuclear tests in South Asia, he continued. As one of the 44 countries whose ratification was required for the entry into force of the CTBT, Hungary had already adopted the relevant legislation. Hungary also strongly supported the guidelines adopted at the last session of the Disarmament Commission, which unambiguously stated that creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones could only be achieved on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned. In that respect, positive development in the Middle East peace process would be instrumental in furthering the idea of making that important area a region free from nuclear weapons.
Hungary had steadfastly supported the promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, while also insisting on the need for proper implementation of relevant safeguards, he said. There had been tangible progress in adherence to the Additional Protocol of the IAEA. Hungary was among the countries which had concluded the required agreement with the Agency, and it urged the States that had not yet done so to do the same.
SOLA OGUNBANWO (Nigeria) said while universality was within reach, there were still a number of countries that were yet to join the NPT. The challenge facing the international community was how to engage those States through some sort of consultative mechanism. One such mechanism could be an NPT management board, whose establishment Niger was proposing in order to handle Treaty-related functions. The fact that 182 out of 187 States parties to the NPT were non- nuclear-weapon States demonstrated that security was possible without nuclear weapons. The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones by those same non- nuclear-weapon States in their various regions further reinforced the fact that nuclear weapons did not guarantee security. Rather, they distracted from it. The problem lay with the continued existence of and reliance on nuclear weapons for security.
When the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995, he said, the possession of nuclear weapons by nuclear-weapon States was not extended indefinitely. Regrettably, the 1995 programme of action was still unimplemented. In addition, there had been no new treaty on the reduction of nuclear weapons. There had also been no negotiations on the reduction and destruction of all tactical weapons. The CTBT had not yet entered into force, due to delays in ratifications. The Conference had also not begun any negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. That failure was a source of serious concern. To further complicate disarmament efforts, the world was now witnessing the development of strategic nuclear doctrines that continued to rely on nuclear weapons for security. He also expressed concern about the possible deployment of anti-missile defence systems that could have negative implications for nuclear weapons reduction.
He said that what was needed now was to capitalize on the positive trend of new initiatives and proposals, and use them to advance nuclear disarmament. The time had come for serious dialogue between the nuclear- and non-nuclear- weapon States. The review process must also be upgraded so that it could accomplish more than just adopting decisions and procedures. Management questions had too often been at the core of the problems of the NPT review processes. During the long intervening periods between review conferences, States parties did not have treaty-based mechanisms to turn to for their frustrations, concerns, complaints or difficulties. In the past, such frustrations had been allowed to reach boiling point and then heaped on the review conferences. The result in many cases was inconclusive meetings. In that light, the proposed NPT management board should be seriously considered at this Conference.
AHMED SNOUSSI (Morocco) said that the overall picture of the implementation of the Treaty was somewhat complex. The accessibility of nuclear technology had complicated the situation in recent years, as well as proliferation of the number of suppliers of nuclear energy. Many States were skeptical about the preparedness of nuclear-weapon States to conduct negotiations on nuclear arms reduction in good faith. Moreover, the fears and apprehensions of non-nuclear-weapon States must be taken into consideration. The implementation of the goals of non-proliferation and disarmament could not be achieved without providing an international legally binding instrument, providing assurances for such States.
Continuing, he expressed concern over the situation in the Middle East, where universality of adherence to the NPT had not yet been achieved. Nuclear- weapon States had an obligation in that region. True accession by Israel to the Treaty, and its commitment to the settlement of various aspects of the peace process, were crucial. Flexibility was also needed to implement the Council resolution on the Middle East, and it was important to achieve consensus on that matter.
The role of the IAEA was fundamental in ensuring the implementation of the non-proliferation regime, he said. Despite the modest accomplishments in the Preparatory Committee, it had at least developed essential recommendations on procedural matters. The Conference now had the important goal of dealing with a long list of uncompleted measures and rocky negotiations. Given the complexity of the issues before the Conference, States parties must work to strengthen the Treaty, which still remained the cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Every party should make contributions to this important dialogue.
JOHN DE SARAM (Sri Lanka) said the obligations of the NPT should fall under three categories. The first was the primary obligation of the nuclear- weapon States not to "transfer" nuclear weapons and for non-nuclear-weapon States not to acquire them. The second category was to ensure that non-transfer and non-acquisition of nuclear weapons were scrupulously observed under the supervisory authority of the IAEA. The third category of obligations related to article VI of the Treaty, which lay at the heart of the NPT. What was being sought there was a fundamental balance between the obligations undertaken by the vast majority of States never to acquire nuclear weapons, and the continued and indefinite retention of nuclear weapons by the Powers who were parties to the Treaty.
It was immediately noticeable, however, that article VI did not contain a prohibition of nuclear weapons or their use. What the Treaty did was impose a lesser obligation on nuclear-weapon States -Ð to divest themselves of nuclear weapons -- whereas other States were obliged to "never ever" acquire nuclear weapons. Of that unique balanceÓ, the International Court of Justice had spoken unanimously, stressing the full importance of the recognition by article VI of the Treaty of an obligation to negotiate in good faith a nuclear disarmamentÓ. That twofold obligation to pursue and to conclude negotiations formally concerned States parties to the Treaty -- in other words the vast majority of the international community.
A number of very thoughtful statements had been made in connection with the implementation of the Treaty, he continued, and they should be considered at both formal and informal levels. Particularly discouraging was the fact that the great promise held out to the world in 1995 remained to a very large extent unfulfilled. It was heartening that the present Conference had decided to establish a subsidiary body to consider practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to implement article VI of the Treaty and the 1995 provisions on nuclear disarmament.
Speaking on behalf of the Group of South Pacific Countries, SONATANE TUA TAUMOEPEAU TOPOU (Tonga) said the South Pacific was geographically far removed from contemporary centres of international tension. But all nations enjoyed security benefits because of the NPT, and were therefore interested in its continued success. The commitment of nuclear-weapon States to nuclear disarmament was a central element in the bargainÓ at the heart of the Treaty. Welcoming progress towards nuclear disarmament, South Pacific countries believed there was still much to be done to realize article VI of the Treaty. They encouraged the United States and Russia, as well as other nuclear-weapon States, to display maximum transparency in their actual and potential nuclear arms reductions.
A strong non-proliferation regime was essential for further progress towards nuclear disarmament, he continued. In that respect, the CTBT had a direct and practical benefit for the South Pacific countries. When the NPT had last been reviewed, the issue of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific was a matter of great concern. Since then, France had signed and ratified the CTBT and dismantled its testing sites on Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls. He called on
all nuclear-weapon States to ratify the CTBT without delay. In the meanwhile, the countries of the South Pacific were proceeding with establishment of the International Monitoring System network of stations in the South Pacific region.
South Pacific countries strongly supported the IAEAÕs strengthened safeguards system, and considered it crucial that States parties fully complied with their obligations in that regard, he continued. Nuclear-weapon-free zones were another important element of the global arms control regime, and in 1986, a South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone had been established by the Treaty of Rarotonga.
Shipments of radioactive materials and mixed oxide fuel through the region posed a continuing concern for South Pacific countries, he said. It was necessary to address the contingencies of such shipments and the concerns of relevant countries of the region. Shipments should be made only if cargo was of demonstrably minimal risk, on ships that met the highest standards, and by shipping States that agreed to promote the safety of the materials and provide compensation in case of an accident. South Pacific countries noted the constructive dialogue with nuclear industry representatives from France, Japan and the United Kingdom on the current liability and compensation regime for shipments of radioactive materials.
-----
U.S., Russia Get Immersed in Arms Control Talks
Thursday April 27 1:27 AM ET
By Elaine Monaghan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and Russia on Wednesday immersed themselves in arms control talks but remained divided on President Clinton's plans for a missile defense system that requires changing a Soviet-era pact seen by Moscow as a key to stability.
Washington said an overture by visiting Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov was insufficient, and Ivanov again opposed changing the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, warning that wrecking it would unleash a new Cold War and arms race.
Powerful Sen. Jesse Helms threw another monkey wrench in the administration's works by saying any treaty changes agreed with Russia would be ``dead on arrival'' in Congress while Clinton was in office.
The conservative Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said it should be left to Clinton's successor to decide whether to build a National Missile Defense (NMD) at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.
``This administration's time for grand treaties is clearly at an end,'' he told the Senate, which has the authority to approve all major foreign treaties or changes to them.
Underlining NMD's complexities, U.S. officials said Clinton may not rule on whether to deploy the system until November after previously indicating he would decide by late summer.
They stressed however that this was not a delay on his part, merely a reflection of the time needed for the Pentagon to test the system and review the results.
A third, critical test has slipped from April-May to June, when planners will try to hit a mock warhead with a missile in a procedure compared to hitting a bullet with a bullet.
In a reminder of foreign opposition to the notion of the U.S. defense system, which one arms control group has said replaces ``Mutually Assured Destruction'' with ``You're Destroyed and We're Not,'' France renewed its assault on the project.
The gist of Ivanov's proposal was that Russia was happy to work with the United States to reduce the threat of missiles of a shorter range than the ones which would be shot down in NMD.
In an after-dinner speech at the U.S.-Russia Business Council, he outlined an alternative to NMD which involved limiting access to technology, applying political and diplomatic pressure and joint assessments of the threat from ``rogue'' states which Moscow says Washington is overplaying.
``Our task today was to present our arguments. ... We fulfilled this task during our many meetings in Washington,'' he told reporters after a day of meetings at the State Department, Pentagon and Senate and a day after seeing Clinton.
State Department spokesman James Rubin told a news briefing that Ivanov's proposal was ``necessary but insufficient'' to address the threat from states like North Korea.
But he added: ``We still believe that it is possible that as we and the Russians cooperate and work together in the coming days, that they will see the wisdom of proceeding down the course that we've set forth.''
Ivanov Visit Brings Intense Talks On Arms Control
Ivanov was in Washington after attending a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at the United Nations where he reiterated Moscow's opposition to changing the ABM.
The former Cold War rivals used his visit, which is meant to prepare for a U.S.-Russia summit in Moscow on June 4-5, to hold the most intense, high-level talks on arms control since President-elect Vladimir Putin was elected on March 26.
Half way through two days of talks with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has stressed the United States wants to amend the ABM, not destroy it, Ivanov said the issue would be a centerpiece of the June summit.
In his speech, he said failure to preserve the treaty would lead to a new Cold War though he did not say that amending it would have such an effect.
After a day of meetings with Senators, at the Pentagon and in the State Department, he said U.S. experts had outlined why they felt they needed the NMD and how it was not a threat to Russia. Russian officials in turn explained their concerns.
``I think we must continue such expert discussion on all these issues as naturally many aspects remained unclear to us.
``On a whole range of issues we did not get convincing answers and we agreed such consultations will continue, with diplomats and military officials,'' he told reporters.
``If these threats are real, if we can be sure of it, there is a complete justification for looking, together, for a solution,'' -- but without violating the ABM, he added.
Earlier, Ivanov noted that talks on deeper arms cuts envisaged in the START III arms reduction pact would now be unfrozen by the Russian parliament's April 14 vote for its predecessor, START II -- a move which the United States welcomed but sees as only part of the defense equation.
---
Russia's Ivanov Concludes U.S. Arms Control Talks
Thursday April 27 4:50 PM ET
By Elaine Monaghan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov on Thursday wound up intensive talks on U.S. proposals to develop a missile defense system that Moscow, Beijing and other capitals say would weaken the fabric of international arms control.
U.S. officials and Ivanov himself have noted a willingness on Russia's part to discuss the issue, and it is likely to be a key theme at a summit with President-elect Vladimir Putin scheduled for June 4 and 5 in Moscow.
But no compromise had emerged as he met Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the end of a series of meetings that included talks with President Clinton, Pentagon officials, senators and participants in the U.S. presidential race.
``I would be shocked if there was any deal before the summit, and I think it could well take some time after that if there even is a deal,'' a U.S. official said. ``There are still considerable differences on both sides,'' he added.
Since arriving in New York for a review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on Monday and flying to Washington on Tuesday, Ivanov and his entourage have spent hours listening to U.S. assurances that stationing 100 anti-missile interceptors at a base in Alaska will not neutralize Russia's arsenal.
Changes To Agreement
Clinton, under pressure from the Republican-controlled legislative branch, has pursued plans for a National Missile Defense that would cost tens of billions of dollars and require amendments to a Soviet-era pact, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
``I think that the President is determined to go forward,'' Defense Secretary William Cohen told a news conference.
Technical talks between U.S. Undersecretary of State Strobe Talbott and Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov on amending the treaty -- which Moscow is not ready to call negotiations -- have been taking place all week.
On Thursday the two sides were deciding where and when to hold the next round, the U.S. official said.
U.S. officials said on Wednesday that Clinton, who had opposed the National Missile Defense but later indicated he would rule on it by late summer, might not decide whether to proceed until November.
Though they stressed this was to allow time for tests and a review and did not represent a delay on the president's part, it opened the possibility that current U.S. policy might be overtaken by events since the U.S. presidential election takes place in November.
``It will be crunch time,'' the U.S. official said.
Much will depend on the outcome of a third test of the defense system, scheduled to take place in June.
Post-Mad Strategy
The plan has proceeded amid noisy criticism, with critics like the British-American Security Information Council saying it replaces ``mutually assured destruction'' with ``You're destroyed and we're not.''
Some Republicans, including Sen. Jesse Helms, accuse Clinton of not being fully committed to the plan and want to scrap the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty altogether, saying it is outmoded.
Presidential candidate George W. Bush has said that while he would try to renegotiate the pact, the United States would withdraw ``after a reasonable amount of time'' -- a move that Ivanov said on Wednesday would spark a new Cold War.
Ivanov, who met Bush on Wednesday and Leon Fuerth, the national security adviser of Democratic candidate Al Gore on Thursday, said it did not matter what party a violator of the treaty belonged to -- it remained a cornerstone of strategic stability and should be left alone.
The U.S. official said assessments of an emerging threat from North Korea were driving development of a missile defense. ''Forecasting threats is not easy, but, that said, it's hard to get around the fact that missile proliferation is real, that it's an ongoing threat to this country,'' the official said.
Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, a Defense Department spokesman, told a news briefing on Thursday that since the system being contemplated had only a relatively small number of interceptor missiles, it would not effective against the ``massive sort of a strike such as Russia could produce if it wished.''
------
Clinton May Address Russian Deputies on June Visit
Thursday April 27 5:35 AM ET
MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Clinton may address Russian deputies in parliament when he visits Moscow on June 4-5, a Communist parliamentarian said on Thursday.
Viktor Zorkaltsev told Reuters that the speaker of the lower house said Clinton had expressed a desire to address deputies of the State Duma during his visit, which follows Vladimir Putin's victory in last month's Russian presidential election.
The Communist deputy said the exact date, time and place for the appearance had not yet been set, but noted that the Duma was not due to hold a regular session on June 5.
An appearance of a major world leader before Russian deputies in the Duma would be a rare event. Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko addressed the Russian parliament last year and Vice-President Al Gore met representatives of various political groupings on a visit.
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov met Clinton in Washington on Tuesday to prepare for next month's summit.
Ivanov was in Washington after attending a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the United Nations.
-------- puerto rico
Vieques Protesters Face Showdown
Thursday April 27 6:24 AM ET
By JAMES ANDERSON,
Associated Press Writer
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000427/wl/puerto_rico_vieques_1.html
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - Any raid to remove protesters from the U.S. Navy's Vieques bombing range will unleash anti-Americanism in Puerto Rico and antagonize Hispanic voters in the United States, opponents have warned.
With recurring rumors of imminent arrests, critics say forcibly ending the one-year standoff would strengthen a grass-roots anti-Navy movement and harm Navy plans to regain its prized Atlantic training ground.
``This issue unites Puerto Ricans not only in Puerto Rico but throughout the 50 states,'' said U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. ``It would definitely become a campaign issue.''
Jose Rivera, a Puerto Rico-born New York City councilman, said Hispanic-Americans have yet to recover from the way federal agents took Elian Gonzalez from his Miami relatives' home by gunpoint. ``It won't look good for anyone if they do one thing right after the other,'' he said.
That anger, Rivera said, would show at New York's annual Puerto Rican Day Parade - an important event for many politicians, including U.S. Senate candidates Rudolph Giuliani and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Military officials agree Vieques is a potentially explosive issue.
Clearing dozens of U.S. citizens from primitive campsites on a scrubby, pockmarked wasteland rife with unexploded bombs is a daunting task. And with arrests, militants have vowed demonstrations at U.S. facilities throughout Puerto Rico.
The Vieques protesters are blocking a Jan. 31 agreement between President Clinton and Puerto Rican Gov. Pedro Rossello to resume exercises for at least three years using ``dummy'' bombs in exchange for a referendum in Vieques on whether to close the range.
It includes $40 million for economic development on Vieques and the return of one-third of the island used as a munitions dump.
According to reports Monday, the Justice Department was planning a raid involving federal marshals, FBI agents, Marines and Puerto Rican police. Officials have since refused comment.
While most protesters say they won't resist arrest, they do say other demonstrators will replace them. Some vow to scatter into the ordnance-laden hills.
They've occupied the range since April 19, 1999, when errant bombs from a Marine Corps jet killed civilian guard David Sanes Rodriguez.
Hardly a cohesive group, the protesters include fishermen, teachers, two bishops - one Catholic, one Methodist - students, pro-independence politicians, pro-statehood activists and veterans of foreign wars.
Their message: five decades of bombing an island populated by 9,300 U.S. citizens is enough. Though they live nine miles from the range, Vieques residents blame bombing for what they say is a high cancer rate, stunted tourism, unemployment and ecological damage.
The Navy says Vieques is critical to the military's preparedness, and patriotic Americans shouldn't put servicemen's lives in danger by denying them the kind of live-fire training that made the crucial difference in the Middle East, Kosovo and elsewhere.
``This is not a game. This is reality,'' said Rear Adm. Kevin P. Green in a recent San Juan Star column commemorating Sanes' death. ``We are serving around the globe to protect your interests, and we must be prepared.''
Many Puerto Ricans, albeit quietly, support that argument. Local polls, however, suggest most back a firm stand and argue the bombings would stop immediately if Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico were a U.S. state.
The threat of a Vieques raid should put Puerto Rico's political status - a U.S. territory that can't vote for president or Congress - on the nation's political agenda, Serrano said.
``Look at the Cuban issue. You have two Florida senators demanding hearings'' into the Elian Gonzalez raid, Serrano said. ``If Puerto Rico was a state, it would have two senators filibustering over Vieques.''
Critics say the Navy lied in the past about its use of napalm and depleted uranium-tipped shells on Vieques and didn't fulfill a 1983 pledge to promote the economy of Vieques, where most people live in poverty.
While the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station that administers Vieques injects $340 million into Puerto Rico's economy each year, officials acknowledge their public relations efforts have been less than stellar.
Rossello and others have urged the protesters to abandon the range - then vote the Navy out.
``I'm urging people to take everything calmly and let them make the arrests,'' said Vieques Mayor Manuela Santiago. ``It would be painful for blood to run in Vieques.''
----
Vieques Libre - http://www.viequeslibre.org
April 27, 2000
President William J. Clinton The White House Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Clinton:
We are writing to convey our deep concern over reports that the Federal government is working on a plan to remove the protesters - by force if necessary - from their site on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Use of force in this situation, with its potential for loss of life and the ensuing disruption to the fabric of civil society in Puerto Rico, would work to prevent a just resolution of this crisis.
Thousands of people throughout Puerto Rico and the United States have already pledged to support the protesters should they be arrested and/or forcibly removed. Notwithstanding the sudden decision of the Governor of Puerto Rico to allow continued bombing of Vieques, there is no popular support for Navy presence in Vieques, and widespread actions of civil disobedience would seem inevitable.
Vieques residents - United States citizens - have suffered fifty years of naval bombardment and amphibious assault drills by the Atlantic Fleet Weapon Training Force (A.F.W.T.F.). Enormous damage has been done to the island and its residents in consequence, and Puerto Ricans and their supporters in the United States are justly outraged at the notion of continued Naval presence. Coral reefs have been pulverized, the aquifer has been contaminated with chemicals, hundred of acres of tropical hardwood forests have been deforested, and endangered species have been destroyed. The islands' population has also been contaminated with excessive levels of dangerous chemicals associated with the military operations including lead, cadmium, arsenic and uranium: The island has the highest mortality rate in Puerto Rico, and the highest rates of cancer An innocent civilian was recently killed outright as a result of Naval presence on the island.
The Puerto Rican people have made it clear that they will no longer accept use of uranium weaponry by the Navy, which is illegal and which violates the Navy's licensing agreement with the government of Puerto Rico. Similarly, the Navy's practice of renting the Island of Vieques to foreign governments cannot be justified as a national security necessity.
This situation clearly requires delicacy and tact. Surely the national security of the United States should not come at the expense of a colonized people. We join with the people of Puerto Rico in the justice of their cause, and call on this administration to work harder to find a fair resolution to what will otherwise become an even more difficult conflict. We recognize that this is an extraordinary circumstance and urgently propose a joint meeting to discuss this matter further. Please contact Juan A_ Figueroa, President of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund at (212) 219-3360, ext. 230 to make arrangements for this essential meeting.
Sincerely,
Luis V. Gutierrez Member of Congress
José Serrano Member of Congress
Nydia Velasquez Member of Congress
Fernando Ferrer Bronx Borough President
Roberto Ramirez Assembly Member New York State
Angel L. Ortiz Council Member At-Large Philadelphia
José Rivera Council Member New York City
Margarita López Council Member New York City
Reverend Jesse Jackson
Dennis Rivera President, 1199 SEIU
Juan A. Figueroa President, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
----
Navy Plans Immediate Shelling of Vieques
by STEWART M. POWELL,
Hearst Newspapers -
April 27, 2000
WASHINGTON, Navy warships will immediately fire non-explosive shells at the target range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques as soon as federal authorities remove encamped Puerto Rican demonstrators, defense officials said Thursday. Three defense officials outlined the Navy's plans for a quick show of force as a Justice Department-led task force prepared to end a year-long occupation of the 899-acre target range that has thwarted Navy training on the range.
The task force, including FBI agents, U.S. Marshals, the Coast Guard, the Navy and 1,200 Marines, is expected to begin rounding up protestors early next week, according to a fourth U.S. official who said he is familiar with coordination planning between law enforcement agencies on the U.S. mainland and in Puerto Rico.
Navy warships will begin using the 59-year-old range "as quickly as possible'' after the law enforcement operation is complete, said one defense official. A second defense official said the Navy wants to "demonstrate use of the range in a prudent fashion as soon as we can just to get that principle established or restarted.''
A third defense official said the Navy would "be in a hurry to make a statement by using the range.''
The three officials spoke on background on the condition that their identity not be disclosed.
Attorney General Janet Reno, speaking at a Justice Department news conference, declined to discuss the impending operation.
"I don't comment on any prospective, or otherwise considered, law enforcement action,'' Reno declared.
Navy Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Pentagon has been in "consultation with the Puerto Rican government (and) with the Department of Justice to work out a way to clear the range of the trespassers,'' adding: "That process continues.''
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., the senior Puerto Rico-born lawmaker in Congress, urged Clinton in a letter to halt the plans for a federal round up.
"This is not going to be nice,'' warned Serrano. "It's not too late to call the whole thing off.''
A federal raid to break up peaceful civil disobedience on Vieques would likely be a hot campaign issue for the 900,000 Puerto Rican voters in New York who could play an influential role in the outcome of the Senate campaign of first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Serrano said.
"What happens in Vieques affects greatly the largest Hispanic voting bloc in New York,'' he said. Many of Puerto Rico's 3.8 million residents - U.S. citizens by birth - have relatives living in the United States.
The removal of the protestors is designed to clear the way for implementation of an agreement reached by President Clinton and Puerto Rico Gov. Pedro Rossello on Jan. 31 to end a bitter standoff between the Navy and the demonstrators.
Dozens of protestors, led by Puerto Rico Sen. Ruben Berrios, the Puerto Rico Independence Party's candidate for governor in November, occupied the beach-front bombing range after a Marine bombing mishap in April 1999 killed a Puerto Rican security guard working for the Navy.
The occupation of the target range prevented the Navy and Marine Corps from conducting the final air, land and sea combat rehearsals on Vieques that have prepared every departing Atlantic-based combat force since World War II.
The Clinton-Rossello agreement calls for the White House and Congress to provide $40 million in immediate economic development assistance to the 9,300 residents of Vieques and reduce noisy military training on Navy-owned land to 90 days a year using only non-explosive shells and bombs. The accord also calls for the island's residents to vote in a binding referendum on future Navy use of the island by February, 2002, with $50 million in additional U.S. assistance due to Vieques if the residents vote to permit combat training with explosive ordnance.
The forcible removal of protestors is expected to take place barely 10 days after a Justice Department-led operation broke into a Miami home to take custody of 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez and return him to his Cuban father.
The Navy is poised to resume using the range. Four warships armed with 5-inch guns with ranges of 15 miles will be in the region in coming days as part of a combat exercise with the aircraft carrier USS George Washington and a Marine amphibious task force. The armada is scheduled for deployment in June to the Mediterranean.
Navy Secretary Richard Danzig told Congress in testimony on March 22 that the Navy is eager for "the resumption of the use of the range and establishing the rhythms of cooperation.''
The shutdown of the target range since April 1999 forced the battle fleet led by the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower to sail for duty in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf in late February with five of the eight escorting surface warships still needing to requalify for their naval gunfire support mission by firing roughly 100 shells of 5-inch ammunition at shore targets. The ships broke away from the fleet in transit to requalify at ranges at Cape Wrath, Scotland, or Capoteulado, Sardinia.
-------- russia
Moscow warns US on treaty threat
Sydney Morning Herald
Date: 27/04/00
By BARBARA CROSSETTE in New York
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0004/27/text/world13.html
Russia has hardened its line against any United States attempt to modify a 1972 missile treaty and appealed for broad support from other nations, saying the US is putting 30 years of arms agreements in jeopardy.
But Russia's Foreign Minister, Mr Igor Ivanov, speaking on Tuesday, appeared to hold out hope that a deal could be struck.
And after meeting President Bill Clinton in Washington, he said Russia was "ready to listen to any suggestions".
Mr Ivanov spoke at the UN to representatives of more than 150 countries on the second day of a four-week international conference called to assess another treaty, the 1968 pact barring the spread of nuclear weapons.
Russia was prepared to make deep cuts in its nuclear warheads, he said, but not if the US planned to build a missile defence system that would "destroy" the 1972 pact, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. "The prevailing system of arms control agreements is a complex and quite fragile structure. Once one of its key elements has been weakened, the entire system is destabilised. The collapse of the ABM treaty would, therefore, undermine the entirety of disarmament agreements concluded over the last 30 years."
This prospect affected "national security interests of every state and of the international community as a whole", he said.
Energies would be better spent in strengthening global moves to limit missile technologies.
On Monday, the US Secretary of State, Dr Madeleine Albright, in her speech to the conference, sought to play down concerns about changing the 1972 treaty. It had already been modified, and additional changes proposed by the US would not threaten it, she said.
However, the US is on the defensive on this issue, because scores of nations and dozens of independent international arms control groups - some of them run by former US disarmament officials - are virtually united in opposing the new missile defence system.
It is politically motivated, unworkable or unnecessary, they say. Moreover, they say, it has the potential to start a new arms race, as other nations compete to match or overcome it.
The UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, the European Union and a group of non-aligned states on Monday criticised the US missile defence plans.
In Washington on Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of building the proposed national missile defence system would be nearly $US60billion ($100billion).
The Pentagon did not dispute the estimate, although it has never put its own price on a full system.
Mr Ivanov went into the UN conference playing a strong hand, with Russia on Friday having passed the nuclear test ban treaty six months after it was defeated in the US Senate. Moscow also ratified the START II nuclear arms reduction pact with the US a fortnight ago and proposed deeper cuts in START III talks than Washington wants.
The US has proposed reducing both sides' warheads to 2,500, while Moscow wants the number cut to 1,500.
However, a US disarmament official said that it would be difficult for the Clinton Administration to persuade the Pentagon and a Republican-controlled Congress to be satisfied with 1,500 warheads.
The New York Times, The Boston Globe
---
Russia attacks U.S. plan
The Hindu
04/27/00
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2000/04/27/stories/03270005.htm
UNITED NATIONS, APRIL 26. Russia has sharply attacked the American decision to deploy the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system, warning that it could undermine the ``complex and quite fragile'' structure of nuclear arms control agreements.
Apparently referring to the NATO strikes on Yugoslavia last year, the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Igor Ivanov, who was addressing the review conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at the United Nations, also criticised attempts to build national stability at the expense of other states and ``misappropriation'' of the right to use force ``in violation of the U.N. Charter and the international law.''
Stressing that Moscow was prepared for deeper cuts in the number of nuclear warheads during the next phase of negotiations, Mr. Ivanov told the conference that the historic chance of nuclear disarmament could be missed if the Americans went ahead with the deployment of the ABM system.``The collapse of ABM Treaty would, therefore, undermine the entirety of disarmament agreements concluded over the past 30 years. The threat of the erosion of the non- proliferation regimes would, therefore, grow,'' he said.
Russia, he said, was ``deeply convinced that missile threats and missile proliferation can and should be dealt with without breaking the ABM Treaty.'' The U.S. is pressing Russia to agree to its deployment of anti-ballistic missile system to counteract threats from, what it calls, rogue states. But Moscow does not agree to any amendment of the ABM Treaty which prohibits missile defences.
Mr. Ivanov, who met the U.S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton, earlier in Washington, told mediapersons, ``Our position is, our security will be better protected if the treaty is kept intact''.
Mr. Ivanov came to Washington to lay the groundwork for Mr. Clinton's first summit meeting with the Russian President-elect, Mr. Vladimir Putin, in Moscow on June 4 and 5. Mr. Clinton expressed interest in Mr. Putin's plans for economic reform and steps to deal with crime and corruption and strengthening the rule of law, said Mr. Mike Hammer, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council. ``He (Mr. Clinton) emphasised that it was important for Russia to seize the opportunity to accelerate economic reforms''. Mr. Hammer said the U.S. would not give up trying to convince Russia that the missile system would not represent a threat to the arms balance.
- PTI, Reuters
-------- ukraine
FEATURE - Novel explores Chernobyl's "Dead Zone" villages
USA: April 27, 2000
Story by Sue Pleming
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6480
WASHINGTON - They are called the "Dead Zone" - villages evacuated after the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine spewed a deadly radioactive cloud into the sky on April 26, 1986, changing the lives of millions.
Ukrainian American author Irene Zabytko's first novel, "The Sky Unwashed," looks at the aftermath of the world's worst nuclear disaster through the eyes of some elderly women who defy government orders and return to their irradiated homes.
Zabytko, who now lives in Orlando, Florida, says she did not have a political agenda when she wrote the book and wanted to focus on the determination of a group of people often ignored: the babysi, or old women.
"I grew up with these women. I have always been in awe of these indomitable, strong women. I see them around me and feel their strength and because of that I wanted to infuse that in my book," she told Reuters in an interview during a tour to promote her book. "If anyone is going to survive Chernobyl, it will be these old women."
Wednesday was the 14th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident that poisoned vast areas of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, republics of the then-Soviet Union. Despite official claims to the contrary, Zabytko said Chernobyl's radioactive fallout remained a persistent blight.
"This is just a horrible catastrophe. Kids are still suffering from it, from leukaemia. It angers me that medical supplies don't get through because of corruption there. This country has still not gotten on its feet since independence. People are really, truly suffering," she said.
While teaching English in Ukrainian capital Kiev in the early 1990s, Zabytko travelled clandestinely to a Dead Zone in a taxi but did not see anyone to interview.
"I never met anyone, but every now and then I thought I saw a thin spiral of smoke floating from the chimney of a dilapidated house. There were a few souls alive there and I wondered whether they were the displaced elderly who had returned to their contaminated homes because they had nowhere else to live."
The only living souls Zabytko saw that day were two geese waddling on a dirt road and a policeman who pulled her cab over and told her to leave quickly "before you get cancer."
DREW ON EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS
Zabytko said she used eyewitness accounts for her novel. Many people buried their cars, television sets and other precious items when they were evacuated, thinking they would soon return. "No one quite understood the impact of the radiation," said Zabytko, who is now working on another novel set in Ukraine.
To narrate the book, Zabytko chose a stubborn widow called Marusia Petrenko whose son dies from radiation poisoning. The book opens with a traditional village scene - a wedding to which everyone is invited. Marusia has prepared her famous nuptial bread - a korovai - and the wedding party continues late into the night.
After the party, her son Yurko joins many other villagers for what they think is the usual night shift at the plant. But many of the workers never go home. The air has a strange metallic taste the next morning and the priest does not show up for the Sunday service. The official version is that there has been a fire at the plant but suspicions abound for many days about the real cause of the strange events. Soon tens of thousands of people are evacuated to unfamiliar cities where they struggle to survive.
Marusia, her son and his family are sent to Kiev, where the air is not much cleaner. After her son dies, she defies the evacuation order and returns to her contaminated hometown, Staryslis, thinking life cannot be worse there.
A NOVEL ABOUT SURVIVAL
Zabytko said her novel was about survival and the human spirit rather than a scientific book about Chernobyl.
"I am fascinated at how people are able to survive these catastrophes which are not of their making, what drives them to move forward. How did people survive the Holocaust, how did they survive Kosovo? What happens to them afterward and how do they get on with their lives?" she said. "That's what I wanted to look at in my book."
Marusia is the first to return home and she valiantly climbs the steep steps of the church tower twice a day to ring the bells, just in case someone else has quietly slipped back.
Her first visitor is a mangy cat whose fur is gnarled by the radiation. Gradually five elderly women return and survive by eating food stockpiles left behind before the explosion.
They debate furiously over whether to raid the larders of friends who have not come back and finally decide to put the food in a warehouse where a strict inventory is kept.
Marusia replants her garden in radioactive soil even though she knows the vegetables will be bad for her, and the women win a moral victory, getting a contaminated cow from officials who give it to them only because "the old women will die anyway."
A lot has been written about Chernobyl but Zabytko said she had never read a novel on the subject.
"I think for many people it is too painful to write about but it is something that needs to be discovered," she said. "I know people are proud of being Ukrainian but there is a lack of self-esteem. I think this book might help that and show that people have survived such a horrible situation."
The book has been on sale for nearly a month and a major book chain selected Zabytko as one of the best new writers. "I'm just so grateful the book is out and am still shocked when people tell me that they read it and enjoyed it," she said.
-------- us nuc facilities
Nuclear plant closures reduce infant deaths - U.S report
USA: April 27, 2000
Story by Patrick Connole
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6482
WASHINGTON - A study released on Wednesday links the closure of nuclear reactors to lower levels of infant deaths, saying that radiation seepage into groundwater and the food supply harms young people.
The report, presented at a media conference by researchers, supermodel and anti-nuclear activist Christie Brinkley, and Democratic Representative Michael Forbes of New York, blasted the federal government for not doing more to protect young children from cancer risks tied to nuclear reactors.
The group wants the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to take into account local health risks caused by radiation exposure from reactors, especially for the 42 million Americans living downwind and under 50 miles (80 km) from nuclear plants.
"As a mother of young children who lives near nuclear facilities, I worry daily that radiation from these plants may be deadly to our children," Brinkley said.
The study, which was rebutted sharply by the nuclear power industry, was conducted by Joseph Mangano, a research associate at the New York-based Radiation and Public Health Project.
Mangano said improvements in infant death rates related to when nearby reactors were closed. For example, after the Rancho Seco reactor in California was shut in 1989, a 16 percent decrease was recorded in infant deaths, he said.
"Fetal and infant health near Rancho Seco lagged following reactor start-up, and improved significantly for at least seven years after closing," according to the report, which is published in the Journal of Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology.
The NRC in March approved a 20-year extension of the operating license for the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in eastern Maryland, marking the first time an original license was extended for an American commercial nuclear plant.
"The NRC rules do not consider adverse health effects of radioactive emissions when considering license renewal applications," Mangano said.
A spokesman for the commission said the charges were wrong. She noted that the NRC consistently monitors and assesses the levels of radiation being emitted from nuclear plants, and considers the health effects during the licensing process.
"We look at the impact on the health and the environment," the NRC spokeswoman said.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) said the report was an example of "science by celebrity," and part of an anti-nuclear agenda.
NEI said annual exposure for the nearest resident from a nuclear power plant has been less than 1 millirem, compared to the annual average exposure from nature of 300 millirem.
----
Infant Deaths Drop Dramatically After Nuclear Plants Close
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:06:59 -0400
From: Denise Nelson - inner.circle@worldnet.att.net
[WASHINGTON, D.C] -- A new study shows infant death rates near five U.S. nuclear plants dropped immediately and dramatically after the reactors closed, raising questions about the government's refusal to consider the effects of radioactive emissions from nuclear plants on local residents. Moreover, dramatic decreases in childhood cancer cases and deaths from birth defects, which are strongly affected by radiation exposure, occurred near one of the reactors. According to the study's author, this reseachsuggests that the health of 42 million Americans who live downwind and within 50 miles of a nuclear plant may be affected by these reactors,
The study was conducted by the New York-based Radiation and Public Health Project and published in the spring issue of the scientific journal. Environmental Epidemiology andToxicology. In light of the study, model Christie Brinkley today joined Rep. Michael Forbes (D-N.Y.) and others in calling upon the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to immediately consider whether adverse health effects are associated with nuclear plant operations before renewing nuclear power plant licenses. Brinkley is a board member of the STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation) Foundation, a group formed in 1997 by concerned Long Island residents.
"As a mother of young children who lives near nuclear facilities, I worry daily that radiation from these plants may be deadly to our children," Brinkley said. "So far, the federal government has buried its head in the sand. If closing the nuclear power plants was not responsible for the decline in infant deaths, what was?"
The NRC rules do not consider the potential adverse health effects of radioactive emissions when considering license renewal applications. Owners of twenty-eight nuclear reactors at 17 nuclear facilities around the country are scheduled to seek license renewals by 2003. The NRC has never voluntarily studied the link between radioactive emissions from nuclear plants and patterns of cancer.
The study, conducted by Joseph J. Mangano, a research associate at the Radiation and Public Health Project, examined infant death rates in counties within 50 miles and in the prevailing wind direction of five reactors: Fort St. Vrain (located near Denver, Colo.), LaCrosse (near LaCrosse, Wis.), Millstone/Haddam Neck (near New London CT), Rancho Seco (near Sacramento, Calif.) and Trojan (near Portland, Ore.).
In the first two years after the reactors closed, infant death rates in the downwind counties under 40 miles from the plants fell 15 to 20 percent from the previous two years, compared to an average U.S. decline of just six percent between 1985 and 1996. In each of the five areas studied, no other nuclear reactor operated within 70 miles of the closed reactor, essentially creating a nuclear-free zone.
The study detailed the plunges in newly-diagnosed leukemia and cancer cases and birth defect deaths in children under five years in the four-county local area downwind from Rancho Seco. This excessive decline has continued through the first seven years after the June 1989 closing. In contrast, the local infant death rate rose in the two years after Rancho Seco began operations in 1974.
"This article is the first to document improvements in health after a nuclear plant closes," says study author Mangano. "It supports many other studies showing elevated childhood cancer near operating reactors.The federal government allows nuclear reactors to emit a certain level of radiation, saying that the amount is too low to result in adverse local health effects. However, this study clearly calls that assumption into question, as do other studies," he concluded.
Janette Sherman, an Alexandria, Va., M.D. who specializes in internal medicine and toxicology, and has written books about the causes of breast cancer and the relationship between chemical exposure and disease, said she believes Mangano's study confirms the link between radiation and illness.
"This confirms the best of public health principles: that when you remove a known cause of illness, health improves", Sherman said. "The adverse effects on humans exposed to radiation are predictable. What is gratifying about the research is that it showed childhood health measures increasing so dramatically and quickly after the reactors closed."
Dr. Janette Sherman, BDRC Scientific Advisor Publishes New Book On Breast Cancer
Life's Delicate Balance - Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer ISBN: 1-56032-870-3 (paperback) $24.95
Order through the Amazon.com link on BDRC's website <www.birthdefects.org> or by going to www.routledge-ny.com
Additional information about the effects of radiation on human health can be found on the Radiation and Public Health site at: www.radiation.org
Researcher Finds Physical Evidence of Neurological Damage In Child Exposed to Chlorpyrifos
A US team has found changes in the blood of a child with organophosphate (OP) poisoning, which could make it easier for other patients to prove exposure to similar poisons. The changes, a series of antibodies, provide physical evidence of the neurological damage caused by the poison. This is thought to be the first physical evidence discovered of the neurological damage many believe is caused by OP exposure and related conditions, like Gulf War Syndrome.
The researchers said that the antibodies' discovery may provide a useful marker for diagnosis of chemically-induced neurological disorders, and may help in the development of appropriate treatment. The research team, whose work is reported in the journal Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology, was led by Professor Mohamed Abou-Donia, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
The child in the study was a five-year-old boy who had been exposed to tar and to chlorpyrifos (an OP insecticide) when he was a year old. The tar had been shallowly buried in earth where the boy played, and the insecticide had been used several times inside his home. By the time he was 14 months old, two months after his exposure, his family thought he was unsteady on his feet, and his speech, which had been normal, was deteriorating.He was also irritable. At 17 months he was unable to walk without falling. By 26 months, however, there was some improvement in his speech, and his irritability had lessened.
His neurological problems were judged to be consistent with OP ester-induced delayed neurotoxicity (OPIDN). Five years after his exposure, when he was seven years old, the boy's intellect was defined as lower than his family's, and he was placed in a special school because of "a mild degree of mental retardation".
The researchers tested his blood for the presence of antibodies against three proteins characteristic of neurodegenerative disorders. They used blood samples from the boy's 6- and 9-year-old brothers, his 32-year-old father and 34-year-old mother as controls. Antibodies against two of the proteins were found in the boy's blood, and in that of several of the controls. No antibodies against the third were found in any of the samples.
The researchers say, "In healthy individuals, the presence of autoantibodies against [these] proteins is age-dependent: they increase with age. In the present study, more of the antibodies were detected in the mother's serum than in any of the other controls. But it was the boy himself who showed by far the highest levels." (Excerpts from report by environmental correspondent Alex Kirby)
Scientists Call For Ban On Dursban
WASHINGTON, DC, April 13, 2000 (ENS) - Twelve prominent scientists, including two former EPA officials, have sent a letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner urging tighter restrictions on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, sold as Dursban. The EPA is expected to issue its final risk assessment for chlorpyrifos, the nation's most widely used pesticide, in the next few weeks.
"For the protection of current and future generations of children in the United States, we urge that you take deliberate action in this last year of the Clinton-Gore administration to tightly restrict the agricultural use of chlorpyrifos and to ban outright all applications of chlorpyrifos in the residential setting, schools and childcare facilities," the scientists wrote.
The EPA's own preliminary assessment of chlorpyrifos, released late last year, found evidence that the chemical can affect the nervous system in humans. The pesticide is found in more than 800 products, including pet collars, pest control products, and lawn and garden insecticides. Recent studies indicate that exposure may cause severe and lasting nerve damage in infants and children. The authors of the letter hail from major universities and medical schools. The lead authors on the letter are both former EPA officials. Dr. Phil Landrigan, director of the Center for Children's Health and the Environment at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, served as senior advisor on children's health for the EPA in 1997 and 1998. Dr. Lynn Goldman, adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public Health, served as assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticidesand Toxic Substances from 1993 to January 1999.
Pollutants Can Reach Babies in the Womb
In an ongoing study of links between environmental pollutants and allergies and asthma in children, researchers said Monday that they have found chemicals in the blood of 400 pregnant women in New York.
The study, which is following women and their babies (270 have been born so far), also found high rates of allergies and respiratory problems in the infants, say the researchers, who presented preliminary data at a conference at Columbia University.
"In some way - the mechanism is not understood - allergens can get across the placenta," says Frederica Prera, director of the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health.
The study involves blacks and Latinas in the Harlem, Washington heights and South Bronx sections of New York City. Results are thought to be applicable nationally in urban communities, where "the rates of asthma and developmental problems are higher than in other areas and other populations, and there is also disproportionate exposure to environmental toxicants," Perera says.
"This study is looking, in a large number of subjects, at in utero sensitization," she says. "There is evidence that it is occurring to multiple allergens in the home."
An 80% rise in asthma death rates between 1980 and 1993, along with the increasing incidence of birth defects and developmental problems, has raised questions about how chemicals in the environment effect infants and young children. A task force led by Surgeon General David Satcher has financed eight environmental health centers and four groups studying childhood asthma, cancer, developmental disorders and injuries.
"When a baby is exposed to environmental toxins - tobacco, alcohol, pesticides - there can be severe consequences," says Satcher, who spoke at the Columbia conference.
Excerpted from report by Anita Manning in March 28, 2000 issue of USA Today
Environmental pollutants in babies first bowel movement
A recent Australian study looked at the meconium (first bowel discharge) of newborns and detected lindane in 78% of samples, PCP 43%, Chlorpyrifos 59%, Malathion 34%, Chlordane 16%, DDT 52%, PCB 27%. While the chemicals were detected in the nanogram range, the fact that organophosphates like Chlorpyrifos & Malathion were detected at all should evoke a precautionary response that immediately addresses the ubiquitous nature of these serious neurotoxins.
Background: Tropical Townsville has been exposed to pesticides for agricultural and household use. Pesticides and other pollutants can affect the brain, immune, and endocrine (especially thyroid) systems of the unborn. Analysis of meconium is a sensitive tool for the detection of foetal exposure to many substances.
Discussion:Though many pesticides have been unavailable for years (ddt since 1981, lindane 85, chlordane 95) they exist in the food chain and, being lipophilic, are passed from mother to foetus. Chlorpyrifos and malathion are still used widely. Though individual concentrations are low, many babies had several pollutants whose effects may be additive. Of special concern is the growing brain. An association between lindane and low birth weight has been reported elsewhere . It is not clear why Aboriginal and Islander populations should be more widely exposed to chlorpyrifos. Other studies have shown their greater exposure to nicotine, and their higher rate of SIDS and low birth weight. Perhaps pesticides contribute to the known effects of nicotine. (As 20% of the total cohort was also exposed to marijuana, concerns for the growing brain worsen).
Environmental pollutants in meconium in Townsville, Australia. Deuble L, Whitehall JF, Bolisetty S, Patole SK, Ostrea EM* and Whitehall JS.Department of Neonatology, Kirwan Hospital for Women, Townsville. *Deparment of Pediatrics, Wayne State University, Michigan.
NOTICE: Each time BDRC sends out E-News, we receive many bounced addresses. If you do not receive your copy of E-News by the end of the month, please send us an e-mail so we can make sure that your address was not bounced and removed from our list. BDRC pays a monthly fee to maintain your name on our electronic list. If you do not wish to receive these mailings, please send a message to newsletter-request@birthdefects.org with UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of your message. Make sure that the e-mail you wish to have unsubscribed is exactly the same as the one at top of the alert you just received. Your e-mail will be automatically removed when we update our list.
If you have a comment about any article in E-News, please send your e-mail to abdc@birthdefects.org .
----
Radiation hits very young the hardest
Updated 7:09 PM ET March 15, 2000
http://news.excite.com/news/r/000315/19/health-dse
NEW YORK, Mar 15 (Reuters Health) -- Exposure to radiation, such as that released by the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident, takes a heavier toll on very young children, according to new study findings. Among children living in Belarus, thyroid cancer was more common and more severe in children who were younger than 2 years old at the time of the 1986 accident than in those who were older, researchers report. In addition, the rate of childhood thyroid cancer was considerably higher in girls than in boys.
Radiation released by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl led to an increased rate of thyroid cancer in children living in regions surrounding the plant. Previous research has shown that younger children were at greatest risk of developing cancer, but whether or not a child's age affected the severity of the disease has not been studied closely, according to a team of researchers led by Dr. Jamshid Farahati, of the University of Wurzburg in Germany.
In the current study, the research team looked at 483 children with thyroid cancer who were living in Belarus at the time of the accident. All of the children were younger than 8 years old when exposed to radiation from the plant.
As has been reported before, the greatest number of cancer cases occurred in children who were younger than 2 years old at the time of the accident, Farahati and colleagues report in the March 15th issue of Cancer, a journal of the American Cancer Society. The investigators also found that the rate of cancer was 60% higher in girls than in boys.
But the researchers note that cancer tended to be more severe in the youngest children. In youngsters under age 2, tumors had grown outside the thyroid gland 62% of the time, compared with just 40% in children aged 6 to 8 years old. In addition, the youngest children were more likely to have cancer spread to the lymph nodes and other parts of the body, according to the report. But despite the differences in disease severity, the lag time between radiation exposure and cancer diagnosis was similar in all children.
The authors explain that thyroid cells in infants and toddlers divide rapidly as the glands mature. Since cancer depends on mutations that occur during cell division, each time a cell divides is an opportunity for cancer to take hold. In contrast, older children have more mature thyroid glands, so the pace of cell division is slower, which may explain in part why the risk of thyroid cancer is lower in older children. And since thyroid glands in younger children tend to be smaller than in older kids, the same amount of radiation may have more of an effect, leading to more severe cancer, according to the report.
After an average of nearly 4 years of follow-up, none of the children had died from cancer, Farahati and colleagues report. However, they state that these children should continue to be followed to see what effect, if any, age at the time of radiation exposure has on long-term survival. SOURCE: Cancer 2000;68:1470-1476.
-------- new mexico
Nuclear Suspect Can Review Evidence
Associated Press
April 27, 2000 Filed at 11:41 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Scientist-Secrets.html
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- The government has restored the security clearance of a nuclear scientist so he can assist his defense against charges he mishandled secrets at Los Alamos National Laboratory, his lawyer said Thursday.
Wen Ho Lee, 60, is also allowed to travel to secure work areas at the lab, which fired him last year, and at the federal courthouse in Albuquerque, said lawyer John Cline. He is transported in the custody of federal marshals, who keep him in leg restraints.
Lee is charged with 59 counts alleging he transferred protected data from secured to unsecured computers and to computer tapes. He is not accused of espionage. He could face life in prison if convicted.
Cline said attorneys cannot conduct a defense without Lee's active participation.
``The last couple of weeks have been our first opportunity to review the evidence in the case in depth with Dr. Lee and that's an essential part of defending any case,'' Cline said.
Lee's legs remain shackled during his Los Alamos outings, but he is not handcuffed, Cline said. During a four-hour session at Los Alamos last week, Lee was admitted to a secure room that had a computer with a ``read only'' function, Cline said.
Federal marshals posted outside watched video monitors. But there is no audio, so Lee can talk privately with his attorneys.
Both sides have until May 8 to iron out disputes over what evidence they should be allowed to review before Lee's scheduled Nov. 6 trial.
-------- pennsylvania
No Three Mile Island, Cancer Link
Thursday April 27 8:57 PM ET
By GEORGE STRAWLEY,
Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - A 13-year study of people living near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant found no link between the radiation released during the 1979 accident and cancer deaths among nearby residents.
The University of Pittsburgh study, posted on the Internet on Thursday, should give some reassurance to people who live near the site of the nation's worst commercial nuclear accident. But it does not eliminate the need to continue monitoring their health, the lead researcher said.
The accident, triggered by equipment malfunction and operator error on March 28, 1979, caused about a third of the nuclear fuel to melt inside a reactor just outside Middletown, about 10 miles from Harrisburg. The plant's owners maintain that only a negligible amount of radiation escaped from the plant.
Speak your mind Discuss this story with other people. [Start a Conversation] (Requires Yahoo! Messenger)
At least 15 other studies have explored the health effects of the accident, but the University of Pittsburgh research covers the longest time span so far - from the time of the accident through 1992.
It follows more than 32,000 people who lived within five miles of the plant and who were interviewed by state health workers within two months of the accident.
Researchers found no significant increase in cancer deaths among nearby residents when compared to a larger population in three counties surrounding the plant, said Evelyn Talbott, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.
Researchers were unable to factor in other potential influences on the results, nor were they able to say whether stress stemming from the accident had a long-term impact on residents' health, Talbott said.
``There are a lot of things that cause cancer and a lot of things that need to be measured,'' she said. ``We can only measure so many of them.''
The study did find increases in certain types of cancer, but it failed to turn up a link to the dosages of radiation that residents were believed to have received, she said.
Talbott said further study is needed. Many cancers can remain latent for two decades or more, and the university's researchers are obtaining the data needed for a 20-year study.
One anti-nuclear activist, Eric Epstein, was skeptical of the study, saying the state's original survey of residents was flawed. He has called for studies extending 10 miles from the plant.
``This is just a recitation of the industry line. It is absolutely nothing new,'' said Epstein.
The study was posted on the Internet site of Environmental Health Perspectives. The paper will appear in the June issue of the journal, which is produced by the National Institute of Environmental Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health.
Note from Three Mile Island Alert: We are receiving quite a few inquiries from people all across the US who lived in the Harrisburg area at the time of the accident. They are asking about their recently diagnosed thyroid cancers and a possible connection to the TMI accident. Some have noted that when they check into the health status of other neighbors who lived near TMI in 1979, they are also reporting recently diagnosed thyroid cancers. TMIA believes there may be a link between the accident and these thyroid cancers.
-------- washington
BNFL Hanford River Protection Plan Rejected
April 27, 2000 (ENS)
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr2000/2000L-04-27-01.html
WASHINGTON, DC, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson has rejected as too expensive the latest proposal to treat highly radioactive nuclear waste stored in aging tanks at Hanford Nuclear Facility near the Columbia River at Richland, Washington.
Radioactive waste inside one of the Hanford storage tanks. (Photo courtesy DOE)
Sixty percent of America's nuclear waste - millions of gallons of radioactive material from years of plutonium production for nuclear weapons - is stored at the Department of Energy's Hanford nuclear site. Today, after nearly two years of negotiations with contractors, there is still no treatment and disposal plan in place.
On Monday, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Inc. (BNFL) formally submitted a $15.2 billion proposal to build a facility to treat some of the high level nuclear waste. The proposal includes treatment of 10 percent of the volume and over 25 percent of the radioactivity in the Hanford tank wastes.
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson rejected the proposal Wednesday. "The price is unacceptably high and is unfundable. This is the latest development in a disturbing trend of unacceptable and unexplained budget escalation," he said.
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson (Photo courtesy DOE)
Still, Secretary Richardson says the DOE will "evaluate" the BNFL proposal. By May 15, Richardson has asked for a report on a full range of options including the use of other contractors.
BNFL's submission gives a fixed price of $15.2 billion for plant design, construction, testing, operations, and deactivation over the 20-year life of the contract, based on 100 percent private financing. BNFL proposes to permit, build, and operate a vitrification plant that would enclose the radioactive wastes in glass.
The BNFL proposal includes financing for the plant, including an investment of $400 million in equity. Paul Miskimin, president and CEO of BNFL Inc. said, "This is the first time a total solution to this environmental hazard as been presented to the DOE, that includes a proposal for a significant private investment."
But the DOE said Wednesday, the proposal comes just 18 months after BNFL informed the Department that it was confident it could design, construct and operate a facility for $6.9 billion. In February, BNFL told the DOE its cost estimate had grown to an estimated $8 billion. Two weeks ago BNFL announced the price estimate had grown again, to $13 billion.
Secretary Richardson says concerns stemming from safety, quality assurance and management problems at BNFL's parent company in the United Kingdom have triggered a review of the U.S. subsidiary, BNFL, Inc. Results must be on Richardson's desk by the end of May.
"I have also been disturbed," Richardson said, "by the series of senior management changes in BNFL that have been made and announced without consultation or advance warning."
Mike Lawrence, (left) former BNFL Inc. executive vice president and general manager of the River Protection Project-Waste Treatment Plant, Dick French, (center) manager of the DOE Office of River Protection and Fran DeLozier, president and general manager of CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. (Photo courtesy )
On April 14, Mike Lawrence, executive vice president and general manager of the Hanford, Washington River Protection Project-Waste Treatment Plant resigned after five years with BNFL. The company said the project will continue under the leadership of Maurice Bullock until a new general manager is appointed.
Miskimin explained that this price results from the need to be strictly compliant with the existing contract. "Few people now believe this is the right way to finance this job. Under the present scheme, the cost of private capital is contributing about half of this total. There are a number of actions we are considering to reduce costs including the capital cost, but the biggest opportunity is to reexamine how we can reduce the financing burden, while retaining the benefits of the privatization approach."
The project has the full backing of project team members BNFL, Bechtel, GTS Duratek and Science Applications International Corporation.
"We recognize that the new price in all likelihood is not affordable. However, the estimated costs of this project are what it will take to build and operate a facility of this size as quickly as envisioned and with the commercial risk we are contracted to undertake," said Miskimin.
"We are anxious to discuss our proposal with DOE in order to offer our thoughts on how this project might be made more affordable," he said.
-------- us nuc waste
NTSB symposium debates impact of criminal probes SAFETY: Bellingham pipeline disaster is repeatedly cited.
Stephen Power,
The Bellingham Herald
Thursday, April 27, 2000
http://news.bellinghamherald.com/stories/20000427/FrontPage/11633.shtml
ARLINGTON, Va. -- Lawyers for leading transportation companies squared off with federal prosecutors and industry regulators Wednesday in an unprecedented public debate over whether the government is "criminalizing" plane crashes, oil spills and other transportation accidents.
The debate -- which unfolded in a hotel conference room during a symposium organized by the National Transportation Safety Board -- focused on recent high-profile disasters that have involved criminal inquiries. Panelists repeatedly invoked last January's crash of an Alaska Airlines jet off the California coast and the underground fuel pipeline leak in Bellingham last June that killed three youths.
But the discussion failed to yield a consensus on when criminal charges are warranted in transportation accidents. The current system, many speakers said, encourages witnesses to clam up after accidents, making it harder for safety officials to determine what causes them in the first place.
"We have to be concerned about the NTSB's ability to carry out its mission of protecting the traveling public," said Martin Raskin, a Miami attorney who represents an airline maintenance company accused of contributing to the 1996 ValuJet Airlines crash. "In today's law enforcement-minded environment, we're going to see more and more of these conflicts."
Raskin was one of more than 200 people attending the two-day symposium, which began Tuesday. Other speakers included lawyers and pilots for TWA, US Airways and United Airlines, officials from the Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. Transportation Department, and representatives of shipping companies and the oil and gas industry.
Safety board officials staged the conference to bring attention to recent criminal indictments, lawsuits and other developments that they say have raised "serious roadblocks" to their investigations. For years, the agency has relied on mutual consent agreements -- signed by the board and companies involved in accidents -- to get information. But that approach has failed the board in recent accidents that spurred criminal probes.
An example that panelists repeatedly cited was the June 10 pipeline accident in Bellingham. The leak and ensuing blast killed two 10-year-old boys and an 18-year-old man and devastated a portion of Whatcom Creek. Safety board officials say their investigation of the accident has been stymied largely because the pipeline company's employees have refused to cooperate. The employees' attorneys counter that anything they reveal could become ammunition for federal prosecutors in Seattle, who are conducting a separate inquiry into the accident.
In another high-profile case, federal prosecutors in San Francisco are trying to determine whether Alaska Airlines employees signed papers approving safety work they did not do. The inquiry has continued as safety board officials investigate the crash of an Alaska Airlines jet near Los Angeles earlier this year that killed 88 people.
"Criminal prosecutions may be necessary -- there are people who just feel they have the right to break the law," said Captain Ed Soliday of United Airlines. "But it's never proven an effective deterrent to human error. We need to create forums for understanding all the stakeholders' concerns and responsibility."
Federal prosecutors who addressed the conference agreed they cannot deter simple mistakes, but said their probes focus on "deliberate acts." They also rejected the idea of giving witnesses "blanket immunity" for cooperating with accident investigations, as some defense attorneys have proposed.
"What we try to achieve is a combination of punishments, but also a combination of having companies look to the future and become better corporate citizens," said Thomas Scott, the U.S. attorney in Miami.
As part of that effort, Scott said his office recently prodded American Airlines to adopt tougher safeguards for transporting hazardous materials. The new standards, which Scott said have been emulated by other airlines, came as part of an agreement with American last December, under which the airline pleaded guilty on a felony charge of mishandling hazardous materials. The plea was the result of a 1997 incident in which the pesticide Dowicide was spilled at Miami International Airport.
-------- us nuc weapons
U.S. sees leeway in the missile talks
Miami Herald
Thursday, April 27, 2000
POST-INTELLIGENCER NEWS SERVICES
http://www.seattlep-i.com/national/russ275.shtml
WASHINGTON -- After a second round of intensive meetings with the Russian foreign minister about the missile defense system that the United States wants to develop over Russian objections, senior Clinton administration officials said yesterday they had detected a readiness by Moscow to explore all avenues of a possible resolution to the looming standoff.
But they acknowledged that Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and the chief Russian arms-control negotiator, Georgy Memedev, had revealed no significant shift in their opposition to the missile defense proposals.
In effort to show the United States was standing firm on its position, the State Department said there was a three-prong approach described as the "three D's."
There would be no "deferral" of the missile defense issue, there would be no "destruction" of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and there would be no "decoupling" of the treaty that regulates how both countries reduce their nuclear arsenals.
Just hours before Ivanov spoke, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., appeared to be urging that negotiations with the Russians be suspended during the final days of the Clinton administration.
Helms said if the administration tried to amend the ABM treaty, he would not hold hearings or let the measure out of his committee.
"Let's be clear to avoid any misunderstanding down the line," he said. "Any modified ABM treaty negotiated by this administration would be DOA -- dead on arrival."
He further said, "This administration's time for grand treaties is clearly at an end. We will not consider any new, last-minute arms control measures that this administration negotiates in its final closing months in office."
State Department spokesman James Rubin dismissed Helms' remarks, saying it wouldn't stop the administration from negotiating with Russia to amend the ABM treaty if the United States goes ahead with the missile defense system.
"Helms is not the entire Senate," Rubin said. "Senator Helms is an important senator (but) in the past, treaties have been approved that he voted against and that he opposed."
Helms said his committee would be willing to consider amendments to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty but only after President Clinton leaves office.
The mission of Ivanov, who was on the second day of a three-day visit, appeared to be gauging the political situation in the United States before Clinton meets with Russia's president-elect Vladimir Putin in Moscow in early June. Ivanov also met yesterday with Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee, and had a 90-minute encounter with 20 Republican and Democratic senators on Capitol Hill.
At the heart of the differences between the Clinton administration and Moscow is the development of a limited missile defense that the administration says is necessary to defend the United States against "rogue" states such as North Korea and Iran.
National missile defense systems are prohibited in the 1972 ABM treaty that is based on the principle that the only way to encourage reductions in strategic arms is restrict ways to counter them. But the administration argues it is seeking only a modest change to the treaty, which would essentially remain intact.
In contrast, conservative Republicans believe that the ABM treaty is an antiquated relic of the Cold War and should be scrapped so as to allow a more robust missile defense than the administration is proposing.
As they counter the administration on national missile defense, the Russians are urging Washington to agree to deep cuts in long-range nuclear arms as part of a Start III accord.
---
'Expensive and wasteful national missile placebo'
April 27, 2000
Washington Times Letters to Editor
Your April 19 editorial "Don't deal away missile defense" ignores two key components of the national missile defense (NMD) debate: cost and feasibility. As shown by top scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, potential enemies can make NMD useless with cheap and simple methods.
This stark revelation calls into question why U.S. taxpayers are spending billions to deploy a system independent experts claim won't work. Furthermore, the Pentagon recently revealed that the NMD price tag has skyrocketed to more than $30 billion.
U.S. taxpayers demand a strong military, dependable research and development for better weapons and the best equipment and training for our soldiers.
Taxpayers do not want an expensive and wasteful national missile placebo.
PAUL SULLIVAN Director
National Security Project Taxpayers for Common Sense Washington
-------- us politics
Helms to block Clinton treaty on missile cuts
April 27, 2000
By Ben Barber and Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/default-2000427223346.htm
Sen. Jesse Helms vowed yesterday to block any new Clinton administration arms-control pacts, including an effort to alter existing treaties to make way for a limited defense against missiles from outlaw nations such as Iraq.
Such an initiative, he said, would be "DOA - dead on arrival" at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senate confirmation would be required.
Mr. Helms' declaration came as visiting Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told reporters that Russia may be willing to accept a limited U.S. missile defense.
The challenge outlined by Mr. Ivanov, analysts said, would be to design a missile system that would knock down a few incoming missiles from North Korea, Iraq or other "rogue" states but not threaten Russia and keep the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty intact.
But Mr. Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned that "any decision on missile defenses would be for the next president to make, not this one.
"Mr. Clinton's proposal [for a limited national missile defense (NMD)] is not a plan to defend the United States. It is a plan to leave the United States defenseless.
"The Russian government should not be under any illusion whatsoever that any commitments made by this lame-duck administration will be binding on the next administration," the North Carolina Republican told the Senate.
Mr. Helms also said the United States was no longer legally bound to the treaty - intended to prevent an arms race - because it was signed with the now-defunct Soviet Union.
Separately, Mr. Ivanov warned that if the United States builds hundreds of anti-missile missiles, it will destroy the ABM treaty and abort treaties that have reduced stockpiles from up to 40,000 nuclear bombs each in 1988 to about 7,000 each today.
"There is still some time left to avoid this fatal mistake," the Russian foreign minister said.
Mr. Ivanov also met with Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush.
"During the meeting with Mr. Bush, I dwelt in detail on the processes going on in my country and also informed him of the major directions of the foreign policy of the Russian leadership, including the relations with the U.S.," Mr. Ivanov said.
Asked whether he was aware that Mr. Bush and other Republicans such as Mr. Helms support deployment of a much larger NMD, the dour-faced Russian diplomat said he wanted an accord acceptable to both major American parties.
"We want our relations with the United States not . . . depending on the domestic policy situation. We want it to be stable for a long term," he told reporters at the National Press Club.
Mr. Ivanov offered to revive a 1997 agreement, never submitted for Senate approval, that would allow the United States to build a limited defense system against short- and medium-range missiles - the Theater or Tactical Missile Defense (TMD).
"On our part, we propose a constructive alternative for the ABM Treaty collapse," said Mr. Ivanov.
"In particular, we are talking about deliberation of the START III Treaty, with the prospect for reduction of strategic arms down to the level [of] 1,500 warheads.
"We also mean cooperation on nonstrategic ABM on the basis of the New York agreements of 1997. . . ."
The "nonstrategic ABM" Mr. Ivanov cited involves slower-speed interceptors such as the Patriot missile. It would not defend American cities against a possible long-range attack by so-called "rogue" nations.
Analysts say Russia may agree to a marginally more powerful U.S. missile defenses than those discussed in 1997.
"Russia could accept a strategic defense system - a small one based at one site in Alaska with about 100 interceptors - if the United States agrees to lower numbers of [offensive nuclear] warheads," said John Wolfsthal, a former national security and nonproliferation official at the Department of Energy.
"A number of analysts in Russia and the United States call this the 'grand bargain,' " he said.
The administration is likely to try to reach an agreement with Russia that does not require Senate approval, which is unlikely given Mr. Helms' objections.
"They could follow the SALT II model and ignore the Senate," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.
President Carter withdrew the SALT II nuclear arms limitation agreement from Senate consideration in 1979 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but the United States, even during the Reagan administration, continued to observe missile limits in the unratified agreement.
National Security Council spokesman P.J. Crowley insisted President Clinton will not abandon NMD in his quest for a retooled ABM treaty with Moscow.
"We believe that we can develop NMD while preserving the ABM Treaty," Col. Crowley said. "We have an aggressive NMD development program in progress."
Defense Secretary William S. Cohen is expected to make a recommendation to the president in July on whether to deploy a missile defense system.
Critical to whether the Pentagon will recommend that the United States deploy a national missile defense system will be a June test to see whether a missile can hit a mock warhead.
U.S. officials said yesterday this may delay a Clinton decision until November, with just two months left in his term as president.
Richard Haass, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, said yesterday that any missile defense "would be enough to deal with an attack but not so much that it would constitute a challenge to Russia's strategic inventory.
"The idea is to try to find a middle ground. That's part of the bargain."
While Mr. Ivanov's meetings this week with Mr. Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, other administration officials and Republican leaders in Congress are aimed officially at preparing for a summit between Mr. Clinton and President-elect Vladimir Putin in early May, the arms control issues dominated talks.
"Today, we held the first round of negotiations fully dedicated to the issue of strategic stability," Mr. Ivanov said.
"And along with diplomats, representatives of our military agencies and other relevant services were participating in those negotiations. We will continue consultations today, including our meeting in the Pentagon on that issue."
Mr. Ivanov, speaking in Russian although easily understanding questions in English, said it was "too premature to speak of the concrete outcome of those negotiations yet, but I would like to tell you that we are holding sincere, constructive dialogue on the whole variety of issues."
• Bill Sammon contributed to this report.